Pentium M vs Athlon 64

[mikem69981]

Someone please help me make the best decision as to which laptop to buy;

Battalion 101 E-turbo Series [1] $1,374.00 $1,374.00
Operation System ( MS Windows XP Home Edition )
Processor ( Intel® Centrino Mobile 1.6GHz CPU with 1M Cache )
Memory ( 512MB DDR-333 PC-2700 [Notebook Memory] Major Brand )
Video Card ( Mobility 128MB ATI Radeon 9700 Pro 256-bit 3D Video )
Hard Drive ( 60 GB 5400rpm ATA-100 Super Slim Notebook Hard Drive )
CD-RW/DVD-RW Drive ( 8x DVD-ROM & 24X16X24 CD-RW Combo Drive [E-Series] )
Sound Card ( 3D Premium Surround Sound Onboard )
Fax Modem ( Build-in 56K V.90 Fax Modem [Notebook] )
Network Card ( Build-in 10/100 Network LAN [Notebook] )
Wireless Network Adapter ( [FREE] Wireless LAN Wi-Fi 802.11g 54Mbps Mini-PCI Module )
Sub Total: $1,374.00


Operation System ( MS Windows XP Home Edition )
Processor ( Mobile AMD® Athlon-64 3000+ CPU )
Memory ( 512MB DDR-400 PC-3200 [Notebook Memory] Major Brand )
Video Card ( Mobility 128MB ATI Radeon 9700 Pro 256-bit 3D Video )
Hard Drive ( 60 GB 5400rpm ATA-100 Super Slim Notebook Hard Drive )
CD-RW/DVD-RW Drive ( 8x DVD-ROM & 24X16X24 CD-RW Combo Drive [S-Series] )
Sound Card ( 3D Premium Surround Sound Onboard )
Fax Modem ( Build-in 56K V.90 Fax Modem [Notebook] )
Network Card ( Build-in 10/100 Network LAN [Notebook] )
Sub Total: $1387.00


I do mild gaming(mostly strategy games) and a lot of office/internet work

 

[fbrdphreak]

And will this be a portable computer? Do you plan on taking it around with you a lot? If you plan on using the battery at all, go with the Pentium M. It will give you MUCH better battery life. The A64 will be better at gaming, but with the Radeon 9700 you'll be GPU limited in most games as it is. Unless this notebook is gonna sit plugged into a desk 24/7, go with the Pentium M. Performance will be comparable, you won't be disappointed with it. My gf's HP dv1000 has the 1.6 in it & it flies for general usage, even with a slower HDD.
BTW, Look into how much it might cost to change that 5400RPM drive to a 7200RPM. That right there will remove a major bottleneck on those systems. GL

 

[Capt Caveman]

I would go with the Mobile Athlon system. It's so much faster unless you plan to get a Centrino w/ 2mb of L2 Cache. That extra mb makes a huge difference in performance. The GPU is good for a notebook. If you want to do better, you can get a Sonoma w/ a Radeon X700.

 

[fbrdphreak]

Oops, I didn't notice you were getting a 1.6 Banias Pentium M!! Booooo, don't buy old technology. Upgrade that CPU to a 1.6 or 1.7 Dothan Pentium M (2MB L2 cache).
But again, it depends if it is going to be taken around a lot. If it sits at a desk 24/7, then go A64. If you need portability in the least, Pentium M DOTHAN

 

[Shadowmage]

An AMD3000+ is about equal to a 1.8ghz Dothan. Get the AMD. I'll have a review to back that up soon (a bit of inside info, heh heh heh)

 

[fbrdphreak]

Nooooo, don't give away the inside info Dan

 

[RobsTV]

As stated, don't get the 1.6GHz.
Stick with 2 meg cache version of 1.8GHz or 2GHz PM.
You will then have A64 3200+ to A64 3500+ gaming performance, with longer battery life (which means smaller and lighter 6 cell battery can be used), cold running (in the Dell i9200 for general use, you can actually turn fans off it runs so cold), which means less weight, and less noise.

Proof:
http://www.gamepc.com/labs/view_content.asp?id=dfipm&page=10
http://www.gamepc.com/labs/view_content.asp?id=dothandesktop&page=7
http://www.gamepc.com/labs/view_content.asp?id=dothangaming&page=6

Also, take a look at useless 3dmark scores. PM wins comparing same video.
See for yourself what is leading the pack in ATI mr9700 laptops.

BTW, a 7.5 lb Dell 17" i9200 with 1.8GHz, and the rest of the specs the same, runs about $1450.
Half-Life 2 (near max quality) and Far Cry (max quality), both at 1440x900 are amazing on a 17" laptop.

 

[Tarrant64]

You're right on the dont' get the P-M 1.6 ghz, it sucks. I had one in a sony before, I will never forget how crappy it was.

However, the Pentium M will not give you the gaming performance of an A64 3200+ or not even close to a 3500+. There was even a review out just today, and the PM could hold its own, but it still fell behind the A64 3200+, and if it can't keep up with the 3200+, there's no way it's gonna give you the performance of a 3500+. It's a great processor(actually the best right now) for mobile performance, but compared to a desktop chip, no way.

 

[RobsTV]

Too bad there are not any laptop comparisons to review.


Here are some more non laptop links for comparisons done in 2005:

http://www.lostcircuits.com/motherboard/dfi_855gme/16.shtml
In summary, there are a few benchmarks that are not won by a landslide by the Dothan, however, in the overall picture, it comes out right next to the Athlon64-4000+ as the most powerful gaming processor.

Another little thing to remember.
A64 speeds are set to compare to P4's, and for example the 3400+ was named to compare with P4 3.4GHz. But the "true" A64 speed is actually 2.4GHz.

The Pentium M Dothan is nothing like a P4, so comparisons made need to be adjusted again.
Maybe Intel will now call the Pentium M 2GHz, a PM 3400+ unit?

Nah, since it is not the A64 Vs P4, just stick with true speed.
Sure, you can compare the A64 running at it's stock 2.4GHz speed to a Pentium M running at stock 2GHz speed, and you would hope the CPU clocked much faster would perform much better. Too bad.

Now take a 2GHz Pentium M laptop CPU, toss it into a desktop motherboard with crappy FSB (1/4 that of the A64) and memory bandwidth, crank it up to 2.4GHz, or the same speed that the A64 3400+ really runs at (at twice the bandwidth of PM), and what do you have? No contest for fastest desktop CPU you can get period. Yes, overclocked 2GHz PM is the fastest CPU available. While this is about laptops, just shows the potential of the little laptop CPU you can get today.

 

[fbrdphreak]

Read Anand's review on the P-M. It will answer all questions on P-M performance compared to P4 & A64.

 

[RobsTV]

What do ya know, someone is now comparing true clocked speed in a Benchmark.
The just released Battle at 90nm : Power Consumption and Performance Compared
Comparing the Pentium-M Dothan against the AMD Athlon 64 "Winchester", AMD's newest offering or weapon against the Pentium M.

From the above:
"The Pentium-M doesn?t hold much of a lead though, typically one speed grade (~200 MHz) difference over the ?Winchester? Athlon64."

 

[RobsTV]

Originally posted by: fbrdphreak
Read Anand's review on the P-M. It will answer all questions on P-M performance compared to P4 & A64.

Check out notebook forums on that Anand review named:
Intel's Pentium M on the Desktop - A Viable Alternative?
http://notebookforums.com/showthread.php?t=62823
It is P-M vs. AMD64 & P4 in desktops mature A64 and P4 desktops!
Doesn't really apply to notebooks.
At least this part of the review is correct:
"As a mobile processor, the Pentium M cannot be beat - we've actually seen why, even in this comparison today...."

 

[Tarrant64]

Yeah, as a mobile processor it can't be beat. But mobo's for the PM for use on the desktop still use old chipsets, and dont' even support 8x AGP, it's just not able to perform for desktop use. I wouldn't even want one to replace any desktop chip.

 

[imported_Woody]

These tests don't make a lot of sense to me. It has been well established that the fastest production desktop Intel P4 can't beat even an Athlon64 3500 in gaming performance (using HL2 as a benchmark), let alone the faster desktop Athlon64 FX CPUs. (Intel is typically faster at encoding jobs such as music and video)

The mobile Athlon64 CPUs are basically the same specs as their desktop counterparts but selected for their lower power consumption. If the Intel Pentium-M chips can outperform the Athlon64 and presumably their own desktop P4 CPUs why doesn't Intel use these chips for high performance desktop systems?

I'm missing something here.

I'm running a mobile Athlon64 3000 at 1.8GHz which outperforms my desktop system with a Barton 3200+ at 2.2GHz in CPU intensive tasks. Sure the battery life sucks but it plays games great even with a 64MB 9600. For long battery life I have an old Apple Powerbook G3 400 running OSX that gives me over 7 hours with an aftermarket battery.

 

[RobsTV]

Originally posted by: Woody If the Intel Pentium-M chips can outperform the Athlon64 and presumably their own desktop P4 CPUs why doesn't Intel use these chips for high performance desktop systems?

I'm missing something here.

Nope, you are correct!
Chipsets are the thing, and that is where the P-M lacks now.
But yes, that is exactly what Intel is doing, and they plan on releasing a dual core version of the Dothan for desktop use. P4 is done.

I have been an Intel hater since they left socket 7, and this P-M is my first venture back (after 100's of AMD system's). AMD slipped up with this one. But I'm sure Intel will find a way to screw it up, and give AMD time to again have the best solution. A64 is not it, and AMD has known this since before A64's release.

Nothing big has come from AMD in a while. I'm still running NF2 with AXP-M because overclocked it is nearly as fast as decent A64, but also has "soundstorm", which more than makes up for the tiny speed difference. Intel P-M is a big deal for Intel, and fits perfectly into todays laptop market. Desktops are next.

 

[mxzrider2]

robs Tv what you just said is garbage. the axp is way slower than a a64. you need to go try one as you have obviosly have not use an a64 computer yet. i just changed my mb and proc from a axp3200 nf2u to a a64 3200 and a nf4. no cokmparison in games or office applications. there is a huge difference. and amd know they have a hit with this.

 

[RobsTV]

Originally posted by: mxzrider2
robs Tv what you just said is garbage. the axp is way slower than a a64. you need to go try one as you have obviosly have not use an a64 computer yet. i just changed my mb and proc from a axp3200 nf2u to a a64 3200 and a nf4. no cokmparison in games or office applications. there is a huge difference. and amd know they have a hit with this.

Actually I never said AXP, but stated overclocked AXP-M.
Big difference.
Study up on AXP-M, and you too will see. (hint, it runs AXP 4000+ speeds on air)

But, how is gaming in 5.1 digital working out for you with the A64 motherboard priced under $80?
Perhap I do only get 120fps in modern games, compared to 160fps that I would get with A64, but I do have the audio built-in (MCP-T) to really make gaming come to life.

By the time an overclocked AXP-M is outdated for gaming, we will have had several CPU releases.

When the A64 was first anounced to us at the Tech Tour, even the AMD reps and factory techs were disappointed. The only chance it had to make a big bang would have been ton's of 64 bit apps, which still hasn't happened more than 2 years later.

Also sorry to state again, but A64 3200+ is now easily beat in games by a lowly 1.8GHz Pentium M. The fastest gaming CPU is an overclocked P-M at 2.4GHz, period. Hopefully AMD will jump back on the bandwagon with a decent dual core chip as well.

 

[bobsmith1492]

Originally posted by: RobsTV

Originally posted by: mxzrider2


Also sorry to state again, but A64 3200+ is now easily beat in games by a lowly 1.8GHz Pentium M. The fastest gaming CPU is an overclocked P-M at 2.4GHz, period. Hopefully AMD will jump back on the bandwagon with a decent dual core chip as well.

I'm sorry, but I'm sure you haven't compared it with an overclocked AMD64. Please, no misinformation.

 

[imported_Woody]

Thanks for the info RobsTV!

I'm also running NF2 and having to purchase a dedicated sound card is actually one of the reasons I haven't switched to a A64 system on my desktop. I will probably build an NF3 based system soon anyway but I'll have to pick up an sound card to go with it.

Honestly I get all the speed I need out of this system so there is no pressing need to upgrade too fast but I will eventually.

 

[imported_Woody]

Bringing back this thread since Anandtech has an interesting new article today about the new mobile Go 6800 Ultra. What I found most amazing isn't the performance of the new mobile graphics chip which is essentially just an overclocked 12 pipe Go 6800 but the performance of the Pentium-M when running head to head against a desktop Athlon 64 4000+.

Of course the new graphics part is cool too but that's not what amazed me so much.

So why the hell is Intel so stubbornly hanging on to the high frequency Pentium 4 deskop CPUs when their own lowly 2.13GHz mobile CPU can kick the crap out of it? I wouldn't mind building a desktop system based on the Pentium M.

 

[Pandaren]

Pentium M lacks 64-bit capability and all the vitualization toys in the Prescott core. Remember that the PM architecture is based on P6, which is almost 10 years old at this point. The new PMs have EDB (NX-bit) though, so they aren't too far behind in features.

The P6/PM architecture will be around until late 2006, when Merom/Conroe takes over. After that it's over for Netbust, I meant Netburst!

Originally posted by: Woody
So why the hell is Intel so stubbornly hanging on to the high frequency Pentium 4 deskop CPUs when their own lowly 2.13GHz mobile CPU can kick the crap out of it? I wouldn't mind building a desktop system based on the Pentium M.

 

[GnomeCop]

my desktop is based on a pentium M 2.0ghz with a 855gme aopen board.

Though it lacks the latest features cpu and chipset wise, it still beats the crap out my p4 system it replaced.

even if I had an athlon64 right now, I wouldnt be running any 64bit apps/games.
by the time I need to, I will be upgrading anyways.