Curse

Detis Zan · Dec 06, 2005, 01:33 AM // 01:33

Oh I see you have the cash.

*Eye twitch at the word Alienware*

Alright I'll look on there as well what's your price range?

Bubba Lips · Dec 06, 2005, 01:36 AM // 01:36

Alienware = u pay for looks

Detis Zan · Dec 06, 2005, 01:39 AM // 01:39

Indeed..

Well looking at the AMD notebook it comes to 2,894 monies.

That's with the best graphics card and is the Aurora m7700 version the whole two processors on one chip.

-And 1gb of the dual Ram

Dex · Dec 06, 2005, 01:49 AM // 01:49

IMO, this would be more accurate:

Intel > AMD @ Encoding
Intel < AMD @ Almost Anything But Encoding

A lot of Intel's encoding advantage lies in industry standards and software optimizations as well. I would say that you're only going to see a difference in benchmarks, but that's not entirely true. AMD processors still offer (in most cases) better bang-for-the-buck, and the Pentium 4 Prescott cores just run way too hot. The heat issue is a big one as far as I'm concerned. The higher clockspeed P4 Prescotts are like little space heaters.

However, since the original poster stated that he/she is buying a laptop it changes the argument entirely. The Pentium M CPU is based on the Pentium III Coppermine core design, which to this day is one of Intel's best design achievements. The Pentium M runs cool, consumes little power, and is quite powerful for a mobile CPU. In fact, look for Intel to take a step backwards and to start making new CPU designs that look more like Coppermine cores.

If you're getting a laptop go for the Intel Pentium M hands-down.

Hope that helps.

Kool Pajamas · Dec 06, 2005, 01:49 AM // 01:49

I want to keep at/under $4,000

Alienware only offers AMD 64 or P4.

And Alienware is only about $400 more than Hp with the same stuff.

Bubba Lips · Dec 06, 2005, 01:53 AM // 01:53

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dex

IMO, this would be more accurate:

Intel > AMD @ Encoding
Intel < AMD @ Almost Anything But Encoding

A lot of Intel's encoding advantage lies in industry standards and software optimizations as well. I would say that you're only going to see a difference in benchmarks, but that's not entirely true. AMD processors still offer (in most cases) better bang-for-the-buck, and the Pentium 4 Prescott cores just run way too hot. The heat issue is a big one as far as I'm concerned. The higher clockspeed P4 Prescotts are like little space heaters.

However, since the original poster stated that he/she is buying a laptop it changes the argument entirely. The Pentium M CPU is based on the Pentium III Coppermine core design, which to this day is one of Intel's best design achievements. The Pentium M runs cool, consumes little power, and is quite powerful for a mobile CPU. In fact, look for Intel to take a step backwards and to start making new CPU designs that look more like Coppermine cores.

If you're getting a laptop go for the Intel Pentium M hands-down.

Hope that helps.

Already said, ty for the extra info to explain my theory.
Oh and if you're looking to play GW on ur laptop go AMD.

Dex · Dec 06, 2005, 01:59 AM // 01:59

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kool Pajamas

I want to keep at/under $4,000

Alienware only offers AMD 64 or P4.

And Alienware is only about $400 more than Hp with the same stuff.

Well, in that case I would choose the Athlon64. Keep in mind that if you buy a laptop with a desktop CPU inside your battery isn't going to last very long. The Athlon64 is better about heat and power consumption than the P4, but not even in the same ballpark as the Pentium M. If you plan to game without wires or on an airplane I would invest in some extra batteries and keep 'em charged!

Kool Pajamas · Dec 06, 2005, 02:02 AM // 02:02

Its going to stay mostly in my room. It has to be a laptop because of the arrangement of my room. Its too complicated to have a desktop. And I just like the convenience of being able to move it wherever whenever.

Dex · Dec 06, 2005, 02:09 AM // 02:09

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bubba Lips

Already said, ty for the extra info to explain my theory.
Oh and if you're looking to play GW on ur laptop go AMD.

Well, not exactly. Wasn't trying to step on your toes there, Bubba.

I understand your enthusiasm for AMD products. The last 6 CPUs I've purchased have been in the AMD Athlon series of processors. However, take a look at some of the benchmarks for Pentium M CPUs using some of the new adapters for desktop motherboards.

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets...oc.aspx?i=2382

Combine the near-AMD performance with the lower power consumption and you get a much better solution for a mobile system. A friend of mine has a laptop with a Pentium M and it runs GW beautifully and he can actually play on battery power for more than 20 minutes without having to plug in.

Not trying to be argumentative. Just trying to help our friend make the right decision.

Loviatar · Dec 06, 2005, 02:12 AM // 02:12

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kool Pajamas

I want to keep at/under $4,000

Alienware only offers AMD 64 or P4.

And Alienware is only about $400 more than Hp with the same stuff.

on the AMD/INTEL dual core debate intel didnt win a single benchmark in this 7 round test

go AMD

http://reviews-zdnet.com.com/4520-10...tml?tag=promo2

Kool Pajamas · Dec 06, 2005, 02:13 AM // 02:13

But...I cant get Pentium M.....

Alienware only offers AMD 64 or P4.

Dex · Dec 06, 2005, 02:17 AM // 02:17

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kool Pajamas

But...I cant get Pentium M.....

Alienware only offers AMD 64 or P4.

Yeah, I know.

If you must go Alienware then choose the AMD. If mobility is not an issue then disregard what I said about power problems. The only downside to a laptop in that case it that you can't upgrade later.

Good luck with your purchase!

Old Dood · Dec 06, 2005, 02:20 AM // 02:20

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kool Pajamas

But...I cant get Pentium M.....

Alienware only offers AMD 64 or P4.

Dell offers the Pentium M in their XPS laptop. Got great reviews from PC Gamer and Millinium PC magazines.

Kool Pajamas · Dec 06, 2005, 02:22 AM // 02:22

Quote:

Originally Posted by Loviatar

on the AMD/INTEL dual core debate intel didnt win a single benchmark in this 7 round test

go AMD

http://reviews-zdnet.com.com/4520-10...tml?tag=promo2

Oh snap. That makes things a little easier. Although I'm going to have to spend a slight more now....

Dex · Dec 06, 2005, 02:27 AM // 02:27

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kool Pajamas

Oh snap. That makes things a little easier. Although I'm going to have to spend a slight more now....

Also keep in mind that while dual-core is cool, GW is a single-threaded application. That means that it will only use one of your CPUs/cores at a time. The only advantage to dual-core in gaming is if you have other CPU-hungry apps running the the background while you're gaming. An Athlon64 X2-3800 will not run GW faster than a single-core Athlon64-3800.

But, why listen to me? I'm just a computer engineer and hardcore gamer...

Kool Pajamas · Dec 06, 2005, 02:39 AM // 02:39

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dex

Also keep in mind that while dual-core is cool, GW is a single-threaded application. That means that it will only use one of your CPUs/cores at a time. The only advantage to dual-core in gaming is if you have other CPU-hungry apps running the the background while you're gaming. An Athlon64 X2-3800 will not run GW faster than a single-core Athlon64-3800.

But, why listen to me? I'm just a computer engineer and hardcore gamer...

True, but this laptop will be one for the next 5 years (hopefully. I know it will be considered weak at the end of its life, but thats the plan), so I'm sure there will be some dual core games out in that time.

Here it is so far:

AMD Athlon™ 64 X2 3800+ with HyperTransport and Dual Core Technology
Microsoft® Windows® XP Home Edition with Service Pack 2
3-Year AlienCare Toll-Free 24/7 Phone Support with Onsite Service Bundle with AlienAutopsy and Respawn - Great Value
17" WideUXGA 1920 x 1200 LCD Clearview Display with Built-in Camera
2GB Dual Channel DDR SO-DIMM at 400MHz - 2 x 1024MB
256MB NVidia® GeForce™ Go 7800 GTX
160GB (80GB x 2) 7200 RPM SATA
8X Dual Layer DVD+/-RW / 24X CD-RW Combo w/Software
24x10x24 CD-RW / 8X DVD Combo w/Software MPEG2 Decoder
Creative Sound Blaster® Audigy® 2 ZS PCMCIA
Internal Wireless 802.11b/g miniPCI Card

For only $4,234.00

Dex · Dec 06, 2005, 02:47 AM // 02:47

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kool Pajamas

True, but this laptop will be one for the next 5 years (hopefully. I know it will be considered weak at the end of its life, but thats the plan), so I'm sure there will be some dual core games out in that time.

Yeah, maybe. Multi-threaded applications cost around 3-5 times more to develop than single-threaded ones using current software design techniques, so maybe not. We'll have to see. With the XBox 360 being tri-core and the PS3 being "crazy-way-too-many-cores-what-the-heck-were-they-thinking-omg" we might see some new design models emerging for multi-threaded app design.

I'll tell you this much: we probably won't see more than a handful of titles that are multi-threaded in the next 2-3 years. If I'm wrong about that I'll eat my hat, boy howdy...

lord_shar · Dec 06, 2005, 12:03 PM // 12:03

Quick food for thought:

http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20050525/index.html

In a nutshell, the above article describes how the P3's old Dothan core, now used on Pentium-M's/Centrino processors, smoked both Intel P4 EE's and AMD 64-FX flagship processors when overclocked from 2.13 ghz to 2.56. This gives us an idea of just how well the Centrino scales with clock speed, especially as a gaming processor. No, this doesn't mean that we should overclock laptop CPU's.

Since the OP mentioned laptop, Pentium-M/Centrino's are definitely the way to go, especially since power-management will be an issue. I'm looking at the the Dell XPS M170 w/ Nvidia 7800GXT 256MB video card as my next possible PC...

http://www1.us.dell.com/content/prod...=19&l=en&s=dhs

EternalTempest · Dec 06, 2005, 07:00 PM // 19:00

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dex

Also keep in mind that while dual-core is cool, GW is a single-threaded application. That means that it will only use one of your CPUs/cores at a time. The only advantage to dual-core in gaming is if you have other CPU-hungry apps running the the background while you're gaming. An Athlon64 X2-3800 will not run GW faster than a single-core Athlon64-3800.

But, why listen to me? I'm just a computer engineer and hardcore gamer...

True but Nvidia and Ati drivers are starting to use dual core's in there drivers to boost performance and for Windows Vista (out next year if all goes as planned by Ms) will definately use the performance boost of a dual core. More and more apps are staring to do dual core and 64bit support but in truth, Windows Vista will spur the big push.

I would get a dual core for more future proof, I only upgrade every 3-5 year.

Here's Cnet article with dual core AMD vs Intel (same result AMD killed Intel in most of the tests) http://reviews.cnet.com/4520-10442_7-6389077-1.html

Kolohan Deku · Dec 07, 2005, 12:32 PM // 12:32

Yeah, it really comes down to it, Intel processors really aren't much better than AMD's offerings. Intel has the EM64T that competes with AMD64 technology, but those aren't really used in gaming that much. I would say that the dual core processors are the better bet for anyone who wants to get a jump on the technology of tomorrow. As far as gaming goes, with anything Geforce 6800GT/X850 graphics or higher, the CPUs of today will create a ceiling for the graphics. So if you are planning on getting anything higher than those, get a dual-core processor. As far as Intel v.s. AMD goes... it's whose logo you like better and what notebook has better features.

Good luck, and happy shopping.