Pentium M Questions

I understand my Athlon X2 Tk 53 cpu only has 256KB L2 Cache.
But it also has 256KB L1 Cache which I think is more than Intel Core 2.
But the core 2 has 2MB L2 cache.

But this notebook is very fast still.

someone told me my CPU sucks and can't touch their Core 2 duo not in a million years, because their core 2 has 2MB L2 cache while mine has only 256KBx2 = 512k L2 cache.

But I find that in normall tasks such as listening to music and viewing movies and photoshopping my lappie does very well. Is it because I have 2GB ram?

how important is cache and why does the AMD notebok athlon only have 512k cache while the turion has 1MB cache and the core 2 duo has 4MB cache?

 

The Core 2 Duo is superior to the Athlon simply because it utilizes a newer architecture; aside from the fact that some C2Ds also have 4MB of L2 cache per core. Intel's approach to increasing the speed of a CPU is to increase the L2 cache memory, while AMD's approach involves the implementation of an integrated memory controller. Still, comparing these 2 CPUs is a bit "unfair" so to speak since they are not even of the same generation.

 

so then how does the Athlon X2 tk 53 stack up against a Turion X2?

how much percent faster?

 

Turion X2s are just better. They're about 25% faster, run cooler, and use less power.

 

Here's an excellent article to read:
http://www.notebookreview.com/default.asp?newsID=4156
Turion X2 & Core 2 Duo head to head.

Do you mean Core 2 Duo in place of Turion X2?

 

Damn I wish my CPU had 1MB cache. Stupes!!!!!!!!!

I feel like crap now...

 

sooooooooooooo?

basically how important is cache in CPU exactly?
And if cache is very important then why dsen't AMD use 4MB cache like intel?

 

The L2 cache is not the limiting factor on the AMD cpus, nor is the bigger L2 cache the reason for the generally better performance of the current Intel cpus over the current AMD cpus.

There was a thread debate several months ago under one of the innumerable "AMD vs Intel" thread titles to which I added an inordinate number of posts (one or two of which may actually have contained some useful info :wink: ) that delved into the topic of the different L2 caches (I'm sorry, right now I can't find a link to the particular thread :confused2: , if you search on my moniker and the terms L2 Cache, AMD, and Intel, you could probably find it in short order), the basic conclusion of which was, I believe, that the AMD cpu is actually the theoretically better cpu because it's L2 cache is set at just the right size to get maximal performance, whereas the Intel L2 cache on the C2Ds had to be substantially larger in order to overcome a number of significant inefficiencies created by the fact that the Intel cpus utilize a shared L2 cache. In contrast, each core of the AMD dual-core cpus has its own dedicated L2 cache. A website called xbit labs at one point hosted a research paper (of more or less unknown provenance, at least to me) that did a pretty good job of demonstrating the inefficiencies caused by Intel's shared L2 cache design.

Unfortunately (from the AMD perspective) this is cold comfort because the current Intel cpus simply outgun the AMD cpus in terms of raw power. The best analogy I could come up with is sort of like comparing a 1960s Porsche to a 2007 Corvette - the 1960s Porsche is still a better engineered machine in terms of maximizing the use of the available technology and delivering maximum performance per unit, but the 2007 Corvette, despite its more mediocre engineering, still benefits from the 47 years of technological development that have occurred since the 1960s Porsche was designed and built, and will simply outperform the Porsche even though it wastes an inordinate amount of energy doing so. The current AMD cpus are based on 90nm transistor designs whereas the current Intel cpus are well into the 65nm design area.

So, to give you the short answer at the end of the long answer (isn't that backwards?) , the L2 cache in your AMD cpu is the correct size for that cpu, and you wouldn't see any benefit (and possibly some detriment) if the L2 cache were much larger. Fundamentally, trying to compare the current AMD cpus and the Intel cpus solely on the basis of the size of the L2 cache is a fools' errand, like comparing apples from Earth and oranges from Jupiter (or, to fit it into the more sophmoric mode of those who like to compare quantities, like comparing your willy to that of a corpse that has rigour-mortis - sure, the corpse's might be bigger, but it sure isn't going to do him any good, is it? )(my apologies to the offended in the crowd).

Bottom line is - your AMD cpu will generally not outperform a comparable Intel cpu, but not because of the L2 cache. In terms of actual system performance, other components, such as the amount of RAM you have, will make a much bigger difference - as you've found with the 2GB of RAM you have. In point of fact, your AMD with 2GB could probably run circles around even an Intel quad-core if all the quad-core had was 256MB of RAM to work with (but don't take my word for it, 'cause I haven't actually tested this out - so, to all youse guys who're going to take me to task - get over it - if 256MB is still enough for the quad, then replace "256MB" in my example with "64MB" or, if even that doesn't work, then try "48KB" which was the amount of RAM my original Atari 800 came with - at some point the amount of RAM will be so low that the quad-core will simply slow to a crawl :tongue: , which was the point of the example).

In short, you can tell whomever told you that your AMD sucks because of the lower L2 cache that s/he is a "blithering idiot" (and then you can add insult to injury by telling them to go find a dictionary).

 

Why do you seem to care so much about what other people think of your laptop/CPU? You already said it is fast and all but you let other people's opinion's and talk and all get you down. Imagine they said something personal to/about you. Wow.

Enjoy your laptop, never mind what other people say. Save your sorry/sad feelings for when you will really need them, not on something someone said about your computer.

 

shyster very nice article here I think this explaisn much for me.

And you know what the guy with his core 2 duo has a intel GMA 950 and my lappy runs far cry significantly faster than his even with his core 2.
Not to mention he has 512MB ram with DDR 1 and XP and my lappy runs vista ultimate much faster than his lappy with the core 2 duo.

Amazing

 

No C2D laptop uses DDR 1.

 

Are you serious?

C2D cannot run DDR 2?

 

As far as I know, Merom laptops use only DDR2 technology. I've read around and it looks like some desktop motherboards can take a C2D and DDR, but they are rare.

 

Nope. Turions were quite an improvement, but they're not C2Ds.

 

C2D uses DDR2 for laptops. You had previously said that your friend's setup used DDR 1.

Seriously. Just enjoy your laptop. I don't see why you need to have the comparisons to your friend's laptop. You say your laptop is fast and all, why does it matter how it gets its speed?

 

I found that depending on the model, the Turion and Core Duo were pretty comparable at the same clocks. C2D can be some 10-30% faster than Core Duo depending on the application.

 

Either way guys.
the motherboard and cpu are fine they run games quickly, the problem with this laptop is the video card Ati x1150 is not meant for games it's meant for simple things like watching movies,surfing the net, youtube, and playing old games like warcraft 2 or wolfenstien ( ok just kidding about that part)
This video card cannot play newer games properly, and it can't play older games. Here are some of the games I tested with this video card: World Of Warcraft (When your alone it runs smooth, but when there are 30-50 people in your screen it starts to lag, and this is at the playable resolution.)

Jedi outcast: Nice nice 80-90 fps at widescreen resolution
Jedi Academy Runs terrible and this is a 2003 game, that's more then 4 years passed, I was surpirsed at this. I was getting 35-40 fps running resolution at 640-480 (Don't forget I tested this with the latest Ati drivers 8-1....
Conterstrike Very nice
Half life 2 Playable (lowering all texture stuff) but still looked nice
Counterstrike source ( a bit laggy) wouldn't recommend

Well I hope this helped you out and if you guys know anything out there that could improve the performance of my videocard, please let me know

 

Hi lets compare a notebook with Athlon X2 dualcore 1.7GZ 256k cache per Core. 512k cache total.

Now we have a Pentium M at 1.8GZ with 2MB L2 Cache

How big is the difference between these two laptops? assuming the rest of the spec is the same I am only looking at windows browsing and internet surfing.

 

For what you're doing, there is absolutely no noticeable performance difference. Just get whichever is cheaper.

 

I think you should go with the Athlon. But there is no difference between what you are doing.

 

hmm

If running Vista Ultimate will the Pentium M be noticably inferiour to the Athlon X2?

 

Despite that Vista probably taxes your memory more than your processor, I think you will feel a difference between the P-M and the x2. I mean I wouldn't even consider installing Vista on a P-M laptop, though it's pretty much standard on x2 machines.

 

What abiut a Pentium M vs a Pentium 4 2.4GZ desktop counterpart.

Hear this a laptop with a Pentium M 1.8GZ but runs at 1.6GZ

Can it match a Desktop Athlon XP 3000?

is a 1.86GZ pentium M bu in reality it runs at 1.6GZ

I want to overclock this VAIO to 2.0 GZ pentium M

How do I do this safely?

And I mean safely.

 

u can purchase my brand new Pentium M 780 for $199. It is the fastest Pentium M EVER!

 

Don't think that has anything to do with his post.

Hopefully someone will know how, if possible to OC.

 

..........................................

why would anyone want to buy a 4 generation old single core processor for 199 bucks?

 

$199 is a rip-off for a Pentium M.

Anyway. Really there is no such thng as a "safe" overclock. but if you do OC, make sure it gets good ventillation.

 

i know how to overclock a pentium m on vaio
but first u need to buy my Pentium M 780 - fastest PM CPU ever
then second what is your notebook model

 

first off I have a 750 Pentium M.
Second for 200 USD is $1300 where I live so I am sure as hell not going to pay $1300 for a pentium M.

If you want $200 of my caribbean dollars thats quite fine. Then we have a deal.

Second i am trading my vostro 1000 dual core and stuff for this older vaio because the crap came with matte LCD and that is damaging my eyes. I need gloss LCD.

Ok i hear the pentium M is a very cool cpu and be overclocked very easily.

question is how and to how high.

 

The older P-M that had a 400MHz bus could be overclocked simply by shorting two pins. Then it would over clock to a 533MHz bus and the core frequency would increase correspondingly.

The 750 series is NOT overclockable, as it already has a 533MHz FSB.

Your trade better involve getting some cash in your pocket, because it sounds like to me that you are getting ripped off.

 

well I am getting cash aswell, $300 USD cash for that matter.

I just hate dell and secondly this matte screen is damaging my eyes beyond repair. I absolutely need a Glossy and since I heard the VAIO FS has XBRITE screen I wanted it right away.

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2382&p=3

according to that link the pentium M is much faster than even a Pentium 4 and Athlon 64.

Anyone thinks something is wrong here?

 

that's strange... i think most people prefer matte over glossy cuz glossy is so reflective.

 

Hey man, you can't keep creating threads about virtually the same thing. You have one about how it matches up to the 64, and this one about how it's faster.

 

The P-M was much more efficient than either of those processors, and most of the time yes the P-M kicked butt.

 

well yeah and no.

Matte causes eye fatigue and everything looks hazey and u cannot even see the sky anymore without seeing floaters.

However gloss is a new LCD technology and while very reflective which it won't be a problem for me cause i am using it in a dark room.

Gloss does not cause any eye fatigue.
Everything is like heaven on gloss.

Don't worry I am sure all those people who saying they love matte will soon realise when their eyes are damaged that they will truly love Gloss.

hmm I wonder if I need to see an eye specialist?

 

The Pentium M (which carries through into the Core series CPUs) is very efficient per clock cycle. The old rule of thumb was to use a factor of 1.8 when comparing PM and P4 so that a 2 GHz P4 was the equivalent of a 3.6GHz P4. AMD 64's lie somewhere in between and their strength, as a desktop CPU, is being much cooler than a P4.

John

 

yeah basically I am getting a SONY VAIO FS850W
100GB HDD
DL DVD RW
512MB RAM DDR 2
Pentium M 750 533 FSB (1.86GZ 2MB L2 Cache)
15.4 WXGA XBRITE LCD Gloss.
Intel GMA 900.

Ow and this system has a Intel Centrino sticker not to sure what it means.

Trading it for my Vostro 1000 and getting $2000 caribbean dollars ($300 USD)

Once the system can run things like photoshop, flash 8 dreamweaver and stuff, and basic windows and web surfing. I am good with that.
I might buy a next stick of 512MB RAM to. They are cheap now.

With these specs anyone knows how it will match up against my Desktop system that has 1GB DDR 400 ram, Athlon XP 1800, ATI Radeon 9600 PRO?
"MINUS GAMING" I don't game on laptop anyway. I have a 19 inch wxga AOC monitor I prefer that.

My basic use for this lappie would be listenin to MP3, and surfing the Web with the ocassional photoshopping now and then. Not to much doh.


PS I am also getting 60GB Of pure Porn. Installed on it and 10GB of MP3 as well, mostly Rock and Trance.
Comes with XP pro SP2.

wait wait wait a minute. This guy sent me a screen shot of the properties from my computer and the system says

Pentium M 1.86GZ
1.06 GZ 504 MB ram.

HUH??? WTF???

Can someone please explain to me what the hell is going on here?
How could it be a 1.86GZ cpu and run at 1.06?

Is this thing been underclocked or something?
I can't believe this crap. what is going here?

GREG can you help me out here?
I am reading on a next forum
http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=541418

That its some kind of Centrino technology where it scales according to the work it has to do?

Can someone please tell me why this 1.86GZ pentium M is runing at 1.06 GZ?

Is this a speedstep thing?

How can I change it and set it to run at Max?
Or is it an automatic thing?

please answer me someone!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

This should be said to all the persons who have a AMD processor, who are being teased for not having an intel

 

Explanation of SpeedStep, courtesy of Wikipedia:

 

hmm so basically I can adjust the speed step in control panel in Windows XP then?

That thing with the power schemes and stuff.

 

It has something to do with their architecture, most pc´s are von Neumanns architecture, yeah study computer science like me and you will need to know those things -_-;

 

The guy sent another screen shot with the adapter plugged in and it now says Pentium M 1.86GZ @ 1.86GZ

This is much more satisfying now I can rest in peace. I wish it was 2.0GZ doh

I wonder how to overclock this CPU safely or will it even make a difference?

 

As already mentioned in post 30, you can't overclock a 750 since they already use a 533MHz FSB.

 

damn I just finish watching Two and a Half Men, lol Just love that show. Wish I was Charlie!!!

Anyways I have a question here if I am ripping and Burning a DVD with a Pentium M 750 using Clone CD or Nero how much Data Transfer would I be able to ger per second.

Like My old Desktop gets like 5MB/S with a Athlon XP 1800+ DDR 400

How much would you say this lappie wuth Pentium M 8.6GZ Intel GM915 512MB DDR 2 533 mhz and 4200 RPM HDD EIDE give?

Lets say about the same thing 5MB/S or Maby more?

 

Throughput in burning an optical disk depends on the burner and the burner interface. Processor speed should have almost no effect.

 

wait wait wait.

Are you serious?

So why then does my Desktop PC have a 16X DVD burner yet when you select 16x it in reality burns at 4 X and 6X

Like it starts off at 5MB/S and when it reaches 80% burning then the speed gradually increases to 8MB/S and 10 MB/S.
And by the time it reaches that speed the DVD nearly finish Burn anyways.

To make a long story short it still takes 15 minutes to rip and burn a DVD dispite the fact that the Burner is 16 or 20 x.

Answer me this let me see who good enough to answer this question.

 

The burner has a maximum speed of 16x and you can set slower speeds with whatever burning program you're using.

The DVD burner starts burning from the center of the disk and since the spindle speed stays constant throughout the burn, you're naturally going to get less throughput while you're burning near the center of the disk. As the inner loops of the disk fill, the burner moves towards the outer tracks and the throughput increases. Only on the out most tracks of the DVD will you actually get real 16x throughput.

EDIT: Also, the physical DVD itself has a speed limit. It doesn't matter if your burner can do 20x if your DVD cannot.

 

I understand what you are saying now.

I believe the SONY VAIO has a pioneer 8X.

Ok so tell me If I buy a 8X BENQ DVD blank and insert in the laptop and select 8X in the DVD burning program along with the Pentium M.

What you are saying I am going to get 8X constant right through?
And the processor has nothing to do with this?

 

No you won't, as the other poster said you'll get 8X only on the corners of the disk, cause that's where the disc rotates faster and more data is burned in less time. I'll probably start at 2X or so, and go up from there

 

I wonder if I buy a very expensive DVD Burner like a SONY perhaps.
One that is like super fast, and I mean super fast motor that can spin the disk 5 times faster than a regular DVD burner. Will I then get full 8X right through?

What then is there such a technology that exist?

Or is Blu Ray that new technology that will fullfill that gap?