45nm versus 65nm Mobile CPU battery life

[AmongthechosenX]

This is the story.

I have an Asus G1S.
http://www.newegg.com/product/...x?Item=N82E16834220182
I've recently decided that the last thing I honestly need is a gaming laptop (the ONLY game i play while im out of the house is roller coaster tycoon, which runs on integrated just fine). I play all my other games on my desktop, and i really need more battery life for long school days coming up.

I offered it up for trade for another laptop with better battery life, and someone PM'd me about a Sony Vaio VGN-FZ240E notebook.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/...x?Item=N82E16834117574

Sony's specs for this laptop state 2.5 to 5.5 hours of battery life. I'm not sure how valid that is.

now, I do understand that I can undervolt the CPU. I was able to get the T7500 CPU in my Asus G1S to run fully stable at 1.1 Vcore (or just under, I don't remember for sure) by setting the VID in RMClock at .975 Volts.

My question is, is it worth it for me to just try and get a 45nm CPU in my new notebook? Or should I just settle with a 65nm CPU and undervolt it (which im going to safely assume here that Penryn's have been slightly undervolted, on top of being die shrunk and tweaked architecturally).

I've used these two articles for reference:
Anandtech - Mobile Penryn benchmarked: http://www.anandtech.com/cpuch...howdoc.aspx?i=3195&p=2
AnandTech - Apple's 45nm Refresh: http://www.anandtech.com/mac/showdoc.aspx?i=3246&p=13

 

[IlllI]

a lot depends on screen size and battery size
the lcd panel drains a large amount
also if you have a tiny battery, like 3 cell, then that wont last very long either
other things like having wifi always on will drain it, and cpu intensive tasks obviously

i seem to recall from something i read many months ago, the difference between 45nm and 65nm was like 20 minutes avg more battery life