How bad is a Celeron Dual Core? Laptop decision Vs. Price...

[nLinked]

I'm interested in a HP ProBook 4510s. Choices and best prices I can find are:

1. £385.24, Celeron Dual Core 1.66 GHz
2. £459.92, Core 2 Duo 2.1 GHz

All other specs are the same.

I use a laptop for Internet, some video (YouTube or non-HD video), no gaming, and very rarely minor video conversion (like a 200 MB WMV file to AVI, nothing serious and maybe once a month).

1. How bad really is the Celeron Dual Core 1.6 Ghz going to be? Can I get away with it with my requirements above?

2. If all specs are the same and only the processors are different, which processor takes the most battery? I've heard the Celeron isn't as efficient at power management, but in this case it's clock rate is also a lot less so does it really make a difference?

I will be using Windows 7 on power saver profile.

 

[IlllI]

the celeron will be enough for you for those tasks you listed.

 

[jjmIII]

The dual core Celerons are still a Core2 design. I have used plenty in desktop machines, and they work great! I think between those two, the Celeron will last longer on battery too....but not by much.

 

[Decembermouse]

They'll do what you want but I don't respect them much. Have you found any decent deals on a laptop with a Pentium Dual Core, or Athlon II processor?

 

[nLinked]

They'll do what you want but I don't respect them much. Have you found any decent deals on a laptop with a Pentium Dual Core, or Athlon II processor?

Really have my heart set on the 4510s. They have a 4515s which is AMD but the battery life is very short (2 to 2.5 hour difference). The 4510s only comes in Celeron Dual Core or Core 2 Duo flavours.

 

[Decembermouse]

Went and checked them out. $560 for a dual-core Celeron and 2GB memory, and Intel integrated graphics... they're pretty expensive. What's drawing you to this laptop if you don't mind me asking? Metal chassis?

 

[nLinked]

Went and checked them out. $560 for a dual-core Celeron and 2GB memory, and Intel integrated graphics... they're pretty expensive. What's drawing you to this laptop if you don't mind me asking? Metal chassis?

I like the design overall. My preferences are: battery life must be advertised as 4.5 to 5 hours, don't need dedicated graphics, RAM must be 2 GB minimum, 15.x widescreen (any res), maximum price £500, needs to be dual core, and I prefer HP products in general.

TBH these are a bit expensive for the specs. Have been through loads but they almost had everything I wanted but something was always wrong like poor battery. The HP Compaq's I've had in the past had excellent battery and reliability, love their laptops, but now I need a 15.x" screen (previous were smaller) with a good battery and the above requirements for under £500.

 

[frostedflakes]

Something to keep in mind is that Mobile Celerons do not support SpeedStep. I'd never buy one for that reason. Performance is probably adequate for basic tasks, but battery life for Celeron laptops tends to be total crap.

If you want something cheaper, maybe look into Sempron based laptops, all of AMD's mobile processors support PowerNow. Or just pony up the cache for a non-Celeron Intel laptop.

 

[nLinked]

Something to keep in mind is that Mobile Celerons do not support SpeedStep. I'd never buy one for that reason. Performance is probably adequate for basic tasks, but battery life for Celeron laptops tends to be total crap.

If you want something cheaper, maybe look into Sempron based laptops, all of AMD's mobile processors support PowerNow. Or just pony up the cache for a non-Celeron Intel laptop.

That is a very good point. I have just checked the processor info here and it doesn't support it.

Thanks for confirming. This basically answers my question entirely! Core 2 Duo it is...

 

[Decembermouse]

I didn't know that about the Celerons lacking Speedstep, very interesting.

Yeah, these new Sempron chips (the M100 and M120) should be quicker than the comparative Celerons, as they're based off of the K10.5 architecture that makes up AMD's latest and greatest processors, instead of the K8 core and newer revisions of it, that've been kicking around since 2004.

It says the M100/M120 are 25W parts. It also says that the Turion II Ultra 2.7GHz with 2MB L2 cache, as well as the Athlon M300 2.0GHz with 1MB L2 cache (and only 64b FPU) are both 35W parts. Worst case scenario, assume the M300 is actually going to draw 35W (which if 35W is the max for the M660 Ultra, no freaking way the M300's going to draw 35W) and cut it in half, as a Sempron M100 is half of an Athlon II M300. So 17.5W max TDP... not bad.

These are really nice chips for the price, not just because of the new CPU core but because as a platform it's very well balanced. Plus, as frostedflakes pointed out- and this hadn't occurred to me- those Celerons have no power management features. I'd have assumed they DID because they're low end, and people think of those as energy efficient. Very interesting, thanks frostedflakes for that...

Plus with any of these new K10.5 mobile processors you get the new 40nm integrated graphics chip, the Radeon 4100 or 4200 depending on manufacturer. This can be underclocked if you wish. Battery life will also vary by manufacturer.

 

[Rottie]

Celron is not FASTEST anymore Sempron is.