Laptop and processor comparison

[agibsonsw]

Hi. Might grab a laptop tomorrow. It's been a while and I'm not up to speed when comparing processors (excuse the pun..).

For example, is there a significant difference between:
Intel Pentium Dual Core T4500 @2.13GHz
Intel Core i3-330M @2.13GHz ?

I'm not too hot on graphics either:
ATI Mobility Radeonâ„¢ HD 4250 Graphic
Intel HD Graphics ?

As you can tell, I won't be buying a top of the range model . I'm looking for a bit of a bargain, but would rather spend a little more rather than compromising too much on speed. Andy.

[HansV]

For what it's worth, the T4500 (@2.3 GHz!) has a Passmark CPU mark of 1548, and the i3-330M of 1963 (higher is better).
(Source: High to Mid Range CPU Chart)

The ATI graphics card is probably slightly better then Intel HD, but the difference isn't great. Both will do fine for working with standard applications, neither is suitable for playing high-end 3D games.

[agibsonsw]

Hi Hans.

Thanks for that link/page - I should print it out

I don't play games.. but I understood that the graphics card can still have an impact on overall performance(?). I seem to recall reading that some processing can be passed to the graphics processor (these days) but perhaps I've misunderstood.

Andy.

[HansV]

Graphics cards have their own processor (a GPU instead of a CPU). In a 3D game, where millions of polygons have to be computed on the fly, the GPU takes over this task from the CPU. Obviously, a high-end GPU will be better at this than a low-end one.
Drawing a rectangle on the screen, even if it has rounded corners, takes considerably less computing power, so manipulating windows isn't as demanding for the graphics card as running a game.

[agibsonsw]

@Hans Thanks.

I found a couple of laptops that I was keen on but (typically) when I pursue it, it comes up "out of stock" . And it never seems possible to do something as simple as checking whether it's available at a store

Think I'll wander along to the shops tomorrow (maybe..) and explore.

Andy.

[agibsonsw]

A few processors I've come across don't appear on the previously linked page. But, for example, the processor "AMD Dual-Core C-50" states a processor speed of 1 GHz (and 1MB L2 Cache?). The stated processor speed seems to have no meaning as far as the chart is concerned. Why is this? Despite the different processors I would have assumed that a processor speed of 2GHz is generally better than one of 1GHz?

Edited: I'm not concerned about minor differences in speed, but I'm trying to avoid a processor which is notably poor in performance.

[HansV]

Raw processor speed in GHz doesn't mean a lot these days. In the '80s and '90s, processor speed doubled every 2 or 3 years. But it maxed out at between 3 and 4 GHz some 10 years ago, for physical reasons. Yet, CPUs are still getting faster because of improved on-board caching and multiple cores. A 2 GHz quad-core CPU with a large cache can easily be much faster than a 2.5 GHz single-core CPU with a small cache.

I posted a link to the "High to Mid Range CPU Chart". See CPU Benchmarks for all ranges.

[agibsonsw]

Hi Hans.

There's a search page from the link you provided and the processor I mentioned seems to have a good/reasonable rating.

I might not get caught up too much in these comparisons; buyer' reviews might be a better guide, particularly as I'm not aiming for a high-end product.

What about: Dual-Core is generally better? Intels tend to be (slightly..) better than AMD? Pentium is generally better than Celeron?

But if I can get a good price for a 3 or 4GB memory then this is probably a more significant "deal-breaker". Regards, Andy.

[HansV]

Laptop processors tend to be slower than those for desktops, because of the need for lower power consumption. But I wouldn't worry too much about processor speed. As you say, memory is more important. A super-duper CPU and 1 GB RAM (with Windows Vista or 7) will perform much worse than a somewhat slower CPU and 3 GB RAM.

[agibsonsw]

Cool

The most annoying thing about buying a new computer is removing all the "rubbish" software that is pre-installed. It never seems possible to completely remove all traces of these, particularly something like (ugg!) Norton. (Of course, before doing this I should concentrate on creating a recovery disk.)

Ta, Andy.

[HansV]

(ugg!) Norton.

Do you mean that Norton sells boots?

[jonwallace]

Cool

The most annoying thing about buying a new computer is removing all the "rubbish" software that is pre-installed. It never seems possible to completely remove all traces of these, particularly something like (ugg!) Norton. (Of course, before doing this I should concentrate on creating a recovery disk.)

Ta, Andy.

The program here http://pcdecrapifier.com/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; was recommended somewhere on this forum a wee while back (too lazy to search, sorry)

[agibsonsw]

Thank you Jon.

I see that app is designed to remove a specific list of applications, but as these are typical of the ones that are pre-installed it might be worth a go.. when I (eventually..) get round to purchasing!

Andy.