Desktop cpu vs Laptop cpu

[jaster]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

Would anyone know why there's a cpu for desktops and a cpu for laptops?
I mean if laptop cpus are smaller, cooler more energy efficient why is AMD
and Intel making desktop cpus and why are motherboard manufacturer's using
laptop cpu in their desktop motherboards?

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

"jaster" <jaster@home.net> wrote in message
newsan.2004.05.10.20.00.14.36026@home.net...
>
> Would anyone know why there's a cpu for desktops and a cpu for laptops?
> I mean if laptop cpus are smaller, cooler more energy efficient why is AMD
> and Intel making desktop cpus and why are motherboard manufacturer's using
> laptop cpu in their desktop motherboards?

More transistors equal more heat and more energy required to run it. In
order to make smaller and cooler, you usually have to make a processor less
powerful in some manner and/or run it at a slower clock speed. Thus,
neither processor is good for the other application. If you put a desktop
processor in a laptop, there is more heat and more power draw (lowering
battery life). If you put a laptop processor in a desktop, it is slower.
Of the two choices, it's easier to make a laptop CPU work in a desktop.
That is, unless you require severe processing power in your desktop. -Dave

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

In article <pan.2004.05.10.20.00.14.36026@home.net>,
jaster@home.net says...
>
> Would anyone know why there's a cpu for desktops and a cpu for laptops?
> I mean if laptop cpus are smaller, cooler more energy efficient why is AMD
> and Intel making desktop cpus and why are motherboard manufacturer's using
> laptop cpu in their desktop motherboards?
>

Different design goals... laptop focuses on maximum
power savings at the expense of performance, desktop
chips usually go the opposite direction (performance
over power).

And actually, Intel is changing strategy.

Intel to Dump Pentium 4 in Favor of Pentium M
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/05/07/intel_cancels_te
jas/
http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/05/07/1213233

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

Laptop CPU's are designed for high heat useage due to the confines of the
laptop case. The problem is the laptop CPU's are designed to slowww down
their operating speed if they start getting too warm, which they always do.
So you've actually got a much slower CPU than its rating.

--
DaveW



"jaster" <jaster@home.net> wrote in message
newsan.2004.05.10.20.00.14.36026@home.net...
>
> Would anyone know why there's a cpu for desktops and a cpu for laptops?
> I mean if laptop cpus are smaller, cooler more energy efficient why is AMD
> and Intel making desktop cpus and why are motherboard manufacturer's using
> laptop cpu in their desktop motherboards?

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

R. Asby Dragon wrote:
> There's a new ripoff going on ; I don't have the full details but it
> appears that ECS is offering cheap Athlon "integrated" mobos using
> soldered-on laptop Athlons overclocked and locked at same as "Athlon
> Pro 3200" ..

They have been selling overclocked or merely overhyped boards since the
original "GigaPro" boards of late 2000-early 2001. The L7VMM3Pro is said to
use an Athlon 1600+ tuned to 3100+ performance.

Uh-huh.

 

[jaster]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

On Mon, 10 May 2004 23:00:56 -0400, Toshi1873 while doing time wrote:

> In article <pan.2004.05.10.20.00.14.36026@home.net>,
> jaster@home.net says...
>>
>> Would anyone know why there's a cpu for desktops and a cpu for laptops?
>> I mean if laptop cpus are smaller, cooler more energy efficient why is AMD
>> and Intel making desktop cpus and why are motherboard manufacturer's using
>> laptop cpu in their desktop motherboards?
>>
>
> Different design goals... laptop focuses on maximum
> power savings at the expense of performance, desktop
> chips usually go the opposite direction (performance
> over power).
>
> And actually, Intel is changing strategy.
>
> Intel to Dump Pentium 4 in Favor of Pentium M
> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/05/07/intel_cancels_te
> jas/
> http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/05/07/1213233

Thanks.

I saw news briefs on Intel dropping Jayhawk and Tejas
but those didn't light the bulb. TheRegister article clears it up and I
am glad to see Intel saw the light long before I posted this question.

Most PC users don't have top of the line cpus or use 100% cpu performance
24/7. I didn't see a need for Intel or AMD to develop a 0.2 Ghz
performance gain cpu when most users aren't buying and others are looking
for quieter, cooler and performance cpus.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

In article <pan.2004.05.11.15.15.21.136771@home.net>,
jaster@home.net says...
> I saw news briefs on Intel dropping Jayhawk and Tejas
> but those didn't light the bulb. TheRegister article clears it up and I
> am glad to see Intel saw the light long before I posted this question.
>
> Most PC users don't have top of the line cpus or use 100% cpu performance
> 24/7. I didn't see a need for Intel or AMD to develop a 0.2 Ghz
> performance gain cpu when most users aren't buying and others are looking
> for quieter, cooler and performance cpus.
>

(And on a related note, my latest box is a VIA C3 600MHz
fanless... small, quiet, power-efficient, does not count
as a space-heater.)

 

[jaster]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

On Tue, 11 May 2004 16:29:04 -0400, Toshi1873 while doing time wrote:

> In article <pan.2004.05.11.15.15.21.136771@home.net>,
> jaster@home.net says...
>> I saw news briefs on Intel dropping Jayhawk and Tejas
>> but those didn't light the bulb. TheRegister article clears it up and I
>> am glad to see Intel saw the light long before I posted this question.
>>
>> Most PC users don't have top of the line cpus or use 100% cpu performance
>> 24/7. I didn't see a need for Intel or AMD to develop a 0.2 Ghz
>> performance gain cpu when most users aren't buying and others are looking
>> for quieter, cooler and performance cpus.
>>
>
> (And on a related note, my latest box is a VIA C3 600MHz
> fanless... small, quiet, power-efficient, does not count
> as a space-heater.)

Good for you. How's that cpu's processing working for you? Are you
running Win XP with it? System specs?

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

In article <pan.2004.05.12.16.26.37.103047@home.net>,
jaster@home.net says...
> On Tue, 11 May 2004 16:29:04 -0400, Toshi1873 while doing time wrote:
>
> > In article <pan.2004.05.11.15.15.21.136771@home.net>,
> > jaster@home.net says...
> >> I saw news briefs on Intel dropping Jayhawk and Tejas
> >> but those didn't light the bulb. TheRegister article clears it up and I
> >> am glad to see Intel saw the light long before I posted this question.
> >>
> >> Most PC users don't have top of the line cpus or use 100% cpu performance
> >> 24/7. I didn't see a need for Intel or AMD to develop a 0.2 Ghz
> >> performance gain cpu when most users aren't buying and others are looking
> >> for quieter, cooler and performance cpus.
> >>
> >
> > (And on a related note, my latest box is a VIA C3 600MHz
> > fanless... small, quiet, power-efficient, does not count
> > as a space-heater.)
>
> Good for you. How's that cpu's processing working for you? Are you
> running Win XP with it? System specs?
>

Running Gentoo Linux. Has a 512MB PC2100 ECC chip
installed (sorta wish I had a 1GB chip), a 80GB 7200rpm
drive as the primary, 120GB 5400rpm drive as the
secondary and a DVD-ROM. Case is a Venus Morex 668 from
LogicSupply.com.

(Doing the stage 1 compile took overnight...)

If/when I have the cash, I'm also planning on building
one for a PVR using the Hauppauge PVR cards and
WinXP/SageTV.

 

[jaster]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

On Thu, 13 May 2004 16:03:22 -0400, Toshi1873 while doing time wrote:

> In article <pan.2004.05.12.16.26.37.103047@home.net>,
> jaster@home.net says...
>> On Tue, 11 May 2004 16:29:04 -0400, Toshi1873 while doing time wrote:
>>
>> > In article <pan.2004.05.11.15.15.21.136771@home.net>,
>> > jaster@home.net says...
>> >> I saw news briefs on Intel dropping Jayhawk and Tejas
>> >> but those didn't light the bulb. TheRegister article clears it up and I
>> >> am glad to see Intel saw the light long before I posted this question.
>> >>
>> >> Most PC users don't have top of the line cpus or use 100% cpu performance
>> >> 24/7. I didn't see a need for Intel or AMD to develop a 0.2 Ghz
>> >> performance gain cpu when most users aren't buying and others are looking
>> >> for quieter, cooler and performance cpus.
>> >>
>> >
>> > (And on a related note, my latest box is a VIA C3 600MHz
>> > fanless... small, quiet, power-efficient, does not count
>> > as a space-heater.)
>>
>> Good for you. How's that cpu's processing working for you? Are you
>> running Win XP with it? System specs?
>>
>
> Running Gentoo Linux. Has a 512MB PC2100 ECC chip
> installed (sorta wish I had a 1GB chip), a 80GB 7200rpm
> drive as the primary, 120GB 5400rpm drive as the
> secondary and a DVD-ROM. Case is a Venus Morex 668 from
> LogicSupply.com.
>
> (Doing the stage 1 compile took overnight...)
>
> If/when I have the cash, I'm also planning on building
> one for a PVR using the Hauppauge PVR cards and
> WinXP/SageTV.


Thanks. Running FC1 on P3-933 with 256mb pc133. It ran better before a
128mb chip failed but it so slow booting and to the X-desktop. Once there
its not bad. CA810E board so not heat issues rock solid performance.

We had a Hauppauge TV ISA card when 486s were the hot cpus must have cost
someone a $1000 or more we never did find drivers for the card. But
if/when you get the cash before July Hauppauge has a promo:
http://www.e-consultancy.com/newsfeatures/155748/hauppauge-gives-away-thousands-of-dvds-in-massive-lord-of-the-rings-promotion.html