Anyway, I am going to college and want a good computer that plays games. I am looking for a laptop..like a dell or sony for around 1000 or 1500.
I was looking at the Dell Inspiron E1705 or E 1505. i can upgrade the graphics card but my question is that it runs duo core. I understand that most games now do now run well on a duo core system. I understand that if I buy a duo core say...1.6 ghz..then if I am only running a game, it would run at 1.6 ghz. But, if i multitasked, then I would fully use the '3.2' ghz. And of course, games run better at a 2.0 to 2.4 ghz than a 1.6.
So, Should i look into a 2 ghz single core or a 1.6 ghz duo core? If anyone can suggest any other laptop companies or laptops from dell or sony that would fit me, please dont hesitate to comment.
Also, is Centrino the same as pentium M and duo core?
Why settle for a 32 bit Intel single or dual core when AMD's Turion ML-37 is 2.0 GHz but equivalent to a Pentium 3700+ and the MT-40 is 3900+?
I have heard and argued all the AMD vs. Intel, 32 vs 64 bit and core duo 'till I am blue in the face. You can see those posts in other threads on the forum.
I had the opportunity to use a DELL 17" core duo and IT IS A PIECE OF JUNK! It is slow, the case is cheap plastic (I mean cheaper than you would even expect after I tell you it's cheap), the screen was so-so. I am not just saying that to promote my notebooks, but I am telling you... it isn't even close.
For YOUR sake... get a Turion 37, 40, 42 or 44 before you get an Intel. I wouldn't recommend HP as they use very cheap compnonets (like 4,200 rpm hard drives) that are going to slow the whole system down.
Intel fanatics are chanting dual core over and over, but I haven't run into anything a 2.2 GHz 64 bit Turion can't multi-task. A dual core 1.6 isn't equivalent to a 3.2 Ghz either. Even in Intel's own literature they say 25-35% faster than a single core.
I have been a Dell laptop fan until I used an HP with the ML-37. I bought it on sale at HP. I was shocked the laptop is fast I do programming and encoding with mine and it's great. I have used a new IBM laptop Dell C400, and D610. I can only say that the Turion is way faster. I haven't used the duo yet but I want Windows Vista (64bit) I know they'll have a 32bit version but why dumb it down for my laptop why not get a laptop that meets your OS standards.
Yea, and HP's base systems usually have 4,200 rpm hard drives! Imagine a 7,200 rpm hard drive and CAS 2.0 RAM like Killer Notebooks!
It's clear that NGMA chips will be much better than Netburst-based chips, AMD's Richard said. But he's not convinced that the improvements will be enough to overcome what he called a 15 percent performance advantage enjoyed by AMD's chips today.
While synthetically your argument may be true numerically; I have used Intel single and dual core as well as Turion processors and X2 desktops. There is absolutely NO WAY you can compare a 2.26 Pentium M to a 2.2 GHz Turion. It isn’t even remotely close, but hey, use them both and you be the judge... let's move on to this core duo.
Talk about a marketing phenomena... core due it is just that… marketing. I tried a 1.66 core duo and it doesn’t cut the muster. I have no idea how much money Intel is unloading on marketing, but if I were them I would be freaking praying that Conroe and Merom live up to all the initial claims and that AMD doesn't make any new advances by then to throw more dirt in the hole Intel is enjoying at this point.
Why would the notebook arena be any different then the desktop arena? The X2 dual core desktop humiliates the Intel class dual cores. Intel makes all sorts of wild claims about AMD's technology not stacking up to their own, and downplaying the features AMD processors support, but when Intel's R&D finally catches up they start implementing the things AMD is doing that were previously stated as junk.
NGMA chips can process more instructions per clock cycle than their predecessors, take advantage of larger amounts of cache memory, and route instructions more intelligently through the central processing unit (CPU). This will allow Intel to retake the performance lead currently held by the AMD64 architecture without resorting to techonology similar to AMD's integrated memory controller or point-to-point interconnects, said Mooly Eden, general manager of Intel's mobile platforms group.
So Intel's own general manager of mobile platforms admits that AMD has the performance lead... interesting. Reading that statement it appears as if the onboard memory controller that Intel has previously said makes "insignifcant performance gains" in reality is putting Intel to the tap and the funny thing is Intel cvan't get their integrated memory controller to work!
Intel has been hesitant to embrace the integrated memory controller since the failure of its last attempt to use such a design. Integrating the memory controller allows that vital gateway between the CPU and the memory to run at the speed of the processor, whisking data into the processor at a high rate of speed. But it also forces the processor to be designed specifically for a certain type of memory, which doomed Intel's Timna processor when its integrated memory controller was designed for Rambus' short-lived RDRAM standard.
Intel executives, such as Chief Technology Officer Justin Rattner, have talked about pursuing integrated memory controllers for chips toward the end of the decade, but the company has not shared any specific plans.
Intel's talking about a lot of things that are "going to be, but sounds like right now they are tapping out. What's going to happen when AMD moves to DDR2?
Why if Intel is so great didn't we have 64 bit computing 3 years ago? AMD had it but Intel couldn't figure it out... so they downplayed it. They stagnated the market because no one wanted to move forward without (at the time) the dominant market share player. Why did a company with so much market share and so much money for R&D get taken downtown in the desktop market ... then the server market ...
The Opteron chip has lifted AMD's share of the x86 server processor market from virtually zero a few years ago to 14.3 percent in the fourth quarter of 2005, according to IDC.
Strike three for Intel
By Michael Kanellos and Tom Krazit
Staff Writer, CNET News.com
Published: March 3, 2006, 1:20 PM PST
Intel warned on Friday that its revenue for the first quarter would come in at between $8.7 billion and $9.1 billion, roughly $500 million lower than estimates the company issued in January. The Santa Clara, Calif.-based chipmaker cited a weak market and a "slight" market share loss.
AMD's surge can be seen most strongly in the U.S. retail market, which accounts for about 9 percent of global PC shipments. In the first seven weeks of 2006, AMD's share in desktops in that area climbed to 81.5 percent, while Intel's has slid to 18.5 percent, Baker said. That's almost a complete reversal of their typical relative positions.
Intel is getting to be like Microsoft... big claims then delays and striped down versions of what they initially presented. The really annoying thing about Intel is instead of doing it right they rush to market and then change their stuff a million times, change the name of everything 5 million times and hype their stuff and throw marketing and advertising dollars out 10 million times more than AMD.
How long has AMD made socket 939 last? How long have they made DDR memory last? When they design something it is desighned right so they don't burn their customer base
AMD will introduce support for DDR2 (double data rate 2) memory along with a new socket technology called AM2 in the second half of the year. That will allow system builders to drop quad-core processors into the same chipsets for upcoming dual-core chips, he said.
Why don't you speculate on how much more advanced the computer industry would be right now had Intel not been a bloated pig stonewalling the industry?
Now everyone is entitled to their own opinion, and I am not going to try to change your mind. I am going to ask one question... Of everything you said above... how fast will the core-duo Intel be when everyone is using 64 bit O.S. & programs? and I will leave you with this quote,
As might be expected, Advanced Micro Devices doesn't think much of Intel's performance claims for its upcoming Conroe and Merom products.
"It's driven by the fact that they can't talk about their current products, because everybody knows their current products aren't very good,"
Your right about HP an 4200 HD. That's the speed on my Compaq. But I bought the Cpmpaq as a backup for my main PC. Plus I got it for under $700. I did not want to spend any more on a laptop at that time I bought it. Plus I did not want a Centrino. But I do have Turion.
It's amazing how close in price to MA Labs they are (like 3 or 5 $'s a part on average)... since you need a resellers license to place orders at MA Labs... eWiz is as good as it's gonna get for a lot of people.