|
| Thread: Technical Questions about Processor Comparisons |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 6 · NEXT» |
|
Jinxer
Legendary Hero
*****
|
posted February 25, 2010 05:40 AM |
|
Edited by Jinxer at 06:08, 25 Feb 2010.
|
Technical Questions about Processor Comparisons
I am wondering if there is anyone here that could tell me something about this processor and how it compares.
2.40 GHz AMD Turion II Ultra Dual-Core Mobile Processor M600
And also if it will work with Heroes. I have only ever used Intel Duo Core2 processors. I have been looking at comparison charts all night and it makes my head hurt and I dont understand half of the stuff they talk about. Bottom line I found a pretty good deal on new laptop, and just wanna make sure that this processor is not junk before I buy it.. Wanna make sure its atleast as good if not better then what I got and that it will run Heroes just fine.
**** EDIT ****
While were at it.. Could also use some comparison info and advice about this Video Card...
ATI Radeon HD4650 1GB Dedicated Memory
____________
|
|
fiur
Promising
Supreme Hero
Map Creator
|
|
posted February 25, 2010 07:26 AM |
|
|
Well mate both are good enough by far for Heroes V 
____________
|
|
Jinxer
Legendary Hero
*****
|
|
posted February 25, 2010 01:42 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Well mate both are good enough by far for Heroes V
Thanks mate... always good to hear from you  But I was hoping for a tiny bit more in general opinions of info about there over all performance and comparison to all applications not just Heroes 5. Even tho that is really the only game I play.. Should I decide to load a more grpahically intense game, how will these 2 items perform and compare
____________
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted February 25, 2010 03:27 PM |
|
|
In general laptop parts are pretty underpowered compared to desktop parts. What is worse, for laptops who claim to be replacing "desktop" usage, they overheat very easily (especially the graphics card) unless you put them in a well-ventilated position. Keep that in mind depending on where you want to use the laptop.
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
Jinxer
Legendary Hero
*****
|
|
posted February 25, 2010 05:31 PM |
|
|
Well I appreciate the advice.. I switched to Laptop many years ago, and I will never go back to a desktop. My older laptops always overheated but that was Single Processor at 3.0GHZ.. now that there is Dual Core.. I have never had a problem.
So the issue isnt IF I will get a laptop.. but that I AM getting one.. And I am just trying to get the Best most upto date with best components but at same time very affordable.
Current Laptop I am looking at has this basic setup.
17.3 Screen
2.4 Ghz Dual Core Processor
4 Gig Memory
640Gig Hardrive
Ati Radeon Video Card 1Gig Dedicated Memory
BlueRay Rom
$799.00
____________
|
|
Shares
Supreme Hero
I am. Thusly I am.
|
|
posted February 25, 2010 05:42 PM |
|
|
What speed are those memories? And how many channels? I know it might not matter that much to some people, but I'd rather have a fast memory than a big one. Also, what OS are you planning on?
____________
|
|
Jinxer
Legendary Hero
*****
|
|
posted February 25, 2010 06:19 PM |
|
Edited by Jinxer at 19:23, 25 Feb 2010.
|
not sure I will look and check the speeds... BUT they sold the laptop I was looking at!!! GRRRRR Now I bet I wont find a deal like that again!
____________
|
|
Shares
Supreme Hero
I am. Thusly I am.
|
|
posted February 25, 2010 07:37 PM |
|
|
Ok, but I might be able to find you one on order, but since I don't know what you actually want, I really can't give any tips. As I've understood it; you want a laptop that without any problems can play H5 (on maximum/medium/low graphics?), but that's pretty much all. How much money are you willing to pay? What else, apart from H5, will you play/do on it? Do you want to be able to play future/"current" games (ie more demanding games than a "regular" game), like H6 ? Maybe you do some modelling or something like that?
What OS (XP/Vista/W7/MAC I presume?) do you want? The OS is quite important, W7 seems proising, but it's still new, heavy and expensive, with vista you'll need a lot more memory than the others, and XP is getting old and limiting (not yet though), yet a lot of games are still 32-bits and gets angry with 64-bits and I really don't know that much about MAC, but a lot of games are windows only.
Sorry for all the questions though.
____________
|
|
Jinxer
Legendary Hero
*****
|
|
posted February 25, 2010 08:07 PM |
|
|
When I get a few mins I will post a link to ALL the details of exaclty what I am thinking about.. Stay tuned... thanks for your help...
____________
|
|
Shares
Supreme Hero
I am. Thusly I am.
|
|
posted February 25, 2010 08:15 PM |
|
|
I haven't really done anything... yet?
____________
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted February 25, 2010 10:13 PM |
|
|
Hi Jinxer.
Completely agree with you - Notebooks are the only way to go for me as well for a lot of years now, and I just bought my 5th.
Anyway, I wouldn't go for an AMD processor - L2cache sucks a bit, and the way to go is Intel. Videocard I'd prefer Nvidia as well - ATI has good specs, but I've made bad experience with heat and cooling there.
Now, with 4 Gigs of Ram you either have 1 Gig you can't use, OR you need a 64bit OS. However, most 4 gig mem rigs com with a 32bit Win7 version, but with that you may have 40 gigs on board, you can use only 3.
With a 64bit OS, though 4 gigs is more or less a minimum configuration at this point, and I would take EIGHT now with a 64bit OS.
Lastly, the brand. There are a couple of brands that doesn't cut it, actually, but since I don't know where you live...
|
|
Jinxer
Legendary Hero
*****
|
|
posted February 26, 2010 03:26 AM |
|
Edited by Jinxer at 05:26, 26 Feb 2010.
|
Quote:
Ok, but I might be able to find you one on order, but since I don't know what you actually want, I really can't give any tips. As I've understood it; you want a laptop that without any problems can play H5 (on maximum/medium/low graphics?), but that's pretty much all. How much money are you willing to pay? What else, apart from H5, will you play/do on it? Do you want to be able to play future/"current" games (ie more demanding games than a "regular" game), like H6? Maybe you do some modelling or something like that?
What OS (XP/Vista/W7/MAC I presume?) do you want? The OS is quite important, W7 seems proising, but it's still new, heavy and expensive, with vista you'll need a lot more memory than the others, and XP is getting old and limiting (not yet though), yet a lot of games are still 32-bits and gets angry with 64-bits and I really don't know that much about MAC, but a lot of games are windows only.
Sorry for all the questions though.
Well to be honest, I want to get a pretty decent high end Laptop, without spending over $1000. I know its possible to spend $6000 for the Greatest most state of the art Quad Core blah blah.. but for example right now I have Nvidia GForce Go 7900 video card with 256 dedicated memory.. and only 2 gig Memory.. and an Intel Duo Core T7200 ( 2.0 Ghz) And it performs great.. I cannot complain.. I can play heroes 5 on Highest resolution with no problem, I can play My battleField 2 game with no jerkyness.. So I figured that if I jump to 4Gig Memory and 1Gig Video Memory and up to a 2.4Ghz processor that it would have to be way better and able to play virtually any new graphically intense game I wanted to play??? Or is my logic flawed?
And I have been trying to research and compare processors and the clock speeds differences on most are negligible. Like one will say it clocks at 1432 and the other one clocks better at 1504... I mean does that really make it noticable in performance that little bit of clock speed boost?
And also.. If I have great results with Nvidia 256 Card.. wouldnt I by default have WAY WAY WAY better results wth ATI radeon 1024 Card? Even if you personally prefer Nvidia.... isnt 4 X the memory gonna way outperform it? And Wont it beable to handle majority of the new graphically intense games if I wanted to get them??
Here is the specs on the laptop I am looking at right now......
Specifications
Microprocessor 2.2GHz Intel Core2 Duo Processor Processor M600
Microprocessor Cache 2MB L2 Cache
Memory 4096MB DDR3
Memory Max 8192MB
Video Graphics ATI Mobility Radeon HD 4650 (M96)
Video Memory Up to 2815MB (1024MB dedicated)
Hard Drive 500GB (7200RPM)
Multimedia Drive LightScribe Blu-Ray ROM with SuperMulti DVD±R/RW Double Layer
Display 17.3” Diagonal HD+ High-Definition HP LED BrightView Widescreen Display (1600 x 900)
Fax/Modem High speed 56k modem
Network Card Integrated 10/100/1000 Gigabit Ethernet LAN
Wireless Connectivity 802.11a/b/g/n WLAN
Sound Altec Lansing with SRS Premium Sound and Sub-Woofer
Keyboard 101-key compatible with full size keyboard with integrated numeric keypad
Pointing Device Touch Pad with On/Off button and dedicated vertical scroll Up/Down pad
PC Card Slots 1 ExpressCard/54 Slot (also supports ExpressCard/34)
External Ports 5-in-1 integrated Digital Media Reader for Secure Digital cards, MultiMedia cards, Memory Stick, Memory Stick Pro, or xD Picture cards
4 Universal Serial Bus (USB) 2.0, 4th port shared with eSATA
2 Headphone out
1 microphone-in
HDMI
1 VGA (15-pin)
eSATA + USB 2.0
1 RJ-11 (modem)
1 RJ -45 (LAN)
1 notebook expansion port 3
1 IEEE 1394
irewire (4-pin)
1 Consumer IR (Remote Receiver)
Other Devices HP Webcam with integrated digital microphone
Dimensions 16.2" (W) x 10.9" (D) x 1.37" (min H)/1.70" (max H)
Weight 7.69 Ibs
Security Kensington MicroSaver lock slot
Power-on password
Accepts 3rd party security lock devices
Power 90W AC Adapter
8-Cell Lithium-Ion battery
Operating System Genuine Windows 7 Home Premium 64-bit
Notice this latest one I found has intel 2.2 Ghz... so I have found 2 virutally identical laptops.. one has AMD 2.4 GHZ ( average clock speed 2395 Ghz) with 640 gig HD other has Intel 2.2 Ghz(average clock speed 1774Ghz) with 500 Gig HD other then that all all specs are identical.. So your telling me the Intel would be better at 2.2 then AMD at 2.4 ? Altho the part that confuses me.. is according to the ranking list... The intel is ranked 21 and the AMD is raked 35 on the list.
____________
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted February 26, 2010 07:29 AM |
|
|
Well. There is no Intel M600 processor with 2.2 Ghz.
Intel M processors are Celerons (budgets). If it's something else, it's either a T5900, a T6600 or a T7500, but these are all well-aged (the Celerons as well, and for a well-aged procesor I wouldn't go for 2.2 Ghz, but for MORE. If you go for the older Core 2 Duo you should take at least a T9300 (or 9400 or 9500) or a P8700
The actual Intel models are i3, i5 and i7 (there is no 2.2 Ghz among them).
So that is the first flaw.
The ATI card is great, although not the newest model either; however, aiming for a BUDGET notebook with high performance the card is excellent. (Nvidia GT 330M would be the thing now, I guess).
Hard Drive 7200 RPMs is commndable.
Display is mediocre. 1600x900 is nothing special - the card does better. I have a 1920x1080 with the ssame ATI Card which is stunning.
Which leaves the brand of the Book itself? (No matter the brand name, the processor, while preferrable to the AMD, doesn't cut it.)
|
|
Jinxer
Legendary Hero
*****
|
|
posted February 26, 2010 05:12 PM |
|
Edited by Jinxer at 17:33, 26 Feb 2010.
|
OK you got me thinking now...
What is the difference between these 2 cards... BESIDES the obvious dedicated memory..
NVIDIA GeForce GT 130M (1GB Video Memory dedicated)-Benchmark = 10,417
NVIDIA GeForce 9600M GT (512 Video Memory dedicated)-Benchmark = 9592
ATI Radeon Mobility 4650 HD (1GB Video Memory dedicated)-Benchmark = 12609
The ATI's benchmark is far higher then both the Nvidia... can you break it down for me what these benchmarks really mean, and if these are good way to gage there performace. The ATI is couple hundred bucks cheaper and appears to perform better.
Also the new laptop I am looking at has this processor..
Standard CPU Intel(R) Core(TM)2 Duo Processor P8700 2 X(2.53 GHz)
So ya think this one is better then the Core2 T6600 by alot?
____________
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted February 26, 2010 08:03 PM |
|
|
Right let's see.
ATI Radeon 4650 is roughly 1 year old. As I said, I have this card in a Sony Vaio with 1920x1080 and the combination rocks. Since it's a year old, you'll get this very cheap - as i said, a card of choice, if you want a really decent rig with good graphics.
However, a year is a year. Let's compare a couple of performances:
1) Computing power over stream processors in GFlops (Floating Point Operations Per Second): 352
2) Pixel filling rate of graphic processors in Gpixel (This shows how many PIXELs the card can compute per second): 4.4
3) Texelfillrate " " " " (Texes is texture mapping or BITMAPS): 17.6
4) Data transfer to graphics memory (this ia basically the amount of BITS the card can process): 25.6
Finally the card has 320 stream processors and 32, 4 shader clusters and 32 texture mapping units.
(this is basically what benchmarls are about - card performance)
The 9600 GT is TWO years old already!
The 100 series cards of Nvidia need the GTS versions to compete (they are of comaparable age); so you'd need a 150 or 160 card to get the performance of the Radeon, and even then it's still ATI.
The 300 series is brand new and will cost a fortune.
The pick to try and get a 200 series card, starting with a GTS 250 that comes with 360 GFlops with the 260GTX offering 462 GFlops (still not being the best of the series).
(Nvidia generally has GT, GTS, GTX suffixes for normal, better, best performance values).
So bottom line of grahics adapters is, that ATI Radeon 4650 with 1 Gig (there is a 512 version as well), beats the 2 year old 9000 Nvidia cards and the 100 series video card as well.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The 8700 is a good processor. My wife has it in an MSI 17'' rig - bit aged, but very decent performance. 8700 and 6600 are roughly of the same age, but 8700 has a better performance.
|
|
Jinxer
Legendary Hero
*****
|
|
posted February 27, 2010 12:26 AM |
|
Edited by Jinxer at 00:44, 27 Feb 2010.
|
Quote:
The 8700 is a good processor. My wife has it in an MSI 17'' rig - bit aged, but very decent performance. 8700 and 6600 are roughly of the same age, but 8700 has a better performance.
Now wait wait wait... so the 8700 and the 6600 are the same age? How much better performance can I expect outta the 8700? We are talking about $250 difference in the 2 laptops I am looking at. If I am really not gonna notice the difference then is it worth the extra? Or will it be worth it?
BTW thanks again for all the time and effort trying to explain all this to me
EDIT***
Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-720QM Processor (1.6GHz, 6MB L2 Cache, 1333MHz FSB) w/Turbo Boost up to 2.8 GHz
1GB Nvidia GeForce GT 230M Video Card
So how about this? Its quad core.. but the Ghz drops from 2.4 down to 1.6? But what does the turbo boost mean? And I guess 1.6 X 4 = 6.4 ghz so that is better then 2.4 X 2 = 4.4 Ghz lol
And is this GeForce GT 230M better then the ATI Radeon Mobility 4650?
____________
|
|
Shares
Supreme Hero
I am. Thusly I am.
|
|
posted February 27, 2010 12:59 AM |
|
Edited by Shares at 01:06, 27 Feb 2010.
|
The turbo boost means that you can turn them up, propably with just a button, for a short while. It'll give you a boost when it has to work extra hard/fast. It would propably be able to run it on 2,4 GHz all the time, but since we're talking laptops the heat build up is a very important matter. Having a bad heat compatibility on a stationary rig isn't that bad, but for a laptop it's fatal(and that's literary).
It also means that you (if you have the know how or a guide) clock it upp quite a bit under the right conditions! Also, having more cores means that the computer can divide programs inte more threads and the i7 also have Hyper-threading, so you could run eight threads at the same time. This doesn't really do that much, because most programs doesn't support more than four threads. But the best thing with more cores is that the heat build up is divided.
The 230 is actually bit better than the 4650. Spec-wise any way, but I haven't tested it. Still, the 4650 is still good, and I prefer the ATI's, but that's a taste experience thing
|
|
Jinxer
Legendary Hero
*****
|
|
posted February 27, 2010 03:46 AM |
|
Edited by Jinxer at 05:35, 27 Feb 2010.
|
Here is my latest find... feel free to offer opinions...
Microprocessor 2.00 GHz Intel Core2 Quad Processor Q9000
Microprocessor Cache 6MB L2 Cache
Memory 4096MB DDR3 System Memory (2 Dimm)
Memory Max 8192MB
Video Graphics ATI Mobility Radeon HD 4650 (M96)
Video Memory Up to 2815MB (1024MB dedicated)
Hard Drive 500GB (7200RPM)
Multimedia Drive LightScribe SuperMulti 8X DVD±R/RW with Double Layer Support
Display 17.3” Diagonal HD+ High-Definition HP LED BrightView Widescreen Display (1600 x 900)
WINDOWS 7 64Bit
$978.00
- 78.00 Bing Cash Back
--------------------------
$900.00 Total for this System...
I am assuming the Quad Core is gonna be much better.. and if I understand it correctly this will actually offer me 8.0 Ghz of processing power at all times.?.?
____________
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted February 27, 2010 09:50 AM |
|
|
For the graphics card, NOPE the 230M (there is a 230 for desktops and a 230M for Notebooks) does NOT beat the ATI Radeon 4650. As I explained in my last post you need a THREE letter Nvidia card to beat the ATI, which would be a 250M GTS.
For QUAD cores you have the problem that you need the software to be able to "play along", which means, it must be written with multi core architectures in mind. Moreover, Shades is right - you do NOT, under NO circumstances - want to have a notebook with TURBO booster, for reasons of longevity.
Quote:
Here is my latest find... feel free to offer opinions...
Microprocessor 2.00 GHz Intel Core2 Quad Processor Q9000
Microprocessor Cache 6MB L2 Cache
Memory 4096MB DDR3 System Memory (2 Dimm)
Memory Max 8192MB
Video Graphics ATI Mobility Radeon HD 4650 (M96)
Video Memory Up to 2815MB (1024MB dedicated)
Hard Drive 500GB (7200RPM)
Multimedia Drive LightScribe SuperMulti 8X DVD±R/RW with Double Layer Support
Display 17.3” Diagonal HD+ High-Definition HP LED BrightView Widescreen Display (1600 x 900)
WINDOWS 7 64Bit
$978.00
- 78.00 Bing Cash Back
--------------------------
$900.00 Total for this System...
I am assuming the Quad Core is gonna be much better.. and if I understand it correctly this will actually offer me 8.0 Ghz of processing power at all times.?.?
The Quad Core problem is here as well. You do NOT have 8.0 Ghz, and ESPECIALLY if you want to play HoMM 5, you MUST have an eye on the performance of the single processor. Moreover, I always miss the BRAND name of the Book which is important as well: quality, warranty, motherboard, updates, service....
I think you are going at this the wrong way. I had basically the same problem last year (I wanted to have a notebook that will allow me to play HoMM 5, but newer games as well). Moreover, you CAN use older software without problems on Win7/64, most of them anyway, and while the newer versions are updated to run well under multi-core processors, the older ones are not.
Lastly, nothing has changed in terms of RAM - the more RAM you have, the better it is, especially if you consider the border there is: THREE (3) GB for 32bit, and 64bit for everything else.
That means,
1) you should aim for an Intel DOUBLE core (core 2 duo) processor with at least 2.4 Ghz. Of course there is age to consider as well for archiecture, so I'd go for one of the following:
P8700
P8800
P9600
P9700
SP9600
T9550
T9800
T9900
2) RAM. It makes no sense to go for the 64bit OS (some programs do not run on 64 bit or have difficulties) (the mail program I prefer, for example, isn't (yet) available for 64bit OS); however, this is a TEMPORARY problem only, because, inevitably, with RAM ever increasing, the 64bit OS will be standard within the next 2 years or so), just for ONE additional Gigabite of RAM. Note further that DDR3 RAM is faster (especially for graphics) than DDR2 RAM, and if you want to use the additional graphics memory it makes sense to get DDR3 RAM, and more than 4 as well. 6 would be better.
3) Graphics. The ATI Radeon 4650 is great; there is nothing wrong with it, it has amazing performance and it's reasonably cheap - and it runs well with Intel processors as well (which can't be said generally - you'd go for either Intel/Nvidia or AMD/ATI, but the ATI 4650 is fine in every respect: it beats everything comparable by Nvidia, so the card is fine).
EDIT: I had something mixed up, so here's a correction.
4) DISPLAY. This is of course worth a thought. 1600x900 resolution is one better again than 1440x900, because 1440 X 900 is 16:10 ratio - which older games do NOT support as a matter of fact. Homm5 DOES support it, though, filling the whole screen, thankfully. So with a view on this, full 16:9 format on a 17'' screen is wider, but not broader. So a 17'' with 1440 x 900 is 16:10 ratio, while 1600 X 900 is 16:9 with a better resolution
The bottom line is, that 1600x900 is pretty good. Of course there is 1920 x 1080 as well.
Moreover, with true 16:9, 17'' isn't quite as big as it used to be.
5) Blue Ray; Blue Ray means DVD RW/ Blue Ray read only (Blue Ray RW will be a bit expensive, yet, I'd think). This really depends on whether you want to watch Blue Ray discs on your Notebook, but in that case you need a high quality DISPLAY as well, otherwise blue ray makes no sense (your first rig had blue ray). KEEP THAT IN MIND, when going for blue ray or not.
6) Brand; this is important: there are cheaper manufacturers out there (I suppose you are from the US). For example, I would NOT recommend an ACER notebook; they come pretty cheap, at least where I live, so you'll get good performance offers, but the quality is bad. If you plan on using the book a lot, don't buy an ACER, because chances are you will curse the thing.
|
|
the_teacher
Supreme Hero
Talk to the hand!
|
|
posted February 27, 2010 12:08 PM |
|
|
| |
|
|
