Which of these HP's would you get?

N

NJAldwin

n00b
Joined
Apr 15, 2008
Messages
10
Hey,
I'm currently in the market for a new laptop. For a small amount of money. I would wait until Black Friday, except I need it by Friday. So, Circuit City has these two HP's on sale for $650 and $700, respectively.

DV6748US
dv6833us

The main difference is that the $650 laptop has 2GB (the $700 has 3GB) and the $650 laptop has an AMD 2X 2.0GHz (the $700 has an Intel Centrino Dual Core 1.83GHz). Also, I strongly suspect the Intel one has totally integrated graphics (it doesn't say), whereas the AMD one has the nVidia GeForce GO 7150M.

My figuring is that since a 2GB stick of the DDR2 5300 memory is less than 50 bucks, and the cpu on the first one is faster, I should get the first one. Without pulling out the old AMD vs Intel quarrel, which would you get?

I know a lot about computers, but CPUs are the final frontier for me. The AMD has a 1600MHz bus speed, but only 2x512KB L2 cache. The Intel has only a 667MHz bus speed, but a 2MB L2 cache. If I'm looking primarily for speed, which would be better?

Thanks so much and sorry for all the questions!
Nick

If this is in the wrong place, please tell me where to post it. Sorry, I'm new here.

P.S. I have heard two things about AMD & Intel processors:
*Intels run slightly cooler
*AMDs measure the speed differently (AMD 2.0GHz is faster than Intel 2.0GHz)
at least, that's what I've heard. True?
 
Get the Intel laptop. 1.6 AMD vs 1.8 Intel... even if the intel was 1.6 it would still win. AMD has been sucking on the desktop and notebook market for while, and no... 3GHz AMD is not as fast or the same speed as a 3GHz Intel. Plus the intel laptop has 3GB of memory.

The nvidia geforce go 7150m are also integrated graphics, they suck just as badly as Intel's integrated graphics. Don't get confused with names like nvidia and geforce thinking they are fast like the real products.

Plus, both come with Vista home premium... and I'm guessing it would be 32bit. Even if you have 4GB of ram in the computer, it will only be able to recognize 3GB of it. Plus who knows what kind of warranty you would void upgrading it.
 
Yes but doesn't the 110% advantage in the CPU speed and the 240% advantage in the bus speed make the AMD faster? What exactly makes you say the intel would still be faster?
 
The architecture that the Intel Core 2 CPUs are based on is inherently superior to AMD's architecture, and has much higher performance per clock. Therefore, a 1.8GHz Intel chip is faster than a 2GHz AMD chip. Also, both notebooks have integrated graphics(the GeForce 7150M is just the name for the graphics core built into the chipset). The 7150M is faster than the X3100, but they're both so slow to begin with that the actual difference in performance is negligible(modern games are unplayable on either).

Basically, go for the Intel laptop since the faster CPU and added RAM make it definitely worth the extra $50.
 
NJAldwin said:
Yes but doesn't the 110% advantage in the CPU speed and the 240% advantage in the bus speed make the AMD faster? What exactly makes you say the intel would still be faster?
Click to expand...


u shouldn't even look at clock speeds if you're comparing two different makes. And you shouldn't look at BUS speed either, since BUS is mostly proportion to the CPU speed itself.

Intel's technology>AMD
 
NJAldwin said:
Yes but doesn't the 110% advantage in the CPU speed and the 240% advantage in the bus speed make the AMD faster? What exactly makes you say the intel would still be faster?
Click to expand...
Its not that simple, also WhiteGuardian is right.
 
I would definately go with the amd based one. You have the right idea about adding another gig of memory and also the better graphics. I have a dell lappy with 1.63 proc in it and the ONLY thing that decides what I can and can't accomplish is the graphics card, since I have upgraded the ram. I personally have no bias against intel or amd as it sounds like these other responders do, and I think the first one just looks like a better deal/laptop in general.
 
HeavensCloud said:
I personally have no bias against intel or amd as it sounds like these other responders do,
Click to expand...

I think it's more of a "get the better performing CPU" thing than a straight up bias. I'm pretty sure everyone here who recommended Intel would switch to an AMD setup the second AMD starts releasing CPUs that would smoke a Core 2 Duo. But AMD hasn't done so hence the greater recommendation for Intel. That's where the performance is.

However, I will admit that sometimes recommendations for the higher performing part may sound like what fanboy might say.

I'd personally go with the Intel laptop for all of the reasons that Zero82z mentions.
 
Yea when you bash the hell out of AMD, not giving it one positive point, it does sound like its coming from a fanboy. I like the AMD lappy for the graphics, I don't think the intel proc would blow the other one out of the water as it sounds.
 
The 68 series has Vista w/ SP1, the 67 does not.

That being said...One is 700 before the rebates, one is 700 after...in the end, you're going to spend about as much money upgrading the AMD to the 3gb as you will buying the intel outright.

The videocard is the only thing that really sways things in AMD's favor, and when I sell those laptops to people, I tell them that Intel has the better CPU, but for multimedia, AMD has the better platform.

If gaming isn't a concern, intel. No matter how much better that intel processor is, the X3100 will hinder it to where it can't play certain games, where the AMD can.

I'd go for the intel, personally. There is upgradability there, you can go Penryn or faster Merom. The AMD is likely a dead-end architecture.

Incidentally, that AMD is faster at 2ghz than intel is a product of its competition with the P4 core. It's completely untrue for the Core/Core 2/Penryn vs. AMD. That being said, the Turion is more competitive to certain Core 2 processors. A T5 based C2D is slower than a T7. The Turion likely performs around that of a T5 based Core 2 Duo, which could sway things in its favor on certain tests. It'll never be a better processor than a T7xxx at the same speed as a Turion, but it may be comparable or better to the T5, and certainly better than the T2.
 
Hey,

Thanks for the detailed and informative response. I am leaning towards the Intel after reading that. Mostly I play games on the desktop, and so as long as the X3100 can handle playing DVDs and occasional non-intensive games (2D ok right?), that sounds better. So the processor in the Intel is a T7? That means it's faster than the AMD? If so, then I'll probably get that one.

Thanks for the help.
 
I doubt you will see any major difference between the two cpus if the laptop is just for basic usage and the occasional dvd. Just go with the cheaper of the two and enjoy your new lappy. :)
 
Well, If I were planning on running Photoshop & After Effects (CS3), which would you reccommend?

Plus, SP1 is a free upgrade, right?
 
i would go with the Intel laptop

+'s = better battery life , run cooler , comes with more ram ,
-'s = slightly worse integrated graphics

The AMD Isn't bad at all , just wont be the fastest at photoshop , wont get AS LONG battery life as the intel , an they just don't run cool

SP1 is free upgrade correct
 
It would just reassure me more if you had some article or comparison from somewhere so I could physically see that the 1.83ghz intel (or core 2 duos of the same class) is faster than the 2.0ghz amd (or turion x2s from that class)
 
Look at the E6300, clocked at 1.86Ghz, and the X2 3800+, which is clocked in at 2.0Ghz, in the following reviews here:
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2802&p=3
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/core2duo-e6420_6.html#sect0
http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1697,2014649,00.asp

You'll see that the E6300 beat thes X2 3800+ in most cases. Considering that the mobile CPUs are somewhat derived from or related to their desktop counter parts, the Intel CPU is the better choice.
 
Hey, thanks a lot! Now I think I will get the Intel. My only worry is the graphics, but for what I will use it for (2D gaming, basic 3D, playing DVDs, and editing in PS & AFX) it seems that it won't matter that much.

Thanks a lot!

EDIT:
Actually, after looking around online, I found an AMD/Intel 7150M/X3100 comparison:
http://www.notebookreview.com/default.asp?newsID=4156
So, since I don't plan on playing games like that on a lappy, the Intel it probably will be.

Thanks so much guys.
 
Core 2s are WAY faster at Photoshop than Athlon/Turion CPUs. I say this from personal experience. Generally, C2Ds run 1.5-2x faster than similar X2s. If you plan on doing a lot of PS work, the right decision is very clear.

If you don't believe any of us about the C2D being faster than the Turion in Photoshop, look up some reviews and see for yourself. There are tons of laptop reviews out there, so all it would take is a few minutes of Googling to prove it.

Edit: Whoops, I missed the second page :D. Sorry about that, looks like the decision has already been made.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top