Chips -> To Duo Or Sonoma

[A_Traveller]

Can a hardy hardware techie illuminate me?

Looking at notebooks here and trying to get my head around descriptions.

What is the correct power curve?

e.g. [lower to highest]

Celeron M

Pentium M

Core Solo

Duo Core

Core 2 Duo

Sonoma

How does AMD's kit fit into this curve?

If anyone can explain the nomenclature I'd appreciate it or point me at a table for me to digest.

Regards

[The Coder]

If you like to be leading edge, all you really need to know are two things. Get an Intel Core 2 Duo or an AMD Turion 2. This means you get the latest generation processor that is 64-bits, dual core, and optimized for mobile use. At the same performance level, expect AMD to be cheaper and Intel to have better battery life.

[Firefoxx]

"Sonoma" is the codename for the Centrino mobile platform of the Pentium M (the improved Pentium M generation before the dual cores). Like the different Core Duo and Core 2 Duo, there were different Pentium M iterations, with different platforms.

[Gary A]

I think it will be several years before 64 bit programs are common. XP Pro still has some bugs so I have no intention of trying Vista in the near future. I did a lot of research and had planned to buy a Core 2 Duo. After some Googling I decided that the Duo core wouldn't do much for me and ended up getting a very good buy on a new Lenovo T43p Thinkpad. I could have gotten a number of Duo core machines cheaper but the Thinkpad was loaded and I wanted all the bells and whistles. It has a gig of RAM, a 2.26 GHZ Centrino, 100 gig 7200 rpm hard drive, WiFi, Bluetooth, Ethernet, Ird and a 56k modem all built in. I'm very happy so far.

[tjo o tjim]

The Celeron and Pentium M are the same chips; Centrino just has an Intel WiFi chip.

The Core Duo is more energy efficient than Centrino for the same processing power. Likewise, the Core 2 Duo is more energy efficient than the Core Duo (when you have a 64-bit OS). The Core Solo should use less power than the Core Duo for the same clock speed, but will be higher for equal processing speed.

They really make it hard these days to compare. Generally, the clock and the process (how many nm thick the traces are) will have the biggest impact. Double-cores reduce the need for faster clock speeds.

[Firefoxx]

Actually, no, Celeron is not the same as Pentium M. They are *extremely* different, with the Pentium M being much better. "Centrino" is the name of the platform combination of Pentium M (or Core), Intel Chipset, and Wireless, and therefore you *cannot* have a Celeron that is a Centrino. This also means that the Pentium M does not equate to Centrino, it is only part of the Centrino set.

Edited October 11, 2006 by Firefoxx

[A_Traveller]

Thanks all for the edification.

I agree that it's difficult to see the wood for the trees here, and whilst I can see the underlying logic of moving away from an 'it's all MHz' position, it makes judgement tricky.

Further in my own research, I find it unclear as to how much benefit the dual cores second iteration provides over the 1st. Even on an Intel site there is a mention of 20%, which is not to be ignored but is not earth shattering.

I think Gary's point is well made, and I'd be interested in hearing other opinions. If, for example, it needs Vista to realise the potential of the Duo chip, then the additional requirements to run Vista, would seem to militate against it. In other words 1 step forward, {better CPU performance/power usage} 1 step back {OS more processor intensive, appears to require effectively twice the memory to do the same task}.

Thoughts anyone?

Regards

[The Coder]

Every Microsoft software is bigger and slower than the last and has higher minimum requirements. Software companies target their software at the general minimums. Todays minimum is 1 core, 32-bit processors and software running on 2 cores and 64-bits doesn't necessarily run much better. In time, the minimums are going to be multiple cores and 64-bits so if you don't have these things you won't be running the new stuff. No different than video cards. New games need cards with somewhat new technologies to run acceptably. If you care about running todays stuff, buy anything you want. If you want to buy for system longevity, get more cores and 64-bits which can be had from either Intel or AMD at good prices. Graphics cards are another matter. Purists are waiting for cards with native DirectX 10 hardware support which are still some months away. With CPU's, there's no new technologies on future roadmaps to wait for; just more of the same--more speed, more cores.

It's all personal preference on which way is right for you; some people like a new system every 3 years, some every 6 years for instance. I bought an advanced 64-bit laptop in '04 and I don't see why it won't be just as nice running 64-bit vista in '07r as even the video card is within the system requirements. No telling how many years I can squeeze out of it and that makes the extra cost worth it to me not to mention it was a screamer in its first years.

[Firefoxx]

You have to remember that buying a laptop/notebook rather than a desktop, you're already making a lot of compromises in performance. Notebooks generally lag behind desktops by a generation for most components, and they cost more. Therefore, by buying a notebook, you already have one foot in the obselescence pit, so buying an older-generation notebook means you're not going to get that much useful life out of it before needing to change it (and change it is, since notebooks cannot be all-out upgraded like desktops).

You *don't* need Vista to realize the performance of dual cores. I repeat *you do not*. You can see the difference very clearly in plain-old XP, when multitasking, and not needing to wait for one CPU-intensive task to complete before doing anything else. A lot of current programs also take advantage of both cores to complete tasks faster.

And personally, I wouldn't jump into the Vista bandwagon when it's released. It's bound to be a nightmare, just like all other MS initial OS releases. Wait for it to settle, maybe in a year or so, when programs actually start requiring it, and *then* install it.

The second iteration dual core (the Core2Duo) is not much of an improvement, but an improvement nonetheless. Your choice.

It's not an all-MHz position. The MHz battle was left for dead a long time ago.

[A_Traveller]

Firefoxx, as I'm sure you know, there's a lot of FUD out there re the benefits of Dual Core under XP, {as opposed to Vista} so I thank for your clear statement, presumably based upon experience.

On the Vista point, I concur that there is no need nor by the look of the RC I've reviewed, any pressing advantages either to migrating away from XP Pro, and IMHO, if a distro can get it's act together, a stronger opportunity for Linux.

Without the enhanced search and with the very frustrating set-up and management functions {Auntie MS knows best, so lets hide as many elements as possible and split them over screens/applications} not forgetting it's 'network ubiquity' view of the universe, I think that except by weight of pre-installed numbers MS will have an uphill struggle to shift it onto users. The benefits of XP, especially after SP1 offered a rationale for upgrade, Vista less so, IMHO. {Maybe Vista SP1 rather like Windows 3.1 and NT 3.5 will be the real workable version}

As to the obsolescence point, I would disagree with you somewhat in that the portability/performance trade off is far less than it once was, especially true if your tasks are business focused with the odd bit of DVD playing, rather then, say MMORPGs &tc..

Again thanks for your comments

Regards

/edit format//

Edited October 12, 2006 by A_Traveller

[Gary A]

I really believe that for general use, processor speeds are mainly selling tools. For example I had a Pentium 4 3.0 ghz in my desktop. It died and I couldn't find a replacement. I replaced that processor with a much cheaper Celeron 2.66. I honestly can't tell any difference between the two even using high demand photo manipulating tools. Upgrading from 512 to a gig of RAM was much more noticeable.

[Firefoxx]

Yes, my statement about XP and dual cores is based on personal experience. I've used dual cores since they were psuedo-dual cores (with hyperthreading). There is a definite improvement in response.

However, if you're really just an "office-only" user, by all means go for the lowest spec machine you can buy. It'll probably last for some time, and you won't need to upgrade at all (programs and hardware). Just don't expect it to keep up with any extra tasks you might want it to do. Keep your needs static, and your machine won't need to change.

Things we work and play with become bigger and complicated with time, and more processor intensive. Let's take entertainment. Before, the state of the art was mpeg (VCDs). After that, it was mpeg2 (DVDs), with their inherent increase in complexity. Now it's HD time. Take a look at digital cameras. Only a few years ago, the norm was 1 megapixel. Now it's ten times that. So are we actually using all that increased processing power? Well, yes, if you want to keep up with the times. But if you're still watching only VCDs and using an aging digicam, then there's no need for it. But even then, let's look at how far word processing has come. From ye old Wordperfect and Wordstar, you now have Office XXXth, with huge multimedia capabilities and embedded functionality. The size of documents has jumped from a few kilobytes to a few megabytes. Could your old 4.77MHz PC which handled Wordstar so well handle a MS Word file? Hmm. It's an extreme case, but it's also relevant. You might still be using wordstar, but what if your business partner had upgraded?

The same thing that happened to Gary happened to me. My P4 HT 3Ghz cpu died (in the same manner) and I had to get a celeron to replace it (since they didn't make P4s in this socket any more). But... my use for it was very different. I use it to play HD (1920x1080) movies to my LCD TV. And YES, I can see the difference. I'm seriously considering changing the whole setup. So it's a matter of getting what you need, and hoping that it will hold you for your future needs.

My friend bought a old gen Toshiba laptop since it was on sale (of course it was, stock clearance, and even then it was *EXPENSIVE*). She thought that it was sufficient for her needs, but when it couldn't play the game that she was interested in (well it could, frame by frame), she wasn't very happy with her purchase.

And yes, you should really have a minimum of 1GB of ram for XP. The more the merrier.

[Sporting Dog]

I bought a core duo laptop (Toshiba) a couple of months ago and didn't see a great deal of differnce when running one application. HOWEVER when running more than one it is great. For example I can run a virus scan, play music and surf the net and nothing slows down too much. I dunno too much about computers but even I could appreciate the difference over my previous Tecra, and various other desktop machines.