P8xxx vs i3

How does the P8xxx compare to the i3? I want to buy a laptop and most laptops around 600-700 USD usually comes with a P8xxx or an i3.

And will the graphic card be a bottle neck? It will most likely be 4500mhd or something like that. Just forgot the actual name.

I usually use it for itunes + multiple browsers open + multiple word/powerpoints. Or itues + photoshopping. So pretty much school work and some entenrtainment. No gaming. Most intensive gaming I would do will probably be n64 emulators.

 

The integrated graphics card will be fine for your purposes. If I recall correctly, N64 emulation does not require much graphics muscle. As long as you are not running any games that have been released within the last few years (if you are, then you'll have to settle for the lowest graphics settings and FPS still might be low) you'll be fine.

 

well, for what you do either of these will be absolutely fine. i3 will probably offer you better battery life since the GPU is moved onto the package.

 

If I can play Team Fortress 2 fine on medium graphics with a P8600 and 4500MHD then I'm sure that package should be sufficient for your gaming needs.

 

if ur not doing gaming , i3 should be great... in fact it would be faster than some of the P8000 series as it has 4 cores due to hyperthreading..

 

http://www.notebookcheck.net/Mobile-Processors-Benchmarklist.2436.0.html

 

Yay! my P8700 in my t400 is fast as an i3!
My friend has T9600... which tbh gives same performance as mine (everyday uses actually, all of those processors prly give the same performance lol)

 

You have to remember that the i3 will be much better in heavily multithreaded applications though, due to it having twice the logical cores over the P8700.

 

I love how technology moves fast, but people's mentality doesn't

An i3 is better than a P8700, which by regular standards is considered a fine enough CPU for anything non-intensive and good enough for entry and casual level intensive stuff yet the mentality that the i3 is the "bottom feeder" hasn't worn off and people are telling others to shake it off like a Celeron is funny

 

It was about a different processor, but I like how Histidine did his "dumbest of the smart kids" description. Hits iX series on the dot.

 

Dumbest of the smart kids is still probably load smarter than the average mass though lol

But yeah, a good analogy.

 

I don't get why so many people see the i3 as a Celeron when Intel is selling it as the new T6000 series. Are these people getting an unrealistic reference point because the Westmere Pentiums and Celerons aren't available yet?

 

How well does the i3 stack up with an Penryn in the real world? (single threaded apps)

 

It's just because Intel revamped their naming scheme and people don't reference in accordance to actual performance, they reference in a hierarchy.

Old bottom feeder = Celeron
New bottom feeder must be the new Celeron.

 

Well it is like the celeron of the core i series... for now since it has worst performance... the core i5 is like the pentium and the high end is core i7...

 

An i3 is equal to an upper-midrange Penryn in single threaded performance.

Thanks, both of you, for explaining the rationale

But sometimes I wonder if it isn't just enthusiasts on the web with too much time on their hands and too little shopping experience that think this way. In the real world, you can't get an i3 laptop in the sub-$500 Celeron price range so there shouldn't be any confusion for the average budget shopper.

Not to mention that the average budget shopper probably isn't familiar with all of Intel's different naming schemes anyway and just wants something they can afford.

 

There is going to be a Core i series based Celeron anyways.

 

But you shouldn't base it on a hierarchy, you should base it on performance and the customer's needs. An i3 performs as well as an upper level Perryn which is overkill for most people and even adequate for mid-level intensive stuff.

As I stated, people like to make useless associations sometimes. The Core i isn't even the same architecture as its previous generation ancestors so idk why people INSIST on a 1-to-1 comparison on them.

The Core i3 maybe indeed be the lowest in terms of performance, but it's still leagues away from a Celeron in terms of a customer's processing needs.

If a customer came to me at work and asked about a Core i3, I most certainly would not tell him "well it's like a Celeron..."

 

have a look at http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu_list.php
i3 is ranked 95, P8800 ranked 194, No significant difference in normal use though.

 

Normal use(i.e. internet, music, office stuff) will hardly see a significant difference between any half decent modern dual core since we were already fine for those tasks since the Pentium M.

An i7 and a P4 will see minimal performance gain if you're typing a Word document.