Which is a better econo processor?

[bernse]

If these very basic notebooks are the same otherwise (Price, RAM, HDD, screen, etc) which is the better deal?

This is just for a very basic, entry level notebook. Power use isn't a real biggie as it will probably be plugged in a fair amount.. but *might* be a consideration if one is much, much better than the other.

Thanks for the opinions!

 

[ShellGuy]

I would say the semperon but that is just me.


Will G.

 

[unfalliblekrutch]

the sempron has powernow!(which changes the multiplier depending on load), while the celeron only has basic speedstep(a fixed multiplier while on AC, a fixed multiplier on battery).

Also, it depends on if the sempron is s462 or s754. I think for laptops, they do have s754 cpus rated down to sempron 3000+, although I could be wrong. Basically, a s754 sempron would pwn the celeron.

 

[bernse]

^

 

[pukemon]

If you're plugged in 95% of the time, I'd go with the Celeron-M. It's basically the Pentium-M (Banias) minus Speedstep.

 

[dexvx]

Performance wise, they'd be roughly equal.

 

[MercenaryForHire]

Depends on the two notebooks in question how much the battery life sways.

My fiancee's Sempr0n 2800+-based laptop (Compaq M2305, IIRC) got her through a ~3.5h train ride watching movies, from 100% -> 15% charge. No report on the toastiness factor, but that seems about what the C-M can do since it lacks SpeedStep.

Oh, and for sheer power the Sempr0n should McPwn the C-M. Plus, you can drop in any mobile A64 on S754 for a quick boost.

- M4H

 

[Morph3us]

I have also heard rumor that mobile Semprons have 64bit support.... Any truth to it?

 

[user0001]

You have to remember that the Celeron-Ms arent a tyical Celeron. With their 1MB cache, they can have some potential.

A Sempron with C&Q enabled (if an option) can use as little at 10W or so at idle. But IIRC, a Celeron-M would use a tad bit less than that. But on AC, its a toss up IMO.

 

[dexvx]

Originally posted by: MercenaryForHire
Oh, and for sheer power the Sempr0n should McPwn the C-M. Plus, you can drop in any mobile A64 on S754 for a quick boost.

- M4H

Look at the latest AT review. The 1.4Ghz Celeron-M /1MB handily pwns the 2800+ Mobile Sempron64.

 

[IntelUser2000]

I don't remember any Anandtech review using Celeron M.

Oh, and for sheer power the Sempr0n should McPwn the C-M. Plus, you can drop in any mobile A64 on S754 for a quick boost.

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2395&p=8

I don't think the differences are world-bending between A64 and Sempron as you suggest.

 

[HomeAppraiser]

Semperon has better power stepping. Also upgrading to a Turion64 is cheaper than a Pentium M.

 

[Jaihahih]

Originally posted by: dexvx

Originally posted by: MercenaryForHire
Oh, and for sheer power the Sempr0n should McPwn the C-M. Plus, you can drop in any mobile A64 on S754 for a quick boost.

- M4H

Look at the latest AT review. The 1.4Ghz Celeron-M /1MB handily pwns the 2800+ Mobile Sempron64.

If the video card and wireless are the same, the sempron will have better blife. But as the case with anand's review, we see the power of the centrino moblie technology. The wireless/chipset/graphics are all low power/low performance, hence the reason why the celeron M has such an effective battery life performance.

 

[IntelUser2000]

Sempron systems won't have a better battery life than Celerom M. Intel states that CPUs are only 10% of the entire system in power consumption.

The factor that matters more is the manufacturer. In reviews, it can be true that slower CPU may be fast as a faster CPU with same configuration. That's because there are differences in individual manufacturers. Battery life varies so widely too. That's true in a same configuration.


Same with desktops that come pre-assembled. If you compare Dell and HP systems with same configuration, I bet that one system will be faster than they other.

Some things can't be replicated. I have no idea why an HP system that's bought for rest of the family(second hand), boots so incredibly quickly. From turning on the switch to seeing "Welcome" on Windows XP takes less than 10 seconds. It uses custom HP motherboard based on a 845GL chipset(a low end chipset), and I have absolutely no idea why it boots up so fast. The system used to have 5400RPM drive, and after changing to 7200RPM, there is no difference. The common thing is that they both boot fast.

My system using Celeron D, 945G chipset, and WD Raptor 10K RPM will never get close to the lowly HP system using 2GHz P4 and 7200 RPM.

 

[dexvx]

Originally posted by: Jaihahih
If the video card and wireless are the same, the sempron will have better blife. But as the case with anand's review, we see the power of the centrino moblie technology. The wireless/chipset/graphics are all low power/low performance, hence the reason why the celeron M has such an effective battery life performance.

Hey guess what? This is laptops we're talking about, not interchangeably swappable desktop components. Theoritically, you might be right, but in the real world, you are wrong.

And BTW, I was talking about raw performance. The lowly 1.4Ghz/1MB Celeron-M handily owns the 2800+ Sempron64 Mobile. Theres no reason to doubt a 1.5Ghz/1MB Celeron-M wouldn't do the same to a 3000+ Sempron64 Mobile.

Originally posted by: HomeAppraiser
Semperon has better power stepping. Also upgrading to a Turion64 is cheaper than a Pentium M.

You look at Dothan prices on eBay lately? They are literally half to a third of the retail prices.

 

[Jaihahih]

Originally posted by: dexvx

Originally posted by: Jaihahih
If the video card and wireless are the same, the sempron will have better blife. But as the case with anand's review, we see the power of the centrino moblie technology. The wireless/chipset/graphics are all low power/low performance, hence the reason why the celeron M has such an effective battery life performance.

Hey guess what? This is laptops we're talking about, not interchangeably swappable desktop components. Theoritically, you might be right, but in the real world, you are wrong.

And BTW, I was talking about raw performance. The lowly 1.4Ghz/1MB Celeron-M handily owns the 2800+ Sempron64 Mobile. Theres no reason to doubt a 1.5Ghz/1MB Celeron-M wouldn't do the same to a 3000+ Sempron64 Mobile.

Originally posted by: HomeAppraiser
Semperon has better power stepping. Also upgrading to a Turion64 is cheaper than a Pentium M.

You look at Dothan prices on eBay lately? They are literally half to a third of the retail prices.

Whats your beef? As I said, the sempron has better battery life in the ideal conditions, but the Celeron M is on top because of Centrino Mobile platform.

As for low performance, did you read my statement? It said that the graphics and wireless were the low power/performance parts of Centrino. I never made any mention of the processor.

You have to get off your high horse.

 

[computeerrgghh]

This is the article he is referring to (I think). The celeron does very respectably ie get editor's choice.

 

[piasabird]

Is the Celeron 400Mhz HSF or faster? How much Cache Memory on each chip? You have to know this to make the right decision.

Also what kind of memory do they use and how many empty slots?

Also who makes them?

Do they have the brighter screen or the dull dark one?