P4 vs Centrino? Which of these laptops?

[LRW]

I'm looking at two laptops at:
http://www.accessmicro.com/content/products/index.cfm?FuseAction=NoteBook
(note: sometimes it takes a LONG time for the page to load.)

The two Intel laptops I'm looking at, one is a P4 and the other a
Mobile Centrino.
What's the difference? I ask because laptop A, the Centrino, is more
espensive, but laptop B, the P4, seems much more powerful...except the
Centrino has a 1MB L2 cache while the P4 has a 512KB L2.

Can anyone explain based on this why one would be more powerful than
the other?
Thanks! =)

M8080 Mobile-Intel Centrino
CPU: Centrino Mobile FSB 400MHz @ 1.3GHz CPU
CORE LOGIC: Montara - GM +ICH4 -M w/ 1MB L2 cache
RAM: DDR-SDRAM
VIDEO: Intel 82852/82855 64MB

G732-Intel Pentium 4
CPU: P4 Northwood 533 MHz FSB @ 2.2 GHz
CORE: 512KB L2 cache
RAM: DDR SO DIMM
VIDEO: ATI Mobility 9000 M9 64MB

Liam
druid -at- celticbear -dot- com

[Robert Myers]

On 26 Jun 2003 06:56:25 -0700, liam@celticbear.com (LRW) wrote:
I'm looking at two laptops at:http://www.accessmicro.com/content/products/index.cfm?FuseAction=NoteBook(note: sometimes it takes a LONG time for the page to load.)The two Intel laptops I'm looking at, one is a P4 and the other aMobile Centrino.What's the difference? I ask because laptop A, the Centrino, is moreespensive, but laptop B, the P4, seems much more powerful...except theCentrino has a 1MB L2 cache while the P4 has a 512KB L2.Can anyone explain based on this why one would be more powerful thanthe other?Thanks! =)M8080 Mobile-Intel CentrinoCPU: Centrino Mobile FSB 400MHz @ 1.3GHz CPUCORE LOGIC: Montara - GM +ICH4 -M w/ 1MB L2 cacheRAM: DDR-SDRAMVIDEO: Intel 82852/82855 64MBG732-Intel Pentium 4CPU: P4 Northwood 533 MHz FSB @ 2.2 GHzCORE: 512KB L2 cacheRAM: DDR SO DIMMVIDEO: ATI Mobility 9000 M9 64MB
Common wisdom: 1.6GHz centrino=2.4GHz P4, so 1.3GHz=2GHz P4.

Centrino executes (on the average) more instructions per clock than
the P4.

In order to be branded Centrino, computers must come with 802.11b, a
feature you'll be sorry for leaving out if you do. Odd that the web
description mentions this feature only by way of the "built-in
wireless antenna".

Main selling point of the Centrino: lower power consumption, longer
battery life. Unless you're using your notebook as a portable desktop
replacement, longer battery life trumps a 10% difference in speed any
day.

Notebook purchased for travel and other mobile use: Centrino.

Notebook purchased as portable desktop replacement: P4.

RM

[Kenneth A Kauffman]

"Robert Myers" <rmyers@rustuck.com> wrote in message
news:uvvlfvc034977mendt73cdj8lcnnjebel0@4ax.com... On 26 Jun 2003 06:56:25 -0700, liam@celticbear.com (LRW) wrote:I'm looking at two laptops at:http://www.accessmicro.com/content/products/index.cfm?FuseAction=NoteBook(note: sometimes it takes a LONG time for the page to load.)The two Intel laptops I'm looking at, one is a P4 and the other aMobile Centrino.What's the difference? I ask because laptop A, the Centrino, is moreespensive, but laptop B, the P4, seems much more powerful...except theCentrino has a 1MB L2 cache while the P4 has a 512KB L2.Can anyone explain based on this why one would be more powerful thanthe other?Thanks! =)M8080 Mobile-Intel CentrinoCPU: Centrino Mobile FSB 400MHz @ 1.3GHz CPUCORE LOGIC: Montara - GM +ICH4 -M w/ 1MB L2 cacheRAM: DDR-SDRAMVIDEO: Intel 82852/82855 64MBG732-Intel Pentium 4CPU: P4 Northwood 533 MHz FSB @ 2.2 GHzCORE: 512KB L2 cacheRAM: DDR SO DIMMVIDEO: ATI Mobility 9000 M9 64MB Common wisdom: 1.6GHz centrino=2.4GHz P4, so 1.3GHz=2GHz P4. Centrino executes (on the average) more instructions per clock than the P4. In order to be branded Centrino, computers must come with 802.11b, a feature you'll be sorry for leaving out if you do. Odd that the web description mentions this feature only by way of the "built-in wireless antenna". Main selling point of the Centrino: lower power consumption, longer battery life. Unless you're using your notebook as a portable desktop replacement, longer battery life trumps a 10% difference in speed any day. Notebook purchased for travel and other mobile use: Centrino. Notebook purchased as portable desktop replacement: P4. RM

You should also consider AMD laptops with 802.11b functionality. AMD has
been architecturally doing what Centrino has just begun to do for some time
now.

ken k

[Robert Myers]

On Thu, 26 Jun 2003 11:03:05 -0400, JK <JK9821@netcape.net> wrote:

<snip>The Centrino system has a processor that is only 1.3 ghz.Although it will probably run faster than a 1.3 ghz Pentium 4,it is probably much slower than an Athlon XP2000+ in mostsoftware.

While a computer architect I very much admire at AMD would be glad to
know that people are championing the cause of AMD processors for
mobile applications, this kind of statement really isn't helpful.

My guess, based on reading lots of benchmarks and understanding what I
do of the architectures of the chips involved, would be that the
performance of a 1.3 GHz Centrino and an Athlon XP2000+ would be
indistinguishable to most users, and that benchmarks would confirm
that their performance is comparable.

http://users.erols.com/chare/elec.htm lists the "typical power
dissipation of an Athlon XP2000+ as 62.5 watts and the "thermal design
power of 1.3GHz Banias (the processor part of the Centrino set) as 22
wattts.

AMD processors are always worth considering, but overstating the case
really doesn't help anyone, including AMD. In particular, trying to
push Athlon XP's as a drop-in, low-cost replacement for Centrino is
something I don't think even AMD marketeers would do.

AMD is working on its own innovative low-power designs. I don't think
the Athlon XP is one of them. Don't steal their thunder by trying to
help them out with misplaced cheerleading.

RM

[LRW]

Robert Myers <rmyers@rustuck.com> wrote in message news:<uvvlfvc034977mendt73cdj8lcnnjebel0@4ax.com>... On 26 Jun 2003 06:56:25 -0700, liam@celticbear.com (LRW) wrote: Common wisdom: 1.6GHz centrino=2.4GHz P4, so 1.3GHz=2GHz P4. Centrino executes (on the average) more instructions per clock than the P4.

Thanks for the feedback! But, "common wisdom"? I didn't know that.
(One of the reasons I'm asking about the differences.) Why is it that
the Centrino executes more instructions? Does it have to do with the
double sized L2 cache?

I have heard that AMD does the same thing which is why they can
outperform Pentiums of the same speed even with their lower FSB. (Do I
have that right?)

Well, this is probably 75/25 desktop replacement. Which is one reason
that ATI Moility 9000 video card is very appealing.

Thanks again for the reply! =)

[JK]

Robert Myers wrote:
On Thu, 26 Jun 2003 11:03:05 -0400, JK <JK9821@netcape.net> wrote: <snip>The Centrino system has a processor that is only 1.3 ghz.Although it will probably run faster than a 1.3 ghz Pentium 4,it is probably much slower than an Athlon XP2000+ in mostsoftware. While a computer architect I very much admire at AMD would be glad to know that people are championing the cause of AMD processors for mobile applications, this kind of statement really isn't helpful. My guess, based on reading lots of benchmarks and understanding what I do of the architectures of the chips involved, would be that the performance of a 1.3 GHz Centrino and an Athlon XP2000+ would be indistinguishable to most users, and that benchmarks would confirm that their performance is comparable. http://users.erols.com/chare/elec.htm lists the "typical power dissipation of an Athlon XP2000+ as 62.5 watts and the "thermal design power of 1.3GHz Banias (the processor part of the Centrino set) as 22 wattts.

LOL! You looked up the power consumption for the desktop
XP2000+ Palomino.The mobile XP2200+ is listed as having a maximum
power consumption of 35 watts. There is no listing there for typical
power consumption. I see the mobile Pentium 4 2.2 ghz listed at
46.6 watts estimated max power dissipation, while the Pentium 4
desktop cpu has an estimated max power consumption of 73.4 watts
(thermal design power/.75) . OUCH! I would not want to have that in
my notebook. The vast majority of AMD based notebooks use mobile
Athlon XP processors, while the vast majority of Intel based notebooks
under $1300 use Celeron or desktop P4 processors.
AMD processors are always worth considering, but overstating the case really doesn't help anyone, including AMD. In particular, trying to push Athlon XP's as a drop-in, low-cost replacement for Centrino is something I don't think even AMD marketeers would do.

That is funny! I would not consider the Centrino an adequate mobile
Athlon XP replacement, even if the high price of Centrino is ignored.

AMD is working on its own innovative low-power designs. I don't think the Athlon XP is one of them. Don't steal their thunder by trying to help them out with misplaced cheerleading.

There are low voltage XP-M processors up to XP2000+ for the thin and
light market if someone wants a thin notebook with long battery life.

http://www.crn.com/sections/BreakingNews/dailyarchives.asp?ArticleID=42708
RM

[LRW]

"Kenneth A Kauffman" <kkauffman@nospam.headfog.com> wrote in message news:<UBDKa.23940$pH3.3552@news2.east.cox.net>... You should also consider AMD laptops with 802.11b functionality. AMD has been architecturally doing what Centrino has just begun to do for some time now. ken k

Correct me if I'm wrong, but 802.11b is simply wireless networking, yes?
Can't you just add a wireless PCMCIA NIC and call it good?

Personally, I'm a huge AMD fan. I'm looking into this for my wife. =)

Thanks for the feedback!
Liam

[Kenneth A Kauffman]

"LRW" <liam@celticbear.com> wrote in message
news:76954702.0306260853.7b9c8b7d@posting.google.com... "Kenneth A Kauffman" <kkauffman@nospam.headfog.com> wrote in message
news:<UBDKa.23940$pH3.3552@news2.east.cox.net>... You should also consider AMD laptops with 802.11b functionality. AMD
has been architecturally doing what Centrino has just begun to do for some
time now. ken k Correct me if I'm wrong, but 802.11b is simply wireless networking, yes? Can't you just add a wireless PCMCIA NIC and call it good? Personally, I'm a huge AMD fan. I'm looking into this for my wife. =) Thanks for the feedback! Liam

Yes. But Centrino is not strictly a processor but a "chipset" which includes
specifications for built in 802.11b. So.. if you were to go "head to head"
looking at laptops, a Centrino machine will always provide 802.11b.
Therefor, comparing to anyother laptop 'feature for feature' you need to
consider cost of this functionality too.

ken k

[George Macdonald]

On Thu, 26 Jun 2003 10:22:02 -0400, Robert Myers <rmyers@rustuck.com>
wrote:
In order to be branded Centrino, computers must come with 802.11b,

Centrino has to be Intel's 802.11b - there are other alternatives in
Pentium-M systems.

Rgds, George Macdonald

"Just because they're paranoid doesn't mean you're not psychotic" - Who, me??

[George Macdonald]

On Thu, 26 Jun 2003 11:38:52 -0400, Robert Myers <rmyers@rustuck.com>
wrote:AMD is working on its own innovative low-power designs. I don't thinkthe Athlon XP is one of them. Don't steal their thunder by trying tohelp them out with misplaced cheerleading.

The Athlon XP-M has been available for months now.

Rgds, George Macdonald

"Just because they're paranoid doesn't mean you're not psychotic" - Who, me??

[Robert Myers]

On 26 Jun 2003 09:50:48 -0700, liam@celticbear.com (LRW) wrote:
Robert Myers <rmyers@rustuck.com> wrote in message news:<uvvlfvc034977mendt73cdj8lcnnjebel0@4ax.com>... On 26 Jun 2003 06:56:25 -0700, liam@celticbear.com (LRW) wrote: > Common wisdom: 1.6GHz centrino=2.4GHz P4, so 1.3GHz=2GHz P4. Centrino executes (on the average) more instructions per clock than the P4.Thanks for the feedback! But, "common wisdom"?

You can look up the benchmarks if you like. The actual comparision
will vary from one task to another, but the rule of thumb I gave is
accurate enough for making a purchasing decision.
I didn't know that.(One of the reasons I'm asking about the differences.) Why is it thatthe Centrino executes more instructions? Does it have to do with thedouble sized L2 cache?
I haven't seen a benchmark that would give insight into the role of
the larger cache. Banias (Centrino) is closer in design to the P3
than to the P4. Of the AMD and Intel microprocessors currently in
use, the P4 has the highest clock, the longest stack, and the lowest
instructions per clock. These three items are not independent. The
longer stack allows Intel to clock the P4 faster but means that
pipeline stalls are more expensive (the number of clocks lost due to a
stall is equal to the length of the stack).

Banias is faster than the P3 at the same clock rate because Intel did
some clever things, like micro-op fusion, to reduce power consumption
and get more effective work at the same clock rate.
I have heard that AMD does the same thing which is why they canoutperform Pentiums of the same speed even with their lower FSB. (Do Ihave that right?)
Intel has dug its own grave on this one, and I don't particularly want
to pull them out of it. For the reasons given above about the length
of the P4 stack, the P4 performs noticeably fewer instructions per
clock than the P3, Centrino, or any of the Athlon chips. In general,
P4 shines on tasks, like multi-media, that involve high-speed
processing of lots of data in a predictable way, and looks more like a
dog on legacy office applications and branchy code like a compiler or
pointer-chasing code like lisp.

I'll leave the AMD cheerleaders of csiphc to argue that the AMD chips
are the best of all. They may well be, but for reasons that I have
discussed here more than once, I don't use them.
Well, this is probably 75/25 desktop replacement. Which is one reasonthat ATI Moility 9000 video card is very appealing.

I can't give any advice at all about video performance. It isn't
something I pay attention to. It does sound like you should pick the
card based on price and desktop performance.

Even with the longer battery life of my centrino portable, it isn't
enough to get through the entire day of a conference if you aren't
lucky enough to get a seat near a receptacle, so I'll probably wind up
with something like http://www.valence.com/valence_frame.asp?vti
before I go to my next conference.

RM

[T. Bert Penney]

I can't give any advice at all about video performance. It isn't something I pay attention to. It does sound like you should pick the card based on price and desktop performance. Even with the longer battery life of my centrino portable, it isn't enough to get through the entire day of a conference if you aren't lucky enough to get a seat near a receptacle, so I'll probably wind up with something like http://www.valence.com/valence_frame.asp?vti before I go to my next conference. RM

One magazine review showed I think a Toshiba Centrino run for
for 6+ hours, most other P4/Celerons laptops were ~ 2-3 hours