TMG-L Archives

From: "Henry Cranford" <>
Subject: Re: [TMG] Tmg on celeron/Athlon
Date: Mon, 1 Nov 2004 12:07:37 -0700

The following is part two of two from the Kim Komando Tip of the Day. This
covers the processors for laptops. I definitely would suggest going to web
site at http://www.komando.com and subscribing to the free information.

"Q. I am confused about how to compare the clock speeds of various
processors. There are Pentium 4s with clock speeds between 2.0 and 3.6
gigahertz. Intel has a Centrino mobile chip at approximately 1.5 GHz.
AMD Athlon chips use a different rating system. And then there is
Apple, which just came out with the iMac featuring a G-5 chip. That is
supposed to be 1.5 to 1.8 GHz. The Mac and Centrino chips appear to be
a lot slower than the others, but probably aren't. Could you shed some
light on this issue and eliminate my confusion?

A. I addressed this question on Friday, focusing on desktops. Today,
let's look at laptops.

Intel offers a slew of chips in laptops. There are the Pentium 4, the
Pentium 4-M, the Pentium III-M and the Pentium M chips. Need more?
There are also the mobile Celeron and the Celeron-M.

Intel chips support power-saving features, which extend battery life.
There are a huge number of clock speeds among these chips.

Here's a quick and dirty rundown: The Pentium 4 variants are quick,
but relatively hard on batteries. The Pentium III-M is significantly
slower and obsolete. The Celerons run from pretty doggone slow to
relatively quick. In every case, the clock speed is a good indicator
of the chip's abilities.

The exception is the Pentium M. This chip has a relatively low clock
speed, but is nonetheless pretty capable. It is a component of the
Centrino technology, which you mentioned in your question.

Centrino is not a chip. It is a technology, including the Pentium M
chip, the 855 chipset and wireless capabilities. Intel has always
marketed the Centrino as a wireless wonder. But wireless is common
in laptops, regardless of whether they have Centrino technology.

Where Centrino really shines is battery life. Laptops typically will
run about three hours. But Centrinos will run much longer. I've seen
tests in which a Centrino ran six or seven hours. That could be a big
deal for road warriors.

If I were buying Intel, and excellent battery life were important,
I would go with the Centrino setup. I would not worry about clock
speed. If I were a power user, and I wanted a desktop replacement,
I'd buy a higher-end Pentium 4. Just keep in mind the Pentium 4 is
hotsy-totsy. I have a laptop with one of these chips and I can never
put it on my lap. My legs get hot! For low price, I'd look at Celeron.

AMD is not big in laptops, but is starting to change that. Clock speed
is not a big deal with AMD chips. Any Athlon should do well. See my tip
from Friday for comparisons to Intel Pentium chips. Don't pay up for
AMD's 64-bit chip; there is no software to run on it at this time.

Apple's PowerBook laptops use the G4 microprocessor, not the newer
G5. Clock speeds run up to 1.5 GHz. Again, Apple's chip situation is
similar to AMD's--it emphasizes the number of operations per cycle,
not just speed. Because Apple uses the older G4 chip, I would check
it in the store for satisfactory speed.

Hope this helps. I'll see you tomorrow with another great tip!
Kim :)"
This should clear some of the confusion. I do agree with the suggestions
made on the list to buy a laptop with the biggest screen and highest
resolution that a person can afford. -- Henry

----- Original Message -----
From: "Henry Cranford" <>
To: <>
Sent: Friday, October 29, 2004 12:40 PM
Subject: Re: [TMG] Tmg on celeron/Athlon


> The following article, part one of two, is from the Kim Komando Tip of
> the day. Her web site is at: http://www.komando.com . I will send part two
> on Monday when I get it. Her web site, weekly newsletter, daily tips, and
> radio program help a lot of people. Best of all, they are free.
>
> "Q. I am confused about how to compare the clock speeds of various
> processors. There are Pentium 4s with clock speeds between 2.0 and
> 3.6 gigahertz. Intel has a Centrino mobile chip at approximately 1.5
> GHz. AMD Athlon chips use a different rating system. And then there is
> Apple, which just came out with the iMac featuring a G-5 chip. That is
> supposed to be 1.5 to 1.8 GHz. Could you shed some light on this issue
> and eliminate my confusion?
>
> A. You're in a very non-exclusive club! Legions of people are confused
> by chip speeds. I'm going to break it down first for desktops. There's
> a ton of information here, so I'll split it over two days. We'll do
> laptops on Monday.
>
> Let's start at the very beginning.
>
> Intel has two classes of chips for desktop computers--the Pentium 4 and
> the Celeron. Pentium 4 is the premium brand; Celeron, the economy name.
>
> Pentium 4s, as you said, run up to 3.6 GHz. That means the chip can
> cycle 3.6 billion times per second. The 3.6 GHz version performs less
> work per cycle than some other, slower chips.
>
> Its Level 2, or L2, memory cache ranges from 256 kilobytes to 1
> megabyte. This memory contains common commands that the chip can call
> upon. If the command the chip needs is in L2 cache, it speeds up the
> computing process. If it is not, then the chip must go to system memory
> (RAM). That slows things. So more L2 cache is better. See, it's all
> pretty easy stuff.
>
> Celeron processors are geared-down Pentiums. Celerons have 128 or 256
> kilobytes of L2 cache--less than most Pentium 4s. Their clock speeds
> are also slower. Maximum Celeron speed is 2.8 GHz. That's still plenty
> fast. The reduced L2 cache is a bigger deal.
>
> All Intel consumer chips are 32-bit. That means they can handle 32 bits
> of data at a time. That's OK, because consumer software today is 32-
> bit. Intel's Itanium, a business chip, is 64-bit. That is an advantage
> with some business programs, but is unsuited to consumer applications.
>
> Advanced Micro Devices also makes consumer chips. Its topline chips are
> called Athlons. AMD has been producing 64-bit chips for consumer
> computers for about a year. They also run today's 32-bit programs.
> That's a good thing, because, as I said, there aren't any mainstream
> 64-bit consumer programs available for it.
>
> These chips have a lower clock speed. My computer has a cutting-edge
> AMD 64-bit 3800+. (That's a mouthful!) It runs at 2.4 GHz. Although its
> clock speed is relatively slow, the chip is actually very fast. AMD
> (and Apple, which I'll get to in a minute) focuses on improving the
> number of instructions a chip can handle per cycle, rather than pure
> clock speed. That is why slower chips often defeat chips with higher
> clock speeds in tests.
>
> AMD's nomenclature carries such numbers as 3000+. You can use them as
> a comparison with Pentium 4s. A 3000+ has roughly the same capabilities
> as a Pentium 4 3.0 GHz. The 64-bit Athlon has either 512 KB or 1 MB of
> L2 cache. The Athlon XP, a 32-bit chip, has 512 KB of L2 cache.
>
> AMD also makes an economy chip, the Sempron. It competes with the
> Celeron. It has 256 KB of L2 cache, and is a 32-bit chip.
>
> Hope you don't have a headache! We still have to look at Apple's G5
> chips. These guys are made by IBM.
>
> Both Power Macs and iMacs use the G5 chip. Some run at speeds well
> under 2 GHz. But as with AMD, Apple focuses its efforts on the number
> of instructions that can be completed per cycle.
>
> If you're interested in the iMac, test it in the store for speed. The
> iMac's big brothers, the Power Macs, all have dual processors. They're
> likely to be plenty fast. The cheapest is $2000 without a monitor, so
> they're plenty expensive, too.
>
> All G5 chips have 512 KB of L2 cache.
>
> So, what's the bottom line? I thought we'd never get here! For a good
> combination of speed and power, I'd look at Windows machines with Intel
> Pentium 4 or AMD Athlon chips. Buy three or four steps down from the
> fastest chip. That means a 2.8 or 3.0 GHz Pentium chip, or a 2800+ or
> 3000+ AMD Athlon. The AMD 64-bit chips are fine, but there's currently
> no software that can take advantage of their advanced technology.
>
> Apple's Power Macs are very powerful, but they're also costly. If you
> want to pay the money, you won't go wrong. The iMacs also are probably
> OK, but I'd check them in the store first. Again, the 64-bit technology
> is wasted on today's programs.
>
> The Celeron and Sempron chips also are acceptable. They may be
> noticeably slower than the Pentium 4 and Athlon chips, though.
>
> Jeez, this was a long answer. We'll go over laptops on Monday.
> Don't forget that you can listen to me this weekend on hundreds
> of radio stations. Find my three-hour show near you here:
> http://www.komando.com/findkimonair.asp "
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "RonB" <>
> To: <>
> Sent: Friday, October 29, 2004 1:04 PM
> Subject: Re: [TMG] Tmg on celeron/Athlon
>
>
>> There was a brief mention a while ago on this thread that an Athlon-based
>> laptop would be comparable to a Pentium 4 (or Pentium-M?), and much
>> better than a Celeron for running TMG.
>>
>> I'm looking for a laptop as a second computer and just wondered if anyone
>> could elaborate on this point, from personal experience with TMG or
>> otherwise. For example, I saw a recent ad for an AMD Athlon XP-M 2200+ ,
>> 512 MB, 12" display notebook, and wondered how this would compare to,
>> say, a Centrino (which seems to be more expensive for similar
>> configurations). And does anyone have any experience with battery life of
>> Athlon vs Centrino?
>>
>> My TMG project currently contains about 4500 people, plus exhibits etc.
>> I'd also want to use software like Paint Shop Pro on the laptop (with a
>> bunch of genealogy-related images), and other miscellaneous programs
>> (maybe even a version of FTM for helping/working with relatives who may
>> not have seen the TMG "light" <g>).
>>
>> Thanks for any comments.
>>
>> Ron B
>>
>>
>> ==== TMG Mailing List ====
>> Send all messages and replies to <>.
>>
>>
>>
>

This thread:

• Re: [TMG] Tmg on celeron/Athlon by "Henry Cranford" <>