• 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.

Pentium M vs Athlon 64

P

Pandamonium

Golden Member
Cliff's notes:
I know the Pentium M is a efficiency nut's wet dream, but I was wondering if it "feels" as fast as an Athlon 64. I'm using a 2500+ Barton myself, so I'm not even sure what an Athlon 64 "feels" like.


Unabridged:
Basically, my parents want a computer for thier use. I've got spare P3 and Celeron computers that I could give to them. (P3-500, or Celeron 600...) BUT, I'm itching to upgrade myself. I'm probably getting my hopes up by thinking there may be a Pentium M desktop motherboard release before the summer's end; but in the event that this does happen, would I be better served with an Intel or AMD?

I spend most of my time surfing the web, chatting, and running office apps, but I do play games every now and then. Since I'm a nut about silence, I've got an NF7-S with NF7Vcore running, which undervolts and underclocks my CPU on the fly depending on load. The way I see it:

A64 Pros:
Integrated memory controller makes the platform "feel" more responsive
Relatively low heat output
64 bit compatibility, for which I doubt I'll ever need

A64 Cons:
None that I can think of

Pentium M Pros:
Significantly lower heat output than A64 (something on the order of 1/3 less the last time I checked)

Pentium M Cons:
No mass-produced consumer motherboards yet (Though I hear shuttle is working on a little something something)
Carries a nice price premium over the AMD
 
Since nobody has a desktop Pentium-M system yet... How could they possibly comment accurately on which feels faster?
 
Originally posted by: Wingznut
Since nobody has a desktop Pentium-M system yet... How could they possibly comment accurately on which feels faster?
Click to expand...

Maybe comparing notebooks... Not quite the right comparison, but I'm guessing it would be as close as you could get.
 
Ya, the notebook performance was what I was asking about.

I'm wondering about general usage responsiveness- like browsing the start menu, rendering webpages, etc. Nothing disk or video intensive of course.

At least one of the guys over at SilentPCReview has commented that his A64 feels faster than his P4C system. IIRC, his specs were A64 3200+ vs P4C 2.8. The forum search there isn't currently working for me, so I can't verify those specs.


Edit: I doubt I'll ever need 64 bit in the near future, I should clarify =P
 
I think as long as you load up on RAM, there shouldn't be much of a problem. But I'm not as picky as a lot of people on this board. 😉
 
Considering most notebooks ship with 4200 or 5400 RPM disks, and the HD is the biggest contributing factor to overall system responsiveness(IMO), I'd say a comparison between a desktop(which will likely have at least a 7200/2MB disk) and a notebook is just about completely useless.
 
Originally posted by: Sunner
Considering most notebooks ship with 4200 or 5400 RPM disks, and the HD is the biggest contributing factor to overall system responsiveness(IMO), I'd say a comparison between a desktop(which will likely have at least a 7200/2MB disk) and a notebook is just about completely useless.
Click to expand...

Which is why you compare two notebooks. 😉

Even then it's probably largely useless. 😛
 
Originally posted by: n0cmonkey
Originally posted by: Sunner
Considering most notebooks ship with 4200 or 5400 RPM disks, and the HD is the biggest contributing factor to overall system responsiveness(IMO), I'd say a comparison between a desktop(which will likely have at least a 7200/2MB disk) and a notebook is just about completely useless.
Click to expand...

Which is why you compare two notebooks. 😉

Even then it's probably largely useless. 😛
Click to expand...

Yeah, notebooks differ too much between makes and models.
 
Originally posted by: Sunner
Originally posted by: n0cmonkey
Originally posted by: Sunner
Considering most notebooks ship with 4200 or 5400 RPM disks, and the HD is the biggest contributing factor to overall system responsiveness(IMO), I'd say a comparison between a desktop(which will likely have at least a 7200/2MB disk) and a notebook is just about completely useless.
Click to expand...

Which is why you compare two notebooks. 😉

Even then it's probably largely useless. 😛
Click to expand...

Yeah, notebooks differ too much between makes and models.
Click to expand...
My point exactly. Trying to extrapolate desktop performance by comparing notebooks is just not going to work.
 
Well if you're building a desktop I don't think the advantages of the Pentium M will be very useful as compared to it being in a notebook. The M was great for power consumption and for heat, which are two of the biggest enemies for a notebook. For a desktop I'm not sure if that should be a concern.....unless you're building a small shuttle like you said.

It's going to be more of a personal preference probably....either go with performance, or efficiency. 😉


tough one, but most likely you'll have to wait for more documentation to come out or reviews.
 
Originally posted by: Fuchs
Well if you're building a desktop I don't think the advantages of the Pentium M will be very useful as compared to it being in a notebook. The M was great for power consumption and for heat, which are two of the biggest enemies for a notebook. For a desktop I'm not sure if that should be a concern.....unless you're building a small shuttle like you said.

It's going to be more of a personal preference probably....either go with performance, or efficiency. 😉


tough one, but most likely you'll have to wait for more documentation to come out or reviews.
Click to expand...

Can you even run a Pentium M in a desktop board? Do they make any Pentium M compatible desktop boards?
 
When I was buying a lappy for my wife. We messed with a few different lappys. P M's, P4's, XP's, 64's (Didn't even waste my time with those pathetic Celeron's). With every single one pretty much having crappy hd's. Overall the Athlon64 seemed to be the quickest cpu out of them all. The P M was not bad by any means. But the Athlon 64 felt definitely like the fastest cpu at the time of us buying a lappy. But since I was limited to doing a few things, I couldn't do a good overall comparision, so the P4, XP, P M, could have felt better with other things. But for the browsing and multimedia type stuff that I was doing with the different laptop's. The Athlon64 felt like the superior lappy. So, I bought the eMachines M6805 lappy with the Radeon 9600 graphics and haven't looked back. Plays every game at my ideal 1280 widescreen resolution with eye candy turned on with no problems what-so-ever. Of course, this is all just IMO. Take it with a grain of sand 🙂


Jason
 
Imo the cpu isn't really that important for websurfing and office use. I doubt you'll notice any difference in "system responsiveness" between any modern cpus. It's mosty about the hard disk and ram.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top