Question about CPU's

vbimport

#1

I want to buy a computer and laptop but before i buy i checked on hp and other laptop sites i seen different types of pentium cpu’s
Pentium® 4 Processor 3.2 and
Intel® Pentium®M Processor 710, 1.4 GHz
the second is expensive even it has low ghz what these m and 710 stands for.
also for home computer video encoding, games, and video editing which cpu is better and faster between AMD and Intel
thanks


#2

Yo-

In “intelspeak” the “m” stands for mobile (consumes less-battery lasts longer)-

AMD is regarded as faster/less expensive processors than Intel - at the moment - but generate more heat-

Choice is yours-

Mike


#3

Pays to stay low on the Ghz, you’ll end up with a hole burnt through your thigh:) These lower speed 'M’s are apparently architectured much better than their high speed counterparts, and as AMD has shown, raw speed isnt everything.


#4

For the laptop go for a Pentium M, for the normal desktop go for an Athlon64 (FX ).


#5

You certainly want to for an Pentium M, despite the lower Ghz the performance is equal (if not even better) and it’ll be a lot more quiet than a Penitum 4 counterpart.
//Danne


#6

Thanks for quick replies
So what i understand from you replies is that amd is better than pentium for desktop from what i heard is that amd produces lot of heat and low life but good on performance correct me if i am wrong as for pentium i guess they good on life span fairly ok on performance which amd you recommend compared to pentium 3.02 ghz if possible do you know any site which compares amd vs pentium in performance and reliability thanks


#7

For a laptop, Pentium M is the way to go unless always plugged into the wall all the time on a desk. When you are using a Pentium 4 or AMD on your lap, often you are covering the ventilation holes the it needs to cool. When it is on a desk, the rubber spacers on the bottom give it enough spece to vent properly. Because Pentium Ms run at a lower clock speed, they generate less heat. Generally, more heat will wear on your notebook more over time because the parts are in such close proximity to each other vs. a desktop.

Pentium Ms run at a lower voltage than either the Pentium 4 or AMD so they don’t drain the battery as quickly. Typically Pentium M notebooks run at least four hours. Most Pentium 4s and AMDs run around two hours or less. There are a few that can up to three hours, but they have a larger battery which makes them much heavier, therefore less portable, which is the main reason to get a notebook.

Don’t be fooled by the lower clock speed of Pentium Ms. They have much larger on board caches which greatly increases performance. As a guide, times the clock speed of a Pentium M by 1.6 to give you a rough estimate of how it compares to Pentium 4. So a 1.5Ghz Pentium M (1.5x1.6) would roughly equal a Pentium 4 2.4Ghz.

Also when gaming, the graphics card is more important than the CPU, so spend your money there.

Hope this helps.


#8

Like most others already said, the Pentium M gives very good performance compared to it’s clockspeed (and again compared against other Intel CPUs). Not all tasks benefit from the larger caches, but on an average, one could state the Pentium M performs like a 800~1000Mhz faster P4 machine.
Batteries aren’t drained that fast anymore. At least, what the CPU is concerned. When making use of other draining parts of the system (GPU -gaming- or WLAN), your battery can still be depleted within 1.5h. It also depends on the capacity of the battery of course.

For desktops I think that the AMD Athlon 64 series are the better choice. They give good performance and generate less heat than the modern P4 CPUs. You say less? Yes, they do! The modern P4s have a much higher TDP than the Athlon 64 CPUs. The story about AMD CPUs having a shorter life is what I’d call nonsense. Of course, excessive heat production isn’t that good for CPUs, but when cooled well it’s not a single problem. BTW: Athlon 64 CPUs are fitted with a technology called "Cool 'n quite
". This means that when the CPU doesn’t have anything to do, it lowers the clockspeed, yielding a cooler and less noisy system.

If you think that I’m an AMD fanboy, you are correct :). On the other hand, I have to be as honest and objective as possible and tell you the benefits of the Intel CPU.
Intel CPU’s have a speedtrotthling technology. If your cooling fails, the CPU can’t get damaged, it just lowers it clock speeds. AMD CPUs can’t do this. Instead, they can get damaged (in practice this never happens; they only crash and require a reboot).
The P4 also supports hyperthreading: this technology can make the OS think that there are two CPUs present. Is that a good thing? It can be. When you’re using software that was designed for using HT, it can up your performance up to 30%. However, if the software wasn’t designed for HT, you can loose 30% of the performance!
Than there’s the broader SSE support. These instructionset enhanchments by Intel can give some extra performance, when using software that was written to handle it.
Also some newer technologies like PCI-e, SLI and DDR2 are (better) supported on the Intel platform.

In practice, it comes to this:

  • General use: Intel and AMD (I prefer AMD because of cool 'n quite)
  • Adobe products: Intel (AMD will get better at this soon, because of better SSE and 64bit support)
  • Gaming: AMD
  • Video encoding: Intel is slightly faster, but that will be changing as soon as 64bit is fully supported
  • Other computational tasks: AMD wins in most cases

I’ve been using AMD CPUs for 6 years now. I think I had over 15 CPUs (no I didn’t wear them out, I just sell my when I get the chance to) and I’m very happy with them. Most overclock pretty well, perform good, don’t cost too much and run like a charm. My first AMD (a K6-2) still works and is running on 433Mhz (it was designed for 300MHz!). And those CPUs were considered to be crappy ;).
Intel makes good stuff (good quality) but can’t keep up with AMD on some points. For me (and to many others as well) these points are quite important.


#9

There are lots of cpu comparison charts out there like this one.
http://www.cpuscorecard.com/all_cpus.htm
Just do a google for “cpu speed comparison” or “cpu benchmarks”.
Keep in mind what others have said here when looking at these kind of charts though. For a notebook, power consumption and heat become more of an issue. Also, these charts don’t factor in that certain software will work faster or slower depending on the arcitecture of the cpu so there are other things than speed.
My main point in showing you these speed comparisons is to show that in answer to your original question, is amd or intel faster, neither or both. There are lots of models. As far as which is the fastest on the very top end, it has kind of switched back and forth between intel and amd. It doesn’t really matter who makes the all out fastest chip though, unless you want to spend 1000$ on the cpu alone (and get the worst possible speed for the price ratio). If you are looking for something more like what the average user might buy (under a few hundred dollars), amd chips tend to give you more bang for the buck (with desktop chips anyway). Especially when you get into the more economical chips.
For gaming, a decent speed athlon xp is usally plenty, even for most of the newest games (a fast video card and fast system memory is also very important here). Most video editing doesn’t take massive amounts of power. Video encoding is another story. Video encoding very much demands the fastest possible cpu with fast hardware to support it. You can usally do it just fine without the fastest processor, It just takes a LOT longer. If you are going to be encoding in any sort of a professional capacity (making money off of it), shell out the money for a FAST processor. You will quickly recoup that money in time saved. If its just for personal use, try to go with a little bit faster processor if you plan on doing a lot of it. Another thought would be to build a second system without any unnesasary equipment, that you can let sit there doing 24/7 encoding. That way you can continue to use your main system. networking them and using a kvm switch works nicely for this kind of a setup.


#10

Burning DVD’s is new to me, but the world of computing isn’t. I have to agree with all that has been said here up to this point in the discussion. I ran an old AMD 500 K2 for years after P3’s and AMD Athalons and T-Birds were on the market. I did this for 3 reasons. (1) the 500mhz system did all I needed it to do. (2) I was waiting for the prices to come down on the newer CPU’s. And finally I wanted to determine exactly what it was I needed “my” computer to handle. My research lasted several years and many friends in the computing industry were made. I watched what was happening in the industry as far as improvements and the rapid rise of newer & faster CPU’s. I came to realize that what is great today will be old news and near obsolete tomorrow. Apple was the industry standard at one time for video/graphics composition. Ask almost anyone who works professionaly within the video/graphics industry. This has come to pass. Depending on the applications and overall need of your computer will determine the foundation and overall structure. My household is comprised of 3 desktops and 2 laptops other than “my” computer. Each desktop is constructed to suit the needs of the owner. “My” computer was designed to act as a server for the household as well as handle the complex CAD operations I need to perform for my work. I also do a good deal of audio composition as a side job for a number of DJ’s. I run dual Zeon 2.8 CPU’s. This is overkill for the everyday user, but fills the requirements I had in mind. The need to replace or upgrade “my” computer is years and years down the road. My son plays a ton of games. His computer runs an AMD64 CPU. My wife and daughter run P4 CPU’s because all they use are office applications and the internet. Daughter burns a few CD’s every now and then. I built each of these myself to best suit the needs of each user.

Research what is on the market. Determine what it is you want your computer to do. Research articles on the applications you plan to use for CPU & hardware recomendations. Certain hardware works better with each CPU. Talk to people who own computers you are researching (desktop & laptop) and find out what they like and dislike about each.

The computer you buy today will be considered outdated in a year or so by those who look for the newest and best product on the market. It’s like a vanity thing. Think about what you are spending for what you get. This computer should actually last years and years. People seldom need a new computer because the programs they use and the needs of the user don’t change that much. New software being developed and marketed is a major factor. That’s a whole nother story!

For some reason or another I have found that 1 gig of memory is the magic number for Windows XP or Windows XP Pro. Everything seems to be happy and stable. I have also been notified by several friends that they have found this also. Personally I run Windows 2000 because the family finds it boring and it handles all I need it to do. I like that!


#11

www.notebookforums.com

so much information there!


#12

I am really overwhelmed by your replies. I am really Thankful all the replies i got. Ok i am going to buy amd for desktop but which one you guys recommend cause i guess amd have two kinds of processors if i am correct me please like pentium and celeron. which one should i buy as compared to pentium as i am looking into paper for amd processors there amd Anthlon 64 3200 and 3400 other ones are AMD XP which is better please thanks once again for your valuable information


#13

anyone please i mean there is two types of amd like celeron and pentium. just needs your thoughts which is which thanks


#14

Celeron and pentium are intel. sempron, athlon xp, athlon 64 and athlon 64fx are amd. Sempron is the slowest (intended to be an economy chip to compete with the celeron I believe). Athlon xp is the next fastest (well worth the few dollars more than the sempron). Athlon 64 is the next fastest and if I am not mistaken can be a little faster or a lot faster depending on the arcitecture of the software you are using. I don’t really know much about the athlon 64fx but it is thier top chip. my personal recomendation would be an athlon xp (2500 or faster with at least 333mhz bus) or if you want to shell out a chunk more money an athlon 64.