Hi,
I'm a little confused about laptop speeds....
Generally, desktop processor speeds are easy to understand, a 3Ghz P4
processor, is faster than a 2.4Ghz processor....etc, etc.
But there are so many laptop processors, that it's difficult to equate them
to desktop processor speeds.
For example, is a PENTIUM M 725 1.6Ghz processor, the equivalent of only a
1.6Ghz desktop processor, or do the two not equate?
And what about a CELERON M 370 1.5Ghz?
I'd like a laptop for post processing digital images, but would be concerned
that it
wouldn't be as fast as a desktop machine?
Si.
shepard97504@yahoo.com - 29 Jun 2005 05:42 GMT
I know when I got my laptop, I was told that my 1.7 Ghz Centrino setup
was roughly equal to a 3.0 or 3.2 on a desktop. I don't know the
comparison for certain, but the laptop sure is faster than my old
desktop which I believe is a 2.0 or 2.1 or somewhere around there. I
have no trouble processing digital photos on my laptop. I do not use
it for gaming or video DVD editing, so don't know how it would do
there.
I am sure someone will come around with a ballpark comparison for you.
> Hi,
>
[quoted text clipped - 16 lines]
>
> Si.
Ben Myers - 29 Jun 2005 14:05 GMT
I am not poo-pooing a 1.7GHz Centrino for a notebook. The power saving features
make it a worthwhile choice for portable use, far better than the hog of a Dell
notebook my client has. The client's Dell has a 3Ghz CPU and she wonders why it
lasts no more than an hour on battery.
But the fact is that a 1.7GHz Centrino has about the same processor horsepower
as a 1.7GHz Pentium 4. The processor cores are very much comparable. Somebody
was feeding a lot of hype in stating that a 1.7GHz Centrino was the equivalent
of a 3.0GHz desktop. Either that, or I do not understand processor chips and
physics very well... Ben Myers
>I know when I got my laptop, I was told that my 1.7 Ghz Centrino setup
>was roughly equal to a 3.0 or 3.2 on a desktop. I don't know the
[quoted text clipped - 26 lines]
>>
>> Si.