• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

1.6ghz centrino vs AMD 3000+

W

Wall7486

Senior member
I am about to purchase a laptop, and I can't seem decide whether to go for the 3000+ or the 1.6ghz. My laptop is basically going to be for gaming. The cetrino has a 2MB cache, while the AMD only has 512. The 2MB cache looks temping, but I always thought that AMD was good for gaming. So I really don't know, because it seems like 2MB cache will be better than what the AMD has to offer. Anybody with suggestions?
 
Just because it has alot of cache doesn't make it a fast cpu. The 3000+ should be faster than the Centrino. But if you want longest lasting batterys then get the Centrino. For most stuff the 3000+ cpu should be faster.



Jason
 
in a laptop i would tell you to get a pentium m dorthan without a flinch. not only do you get excellent battery life but the new dorthan core held its own to both the p4m and a64. just take a look at the series anand did on the dorthans.
 
The Dothan apparently holds its own against the mobile A64, so if battery life and stuff are important to you, pick that up, though for gaming and stuff a 3000+ may have a slight advantage, or makers might offer somewhat better selections for graphics (I'm not exactly sure on this).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top