NotebookForums.com › Forums › Notebook Manufacturers › Dell Forums › Dell Notebooks - General › Desktop equivalent of Pentium M processor?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Desktop equivalent of Pentium M processor? - Page 3

post #41 of 67
6/15/05 at 8:29pm
The reason I want to know how they compare is to see how the pm stacks up against my current 2.66 p4 to see if the 1.86ghz is much of an upgrade at all... is it?
Reply
Reply
post #42 of 67
6/15/05 at 9:28pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by k25anova51
not really.. because if you had read.. speeds are relative to their own processor type, it only makes the most sense.. why would i compare one processor to another type when i know one is obviously faster than the other
Hey retard,

If YOU had read, I'm talking about performance here, NOT clockspeed. Of course the desktops outperform laptops in terms of raw clockspeed, but these Sonoma Pentium M processors with the huge 2MB Cache can actually outperform desktops at certain applications, again speaking in terms of performance. I'm just trying to get a feel for how the performance (not clockspeed) compares between the two, that's all.
Reply
Reply
post #43 of 67
6/15/05 at 9:34pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by benjamonous
Hey retard,
no need to get mean..

also clockspeed does go hand in hand with performance..
geez.. didn't know we were calling names here
Reply
Reply
post #44 of 67
6/15/05 at 9:45pm
True, no need to be an asshat. Man, I really love that word
Reply
Reply
post #45 of 67
6/15/05 at 9:47pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by k25anova51
no need to get mean..
didn't know we were calling names here
Ah, I'm just messin' witcha, homey! No hard feelings?

But I still think you're missing the point of what I'm trying to say. Check out benchmarks and reviews: performance is not always dependent on clockspeed. That's why Intel ditched the whole clockspeed name game. Raw GHz is no longer the determining factor for performance.

All I was wondering was what Pentium M 2.0 GHz would be most comparable to in the desktop realm. Got it?

Word.
Reply
Reply
post #46 of 67
6/15/05 at 9:49pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jcll2002
True, no need to be an asshat. Man, I really love that word
Dude, I nearly peed my pants I was laughing so hard! Asshat! I'm gonna use that all the time now!

Fo' Shizzle!
Reply
Reply
post #47 of 67
6/15/05 at 9:51pm
i understand your point, but i dont see the point of comparing a desktop to a laptop, simply because you can't necessarily custom build a laptop like you can a desktop, buying laptop parts piece by piece is pricey.. so what if your laptop will outperform your desktop, you can always find a great deal on a desktop processor, but not on a laptop processor
Reply
Reply
post #48 of 67
6/15/05 at 10:11pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by k25anova51
also clockspeed does go hand in hand with performance..


then tell me why the FX55 clocked at 2.6ghz owns almost all the pentiums? Actually, find me a game where a Pentium outperforms an FX55, you won't. clock speed does not go hand in hand with performance, that's what Intel's marketing machine wants you to think.
Reply
Reply
post #49 of 67
6/15/05 at 10:13pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by benjamonous
Dude, I nearly peed my pants I was laughing so hard! Asshat! I'm gonna use that all the time now!

Fo' Shizzle!
Found the word here.

I had the same reaction as you

http://www.notebookforums.com/showth...ht=week+asshat
Reply
Reply
post #50 of 67
6/15/05 at 10:14pm
ok.. if you read some of the other posts instead of jumping to the end to show your ignorance, you wouldve read where i said that each processor is relative to its type, maybe i'm the only one here that doesnt compare intel to amd or anything else and just realizes that each performs under different circumstances.. so i digress
Reply
Reply
post #51 of 67
6/15/05 at 10:16pm
You are both right...

p4s clockspeed relates to the performance
amd im not sure
pm i think is the cache....I THINK
Reply
Reply
post #52 of 67
6/15/05 at 10:52pm
you're comparing P-M to P4, and you say clockspeed goes hand in hand with performance, I saw your post where you say performance is relative, but that's really irrelevant given the fact that you can indeed run P-Ms in desktop systems, no matter what the CPU is made for, there is always an overall winner. With the same architecture, Clock speed does go hand in hand with performance, but when comparing different architectures, clock speed becomes almost irrelevant.

and Jcll P4's strength is its clock speed
AMD's strength is its Clock for clock efficiency, and its RAM speed
Pentium-M's strength is its large cache, and its extremely awesome clock for clock efficiency, and its even more awesome power/performance ratio
Reply
Reply
post #53 of 67
6/16/05 at 12:38am
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by JinXed
you're comparing P-M to P4, and you say clockspeed goes hand in hand with performance, I saw your post where you say performance is relative, but that's really irrelevant given the fact that you can indeed run P-Ms in desktop systems, no matter what the CPU is made for, there is always an overall winner. With the same architecture, Clock speed does go hand in hand with performance, but when comparing different architectures, clock speed becomes almost irrelevant.

and Jcll P4's strength is its clock speed
AMD's strength is its Clock for clock efficiency, and its RAM speed
Pentium-M's strength is its large cache, and its extremely awesome clock for clock efficiency, and its even more awesome power/performance ratio
Jinxed,

You're the man!

This guy knows what I'm talking about!
Reply
Reply
post #54 of 67
6/16/05 at 1:28am
Quote:
Originally Posted by k25anova51
ok.. if you read some of the other posts instead of jumping to the end to show your ignorance, you wouldve read where i said that each processor is relative to its type, maybe i'm the only one here that doesnt compare intel to amd or anything else and just realizes that each performs under different circumstances.. so i digress

im gonna go ahead and quote myself again.. and retype this in BOLD

each processor is relative to its type, maybe i'm the only one here that doesnt compare intel to amd or anything else and just realizes that each performs under different circumstances.. so i digress

peas and carrots
Reply
Reply
post #55 of 67
6/16/05 at 1:58am
Not really peas and carrots. They are both x86 architectures. The AMD just owns the Intels. Just watch Intel dropping the Netburst architecture off in the near future and switching to everything based on the mobile procs...Yonah is only the first step. Intel realizes that hype and clockspeed mean dick.

If they were peas and carrots no one would be comparing both chips in almost every benchmark now would they...or maybe in your esteemed opinion, anova, all those people like anand @ anandtech and tom @tomshardware and hannibal of arstechnica fame are wrong.
Reply
Reply
post #56 of 67
6/16/05 at 2:33am
Quote:
Originally Posted by k25anova51
im gonna go ahead and quote myself again.. and retype this in BOLD

each processor is relative to its type, maybe i'm the only one here that doesnt compare intel to amd or anything else and just realizes that each performs under different circumstances.. so i digress

peas and carrots
Athlon 64, Pentium 4 and Pentium M all have their strengths and weaknesses. If you really thought they weren't comparable you wouldn't have posted in the first place.

When talking about specific uses like gaming or video encoding, the different processors can definitely be compared and ranked. For gaming, where the Pentium M does well, it is comparable to higher clocked P4's then on the list you have. For other applications, your comparison list may be more appropriate.

Depending on what the user intends to do (most) with their computer, they can use benchmarks and tests information to decide which processor is best suited for them. The OP's question is too vague for a carved in stone answer.
Reply
Reply
post #57 of 67
6/16/05 at 2:51am
Quote:
Originally Posted by suryad
Not really peas and carrots.
yeah.. ok. i didnt mean peas and carrots in that sense.. i would explain it, but none of you know me and it's not worth the effort.. let's just say

peas and carrots as a goodbye greeting...
Reply
Reply
post #58 of 67
6/16/05 at 2:52am
Quote:
Originally Posted by lazybum131
Athlon 64, Pentium 4 and Pentium M all have their strengths and weaknesses. If you really thought they weren't comparable you wouldn't have posted in the first place.
so i can't post with my opinion saying they're not comparable??
Reply
Reply
post #59 of 67
6/16/05 at 4:15am
i heard that 2.0ghz p-m is equal to a pentium IV 3.5ghz
Reply
Reply
post #60 of 67
6/16/05 at 4:35am
In gaming thats about right. In something like video encoding its complete rubbish.
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 › Desktop equivalent of Pentium M processor?