Desktop vs Laptops

Ankur

Ankur

Active Member
A local computer pro told me that Desktops are 10% faster than laptops. He told me the reason for this is that the IC's and capacitors of laptops are smaller in size compared to those of desktops. Is this true? :confused:

Recently I thought of upgrading my processor to intel core i7 950,
Referring to the company website i saw the processing frequency supported for desktops is higher than laptops.
Therefore I think Desktops are way better than Laptops.
What do you think?
 
Desktops are faster than laptops. Looking at the capacitors on a L305D Toshiba (laptop) board compared to a G4 Mac (desktop), the desktop defiantly takes the cake on size and capability.
 
A desktop system with a good video card, a Core i7 930 Processor and 4 gigabytes of DDR3 1600 memory has way more processing power (probably more than 200%) than some of the best laptops out there presently. The guy you were talking to likely doesn't have much exposure to what hardware is available in the desktop market. Notebooks sacrifice a lot of processing power because they need to portable and run off a battery.
 
not all laptops are the same, and not all desktops are the same, components differ, and the components used to make those components differ, so a generalisation of "laptops are 10% slower" is rubbish, as it varies, you can get laptops that are more powerful than desktops, and desktops that are more powerful than laptops.

If you are talking spec for spec, so comparable desktop vs comparable laptop, the desktop will win, but you have to remember why that is. You can't fit the power of a desktop into a laptop, because of the power draw, and because of the heat. Laptops aren't like desktops where they can have several large fans, or watercooling, they have, usually, 1 small heatsink for the CPU and GPU with 1 fan, and that is it. Laptops are also meant to be portable, so must have components that can be run off a battery for a decent amount of time, not 20 minutes before they are dead.

With a laptop, you get better portability, but you get less upgrade-ability, and for the price compared to a desktop (generally), less power, but the portability of them is the reason for them being so popular. If you aren't going to be moving about much, or at all, I would say a desktop is better, and will last long with upgrades and such. If you are going to be moving about though, the laptop is the better choice.
 
Going off of what Aastii said, technology has come to the point where even a laptop can pack a punch, but this correlation only works if we're talking about the same line of computers.

For instance, take gaming computers. If you were to compare a gaming desktop PC with an i7, 4 GBs DDR3, and a 5870 and compare that to a laptop with an i7, 4 GBs DDR3, and a mobile 5870, chances are, the desktop will perform better, due to things like better cooling, OC capability, etc. but not a huge drastic difference because the hardware is essentially the same, but laptops have limitations.

But the golden rule is that the majority of laptop users seeks performance based on what they'll use it for. Gamers will invest in gaming laptops because it has the necessary hardware, students/office workers/etc. will invest in mid-range laptops that can handle their internet/word processing/e-mail/music/etc. pretty well without breaking their wallet, and then there are those who invest in high-end laptops (MacBook Pro) because their necessities require a computer that can handle things like graphic/video-editing/etc. but seek a portable version of it.

For the average user, their $500 laptop is probably fast for them, but to the gamer, it's considered very slow. As the saying goes, one man's delicious feast is another man's deadly poison.

With that, you can't really say that a desktop is faster than a laptop because I've experienced first-hand laptops that score higher on 3DMark than some desktops, some laptops boot into Windows faster than desktops, and so on.

It's like saying that cars will always be faster than trucks, but you're comparing like a Chevy Corvette to a Ford Ranger. If that's the case, then how about a Toyota Tundra 5.7L V8 vs. a Chevy Malibu?
 
Last edited:
philaaay said:
Going off of what Aastii said, technology has come to the point where even a laptop can pack a punch, but this correlation only works if we're talking about the same line of computers.

For instance, take gaming computers. If you were to compare a gaming desktop PC with an i7, 4 GBs DDR3, and a 5870 and compare that to a laptop with an i7, 4 GBs DDR3, and a mobile 5870, chances are, the desktop will perform better, due to things like better cooling, OC capability, etc. but not a huge drastic difference because the hardware is essentially the same, but laptops have limitations

With that, you can't really say that a desktop is faster than a laptop because I've experienced first-hand laptops that score higher on 3DMark than some desktops, some laptops boot into Windows faster than desktops, and so on.
Click to expand...

Going by the example you gave, the desktop would perform much, much better, because you have to remember a HD5870, isn't the same as a mobility HD5870, and a core i7, isn't the same as a core i7 mobile. A mobility 5870 is about the same a 5750.

there are indeed laptops more powerful than desktops, but if you look at them equally, like you did, the desktop comes out on top, and generally you will get more power for your money with a desktop. I would still happily take a laptop though if I weren't a gamer for the portability of it
 
Last edited:
Right: my laptop is a larger desktop replacement, and I think it runs on 40W. Versus, oh, 400W for many a desktop?
Now, just because 10x the electricity goes in, doesn't mean you get 10X the performance! But it's one indicator.

In my case, I'm making the switch from laptop to desktop because the laptop just won't keep cool. It performs, but can't perform continuously before getting hot-- and then it stops performing.
A desktop inherently can be kept much cooler, which = performance

But if you need a laptop, what are you going to do?
If you really don't, go with a desktop!
 
Another point no one else has made yet is the cost. To get a laptop that equals a desktop in processing power you are going to pay a lot more money.
 
Russ88765 said:
This laptop is godly but needs penguin status cooling I would imagine. Apparently it can run stuff like i7 980x, dual gtx480's, 12gb 1333ram, and 3 hd's up to 500gb each.
Click to expand...

That's very unusual. How a laptop (even if that one does look chunky) could simply be large enough for all that cooling for the 480 and the i980X (didn't think you could get that for laptops, this one must be HUGE). There is no way you could passive-cool those components, and any HSF would be too small to cool decently. Even if it doesn't die on you, OC'ing is a definate no-no
 
Well i just see here that laptops are a bit modern types of computers but i think its only advantage is portability and small size and ofcourse less wires.
 
Haha I just configured that laptop with the i7 980x, dual 480 GPUs, 3 512 GB SSDs, 12 GBs of RAM, and the BDR/RW drive... costs $9,272...

Who knows, perhaps in a few years from now, that setup will drop in price to around $1,000?

I mean, we've seen how awesome computer graphics are now... how much better can they get that a setup like that can't handle? But then again, when I saw GTA III for the first time on the PS2 back 8 years ago, I thought nothing could get better than that...
 
Just a though here, is cores. I was looking at a sony vaio laptop a while back and it had a 12 core processor in it O.O. I even checked the task manager and counted 12 of those green boxes, but it was only a 1.6GHZ Processor. Also that it ran 2 cores untill it needed more then it would bump up to 4 cores, and so on. I asked about the processing speed and the shop guy said that it really didnt matter because of how many cores was in it. He also said that it was equivilant (SP?) to running 12 1.6GHZ Processors when it was running at full speed. Any of this true?

I havent been into building computers since the P4's so I am kinda out dated. But point being, if this is all true, it would run faster than say a desktop with a 3.0GHZ processor in it right?

I am a little tired running on no sleep, so unless I read the original question wrong and I'm just making an idiot out of myself, that laptop with the right ammount of ram would out preform a desktop.
 
Kitsune said:
I am a little tired running on no sleep, so unless I read the original question wrong and I'm just making an idiot out of myself, that laptop with the right ammount of ram would out preform a desktop.
Click to expand...

You are forgetting about graphics processing power. No laptop can keep up in that department period. Processing power isn't as important as it used to be imo.
 
Kitsune said:
Just a though here, is cores. I was looking at a sony vaio laptop a while back and it had a 12 core processor in it O.O. I even checked the task manager and counted 12 of those green boxes, but it was only a 1.6GHZ Processor. Also that it ran 2 cores untill it needed more then it would bump up to 4 cores, and so on. I asked about the processing speed and the shop guy said that it really didnt matter because of how many cores was in it. He also said that it was equivilant (SP?) to running 12 1.6GHZ Processors when it was running at full speed. Any of this true?

I havent been into building computers since the P4's so I am kinda out dated. But point being, if this is all true, it would run faster than say a desktop with a 3.0GHZ processor in it right?

I am a little tired running on no sleep, so unless I read the original question wrong and I'm just making an idiot out of myself, that laptop with the right ammount of ram would out preform a desktop.
Click to expand...

Cores help, but aren't the only factor. If a program isn't multithreaded, by which I mean it can't utilise more than 1 core, then a higher clocked processor will (generally) be faster. Assume you have 2 processors, on the same architecture with the same instruction set, 1 at 3GHz but dual core, 1 at 2GHz but quad core. You have a single threaded application, so it is only using 1 core. The most calculations that can be done by the quad cores processor is 2 billion per second, the most that can be done by the dual core is 3 billion per second, so the dual core will be quicker.

If you are running several of those programs though, multiple cores will be better, because it is like each program having a dedicated processor (assuming the number of programs < number of cores. If number of programs > number of cores, like a single core CPU, the load will be shared across 1 core), and the same goes for multithreaded applications, which are programs that can utilise more than 1 core.

The Sony Vaio you are on about probably only has 6 cores, rather than 12, and has hyperthreading, or similar, which is an Intel technology which makes 1 cores be seen as 2. It makes multitasking more efficient, but doesn't give the same performance as 2 physical cores.
 
Bacon said:
You are forgetting about graphics processing power. No laptop can keep up in that department period. Processing power isn't as important as it used to be imo.
Click to expand...

True. Graphics never crossed my mind x.x.

Aastii said:
Cores help, but aren't the only factor. If a program isn't multithreaded, by which I mean it can't utilise more than 1 core, then a higher clocked processor will (generally) be faster. Assume you have 2 processors, on the same architecture with the same instruction set, 1 at 3GHz but dual core, 1 at 2GHz but quad core. You have a single threaded application, so it is only using 1 core. The most calculations that can be done by the quad cores processor is 2 billion per second, the most that can be done by the dual core is 3 billion per second, so the dual core will be quicker.

If you are running several of those programs though, multiple cores will be better, because it is like each program having a dedicated processor (assuming the number of programs < number of cores. If number of programs > number of cores, like a single core CPU, the load will be shared across 1 core), and the same goes for multithreaded applications, which are programs that can utilise more than 1 core.

The Sony Vaio you are on about probably only has 6 cores, rather than 12, and has hyperthreading, or similar, which is an Intel technology which makes 1 cores be seen as 2. It makes multitasking more efficient, but doesn't give the same performance as 2 physical cores.
Click to expand...

Hmm. That makes sense :) I learned something new ^_^. Thank you .
 
There are more questions I want to ask, through the statistics while comparing laptops and desktop power and reliability,
1. Comparing my 5 year old Desktop (assembled) with my friend's laptop, in these 5 years my desktop has had no problem and just up-gradation worth 60$, where as his laptop (DELL Studio XPS) purchased in march 2010, has got problems (1. motherboard blow off, 2. Bluetooth failed), its not only with him, but many laptop users, my dad's HP (Touch pad failed), does this mean laptops are delicate? as they use it while travelling, in rough places.
2. Reliability - if we compare laptops and desktops with same specs ( like same cpu, memory, hdd, gpu), which one will have a longer life?
3. Cooling - Its true that cooling is a major issue in laptops, but does cooling affect the performance?

I will also put this post in a new thread, as this current thread has been too old.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top