celerom M 1.4GHz vs AMD 3000+ in a laptop

Discussion in 'NZ Computing' started by evans, Nov 15, 2005.

  1. evans

    evans Guest

    Hi,

    a friend of mine is looking for a laptop for general use, ie, internet
    surfing, email, a bit of word processing and simple desktop publishing.

    I have narrowed down to the following 2 laptops (sub $1200),

    Presario 2203 has a Cel M 360 1.4 and Presario V2400AU, which has a AMD
    Sempron 3000+, the rest (RAM, HD, screen size) is about the same. It
    comes down to the CPU speed.

    AMD claims to have a CPU speed of 1.8GHz, does it mean it's faster than
    a Celeron M 1.4GHz?

    Is there a webpage that compares AMD and Intel CPU speed?

    Ta,
    Evans
    evans, Nov 15, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. evans

    Daniel Guest

    evans wrote:
    > Hi,
    >
    > a friend of mine is looking for a laptop for general use, ie, internet
    > surfing, email, a bit of word processing and simple desktop publishing.
    >
    > I have narrowed down to the following 2 laptops (sub $1200),
    >
    > Presario 2203 has a Cel M 360 1.4 and Presario V2400AU, which has a AMD
    > Sempron 3000+, the rest (RAM, HD, screen size) is about the same. It
    > comes down to the CPU speed.
    >
    > AMD claims to have a CPU speed of 1.8GHz, does it mean it's faster than
    > a Celeron M 1.4GHz?
    >
    > Is there a webpage that compares AMD and Intel CPU speed?
    >
    > Ta,
    > Evans
    >


    Hmmm... I'd tend to lean towards the Celeron M 360. It might be slower
    in terms of clock speed, but, when the Sempron only has 128KB of L2
    cache, and the M360 has 1MB, that would tip the balance a little bit in
    the Celeron's favour.

    Although, the Sempron laptop's graphics chipset has better gaming
    performance.

    Sorry, don't have a webpage.
    Daniel, Nov 15, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. evans

    Daniel Guest

    Daniel wrote:
    >
    > Hmmm... I'd tend to lean towards the Celeron M 360. It might be slower
    > in terms of clock speed, but, when the Sempron only has 128KB of L2
    > cache, and the M360 has 1MB, that would tip the balance a little bit in
    > the Celeron's favour.
    >


    The 3000 rating for the Sempron is designed to indicate that the AMD
    chip is about as fast as an old Mobile Celeron (not to be confused with
    with Celeron M's) running at 3GHz.

    Those old Mobile Celeron's were slow - really slow.
    Daniel, Nov 15, 2005
    #3
  4. evans

    SteveM Guest

    "evans" <> wrote in news:1132019589.463974.21230
    @g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:

    > Hi,
    >
    > a friend of mine is looking for a laptop for general use, ie, internet
    > surfing, email, a bit of word processing and simple desktop publishing.
    >
    > I have narrowed down to the following 2 laptops (sub $1200),
    >
    > Presario 2203 has a Cel M 360 1.4 and Presario V2400AU, which has a AMD
    > Sempron 3000+, the rest (RAM, HD, screen size) is about the same. It
    > comes down to the CPU speed.
    >
    > AMD claims to have a CPU speed of 1.8GHz, does it mean it's faster than
    > a Celeron M 1.4GHz?
    >
    > Is there a webpage that compares AMD and Intel CPU speed?
    >
    > Ta,
    > Evans
    >


    Look at battery life as well. The AMD's are usually worse than the intels,
    however the Pentium M's are much better than the Celeron M's.

    SteveM
    SteveM, Nov 15, 2005
    #4
  5. evans

    Daniel Guest

    SteveM wrote:
    >
    > however the Pentium M's are much better than the Celeron M's.
    >


    Don't know if Pentium M's are much better than Celeron M's clock-for-clock.
    Unless you're saying the faster clocked Pentium M is better than the
    slower clocked Celeron M?

    The disparity in performance between Pentium M and Celeron M, is not
    anywhere near as significant as it was with the desktop Pentium and
    older desktop Celerons.
    Daniel, Nov 15, 2005
    #5
  6. evans

    Tony Guest

    >> however the Pentium M's are much better than the Celeron M's.
    >>

    >
    > Don't know if Pentium M's are much better than Celeron M's clock-for-clock.
    > Unless you're saying the faster clocked Pentium M is better than the
    > slower clocked Celeron M?


    Pentium and Celeron =INTEL
    AMD 300+ = AMD

    He asked what the difference may be between the AMD and Intel product,
    not the Intel and Intel product.

    I would imagine the AMD 3000+ would be a lot faster than the Celeron M
    as it is a desktop processor afak.

    >
    > The disparity in performance between Pentium M and Celeron M, is not
    > anywhere near as significant as it was with the desktop Pentium and
    > older desktop Celerons.
    Tony, Nov 16, 2005
    #6
  7. evans

    David Guest

    Tony wrote:
    >>> however the Pentium M's are much better than the Celeron M's.
    >>>

    >>
    >> Don't know if Pentium M's are much better than Celeron M's
    >> clock-for-clock.
    >> Unless you're saying the faster clocked Pentium M is better than the
    >> slower clocked Celeron M?

    >
    >
    > Pentium and Celeron =INTEL
    > AMD 300+ = AMD
    >
    > He asked what the difference may be between the AMD and Intel product,
    > not the Intel and Intel product.
    >
    > I would imagine the AMD 3000+ would be a lot faster than the Celeron M
    > as it is a desktop processor afak.
    >

    But desktop processors in laptops aren't much fun, they tend to be loud,
    hot and drain the battery
    David, Nov 16, 2005
    #7
  8. evans

    SteveM Guest

    Daniel <> wrote in
    news:dldhie$m7i$:

    > SteveM wrote:
    >>
    >> however the Pentium M's are much better than the Celeron M's.
    >>

    >
    > Don't know if Pentium M's are much better than Celeron M's
    > clock-for-clock. Unless you're saying the faster clocked Pentium M is
    > better than the slower clocked Celeron M?
    >
    > The disparity in performance between Pentium M and Celeron M, is not
    > anywhere near as significant as it was with the desktop Pentium and
    > older desktop Celerons.


    I was only refering to battery life, not processor performance.
    The Celeron M's do not use speedstep meaning that they drain the
    battery faster.
    I consider battery life to be a significant issue when looking
    at purchasing a laptop.
    Some cheap AMD Sempron machines with crap batteries only last an hour at
    most whereas a machine with a better battery and using a Pentium M can last
    3-4 hours.

    I suppose it depends on what is important to the purchaser.

    SteveM
    SteveM, Nov 16, 2005
    #8
  9. "Daniel" <> wrote in message
    news:dlbgub$lpi$...
    > Daniel wrote:
    > >
    > > Hmmm... I'd tend to lean towards the Celeron M 360. It might be slower
    > > in terms of clock speed, but, when the Sempron only has 128KB of L2
    > > cache, and the M360 has 1MB, that would tip the balance a little bit in
    > > the Celeron's favour.
    > >

    >
    > The 3000 rating for the Sempron is designed to indicate that the AMD
    > chip is about as fast as an old Mobile Celeron (not to be confused with
    > with Celeron M's) running at 3GHz.


    And where do you get that conclusion? the Sempron3000 rating is in
    comparison to a Thunderbird cpu, just like AMD's cpu names always have been.
    The Celeron 360 is only 1.4Ghz, the Sempron will eat it alive, no questions
    asked. The Celeron will however give around 30% longer battery life (per
    charge, not total lifespan).

    The Celeron doesn't have a hope, much less have the scales tipped in its
    favour. You shouldn't be advising people when you obviously don't have a
    clue.

    Jekyll and Hyde.

    >
    > Those old Mobile Celeron's were slow - really slow.
    Jekyll and Hyde, Nov 16, 2005
    #9
  10. evans

    ~misfit~ Guest

    Jekyll and Hyde wrote:
    > "Daniel" <> wrote in message
    > news:dlbgub$lpi$...
    >> Daniel wrote:
    >>>
    >>> Hmmm... I'd tend to lean towards the Celeron M 360. It might be
    >>> slower in terms of clock speed, but, when the Sempron only has
    >>> 128KB of L2 cache, and the M360 has 1MB, that would tip the balance
    >>> a little bit in the Celeron's favour.
    >>>

    >>
    >> The 3000 rating for the Sempron is designed to indicate that the AMD
    >> chip is about as fast as an old Mobile Celeron (not to be confused
    >> with with Celeron M's) running at 3GHz.

    >
    > And where do you get that conclusion? the Sempron3000 rating is in
    > comparison to a Thunderbird cpu, just like AMD's cpu names always
    > have been.


    I would really appreciate it if you could please show me irrefutable proof
    of that statement.

    I know that the AMD Athlon XP AR rating was supposed to be indicative of a
    comparison to a Thunderbird but Sempron's are a whole different ball-game.
    Unless you can prove me wrong.

    > The Celeron 360 is only 1.4Ghz, the Sempron will eat it
    > alive, no questions asked. The Celeron will however give around 30%
    > longer battery life (per charge, not total lifespan).
    >
    > The Celeron doesn't have a hope, much less have the scales tipped in
    > its favour. You shouldn't be advising people when you obviously don't
    > have a clue.


    It would seem that the clueless one here is you HOG. A name-change doesn't
    make you any more knowledgable. It would take another of those AMD free food
    and drink evenings to do that. <snigger>

    <Waiting for proof of above rating comparison statement>
    --
    ~misfit~
    ~misfit~, Nov 16, 2005
    #10
  11. evans

    Daniel Guest

    SteveM wrote:
    >
    > I was only refering to battery life, not processor performance.
    > The Celeron M's do not use speedstep meaning that they drain the
    > battery faster.
    >


    Oh, I see.

    My apologies.
    Daniel, Nov 16, 2005
    #11
  12. evans

    Daniel Guest

    Jekyll and Hyde wrote:
    >
    > And where do you get that conclusion? the Sempron3000 rating is in
    > comparison to a Thunderbird cpu, just like AMD's cpu names always have been.
    > The Celeron 360 is only 1.4Ghz, the Sempron will eat it alive, no questions
    > asked. The Celeron will however give around 30% longer battery life (per
    > charge, not total lifespan).
    >


    The Celeron M360 is a derivative of the more efficient Tualatin cores -
    not those long-pipelined designed-for-high-Hertz Northwoods or Williamettes.
    The Tualatin cores owned the Thunderbirds head-to-head, before AMD even
    started their XP rating system.
    Unfortunately for Intel they dumped the Tualatin design - in hindsight a
    very bad management decision, only to return to it for the mobile market.

    Don't get the mobile Semprons confused with the desktop ones. A Mobile
    Sempron 3000 uses 128KB L2 cache running at 1.8GHz. The equivalent
    desktop Sempron 3000 is 256KB @ 1.8GHz.

    There are also two mobile Sempron 3000 chips - one with 256KB L2 cache @
    1.67GHz, the other 128KB @ 1.8GHz. So, in that instance AMD themselves
    are saying that the bigger L2 cache compensates for slower clock speed.

    This was also the situation when comparing Thoroughbreds vs Barton cores
    (Thoroughbreds = 256KB L2, Barton = 512KB L2).

    To say that the "Sempron will eat it alive, no questions asked" seems a
    little premature to me.

    The Celeron M360 has a 1MB L2 cache, that's a reasonable amount of
    caching, and would compensate for a slower FSB speed especially for
    tight-looped programs (i.e. games). The Sempron 3000 1.8GHz only has
    128KB - remember even AMD concede that larger cache compensates for
    lower clock speed.

    Perhaps I'm missing something.

    I agree with Misfit, you need more proof to back up your claims, or at
    the very least a case justifying your position.

    BTW: Wikipedia is a nice idea. The only problem I have with it is the
    complete accuracy of some it's information.


    > The Celeron doesn't have a hope, much less have the scales tipped in its
    > favour. You shouldn't be advising people when you obviously don't have a
    > clue.
    >


    [Sigh]

    Some solid evidence to back your assertions would be nice.
    Daniel, Nov 16, 2005
    #12
  13. "Daniel" <> wrote in message
    news:437ba80c$...
    > Jekyll and Hyde wrote:
    > >
    > > And where do you get that conclusion? the Sempron3000 rating is in
    > > comparison to a Thunderbird cpu, just like AMD's cpu names always have

    been.
    > > The Celeron 360 is only 1.4Ghz, the Sempron will eat it alive, no

    questions
    > > asked. The Celeron will however give around 30% longer battery life (per
    > > charge, not total lifespan).
    > >

    >
    > The Celeron M360 is a derivative of the more efficient Tualatin cores -
    > not those long-pipelined designed-for-high-Hertz Northwoods or

    Williamettes.
    > The Tualatin cores owned the Thunderbirds head-to-head, before AMD even
    > started their XP rating system.
    > Unfortunately for Intel they dumped the Tualatin design - in hindsight a
    > very bad management decision, only to return to it for the mobile market.
    >
    > Don't get the mobile Semprons confused with the desktop ones. A Mobile
    > Sempron 3000 uses 128KB L2 cache running at 1.8GHz. The equivalent
    > desktop Sempron 3000 is 256KB @ 1.8GHz.
    >
    > There are also two mobile Sempron 3000 chips - one with 256KB L2 cache @
    > 1.67GHz, the other 128KB @ 1.8GHz. So, in that instance AMD themselves
    > are saying that the bigger L2 cache compensates for slower clock speed.
    >
    > This was also the situation when comparing Thoroughbreds vs Barton cores
    > (Thoroughbreds = 256KB L2, Barton = 512KB L2).
    >
    > To say that the "Sempron will eat it alive, no questions asked" seems a
    > little premature to me.


    Yeah, a bit overdramatised, but not premature.
    >
    > The Celeron M360 has a 1MB L2 cache, that's a reasonable amount of
    > caching, and would compensate for a slower FSB speed especially for
    > tight-looped programs (i.e. games). The Sempron 3000 1.8GHz only has
    > 128KB - remember even AMD concede that larger cache compensates for
    > lower clock speed.
    >
    > Perhaps I'm missing something.
    >
    > I agree with Misfit, you need more proof to back up your claims, or at
    > the very least a case justifying your position.


    Hmm, people can make up arbitrary comparisons and claim them as AMDs policy
    ("The 3000 rating for the Sempron is designed to indicate that the AMD
    chip is about as fast as an old Mobile Celeron (not to be confused with with
    Celeron M's) running at 3GHz)", yet I need proof for making true statments;
    interesting. The large 1mb cache really does help the Celeron, but not
    enough to beat the Sempron...

    Low power models - Sempron 3000+ 16% ahead of Celeron M340 (1.5ghz)
    http://www.amd.com/us-en/Processors/ProductInformation/0,,30_118_11600_11614~92831,00.html
    Desktop models - Sempron 2600+ 9% faster than Celeron 2.8Ghz
    http://www.amd.com/us-en/Processors/ProductInformation/0,,30_118_11600_11614~88873,00.html

    Other benchmarks at amd.com/us/processors/information show Sempron 3000+ up
    to 20% faster than Celeron M340 (1.5ghz)

    >
    > BTW: Wikipedia is a nice idea. The only problem I have with it is the
    > complete accuracy of some it's information.


    The information is also available elsewhere for confirmation, Wikipedia is
    just convenient.
    >
    >
    > > The Celeron doesn't have a hope, much less have the scales tipped in its
    > > favour. You shouldn't be advising people when you obviously don't have a
    > > clue.
    > >

    >
    > [Sigh]
    >
    > Some solid evidence to back your assertions would be nice.


    See above.

    Jekyll and Hyde.
    Jekyll and Hyde, Nov 17, 2005
    #13
  14. "~misfit~" <> wrote in message
    news:437b46f4$...
    > Jekyll and Hyde wrote:
    > > "Daniel" <> wrote in message
    > > news:dlbgub$lpi$...
    > >> Daniel wrote:
    > >>>
    > >>> Hmmm... I'd tend to lean towards the Celeron M 360. It might be
    > >>> slower in terms of clock speed, but, when the Sempron only has
    > >>> 128KB of L2 cache, and the M360 has 1MB, that would tip the balance
    > >>> a little bit in the Celeron's favour.
    > >>>
    > >>
    > >> The 3000 rating for the Sempron is designed to indicate that the AMD
    > >> chip is about as fast as an old Mobile Celeron (not to be confused
    > >> with with Celeron M's) running at 3GHz.

    > >
    > > And where do you get that conclusion? the Sempron3000 rating is in
    > > comparison to a Thunderbird cpu, just like AMD's cpu names always
    > > have been.

    >
    > I would really appreciate it if you could please show me irrefutable proof
    > of that statement.


    See below.

    >
    > I know that the AMD Athlon XP AR rating was supposed to be indicative of a
    > comparison to a Thunderbird but Sempron's are a whole different ball-game.
    > Unless you can prove me wrong.


    Semprons continue to use the PR that was originally based on the T'bird, see
    below.

    > > The Celeron 360 is only 1.4Ghz, the Sempron will eat it
    > > alive, no questions asked. The Celeron will however give around 30%
    > > longer battery life (per charge, not total lifespan).
    > >
    > > The Celeron doesn't have a hope, much less have the scales tipped in
    > > its favour. You shouldn't be advising people when you obviously don't
    > > have a clue.

    >
    > It would seem that the clueless one here is you HOG. A name-change doesn't
    > make you any more knowledgable. It would take another of those AMD free

    food
    > and drink evenings to do that. <snigger>


    I'm not HOG, don't know who he is and don't care.
    >
    > <Waiting for proof of above rating comparison statement>


    Your wait is over, from AMD's Sempron FAQ...
    Q: What does the 3200+ model mean? (Sempron 3200+)

    A: This is a model number. AMD identifies the AMD Athlon XP processor using
    model numbers, as opposed to megahertz. Model numbers are designed to
    communicate the relative application performance among the various AMD
    Athlon XP processors. As additional evidence that performance is not based
    on megahertz alone: the AMD Athlon XP processor 3200+ operates at a
    frequency of 2.2GHz yet can outperform an Intel PentiumĀ® 4 processor
    operating at 3.0GHz with an 800 FSB and HyperThreading on a broad array of
    real-world applications for office productivity, digital media and 3-D
    gaming.
    http://www.amd.com/us-en/Processors/TechnicalResources/0,,30_182_861_3876,00.html

    Given that the original XP????+ number was based on the T'birds, as above we
    see the naming scheme hasn't changed.

    Jekyll and Hyde.

    > --
    > ~misfit~
    >
    >
    Jekyll and Hyde, Nov 17, 2005
    #14
  15. evans

    ~misfit~ Guest

    Jekyll and Hyde wrote:
    > "~misfit~" <> wrote in message
    >> <Waiting for proof of above rating comparison statement>

    >
    > Your wait is over, from AMD's Sempron FAQ...
    > Q: What does the 3200+ model mean? (Sempron 3200+)
    >
    > A: This is a model number. AMD identifies the AMD Athlon XP processor
    > using model numbers, as opposed to megahertz. Model numbers are
    > designed to communicate the relative application performance among
    > the various AMD Athlon XP processors. As additional evidence that
    > performance is not based on megahertz alone: the AMD Athlon XP
    > processor 3200+ operates at a frequency of 2.2GHz yet can outperform
    > an Intel PentiumĀ® 4 processor operating at 3.0GHz with an 800 FSB and
    > HyperThreading on a broad array of real-world applications for office
    > productivity, digital media and 3-D gaming.
    > http://www.amd.com/us-en/Processors/TechnicalResources/0,,30_182_861_3876,00.html


    Dude! I don't know how many hits you've had on that bong but I suggest you
    put it down about now. That page that you reference, that you say is from
    AMD's Sempron FAQ, is *very* clearly headed up, in a large, bold font: "AMD
    Athlon XP Processor 3200+ frequently asked questions". Athlon, not Sempron.

    So I ask you again, as here:

    > > And where do you get that conclusion? the Sempron3000 rating is in
    > > comparison to a Thunderbird cpu, just like AMD's cpu names always
    > > have been.

    >
    > I would really appreciate it if you could please show me irrefutable proof
    > of that statement.


    Proof please. Back up your claims. Not about Athlons, we've already
    established that, about Semprons.
    --
    ~misfit~
    ~misfit~, Nov 17, 2005
    #15
  16. evans

    Daniel Guest

    Jekyll and Hyde wrote:
    >
    > Low power models - Sempron 3000+ 16% ahead of Celeron M340 (1.5ghz)
    > http://www.amd.com/us-en/Processors/ProductInformation/0,,30_118_11600_11614~92831,00.html
    > Desktop models - Sempron 2600+ 9% faster than Celeron 2.8Ghz
    > http://www.amd.com/us-en/Processors/ProductInformation/0,,30_118_11600_11614~88873,00.html
    >
    > Other benchmarks at amd.com/us/processors/information show Sempron 3000+ up
    > to 20% faster than Celeron M340 (1.5ghz)
    >


    Coming from the vendors website, I tended to ignore those benchmarks.

    However, I did this find interesting:-
    http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/sempron-2600_5.html

    I did bit a more googling, and although I couldn't find any firm
    benchmarks comparing the M360 to the Sempron 3000, I must admit, by all
    accounts the Sempron 3000 does indeed perform better.

    One thing I found of great interest was that the Sempron 3000 actually
    performed quite close to a Athlon 64 3000 socket 939 version - not bad
    at all.

    TBH, I never thought AMD would allow such close performance margins
    between the Semprons and the Athlon 64s of the same rating. But, there
    you go.

    Yep, Sempron 3000 - very nice CPU.
    Daniel, Nov 17, 2005
    #16
  17. evans

    Daniel Guest

    Daniel wrote:
    > Jekyll and Hyde wrote:
    >
    >
    > Coming from the vendors website, I tended to ignore those benchmarks.
    >
    > However, I did this find interesting:-
    > http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/sempron-2600_5.html
    >
    > I did bit a more googling, and although I couldn't find any firm
    > benchmarks comparing the M360 to the Sempron 3000, I must admit, by all
    > accounts the Sempron 3000 does indeed perform better.
    >
    > One thing I found of great interest was that the Sempron 3000 actually
    > performed quite close to a Athlon 64 3000 socket 939 version - not bad
    > at all.
    >
    > TBH, I never thought AMD would allow such close performance margins
    > between the Semprons and the Athlon 64s of the same rating. But, there
    > you go.
    >
    > Yep, Sempron 3000 - very nice CPU.


    Perhaps the biggest thing I've discovered, is that with Socket 754 (and
    939), the L2 cache size looks to have a minimal effect on performance,
    with the possible exception of the odd game (i.e. Doom 3).

    Good to know.
    Daniel, Nov 17, 2005
    #17
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. jameson
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    447
    Ralph Wade Phillips
    Nov 19, 2003
  2. Jeff Conescu

    ROWA laptop 1.4Ghz Pentium-M for only $999 Australian?

    Jeff Conescu, Jan 14, 2005, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    751
    Jeff Conescu
    Jan 14, 2005
  3. dennis meissner

    passive repeater with 2.4ghz wireless

    dennis meissner, May 14, 2006, in forum: Wireless Networking
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    4,330
  4. Calvin Crumrine

    Speculations on 2.4GHz interference?

    Calvin Crumrine, Jul 15, 2004, in forum: Computer Information
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    499
    BuzBeKe
    Jul 17, 2004
  5. ClueLess

    Temperature of P4-3.4GHz

    ClueLess, May 27, 2006, in forum: Computer Information
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    648
    ClueLess
    May 29, 2006
Loading...

Share This Page