Ultra Low Voltage Processors

When a system has a ULV, it seems like the GHz are extremely low (like 1.2 or something). If we assume the systems are the same size, same amount of memory, etc, does this mean that it will by default be a lot slower than a processor with, say, 2.6 GHz, or are there other variables involved in the processor. I mean, if something says AMD 1.4 GHz (just an example), is it possible that it could be as powerful/fast as an Intel 2.4 GHz?

 

ULV CPUs are normally found in <14" notebooks. They are compact, portable and have most modules soldered to the motherboard (including the CPU). The purpose of the ULVs is not to provide earth-shattering and explosive performance, but portability.

A 1.2 GHz Dual-Core ULV is good enough for everyday, and mild cpu-intensive tasks. They operate at a lower FSB, lower voltage, and have a decent amount of cache, produce less heat and give more battery life.

The Penryn ULVs are around the corner, which should be more energy-efficient than the Merom ULVs.

(And a normal, standard voltage C2D normally operates at a lower frequency when not doing CPU-intensive tasks, as the EIST kicks in)

 

The performance of Intel ULV chips is approximately in proportion to the clock speed. ie, for tasks dependent on the CPU, a 1.2GHz ULV CPU will be half the speed of a 2.4GHz normal GPU. However, there may be other factors, such as the hard disk speed, which affect the overall performance.

It is more difficult to compare AMD and Intel. Start by studying the Tom's Hardware mobile CPU charts.

John

 

Most portable machines have a 4200RPM 1.8" HDD, and sometimes 1 RAM module soldered, with a single RAM expansion slot.

(2.4 GHz normal CPU ^)

 

So why is it exactly that a Intel Core 2 Duo 2.26 GHz processor will be faster than a 2.43 GHz Pentium 4 processor (it is right?)? Doesn't the GHz determine the speed?

I'm the type of person who likes to really find out how things work.

 

You can separately research the different architectures. The Core series CPUs are tweaked Pentium 3 / Pentium M and do more work per clock pulse than the Pentium 4 series. With Pentium 4, Intel thought that clock speed was the way forward, but then discovered that everything started to get hot. In most benchmarks a 2GHz Pentium 3 is the equivalent of a 3.6GHz Pentium 4 (a factor of 1.8).

AMD clock speeds are nearer the slow end. Their Athlon CPU numbering (eg 3600+) was based on a Pentium 4 equivalent because users would otherwise see the 2GHz and think they were getting a slow CPU.

You can power a car both by a small engine with high rpm (petrol) or a large engine with a low rpm (diesel). CPU technology is similar.

John

 

It depends upon the software/program's coding being multi-threaded. If it is not, then the P4 will just edge-ahead of the C2D (minute difference). But if the program is multi-threaded then all cores will be utilized, and the C2D will crush the P4.

 

without going into details a C2D @ 2.26Ghz is in reality a 2 x 2.26GHz hence faster than a P4 @ 2.43GHs.
The C2D @ 2.26 GHZ is even faster (in theory) than a P4 @ 4.5Ghz because it's 4 generations ahead of the P4 (Pentium D, CoreDuo, Core2Duo merom, Core2Duo Peryn).
A pentium 4 @ 2.43Ghz should be about the same as a Celeron M 380