Core 2 Duo T5750 vs Apple M1 Pro
Primary details
Comparing Apple M1 Pro and Core 2 Duo T5750 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 710 | not rated |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Series | Apple M-Series | Intel Core 2 Duo |
| Architecture codename | no data | Merom (2006−2008) |
| Release date | 18 October 2021 (3 years ago) | 1 May 2008 (16 years ago) |
Detailed specifications
Apple M1 Pro and Core 2 Duo T5750 basic parameters such as number of cores, number of threads, base frequency and turbo boost clock, lithography, cache size and multiplier lock state. These parameters indirectly say of CPU speed, though for more precise assessment you have to consider their test results.
| Physical cores | 10 (Deca-Core) | 2 (Dual-core) |
| Threads | 10 | 2 |
| Base clock speed | 2.064 GHz | 2 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 3.22 GHz | 2 GHz |
| Bus rate | no data | 667 MHz |
| L1 cache | 2.9 MB | no data |
| L2 cache | 28 MB | 2 MB |
| L3 cache | 24 MB | 2 MB L2 Cache |
| Chip lithography | 5 nm | 65 nm |
| Die size | no data | 143 mm2 |
| Maximum core temperature | no data | 85 °C |
| Number of transistors | 33700 Million | 291 Million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | no data | - |
| VID voltage range | no data | 1.075V-1.175V |
Compatibility
Information on Apple M1 Pro and Core 2 Duo T5750 compatibility with other computer components: motherboard (look for socket type), power supply unit (look for power consumption) etc. Useful when planning a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. Note that power consumption of some processors can well exceed their nominal TDP, even without overclocking. Some can even double their declared thermals given that the motherboard allows to tune the CPU power parameters.
| Socket | no data | PPGA478 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 2064 ‑ 3220 Watt | 35 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Apple M1 Pro and Core 2 Duo T5750. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | no data | + |
| Turbo Boost Technology | no data | - |
| Hyper-Threading Technology | no data | - |
| Demand Based Switching | no data | - |
| FSB parity | no data | - |
Security technologies
Apple M1 Pro and Core 2 Duo T5750 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.
| TXT | no data | - |
| EDB | no data | + |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Apple M1 Pro and Core 2 Duo T5750 are enumerated here.
| VT-x | no data | - |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | Apple M1 Pro 16-Core GPU | no data |
Synthetic benchmark performance
Various benchmark results of the processors in comparison. Overall score is measured in points in 0-100 range, higher is better.
Passmark
Passmark CPU Mark is a widespread benchmark, consisting of 8 different types of workload, including integer and floating point math, extended instructions, compression, encryption and physics calculation. There is also one separate single-threaded scenario measuring single-core performance.
Pros & cons summary
| Recency | 18 October 2021 | 1 May 2008 |
| Physical cores | 10 | 2 |
| Threads | 10 | 2 |
| Chip lithography | 5 nm | 65 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 2064 Watt | 35 Watt |
Apple M1 Pro has an age advantage of 13 years, 400% more physical cores and 400% more threads, and a 1200% more advanced lithography process.
Core 2 Duo T5750, on the other hand, has 5797.1% lower power consumption.
We couldn't decide between Apple M1 Pro and Core 2 Duo T5750. We've got no test results to judge.
Should you still have questions on choice between Apple M1 Pro and Core 2 Duo T5750, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Similar processor comparisons
We picked several similar comparisons of processors in the same market segment and performance relatively close to those reviewed on this page.
