CPUs for laptops

[deShaneO]

There may not be a strait forward answer to this. I'm a bit confused with all the laptop CPUs out there. Basically what I want is all out performance, desktop replacement. Batt. life is not important. So which is faster? The processor speeds look all the same but the sockets are differnet or models I guess. You have all these 7xx ones. Intel's site didnt really make it clear either
Centrino
Pentium M 710 1.4 GHz
Pentium M 715 1.5 GHz
Pentium M 725 1.6Ghz
Pentium M 730 1.6 GHz(what?, 1.6ghz, is it equal to a 725 1.6ghz?)
Pentium M 735 1.7 GHz
Pentium M 738 1.4 GHz (I mean really what the heck? 730-740?)
Pentium M 740 1.73 GHz
Pentium M 750 1.86 GHz
Pentium M 758 1.5 GHz
Pentium M 760 2.0Ghz
Pentium 4 HT 3.2Ghz
Mobile Pentium 4 538 3.2 GHz
Mobile Pentium 4 548 3.33 GHz
AMD Athlon XP Processor 2500+ (1.8GHz),
Athlon 64 3500+ / 2.2 GHz

Thanks guys,
hey Steve you do Intel CPUs right :), help a guy out with some info..
-Shane

[deShaneO]

If you know what's the top right now(all out performance), let me know. I didn't list all the cpus.

[Shea]

AMD Turion? 64 Mobile ML44 2.4GHz 800MHz FSB 1MB L2 Cache

is what this runs:
http://www.alienware.com/product_detail_pages/Aurora_mALX/aurora-m_specs.aspx?SysCode=PC-LT-AURORA-M-ALX&SubCode=SKU-DEFAULT#pdp-nav

Shea

[Zeppelin]

Generally, the higher the GHz, the faster the processor. This can get kinda tricky though, with advancements in processors. Some might have better technology than the earlier models, so 1.6GHz on the old one might equal 1.4GHz on the new one..

Check out this link for some good reading:

http://www.tomshardware.com/2005/11/21/the_mother_of_all_cpu_charts_2005/

[rigby]

hey Steve you do Intel CPUs right :), help a guy out with some info..
-Shane

The CPUs I help design are physically too large when combined with their power pod and heatsink to fit in a laptop. They're for big server boxes. So I don't think I can really give you the true inside scoop from a mobile desktop perspective. I get all my info about that from the same websites you do :)

The tom's hardware link is a good pointer.

One thing I can tell you is that anymore, for maximum performance, you have to really look at what applications you're wanting to run, and then design the whole system (processor, chip set, memory, MB, storage) to optimize whatever that application's bottleneck is. A killer 'gaming' system, can turn out to be a real dog if it's tasked with running a big database app. And a quad core processor with a point to point bus might be able to do millions of web transactions per second for thousands of simultaneous users, and yet not be able to handle an old copy of Doom worth a crap.

That being said, my other observation is that most people buy way more processor than they need for a desktop system. There are some great values to be had especially now with the n-1 technology. If you need to be bleeding edge, AMD is generally considered top performance at the moment. Intel's supposed to leap frog ahead in June with the release of the "Mermon" core (IIRC).

You're right, it's not simple anymore :eek:

[deShaneO]

Cool thanks for the input. Toms hardware was good, haven't been there in a while..This would be more for multi-threaded 3d rendering on the go, Renderman, Maya stuff like that... I have a desktop system I'm building this for but I would also like a moble system that I can take it with me and work on it. When the dual core was released I was pretty happy. I was looking at this other article on Toms about the Pent. 805 D, dual core 266 but over clocks to 4.1GHz dual with no issues. They were saying the 805 is pretty cheap now. Course this for a desktop system I'm thinking.