Pentium M differences: 1.73Ghz? 1.86? 2.0?

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

"Fr@nk" <Fr@nkATwizardDOT.net> wrote in message
news:2nQNe.22427$Ie.18587@lakeread03...
> Hi. Trying to decide how fast a chip (Pentium M) to buy for my next
> notebook. The HP I'm looking at goes up to 2.13 GHz. I can afford to go
> with
> a 2.0 GHz, but can save $100 if I go with a 1.86. I can save more if I go
> with a 1.73. Any advice on Pentium M CPU speed? Any reason I should not
> buy
> the fastest one I can afford...without buying _the_ fastest (with the
> biggest price premium)?
>
> My experience tells me it's not worth the money to buy the _fastest_ CPU,
> but to go with a step down from the fastest. I'd appreciate any thoughts
> on
> this. Thanks.
>
>
> Fr@nk

You would not be able to perceive the difference in speed between a 2.0 GHz
and a 1.73. Save your money and invest it in more memory, that would buy
you a whole lot more than the .27GHz difference in cpu clock.

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

Go for a pentium 4 at 1.8 ghz speed. Lenovo is makeing the
(ex IBM) machines from now on. Gates still has exclusive copyrights
on all the software. I just got one of the Lenovo machines and
its fast enuff. I got mine used though for $535.
Kokomo/Joe
(includes xp/pro software installed)


**********************************************************
* Ham KH6JF AARS/MARS ABM6JF QCWA WW2 VET WD RADIO SYSTEM*
* Army MARS PRECEDED by AARS (Army Amateur Radio System) *
* Hi State ARMY MARS COORDINATOR *
**********************************************************

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

One thing you have to remember. All other things being equal, including
computer load, the faster processor consumes more power. That will
definitely eat into your battery life.

Fr@nk wrote:
> "Andrew" <usenetMYSHOES@bizaveMYSHOES.com> wrote in message
> news:cfycula74904646411@bizaveMYSHOES.com...
> > Fred <nospam@wowspam.com> wrote:
> > : You would not be able to perceive the difference in speed between a 2.0
> GHz
> > : and a 1.73. Save your money and invest it in more memory, that would
> buy
> > : you a whole lot more than the .27GHz difference in cpu clock.
> >
> > Well, your advice is probably correct (don't blow the money on a
> > faster CPU if you don't think you need it - most people won't get much
> > of a benefit), but some people most definitely can tell the difference
> > in CPU speed. I have a CPU-intensive application (converting digital
> > camera files from "RAW" format) where I would notice the difference.
> > Because it takes several seconds to convert one image and I might
> > convert 100 images at a time, a faster CPU could in fact save me
> > several minutes of processing time.
> >
> > You might notice the difference in CPU speed more in a couple of years
> > running future software that is CPU-intensive. But by then you'll
> > want a faster wireless card, a bigger disk drive, etc. and probably
> > want a new laptop anyway.
> >
> > Andrew
> > --
> > ----> Portland, Oregon, USA <----
> > *******************************************************************
> > ----> http://www.bizave.com <---- Photo Albums and Portland Info
> > ----> To Email me remove "MYSHOES" from email address
> > *******************************************************************
> >
>
> Andrew-
>
> I agree; I can tell some difference between CPU speeds. It's just not a big
> difference. The bigger point to me is what you said about the future. My
> current laptop is 5 1/2 years old. 500MHz Pentium III. If I had saved a bit
> of money back in 2000 when I bought it (maybe with a 350 or 400 MHz chip),
> I'd surely notice the difference now. I plan on keeping my next laptop for
> quite awhile (but maybe not 5 1/2 years!...but who knows?).
>
> At least with RAM, I can always add more (up to 1GB with the laptop I'm
> looking at). But for all practical purposes, the CPU speed I buy is the one
> I'm stuck with.
>
> If the cost difference between 1.86 and 2.0 GHz was more than $100 I
> probably wouldn't be tempted to go for it. But for just under $100, I can
> have the 2GHz.........
>
> Thanks for the opinions; I'd like to hear more!
>
>
> Fr@nk

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

Fred <nospam@wowspam.com> wrote:
: While I would never dispute the claim than a 2.0 GHz cpu will run
: applications faster than a 1.73 GHz cpu your claim to saving minutes
: converting 100 images would have to be proven to me. For most applications
: you would need a stop watch and a very quick thumb to see the
: difference.

You don't need a stop watch to see the speed improvement in some
applications: when you are converting RAW images from a Canon digital
camera, the software (at least the package I use) tell you the average
conversion time in seconds. I just tried converting some of my images
and the average (with false color filter on, noise reduction, etc.)
was 51 seconds PER IMAGE. Do the math: 100 images would take almost
an hour.

If you don't believe what I'm saying, download a copy of Breezebrowser
from breezesys.com (trial version will do some RAW conversion). Then
obtain some RAW files from a Canon camera like my Digital Rebel. I'll
even give you some. Try converting them on your system, then try it
on a faster machine to see how a faster CPU would shave minutes off of
a big batch conversion.

I am not suggesting the average person will care about this stuff,
only that some people certainly can see improvements from a faster
CPU. For people who only surf the web and run office applications, a
faster CPU probably is a waste of money.

: You would need to run the same application on exactly the same machines with
: the only difference being the cpu speed, even the disk drives would have to
: be at the same degree of defragmentation. This is something very few people
: have the resources to do. And comparing that applications on different
: style machines with similar speed differences is meaningless.

When you are talking about a CPU-intensive task like RAW image
conversion, the speed of the disk drives and even the memory is
negligible.

Andrew
--
----> Portland, Oregon, USA <----
*******************************************************************
----> http://www.bizave.com <---- Photo Albums and Portland Info
----> To Email me remove "MYSHOES" from email address
*******************************************************************

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

Barry Watzman <WatzmanNOSPAM@neo.rr.com> wrote:
: Disk drive, yes. Memory, no, the memory speed is still and always
: critical. Virtually no task is ever executed entirely inside the CPU,
: and the minute that the CPU needs a single byte from the "outside
: world", it goes to memory. If the program in question OR the data being
: operated on is larger than the cache of the CPU (and, in truth, only a
: small part of the cache), then the code and/or data have to be gotten
: from memory, and also probably an entire block of cache has to be
: written back to memory, and other blocks brought into cache from memory.
: Memory speed is central to system performance for all but the very
: smallest functions that can remain entirely in cache (both code and data).

But remember, integrated L2 caches are 2MB+ now. Depends what the
application is and how the data is used.

Andrew
--
----> Portland, Oregon, USA <----
*******************************************************************
----> http://www.bizave.com <---- Photo Albums and Portland Info
----> To Email me remove "MYSHOES" from email address
*******************************************************************

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

You have great answers by users far more advanced than I. The consensus
seems to be against the fast processor and I agree.

In no order of preference, I go for 2 gig Ram, 7200 rpm hard disk. I dock
at home to speakers, second monitor and daisy chained external hard disks.
I use Bluetooth and IrDA weekly to a hp DeskJet 450. Next time, I'm going
for a xsvga or usvga display. The IBM name is Flexview. You definitely
need a good video card with dedicated memory. DVD-r another option, and i
like externals. They are slower, but easy to upgrade since technology
changes every few months. I carry an extra battery, an APC ac/dc power
supply and a wd 80 gig portable hd. Ad it all up, and a step up or down in
processor is pretty low on the list. It is nice to dock at home and have
the larger displays. But I just shot the $100 you wanted to save. Hope I
helped.

"Fr@nk" <Fr@nkATwizardDOT.net> wrote in message
news:2nQNe.22427$Ie.18587@lakeread03...
> Hi. Trying to decide how fast a chip (Pentium M) to buy for my next
> notebook. The HP I'm looking at goes up to 2.13 GHz. I can afford to go
> with
> a 2.0 GHz, but can save $100 if I go with a 1.86. I can save more if I go
> with a 1.73. Any advice on Pentium M CPU speed? Any reason I should not
> buy
> the fastest one I can afford...without buying _the_ fastest (with the
> biggest price premium)?
>
> My experience tells me it's not worth the money to buy the _fastest_ CPU,
> but to go with a step down from the fastest. I'd appreciate any thoughts
> on
> this. Thanks.
>
>
> Fr@nk
>
>
>

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

Re: "remember, integrated L2 caches are 2MB+ now"

Only on a very few, very high-end processors


Andrew wrote:

> Barry Watzman <WatzmanNOSPAM@neo.rr.com> wrote:
> : Disk drive, yes. Memory, no, the memory speed is still and always
> : critical. Virtually no task is ever executed entirely inside the CPU,
> : and the minute that the CPU needs a single byte from the "outside
> : world", it goes to memory. If the program in question OR the data being
> : operated on is larger than the cache of the CPU (and, in truth, only a
> : small part of the cache), then the code and/or data have to be gotten
> : from memory, and also probably an entire block of cache has to be
> : written back to memory, and other blocks brought into cache from memory.
> : Memory speed is central to system performance for all but the very
> : smallest functions that can remain entirely in cache (both code and data).
>
> But remember, integrated L2 caches are 2MB+ now. Depends what the
> application is and how the data is used.
>
> Andrew
> --
> ----> Portland, Oregon, USA <----
> *******************************************************************
> ----> http://www.bizave.com <---- Photo Albums and Portland Info
> ----> To Email me remove "MYSHOES" from email address
> *******************************************************************
>

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

That used to be the case but not any more, the current Intel Pentium M is
available with 2MB of L2 cache. But not 2MB+.

"Barry Watzman" <WatzmanNOSPAM@neo.rr.com> wrote in message
news:430A1D6B.4060901@neo.rr.com...
> Re: "remember, integrated L2 caches are 2MB+ now"
>
> Only on a very few, very high-end processors
>
>
> Andrew wrote:
>
>> Barry Watzman <WatzmanNOSPAM@neo.rr.com> wrote:
>> : Disk drive, yes. Memory, no, the memory speed is still and always :
>> critical. Virtually no task is ever executed entirely inside the CPU, :
>> and the minute that the CPU needs a single byte from the "outside :
>> world", it goes to memory. If the program in question OR the data being
>> : operated on is larger than the cache of the CPU (and, in truth, only a
>> : small part of the cache), then the code and/or data have to be gotten :
>> from memory, and also probably an entire block of cache has to be :
>> written back to memory, and other blocks brought into cache from memory.
>> : Memory speed is central to system performance for all but the very :
>> smallest functions that can remain entirely in cache (both code and
>> data).
>>
>> But remember, integrated L2 caches are 2MB+ now. Depends what the
>> application is and how the data is used.
>>
>> Andrew
>> --
>> ----> Portland, Oregon, USA <----
>> *******************************************************************
>> ----> http://www.bizave.com <---- Photo Albums and Portland Info
>> ----> To Email me remove "MYSHOES" from email address
>> *******************************************************************
>>

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

The question is not whether a 2MB cache is available -- it is -- but
whether it's common in the processors that most systems actually have
installed. It's not.


Fred wrote:
> That used to be the case but not any more, the current Intel Pentium M is
> available with 2MB of L2 cache. But not 2MB+.
>
> "Barry Watzman" <WatzmanNOSPAM@neo.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:430A1D6B.4060901@neo.rr.com...
>
>>Re: "remember, integrated L2 caches are 2MB+ now"
>>
>>Only on a very few, very high-end processors
>>
>>
>>Andrew wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Barry Watzman <WatzmanNOSPAM@neo.rr.com> wrote:
>>>: Disk drive, yes. Memory, no, the memory speed is still and always :
>>>critical. Virtually no task is ever executed entirely inside the CPU, :
>>>and the minute that the CPU needs a single byte from the "outside :
>>>world", it goes to memory. If the program in question OR the data being
>>>: operated on is larger than the cache of the CPU (and, in truth, only a
>>>: small part of the cache), then the code and/or data have to be gotten :
>>>from memory, and also probably an entire block of cache has to be :
>>>written back to memory, and other blocks brought into cache from memory.
>>>: Memory speed is central to system performance for all but the very :
>>>smallest functions that can remain entirely in cache (both code and
>>>data).
>>>
>>>But remember, integrated L2 caches are 2MB+ now. Depends what the
>>>application is and how the data is used.
>>>
>>>Andrew
>>>--
>>>----> Portland, Oregon, USA <----
>>>*******************************************************************
>>> ----> http://www.bizave.com <---- Photo Albums and Portland Info
>>> ----> To Email me remove "MYSHOES" from email address
>>>*******************************************************************
>>>
>
>
>