Which processor?

[DMB14]

I'm getting a laptop, and I'm having trouble deciding what to go with. How do these processors compare? Which will give me longer battery life?
-AMD Athlon XP-M 2800+ (1.8 Ghz)
-Intel Celeron M 2.8 Ghz

Everyone says Celeron sucks and many people prefer AMD over Intel, but the Celeron is clocked a whole 1000Mhz faster.

 

[Charlie7940]

I would go with the AMD XP2800...i myself used to have one and I was happy with it.

 

[Kboy]

Everyone says Celeron sucks and many people prefer AMD over Intel, but the Celeron is clocked a whole 1000Mhz faster.

Remember, clock speed isn't everything. My old 1.6Ghz P4 used to outperform my 2.0Ghz Celeron processor hands down. I don't really know the exact reason for this, but I'm sure someone here does. Anyway, Celerons do suck in my experience. My dad has one in his Dell laptop, and I hate it. It's a 2.4Ghz Celeron, but it's a lot slower than the 2.0Ghz P4 in my PC.

Personally, I'd go with the AMD.

 

[Cromewell]

Like everyone else I'd say go with the Athlon but its a tough call, things change in the mobile market. I'd expect the celeron to give more battery life, especially if the laptop has centrino technology (almost guranteed on any intel lappy built within the last few years).

It's a 2.4Ghz Celeron, but it's a lot slower than the 2.0Ghz P4 in my PC.

In a laptop the CPU clocks way down when not required and laptops in general aren't directly comparable to desktops. The reason Celerons "suck" is because they are P4s with a slower FSB and less cache.

 

[DMB14]

The AMD 64 3000+ is good, right? A 64-bit processor would be nice so the laptop could last me a long time.

 

[Praetor]

I'd expect the celeron to give more battery life, especially if the laptop has centrino technology (almost guranteed on any intel lappy built within the last few years).

Arent Centrino's paired with Pentium-Ms only?

The AMD 64 3000+ is good, right? A 64-bit processor would be nice so the laptop could last me a long time.

If you mean "long time" as in "wont go obsolete" than yes; if you mean battery life, no

 

[Cromewell]

Arent Centrino's paired with Pentium-Ms only?

I probably should ahve looked it up earlier, but yes according to Intel it's supposed to be with the Pentium-M only but I also read that they were planning on pairing it with the Celeron-Ms as well.

 

[691175002]

Clocks don't mean anything as an athlon 64 at 2ghz can tie or beat a 3ghz pentium 4. I have heard that pentium m's are really good but in between a celeron and athlon xp-m I would go amd.

 

[Cromewell]

Clocks don't mean anything as an athlon 64 at 2ghz can tie or beat a 3ghz pentium 4

Except this isn't a 2GHz Athlon 64 vs a 3GHz Pentium. Its a slightly tagged down P4-M vs an AthlonXP-M. While I don't necessarily disagree that he should take the AthlonXP-M your reasoning is slightly flawed.

 

[DMB14]

Arent Centrino's paired with Pentium-Ms only?


If you mean "long time" as in "wont go obsolete" than yes; if you mean battery life, no

I mean "won't go obsolete." I actually decided against the AMD Athlon 64. See, it was in a laptop that I was going to buy, but it was reconditioned with no original packaging, restore CD, scratches, possible cracked hinges, etc. Instead, I bought a Dell Inspiron 6000 (excuse me, all you Dell haters out there) with an Intel Celeron M processor at 1.3 Ghz (ouch! what was I thinking?). I don't need the 64-bit processor, and I won't for a while.

 

[691175002]

Except this isn't a 2GHz Athlon 64 vs a 3GHz Pentium. Its a slightly tagged down P4-M vs an AthlonXP-M. While I don't necessarily disagree that he should take the AthlonXP-M your reasoning is slightly flawed.

It was a comparison. The point was that clocks dont mean anything, not that athlon 64's were better that pentiums.

 

[Praetor]

excuse me, all you Dell haters out there

Nothing particularly wrong with a dell machine per se. It functions and gets the job done. BUt then again I give credit to "the means" rather than just "the ends". (assuming of course that I would give Dell credit for "the ends"). But fro the price of a well-rounded Dell machine you could do better elsewhere -- dont get me wrong usually Dell machines pack very good processors for their price bracket -- but thats it -- and processors dont define whether a system is good or not -- not all on their own they dont

I don't need the 64-bit processor, and I won't for a while.

Thats not the [real] selling point of the AMD64. Its the on-die memory controller

It was a comparison. The point was that clocks dont mean anything, not that athlon 64's were better that pentiums.

Indeed but his point was that the comparison is non-applicable

 

[691175002]

It was a comparison. The point was that clocks dont mean anything, not that athlon 64's were better that pentiums.

Indeed but his point was that the comparison is non-applicable

This could go on forever...

But to keep it going , how is the comparision non-applicable if the point was that clocks are meaningless.

 

[Praetor]

how is the comparision non-applicable if the point was that clocks are meaningless.

1. I know a 13 year old. He's a moron.
2. You're 13.
3. You're a moron.
Does the comparison stand? (i would hope the answer to be no)

 

[Cromewell]

because you compared an athlon 64 to a pentium 4. This is basically an athlonXP-M vs Pentium4-M, they are completely different chips. All you have done is shown that clock speed means nothing for desktops, as I said this is the laptop world, things are different

 

[Praetor]

Your first comment,

Clocks don't mean anything as an athlon 64 at 2ghz can tie or beat a 3ghz pentium 4.

Comes quite out of the blue and while I do see where you are coming from, Cromwell is correct to point out that

Except this isn't a 2GHz Athlon 64 vs a 3GHz Pentium.

Because, according to your logic, one should purchase a Athlon700 over a Prescott 3.2GHz "because clocks dont matter"

how is the comparision non-applicable if the point was that clocks are meaningless.

Your to answer your question,
1. Consider my 'comparison' of the 13 year old

2. If you really wanna get semantic, what you said, expressed in basic logic was isFaster(2GHzAMD64, 3GHzPentium4) => clockspeedNotImportant which by itself is logically fine (albeit technically unfounded as common sense would dictate) however you then attempt to draw a relation, clockspeedNotImportant => isFaster(1.8GHzAthlonXPM, 2.8GhzCeleronM) which now written plainly out, is plain silly.

3. From a technical standpoint you are partially correct in your statement "clocks are meaningless" however only partially and its mostly incorrect: (a) if clock speeds are meaningless there should not be a performance difference between a FX53 and a FX55 or between P4C-2.4 and P4C-3.4 and we know both such statements are flawed. (b) if we do a cross-class and cross-platform comaprison (which is what you've tried to do), you are slightly correct in your implied (but not explicitly noted) point that clock cycles do not make or break a processor however in that case, i'll point out that they do matter -- otherwise they wouldnt bother listing the clock speeds (c) if clock speeds didnt matter then there is no reason to reccomend the AMD chip over the Intel chip -- yes I do know of reasons -- for reccomending either way -- but note that you didnt provide anything other than a flawed implication

So indeed, Cromwell was correct in noting that

All you have done is shown that clock speed means nothing for desktops, as I said this is the laptop world, things are different

 

[691175002]

Ok... Then clock speed does not mean everything... You win.
but:

Because, according to your logic, one should purchase a Athlon700 over a Prescott 3.2GHz "because clocks dont matter"

I think you are pushing my logic a little as I never said anything like : one should purchase a Athlon700 over a Prescott 3.2GHz

And bringing age into this is a little cheap as I read enough to get a good idea of how things work and we do have 5 computers in our house... (1 home laptop, one work laptop, my computer, sisters computer and 1 parent computer).

Finally my comments were not ment to rip someone apart. Just to show that clocks are not everything.

 

[Praetor]

Ok... Then clock speed does not mean everything... You win.

Not me .. Cromewell mentioned it

I think you are pushing my logic a little as I never said anything like : one should purchase a Athlon700 over a Prescott 3.2GH

No you didnt however if the logic works than it works.....

And bringing age into this is a little cheap as I read enough to get a good idea of how things work and we do have 5 computers in our house... (1 home laptop, one work laptop, my computer, sisters computer and 1 parent computer).

Ages is inconsequential. It was there to show you how flawed a comparison can be (hence i noted that the answer should be 'np')

Just to show that clocks are not everything.

Absolutely and i agree whole heartedly (as does Cromwell) however like he notes, attempting to draw a link betwen a desktop proc and a mobile proc is difficult at best