• Some users have recently had their accounts hijacked. It seems that the now defunct EVGA forums might have compromised your password there and seems many are using the same PW here. We would suggest you UPDATE YOUR PASSWORD and TURN ON 2FA for your account here to further secure it. None of the compromised accounts had 2FA turned on.
    Once you have enabled 2FA, your account will be updated soon to show a badge, letting other members know that you use 2FA to protect your account. This should be beneficial for everyone that uses FSFT.

Pentium M

A

AllLiving

Gawd
Joined
Sep 26, 2002
Messages
696
How does Pentium M run in comparison to the Celeron? Also do Pentium M's run smoother? Also how do the Pentium M cpus run in comparison to Semprons?

Thanks
 
the s754 sempron would be a better route if you dont wanna spend top dollar on a pentium M. the only pentium M id get is the 2ghz version.
 
Jason711 said:
the s754 sempron would be a better route if you dont wanna spend top dollar on a pentium M. the only pentium M id get is the 2ghz version.
Click to expand...
Why would you recommend a budget AMD processor, yet turn around and recommend a high-end Intel processor as a comparable choice?
 
AllLiving said:
How does Pentium M run in comparison to the Celeron? Also do Pentium M's run smoother? Also how do the Pentium M cpus run in comparison to Semprons?
Thanks
Click to expand...

Semperon = AMD's Celeron. Laptops with Sempys will have a shorter battery life than a Celeron-M or Pentium-M will.
Celerons are ALWAYS lower end versions of their Pentium counterparts. They usually have 1/4 the cache and usually run on a slower FSB. It's just like the desktop chip world, just mobile.

Pentium-M > Semperon > Celeron-M. Got it?
 
xonik said:
Got some benchmarks to back that up? The Celeron M performs remarkably well compared to its more fully featured sibling, which leads me to doubt your ranking.
Click to expand...

I was assuming we were talking 64-bit Sempy's here but if we're not, you're right the Celeron-M would be closer to the Pentium-M.

The only thing is I take any results from Tom's with a grain of salt, they always seem to give some products good marks that most other sites ding.
 
Okay, I'll humor you: what advantage does the 64-bit Sempron have over the 32-bit Sempron, today? Surely it wouldn't affect the ranking if we are talking about today's applications.

And with regards to the Tom's linkage, the site was the only place I could find that offered recent Pentium M/Celeron M benchmarks for comparison. In other words, I took what I could find.
 
Celeron Ms aren't as bad as previous Celerons. Essentially, the modern-day Celeron M is a Banias Pentium M manufactured under the 90 nm process, and lacking in SpeedStep power-saving features. This amounts to a performance disadvantage of roughly 15% on a clock-for-clock basis--not too shabby.
 
Jason711 said:
the p M doesnt need HT..
Click to expand...

I don't get the P-M love. I have a Pentium M laptop (Dell D800 with a Pentium M 1.6) and the thing is a dog compared to my desktop (which is a P4 2.4). Then again, my desktop does almost have an extra gigahertz of clockspeed on the lappy, but for all of the waxing poetic I hear about the Pentium M, I'd expect it to at least come closer. (And yes, I have speedstep set to always run the chip at full speed).
 
NulloModo said:
I don't get the P-M love. I have a Pentium M laptop (Dell D800 with a Pentium M 1.6) and the thing is a dog compared to my desktop (which is a P4 2.4).
Click to expand...
Most likely, RAM or hard drive is holding the Pentium M back. In a desktop system, you would see the Pentium M perform comparably to a P4 2.4, despite the clock frequency handicap.
 
are the P4 M and the PM different chips ? if so then that would explain why your laptop is slower as it probably has a P4 M like mine does ...
 
NightWolfe said:
are the P4 M and the PM different chips ? if so then that would explain why your laptop is slower as it probably has a P4 M like mine does ...
Click to expand...

Nope, its a real P-M. It easily could be the RAM and HD having a big effect now that I think about it. Still though, I have a really hard time believing you can overcome an 800Mhz clock speed differential with just a more effecient core.
 
Yes, the Pentium M and Pentium 4 Mobile are different...very different.
 
NulloModo said:
Still though, I have a really hard time believing you can overcome an 800Mhz clock speed differential with just a more effecient core.
Click to expand...
why?

the M is pushing much more data than the p4 is per clock cylcle, it doesnt matter how much of a clock speed delta there is, just how the cores handle operations...

im sure someone could make a 1ghz chip that smoked 3ghz chip if enough effort was put into it.
 
NulloModo said:
...I have a really hard time believing you can overcome an 800Mhz clock speed differential with just a more effecient core.
Click to expand...

This has been discussed many times before...believe it.
 
lithium726 said:
why?

the M is pushing much more data than the p4 is per clock cylcle, it doesnt matter how much of a clock speed delta there is, just how the cores handle operations...

im sure someone could make a 1ghz chip that smoked 3ghz chip if enough effort was put into it.
Click to expand...

Eh, Cyrix did performance ratings that never really quite held up, then AMD did the same thing (and still does), though I will admit the AMD ratings are probably a lot closer to what they claim now then they were when they first started using them...
 
The Pentium M (Dothan) Is a really good chip. That guy up there who says his 1.6GHz Pentium M is lagging is probably the Banias core (which still isnt bad)

The Pentium M thrives off High IPC and a Large Low latency L2 Cache (2MB , 10 Cycle) As oppose to the Pentium 4's (1MB, 15 Cycle, or 2MB 24 Cycle) Yuck. Anandtech did a large review on all of this cache size / speed / latency when Intel first introdouced the 6xx series of Processors. So the proof is there if you want to dig it up, im at work and dont feel like finding it.

The Pentium M is a solid Chip. And The Yonah is going to be good too
 
NulloModo said:
Eh, Cyrix did performance ratings that never really quite held up, then AMD did the same thing (and still does), though I will admit the AMD ratings are probably a lot closer to what they claim now then they were when they first started using them...
Click to expand...

I had a Cyrix PR166 that only ran at 133mhz.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top