Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

CPU Comparison

Tags:
Last response: in CPUs
Share
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
January 12, 2005 1:10:28 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

Trying to decide on a new notebook for work and was wondering if anyone has
a good comparisonsite for Intel CPUS, specifically PIII 1.2Ghz vs. Pentium M
1.5 - 1.8Ghz range vs. P4 mobile around the 3Ghz range. No one compares
them to older CPUs like the PIII that I currently have.

Just trying to figure out if it's worth it. Of course the whole system
matters, but I am just wondering from a pure CPU performance what the
difference in speed is. Thanks in advance!

Rgds,
Yves

More about : cpu comparison

January 12, 2005 2:12:35 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 22:10:28 -0600, Yves M. wrote:

> Trying to decide on a new notebook for work and was wondering if anyone has
> a good comparisonsite for Intel CPUS, specifically PIII 1.2Ghz vs. Pentium M
> 1.5 - 1.8Ghz range vs. P4 mobile around the 3Ghz range. No one compares
> them to older CPUs like the PIII that I currently have.

Pentium-M is essentially a PIII bred for laptops. P4 is a waste of
engineering.

> Just trying to figure out if it's worth it. Of course the whole system
> matters, but I am just wondering from a pure CPU performance what the
> difference in speed is. Thanks in advance!

I am not an Intel dweeb, by any means, but I don't think I'd buy a laptop
that wasn't a Pentium-M today. I wouldn't pay a dime for the "Centrino"
name, but wouldn't settle for less than a Pentium-M.

--
Keith
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
January 12, 2005 11:05:34 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 22:10:28 -0600, "Yves M." <yves@PROTECTIONsswiss.com>
wrote:

>Trying to decide on a new notebook for work and was wondering if anyone has
>a good comparisonsite for Intel CPUS, specifically PIII 1.2Ghz vs. Pentium M
>1.5 - 1.8Ghz range vs. P4 mobile around the 3Ghz range. No one compares
>them to older CPUs like the PIII that I currently have.

Different P4s have been used in notebooks: desktop P4s, Mobile P4s and
P4-Ms... with varying degress of power management, from near none in the
1st down to tolerable in the last. The 1st would only be applicable to a
system used as a replacement desktop type notebook with no regard to
battery life. AFAIK none of those P4s get close to a P-M on battery life
so the answer for you is it depends somewhat on your targeted usage. It
would also appear that P4-based notebooks are disappearing from product
lines.

>Just trying to figure out if it's worth it. Of course the whole system
>matters, but I am just wondering from a pure CPU performance what the
>difference in speed is. Thanks in advance!

With the original Pentium-Ms a 1.5GHz was usually considered approximately
equal to a P4 2.4GHz; with the increase in P-M L2 cache and memory speed
since then and the P4 not changing much if at all, it could be closer to a
P-M 1.5GHZ == P4 2.6GHz but I don't have accurate data on that.

Whether it's worth it to upgrade from a PIII 1.2GHz, or whether to wait for
a further speed bump, depends on what you do with it and what your goals
are: how much is startup time bothering you and how and how does general
performance look compared to recent desktops? Recent upgrades we've made
from PIII 800MHz to P-M 1.5GHz have made a huge difference so you're going
to see a significant improvement. The performance/price sweet spot just
now seems to be a 1.7GHz P-M; when looking at prices be careful about
warranty terms (1year vs. 3 year) and note that there are still P-Ms in the
channel with the older CPU with 1MB of L2 cache.

--
Rgds, George Macdonald
Related resources
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
January 12, 2005 1:39:02 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

"keith" <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote in message
news:p an.2005.01.12.04.12.34.773648@att.bizzzz...
> On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 22:10:28 -0600, Yves M. wrote:
>
>> Trying to decide on a new notebook for work and was wondering if anyone
>> has
>> a good comparisonsite for Intel CPUS, specifically PIII 1.2Ghz vs.
>> Pentium M
>> 1.5 - 1.8Ghz range vs. P4 mobile around the 3Ghz range. No one compares
>> them to older CPUs like the PIII that I currently have.
>
> Pentium-M is essentially a PIII bred for laptops. P4 is a waste of
> engineering.

Yeah, but the P4 Prescott in cold climates is really a dual purpose device.
It's a frickin space heater with computational powerZ!
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
January 13, 2005 7:49:35 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 22:10:28 -0600, "Yves M."
<yves@PROTECTIONsswiss.com> wrote:

>Trying to decide on a new notebook for work and was wondering if anyone has
>a good comparisonsite for Intel CPUS, specifically PIII 1.2Ghz vs. Pentium M
>1.5 - 1.8Ghz range vs. P4 mobile around the 3Ghz range. No one compares
>them to older CPUs like the PIII that I currently have.
>
>Just trying to figure out if it's worth it. Of course the whole system
>matters, but I am just wondering from a pure CPU performance what the
>difference in speed is. Thanks in advance!

Unfortunately it's rather rare that notebook processor get compared
since it's quite a bit more difficult to fairly compare chips when
basically every component is changes between the two notebooks. That
being said, you can find a few comparisons here and there. First off
there is SPEC CPU2000. You can find the CINT scores here:

http://www.spec.org/cpu2000/results/cint2000.html

And the CFP scores here:

http://www.spec.org/cpu2000/results/cfp2000.html


Yes, there are a LOT of processors here, and VERY few of them are
Pentium-M scores (only two that I see, a Dell Precision Mobile
Workstation with a 2.0GHz "Dothan" Pentium-M and an HP Blade server
with a 1.0GHz "Banias" Pentium-M).

It works out that, clock for clock, the Pentium-M is about 20-30%
faster than the PIII for integer stuff and about 40-50% faster for
floating point stuff.

The P4 will perform similarly to the Pentium-M for most applications,
though it does so with MUCH higher power consumption. I really can't
see any good reason to go for a Pentium-4 processor for a notebook
unless you like brag about high GHz numbers. Here's a fairly recent
comparison of these two chips:

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=212...

Note that the P4, if used in a laptop, would be somewhat slower than
what is tested in the above comparison since laptops would only have
half as much memory bandwidth as the desktop P4 system used.

-------------
Tony Hill
hilla <underscore> 20 <at> yahoo <dot> ca
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
January 14, 2005 12:26:36 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

Thank you so much for the feedback... I'm going bananas with my current PIII
1.2Ghz in my Thinkpad T23...it's gotten so slow (or the new software so
bloated?). Sounds like the Pentium M is the way to go (I've been so long in
the desktop AMD area that I had no idea how the P4 lines and P M lines
compared).

Looking at T42's with a 1.8Ghz Pentium M 745 right now... this time it
needs a faster HD too... Thanks!

Yves

"Tony Hill" <hilla_nospam_20@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
news:tufcu0libv9oujff9scg3n0fdsvqtp67n0@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 22:10:28 -0600, "Yves M."
> <yves@PROTECTIONsswiss.com> wrote:
>
>>Trying to decide on a new notebook for work and was wondering if anyone
>>has
>>a good comparisonsite for Intel CPUS, specifically PIII 1.2Ghz vs. Pentium
>>M
>>1.5 - 1.8Ghz range vs. P4 mobile around the 3Ghz range. No one compares
>>them to older CPUs like the PIII that I currently have.
>>
>>Just trying to figure out if it's worth it. Of course the whole system
>>matters, but I am just wondering from a pure CPU performance what the
>>difference in speed is. Thanks in advance!
>
> Unfortunately it's rather rare that notebook processor get compared
> since it's quite a bit more difficult to fairly compare chips when
> basically every component is changes between the two notebooks. That
> being said, you can find a few comparisons here and there. First off
> there is SPEC CPU2000. You can find the CINT scores here:
>
> http://www.spec.org/cpu2000/results/cint2000.html
>
> And the CFP scores here:
>
> http://www.spec.org/cpu2000/results/cfp2000.html
>
>
> Yes, there are a LOT of processors here, and VERY few of them are
> Pentium-M scores (only two that I see, a Dell Precision Mobile
> Workstation with a 2.0GHz "Dothan" Pentium-M and an HP Blade server
> with a 1.0GHz "Banias" Pentium-M).
>
> It works out that, clock for clock, the Pentium-M is about 20-30%
> faster than the PIII for integer stuff and about 40-50% faster for
> floating point stuff.
>
> The P4 will perform similarly to the Pentium-M for most applications,
> though it does so with MUCH higher power consumption. I really can't
> see any good reason to go for a Pentium-4 processor for a notebook
> unless you like brag about high GHz numbers. Here's a fairly recent
> comparison of these two chips:
>
> http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=212...
>
> Note that the P4, if used in a laptop, would be somewhat slower than
> what is tested in the above comparison since laptops would only have
> half as much memory bandwidth as the desktop P4 system used.
>
> -------------
> Tony Hill
> hilla <underscore> 20 <at> yahoo <dot> ca
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
January 14, 2005 9:04:32 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 21:26:36 -0600, "Yves M." <yves@PROTECTIONsswiss.com>
wrote:

>Thank you so much for the feedback... I'm going bananas with my current PIII
>1.2Ghz in my Thinkpad T23...it's gotten so slow (or the new software so
>bloated?). Sounds like the Pentium M is the way to go (I've been so long in
>the desktop AMD area that I had no idea how the P4 lines and P M lines
>compared).

Are you sure you don't have a trojan or virus?... and have you checked for
malware with Ad-Aware and Sybot S&D etc.?

>Looking at T42's with a 1.8Ghz Pentium M 745 right now... this time it
>needs a faster HD too... Thanks!

I'm afraid Notebook HDs are still dog slow compared with desktops.

--
Rgds, George Macdonald
January 14, 2005 9:00:35 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

George Macdonald <fammacd=!SPAM^nothanks@tellurian.com> wrote :

> I'm afraid Notebook HDs are still dog slow compared with desktops.

there are 7200 2.5' hdd nowadays

Pozdrawiam.
--
RusH //
http://randki.o2.pl/profil.php?id_r=352019
Like ninjas, true hackers are shrouded in secrecy and mystery.
You may never know -- UNTIL IT'S TOO LATE.
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
January 14, 2005 9:00:36 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 18:00:35 +0000 (UTC), RusH <logistyka1@pf.pl> wrote:

>George Macdonald <fammacd=!SPAM^nothanks@tellurian.com> wrote :
>
>> I'm afraid Notebook HDs are still dog slow compared with desktops.
>
>there are 7200 2.5' hdd nowadays

Yeah at the very top end and remembering that RPMs is not everything -
5400rpm notebook drives were much slower than 5400rpm desktop models.

--
Rgds, George Macdonald
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
January 15, 2005 1:05:21 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

"George Macdonald" <fammacd=!SPAM^nothanks@tellurian.com> wrote in message
news:597fu0hfkutnqfjgqaev5qr5a90rkk1pqq@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 21:26:36 -0600, "Yves M." <yves@PROTECTIONsswiss.com>
> wrote:
>
>>Thank you so much for the feedback... I'm going bananas with my current
>>PIII
>>1.2Ghz in my Thinkpad T23...it's gotten so slow (or the new software so
>>bloated?). Sounds like the Pentium M is the way to go (I've been so long
>>in
>>the desktop AMD area that I had no idea how the P4 lines and P M lines
>>compared).
>
> Are you sure you don't have a trojan or virus?... and have you checked for
> malware with Ad-Aware and Sybot S&D etc.?
>
>>Looking at T42's with a 1.8Ghz Pentium M 745 right now... this time it
>>needs a faster HD too... Thanks!
>
> I'm afraid Notebook HDs are still dog slow compared with desktops.
>
> --
> Rgds, George Macdonald

I regularly check for this type of stuff... it's a work machine so I keep it
very clean. I really noticed when we moved from Office 2000 to Office 2003.
It takes forever to open Word, Excel or Outlook 2003. Once in it, it's
fast, but the initial load... ARGH.

I think a lot of it also has to do with the HD (60GB 5400RPM IBM/Hitachi)
but the CPU pegs at 100% very frequently, especialy during loading.

I think I have decided on a T42 with the new 60GB 7200 RPM HD. However, I
will wait a couple of months until the T43 is released as I expect the
prices to drop a bit more if I can make it that long... :) 

Rgds,
Yves

PS: George - were you on the AltCPU list, formerly the Cyrix list? Your
name sounds familiar... maybe I just have seen your posts online...
January 15, 2005 5:10:11 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

George Macdonald <fammacd=!SPAM^nothanks@tellurian.com> wrote :

> On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 18:00:35 +0000 (UTC), RusH <logistyka1@pf.pl>
> wrote:

>>there are 7200 2.5' hdd nowadays
>
> Yeah at the very top end and remembering that RPMs is not
> everything - 5400rpm notebook drives were much slower than 5400rpm
> desktop models.

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/storage/display/hitach...


Pozdrawiam.
--
RusH //
http://randki.o2.pl/profil.php?id_r=352019
Like ninjas, true hackers are shrouded in secrecy and mystery.
You may never know -- UNTIL IT'S TOO LATE.
January 15, 2005 9:04:46 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

"Yves M." <yves@PROTECTIONsswiss.com> wrote :

> I really noticed when we moved from Office
> 2000 to Office 2003. It takes forever to open Word, Excel or
> Outlook 2003. Once in it, it's fast, but the initial load...
> ARGH.

so try openoffice.org


Pozdrawiam.
--
RusH //
http://randki.o2.pl/profil.php?id_r=352019
Like ninjas, true hackers are shrouded in secrecy and mystery.
You may never know -- UNTIL IT'S TOO LATE.
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
January 15, 2005 7:32:45 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 22:05:21 -0600, "Yves M." <yves@PROTECTIONsswiss.com>
wrote:

>"George Macdonald" <fammacd=!SPAM^nothanks@tellurian.com> wrote in message
>news:597fu0hfkutnqfjgqaev5qr5a90rkk1pqq@4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 21:26:36 -0600, "Yves M." <yves@PROTECTIONsswiss.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>Thank you so much for the feedback... I'm going bananas with my current
>>>PIII
>>>1.2Ghz in my Thinkpad T23...it's gotten so slow (or the new software so
>>>bloated?). Sounds like the Pentium M is the way to go (I've been so long
>>>in
>>>the desktop AMD area that I had no idea how the P4 lines and P M lines
>>>compared).
>>
>> Are you sure you don't have a trojan or virus?... and have you checked for
>> malware with Ad-Aware and Sybot S&D etc.?
>>
>>>Looking at T42's with a 1.8Ghz Pentium M 745 right now... this time it
>>>needs a faster HD too... Thanks!
>>
>> I'm afraid Notebook HDs are still dog slow compared with desktops.
>>
>> --
>> Rgds, George Macdonald
>
>I regularly check for this type of stuff... it's a work machine so I keep it
>very clean. I really noticed when we moved from Office 2000 to Office 2003.
>It takes forever to open Word, Excel or Outlook 2003. Once in it, it's
>fast, but the initial load... ARGH.
>
>I think a lot of it also has to do with the HD (60GB 5400RPM IBM/Hitachi)
>but the CPU pegs at 100% very frequently, especialy during loading.

You might want to check your Startup and (Registry)Run key (MSCONFIG if
your OS has it) for things cluttering the startup sequence... and then run
Taskinfo, http://www.iarsn.com/downloads to check for nuisances or fluff.
It's kinda annoying the number of software packages now which want their
place in the startup/taskbar without explaining why - often they just want
to check for updates.

>I think I have decided on a T42 with the new 60GB 7200 RPM HD. However, I
>will wait a couple of months until the T43 is released as I expect the
>prices to drop a bit more if I can make it that long... :) 

The T42s are nice - I got one a few weeks ago, a 2378FTU from CDW. It was
a rush order (in our office in <24hrs), as so often happens, so I might
look more closely for a leisurely purchase: e.g. 3 year warranty vs. 1 year
and a faster HDD, as well as comparison shop at www.newegg.com and IBM's
site for deals, but it's a very nice system... I'll probably add some
memory from Crucial to get to 512MB. The Thinkpads just seem to get better
and better with each new generation... which is why we're all wondering how
the Lenovo thing is going to pan out.

>Rgds,
>Yves
>
>PS: George - were you on the AltCPU list, formerly the Cyrix list? Your
>name sounds familiar... maybe I just have seen your posts online...

I think I may have posted a couple of times at AltCPU and did a fair amount
at one of Compuserve's PC hardware forums - I was strongly interested in
Cyrix CPUs back then.

--
Rgds, George Macdonald
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
January 15, 2005 7:32:45 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

On Sat, 15 Jan 2005 02:10:11 +0000 (UTC), RusH <logistyka1@pf.pl> wrote:

>George Macdonald <fammacd=!SPAM^nothanks@tellurian.com> wrote :
>
>> On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 18:00:35 +0000 (UTC), RusH <logistyka1@pf.pl>
>> wrote:
>
>>>there are 7200 2.5' hdd nowadays
>>
>> Yeah at the very top end and remembering that RPMs is not
>> everything - 5400rpm notebook drives were much slower than 5400rpm
>> desktop models.
>
>http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/storage/display/hitach...

The "numbers", even for 5400, look great - the experience so far has not
matched expectations... just one of the things that annoys when switching
between desktop and notebook. Yes, we have several generations of
Travelstars in the office

--
Rgds, George Macdonald
!