Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

desperately need help choosing a laptop

Tags:
Last response: in Laptops & Notebooks
Share
June 24, 2005 2:36:07 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.intel,comp.sys.laptops (More info?)

I asked this question about three months ago and at the time didn't get much
response so am hoping for better luck this time. I have visited many retail
outlets over the last three months in an attempt to learn about laptops but
am unable to believe a word any salesman tells me. What one bloke says is
the best is garbage to another salesman and they always seem to want to push
you towards one particular laptop they have for sale, doesn't matter what
question you ask, that laptop will do it so I desperately need your help. I
know that I want at least 80Gb hard drive and 2 * 512 Mb Ram but I am unable
to understand the processor and monitor terminology and this is where I need
your help. I want a 17" screen, what XGA, UXGA, WSXGA should I be looking
at. I want a powerful processor as I will be using the laptop for video
capture and editing and from my previous experience the rendering process is
extremely power and RAM hungry but I am confused by Celeron and 800FSB and
Centrino etc. Which one is more powerful. I do hope someone can shed some
light on the subject for me and appreciate your help.
Anonymous
a b D Laptop
June 24, 2005 2:36:08 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.intel,comp.sys.laptops (More info?)

Have you tried looking at reviews on:

www.cnet.com or
www.zdnet.com

or just plain Googling on the different aspects? I know that Centrino is a
better technology than Celeron. Look at reviews on the above sites for
laptops (notebooks) of the screen size you're looking for. I'm not too
knowledgeable as to laptops, but believe you would be better off with 1 GB
RAM module rather than 2 * 512 MB RAM modules. I've been looking
extensively myself for a laptop for my granddaughter for school and have
been able to learn quite a bit just by searching the Internet. Still no
expert but much better educated now. I'm still searching -- that's why I'm
on this NG.

I offer this limited response in the event you have no better luck than your
first time. :) 

"Blondie" <bitemespammers@backatya.com> wrote in message
news:42bb557a$1@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
>I asked this question about three months ago and at the time didn't get
>much response so am hoping for better luck this time. I have visited many
>retail outlets over the last three months in an attempt to learn about
>laptops but am unable to believe a word any salesman tells me. What one
>bloke says is the best is garbage to another salesman and they always seem
>to want to push you towards one particular laptop they have for sale,
>doesn't matter what question you ask, that laptop will do it so I
>desperately need your help. I know that I want at least 80Gb hard drive and
>2 * 512 Mb Ram but I am unable to understand the processor and monitor
>terminology and this is where I need your help. I want a 17" screen, what
>XGA, UXGA, WSXGA should I be looking at. I want a powerful processor as I
>will be using the laptop for video capture and editing and from my previous
>experience the rendering process is extremely power and RAM hungry but I am
>confused by Celeron and 800FSB and Centrino etc. Which one is more
>powerful. I do hope someone can shed some light on the subject for me and
>appreciate your help.
>
Anonymous
a b D Laptop
June 24, 2005 2:36:08 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.intel,comp.sys.laptops (More info?)

I've spent hours googling and reading reviews, and finally came across
www.laptoplogic.com. I think if you thrash around there and visit some of
the forums, you'll find some real help. I did.

Dick.
Related resources
Anonymous
a b D Laptop
June 24, 2005 2:36:08 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.intel,comp.sys.laptops (More info?)

Blondie,

If you want a laptop that can handle video editing and processing you need a
Pentium 4 processor, at least the 3.0 Ghz version, with hyperthreading. As
for RAM, yes DDR RAM, if used on a system that handles Dual Channel Memory,
will be much faster. And yes, you would need to pair up the RAM sticks.
The classes of screens run from good to better to best. A screen with the
designation of WSXGA will have high resolution, on the order of 1280 x
1024, widescreen, for WSXGA. Here is the link to information about what
those letters mean when referring to screens.

http://www.gen-x-pc.com/lcd3.htm

A Celeron processor will not do what you want to do. As for FSB, which
stands for Front Side Bus, the faster, the better.

Good luck. Be prepared to spend about $2500 (US) for the machine you want.
Keep in mind that you can get an absolutely awesome desktop system, with a
19" LCD monitor, and surround sound speaker system for this kind of money.


"Blondie" <bitemespammers@backatya.com> wrote in message
news:42bb557a$1@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
>I asked this question about three months ago and at the time didn't get
>much response so am hoping for better luck this time. I have visited many
>retail outlets over the last three months in an attempt to learn about
>laptops but am unable to believe a word any salesman tells me. What one
>bloke says is the best is garbage to another salesman and they always seem
>to want to push you towards one particular laptop they have for sale,
>doesn't matter what question you ask, that laptop will do it so I
>desperately need your help. I know that I want at least 80Gb hard drive and
>2 * 512 Mb Ram but I am unable to understand the processor and monitor
>terminology and this is where I need your help. I want a 17" screen, what
>XGA, UXGA, WSXGA should I be looking at. I want a powerful processor as I
>will be using the laptop for video capture and editing and from my previous
>experience the rendering process is extremely power and RAM hungry but I am
>confused by Celeron and 800FSB and Centrino etc. Which one is more
>powerful. I do hope someone can shed some light on the subject for me and
>appreciate your help.
>
Anonymous
a b D Laptop
June 24, 2005 2:36:08 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.intel,comp.sys.laptops (More info?)

Screen wise the best ones are the Sony's with their "X-Black" feature, but
you don't really get your moneys worth with a Vaio, hardware wise. Plus i
don't know anyone that has ever praised their battery life. In times gone by
i would say, Get a 17" powerbook, but thanks to "Macintel Gate" i can't
really advise people down that route anymore, but if you can afford to
change again in two to three years go for it.

Dell shift some good product, and their prices are reasonable.
Theres this company in the UK, they make some pretty impressive systems
http://www.rockdirect.com/index.html

Unfortunately beyond that i would say stick to the big boys, Dell, Toshiba,
Sony, HP etc. See what model you like the best, in person(especially
important for the screen). Then once you've settled go to their online store
and configure it to your spec. Plus stay away from shared graphics, get a
laptop with either a ATI or Nvidia Graphics solution
Heres my specs
(for battery life)

Intel {Centrino}Pentium M 745 (2.17Ghz)
1GB DDR 633(in dual Channel)
80GB 5400 RPM
DVD+/-RW
Widescreen 15.4"(WXGA or 1280*768)
Independant Graphics

(for power)
Intel Pentium 4 3.06GHz With HT
1GB DDR 633(in dual Channel)
60GB 7200RPM
DVD+/-RW
17"(SXGA or 1600*1200)
Independant Graphics

I hope that solved your problems a little, if in doubt just ask for more
help :) 

"Blondie" <bitemespammers@backatya.com> wrote in message
news:42bb557a$1@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
>I asked this question about three months ago and at the time didn't get
>much response so am hoping for better luck this time. I have visited many
>retail outlets over the last three months in an attempt to learn about
>laptops but am unable to believe a word any salesman tells me. What one
>bloke says is the best is garbage to another salesman and they always seem
>to want to push you towards one particular laptop they have for sale,
>doesn't matter what question you ask, that laptop will do it so I
>desperately need your help. I know that I want at least 80Gb hard drive and
>2 * 512 Mb Ram but I am unable to understand the processor and monitor
>terminology and this is where I need your help. I want a 17" screen, what
>XGA, UXGA, WSXGA should I be looking at. I want a powerful processor as I
>will be using the laptop for video capture and editing and from my previous
>experience the rendering process is extremely power and RAM hungry but I am
>confused by Celeron and 800FSB and Centrino etc. Which one is more
>powerful. I do hope someone can shed some light on the subject for me and
>appreciate your help.
>
June 24, 2005 3:32:52 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.intel,comp.sys.laptops (More info?)

thanks for your response. I have tried googling different stuff but I just
don't understand all the terminology so was hoping that someone who did
could share their wisdom with me. I think 2*512 Mb RAM is better than 1*1Gb
RAM because DDR (Double Data Rate ) aspect of RAM doesn't work with only one
stick but I'm not sure about this
"Gene Hora" <ams34@san.rr.com> wrote in message
news:ycJue.65221$887.41017@tornado.socal.rr.com...
> Have you tried looking at reviews on:
>
> www.cnet.com or
> www.zdnet.com
>
> or just plain Googling on the different aspects? I know that Centrino is a
> better technology than Celeron. Look at reviews on the above sites for
> laptops (notebooks) of the screen size you're looking for. I'm not too
> knowledgeable as to laptops, but believe you would be better off with 1 GB
> RAM module rather than 2 * 512 MB RAM modules. I've been looking
> extensively myself for a laptop for my granddaughter for school and have
> been able to learn quite a bit just by searching the Internet. Still no
> expert but much better educated now. I'm still searching -- that's why I'm
> on this NG.
>
> I offer this limited response in the event you have no better luck than
> your first time. :) 
>
> "Blondie" <bitemespammers@backatya.com> wrote in message
> news:42bb557a$1@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
>>I asked this question about three months ago and at the time didn't get
>>much response so am hoping for better luck this time. I have visited many
>>retail outlets over the last three months in an attempt to learn about
>>laptops but am unable to believe a word any salesman tells me. What one
>>bloke says is the best is garbage to another salesman and they always seem
>>to want to push you towards one particular laptop they have for sale,
>>doesn't matter what question you ask, that laptop will do it so I
>>desperately need your help. I know that I want at least 80Gb hard drive
>>and 2 * 512 Mb Ram but I am unable to understand the processor and monitor
>>terminology and this is where I need your help. I want a 17" screen, what
>>XGA, UXGA, WSXGA should I be looking at. I want a powerful processor as I
>>will be using the laptop for video capture and editing and from my
>>previous experience the rendering process is extremely power and RAM
>>hungry but I am confused by Celeron and 800FSB and Centrino etc. Which one
>>is more powerful. I do hope someone can shed some light on the subject for
>>me and appreciate your help.
>>
>
>
Anonymous
a b D Laptop
June 24, 2005 3:32:53 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.intel,comp.sys.laptops (More info?)

"Blondie" <bitemespammers@backatya.com> wrote in message
news:42bb62c7$1@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
> thanks for your response. I have tried googling different stuff but I just
> don't understand all the terminology so was hoping that someone who did
> could share their wisdom with me. I think 2*512 Mb RAM is better than
1*1Gb
> RAM because DDR (Double Data Rate ) aspect of RAM doesn't work with only
one
> stick but I'm not sure about this

Two sticks are required for dual channel DDR, while regular DDR needs only
one. I've yet to read a review or opinion that dual channel has much
benifit at today's speeds, especially in a laptop. I feel you'd do better
with at least 1 stick of 1gb RAM, allowing you to upgrade without loosing
money.

As for the screen, nobody can tell you the 'best' one. Go to the store,
find the prettiest screen, then write down what it is. Everybody's eyes are
different, so what looks good to you may look like crud to me.

A faster Centrino should allow you to do any video capture and editing. I
don't recommend a full blown Pentium 4 in a laptop, as there have been too
many problems with heat and such.

Your best bet is to buy a laptop from a place that will allow you to return
it in a couple weeks. That way you can see if it works for you.

Then again, for video capture and especially editing, I don't recommend a
laptop at all. You are going to pay through the nose for something that
will loose at least 1/3 of it's value in a very short time, and isn't too
upgradable. If you can get by with a portable computer that can't run off
batteries, you might want to consider an SFF (Small Form Factor) system,
which will be a whole lot cheaper and will last longer. www.shuttle.com

Pagan

> "Gene Hora" <ams34@san.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:ycJue.65221$887.41017@tornado.socal.rr.com...
> > Have you tried looking at reviews on:
> >
> > www.cnet.com or
> > www.zdnet.com
> >
> > or just plain Googling on the different aspects? I know that Centrino is
a
> > better technology than Celeron. Look at reviews on the above sites for
> > laptops (notebooks) of the screen size you're looking for. I'm not too
> > knowledgeable as to laptops, but believe you would be better off with 1
GB
> > RAM module rather than 2 * 512 MB RAM modules. I've been looking
> > extensively myself for a laptop for my granddaughter for school and have
> > been able to learn quite a bit just by searching the Internet. Still no
> > expert but much better educated now. I'm still searching -- that's why
I'm
> > on this NG.
> >
> > I offer this limited response in the event you have no better luck than
> > your first time. :) 
> >
> > "Blondie" <bitemespammers@backatya.com> wrote in message
> > news:42bb557a$1@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
> >>I asked this question about three months ago and at the time didn't get
> >>much response so am hoping for better luck this time. I have visited
many
> >>retail outlets over the last three months in an attempt to learn about
> >>laptops but am unable to believe a word any salesman tells me. What one
> >>bloke says is the best is garbage to another salesman and they always
seem
> >>to want to push you towards one particular laptop they have for sale,
> >>doesn't matter what question you ask, that laptop will do it so I
> >>desperately need your help. I know that I want at least 80Gb hard drive
> >>and 2 * 512 Mb Ram but I am unable to understand the processor and
monitor
> >>terminology and this is where I need your help. I want a 17" screen,
what
> >>XGA, UXGA, WSXGA should I be looking at. I want a powerful processor as
I
> >>will be using the laptop for video capture and editing and from my
> >>previous experience the rendering process is extremely power and RAM
> >>hungry but I am confused by Celeron and 800FSB and Centrino etc. Which
one
> >>is more powerful. I do hope someone can shed some light on the subject
for
> >>me and appreciate your help.
> >>
> >
> >
>
>
Anonymous
a b D Laptop
June 24, 2005 4:40:42 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.intel,comp.sys.laptops (More info?)

Blondie wrote:
> I want a 17" screen, what XGA, UXGA, WSXGA should I be looking
> at.

VGA XGA SXGA UXGA WXGA WSXGA TFT LCD Monitor Info
http://www.gen-x-pc.com/lcd3.htm

> I want a powerful processor as I will be using the laptop for video
> capture and editing and from my previous experience the rendering process is
> extremely power and RAM hungry but I am confused by Celeron and 800FSB and
> Centrino etc. Which one is more powerful. I do hope someone can shed some
> light on the subject for me and appreciate your help.

In terms of performance on Intel processors, this the general hierarchy
(from lowest to highest):

Celeron, Centrino (aka Pentium-M), and Pentium 4

In terms of power efficiency this is the heirarchy (lowest to highest):

Pentium 4, Celeron, Centrino (Pentium M).

800FSB means "800 Mhz Front Side Bus", the faster the better generally.
Other choices are 400FSB and 533FSB, and 1033FSB. 400 is generally the
speed that older Centrino Pentium M's run at. 533 is the speed at which
newer Centrinos and Celerons run at, as well as older Pentium 4's.
800Mhz is generally where modern Pentium 4's run at. 1033 is not used
by any laptops, just desktop Pentium 4's.
Anonymous
a b D Laptop
June 24, 2005 6:09:34 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.intel,comp.sys.laptops (More info?)

Blondie wrote:
> I asked this question about three months ago and at the time didn't get much
> response so am hoping for better luck this time. I have visited many retail
> outlets over the last three months in an attempt to learn about laptops but
> am unable to believe a word any salesman tells me. What one bloke says is
> the best is garbage to another salesman and they always seem to want to push
> you towards one particular laptop they have for sale, doesn't matter what
> question you ask, that laptop will do it so I desperately need your help. I
> know that I want at least 80Gb hard drive and 2 * 512 Mb Ram but I am unable
> to understand the processor and monitor terminology and this is where I need
> your help. I want a 17" screen, what XGA, UXGA, WSXGA should I be looking
> at. I want a powerful processor as I will be using the laptop for video
> capture and editing and from my previous experience the rendering process is
> extremely power and RAM hungry but I am confused by Celeron and 800FSB and
> Centrino etc. Which one is more powerful. I do hope someone can shed some
> light on the subject for me and appreciate your help.
>
>
Given the requirements, why are you going with a laptop? A laptop with
the power you want will be quite expensive and given large memory,
intensive CPU usage, and big display all will reduce battery life. Big
laptops have big weight, even finding a case for 17 screen was a
struggle, only about 10% of the cases I like would hold it.

Therefore, several thoughts:
- go 64 bit, probably meaning Athlon64, fast now, will support Win64 and
64 bit versions of your video software.
- if you need to do on-site capture, get a camera, or a cheap laptop
just for capture, and do your editing on a desktop. I suspect the
overall cost will be similar and performance better.
- the big commercial animators and editors seem to be running Linux. I
would avoid getting a laptop which doesn't support it, it might be
important in your future.

And a question, what's your video input channel? Firewire? Still not on
every laptop, so don't forget it.

--
bill davidsen
SBC/Prodigy Yorktown Heights NY data center
http://newsgroups.news.prodigy.com
Anonymous
a b D Laptop
June 24, 2005 8:14:40 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.intel,comp.sys.laptops (More info?)

In comp.sys.intel Veritech <avis.dalrymple@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> Screen wise the best ones are the Sony's with their "X-Black" feature, but
> you don't really get your moneys worth with a Vaio, hardware wise.

X-Black and other high-contrast screens look good to some people and really
don't to others. To the original poster: go look at them in the store;
you'll either love them or go "why would I pay extra for that???"

> don't know anyone that has ever praised their battery life.

Depends on which Vaio; for their time, the old 505s were great, and Sony has
consistently made some of the best subnotebooks.

--
Nate Edel http://www.cubiclehermit.com/

"This is not a humorous signature."
Anonymous
a b D Laptop
June 24, 2005 8:19:27 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.intel,comp.sys.laptops (More info?)

In comp.sys.intel Bill Davidsen <davidsen@deathstar.prodigy.com> wrote:
> And a question, what's your video input channel? Firewire? Still not on
> every laptop, so don't forget it.

Not on many that I've seen, actually; fortunately, an extra $50 (roughly)
will get you a nice cardbus firewire card.

--
Nate Edel http://www.cubiclehermit.com/

"This is not a humorous signature."
Anonymous
a b D Laptop
June 25, 2005 1:22:33 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.intel,comp.sys.laptops (More info?)

Bill Davidsen wrote:

> Therefore, several thoughts:
> - go 64 bit, probably meaning Athlon64, fast now, will support Win64
> and 64 bit versions of your video software.

There also will be 32bit versions for the next couple of years, and very
likely much longer than every notebook bought today will be in use. Unlike
the crowd opinion, 64bit doesn't make Your software faster. Usually the
contrary is the case, 64bit programs often are more or less slower than
their 32bit counterparts....

> - the big commercial animators and editors seem to be running Linux. I
> would avoid getting a laptop which doesn't support it, it might be
> important in your future.

Well, maybe You didn't notice that most of the "big commercial animators and
editors" usually do all their editing on a Windows machine and use Linux
systems mainly for rendering, something that's hardly a job for a notebook.

Linux certainly is a nice operating system but certainly not the first
choice for a video editing platform...

Benjamin
Anonymous
a b D Laptop
June 25, 2005 1:24:22 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.intel,comp.sys.laptops (More info?)

Blondie wrote:

> I asked this question about three months ago and at the time didn't
> get much response so am hoping for better luck this time. I have
> visited many retail outlets over the last three months in an attempt
> to learn about laptops but am unable to believe a word any salesman
> tells me.

Understandable. But be prepared to get different opinions here, too.

> What one bloke says is the best is garbage to another
> salesman and they always seem to want to push you towards one
> particular laptop they have for sale, doesn't matter what question
> you ask, that laptop will do it so I desperately need your help. I
> know that I want at least 80Gb hard drive and 2 * 512 Mb Ram but I am
> unable to understand the processor and monitor terminology and this
> is where I need your help. I want a 17" screen, what XGA, UXGA, WSXGA
> should I be looking at. I want a powerful processor as I will be
> using the laptop for video capture and editing and from my previous
> experience the rendering process is extremely power and RAM hungry
> but I am confused by Celeron and 800FSB and Centrino etc. Which one
> is more powerful.

Well, I can't agree with another poster who recommend getting a
Pentium4-based notebook. Just don't do that! The Pentium4 CPU gets very(!)
hot and needs lots of power, and simply is misplaced in a notebook. Go for a
Pentium-M-based unit instead, often also (wrongly) referred to as
"Centrino". Centrino is just a marketing term for the combination of
Pentium-M CPU, intel chipset and intel WLAN. A notebook that doesn't have
intel WLAN is not allowed to carry the Centrino sticker. This doesn't mean
this notebook is worse, it's just no Centrino. But the really important part
is the Pentium-M anyways...

The Pentium-M, despite its low clock rate, is a very powerful CPU. A 1.7GHz
Pentium-M is around as fast as a Pentium4 2,8GHz, but consumes much less
power and also doesn't dissipate as much heat. A 1.7GHz Pentium-M is more
than fast enough for video editing...

The Celeron-M is a stripped-down Pentium-M which doesn't know Speedstep
(Powermanagement) and has a smaller cache. Better get a P-M instead...

I'd also recommend getting a brand name unit from Dell, IBM or HP instead of
a cheaper noname or OEM unit. Especially for a notebook You need a good
service...

BTW: if Your main concern is video editing I'd also have a look on an Apple
iBook or Powerbook as it's a great video editing platform and already comes
with the necessary software...

Benjamin
Anonymous
a b D Laptop
June 27, 2005 9:40:14 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.intel,comp.sys.laptops (More info?)

On 6/23/2005 20:36, Blondie wrote:
> your help. I want a 17" screen, what XGA, UXGA, WSXGA should I be looking
> at. I want a powerful processor as I will be using the laptop for video
> capture and editing and from my previous experience the rendering process is
> extremely power and RAM hungry but I am confused by Celeron and 800FSB and
> Centrino etc. Which one is more powerful. I do hope someone can shed some
> light on the subject for me and appreciate your help.

I am a thinkpad fan because their build quality is pretty good. I'm not
sure how they are now that Levono or whatever the hell they're called is
designing/making them. Look at the "T" series. Toshiba is also a good
build quality laptop as well as the Sony viao's. You get what you pay for
in many cases!

Dell laptops, unlike their servers and desktop systems, are just generic
P.O.S., exactly like Acer or any other no-name, designed and built under
contract by Quanta et al. Trust me, we have a couple here at the Co. and
we'll never buy another Dell laptop.

XGA, UXGA, WSXGA are acronyms referring to the maximum resolution (number
of pixels) that the screen can display. Other will correct me if I'm
wrong but IMSMR:

XGA == 1024x768
SXGA+ == 1400x1050
UXGA == 1600x1200

There are also the wide screen formats which I'm not at all familiar with
but I've seen typically marketed with a "W-" prefix. In short, ask the
sales droid to see the resolution *numbers* for the laptop's flat panel
screen rather than the acronym to be sure.

As for processor, you are getting apples and oranges with Centrino and
celeron. You will want either a Pentium 4 (if you don't care about
battery life) or a Pentium M processor. Celeron processors are based
either on the Pentium 4 or the Pentium M but are castrated in various ways
which make them rather undesirable except from a very cost conscious
angle. Centrino means you will be getting a Pentium M processor.

800FSB simply refers to the speed at which the processor talks to the main
chipset. Currently 800Mhz on laptops is only with Pentium 4. 533Mhz is
tops for Pentium M.

You seem like you will be purchasing a high end laptop. Typically, I
believe that the Pentium 4 will outclass a Pentium M in video processing.
If at all possible, bring your software and see for yourself which is
faster. Don't be alarmed that the P-4 will have a much higher frequency
than the P-M; the P-M is much faster, clock for clock, than the P-4 and
much more friendly to than battery.

With the type of work you're doing you also probably want to ensure that
the graphics are of the discreet type. This would typically be a radeon
or nvidia part with dedicated, high speed graphics RAM. This would NOT be
the graphics built into the general chipset which uses relatively slow
system ram for the frame buffer.

You also want to ask if your laptop supports dual channel ram *and* *then*
*ensure* that it is enabled in the model you purchase. A common tactic is
to supply just one SODIMM of memory which will halve your RAM bandwidth on
a dual channel capable machine. Other than that, just put a lot of memory
in it. You can probably save a few bucks and get good high quality RAM at
the same time by purchasing an upgrade from crucial.com

Good Luck!

~Jason

--
Anonymous
a b D Laptop
June 27, 2005 9:40:15 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.intel,comp.sys.laptops (More info?)

Even the Thinkpads were built in China even before the Lenovo takeover.
In fact, as part of the Lenovo takeover, they also bought out the
factory from which the Thinkpads were originally contracted to.
Anonymous
a b D Laptop
June 27, 2005 10:28:21 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.intel,comp.sys.laptops (More info?)

Benjamin Gawert wrote:
> Bill Davidsen wrote:
>
>
>>Therefore, several thoughts:
>>- go 64 bit, probably meaning Athlon64, fast now, will support Win64
>>and 64 bit versions of your video software.
>
>
> There also will be 32bit versions for the next couple of years, and very
> likely much longer than every notebook bought today will be in use. Unlike
> the crowd opinion, 64bit doesn't make Your software faster. Usually the
> contrary is the case, 64bit programs often are more or less slower than
> their 32bit counterparts....

Haven't been reading this group much have you ;-) I've been saying for a
year that there's no reason to dump an existing 32 bit, people whould
wait until they're going to buy a new one anyway and then get 64 bit as
a hedge against future software. But since this *is* a new system and a
fairly serious application, it makes sense to cover the bases.

Existing 32 bit programs don't run slower on 64 bit hardware in any
benchmark I've seen (or all that much faster in most cases, either). It
still makes sense to be able to choose.
>
>
>>- the big commercial animators and editors seem to be running Linux. I
>>would avoid getting a laptop which doesn't support it, it might be
>>important in your future.
>
>
> Well, maybe You didn't notice that most of the "big commercial animators and
> editors" usually do all their editing on a Windows machine and use Linux
> systems mainly for rendering, something that's hardly a job for a notebook.

Nor a reason to lock yourself out. I will agree that the Windows
software is easier to use because you don't need a whole raft of
packages, but you certainly can do editing on creation on Linux now, I
have no intention of lugging a desktop on vacation.
>
> Linux certainly is a nice operating system but certainly not the first
> choice for a video editing platform...

Not YOUR first choice, and why is that an argument to ignore the
capability? For all I know you might want Linux or OS/X on that laptop
in a few years. Covering all the bases doesn't have to cost more, you
just shop a little harder.

--
bill davidsen
SBC/Prodigy Yorktown Heights NY data center
http://newsgroups.news.prodigy.com
Anonymous
a b D Laptop
June 27, 2005 10:36:23 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.intel,comp.sys.laptops (More info?)

Benjamin Gawert wrote:
> Blondie wrote:
>
>
>>I asked this question about three months ago and at the time didn't
>>get much response so am hoping for better luck this time. I have
>>visited many retail outlets over the last three months in an attempt
>>to learn about laptops but am unable to believe a word any salesman
>>tells me.
>
>
> Understandable. But be prepared to get different opinions here, too.
>
>
>>What one bloke says is the best is garbage to another
>>salesman and they always seem to want to push you towards one
>>particular laptop they have for sale, doesn't matter what question
>>you ask, that laptop will do it so I desperately need your help. I
>>know that I want at least 80Gb hard drive and 2 * 512 Mb Ram but I am
>>unable to understand the processor and monitor terminology and this
>>is where I need your help. I want a 17" screen, what XGA, UXGA, WSXGA
>>should I be looking at. I want a powerful processor as I will be
>>using the laptop for video capture and editing and from my previous
>>experience the rendering process is extremely power and RAM hungry
>>but I am confused by Celeron and 800FSB and Centrino etc. Which one
>>is more powerful.
>
>
> Well, I can't agree with another poster who recommend getting a
> Pentium4-based notebook. Just don't do that! The Pentium4 CPU gets very(!)
> hot and needs lots of power, and simply is misplaced in a notebook. Go for a
> Pentium-M-based unit instead, often also (wrongly) referred to as
> "Centrino". Centrino is just a marketing term for the combination of
> Pentium-M CPU, intel chipset and intel WLAN. A notebook that doesn't have
> intel WLAN is not allowed to carry the Centrino sticker. This doesn't mean
> this notebook is worse, it's just no Centrino. But the really important part
> is the Pentium-M anyways...
>
> The Pentium-M, despite its low clock rate, is a very powerful CPU. A 1.7GHz
> Pentium-M is around as fast as a Pentium4 2,8GHz, but consumes much less
> power and also doesn't dissipate as much heat. A 1.7GHz Pentium-M is more
> than fast enough for video editing...

Your conclusion is correct, for heavy floating point (encoding) you may
be a tad optimistic, I would have said 2.4, but there will be no lack of
capability.
>
> The Celeron-M is a stripped-down Pentium-M which doesn't know Speedstep
> (Powermanagement) and has a smaller cache. Better get a P-M instead...
>
> I'd also recommend getting a brand name unit from Dell, IBM or HP instead of
> a cheaper noname or OEM unit. Especially for a notebook You need a good
> service...

Your point is well taken, but Toshiba has been around for a long time,
and I've been pleased using them since about 1990.
>
> BTW: if Your main concern is video editing I'd also have a look on an Apple
> iBook or Powerbook as it's a great video editing platform and already comes
> with the necessary software...

Totally correct.

--
bill davidsen
SBC/Prodigy Yorktown Heights NY data center
http://newsgroups.news.prodigy.com
Anonymous
a b D Laptop
June 28, 2005 1:44:24 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.intel,comp.sys.laptops (More info?)

Bill Davidsen wrote:

> Your point is well taken, but Toshiba has been around for a long time,
> and I've been pleased using them since about 1990.

Right, but I got reports from business partners that tarditionally use
Toshiba which show that the quality level isn't as good as it has been years
ago...

Benjamin
Anonymous
a b D Laptop
June 28, 2005 1:52:52 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.intel,comp.sys.laptops (More info?)

Bill Davidsen wrote:

> Haven't been reading this group much have you ;-) I've been saying
> for a year that there's no reason to dump an existing 32 bit, people
> whould wait until they're going to buy a new one anyway and then get
> 64 bit as a hedge against future software. But since this *is* a new
> system and a fairly serious application, it makes sense to cover the
> bases.

Sure, but for the intended use 64bit is simply irrelevant. Everything else
is _much_ more important than having a 64bit cpu...

> Existing 32 bit programs don't run slower on 64 bit hardware in any
> benchmark I've seen (or all that much faster in most cases, either).

Well, I went through this already for three times (changing from 32bit to
64bit). Of course there are benchmarks that show how much 64bit makes
everything faster, but reality is that lots of applications simply will run
slower.

>> Well, maybe You didn't notice that most of the "big commercial
>> animators and editors" usually do all their editing on a Windows
>> machine and use Linux systems mainly for rendering, something that's
>> hardly a job for a notebook.
>
> Nor a reason to lock yourself out. I will agree that the Windows
> software is easier to use because you don't need a whole raft of
> packages, but you certainly can do editing on creation on Linux now,

Of course You can, but the point is that Linux simply is suboptimal for that
purpose. It might be ok if You see it as a religion, but for people that
want to be productive Linux isn't an option today. And if Linux really
catches up in the future it certainly also will support the (at that time
not new any more) hardware of todays notebooks...

>> Linux certainly is a nice operating system but certainly not the
>> first choice for a video editing platform...
>
> Not YOUR first choice, and why is that an argument to ignore the
> capability? For all I know you might want Linux or OS/X on that laptop
> in a few years.

Maybe. But if the time comes Linux will also support the hardware that is
new today.

BTW: It's "MacOS X", not "OS/X"...

> Covering all the bases doesn't have to cost more, you
> just shop a little harder.

Yes, shopping after prerequisites for something that's totally irrelevant
for the intended use definitely makes it harder...

Benjamin
Anonymous
a b D Laptop
June 28, 2005 2:02:11 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.intel,comp.sys.laptops (More info?)

Benjamin Gawert wrote:
> Bill Davidsen wrote:
>
>
>>Haven't been reading this group much have you ;-) I've been saying
>>for a year that there's no reason to dump an existing 32 bit, people
>>whould wait until they're going to buy a new one anyway and then get
>>64 bit as a hedge against future software. But since this *is* a new
>>system and a fairly serious application, it makes sense to cover the
>>bases.
>
>
> Sure, but for the intended use 64bit is simply irrelevant. Everything else
> is _much_ more important than having a 64bit cpu...
>
>
>>Existing 32 bit programs don't run slower on 64 bit hardware in any
>>benchmark I've seen (or all that much faster in most cases, either).
>
>
> Well, I went through this already for three times (changing from 32bit to
> 64bit). Of course there are benchmarks that show how much 64bit makes
> everything faster, but reality is that lots of applications simply will run
> slower.

You are in a small minority (one?) of people who have experienced a
slowdown moving their existing apps to a 64 bit CPU. Can you tell us
which 32 bit OS and apps these are?

--
bill davidsen
SBC/Prodigy Yorktown Heights NY data center
http://newsgroups.news.prodigy.com
Anonymous
a b D Laptop
June 28, 2005 2:03:47 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.intel,comp.sys.laptops (More info?)

Benjamin Gawert wrote:
> Bill Davidsen wrote:
>
>
>>Your point is well taken, but Toshiba has been around for a long time,
>>and I've been pleased using them since about 1990.
>
>
> Right, but I got reports from business partners that tarditionally use
> Toshiba which show that the quality level isn't as good as it has been years
> ago...

Wonder about IBM from China as well. Way too soon to have data much less
form an opinion, but I'd like to know where you send them for repair.

--
bill davidsen
SBC/Prodigy Yorktown Heights NY data center
http://newsgroups.news.prodigy.com
Anonymous
a b D Laptop
June 28, 2005 10:49:58 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.intel,comp.sys.laptops (More info?)

Bill Davidsen wrote:

> You are in a small minority (one?) of people who have experienced a
> slowdown moving their existing apps to a 64 bit CPU.

You obviously have no experience with 64bit transitioning, otherwise You'd
know that this isn't a minority...

> Can you tell us
> which 32 bit OS and apps these are?

Operating systems were AIX, HP-UX and IRIX, applications range from 3D apps
like CATIA to other stuff like SimCenter...

BTW: Linux also seems to suffer from the same effect: not everything is
faster in 64bit...

Benjamin
Anonymous
a b D Laptop
June 29, 2005 11:46:52 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.intel,comp.sys.laptops (More info?)

Benjamin Gawert wrote:
> Bill Davidsen wrote:
>
>
>>You are in a small minority (one?) of people who have experienced a
>>slowdown moving their existing apps to a 64 bit CPU.
>
>
> You obviously have no experience with 64bit transitioning, otherwise You'd
> know that this isn't a minority...

Actually I have a bit, which is why I'm surprised. I have seen
applications which slowed when built as 64 versions, but 100% of
everything I've tried has run the 32 bit (the existing applications I
mentioned) as fast or a tad faster on 64 bit hardware. I'm considering
only Intel compatible here, given the group, I've done a little HP-UX
and AIX, but comparing old PA-RISC to Itenium or an R20 to anything
bigger than a 386 is guesswork.

>
> BTW: Linux also seems to suffer from the same effect: not everything is
> faster in 64bit...

The Linux stuff I've tried all runs as fast on Athlon64 or Opteron as
the clock speed would lead me to expect. My one experience with the
exhanced Xeon is not a viable sample, and showed no particular change
(but is i/o bound). For 64 bit performance it would be clearly better to
use the Intel compiler rather than gcc, there are clearly some issues
with performance there.

My few gamer friends think the Athlon64 is faster at the same speed
running 32 bit games than the original Athlon, but the internals are
enough different to make that arguable if you want to. No one has tried
the new Intel stuff.

--
bill davidsen
SBC/Prodigy Yorktown Heights NY data center
http://newsgroups.news.prodigy.com
Anonymous
a b D Laptop
June 29, 2005 11:46:53 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.intel,comp.sys.laptops (More info?)

In comp.sys.intel Bill Davidsen <davidsen@deathstar.prodigy.com> wrote:
> The Linux stuff I've tried all runs as fast on Athlon64 or Opteron as
> the clock speed would lead me to expect. My one experience with the
> exhanced Xeon is not a viable sample,

> My few gamer friends think the Athlon64 is faster at the same speed
> running 32 bit games than the original Athlon, but the internals are
> enough different to make that arguable if you want to.

Also depends on which Althon64 at a given megahertz rate; if you compare a
512kb or 1MB cache 400mhz FSB A64 to a 256k L2, 333mhz FSB Athlon XP, I'd
expect it to be significantly faster even were all the other internals the
same.

Now compare an XP Barton 3000+ (2.1ghz, 400mhz FSB, 512k cache) with the 1st
gen 64 3000+ (2.0ghz, 400mhz FSB, 512k cache) and you'd have a pretty fair
comparison for all the other internals. My guess is that the A64 would
outperform the XP pretty significantly.

--
Nate Edel http://www.cubiclehermit.com/

"This is not a humorous signature."
Anonymous
a b D Laptop
June 30, 2005 4:10:40 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.intel,comp.sys.laptops (More info?)

I do a lot of numerical computations. I never used Athlon 64. I have
used
P4, Athlon, and Opterons. Opterons are definitely better than Athlons (
even
with 32 bit code), especially when you are dealing with large amount of
data.
The run time of 32 bit code is the same on both Windows XP and Windows
2003.
The run time is about the same on Linux and Windows, if we use Intel
compilers.
I do prefere AMD machines. We have an Itanium, and even had some help
from Intel
guys to compile our code, it was a real disappointment especially
considering
the amount of money you pay. Now the Itanium is sitting somewhere
collecting
dust. When Xeon64 first came out, a store loaned us a machine, we tried
it, it was
a real bomber.
Anonymous
a b D Laptop
July 1, 2005 10:49:43 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.intel,comp.sys.laptops (More info?)

Bill Davidsen wrote:

>> You obviously have no experience with 64bit transitioning, otherwise
>> You'd know that this isn't a minority...
>
> Actually I have a bit, which is why I'm surprised. I have seen
> applications which slowed when built as 64 versions, but 100% of
> everything I've tried has run the 32 bit (the existing applications I
> mentioned) as fast or a tad faster on 64 bit hardware. I'm considering
> only Intel compatible here, given the group, I've done a little HP-UX
> and AIX, but comparing old PA-RISC to Itenium or an R20 to anything
> bigger than a 386 is guesswork.

You don't need to compare an old 32bit PA-RISC with an Integrity (Itanium2)
system since comparing a 32bit app on an old 32bit system with the 64bit app
on a new 64bit platform is quite silly in terms of performance difference
between 32bit and 64bit versions of the samea application...

You can see the difference when running 32bit and 64bit applications on the
same machine, i.e. a HP c3600 (PA-8600 552MHz) which can run everything from
HP-UX 10.20 (32bit) to 11.x (32bit/64bit). Or running the 32bit and 64bit
versions of some applications on a pSeries with POWER5 and AIX 5.3
(32bit/64bit). Or on an SGI Challenge XL w. R10000 processors and IRIX 5.3
(32bit) or IRIX 6 (64bit)...

For most applications the 64bit version is slower than the 32bit version
when running on the same hardware. Exceptions are programs that need a huge
memory space, and programs that profit from the extended/additional
registers. Of course, if You compare the 32bit version of some applications
running on a i.e. P4 2.8GHz with the 64bit version running on an XEON EM64T
3.6GHz the 64bit version indeed will be faster simply because the hardware
is faster than the one that runs the 32bit version...

>> BTW: Linux also seems to suffer from the same effect: not everything
>> is faster in 64bit...
>
> The Linux stuff I've tried all runs as fast on Athlon64 or Opteron as
> the clock speed would lead me to expect.

Right, but still for most programs the 32bit version runs (more or less)
faster than the 64bit version...

> My one experience with the
> exhanced Xeon is not a viable sample, and showed no particular change
> (but is i/o bound). For 64 bit performance it would be clearly better
> to use the Intel compiler rather than gcc, there are clearly some
> issues with performance there.

The intel compilers are very good, we found that for some cases they offer a
really huge performance benefit over gcc....

> My few gamer friends think the Athlon64 is faster at the same speed
> running 32 bit games than the original Athlon,

Which is true. One thing why the Athlon64 was still a great choice for
gamers when there were no really useable 64bit operating systems for it was
that it contains a lot of improvements over the older AthlonXP which made it
faster than the AthlonXP on 32bit programs or games running on 32bit
Windows...

Benjamin
Anonymous
a b D Laptop
July 6, 2005 1:05:30 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.intel,comp.sys.laptops (More info?)

Benjamin Gawert wrote:
> Bill Davidsen wrote:
>
>
>>>You obviously have no experience with 64bit transitioning, otherwise
>>>You'd know that this isn't a minority...
>>
>>Actually I have a bit, which is why I'm surprised. I have seen
>>applications which slowed when built as 64 versions, but 100% of
>>everything I've tried has run the 32 bit (the existing applications I
>>mentioned) as fast or a tad faster on 64 bit hardware. I'm considering
>>only Intel compatible here, given the group, I've done a little HP-UX
>>and AIX, but comparing old PA-RISC to Itenium or an R20 to anything
>>bigger than a 386 is guesswork.
>
>
> You don't need to compare an old 32bit PA-RISC with an Integrity (Itanium2)
> system since comparing a 32bit app on an old 32bit system with the 64bit app
> on a new 64bit platform is quite silly in terms of performance difference
> between 32bit and 64bit versions of the samea application...
>
> You can see the difference when running 32bit and 64bit applications on the
> same machine, i.e. a HP c3600 (PA-8600 552MHz) which can run everything from
> HP-UX 10.20 (32bit) to 11.x (32bit/64bit). Or running the 32bit and 64bit
> versions of some applications on a pSeries with POWER5 and AIX 5.3
> (32bit/64bit). Or on an SGI Challenge XL w. R10000 processors and IRIX 5.3
> (32bit) or IRIX 6 (64bit)...
>
> For most applications the 64bit version is slower than the 32bit version
> when running on the same hardware. Exceptions are programs that need a huge
> memory space, and programs that profit from the extended/additional
> registers. Of course, if You compare the 32bit version of some applications
> running on a i.e. P4 2.8GHz with the 64bit version running on an XEON EM64T
> 3.6GHz the 64bit version indeed will be faster simply because the hardware
> is faster than the one that runs the 32bit version...

That sounds like a shift of position. I made the point that buying 64
bit hardware, assuming you are going to buy SOME hardware, is a good
idea because it protects against the need to run 64 bit software. You
said that 32 bit was faster than 64 bit. Now you seem to be agreeing
that the 64 bit hardware will be at least as fast as 32 bit hardware,
comparing new to new hardware.

Which is why I suggested going 64 bit, it will be "not slower" with 32
bit applications.

That doesn't change my recommendation to not bother going to a new 64
bit system if you do stuff like E-mail, browsing, reasonable
spreadsheets, word processing of small (<500 pages) documents, etc.
>
>
>>>BTW: Linux also seems to suffer from the same effect: not everything
>>>is faster in 64bit...
>>
>>The Linux stuff I've tried all runs as fast on Athlon64 or Opteron as
>>the clock speed would lead me to expect.
>
>
> Right, but still for most programs the 32bit version runs (more or less)
> faster than the 64bit version...
>
>
>>My one experience with the
>>exhanced Xeon is not a viable sample, and showed no particular change
>>(but is i/o bound). For 64 bit performance it would be clearly better
>>to use the Intel compiler rather than gcc, there are clearly some
>>issues with performance there.
>
>
> The intel compilers are very good, we found that for some cases they offer a
> really huge performance benefit over gcc....
>
>
>>My few gamer friends think the Athlon64 is faster at the same speed
>>running 32 bit games than the original Athlon,
>
>
> Which is true. One thing why the Athlon64 was still a great choice for
> gamers when there were no really useable 64bit operating systems for it was
> that it contains a lot of improvements over the older AthlonXP which made it
> faster than the AthlonXP on 32bit programs or games running on 32bit
> Windows...

Alas, the one Athlon I actually would consider upgrading is an old
socket A 1GHz unit. Everything else is sized to task and bound by
network or disk i/o, not CPU.

--
bill davidsen
SBC/Prodigy Yorktown Heights NY data center
http://newsgroups.news.prodigy.com
Anonymous
a b D Laptop
July 26, 2005 7:24:31 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.intel,comp.sys.laptops (More info?)

Benjamin Gawert wrote:

> Bill Davidsen wrote:
>
>> Therefore, several thoughts:
>> - go 64 bit, probably meaning Athlon64, fast now, will support Win64
>> and 64 bit versions of your video software.
>
> There also will be 32bit versions for the next couple of years, and very
> likely much longer than every notebook bought today will be in use. Unlike
> the crowd opinion, 64bit doesn't make Your software faster. Usually the
> contrary is the case, 64bit programs often are more or less slower than
> their 32bit counterparts....

That may be the case for Windows, every benchmark I've seen on Linux
indicates a significant improvement.

>> - the big commercial animators and editors seem to be running Linux. I
>> would avoid getting a laptop which doesn't support it, it might be
>> important in your future.
>
> Well, maybe You didn't notice that most of the "big commercial animators
> and editors" usually do all their editing on a Windows machine and use
> Linux systems mainly for rendering, something that's hardly a job for a
> notebook.
>
> Linux certainly is a nice operating system but certainly not the first
> choice for a video editing platform...
>
> Benjamin

--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
Anonymous
a b D Laptop
July 26, 2005 7:30:02 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.intel,comp.sys.laptops (More info?)

Benjamin Gawert wrote:

> Bill Davidsen wrote:
>
>>> You obviously have no experience with 64bit transitioning, otherwise
>>> You'd know that this isn't a minority...
>>
>> Actually I have a bit, which is why I'm surprised. I have seen
>> applications which slowed when built as 64 versions, but 100% of
>> everything I've tried has run the 32 bit (the existing applications I
>> mentioned) as fast or a tad faster on 64 bit hardware. I'm considering
>> only Intel compatible here, given the group, I've done a little HP-UX
>> and AIX, but comparing old PA-RISC to Itenium or an R20 to anything
>> bigger than a 386 is guesswork.
>
> You don't need to compare an old 32bit PA-RISC with an Integrity
> (Itanium2) system since comparing a 32bit app on an old 32bit system with
> the 64bit app on a new 64bit platform is quite silly in terms of
> performance difference between 32bit and 64bit versions of the samea
> application...
>
> You can see the difference when running 32bit and 64bit applications on
> the same machine, i.e. a HP c3600 (PA-8600 552MHz) which can run
> everything from HP-UX 10.20 (32bit) to 11.x (32bit/64bit). Or running the
> 32bit and 64bit versions of some applications on a pSeries with POWER5 and
> AIX 5.3 (32bit/64bit). Or on an SGI Challenge XL w. R10000 processors and
> IRIX 5.3 (32bit) or IRIX 6 (64bit)...
>
> For most applications the 64bit version is slower than the 32bit version
> when running on the same hardware. Exceptions are programs that need a
> huge memory space, and programs that profit from the extended/additional
> registers. Of course, if You compare the 32bit version of some
> applications running on a i.e. P4 2.8GHz with the 64bit version running on
> an XEON EM64T 3.6GHz the 64bit version indeed will be faster simply
> because the hardware is faster than the one that runs the 32bit version...

Uh, have you done any direct comparisons on AMD hardware? Don't assume that
what is true of an antique PA-RISC machine is also true of a contemporary
CISC machine.

>>> BTW: Linux also seems to suffer from the same effect: not everything
>>> is faster in 64bit...
>>
>> The Linux stuff I've tried all runs as fast on Athlon64 or Opteron as
>> the clock speed would lead me to expect.
>
> Right, but still for most programs the 32bit version runs (more or less)
> faster than the 64bit version...

Care to provide some examples from Linux, running 32 and 64 bit code on the
same AMD hardware?
>
>> My one experience with the
>> exhanced Xeon is not a viable sample, and showed no particular change
>> (but is i/o bound). For 64 bit performance it would be clearly better
>> to use the Intel compiler rather than gcc, there are clearly some
>> issues with performance there.
>
> The intel compilers are very good, we found that for some cases they offer
> a really huge performance benefit over gcc....

This may be the case if you're using an Intel processor, but don't assume
that Intel has any optimizations for AMD--they don't.

>> My few gamer friends think the Athlon64 is faster at the same speed
>> running 32 bit games than the original Athlon,
>
> Which is true. One thing why the Athlon64 was still a great choice for
> gamers when there were no really useable 64bit operating systems for it
> was that it contains a lot of improvements over the older AthlonXP which
> made it faster than the AthlonXP on 32bit programs or games running on
> 32bit Windows...
>
> Benjamin

--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
Anonymous
a b D Laptop
July 26, 2005 4:08:31 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.intel,comp.sys.laptops (More info?)

Benjamin Gawert wrote:
> For most applications the 64bit version is slower than the 32bit version
> when running on the same hardware. Exceptions are programs that need a huge
> memory space, and programs that profit from the extended/additional
> registers. Of course, if You compare the 32bit version of some applications
> running on a i.e. P4 2.8GHz with the 64bit version running on an XEON EM64T
> 3.6GHz the 64bit version indeed will be faster simply because the hardware
> is faster than the one that runs the 32bit version...

Are you referring to x86's 64- vs. 32-bit performance or general 64- vs.
32-bit performance?

>>>BTW: Linux also seems to suffer from the same effect: not everything
>>>is faster in 64bit...
>>
>>The Linux stuff I've tried all runs as fast on Athlon64 or Opteron as
>>the clock speed would lead me to expect.
>
>
> Right, but still for most programs the 32bit version runs (more or less)
> faster than the 64bit version...

The benchmarks I've seen showed anywhere from a 10% to a 40% improvement
in performance over their 32-bit versions, while running on AMD
hardware. This is both for Linux and Windows 64-bit editions. Some of
the benchmarks were released by Microsoft itself. Which benchmarks were
you referring to that showed no improvement, and where they on Intel
hardware?

Of course AMD brings many accelerations into the picture, not
necessarily related to the instruction set, such as the Direct Connect
Architecture.

>>My one experience with the
>>exhanced Xeon is not a viable sample, and showed no particular change
>>(but is i/o bound). For 64 bit performance it would be clearly better
>>to use the Intel compiler rather than gcc, there are clearly some
>>issues with performance there.
>
>
> The intel compilers are very good, we found that for some cases they offer a
> really huge performance benefit over gcc....

If only Intel didn't find it necessary to use it as a marketing tool for
their processors to show how superior their processors are over
competing x86 hardware, by deliberately turning off various features.

Yousuf Khan
July 28, 2005 12:50:42 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.intel,comp.sys.laptops (More info?)

On Tue, 26 Jul 2005 12:08:31 -0400 Yousuf Khan <bbbl67@ezrs.com> wrote in
Message id: <FemdnQqs0v5iwnvfRVn-vQ@rogers.com>:

>> The intel compilers are very good, we found that for some cases they offer a
>> really huge performance benefit over gcc....
>
>If only Intel didn't find it necessary to use it as a marketing tool for
>their processors to show how superior their processors are over
>competing x86 hardware, by deliberately turning off various features.

Yes. Clearly, Intel should optimize their compilers for AMD processors.

*rolls eyes*
Anonymous
a b D Laptop
July 28, 2005 7:16:37 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.intel,comp.sys.laptops (More info?)

In comp.sys.intel Trent <none@dev.nul.pissof> wrote:
> On Tue, 26 Jul 2005 12:08:31 -0400 Yousuf Khan <bbbl67@ezrs.com> wrote:
> >> The intel compilers are very good, we found that for some cases they
> >> offer a really huge performance benefit over gcc....
> >
> >If only Intel didn't find it necessary to use it as a marketing tool for
> >their processors to show how superior their processors are over
> >competing x86 hardware, by deliberately turning off various features.
>
> Yes. Clearly, Intel should optimize their compilers for AMD processors.
> *rolls eyes*

Optimize, no. Heck, they don't even have to make them produce compatible
code if the other processor isn't compatible. But intentionally disabling
features if they're going to be running on other brands of processor when
there's reason to believe they'll run is dirty pool.

--
Nate Edel http://www.cubiclehermit.com/

"I do have a cause, though. It is Obscenity. I'm for it." - Tom Lehrer
!