Laptop processors

gizmoleeds · 1 October 2005 at 11:54AM

I know there are various types of processor for laptop, and want some advice on which is best for me; so can anyone please tell me if I am right in the following:

- Intel processors with "M" in them are mobile processors - these use less power and so save on battery time, but cost more (so I would have to put up with a lower GHz).

- Normal intel processors can still be used in laptops, but are hotter.

Basically I want a laptop because I will be going to university in a years time. I want a laptop because I will be able to bring it home easily in the holidays. I also want to use the laptop as a TV (with a USB TV card).

Therefore, would I be best getting a laptop with a normal processor (as I am not planning to use it much without it being plugged in)?

I have just seen a nice Toshiba for £600 on savapoint.com:

http://www.savapoint.com/savapoint/productinfo.php?prodid=3744&gid=&cid=101414

Any comments on this? It is celeron, but is 2.8GHz - which will be faster than a 1.7GHz Pentium M (like I was looking at from Dell) right? Or would a Pentium M be better even if I'm not worried about battery power?

Thanks in advance

Darksun · 1 October 2005 at 11:58AM

A 1.7GHz Pentium-M will easily outperform pretty much any celeron on the market

gizmoleeds · 1 October 2005 at 12:03PM

Darksun wrote:

A 1.7GHz Pentium-M will easily outperform pretty much any celeron on the market

I knew that Celeron were slower than Pentium, but even with such a big gap in the numbers (1.7 to 2.8)? Are there any websites which compare the performance of these processors so I can compare the actual speed?

Also, will a 64MB graphics card be better than 128MB shared graphics memory?

seanparkin · 1 October 2005 at 12:03PM

I didn't intend using my laptop not plugged in very often when I was at Uni, I was wrong!

The high mhz rated celerons should be avoided. Hot running, fairly low battery life, not great performance considering the speed they run at.

I'd stick more to the Pentium M line. Alternatively, the Turions are a respectable alternative.

Just last week I was looking around for the similar thing for a colleage whos daughter is just starting Uni. I ended up getting her a Dell Pentium M for £601 delivered after looking all over. You can of course get cheaper, but Acer, Medion etc don't really cut it as dependable for me.

seanparkin · 1 October 2005 at 12:04PM

Oh, and go through quidco to save another 4.5% for Dell (£25 ish)

gizmoleeds · 1 October 2005 at 12:10PM

Thanks for the quidco tip - I wouldn't have thought of it myself.

I probably will stick with Dell then, I always recommend them to people on here and my work uses Dell - I know they always come top in customer satisfaction surveys too.

I could still do with some advice on the graphics card bit though. Would I be better off paying for 1GB ram with 128mb shared graphics memory or 512mb ram and a 64mb graphics card?

Darksun · 1 October 2005 at 12:12PM

The clock speed doesn't always mean all that much in terms of performance, especially not once you get to the clock speeds in most modern processors. More important is the cache, FSB and the actual architecture of the processor (celeron lacks many/most of the features that makes a pentium perform so well).

As for graphics, it depends on the chipset, and what you're planning on doing with the laptop. For gaming, I'd say a Geforce or ATi with 64MB dedicated memory is better than an Intel Extreme with 128MB Shared memory. For a start, shared memory means it uses your main RAM as videoram, reducing the amount of ram avaliable for other applications. Also, the Intel Extreme chipset isn't very good, it doesn't implement many GPU functions used by a lot of games.

seanparkin · 1 October 2005 at 12:13PM

Depends on what you're intending to do with it,

I'd say for almost certain you'd be better off with the 128mb shared memory.

gizmoleeds · 1 October 2005 at 12:18PM

Darksun wrote:

As for graphics, it depends on the chipset, and what you're planning on doing with the laptop. For gaming, I'd say a Geforce or ATi with 64MB dedicated memory is better than an Intel Extreme with 128MB Shared memory. For a start, shared memory means it uses your main RAM as videoram, reducing the amount of ram avaliable for other applications. Also, the Intel Extreme chipset isn't very good, it doesn't implement many GPU functions used by a lot of games.

seanparkin wrote:

Depends on what you're intending to do with it,

I'd say for almost certain you'd be better off with the 128mb shared memory.

Well, thats two conficting opinions here! I would be using the laptop for TV and DVDs but probably not for intensive 3d games.

I am torn between the options of paying extra for 1GB memory over 512mb (with integrated graphics) or paying extra for a 64mb graphics card instead.

Darksun · 1 October 2005 at 12:21PM

Well, if you're not planning on gaming or heavy duty 3D apps, I'd say go for the one with the extra RAM. Intel Extreme chipsets are alright if you have lots of RAM, they just not great for gaming.

seanparkin · 1 October 2005 at 12:23PM

Then I'd go for the shared memory. This will be fine for DVD's etc.

The reason why I wouldn't bother with the separate adapter is because it will be a poor performer (especially with 64mb) and will only run older games at a decent rate (although admittedly better than the shared memory option).

Plow the extra into the extra memory I say

Laptop processors

Comments

Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply

🚀 Getting Started

Categories

Is this how you want to be seen?

Get our FREE Weekly email full of deals & guides - and it’s spam-free