NotebookForums.com › Forums › Notebook Manufacturers › Dell Forums › Dell Notebooks - General › Processor Performance worth it?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Processor Performance worth it?

post #1 of 27
11/10/05 at 10:46am
Thread Starter 
I been debating if it is worth getting a 1.8ghz 533fsb p-m or a 2ghz 533 fsb. The different in price is about 75 dollars.. For those who have them or have any input, what do you think?
Reply
Reply
post #2 of 27
11/10/05 at 11:50am
75dollars is reasonable, perfomance is not hugh jump, as long they are 2 mb carched that better than 1ghz improvment ;P why cause i use had a pentium 4 3ghz hyperproreess but only 512k carch, compare my 1.7ghz pentoum M 2 mb carch, the pentium M is faster ;P so there u go
Reply
Reply
post #3 of 27
11/10/05 at 12:03pm
I think the right choice depends on your budget. There is not a huge performance difference between the two CPUs. If your budget is tight, go with the 1.86 GHz. If $75 is not a lot of money for you, then go with the 2.0 GHz.
Reply
Reply
post #4 of 27
11/10/05 at 1:02pm
That would be a negligible performance increase. Sink the money into a faster/bigger hard drive or more ram.
Reply
Reply
post #5 of 27
11/11/05 at 1:08am
I can't really find a difference in performance between a 1.6 GHz vs a 2.0 GHz p-m...

So.. I would go with more ram/faster hdd rather then a faster performance processor that you can't really notice.
Reply
Reply
post #6 of 27
11/11/05 at 1:13am
Thread Starter 
ya maybe its not worth it after all
Reply
Reply
post #7 of 27
11/11/05 at 2:03am
Quote:
Originally Posted by sammino
I been debating if it is worth getting a 1.8ghz 533fsb p-m or a 2ghz 533 fsb. The different in price is about 75 dollars.. For those who have them or have any input, what do you think?
I got the 1.86ghz which back in july was the best price/performance point, I see no reason to go higher, runs as good as a pentium 4 3.2ghz , better in some instances. my super pi score has been 1:43 on average.
Reply
Reply
post #8 of 27
11/11/05 at 6:18pm
I say it's worth it. The difference used to be around $200. $75 is pretty cheap.
Reply
Reply
post #9 of 27
11/11/05 at 9:16pm
Yeah, for $75 it's not bad. I would go for it, with such a little price jump it's probably your best bang for you buck.
Reply
Reply
post #10 of 27
11/13/05 at 4:40pm
Two things:
First off, it's only worth the 75 if you really need it. I use my 700m for school, music, vacation, movies, etc, and honestly, it rarely goes over about 1ghz ... most of the time it's underclocked to save power, and it's still plenty fast. Why spend money for something you really don't need? Unless you do, of course - are you going to be doing lots of compiling/decompiling in time sensitive situations? I bought a 1.8, and honestly I can't say why I didn't go with the 1.6, since I would never notice the difference.

Second, ignore the fellow who said that the cache size difference is equal to about 1 ghz. He doesn't know what he's talking about. He's comparing two completely different architechtures.
He is right, though - the dothan cores (2 meg cache) are a good improvement upon the banias cores (1 meg caches), but you can't compare these to the P4s. The P4's just plain suck, and require much higher clock rates to compare to the PM's or AMD cpus. Double the cache in a P4 and you'll get better performance, but not nearly a gig's worth, more like 200mhz or so, if that.
Reply
Reply
post #11 of 27
11/13/05 at 4:58pm
Look ahead to how long before you will replace your system.

I elected a P133 over a P166MMX to save several hundred dollars, on the advice of my software providers.
Within a few years these same providers were up to software that they recommended mimimum of 166MHz to run properly.

Same P133 still runs most of that software but it is like watching grass grow
Reply
Reply
post #12 of 27
11/13/05 at 6:19pm
1.6 has been plenty on my 700m, and is about on par with the 2.8ghz P4 in my 9100. I'm glad I saved the cash for an extra battery instead of the 1.86 PM..
Reply
Reply
post #13 of 27
11/13/05 at 6:40pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by The ArchAngel
1.6 has been plenty on my 700m, and is about on par with the 2.8ghz P4 in my 9100. I'm glad I saved the cash for an extra battery instead of the 1.86 PM..

ditto on the 1.6
Reply
Reply
post #14 of 27
11/13/05 at 8:06pm
we're talking about a priceerformance ratio here. look at it from the opportunity cost standpoint. you must make a decision which is greater the marginal benefit or cost. Frankly, it's a $75 difference, not 'the processor actually costs $75". Ive noticed a significant difference when encoding dvds or mp4's when i jumped from 1.6 to 2.o, but then again i saved a ton my pinmodding!!! if you are buying a new lappy get the cheapest 400mhz proc and pin mod pin mod pin mod. save your money for HD, Ram and a nice bluetooth mouse
Reply
Reply
post #15 of 27
11/13/05 at 10:02pm
pin mod bad (:

spending more money good (:
Reply
Reply
post #16 of 27
11/14/05 at 11:44pm
I would do it
Reply
Reply
post #17 of 27
11/15/05 at 1:17am
Quote:
Originally Posted by sammino
I been debating if it is worth getting a 1.8ghz 533fsb p-m or a 2ghz 533 fsb. The different in price is about 75 dollars.. For those who have them or have any input, what do you think?

What model are you considering?? I would go with the 1.86 ghz, you wont notice any grand improvement with a 2ghz pentium M, I would use that 75 dollars and get the top of the line video card thats available for the model of laptop you are looking at, it would be money better spent and you will definitely notice an improvement with a better graphics card which is just as important as the CPU these days, maybe more so.
Reply
Reply
post #18 of 27
11/16/05 at 4:31pm
What about the jump from the 1.73 to the 2Ghz? It's a $200 upgrade, so I am leaning toward not making the jump....$100 now to upgrade to the 1.8g...system will be a 9300 with the 6800go...
Reply
Reply
post #19 of 27
11/16/05 at 5:05pm
well, im not sure if its worth it for you terp, but i am making making the 186 to 2.0 jump. With the coupon right now, with shipping, it keeps my system under 1300 still. thats my reasoning.
Reply
Reply
post #20 of 27
11/16/05 at 9:54pm
I was in the same boat but chose to stick with a 1.73 processor. The upgrade to 2.0 was $150 w/ the coupon, but on Newegg you can get 2 GB of Transcend RAM for $140 after the mail in rebate (you need to order the 1 GB chips separate to get the rebate for each), so I went with RAM instead. I can't notice the difference between 1.6 and 1.86 ghz but I certainly can tell the difference when it comes to 512 vs 1Gb+ memory.
Reply
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Dell Notebooks - General
NotebookForums.com › Forums › Notebook Manufacturers › Dell Forums › Dell Notebooks - General › Processor Performance worth it?