Athlon64-M versus Centrino

Printable View

03-02-2005, 03:40 PM
Tarterman

Athlon64-M versus Centrino

I'm trying to find some sort of comparison between these two procs. I am looking to get a laptop and am looking at the CL-56 with the 1.8 centrino or the Asus Z80K and putting a Athlon64-M 3000+ in it. Both will have same video card, same amount of RAM, and pretty everything else equal.

Basically, the specs between the two computers are identical with the exception of the processor and I believe the memory in the CL-56 is PC2100 (it's hard to determine from mWave's site...they show the specs as PC2100 and PC2700) and the Z80K is PC2700. The price between the two units is maybe $100.

I'll be doing gaming (Battlefield for sure and anything else I might be interested in...new and old) and well as tinkering around with Adobe Premier and Adobe Encore. With that in mind, would it be worth me going with the Athlon64-M and sacrificing the battery duration or would the Centrino 1.8 be good for high-end stuff?

Thanks,
T-man
03-02-2005, 04:49 PM
MrDigital

The Centrino 1.8 is better than a 3000+ A64 in most gaming benchmarks.

The A64 is likely better in the Adobe apps, at least in the few comparisons I've seen.

-MrD
03-02-2005, 08:20 PM
kent1146

Pentium-M, for the battery life.

Why buy a laptop if you can't go mobile?
03-04-2005, 09:52 AM
Chow-Yun-Fat

If that 1.8 Centrino is a Dothan chip (and I can only guess that it is) then go with that for sure. The Pentium M processors, specifically ones with the Dothan chipset, are remarkably powerful for gaming and last longer and generate less heat than any other laptop processor. It's the best of all worlds.
03-04-2005, 08:13 PM
LastDon00

like kent said if u want battery life go with centrino..

i just got my acer 8104 i can get so far 3:59minutes of battery life!
03-14-2005, 03:12 PM
mikeki

Pentium-M's are amazing. Too bad Intel refuses to market and sell them in any reasonable fashion. Are they that damn hard to make?
03-14-2005, 04:22 PM
kent1146

What do you mean?

Pentium-M's are only really viable in laptops. In desktop machines, where power and cooling aren't issues, you'll get much better performance with a Pentium 4 or Athlon64. They used to have some 1U rackmounts and blade servers that ran Pentium-M's, but those didn't do so well.

Anyway, you can buy the processors individually, if you want to upgrade from say, a Pentium-M 1.6Ghz to 2.0Ghz.
03-14-2005, 06:33 PM
MrDigital

Quote:

Originally posted by kent1146
What do you mean?

Pentium-M's are only really viable in laptops. In desktop machines, where power and cooling aren't issues, you'll get much better performance with a Pentium 4 or Athlon64. They used to have some 1U rackmounts and blade servers that ran Pentium-M's, but those didn't do so well.

And you're basing that on what? Many benchmarks are out there and they all show the Pentium M to be a killer gaming CPU, beating both A64's and P4's.

-MrD
03-14-2005, 08:23 PM
kent1146

http://www.gamepc.com/labs/view_cont...ngaming&page=1

Pentium-M's are king when it comes to weight, battery life, heat generation.

But there are better processors when it comes to raw number crunching power (the A64) and multitasking support (P4 w/HT). For someone who cares about pure processing power and doesn't care about weight or battery life, the Pentium-M isn't the best choice. For someone that actually wants a laptop that can be mobile, the Pentium-M is the best choice.
03-14-2005, 10:59 PM
MrDigital

Quote:

Originally posted by kent1146
http://www.gamepc.com/labs/view_cont...ngaming&page=1

Pentium-M's are king when it comes to weight, battery life, heat generation.

But there are better processors when it comes to raw number crunching power (the A64) and multitasking support (P4 w/HT). For someone who cares about pure processing power and doesn't care about weight or battery life, the Pentium-M isn't the best choice. For someone that actually wants a laptop that can be mobile, the Pentium-M is the best choice.

Did you actually look at the benchmarks on that link?

The 2.0 Dothan beats the 3500+ in every benchmark. Every benchmark.

Now, unless you know where to find a laptop with an FX-55 or a 4000+, the Dothan is the best performing laptop chip around.

-MrD
03-15-2005, 07:29 AM
kent1146

The flaw in the GamePC article is that they use a 2.3Ghz overclocked Pentium-M as their "top-end" Pentium-M. Needless to say, you can hardly expect real-world performance of a stock Pentium-M to do that.

But poor motherboard support and lack of features (like hyperthreading) prevent it from being a desktop solution. Add on top of that, Pentium4's and Athlon 64's perform better than STOCK Pentium-M's.

Don't get me wrong, the Pentium-M is an AWESOME chip. The fact that it can perform at the same level as the fastest Pentium4's and Athlon64's, while drawing 1/3 or 1/4 of the power is amazing. The next iteration of Intel processors will probably borrow from the Pentium-M's architecture.

http://www.anandtech.com/printarticle.aspx?i=2342
03-15-2005, 05:13 PM
MrDigital

Quote:

Originally posted by kent1146
The flaw in the GamePC article is that they use a 2.3Ghz overclocked Pentium-M as their "top-end" Pentium-M. Needless to say, you can hardly expect real-world performance of a stock Pentium-M to do that.

But poor motherboard support and lack of features (like hyperthreading) prevent it from being a desktop solution. Add on top of that, Pentium4's and Athlon 64's perform better than STOCK Pentium-M's.

Don't get me wrong, the Pentium-M is an AWESOME chip. The fact that it can perform at the same level as the fastest Pentium4's and Athlon64's, while drawing 1/3 or 1/4 of the power is amazing. The next iteration of Intel processors will probably borrow from the Pentium-M's architecture.

http://www.anandtech.com/printarticle.aspx?i=2342

Kent, read the gamepc benchmarks. Seriously. You're completely wrong. Look at the Pentium M 755, 2.0ghz, a stock chip. Compare it to the A64 3500+, 2.2ghz, stock chip.

On EVERY single gaming benchmark the 755 beats the 3500+. You can't argue with me on benchmarks you posted yourself.

On non-gaming benchmarks, the Pentium M gets rocked pretty harsh, especially in desktop applications where the P4 kills it.

As for poor motherboard support, this isn't too much of an issue anymore. The new Centrino architecture supports the i915 chipset, with PCI-E support among other things. They also run at a 133mhz bus which makes them further dominate A64's and P4's in gaming.

-MrD
03-16-2005, 01:40 AM
mikeki

All of the reasons that make the centrino great for a laptop, make it great for a desktop also. Low power = easier cooling = smaller fans, PSU's, quieter, more reliable, more efficient, everything you want except extreme performance. Why they aren't using this technology in all their processors is amazing to me. Hell, the 2MB cache seems like a pretty simple addition for either Intel or AMD.

Vidia and ATI need to look into power saving technology also.

The benchmarks referenced above tell a great story.
03-19-2005, 03:06 AM
Sangiovese

On a mild tangent....

Quote:

Pentium-M, for the battery life.

Why buy a laptop if you can't go mobile?

Mobility does not always = battery life.

You could be a poor sap like me who, 2.5 months into the year, already has over 40 nights in hotels. My laptop is always plugged in... but it is rarely at home :)

For me, mobility has nothing to do with battery life. It's all about being able to fit it in the overhead compartment of a MD80 :)
04-03-2005, 04:41 PM
coolqf

IF it's a DOTHAN, get the Penium-M. If it's NOT, then get the A64M. This perspective is in terms of power. Yes, the DOTHAN makes that much of a difference.