Howdy All,

I was wondering if there is any kind of comparison out there that shows
how these two processors compare or maybe a better way to say it is
which ones are close to equivilent. I am looking to purchase a new
laptop and am trying to decide which one to get. Most of my work on a
laptop is usually plugged in so the extended battery life of the
Pentium M is not that important to me. But if I can get a good deal on
a pentium M and I am not sacrificing any CPU power then I would take
one.

So I was wondering if there was any kind of comparison out there that
would say something like the 750 Pentium M chip is equivlent to 650 P4
chip so that I could know about how the two cpu's compared and could
compare apples to apples when evaluating laptops.

Any help would be great.

Thanks

dbl

DBLWizard wrote:
> Howdy All,
>
> I was wondering if there is any kind of comparison out there that shows
> how these two processors compare or maybe a better way to say it is
> which ones are close to equivilent. I am looking to purchase a new
> laptop and am trying to decide which one to get. Most of my work on a
> laptop is usually plugged in so the extended battery life of the
> Pentium M is not that important to me. But if I can get a good deal on
> a pentium M and I am not sacrificing any CPU power then I would take
> one.
>
> So I was wondering if there was any kind of comparison out there that
> would say something like the 750 Pentium M chip is equivlent to 650 P4
> chip so that I could know about how the two cpu's compared and could
> compare apples to apples when evaluating laptops.

I wouldn't even bother to research this at all, the answer is already
obvious: don't even look at the Pentium 4, go with the Pentium M. In
about a year's time, all Pentium 4 desktops will be replaced by
Pentium-M based desktops too, so that tells you something.

Yousuf Khan

Yousuf Khan wrote:

> DBLWizard wrote:
>> Howdy All,
>>
>> I was wondering if there is any kind of comparison out there that shows
>> how these two processors compare or maybe a better way to say it is
>> which ones are close to equivilent. I am looking to purchase a new
>> laptop and am trying to decide which one to get. Most of my work on a
>> laptop is usually plugged in so the extended battery life of the
>> Pentium M is not that important to me. But if I can get a good deal on
>> a pentium M and I am not sacrificing any CPU power then I would take
>> one.
>>
>> So I was wondering if there was any kind of comparison out there that
>> would say something like the 750 Pentium M chip is equivlent to 650 P4
>> chip so that I could know about how the two cpu's compared and could
>> compare apples to apples when evaluating laptops.
>
> I wouldn't even bother to research this at all, the answer is already
> obvious: don't even look at the Pentium 4, go with the Pentium M. In
> about a year's time, all Pentium 4 desktops will be replaced by
> Pentium-M based desktops too, so that tells you something.

You mean that everyone who has a Pentium 4 desktop is going to chuck it in
favor of Pentium M? Do tell.

Or do you mean that consumers are going to refuse to buy dual-core 64-bit
Pentium 4 desktops and instead by single-core 32-bit Pentium Ms? If so,
why would they do that?

Or are you one of those who think that the computer buying public really
gives a rat's ass about power consumption?

> Yousuf Khan

--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

On 5 Nov 2005 23:20:43 -0800, "DBLWizard" <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:
>I was wondering if there is any kind of comparison out there that shows
>how these two processors compare or maybe a better way to say it is
>which ones are close to equivilent. I am looking to purchase a new
>laptop and am trying to decide which one to get. Most of my work on a
>laptop is usually plugged in so the extended battery life of the
>Pentium M is not that important to me. But if I can get a good deal on
>a pentium M and I am not sacrificing any CPU power then I would take
>one.
>
>So I was wondering if there was any kind of comparison out there that
>would say something like the 750 Pentium M chip is equivlent to 650 P4
>chip so that I could know about how the two cpu's compared and could
>compare apples to apples when evaluating laptops.

Unfortunately such comparisons are rather few and far between since
it's VERY difficult to get a pair of laptops that are identical other
than their CPU. As a result, any comparison ends up being badly
flawed and often becomes more a comparison of the other parts of the
system (memory, chipset, video, etc.) than the CPU itself. There was,
however, one rather interesting test done now too long ago:

http://www.anandtech.com/showdoc.aspx?i=2382

In this test they actually placed a handful of Pentium-M CPUs in a
desktop board (with the use of a small adapter kit). This allowed
them to directly compare the Pentium-M CPU to desktop P4 chips in the
same motherboard. Note that this review is using DESKTOP P4 chips,
not the "Mobile Pentium 4" chips that are designed for laptops. That
being said, from the sound of things that is what you're looking at
comparing (many of the so-called "desktop replacement" laptops also
use desktop P4 processors).

The general rule here is that it depends on what you're running. In
some cases the Pentium-M comes out looking pretty damn good, in other
tests it stinks. For example, in Business Winstone 2004 the Pentium-M
725 (1.6GHz) all but matches the performance of the Pentium 4 660
(3.6GHz). However on the Data Analysis Sysmark 2004 test the
top-of-the-line Pentium M 770 (2.13GHz) is quite handily beaten out by
the Pentium 4 530 (3.0GHz, slowest P4 tested). Most tests follow in a
similar fashion with a pretty even split of apps where either chip
completely dominates the other one.


Of course, if you want a chip that is at or near the top of the list
in all applications, your best bet is probably a Desktop Replacement
notebook based off an AMD Athlon64 chip. In desktop replacement
notebooks, much like in actual desktop chips, AMD has Intel beat hands
down. Something like an Compaq R4000Z or HP zv6000 might fit the
bill, or maybe even one of the snazzy Acer Ferrari laptops.

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

On Sun, 06 Nov 2005 12:27:21 -0500, "J. Clarke"
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

So, what's up with the follow-up to only your preferred NG? Sorry to
others for the repeat at c.s.i but it does seem the best way to handle
this.

>Yousuf Khan wrote:
>
>> DBLWizard wrote:
>>> Howdy All,
>>>
>>> I was wondering if there is any kind of comparison out there that shows
>>> how these two processors compare or maybe a better way to say it is
>>> which ones are close to equivilent. I am looking to purchase a new
>>> laptop and am trying to decide which one to get. Most of my work on a
>>> laptop is usually plugged in so the extended battery life of the
>>> Pentium M is not that important to me. But if I can get a good deal on
>>> a pentium M and I am not sacrificing any CPU power then I would take
>>> one.
>>>
>>> So I was wondering if there was any kind of comparison out there that
>>> would say something like the 750 Pentium M chip is equivlent to 650 P4
>>> chip so that I could know about how the two cpu's compared and could
>>> compare apples to apples when evaluating laptops.
>>
>> I wouldn't even bother to research this at all, the answer is already
>> obvious: don't even look at the Pentium 4, go with the Pentium M. In
>> about a year's time, all Pentium 4 desktops will be replaced by
>> Pentium-M based desktops too, so that tells you something.
>
>You mean that everyone who has a Pentium 4 desktop is going to chuck it in
>favor of Pentium M? Do tell.

Of course not - simply that when Intel quits making P4s they will no longer
be available and be "replaced" in the OEMs' line up.

>Or do you mean that consumers are going to refuse to buy dual-core 64-bit
>Pentium 4 desktops and instead by single-core 32-bit Pentium Ms? If so,
>why would they do that?

There are new desktop cores coming next year which are developed from the
Pentium-M (essentially, originally Pentium Pro) design background and which
will have EM64T, or whatever Intel calls it by then. In case you hadn't
noticed Netburst is err, bust.

>Or are you one of those who think that the computer buying public really
>gives a rat's ass about power consumption?

The "buying public" does care about observed temperatures and thermal
throttling... in addition, of course, to the growing ranks of GW
flagellants.;-)

--
Rgds, George Macdonald