Which lappy is better? Centrino based or Athlon 64?

[cfoo_foto]

Say a Centrino system with 1.7Ghz, 2mb L2 cache and an Athlon 64?

assuming all else(memory, display, video card) being equal. mostly for

photoshop cs and occasional movie editing.

thanks.

[edward_h]

Athlon 64.

 

Centrino is a mobile processor, while the A64 is a desktop CPU, therefore it has more power.

[julianradowsky]

You can't do a direct comparison, it is NOT all about differences in processor speed. The 1.7GHz Pentium M Centrino platforms ourperform P4 2.8GHz based notebooks AND use less power (5+ hours battery life for Centrino platforms, 2.5 to 3hrs MAX on P4 based notebook platforms with same rating battery)

 

And now for the kicker: the Pentium M processor in centrino platforms is not P4 based, it is actually hybrid PIII on steroids.

[scott_eaton]

The main reason the Centrino beats up on the faster mobile P4 architecture is because the mobile P4, and laptops in general, suck in terms of performance. The Dothan/Centrino is the FAR more efficient chip (better technology if you ask me), but in a desktop scenario I'll take the Athlon or a 3ghz+ P4. Note that AOpen now has dekstop based Centrino motherboards, and we'll likely see more of them.

 

If I were buying a laptop, I'd look at the 2ghz Centrino - period. The higher speed mobile Pentium 4's might have a hair better performance in Photoshop, but the Centrino based laptops are the over-all superior systems, and they simply feel MUCH snappier in terms of general use.

 

The big question is what Intel is going to do with the Centrino technology when the chip is proving it can match the desktop P4's at much lower clock, and in some instances beat them in terms of gaming.

[carl smith]

The Pentium M was tested in a desktop board against the best Pentium 4s and Athlon 64s and matched and even beat some of them in game tests while still running at considerably lower core speeds. I'd like to see further tests but overall the results were pretty interesting. If I can find the link I'll post it.

 

 

In a laptop you can't do much better for a balance of power and efficiency. The Athlons are nice but have poor battery life, Pentium 4 M laptops aren't particularly good on battery either and while the G4 has fairly good battery life it can't match the performance.

[scott_eaton]

Right here Carl.

 

http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1558,1728538,00.asp

 

Very impressive results for the Dothan. It will be interesting to see what happens when the chip gets used on better motherboards.

 

Still, it's just a matter of price/performance with me. While it's certainly interesting to see a Dothan/Centrino keeping up with a dekstop P4 running at a much higher Ghz, it's also irrelevant because the desktop Centrino route is more expensive.

 

For a laptop though - no question. Get the fastest Centrino you can afford.

[joe_k.]

Note that "Centrino" is the branding for the Pentium M with Intel's wireless chipset. A non-Centrino "Pentium M" (Not 4M) will just have a different wireless card... one that might actually be more compatible with alternative OSes, should you care to try one someday. The Athlon 64 is an absolutely marvelous chip (says this geek and AMD shareholder), and the Mobile ones can be quite power-efficient, though probably still an order of magnitude above the Pentium M. (So we're talking power consumption by the CPU equal to the LCD backlight or drive, instead of half of it, perhaps.) Consider your usage pattern; if you'll be doing this editing on the road or in the field, the M will probably have the best battery life (unless you buy an ultrathin model, where they've used the advantage to shave out half the battery, instead). If you mostly just need to type notes, suck files off a digicam, or otherwise work in short bursts, the A64 with some more aggressive power management should do almost as well, and give you that extra oomph for the video encoding when you're plugged in at your desk, car, or plane, while being future-proof if you find yourself craving a 64-bit OS (but make sure the laptop can ever support >4GB RAM if you want the main advantage). The "real" P4 chips actually used to be most efficient at video encoding, per-clock, but I think the laptop incarnations have always been dogs for power or speed reasons (and the last true P4s have had some fairly damning thermal issues at rated clocks, hence the barrage of 'Intel is screwed!' stories in the press, and the new 'BTX' wind-tunnel layout for desktop cases). Upshot is that 'BTX' is engineered so well that desktops with cooler processors will get by with much quieter fans. Maybe that gives some perspective? The neatest thing about A64 is how multiple processors tie together, but you won't see that in a laptop, at least until "dual core" chips start reaching the market sometime next year (power consumption shouldn't be as bad as two completely separate CPUs, but it's not yet clear if they'll 'scale' down to mobile versions at launch). Intel will be going dual-core, too, they're just a little behind. [if you want to do video encoding *and* work in Photoshop at once, two CPUs should give a rather dramatic advantage, which is why I bring it up. And at that point, maybe you want something 'disposable,' but with more useful value later -- the most affordable Pentium M you can find, since it'll still have great battery life for playing DVDs and doing work at less-than-bleeding-edge speeds -- and the money you save versus being cutting-edge now invested towards the first dual-core lappie that appears.]

[joe_k.]

Sorry about that, the dog ate my line breaks.