Centrino Mobile vs P4M

island911 · 04-21-2005, 02:17 PM

So what's the skinny on these Centrino Mobile chips?

I read stuff like;
"1.6GHz Pentium M Processor w/ Centrino Technology >>> Equivilent to Pentium 4 - 2.4GHz Speeds"

That just doesnt sit right with me. Is the bus speed making the difference? . . .or is it just that the Centrino is optimized for certain app's ? (giving an equiv speed only for those app's)

. . .or ?

nostatic · nostatic's Garage

all I know is that my snazzy Vaio T-series with 1.6 centrino feels significantly slower than my old Ti-book with 800Mhz G4 chip.

apples to oranges, but at the end of the day all I want is to be able to get my work done. Like posting on OT.

BlueSkyJaunte · 04-21-2005, 02:37 PM

Basically the Centrino uses the old P3 core whereas the P4 has a "newer" core with a very deep pipeline.

This is useful if you're doing certain types of things like multimedia. It sucks for linear-type computation.

For example, my job is mostly discrete event simulation. I won't explain in detail, but it's a very non-parallelizable (is that a word?) computing task. Every time step is dependent on the previous time step's events.

We have a lab full of machines that we use to make simulation runs. Our P3-800MHz machines were only 5% slower than our brand-spanking-new (at the time) P4-1.7GHz machines. Very disappointing.

I think the P4 core was more easily cranked to higher clock speeds, since that was the marketing benchmark. So Intel pushed the P4. However it sucks tons of power and has the problems explained above. The newer P3-based core (Pentium M) is faster clock-for-clock and they've worked out the heat issues. Plus, GHz no longer sells that much since these computer things have become commodities.

Just one observer's semi-educated opinion...

stomachmonkey · 04-21-2005, 02:44 PM

I have not a friggin clue. Was forced to buy a new Windows laptop for some projects that I am doing and for the life of me I could not make heads or tails of any of it.

Ended up with an HP P4 3.6 ghz box.

Wanna know the stupidity that was one of the catalysts for the purchase?

Have a bunch of projects going and websites are a part of them.

One of the sites will be managed by the client using Frontpage.

Since WSIWG website software all deal with code differently I figure to be on the safe side let me build it in Frontpage to avoid any issues there and also so I can answer questions that the client will eventually have.

Remember that Frontpage is a Windows only app so the site was built on a Windows box with a MSFT software package.

I do this web site and it looks fine in Safari, Mozzila, Opera AND Internet Explorer on the Mac.

Under Windows it looks fine in Mozilla, Opera but BREAKS in IE.

So the website, built on a box running a MSFT OS, built with a MSFT program, looks fine with everything EXCEPT a MSFT browser running under Windows.

Go figure.

nostatic · nostatic's Garage

frontpage is evil incarnate. It has been screwing up sites since v1. Run screaming.

island911 · 04-21-2005, 03:03 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by BlueSkyJaunte
. . . It sucks for linear-type computation.
. ..

Thanks blue. That's exactly what I was thinking.

I run a lot of very-non-parallelizable computing tasks. (btw its a word now

)

Anyway, my experience has been that speed is all about clock-speed; for my engineering app's.

stomachmonkey · 04-21-2005, 04:17 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by nostatic
frontpage is evil incarnate. It has been screwing up sites since v1. Run screaming.

Yeah I know. I prefer BBedit.

Problem is this particular client happens to be my wifes sister.

Her husband set up her hosting account.

She opened her own recruiting agency. 2 employees, her and a part timer.

Anyway the brother in law gets her a package for $200 a month, fully managed, dedicated Windows box with a 120 gb drive. A bit overkill but hey it's their money. She works from home 2 days a week and runs her database from it so at least she's getting some value.

Me, I would have gotten her a small business package and set up a VPN at her office. Same end result at a quarter of the price.

Scott

dd74 · 04-21-2005, 04:18 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by island911
So what's the skinny on these Centrino Mobile chips?

I read stuff like;
"1.6GHz Pentium M Processor w/ Centrino Technology >>> Equivilent to Pentium 4 - 2.4GHz Speeds"

That just doesnt sit right with me. Is the bus speed making the difference? . . .or is it just that the Centrino is optimized for certain app's ? (giving an equiv speed only for those app's)

. . .or ?

Island: you scare me. I was going to ask this same question. I've been looking at P4 systems lately, but few are available now since M Processors have moved into the mainstream. I don't know if there'll be a market for the P4 except on the secondary market.

dd74 · 04-21-2005, 04:34 PM

Okay - maybe you guys can help me. I have two IBM laptops. The first is an A30p P3/1GHz, and the second is an R40 Centrino at 1.3GHz. Both have the same speed hard drives. The A30 has 384 mb of RAM, the R40 has 512mb of RAM.

The A30p is a tank with a nice 15-inch screen; the R40 has a 14-inch screen and lightweight. For my money, I swear Centrino is slower than P3. If at all, it does tend to hang up during brisk typing. When in Microsoft Word documents or while having many windows open, the R40 literally stops like an old man bent over and waiting to catch his breath. The A30, meanwhile, just trucks along as I type - no hitches or glitches - and with less RAM and Ghz to boot.

I truly can't deal with a machine that hangs up on me. Just today I was looking at 7200 RPM Travelstar internal HDs, as well as upgrading to a gig of RAM for the R40. But if this is something inherent to the Centrino chip, to hell with PCs. I'm going to Apple whenever the G5 laptops come out, or maybe sooner for a G4. Anyway, do you guys have any idea why this glitch - this "hanging up" - occurs on a supposedly faster machine with a newer chip and more RAM, while the older machine with the older chip and less RAM does not appear to have this problem? Both use XP Pro, BTW, and right now, even as I type this, the R40 is... slowing...down...

BlueSkyJaunte · 04-21-2005, 04:57 PM

Frankly my next desktop will be a Pentium-M based machine. There are a few co.'s out there making Pentium-M mobos.

DD, you're probably dealing with OS issues regarding your Centrino vs P3 slowdowns. Try Linux on both machines and let us know.

stomachmonkey · 04-21-2005, 05:14 PM

dd,

I posted in another thread about the Travelstar HD.

ABSOLUTELY THE BEST upgrade I've EVER done to a laptop.

It's been in my current box for a year and no issues, does not suck any extra juice and it's quite.

Those 4200 and 5400 rpm drives are such a huge bottleneck.

Scott

dd74 · 04-21-2005, 05:23 PM

Scott - yes, I know. But before I invest the $300 bucks in upgrades for the Travelstar and RAM, I'm going to wipe this R40 clean once again, and start with just the XP Pro install, and keep all the IBM stuff off. I'm running over 50 processes on this thing, and I know a good half of that is not Windows related, but part of the IBM software. 50 processes has to be slowing down this machine.

island911 · 04-21-2005, 05:25 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by dd74
Island: you scare me. I was going to ask this same question. . . .

scared!? . . .well my work is done here.

yeah, such a truck-load of marketing hype for those centrinos .

I wonder how Pelican BBS would run on "Centrino technology?" The chips are afterall, sporting a coolcollar; right?

island911 · 04-21-2005, 05:34 PM

Just another thought. . .

It seems that this is the begining of the end of always faster mainstream chips.

(?)

Eric Coffey · 04-21-2005, 05:37 PM

Fyi, the term "Centrino" is just Intel's fancy name for the combo/bundle of: M processor, 855 chipset, and wi-fi card. Take any of those away, and it is no longer a "Centrino".
The Intel wi-fi card is worthless IMO though, so if that is a concern, seek out another option. For example, my mobile PC is a Dell Latitude D600 that was originally marketed as a Centrino, but since I ordered it with Dell's internal (a/b/g) wi-fi card, it doesn't carry the "C" badge. With a gig of memory (probably overkill for what I use it for), mine flies. The weak-link is now my slow HD.
I'm not sure I would go M on a desktop though. The new Pentium "X" (dual core) processor might be worth checking out. If it isn't out yet, it should be available soon.

Here's some more info:

http://www.intel.com/products/processor/
http://www.intel.com/products/processor/pentiumm/index.htm
http://www.intel.com/products/processor_number/

dd74 · 04-21-2005, 05:50 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by island911
Just another thought. . .

It seems that this is the begining of the end of always faster mainstream chips.

(?)

Just like our Porsches. They still run and can be made to run better with some aftermarket parts (cool collar not withstanding). Not always are the newer, more hoggish OS systems better than the older ones, nor is the software.

Here's a strong laptop computer:

Nicely packaged until it becomes obsolete next week: $5,219.

Steve Carlton · 04-21-2005, 08:13 PM

A computer guy in my office building speaks very highly of Chembook laptops; he resells them. Supposedly they're built with the best components. What do you guys know?

www.chembook.com

dd74 · 04-21-2005, 08:15 PM

Chembook - I've heard good things.

jyl · jyl's Garage

I'm holding out for dual-core. And I'd like that to be IBM (for Macs) or AMD (for PCs) rather than Intel.

Even though most of our apps are single-threaded, there's so much running in the background now (open windows task manager, you probably have 30-50 processes running) that multiple cores are going to be useful.

So my next desktop will probably be the iMac or PowerMac when they get the dual-core G5 processor. Dunno when, guessing late this year.

On the PC desktop side, you can get an single-core AMD-based machine because the dual-core AMD processors will be socket-compatible - pull out the single-core processor, plug in the dual-core processor, update the BIOS.

For notebooks, I'm holding out for the G5-based PowerBook. Again, dunno when, I'm thinking end of the year but that's speculation.

dd74 · 04-22-2005, 10:04 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by jyl
I'm holding out for dual-core. And I'd like that to be IBM (for Macs) or AMD (for PCs) rather than Intel.

Even though most of our apps are single-threaded, there's so much running in the background now (open windows task manager, you probably have 30-50 processes running) that multiple cores are going to be useful.

So my next desktop will probably be the iMac or PowerMac when they get the dual-core G5 processor. Dunno when, guessing late this year.

On the PC desktop side, you can get an single-core AMD-based machine because the dual-core AMD processors will be socket-compatible - pull out the single-core processor, plug in the dual-core processor, update the BIOS.

For notebooks, I'm holding out for the G5-based PowerBook. Again, dunno when, I'm thinking end of the year but that's speculation.

Yes, this is the same plan as I have. Evidently, Apple is testing G5-based Powerbooks now, but they simply run to hot, but I expect such soon. It seems whenever prices drop on the current crop of PBs, that's an indication something new is on the horizon. Meanwhile...

...last night I wiped clean my IBM R40 ThinkPad and installed XP only. Now, of course, I have no sound on the laptop, trackpad nor video support other than the rudimentary Windows features, but I'll make do until I see if this thing continues its "stalling." If so, I may pull the trigger on the 7,200 RPM Travelstar and a gig of RAM. Hmmm...7,200 RPM. I wish my 911 revved that high - with power, that is.