where can i compare laptop CPUs?

i wonder where can i get any benchmark results for "Intel Mobile
Pentium4-M 2 GHz [400MHz FSB]"
and "Intel® Celeron® M 420 1.6GHz 512MB 60GB [533MHz FSB]" - i wonder
which one is faster? mobile p4 is four? years old, M420 is relatevily
young... so i wonder if mobile p4 is still faster or not?

"arro239" <> wrote in message
news: ps.com...
i wonder where can i get any benchmark results for "Intel Mobile
Pentium4-M 2 GHz [400MHz FSB]"
and "Intel® Celeron® M 420 1.6GHz 512MB 60GB [533MHz FSB]" - i wonder
which one is faster? mobile p4 is four? years old, M420 is relatevily
young... so i wonder if mobile p4 is still faster or not?


Either of those will be vastly outpaced by an AMD Turion X2, and it will be
cheaper, cooler and have a better battery life (with Cool n' Quiet
enabled). In laptops, AMD still has advantages; I wouldn't really consider
any Intel chips in laptops until they resolve the heat and power consumption
issues (and yes, the latest crop of Intel chips still run very hot...)

Honu

"Hertz_Donut" <> wrote in message
news:hfSdnR0IpeV4YvjYnZ2dnUVZ_tadnZ2d@hawaiiantel. net
> "arro239" <> wrote in message
> news: ps.com...
> i wonder where can i get any benchmark results for "Intel Mobile
> Pentium4-M 2 GHz [400MHz FSB]"
> and "Intel® Celeron® M 420 1.6GHz 512MB 60GB [533MHz FSB]" - i wonder
> which one is faster? mobile p4 is four? years old, M420 is relatevily
> young... so i wonder if mobile p4 is still faster or not?
>
>
> Either of those will be vastly outpaced by an AMD Turion X2, and it
> will be cheaper, cooler and have a better battery life (with Cool n'
> Quiet enabled). In laptops, AMD still has advantages; I wouldn't
> really consider any Intel chips in laptops until they resolve the
> heat and power consumption issues (and yes, the latest crop of Intel
> chips still run very hot...)
> Honu

My Gateway MX6124 with an Intel Celeron M 1.5GHZ is the coolest laptop I
have ever owned. Well the 2 from the 80's were cooler, but they don't
count. And they didn't have fans even. lol

--
Bill

"BillW50" <> wrote in message
news:45661cff$0$1343$. com...
> "Hertz_Donut" <> wrote in message
> news:hfSdnR0IpeV4YvjYnZ2dnUVZ_tadnZ2d@hawaiiantel. net
>> "arro239" <> wrote in message
>> news: ps.com...
>> i wonder where can i get any benchmark results for "Intel Mobile
>> Pentium4-M 2 GHz [400MHz FSB]"
>> and "Intel® Celeron® M 420 1.6GHz 512MB 60GB [533MHz FSB]" - i wonder
>> which one is faster? mobile p4 is four? years old, M420 is relatevily
>> young... so i wonder if mobile p4 is still faster or not?
>>
>>
>> Either of those will be vastly outpaced by an AMD Turion X2, and it
>> will be cheaper, cooler and have a better battery life (with Cool n'
>> Quiet enabled). In laptops, AMD still has advantages; I wouldn't
>> really consider any Intel chips in laptops until they resolve the
>> heat and power consumption issues (and yes, the latest crop of Intel
>> chips still run very hot...)
>> Honu
>
> My Gateway MX6124 with an Intel Celeron M 1.5GHZ is the coolest laptop I
> have ever owned. Well the 2 from the 80's were cooler, but they don't
> count. And they didn't have fans even. lol
>
> --
> Bill

I was basing my input on the current model I own...HP dv6045nr with an AMD
Turion64 X2 TL-56. It is much cooler than any other laptop I have owned or
used, including ones that had the older first gen Celerons in them.
Heat was a critical issue in determining which laptop to purchase...and I
cannot say that any of the Intel offerings were "cool". I also like the
fact that the AMD can independently throttle each cores frequency and
voltage...something that Intel cannot do. After researching, it became
apparent that in laptops, AMD is still the way to go. Even when it has been
on several hours, it is barely warm to the touch, and the fan hardly ever
kicks in. On top of it all, after cleaning all the useless crapola that
ships on the unit, it runs extremely fast. I am currently dual booting with
Windows Vista Ultimate 64 bit, and it runs even faster, although there are
still no Vista drivers for the built in video camera and microphones mounted
in the LCD bezel. All in all, a sweet little lappy. An associate bought a
much more expensive Intel based HP (dv9000 series), and his machine is much
slower than mine, even after house cleaning and optimization. His battery
life is also a lot shorter. Makes me appreciate mine even more.

Honu

"Hertz_Donut" <> wrote in message
news:yMidnT7ijtdex_vYnZ2dnUVZ_vudnZ2d@hawaiiantel. net
> "BillW50" <> wrote in message
> news:45661cff$0$1343$. com...
>> "Hertz_Donut" <> wrote in message
>> news:hfSdnR0IpeV4YvjYnZ2dnUVZ_tadnZ2d@hawaiiantel. net
>>> "arro239" <> wrote in message
>>> news: ps.com...
>>> i wonder where can i get any benchmark results for "Intel Mobile
>>> Pentium4-M 2 GHz [400MHz FSB]"
>>> and "Intel® Celeron® M 420 1.6GHz 512MB 60GB [533MHz FSB]" - i
>>> wonder which one is faster? mobile p4 is four? years old, M420 is
>>> relatevily young... so i wonder if mobile p4 is still faster or not?
>>>
>>>
>>> Either of those will be vastly outpaced by an AMD Turion X2, and it
>>> will be cheaper, cooler and have a better battery life (with Cool n'
>>> Quiet enabled). In laptops, AMD still has advantages; I wouldn't
>>> really consider any Intel chips in laptops until they resolve the
>>> heat and power consumption issues (and yes, the latest crop of Intel
>>> chips still run very hot...)
>>> Honu
>>
>> My Gateway MX6124 with an Intel Celeron M 1.5GHZ is the coolest
>> laptop I have ever owned. Well the 2 from the 80's were cooler, but
>> they don't count. And they didn't have fans even. lol
>>
>> --
>> Bill
>
> I was basing my input on the current model I own...HP dv6045nr with
> an AMD Turion64 X2 TL-56. It is much cooler than any other laptop I
> have owned or used, including ones that had the older first gen
> Celerons in them. Heat was a critical issue in determining which
> laptop to
> purchase...and I cannot say that any of the Intel offerings were
> "cool". I also like the fact that the AMD can independently throttle
> each cores frequency and voltage...something that Intel cannot do.
> After researching, it became apparent that in laptops, AMD is still
> the way to go. Even when it has been on several hours, it is barely
> warm to the touch, and the fan hardly ever kicks in. On top of it
> all, after cleaning all the useless crapola that ships on the unit,
> it runs extremely fast. I am currently dual booting with Windows
> Vista Ultimate 64 bit, and it runs even faster, although there are
> still no Vista drivers for the built in video camera and microphones
> mounted in the LCD bezel. All in all, a sweet little lappy. An
> associate bought a much more expensive Intel based HP (dv9000
> series), and his machine is much slower than mine, even after house
> cleaning and optimization. His battery life is also a lot shorter.
> Makes me appreciate mine even more.
> Honu

That is what I am talking about. You can only hear the fan if it is dead
quiet. The laptop doesn't get warm except in one small spot right by the
CPU and that is all. My all early Celeron's really got warm. Not burning
warm, but very warm. And this laptop is on 24/7. It will get warm if I
close the lid (and left running), so I guess the little bit of heat
escapes through the keyboard.

I never owned an AMD laptop, but I had 4 AMD desktops. And every single
one of them had lots of problems with some software. Just today I
installed a task scheduler on 1 of the AMDs and it loads the preferences
and closes and then loads preferences, etc. So the Windows opening and
closing sounds cycles endlessly. Tried safe mode and the same thing. I
have dualboot on this same desktop and the other partition works fine,
thank goodness!

You can keep your AMDs! Nothing but trouble for me. I guess there is
nothing wrong with AMDs directly, just the chipsets that come with them.


You know when you get burned 4 times in a row, it is time to call it
quits! If it also happened with Intel, I would be using a Mac right now.


--
Bill

A good video ( if you have high-speed interent) explaining AMD difference is
http://www.amd.com/us-en/0,,3715_133...l?redir=CPSW52
and click on
" Dual-Core Technology " in right margin.

I know - it's on AMD 's website - but if you know how most pc's work, this shows what makes AMD's cpu different. It all happens inside the chip at "1800 miles per hour" rather than moving the data around between chips at 566 - 800 m.p.h. as Intel does with it's chips.
Keep in mind - that's only for cpu to memory transactions so if you're just browsing the internet and using low cpu/memory applications it might not matter, but if you are doing intense calculations etc ... you will see that " it's all happening a lot quicker" on the AMD chip.

to compare cpus:
http://www.amd.com/us-en/Processors/...30_288,00.html




"Hertz_Donut" <> wrote in message news:hfSdnR0IpeV4YvjYnZ2dnUVZ_tadnZ2d@hawaiiantel. net...
>
> "arro239" <> wrote in message
> news: ps.com...
> i wonder where can i get any benchmark results for "Intel Mobile
> Pentium4-M 2 GHz [400MHz FSB]"
> and "Intel® Celeron® M 420 1.6GHz 512MB 60GB [533MHz FSB]" - i wonder
> which one is faster? mobile p4 is four? years old, M420 is relatevily
> young... so i wonder if mobile p4 is still faster or not?
>
>
> Either of those will be vastly outpaced by an AMD Turion X2, and it will be
> cheaper, cooler and have a better battery life (with Cool n' Quiet
> enabled). In laptops, AMD still has advantages; I wouldn't really consider
> any Intel chips in laptops until they resolve the heat and power consumption
> issues (and yes, the latest crop of Intel chips still run very hot...)
>
> Honu
>
>
>

"- Bobb -" <bobb@noemail.123> wrote in message
news:
> A good video ( if you have high-speed interent) explaining AMD
> difference is
> http://www.amd.com/us-en/0,,3715_133...l?redir=CPSW52
> and click on
> " Dual-Core Technology " in right margin.
>
> I know - it's on AMD 's website - but if you know how most pc's
> work, this shows what makes AMD's cpu different. It all happens
> inside the chip at "1800 miles per hour" rather than moving the data
> around between chips at 566 - 800 m.p.h. as Intel does with it's
> chips.
> Keep in mind - that's only for cpu to memory transactions so if
> you're just browsing the internet and using low cpu/memory
> applications it might not matter, but if you are doing intense
> calculations etc ... you will see that " it's all happening a lot
> quicker" on the AMD chip.
>
> to compare cpus:
> http://www.amd.com/us-en/Processors/...30_288,00.html

That is great Bobb! But what is so great about faster when some of my
applications don't like AMD with it's chipsets and doesn't run at all?

And what is this reading about 100 to 200 watt CPUs? Is this what the
new fancy processors use? I remember my old 486 Packard Bell only had a
90 watt power supply for the whole works (back in '93). My current
laptop has a 65 watt power supply, but it uses less than this do to it
isn't normally charging the battery (I have it removed, they last much
longer). And I have the power supply plugged into a 600 watt UPS. The
cordless phone is plugged into it too. And just the phone itself on, the
UPS will run over 10 hours straight.

And to be honest with you, this laptop is using a Celeron M 1.5GHZ and
rarely is the CPU use 18%. Although it does go up to 100% when
converting audio and video formats into another format. But how often do
I do that? Not much actually.

Even using to USB TV turner to record programs doesn't even use any of
the CPU power on my Celeron M. Which is unlike my AMD 1.2GHZ (desktop
machine) which pegs the CPU and has a hard time keeping up.

So while some people love the speed thing, I am not impressed. Why have
all of that speed when it goes unused anyway? So why even bother having
it?

Oh btw, the server won't allow me to see the video. It tries, but tiny
bits comes in too slow that the player won't even load. Maybe in a day
or two I can check it out. Their server must be busy or something.

--
Bill

"BillW50" <> wrote in message
news:456ca0c5$0$1344$. com...
> "- Bobb -" <bobb@noemail.123> wrote in message
> news:
>> A good video ( if you have high-speed interent) explaining AMD
>> difference is
>> http://www.amd.com/us-en/0,,3715_133...l?redir=CPSW52
>> and click on
>> " Dual-Core Technology " in right margin.
>>
>> I know - it's on AMD 's website - but if you know how most pc's
>> work, this shows what makes AMD's cpu different. It all happens
>> inside the chip at "1800 miles per hour" rather than moving the data
>> around between chips at 566 - 800 m.p.h. as Intel does with it's
>> chips.
>> Keep in mind - that's only for cpu to memory transactions so if
>> you're just browsing the internet and using low cpu/memory
>> applications it might not matter, but if you are doing intense
>> calculations etc ... you will see that " it's all happening a lot
>> quicker" on the AMD chip.
>>
>> to compare cpus:
>> http://www.amd.com/us-en/Processors/...30_288,00.html
>
> That is great Bobb! But what is so great about faster when some of my
> applications don't like AMD with it's chipsets and doesn't run at all?
>
> And what is this reading about 100 to 200 watt CPUs? Is this what the new
> fancy processors use? I remember my old 486 Packard Bell only had a 90
> watt power supply for the whole works (back in '93). My current laptop has
> a 65 watt power supply, but it uses less than this do to it isn't normally
> charging the battery (I have it removed, they last much longer). And I
> have the power supply plugged into a 600 watt UPS. The cordless phone is
> plugged into it too. And just the phone itself on, the UPS will run over
> 10 hours straight.
>
> And to be honest with you, this laptop is using a Celeron M 1.5GHZ and
> rarely is the CPU use 18%. Although it does go up to 100% when converting
> audio and video formats into another format. But how often do I do that?
> Not much actually.
>
> Even using to USB TV turner to record programs doesn't even use any of the
> CPU power on my Celeron M. Which is unlike my AMD 1.2GHZ (desktop machine)
> which pegs the CPU and has a hard time keeping up.
>
> So while some people love the speed thing, I am not impressed. Why have
> all of that speed when it goes unused anyway? So why even bother having
> it?
>
> Oh btw, the server won't allow me to see the video. It tries, but tiny
> bits comes in too slow that the player won't even load. Maybe in a day or
> two I can check it out. Their server must be busy or something.
>
> --
> Bill

Bill;

As a matter of curiosity, what apps have you encountered that "don't
like" AMD CPU's and/or chipsets? I have yet to encounter a single app
(commercial or otherwise) that had any issues with AMD and/or it's chipsets.
Since Microsoft is using hx9300 workstations based on Athlon FX chips, it
seems unlikely that any software that is "Windows Compatible" would have any
issues.

I would be very interested to learn what apps you have observed having
issues.

Honu

Hertz_Donut wrote:

>
> "BillW50" <> wrote in message
> news:456ca0c5$0$1344$. com...
>> "- Bobb -" <bobb@noemail.123> wrote in message
>> news:
>>> A good video ( if you have high-speed interent) explaining AMD
>>> difference is
>>> http://www.amd.com/us-en/0,,3715_133...l?redir=CPSW52
>>> and click on
>>> " Dual-Core Technology " in right margin.
>>>
>>> I know - it's on AMD 's website - but if you know how most pc's
>>> work, this shows what makes AMD's cpu different. It all happens
>>> inside the chip at "1800 miles per hour" rather than moving the data
>>> around between chips at 566 - 800 m.p.h. as Intel does with it's
>>> chips.
>>> Keep in mind - that's only for cpu to memory transactions so if
>>> you're just browsing the internet and using low cpu/memory
>>> applications it might not matter, but if you are doing intense
>>> calculations etc ... you will see that " it's all happening a lot
>>> quicker" on the AMD chip.
>>>
>>> to compare cpus:
>>>
http://www.amd.com/us-en/Processors/...30_288,00.html
>>
>> That is great Bobb! But what is so great about faster when some of my
>> applications don't like AMD with it's chipsets and doesn't run at
>> all?
>>
>> And what is this reading about 100 to 200 watt CPUs? Is this what the
>> new fancy processors use? I remember my old 486 Packard Bell only had
>> a 90 watt power supply for the whole works (back in '93). My current
>> laptop has a 65 watt power supply, but it uses less than this do to
>> it isn't normally charging the battery (I have it removed, they last
>> much longer). And I have the power supply plugged into a 600 watt
>> UPS. The cordless phone is plugged into it too. And just the phone
>> itself on, the UPS will run over 10 hours straight.
>>
>> And to be honest with you, this laptop is using a Celeron M 1.5GHZ
>> and rarely is the CPU use 18%. Although it does go up to 100% when
>> converting audio and video formats into another format. But how often
>> do I do that? Not much actually.
>>
>> Even using to USB TV turner to record programs doesn't even use any
>> of the CPU power on my Celeron M. Which is unlike my AMD 1.2GHZ
>> (desktop machine) which pegs the CPU and has a hard time keeping up.
>>
>> So while some people love the speed thing, I am not impressed. Why
>> have all of that speed when it goes unused anyway? So why even bother
>> having it?
>>
>> Oh btw, the server won't allow me to see the video. It tries, but
>> tiny bits comes in too slow that the player won't even load. Maybe in
>> a day or two I can check it out. Their server must be busy or
>> something.
>>
>> --
>> Bill
>
> Bill;
>
> As a matter of curiosity, what apps have you encountered that
> "don't
> like" AMD CPU's and/or chipsets? I have yet to encounter a single app
> (commercial or otherwise) that had any issues with AMD and/or it's
> chipsets. Since Microsoft is using hx9300 workstations based on Athlon
> FX chips, it seems unlikely that any software that is "Windows
> Compatible" would have any issues.
>
> I would be very interested to learn what apps you have observed having
> issues.
>
> Honu

I second that request ! I've never had any issues either !
--
Baron: