New Laptop

[Guest]

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

I am considering the purchase of my first laptop. I have had desktop
Pc's for many years but no Laptops. I am confused with the current
speeds. I have seen Toshiba laptops with 1.3gh mobile celerons and
ones with 2.4gh celerons. Similar with pentium cpus.

Can anyone tell me the relationship between the speeds shown. Surely
the mobile version is not half the speed of the other or have I got it
wrong.

Are the mobile Cpus that effecient that the slower speed is similar in
grunt to the normal speed cpu or does the mobile chip just use less
power which justifies the slower speed.

Thanks for any advice

D T

 

[Guest]

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

D.T <dtope@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Can anyone tell me the relationship between the speeds shown. Surely

None. Cpu speed does not usually mean much to you, unless your needs
are very particular (such as motion picture editing ..). 99.9% of the
time the cpu is idling at 1% use, filling up its time executing "halt"
machine instructions while you think about which letter of the alphabet
to type next.

For a portable, people usually want the slowest cpu, since they do not
want it using up their precious battery. I run my 1.13GHz P3 at about
731.5MHz, for example.

"Mobile" cpus are able to adjust their speeds and switch off parts of
the chip when not in use, millisecond to millisecond, thus saving about
75% of the power compared to a non-mobile chip.

Cpu speed is only "top speed", which you hardly ever need or want. It
would make your portable red-hot on your lap, burn up battery, melt your
mobo, and make the fans buzz like an aeroplane and drive you crazy.

Disk speed is usually much more limiting than cpu. And to combat that
one uses lots of RAM, so that disk can be cached and buffered in it. But
one doesn't want too much ram as that uses up power too! Nor does one
usually want high speed disks as they make noise - though they are
energy efficient. (But I suspect that spin-up/spin-down is worse with
them).

> the mobile version is not half the speed of the other or have I got it
> wrong.

You have essentially got it wrong. What do you mean by "speed"? How
fast it executes your program or how many machine instructions it
executes per cycle, or how many cycles per second? And how fast does it
read from memory? In other words, the basic clock speed of the cpu does
not compare directly from one model of cpu to another. Mobile CPU's are
likely to have intelligent optimization logic in their chip to enable
them to run much of a program per clock cycle that non-mobile P4s (but
intel will be abandoning the P4 theory of fast- -but-stupid, thank
goodness).

> Are the mobile Cpus that effecient that the slower speed is similar in
> grunt to the normal speed cpu or does the mobile chip just use less
> power which justifies the slower speed.

Both, probably. And why do you care?

Peter

 

[papa]

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

Forget the Celerons. Go with at least a Pentium 4 running in excess of 2
GHZ.

"D.T" <dtope@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:tr2pg01d3m3r9bghdo8i66bnk52h4c5s2u@4ax.com...
> I am considering the purchase of my first laptop. I have had desktop
> Pc's for many years but no Laptops. I am confused with the current
> speeds. I have seen Toshiba laptops with 1.3gh mobile celerons and
> ones with 2.4gh celerons. Similar with pentium cpus.
>
> Can anyone tell me the relationship between the speeds shown. Surely
> the mobile version is not half the speed of the other or have I got it
> wrong.
>
> Are the mobile Cpus that effecient that the slower speed is similar in
> grunt to the normal speed cpu or does the mobile chip just use less
> power which justifies the slower speed.
>
> Thanks for any advice
>
> D T

 

[ME]

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

D.T <dtope@hotmail.com> wrote:

> I am considering the purchase of my first laptop. I have had desktop
>Pc's for many years but no Laptops. I am confused with the current
>speeds. I have seen Toshiba laptops with 1.3gh mobile celerons and
>ones with 2.4gh celerons. Similar with pentium cpus.
>
>Can anyone tell me the relationship between the speeds shown. Surely
>the mobile version is not half the speed of the other or have I got it
>wrong.
>
>Are the mobile Cpus that effecient that the slower speed is similar in
>grunt to the normal speed cpu or does the mobile chip just use less
>power which justifies the slower speed.
>
>Thanks for any advice
>
>D T

The new Pentium M mobile CPUs use different architecture to the Pentium 4
CPus so can do the same at much slower clock speeds.

Same concept as an Athlon CPU doing the same as an Intel P4 CPU though
running at a much slower Clock speed

Ignore the clock speed, what do you want ? If it is long battery life get a
Pentium M CPU (usually 1.3,1.6 or 1.8) in something from Toshiba or IBM. If
it is labelled Centrino it means that it includes a Wireless adapter as
well.

Hope this helps

Andy

 

[k]

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

"Papa" <bikingis@my.fun> wrote in message
news:0S8Pc.5324$cK.144@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> Forget the Celerons. Go with at least a Pentium 4 running in excess of 2
> GHZ.
>

As someone who has previously owned a notebook with a P4 desktop chip, all I
can say is avoid if you can. They run far too hot and battery life is poor,
you'll need asbestos pants if you want to put the thing on your lap. The P4
Mobile chips are a little better but not much. Personally I would go for
Pentium M (Centrino) or Athlon 64.

K

 

[Guest]

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

"K" <"kayjaybee"@clara.net> wrote in message
news:1091381010.28527.0@echo.uk.clara.net...
>
> "Papa" <bikingis@my.fun> wrote in message
> news:0S8Pc.5324$cK.144@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> > Forget the Celerons. Go with at least a Pentium 4 running in excess of 2
> > GHZ.
> >
>
> As someone who has previously owned a notebook with a P4 desktop chip, all
I
> can say is avoid if you can. They run far too hot and battery life is
poor,
> you'll need asbestos pants if you want to put the thing on your lap.

You owned a bad laptop then. I have a P4-M laptop and the thing never even
gets warm.

All CPU's generate heat. It's up to the heatsink, fan and case of the
laptop to direct that heat away from you. A well-designed laptop will blow
the heat out the back or the side of the laptop before it gets to the
outside of the case or your legs. I've had my CPU pegged at 100% for more
than 12 hours at a time (rendering out large video files) and the outside of
the case is not even above room temperature.

The P4
> Mobile chips are a little better but not much. Personally I would go for
> Pentium M (Centrino) or Athlon 64.

An Athlon 64 generates more heat than a P4-M!

Regardless, if I were buying a new laptop these days I would also recommend
a Centrino. Mainly because of battery life, though. But there's still a
cost advantage in buying a P4-M, so it depends where your priorities are.

I'm just pointing out that all CPUs generate heat, but conversely all CPUs
can be cooled effectively. You can't blame a CPU for the fact that a laptop
gets hot. A laptop gets hot because the manufacturer of the laptop didn't
design a very good case for it; not because of the CPU.

 

[Guest]

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

Papa <bikingis@my.fun> wrote:
> Forget the Celerons. Go with at least a Pentium 4 running in excess of 2
> GHZ.

Forget the Pentium 4. Go with at least a Mobile Celeron Pentium 3.


Peter

 

[k]

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

"Jeff Williams" <basscadet75@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:8bcPc.22329$iK.3994@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...

>
> You owned a bad laptop then. I have a P4-M laptop and the thing never
even
> gets warm.
>
> All CPU's generate heat. It's up to the heatsink, fan and case of the
> laptop to direct that heat away from you. A well-designed laptop will
blow
> the heat out the back or the side of the laptop before it gets to the
> outside of the case or your legs. I've had my CPU pegged at 100% for more
> than 12 hours at a time (rendering out large video files) and the outside
of
> the case is not even above room temperature.

Yup, I suppose the cooling setup would make the difference. The trade offs
will be bulk and noise. P4 Desktop chips simply run too hot and cannot be
used in thin and light notebooks. They also tend to need a fast fan to get
rid of the heat which in turn means more noise. As for P4-Ms, maybe most
that I've seen have used small heatsinks with fast fans to get rid of the
heat. Larger heatsinks mean they can get away with slower and quieter fans.

> The P4
> > Mobile chips are a little better but not much. Personally I would go for
> > Pentium M (Centrino) or Athlon 64.
>
> An Athlon 64 generates more heat than a P4-M!

Not the mobile versions, they have PowerNow which throttles the chip down to
800MHz when idle. They are the next best thing to Pentium M (Centrino).

> Regardless, if I were buying a new laptop these days I would also
recommend
> a Centrino. Mainly because of battery life, though. But there's still a
> cost advantage in buying a P4-M, so it depends where your priorities are.

Yes, Centrino is the best for low heat output and high battery life. That's
why I'm purchasing 13 of them for the staff at work.

> I'm just pointing out that all CPUs generate heat, but conversely all CPUs
> can be cooled effectively. You can't blame a CPU for the fact that a
laptop
> gets hot. A laptop gets hot because the manufacturer of the laptop didn't

> design a very good case for it; not because of the CPU.
>

K

 

[Guest]

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

"D.T" <dtope@hotmail.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:tr2pg01d3m3r9bghdo8i66bnk52h4c5s2u@4ax.com...
> I am considering the purchase of my first laptop. I have had desktop
> Pc's for many years but no Laptops. I am confused with the current
> speeds. I have seen Toshiba laptops with 1.3gh mobile celerons and
> ones with 2.4gh celerons. Similar with pentium cpus.

Big surprise:

The 1.3 GHz is much faster

Even the 2.6 GHz Celeron is much slower than
a 1 GHz mobile P3 Tualatin from 2001.

The mobile P3 Tualatin has 512 KB Cache and can be seen
as a forefather of the Pentirum-M 1MB Cache and
the Celeron-M 512 KB cache

> Can anyone tell me the relationship between the speeds shown.

http/notebook.pege.org/benchmarks/content-creation-benchmark.htm


> Surely
> the mobile version is not half the speed of the other or have I got it
> wrong.

Since the tested mobile P3 1 GHz had only 256 MB RAM,
the tested Celeron 2.6 GHz had 512 MB RAM,
I would quess the Celeron-M 1.3 GHZ with 512 MB RAM
about twice the speed.


> Are the mobile Cpus that effecient that the slower speed is similar in
> grunt to the normal speed cpu or does the mobile chip just use less
> power which justifies the slower speed.

There is no slower speed.

There is only much less power

This is because the whole P4 line is a fail construction


--
Roland Mösl
http/www.pege.org Clear targets for a confused civilization
http/web-design-suite.com Web Design starts at the search engine

 

[Guest]

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

> Forget the Celerons. Go with at least a Pentium 4 running in excess of 2
> GHZ.

Do not mention this fail constructions of P4
Hot and slow

http/notebook.pege.org/benchmarks/content-creation-benchmark.htm


--
Roland Mösl - http/www.pege.org - http/notebook.pege.org
http/wds-internetwerbung.com Web Design startet an der Suchmaschine

 

[Guest]

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

Computer supply catalogs? That carry notebook accessories and supplies?
Are there any good paper catalogs that come through snail mail?

SK

 

[Guest]

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

On Sun, 1 Aug 2004 22:46:03 +0100, "K" <"kayjaybee"@clara.net> wrote:

>
>"Jeff Williams" <basscadet75@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:8bcPc.22329$iK.3994@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>
>>
>> You owned a bad laptop then. I have a P4-M laptop and the thing never
>even
>> gets warm.
>>
>> All CPU's generate heat. It's up to the heatsink, fan and case of the
>> laptop to direct that heat away from you. A well-designed laptop will
>blow
>> the heat out the back or the side of the laptop before it gets to the
>> outside of the case or your legs. I've had my CPU pegged at 100% for more
>> than 12 hours at a time (rendering out large video files) and the outside
>of
>> the case is not even above room temperature.
>
>Yup, I suppose the cooling setup would make the difference. The trade offs
>will be bulk and noise. P4 Desktop chips simply run too hot and cannot be
>used in thin and light notebooks. They also tend to need a fast fan to get
>rid of the heat which in turn means more noise. As for P4-Ms, maybe most
>that I've seen have used small heatsinks with fast fans to get rid of the
>heat. Larger heatsinks mean they can get away with slower and quieter fans.
>
>> The P4
>> > Mobile chips are a little better but not much. Personally I would go for
>> > Pentium M (Centrino) or Athlon 64.
>>
>> An Athlon 64 generates more heat than a P4-M!
>
>Not the mobile versions, they have PowerNow which throttles the chip down to
>800MHz when idle. They are the next best thing to Pentium M (Centrino).
>
>> Regardless, if I were buying a new laptop these days I would also
>recommend
>> a Centrino. Mainly because of battery life, though. But there's still a
>> cost advantage in buying a P4-M, so it depends where your priorities are.
>
>Yes, Centrino is the best for low heat output and high battery life. That's
>why I'm purchasing 13 of them for the staff at work.
>
>> I'm just pointing out that all CPUs generate heat, but conversely all CPUs
>> can be cooled effectively. You can't blame a CPU for the fact that a
>laptop
>> gets hot. A laptop gets hot because the manufacturer of the laptop didn't
>
>> design a very good case for it; not because of the CPU.
>>
>
>K
>
Thanks everyone for your advice. I think that I now understand a bit
better. The main reason for a laptop is to use it when I start Kidney
dialisis. Its a bit hard to take a desktop

DT

 

[papa]

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

Wrong. I have P4s on 3 different laptops (Dell, HP, Gateway).

Warm? Yes.
Hot? No.
Slow? Absolutely not.
Failures? None.

 

[Guest]

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

"Papa" <bikingis@my.fun> wrote in message
news:0S8Pc.5324$cK.144@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> Forget the Celerons. Go with at least a Pentium 4 running in excess of 2
> GHZ.
>
Why 2 GHz? You cannot see any difference in any application (Except some
games). Memory plays more a part but only if you have many applications
open at once. Most people do not have any more than 2 or 3 max open at
once. I can get better value from a PII 400 MHz for every application
except some bang-bang shoot-em up games. If you surf the web, do word
processing, even do GIS and CAD stuff, 400 MHz works fine. Heck even
playing a DVD with a software player works at 400 MHz. Anything else is
bragging rights.

 

[papa]

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

A 400 MHZ Pentium II is a very marginal system these days. Even the office
software is becoming much more "audio-visual" oriented.

 

[Guest]

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

"Papa" <bikingis@my.fun> wrote in message
news:TpzPc.6959$9Y6.1395@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> A 400 MHZ Pentium II is a very marginal system these days. Even the office
> software is becoming much more "audio-visual" oriented.
>
>
Papa:

As I said, I DO do GIS (Arcview) and CAD (Microstation) on a 400 MHz in a
production environment, for a large City Government. It works very quickly.
I compare it with current desktop machines and there is no noticeable
difference in performance. (The network slows down the GIS quite nicely by
itself.) As to office applications. Word processors, spreadsheets, small
databases app's, Email, and Web access, there is no qualitative difference
to the user. (Yes, the specs say there is, but take a look at the times and
you will notice that they are in the 10th's of seconds in difference.
Totally un-noticeable to the user in a day to day application.) I guess we
have to agree to disagree on this one.

 

[papa]

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

Yes, we have to disagree. My opinion is based on experience, not conjecture.

 

[Guest]

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

While your point that everyone doesn't need the "latest and greatest" is
valid, 400 MHz is unacceptably low performance for today's software
environemnt. My wife, a public school teacher, has a Toshiba 2805-S503
laptop. This was a "mid-to-high end" model with 256 megs of RAM and a
900 MHz Pentium 3, and it's becoming objectionably slow (compared to
3GHz systems) for what you call "office" applications -- Word, Excel,
PowerPoint, Adobe Acrobat, web surfing. And it's not a configuration
problem.

That said, this isn't purely a CPU speed issue. My son, a college
student, has a new "budget" laptop, a Celeron 2.8 GHz Toshiba A45, and
it's no speed demon. On the other hand, I'm generally happy with my
18-month old Toshiba 1415 (a Celeron 1.8GHz laptop, but not a "budget"
model).

In any case, however, a 400 MHz system is way too slow for a modern
software environment (including Windows XP).


Richard Johnson wrote:

> "Papa" <bikingis@my.fun> wrote in message
> news:0S8Pc.5324$cK.144@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
>>Forget the Celerons. Go with at least a Pentium 4 running in excess of 2
>>GHZ.
>>
>
> Why 2 GHz? You cannot see any difference in any application (Except some
> games). Memory plays more a part but only if you have many applications
> open at once. Most people do not have any more than 2 or 3 max open at
> once. I can get better value from a PII 400 MHz for every application
> except some bang-bang shoot-em up games. If you surf the web, do word
> processing, even do GIS and CAD stuff, 400 MHz works fine. Heck even
> playing a DVD with a software player works at 400 MHz. Anything else is
> bragging rights.
>
>
>

 

[Guest]

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

On Tue, 3 Aug 2004 05:31:38 +0200, ptb@oboe.it.uc3m.es (P.T.
Breuer) wrote:

snip
>
>Such "folks" should know better and instead do their galactic evolution
>calculations on the ibm mainframe, using their portable as the viewport,
>as $DEITY intended.
>
>Peter

$PC $DEITY ?

Regards