Santa Rosa a waste of money?

After reading through a few benchmarks and reviews it dosent look like Santa rosa has much to offer, With a 2.4ghz SR processor vs 2.33 Napa it scored a measily one point more, It took longer in video and sound encoding, And it drew more watts under load. Turbo Cache actually added to the boot times of several tests and the launch of Vista. And 802.11n Is available for Napa. Apart from newer graphics cards is there much point to spending a few hundred more on Santa Rosa?

 

Well, if you're asking if there's a point of someone with a Napa-based system upgrading to Santa Rosa, I think it's pretty clear it isn't a big enough difference to be worth it.

The updated GPU's would be more significant.

But for someone with a much older laptop, it should be just fine.

I think it's actually a nice thing that the previous platform hasn't been just completely obsoleted by the new one.

 

there coming out with an Extreme processor for santa rosa

"Intel Corporation Executive Vice President Sean Maloney has announced the release of an Intel Core 2 Extreme mobile dual core processor at the Computex Show in Taipei. The chip maker’s first CPU designed for gaming notebooks will be released in the third quarter of this year, according to Maloney.

“The upcoming chip is targeted to be the company’s highest-performing mobile dual-core processor that still includes energy-saving power features for notebook-friendly designs,” Intel’s press release says.

Currently there is no official information on Core 2 Extreme laptop CPU’s specifications and pricing. Earlier reports say that the first C2E mobile processor will be the X7800 model at 2.6GHz clock speed and with 4MB of L2 cache. It will have Intel “Santa Rosa’s” 800MHz front-side bus. The expected price for 1000 Core 2 Extreme X7800 processors will be $795 per unit reportedly."

Plus ealier reports also show a 2.8ghz extreme also

so yes, that would be a major improvement, the extreme line for intel is always much better. i just got the dv2500t, plan to upgrade to the extreme later when it comes out!

 

It looks like the new Santa Rosa laptops are mostly cheaper then the laptops they replaced. So cant call it a waste of money at all.

 

its a waste if u already have a C2D laptop especially, a bit less of a waste to buy a santa rosa notebook if u have a core duo but worth it to upgrade from anything older like P4-M or P-M or even older

 

If you are are running Pentium anything (4, M, etc) its worth an upgrade. Santa Rosa has a couple of key features: its compatible with the upcoming Penryn 45nm CPUs, and its packaged with DX10.

 

These are incremental increases, so if one expects a dramatic change such as boot time cut down by half, or benchmark numbers increase by 2 folds are going to be sorely disappointed. its just a new platform that has a bit higher FSB that will be compatible with future CPUs.

personally, its not worth upgrading if you already have a decent napa based laptop, but if you have the older pentiums, then of course you're gonna go for an SR based notebook rather than Napa based.

It is a good thing that these changes are incremental or else the notebook you bought a couple of months ago will be completely obsolete and you will constantly regret.

 

I don't think it is worth it at the moment. The newer Santa Rosa isn't much different from the old platform, and the new FSB does not really make lot of difference. I expect the Montevina platform to be a big upgrade, and I'd wait till it comes out next year before buying a notebook. Your FE would work fantastically well till then.

 

That is the silliest advice I have ever heard. If you wait to buy a new computer, you will wait your entire life. I mean it wouldn't be smart for a person who needs a new laptop to go and buy a Napa notebook, now that a newer and CHEAPER, yes SR is cheaper, notebook is available, with a slight performance increase.

But to wait an entire year, because of a new platform that will come out. Intel releases a new platform every single year! People would never buy notebooks. Realistically, you should upgrade your notebook or computer every 3-5 years. Software demand really makes a difference right around that time. Software does not really increase in demand for better hardware until around the 5 year period. This is more economical for companies, since people are more likely to stay current and ease into a transition, rather than get confused and regret wasting their money on a machine soon to be obsolete.

If you are going to buy a new notebook now, go for a Santa Rosa notebook. They are cheaper and offer a performance increase. Benchmarks are usually unfair becuase they test things people usually don't care about. Besides, when new software comes out that will take advantge of Turbo Memory and the new 800 Mhz FSB, you will see a significant increase. Windows is not even a real test...

 

You just have to pick a time to buy a notebook and get one. Santa Rosa offers a performance increase over the previous Centrino Duo platform regardless.

100% agreement.

I think the Turbo Memory benchmarks are misleading. It will take a little while before the system adjusts to using it - Vista will figure out what you like to do and then it will react accordingly. Once that happens and the things you use most often are cached via Turbo Memory, then we may see some significant gains. I have yet to hear any feedback from owners of SR systems with Turbo memory.

I think there were some other factors in play there, the SR processor should have been faster than that.

We haven't seen SR's potential yet.

 

Totally agreed.
Drivers have yet to pull out in final versions and even the Intel X3100 drivers are still in beta stages.

We would not really be able to access the full power of the SR line until full drivers are released. It's way too early to say it's a full waste of money.

Really though, there's no need to fork over money for an Upgrade.
However, for a New Purchase of a computer you will need, then of course go for the newest model, ie. Santa Rosa.

 

Yeah, the fact that Sony and HP have decided not to go with Turbo Memory and that Anandtech found it deficient is not significant. Let's rather wait for Joe User to confirm Intel's and Microsoft's propaganda. That's much more reliable.

 

The rule of thumb with computers is that the technology outdates itself every 1.5 years. It's just like a new car, you'll never have the best for long, but even then it still does what you want it to do.

 

I've been using a Celeron processor for the last year and a half. I'm ready for an upgrade! So I'll definitely be getting a new Santa Rosa based laptop.

 

I'm not refuting their benchmarks/findings. Sony's announcement sounded like they were pissed off, it's almost like they got frustrated with the technology. I'm not going to jump to conclusions but in my opinion, it's still too early to judge the technology that came out *one month* ago.

Turbo Memory isn't a technology that was designed to help get higher benchmarks scores. It is a technology engineered to improve a user's computing experience - opening programs faster, etc. It takes a while for Vista to learn your habits.

http://www.intel.com/design/flash/nand/turbomemory/?iid=search&

I'm not going to judge this technology until I get to use it. I already have a new notebook equipped with Intel Turbo Memory (1GB) on order.