Need advice with mobile processors....

[Penelope_Grey]

The:

Intel Core 2 Duo Processor T7600 2.33ghz 4MB Cache 667MHz FSB

or

AMD Turion 64 ML44 2.4GHz 800MHz FSB 1MB L2 Cache

What's the verdict, what strengths does one have over the other?

[Boris]

Well, I'm not an expert on mobile processors, but the AMD one looks a lot better to me, because AMD processors run alot faster on lower clock speeds... and this one is already higher than the Intel's.
Not sure how much of a difference the cache size makes.

[Boris]

Actually, I might be wrong, the AMD isn't dual core...

[Chock]

Depends what you want it for, but some things to also be aware of when buying a laptop are: the graphics, the bus speeds and the RAM, as all these are expensive and damn near impossible to change or upgrade, and regardless of what main CPU the thing has, any of these can be a weak link in the chain and cause a bottleneck as far as processing goes.

Chock

[antikristuseke]

Originally Posted by Boris

Well, I'm not an expert on mobile processors, but the AMD one looks a lot better to me, because AMD processors run alot faster on lower clock speeds... and this one is already higher than the Intel's.
Not sure how much of a difference the cache size makes.

That was true before the Core microarchitecture. right now AMD has tue upper hand in float point but nothing else. In the desktop market AMD allso tends to be more efficent but not so sure bout the mobile sector. In general id advise people to go the intel route right now on desktops nad still look at amd for mobile products, since the platform itself is a bit more energy efficent due to the lack of a memory controller on the motherboard. Though the difference there is arround 10-20% difference in efficency and battery life should other components be as identical as possible.

[Penelope_Grey]

So what is the difference between cache and FSB?

[JSLTIGER]

Not even close...Core 2 Duo by a mile.

Cache is a measure of the amount of a type of extremely high-speed RAM located on the CPU. Commonly used instructions are held in the cache so that they can be accessed very quickly by the CPU without having to get the information from the actual RAM (which involves sending a message to the RAM and then waiting for a message back).

FSB, or front-side bus, is the speed at which the RAM, CPU, and other components on the motherboard (such as PCIe/PCI bus and hard drive) are linked together. AMD uses a slightly newer system than the FSB known as hypertransport. It tends to be faster and dispenses with the northbridge chip used to control memory speeds. The northbridge in the case of Hypertransport is instead located directly on the CPU (aka the on-die memory controller).

[Penelope_Grey]

Thanks all for the answers. Though, am I to understand, that for running just one thing at a time, the AMD would be just as good as that intel I listed above.

[JSLTIGER]

No...although the clockspeeds are different, the Intel C2D will still be faster in most applications.

[elite_hunter_sh3]

wait a month or 2 more... new amd quad cores and mobile cores are coming out... amd quad core at 1.9ghz outperforms the current intel 1000$ quad core by around 25%.... and the fastest amd quad core is gonna be between 2.6-2.8ghz... mobile will be dual cores with L3 cache.. which intel c2d doesnt have... mobiles also lower ghz but outperforms intel c2d = less heat and less electricity used

[JSLTIGER]

Where in the world are you getting those benchmarks from? Latest reports I heard said Phenom (aka Barcelona, AMD's quad core) was a flop in terms of performance. The engineering sample that they demoed at E3 was only 1.6 GHz and top speed at launch is supposed to be around 2.3GHz.

[TteFAboB]

What's up with the Quadro? Is it good for anything or at all? Is it a waste for gaming?

[JSLTIGER]

At the present moment, it's a waste. Most programs can't even take advantage of dual core processing, let alone quad core. The only advantage to dual core at the moment is the ability for one core to run the OS while the other runs a game or program, etc.

[antikristuseke]

Originally Posted by JSLTIGER

Where in the world are you getting those benchmarks from? Latest reports I heard said Phenom (aka Barcelona, AMD's quad core) was a flop in terms of performance. The engineering sample that they demoed at E3 was only 1.6 GHz and top speed at launch is supposed to be around 2.3GHz.

What i heard last it wasnt a complete flop, but it isnt anything spectacular either, it will be arround 25% better clock per clock but thats about it. Though i do agree with you completely that currently quad cores are a waste of money since the only thing te shine at are benchmarks and very few games (allthough prety much every game coming out this year and in the future is multithreaded) and other aplication, however things are quickly moving into the direction of multithreading aplications. Pretty much its a wild guess wether going to a quad core in the near future will pay off or when everything mainstream is multithreaded you have a processor so outdated that it is unable to run them anyway, though this would be quite an unlikely cenario.

[Penelope_Grey]

Ok, lets suppose seeing as I am getting me a laptop, lets say I had one with the following pieces of kit in.

Intel Core 2 Duo Processor T7600 2.33ghz 4MB Cache 667MHz FSB
512MB NVidia GeForce Go 7950 GTX
and 4 gig of ram

Would that be a kickarse laptop?