wich of these¿?

VGN-FE11H Intel Core Duo T2300 a 1,66 GHz
sony vaio

Satellite M40-285 Intel Pentium Centrino M750a 1,86GHz

and second...wich grafic card for my mobile computer...

nvidia geforce go 7400
ati x600SE 128+128

thank you!
5 answers Last reply
More about wich
  1. Neither, Intel is a "follow the leader" company now simply in AMD's shadow.

    Why would you consider buying a 32 bit processor? We all know 64 bit is where everything is going to be.


  2. Don't listen to the AMD fanboy. Intel now is better and will remain that way at least untill the arrival of the turion dual core.
    Get the core due with X600SE provided that you do not game very much.
    Intel is dominating in mobile market with superior products
  3. Well, I don't know what he is basing that statement on. The Turion is derived from the Athlon XP core which has completely dominated the desktop market because of it's performance in the gaming arena mainly, but also due to the fact that with all of its pluses there are essentially no downside to using the chip.

    The Intel Pentium M processors are highly modified Pentium 3's so, I don't see the comparison to a 64 bit 3900+ equivalent processor. I certainly don't see how you can say the Intel chip is "better".
    Pentium M History

    The Pentium M represents a radical departure for Intel, as it is not a low-power version of the desktop-oriented Pentium 4, but instead a heavily modified version of the Pentium III Tualatin design (itself based on the Pentium Pro core design). It is optimised for power efficiency, a vital characteristic for extending notebook computer battery life. Running with very low average power consumption and much lower heat output than desktop processors, the Pentium M runs at a lower clock speed than the contemporary Pentium 4 desktop processor series, but with similar performance (e.g. a 1.6 GHz Pentium M can typically attain the performance of a 2.4 GHz Northwood Pentium 4 (400 MHz FSB, 100 MHz quad-pumped) with no Hyper-Threading Technology).

    So, that coupled with the fact it is not 64 bit, and we are going to be using 64 bit software in the very near future, I simply don't see how buying a 32 bit system makes any sense whatsoever. What are all these guys that are buying dual core 32 bit systems going to do when they can't run the software?

    A 1.6 Ghz dual core is no match for a 2.2 GHz 64 bit 3900+ desktop equivalent, which is going to last you LONGER than 2 - 3 years so why burn yourself and NOT be able to run the upcoming programs?

    Software needs to be written to utilize dual core processors, as of right now this second core isn't even being utilized, so we are back to the fact that for MOST applications the Turion is going to whip up on the Intel system like a rented mule.

    If Intel truely were "better" than AMD they would have released a 64 bit processor 3 years ago like AMD, they wouldn't have had to copy AMD's 64 bit code set History of EM64T, they would have a 64 bit notebook processor, and would be able to pump the fsb of their systems past 667 MHz to compete more closely with AMD 1,600 MHz fsb.

    I fail to see how Intel is "better" in any way, or why you would want to invest in 32 bit architecture, but to each his own. I am an AMD fan because they warrant it, not because I have some blind faith instilled by a mega-gargantuan marketing program I am being force fed by Intel.


  4. I'm generally an AMD fan, because simply "money and performance talk". I think of AMD/INTEL as the Ford/Chevy of CPU's. You will find someone that is on the INTEL side and someone is on the AMD side.

    I tend to make my own computers because I can put what I want in them and save a bundle over pre-configured or even configurable systems from any vendor.

    My job entails fixing highly expensive equipment at a MAJOR semiconductor company, so I tend to want to have stable and reliable parts for anything that I buy. This mentality is something that I've learned over the years.

    I currently have several different computers from both sides. My biggest problem that I've had w/Intel is that there performace to price has always been on the high side compared to AMD. I always tried to configure an equivalent Intel system with an AMD system and always end up with the AMD coming out on top.

    My latest Intel CPU is a P4 3.2Ghz Prescott (got really cheap). I have blown 2 P.S. with this chip, because it generates soo much heat. It's performance isn't too bad, but I know that if I had the equivalent AMD system, it would run ALOT cooler. I had to upgrade my PS from a 400w to a 450w, just so I could stay running while burning a DVD. I also purchased a Zalman all copper cooler to help cool things down.

    So here are a few questions that you might want to consider.
    1) Do you prefer Intel/AMD?
    2) Do you want newer or older technology?
    3) How much $ do you want to spend on this newer system?
    4) Laptops have trade off's when it comes to size and performance, so what are you really looking to do with this laptop purchase?

    - If the laptop is basically for gaming and higher end apps, and your not worried about the weight, then I would definately look into the 17" screens (if your budget can handle it).
    - I personally think that the 15.4" screens are plently enough for both gaming and portability, so you'll have to make the call.
    - I would be hard pressed to pick between the 2 types of systems. They both have there pro's and con's. AMD 64 bit (future OS upgradibility), Intel Duo core (although 32 bit, still good for a few years maybe).
    - I don't know, I think alot of it comes down to how much you want to spend and for what you want to do with the laptop.

    I personally am waiting for the ATI x1600 mobile chips to come out before I would make any decisions, but that is me (since I generally like ATI over nVidia).

    My 2 cents
  5. KillerNotebooks will be releasing the x1600 256 MBsoon, and it should really tip the scale in terms of 'bang for your buck'.

    The BASE system will include the 7,200 rpm hard drive the 108 MBps a/b/g/G+ and 256 MB x1600 TruBrite screen 1690 x1050 all at about 6 1/2 pounds.

    I am looking for input from people on offering a cardbus SATA and SATA external drive solution.

    Could you let me know if you think this is something you would be interested in when you bought a notebook, and if so if you would want the external enclosure to have USB 2.0 and SATA for a little extra, or if SATA only on the enclosure would be fine.

    The cost of this would be about $200 for:
    250 gig drive
    External enclosue
    SATA cardbus solution.
Ask a new question

Read More