• Competitor rules

    Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.

Pm 2.0GHZ vs P4 'c' 2.4GHZ 800mhz

wesley

wesley

wesley

Soldato
Joined
29 Jul 2003
Posts
7,683
hi guys

ordered Rock Xtreme CT 2.0 laptop 2 days ago, should get it by next week,

XCT spec is

Intel Pentium M 760 (2.0GHz)
1GB DDR2 533MHz RAM
60GB (7200rpm) HDD
17” WSXGA+ X-Glass TFT Screen (1680 x 1050 Res)
PCI Express Nvidia Go7800GTX 256mb
8 x DVD Dual Layer (+/-) Writer
Intel® Pro 802.11a/b/g Wireless LAN
Support for S-ATA Hard Disc Drives
7.1 Surround Sound Output
Bluetooth & 4-in-1 Card Reader
Webcam with digital zoom
1 x Firewire / 3 x USB 2.0

can overclock to 2.3GHZ easily

how does this P M 2.0GHZ compare to desktop P4 'c' 2.4GHZ 800mhz? i do multi-tasking sometime, installing Ubuntu in VMWare workstation on P4 2.4ghz rig, i'm little worried that i mite be disappointed with laptop's perfomance.

i cant find the url for tomshardware cpu compare

cheers :)
 
Yup, the P M will be quicker. THe 7200 rpm hard drie will be a main player in that - usually laptop hard drives are dlower, but that's nippy.

I personally wouldn't overclock the lappy, as the cooling is design specifically for the chip's conditions and stock heat output...they run hot hot hot in laptops anyway, I honestly think its not a good idea to oc it.
 
hogfather said:
Yup, the P M will be quicker. THe 7200 rpm hard drie will be a main player in that
Click to expand...

true but i got a 74GB Raptor in my P4 2.4ghz rig lol i know its not fair to compare my main rig to new Rock laptop, but i'm looking at HT (multitasking) issue
 
Well HT is great, but the P M wouldnt get any help from having it anyway, its got a very short pipeline, while p[4's is long, so its necessary.

That said, the P4 will probably "feel" quicker in windows, but that laptop will fly in anyone's book.
 
hogfather said:
Well HT is great, but the P M wouldnt get any help from having it anyway, its got a very short pipeline, while p[4's is long, so its necessary.

That said, the P4 will probably "feel" quicker in windows, but that laptop will fly in anyone's book.
Click to expand...

Was that a deliberate pun? :p :D
 
hogfather said:
Well HT is great, but the P M wouldnt get any help from having it anyway, its got a very short pipeline, while p[4's is long, so its necessary.

That said, the P4 will probably "feel" quicker in windows, but that laptop will fly in anyone's book.
Click to expand...

What is all this pipeline stuff people go on about, P4s have looooooooong pipelines etc...I keep imagining gas pipes running through the processor or something.

Care to explain to me? :)
 
Well there are many around here more knowledgeable on CPUs than I, but here goes.

A pipeline takes data, and if its a long pipeline (with many stages) then it takes longer for the data to pass along it, and be proccessed. thlon 64s have a 12 stage pipeline, while the Intel P4 has a 30 odd stage pipeline. Clearly this means the intel chip takes longer to proccess the data.

To get around this the p4 runs at a high clockspeed, so throwing data through the pipelines faster. You can either have a chip with a short pipeline (Athlon 64, Pentium, Pentium 3) and lessser clockspeed, or a higher clockspeed, longer pipeline design (P4), as far as I know you can't do both.

Longer pipelines have a number of problems, buit the main one is that all cpus have advanced branch prediction to help "guess" what the data will require, for want of a better word. But sometimes the prediction is incorrect - with a short pipeline this is okay because it takes less time for the data to pass through the pipeline, but with the p4 branch prediction is VERY important. If it gets it wrong performance is hit harder than the athlon.

Another issue with long pipelines are that there are whole stages of the 30 staged pipeline that are empty while data id being passed through - clearly this is bad for efficiency. So Intel introducted HT (Hyper threading) which allows the p4 to proccess 2 threads simultaniously - as the pipeline is so long this effectively does a good job of feeding the pipeline. Athlons can't use HT because the pipelines are too short (12 stages) to make it beneficial.

The Pentium M is a very Athlon esque cpu, short pipeline, high IPC, lower clockspeed. As is the Pentium 3 on which it is based.


----------


Be gentle guys, its probably a bit wobbly in places! :p
 
It comes across as quite anti p4, but it wasnt meant to.

Sure, netburst (p4) architecture has shortcomings. But HT is quite an eloquent solution to a lot of them. The main problem is its just ageing a bit now, though their new P8 architecture is due out this year so it'll all change.

Athlon 64 isn't perfect by any means, it too has shortcomings :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom