Ive got the option to buy a 2.8ghz laptop pretty cheap, i dont care about
battery life as it will almost always be plugged in and while i would
prefer it didnt burn my lap i could probably live with it since compile
performance is a big deal to me{1} and not much else since i have a pretty
good desktop rig.

Anyway does anyone know what intels mobile 2.8ghz cpu is like, namely did
intel ever foist prescots on laptop users or did they keep it to northwood
cores, how much cache did they have etc.

{1} yes i am one of those gentoo tweakers who spend most of their life
recompiling stuff

On Mon, 28 Nov 2005 22:39:01 GMT, Unknown <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:

>Ive got the option to buy a 2.8ghz laptop pretty cheap, i dont care about
>battery life as it will almost always be plugged in and while i would
>prefer it didnt burn my lap i could probably live with it since compile
>performance is a big deal to me{1} and not much else since i have a pretty
>good desktop rig.
>
>Anyway does anyone know what intels mobile 2.8ghz cpu is like, namely did
>intel ever foist prescots on laptop users or did they keep it to northwood
>cores, how much cache did they have etc.
>
>{1} yes i am one of those gentoo tweakers who spend most of their life
>recompiling stuff

Intel advertises 4 different 2.8GHz processors for "mobile" use:

Mobile P4 2.8GHz, Hyperthreading, 533MT/s bus, 1MB cache (Prescott)
Mobile P4 2.8GHz, Hyperthreading, 533MT/s bus, 512KB cache (Northwood)
Mobile P4 2.8GHz, no-hyperthreading, 533MT/s bus, 512KB cache (NW)
Celeron 2.8GHz, no-HT, 400MT/s bus, 128KB cache (NW-based)


The last chip, the Celeron, is actually NOT a mobile processor, though
Intel suggests up to 2.8GHz desktop Celerons for mobile use. What
they do not suggest on their website, but which does happen in the
real world, is that companies use MANY other desktop processors in
laptops. In fact, you could find basically any desktop 2.8GHz chips
(P4 or Celeron) being used in a laptop.


Long story short, it's impossible for us to say just what chip this
laptop has. You might want to get a bit more info about it from the
seller.

-------------
Tony Hill
hilla <underscore> 20 <at> yahoo <dot> ca

thanks, its a works laptop i would be getting for buttons so i could just
take in a knopix disk and cay /proc/cpuinfo it

will the prescot be as bad as i imagine or with the 1meg cache could
it be ok.

Unknown wrote:
> thanks, its a works laptop i would be getting for buttons so i could just
> take in a knopix disk and cay /proc/cpuinfo it

Or you could get WCPUID or CPU-Z and do the same thing.

> will the prescot be as bad as i imagine or with the 1meg cache could
> it be ok.

Well, as long as it doesn't burst in your lap into flames, what could be
wrong with it?

Yousuf Khan

On Tue, 29 Nov 2005 16:48:41 -0500, Yousuf Khan <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:

>> will the prescot be as bad as i imagine or with the 1meg cache could
>> it be ok.
>
>Well, as long as it doesn't burst in your lap into flames, what could be
>wrong with it?

It gets mighty hot and painfully impossible to use my P4 1.7 mobile
laptop on bare skin. If they put a Prescott 2.8 in it, you don't want
it on your lap without a thick layer of insulation unless you're into
eating your own flesh or something perverse :P

--
A Lost Angel, fallen from heaven
Lost in dreams, Lost in aspirations,
Lost to the world, Lost to myself

On Tue, 29 Nov 2005 18:28:36 GMT, Unknown <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:
>
>thanks, its a works laptop i would be getting for buttons so i could just
>take in a knopix disk and cay /proc/cpuinfo it
>
>will the prescot be as bad as i imagine or with the 1meg cache could
>it be ok.

Without knowing much about your imagination, that's tough for me to
judge! The Prescott and Northwood chips do perform somewhat
differently on different applications. In some situations Northwood
is faster, in other situations Prescott is faster. However given
otherwise identical systems, the difference between the two chips
averages out to them being about equal, clock for clock.

The real downside to Prescott in a laptop setting is that it tends to
consume more power, though you've already mentioned that this isn't a
big concern. For reference though, the TDP of the mobile Northwood
2.8GHz P4 is 68.4W, the TDP for the mobile Prescott 2.8GHz is 88.0W.

The only chip you *REALLY* want to avoid is the Celeron. The
performance of this chip is absolutely abysmal, a 2.0GHz P4 easily
match or beat a 2.8GHz Celeron.

-------------
Tony Hill
hilla <underscore> 20 <at> yahoo <dot> ca

On Wed, 30 Nov 2005 04:01:10 +0100, The little lost angel
<a?n?g?e?(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> or something perverse

which using your laptop on bare skin is not?

--
I really have no idea what this means. And since I can't install linux on
it, I'm gonna go back to surfing pr0n.
the penguins are psychotic / just smile and wave