Now, laptops are confusing. I would like to clear up some confusion around processor speeds.
In simple terms anyone can understand.
There are lots of different processors out there for laptops. There's the Pentium 4, Pentium M, and Centrino. From what I've researched, P4 is not optimized for laptops, M is the P4 chip for laptops, and Centrino is the M chip with some other laptop things along with some other laptop parts. hen there's the dual core processors, AMD's processors, etc.
Specifically, I'm wondering about processor speed vs. overall speed / performance of a computer, assuming infinite RAM etc. I found some site that gave a simple example of what I want. Centrino = 1.3x as fast as a P4 chip with equivalent processor speed. Or was that M was 1.3x?
Is a Dual processor (Core2Duo etc.) at 1Ghz equal to 2Ghz?
Everything in Pentium 4 equivalence would be nice, if possible.
I've found this site helpful to others, but I have no clue how to use it:
http://www23.tomshardware.com/cpu.html
and
http://www23.tomshardware.com/cpu_mobile.html
Does this mean that Core2Duo is the best mobile processor? Does this also mean Core2Duo and Turion are the only made-for-laptop processors? I think not, for some reason.
Does this chart compare processors of similar speed? (Ghz)
Could someone clear all this up for me?
Another Laptop Question Thread
Moderator: Moderators
-
Kurt_
- Portablizer
- Posts: 5748
- Joined: Thu Nov 24, 2005 10:32 am
- Steam ID: kurbert
- Location: Ontario, Canada
- Contact:
Another Laptop Question Thread
Hey, sup?
theres so many factors that affect performance, and ways to test it that you cant really get some simple catch-all answer out of that question...
also, i dont see why stating things in p-4 equivalence is very useful, as the p-4 was a badly designed chip, which came in 3 different versions with varying performance and power wastage anyways.
anyways, heres some things you should know:
- dual core processors are not 'clock speed times two', even though thats what advertisers want you to think these days. they can be close to 2x in certain situations, but unless the software you are using is written for multiple threads, the second processor dosent do anything at all. protip: not much software is multithreaded yet. old software never will be.
- core2 chips are made with a 65nm process, versus 90nm for the current line of AMD chips. this automatically makes them cheaper to produce and consume less power. (AMD is about to move to 65nm, but intel is about to move to 45). 'clock for clock' (ie, at the same clock speed), the core 2 chips will beat AMD chips in performance and power consumption, but not retail price.
- the pentium M is actually based on the P3, not the P4. it is (was) a good laptop chip, but im not sure if they make it anymore. It might have been replaced by the core line.
- centrino is just talking about intel branded network cards and motherboards and stuff, theres no reason why it would be any faster. its just a brand name.
- celeron is a brand-name for the stripped-down version of the current flagship line of chips -- that is to say that even though celerons have been around for years, the earlier ones (just a p3 with no cache) have nothing in common with the current ones (core2 with less cache and maybe some other changes). my laptop has a celeron that is a p4 northwood (almost the same as our main desktop).
- those charts you linked to are just benchmarks (notice how the core 2 chips are always in first). its talking about raw performance, without regard to price or power consumption. the processors on it are everything released in the last year or so (only), of every speed.
in general, a core2 duo would be the best bet for a mobile processor right now, unless of course you want a single core instead. Celerons are also decent if you arent going to game, as are Turions, although i dont see why you would want one when you can get a c2d.
if you want to make a clock-for-clock generalization on raw power, you could say
c2d > amd x2 > amd 64 > p4 > pentium m
but the same thing for power consumtion would look something like
pentium m < amd 64 < c2d < amd x2 < p4
(disclaimer: i made these lists up on the spot)
also, i dont see why stating things in p-4 equivalence is very useful, as the p-4 was a badly designed chip, which came in 3 different versions with varying performance and power wastage anyways.
anyways, heres some things you should know:
- dual core processors are not 'clock speed times two', even though thats what advertisers want you to think these days. they can be close to 2x in certain situations, but unless the software you are using is written for multiple threads, the second processor dosent do anything at all. protip: not much software is multithreaded yet. old software never will be.
- core2 chips are made with a 65nm process, versus 90nm for the current line of AMD chips. this automatically makes them cheaper to produce and consume less power. (AMD is about to move to 65nm, but intel is about to move to 45). 'clock for clock' (ie, at the same clock speed), the core 2 chips will beat AMD chips in performance and power consumption, but not retail price.
- the pentium M is actually based on the P3, not the P4. it is (was) a good laptop chip, but im not sure if they make it anymore. It might have been replaced by the core line.
- centrino is just talking about intel branded network cards and motherboards and stuff, theres no reason why it would be any faster. its just a brand name.
- celeron is a brand-name for the stripped-down version of the current flagship line of chips -- that is to say that even though celerons have been around for years, the earlier ones (just a p3 with no cache) have nothing in common with the current ones (core2 with less cache and maybe some other changes). my laptop has a celeron that is a p4 northwood (almost the same as our main desktop).
- those charts you linked to are just benchmarks (notice how the core 2 chips are always in first). its talking about raw performance, without regard to price or power consumption. the processors on it are everything released in the last year or so (only), of every speed.
in general, a core2 duo would be the best bet for a mobile processor right now, unless of course you want a single core instead. Celerons are also decent if you arent going to game, as are Turions, although i dont see why you would want one when you can get a c2d.
if you want to make a clock-for-clock generalization on raw power, you could say
c2d > amd x2 > amd 64 > p4 > pentium m
but the same thing for power consumtion would look something like
pentium m < amd 64 < c2d < amd x2 < p4
(disclaimer: i made these lists up on the spot)
"Linux is only free if your time is worthless"