Of cache and graphic card, a quiz

[Gilbert]

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

Considering only two features: cache and graphic card, which one of the
following laptops would you say is superior and why? Thank you for your
input.



Laptop A: 512 KB on-die L2 cache

ATI MOBILITY™ RADEON™ 9600 with 64 MB of dedicated video memory SXGA+ TFT
LCD



Laptop B: 1MB L2 Cache

ATI M9-CSP32 with 32MB DDR SDRAM SXGA+ IPS

 

[Guest]

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

No hard and fast rules -- it
all depends on your workload.

However, in the absence of
additional information, I
would get the larger cache
since that benefits most
applications.

The faster/larger video
only benefits games and
other intensive graphics
applications.



dk



"Gilbert" <fr2@rogers.com> wrote in message
news:Zuiec.7$jKO.1@news04.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
> Considering only two features: cache and graphic card, which one of the
> following laptops would you say is superior and why? Thank you for your
> input.
>
> Laptop A: 512 KB on-die L2 cache
>
> ATI MOBILITY™ RADEON™ 9600 with 64 MB of dedicated video memory SXGA+ TFT
> LCD
>
> Laptop B: 1MB L2 Cache
>
> ATI M9-CSP32 with 32MB DDR SDRAM SXGA+ IPS
>
>

 

[Guest]

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

I would go with the larger 1mb cache hands down. I have been using a T40 for
a few months now and it rockets through anything I throw at it.
good luck.
Marion
"Dan Koren" <dankoren@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:4079c003@news.meer.net...
>
>
> No hard and fast rules -- it
> all depends on your workload.
>
> However, in the absence of
> additional information, I
> would get the larger cache
> since that benefits most
> applications.
>
> The faster/larger video
> only benefits games and
> other intensive graphics
> applications.
>
>
>
> dk
>
>
>
> "Gilbert" <fr2@rogers.com> wrote in message
> news:Zuiec.7$jKO.1@news04.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
> > Considering only two features: cache and graphic card, which one of the
> > following laptops would you say is superior and why? Thank you for your
> > input.
> >
> > Laptop A: 512 KB on-die L2 cache
> >
> > ATI MOBILITYT RADEONT 9600 with 64 MB of dedicated video memory SXGA+
TFT
> > LCD
> >
> > Laptop B: 1MB L2 Cache
> >
> > ATI M9-CSP32 with 32MB DDR SDRAM SXGA+ IPS
> >
> >
>
>

 

[Guest]

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

Looking at just the cache and graphics card isn't much good for rating how
good a laptop is.

If you want speed, go with the 512KB/9600, since it's probably a P4, but
don't expect superb battery life.
If you want mobility and battery life, go with the 1MB/M9, since that's
almost certainly a Pentium M chip, although it definitely has the poorer
graphics of the two since the M9 is equivalent to a Radeon 9000.

"Gilbert" <fr2@rogers.com> wrote in message
news:Zuiec.7$jKO.1@news04.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
> Considering only two features: cache and graphic card, which one of the
> following laptops would you say is superior and why? Thank you for your
> input.
>
>
>
> Laptop A: 512 KB on-die L2 cache
>
> ATI MOBILITYT RADEONT 9600 with 64 MB of dedicated video memory SXGA+ TFT
> LCD
>
>
>
> Laptop B: 1MB L2 Cache
>
> ATI M9-CSP32 with 32MB DDR SDRAM SXGA+ IPS
>
>

 

[Gilbert]

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

Thank you Dan, I would not use the laptop for games but mostly for
Photoshop. Do you consider Photoshop an intensive application (processing
large graphic files)? Would it benefit more from the faster/larger video
card of Laptop A or from the larger cache of Laptop B?

G.


"Dan Koren" <dankoren@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:4079c003@news.meer.net...
>
>
> No hard and fast rules -- it
> all depends on your workload.
>
> However, in the absence of
> additional information, I
> would get the larger cache
> since that benefits most
> applications.
>
> The faster/larger video
> only benefits games and
> other intensive graphics
> applications.
>
>
>
> dk
>
>
>
> "Gilbert" <fr2@rogers.com> wrote in message
> news:Zuiec.7$jKO.1@news04.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
> > Considering only two features: cache and graphic card, which one of the
> > following laptops would you say is superior and why? Thank you for your
> > input.
> >
> > Laptop A: 512 KB on-die L2 cache
> >
> > ATI MOBILITYT RADEONT 9600 with 64 MB of dedicated video memory SXGA+
TFT
> > LCD
> >
> > Laptop B: 1MB L2 Cache
> >
> > ATI M9-CSP32 with 32MB DDR SDRAM SXGA+ IPS
> >
> >
>
>

 

[Guest]

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

Photoshop is not really all that graphics-intensive (in the sense of
requiring the latest graphics card), it would probably benefit from the
larger cache. On the other hand, if you're dealing with 3-D games or other
advanced 3-D applications, the extra graphics memory could be critical.
There are some 3-D rendering programs that would show HUGE differences.


"Gilbert" <fr2@rogers.com> wrote in message
news:ONnec.1172$jKO.755@news04.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
> Thank you Dan, I would not use the laptop for games but mostly for
> Photoshop. Do you consider Photoshop an intensive application (processing
> large graphic files)? Would it benefit more from the faster/larger video
> card of Laptop A or from the larger cache of Laptop B?
>
> G.
>
>
> "Dan Koren" <dankoren@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:4079c003@news.meer.net...
> >
> >
> > No hard and fast rules -- it
> > all depends on your workload.
> >
> > However, in the absence of
> > additional information, I
> > would get the larger cache
> > since that benefits most
> > applications.
> >
> > The faster/larger video
> > only benefits games and
> > other intensive graphics
> > applications.
> >
> >
> >
> > dk
> >
> >
> >
> > "Gilbert" <fr2@rogers.com> wrote in message
> > news:Zuiec.7$jKO.1@news04.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
> > > Considering only two features: cache and graphic card, which one of
the
> > > following laptops would you say is superior and why? Thank you for
your
> > > input.
> > >
> > > Laptop A: 512 KB on-die L2 cache
> > >
> > > ATI MOBILITYT RADEONT 9600 with 64 MB of dedicated video memory SXGA+
> TFT
> > > LCD
> > >
> > > Laptop B: 1MB L2 Cache
> > >
> > > ATI M9-CSP32 with 32MB DDR SDRAM SXGA+ IPS
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>

 

[Guest]

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

AFAIK Photoshop does color picture
processing on the data in picture
files. It would certainly benefit
from the larger L2 cache. I don't
think it uses any 3D graphics, so
the faster video chip is irrelevant.

But wait until next month and you
can buy a Dothan notebook with a
2 MB on-chip cache! ;-)


dk


"Gilbert" <fr2@rogers.com> wrote in message
news:ONnec.1172$jKO.755@news04.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
> Thank you Dan, I would not use the laptop for games but mostly for
> Photoshop. Do you consider Photoshop an intensive application (processing
> large graphic files)? Would it benefit more from the faster/larger video
> card of Laptop A or from the larger cache of Laptop B?
>
> "Dan Koren" <dankoren@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:4079c003@news.meer.net...
> >
> >
> > No hard and fast rules -- it
> > all depends on your workload.
> >
> > However, in the absence of
> > additional information, I
> > would get the larger cache
> > since that benefits most
> > applications.
> >
> > The faster/larger video
> > only benefits games and
> > other intensive graphics
> > applications.
> >
> > "Gilbert" <fr2@rogers.com> wrote in message
> > news:Zuiec.7$jKO.1@news04.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
> > > Considering only two features: cache and graphic card, which one of
the
> > > following laptops would you say is superior and why? Thank you for
your
> > > input.
> > >
> > > Laptop A: 512 KB on-die L2 cache
> > >
> > > ATI MOBILITYT RADEONT 9600 with 64 MB of dedicated video memory SXGA+
> TFT
> > > LCD
> > >
> > > Laptop B: 1MB L2 Cache
> > >
> > > ATI M9-CSP32 with 32MB DDR SDRAM SXGA+ IPS
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>

 

[Gilbert]

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

Thank you Marion,

Actually, I am looking at the new R51 from IBM (my Laptop B)!

G.

..
"Marion Mckenna" <marion1@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:brKdnSfHcqrcT-Td4p2dnA@comcast.com...
> I would go with the larger 1mb cache hands down. I have been using a T40
for
> a few months now and it rockets through anything I throw at it.
> good luck.
> Marion
> "Dan Koren" <dankoren@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:4079c003@news.meer.net...
> >
> >
> > No hard and fast rules -- it
> > all depends on your workload.
> >
> > However, in the absence of
> > additional information, I
> > would get the larger cache
> > since that benefits most
> > applications.
> >
> > The faster/larger video
> > only benefits games and
> > other intensive graphics
> > applications.
> >
> >
> >
> > dk
> >
> >
> >
> > "Gilbert" <fr2@rogers.com> wrote in message
> > news:Zuiec.7$jKO.1@news04.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
> > > Considering only two features: cache and graphic card, which one of
the
> > > following laptops would you say is superior and why? Thank you for
your
> > > input.
> > >
> > > Laptop A: 512 KB on-die L2 cache
> > >
> > > ATI MOBILITYT RADEONT 9600 with 64 MB of dedicated video memory SXGA+
> TFT
> > > LCD
> > >
> > > Laptop B: 1MB L2 Cache
> > >
> > > ATI M9-CSP32 with 32MB DDR SDRAM SXGA+ IPS
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>

 

[Gilbert]

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

From the input I got, it seems that Laptop B with the larger cache would
suit me better.

Waiting for a Dothan notebook, eh? Playing the waiting game! ;-))

G.



"Dan Koren" <dankoren@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:407a0d92$1@news.meer.net...
>
> AFAIK Photoshop does color picture
> processing on the data in picture
> files. It would certainly benefit
> from the larger L2 cache. I don't
> think it uses any 3D graphics, so
> the faster video chip is irrelevant.
>
> But wait until next month and you
> can buy a Dothan notebook with a
> 2 MB on-chip cache! ;-)
>
>
> dk
>
>
> "Gilbert" <fr2@rogers.com> wrote in message
> news:ONnec.1172$jKO.755@news04.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
> > Thank you Dan, I would not use the laptop for games but mostly for
> > Photoshop. Do you consider Photoshop an intensive application
(processing
> > large graphic files)? Would it benefit more from the faster/larger video
> > card of Laptop A or from the larger cache of Laptop B?
> >
> > "Dan Koren" <dankoren@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:4079c003@news.meer.net...
> > >
> > >
> > > No hard and fast rules -- it
> > > all depends on your workload.
> > >
> > > However, in the absence of
> > > additional information, I
> > > would get the larger cache
> > > since that benefits most
> > > applications.
> > >
> > > The faster/larger video
> > > only benefits games and
> > > other intensive graphics
> > > applications.
> > >
> > > "Gilbert" <fr2@rogers.com> wrote in message
> > > news:Zuiec.7$jKO.1@news04.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
> > > > Considering only two features: cache and graphic card, which one of
> the
> > > > following laptops would you say is superior and why? Thank you for
> your
> > > > input.
> > > >
> > > > Laptop A: 512 KB on-die L2 cache
> > > >
> > > > ATI MOBILITYT RADEONT 9600 with 64 MB of dedicated video memory
SXGA+
> > TFT
> > > > LCD
> > > >
> > > > Laptop B: 1MB L2 Cache
> > > >
> > > > ATI M9-CSP32 with 32MB DDR SDRAM SXGA+ IPS
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>

 

[Gilbert]

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

That is correct a Smith.

Laptop A is a P4 3.20 GHz, the Fujitsu N5010C-2:
http/www.fujitsu.ca/products/notebooks/lifebook_n_series/n5010_II/

Laptop B is IBM Thinkpad R51 1.7 GHz:
http/www-132.ibm.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/ProductDisplay?productId=8707136&storeId=124&langId=124&categoryId=2302835&dualCurrId=75&catalogId=-124

You are right: looking at just the cache and the video card is not enough to
decide on a laptop. However, I wanted to proceed by comparing a couple of
features first before taking the others into consideration.

I don't intend to play games on the laptop but I will use it for processing
graphic files in Photoshop. From the feedback I got, it seems that for
Photoshop applications, the ATI M9-CSP32 (Radeon 9000) would be sufficient
and I would not notice any difference by going with the 9600.

Would you say that for my use, the Pentium M/1.7GHz/1MB/M9 might be faster
than the Pentium 4/ 3.20 GHz/512KB/9600?

Thanks,

G.

"a Smith" <voodle@vOIoSPAMoNOdle.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1081729429.23207.0@lotis.uk.clara.net...
> Looking at just the cache and graphics card isn't much good for rating how
> good a laptop is.
>
> If you want speed, go with the 512KB/9600, since it's probably a P4, but
> don't expect superb battery life.
> If you want mobility and battery life, go with the 1MB/M9, since that's
> almost certainly a Pentium M chip, although it definitely has the poorer
> graphics of the two since the M9 is equivalent to a Radeon 9000.
>
> "Gilbert" <fr2@rogers.com> wrote in message
> news:Zuiec.7$jKO.1@news04.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
> > Considering only two features: cache and graphic card, which one of the
> > following laptops would you say is superior and why? Thank you for your
> > input.
> >
> >
> >
> > Laptop A: 512 KB on-die L2 cache
> >
> > ATI MOBILITYT RADEONT 9600 with 64 MB of dedicated video memory SXGA+
TFT
> > LCD
> >
> >
> >
> > Laptop B: 1MB L2 Cache
> >
> > ATI M9-CSP32 with 32MB DDR SDRAM SXGA+ IPS
> >
> >
>
>

 

[Guest]

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

To answer your question, yes.

Cache size is by far the most
important performance factor
for most applications.

A 2 MB cache driven by a 2 GHz
processor will run circles
around a .5 MB cache driven
by a 3-4 GHz processor.



dk


"Gilbert" <fr2@rogers.com> wrote in message
news:1joec.1559$jKO.263@news04.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
> From the input I got, it seems that Laptop B with the larger cache would
> suit me better.
>
> Waiting for a Dothan notebook, eh? Playing the waiting game! ;-))
>
> G.
>

 

[Guest]

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

Between these two there is no question
the IBM R51 is the better system. You
shouldn't even consider a laptop that
uses a desktop processor.


dk


"Gilbert" <fr2@rogers.com> wrote in message
news:lapec.4$0wT.1@news04.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
> That is correct a Smith.
>
> Laptop A is a P4 3.20 GHz, the Fujitsu N5010C-2:
> http/www.fujitsu.ca/products/notebooks/lifebook_n_series/n5010_II/
>
> Laptop B is IBM Thinkpad R51 1.7 GHz:
>
http/www-132.ibm.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/ProductDisplay?productId=8707136&storeId=124&langId=124&categoryId=2302835&dualCurrId=75&catalogId=-124
>
> You are right: looking at just the cache and the video card is not enough
to
> decide on a laptop. However, I wanted to proceed by comparing a couple of
> features first before taking the others into consideration.
>
> I don't intend to play games on the laptop but I will use it for
processing
> graphic files in Photoshop. From the feedback I got, it seems that for
> Photoshop applications, the ATI M9-CSP32 (Radeon 9000) would be sufficient
> and I would not notice any difference by going with the 9600.
>
> Would you say that for my use, the Pentium M/1.7GHz/1MB/M9 might be faster
> than the Pentium 4/ 3.20 GHz/512KB/9600?
>
> Thanks,
>
> G.
>
> "a Smith" <voodle@vOIoSPAMoNOdle.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:1081729429.23207.0@lotis.uk.clara.net...
> > Looking at just the cache and graphics card isn't much good for rating
how
> > good a laptop is.
> >
> > If you want speed, go with the 512KB/9600, since it's probably a P4, but
> > don't expect superb battery life.
> > If you want mobility and battery life, go with the 1MB/M9, since that's
> > almost certainly a Pentium M chip, although it definitely has the poorer
> > graphics of the two since the M9 is equivalent to a Radeon 9000.
> >
> > "Gilbert" <fr2@rogers.com> wrote in message
> > news:Zuiec.7$jKO.1@news04.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
> > > Considering only two features: cache and graphic card, which one of
the
> > > following laptops would you say is superior and why? Thank you for
your
> > > input.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Laptop A: 512 KB on-die L2 cache
> > >
> > > ATI MOBILITYT RADEONT 9600 with 64 MB of dedicated video memory SXGA+
> TFT
> > > LCD
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Laptop B: 1MB L2 Cache
> > >
> > > ATI M9-CSP32 with 32MB DDR SDRAM SXGA+ IPS
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>

 

[Guest]

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

> There are some 3-D rendering programs that would show HUGE differences.

No '3-D rendering programs' uses graphic card for rendering (rendering meand
generetng final output, it can be imiga or animation), unless it is
dedicated rendering card, but cost of it is really huge (more then on
average laptop) and nobody will instal it in laptop. The only difference can
be in viewport, when you creating your scene, but from my experience, if you
dont have really good one (again it cost a lot) there is not too much
deifference between, let say, standard nVidia or Radeon and software
displayng.

Regards,

K.Polak