atom vs p3 vs pm

how much faster a pentium m than a p3 at the same clock speed? let say p3 900 to pm 900?

how fast is atom n280? what is its equvient of p3, p4 and pm?

is the n280 sufficient to run a dvd movie perfectly if l connected my netbook with an external dvd drive and a 19" lcd mon?

and l also want to know if display card really matters in the video quality and fluentity of playing dvd, like any real difference between gma 3150 and gma x3100?

 

Performance wise, the x3100 is much better. The 3150 is more like the gma 950.

 

My parents have a Pentium Mobile 1.7 laptop with GMA 845? graphics. I have an intel atom netbook with GMA 950. They are about the same for performance. But the netbook uses MUCH less power and makes no heat compared to the PM.

 

-Pentium M is 30-40% faster per clock faster than Pentium III 0.13u "Tualatin" core.

Atom N280 equivalent
-900MHz Pentium M
-1.3GHz Pentium III
-1.5GHz Pentium 4

DVD movies will run fine on the Atom CPUs. It's when running HD videos like Blu-ray it might be slow.

There's no real difference between GMA 3150 and X3100 on video playback. Only difference is 3D.

 

Where do you get these numbers? The P3 vs P4 sounds a little off.

There is a big difference. The X3100 supports hardware decoding of some video formats that the 3150 doesn't support.

 

Pentium 4 was a terrible architecture. The only reason it was faster than Pentium III was that Intel managed significantly higher clock speeds with it.
On the other hand, Pentium M was based on Pentium III, because it turned out raw clock speed just wasn't the way to go.

 

I disagree, you also got the HT extention introduced too, which offered a nice boost.

Personally i'm thinking of slapping in an AGP 3850 with the p4 and trying to game with it haha.

 

"There is a big difference. The X3100 supports hardware decoding of some video formats that the 3150 doesn't support."

so is there any difference between these 2 when come to playing dvd movies?

and is win7 or xp better with these atom cpus?

 

lackofcheese is refering to the early days of the P4 when a P3@ 1 Ghz was faster than a P4 @ 1.4Ghz. I remenber that my Duran 900Mhz was faster than my cousin's P4 @ 1.4 Ghz. It cost less too

Short pipelines for the P3 versus long pipelines for the P4

My guess it's XP since it is less ressource hungry
It's XP >> Win7 >> Vista.

 

Pentium M was a PIII on speed, (very similar architchture) the P4 was only better then PIII because of this higher clock speed, and HT was almost just a patch to help it.

My fav are PIII, Pm, Core, Core i, the P4 doesn't even rate for me it was terrible.

 

That's normal since the Core i is an evolution of Core which is an evolution of Pm which is an evolution of PIII

 

l just found out one of those hp mini with ion GeForce 9400M somthing, which seems 5x better than gma 3150/950, is there any other gpu for netbooks, like ati?

 

there are netbooks with ati 3200
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produ...ption=&Ntk=&CFG=&SpeTabStoreType=&srchInDesc=

and then there are others with intel's 4500mhd
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produ...ption=&Ntk=&CFG=&SpeTabStoreType=&srchInDesc=

 

Indeed. Nehalem's (Core i) heritage traces all the way back to the Pentium Pro. NetBurst (Pentium 4) was an all-new design, and a dead end at that.

 

Now, I thought the Core architecture was a complete re-design from the "Netburst" architecture. Even the original Core Duos are MUCH different architecturally than the Core 2. But to me the 3150 is just a die shrunk GMA950. It's only a tad bit faster, and still doesn't support DXVA, so no hardware accelerated video decoding through flash 10.1.

 

I think the Pentium III only went up to a max of 1.13 with the Coppermine cores. The Pentium M was built on a revised P6 microarchitecture, and i know for a fact that a Pentium M 760 (2GHz) is equivalent to a 3.66GHz Prescott based Pentium 4, but not exactly sure what the performance multiplier is exactly.

 

The PIII actually went higher with the 130nm Tualatin core, which was released after the crappy 180nm P4 Willamete cores. Production of the Tualatin ceased to stop competition with the new 130nm P4 core whose name I forget at the moment. Development continued on it internally as a mobile processor which evolved into Core architecture, taking over the desktop segment as 90nm Prescott and 65nm Cedar Mill Pentium 4's and Pentium D's were getting way out of hand. Just think where we'd be now if Intel had decided to scrap Netburst at the time and focused their efforts on the continued development of their Tualatin processors as their primary line instead of relegating it to their research facility in Israel.

 

No. NetBurst was a completely different architecture that was developed when they thought the P6 architecture was going the way of the dodo bird since it couldn't physically keep increasing in clock speed as it was before the Pentium M era. Core was a rebranded version of Pentium M basically, and Core 2 was a radical revision of Core, which was as you know just Pentium M architecture but two physically connected cores.

Edit: Trottel, yes perhaps you are correct. I think they discontinued marketing and increasing Pentium 3 clock speed since they realized the Pentium 4's needed to be clocked about double the Pentium 3's speed to actually notice any serious gains in performance.

 

The latest and fastest P3; the PIII-S (Tualatin core) was clocked @ 1.4Ghz

 

Humans are a lot different from our shared ancestor with chimpanzees, too. Sure, Core (the microarchitecture) was a new design, but it had a lot in common with Yonah (the last of the P6's); definitely a lot more than with NetBurst.

At the very least, one could easily argue that Nehalem is the spiritual successor of the Pentium M - the focus has (more or less) been on performance per watt. Pentium 4, on the other hand, was focused on raw clock speed.

While we're at it, Nehalem has been quite a big step forward over Core, particularly because of moving the northbridge onto the CPU package.

On the other hand, just about the only good thing to come out of NetBurst was HyperThreading, which isn't all that great anyway.

 

well another option would be asus N10J with atom CPU and NVDIA Ge force 9300M GS... it should be better than ion.... i think... and even better than ATI 3200 integrated.

 

The differences between Pentium III and Pentium 4 can be larger depending on whether you are comparing Northwood/Willamette/Tualatin/Coppermine cores, but Northwood vs Coppermine was not that big. The extra L2 cache and some trivial enhancements that Northwood brought plus the faster FSB helped close the gap between the two. SSE2 also helped a bit there, as it was the first useful instruction set. I'm not trying to count Hyperthreading though.

And yes, you are right about the X3100. Though when I looked at it again, the enhancements in form of video decoding was trivial.

 

The pentium m can be undervolted like craaazy to give off little to no heat, and much longer battery life.

 

I've seen them passively cooled. I love the Pentium M.

 

The P-M was a Pentium III with slightly longer pipelines and greatly optimized architecture, also the (for it's time) very large amount of L2 low latency cache made it outperform most Pentium 4's in everyday applications, and even gaming it was on par with high clocked (3GHz+) Pentium 4's, except it had poor floating point arithmetic performance where the Pentium 4 did decently in.

 

My Tulatian 1.3Ghz Pentium III's were faster than the 1.5Ghz Socket 423 Intel Pentium 4's I had.

I would expect the atom to feel faster since it is a new platform using higher performance memory, modern harddrives, and modern user ports such as USB 2.0 etc

K-TRON

 

OT:

9300M G > 9300M GS = ION (in terms of H.264 compatibility, though most common video resolutions will work on all of these anyways - 720 and 1080 are covered) though 9300M GS/ION can accelerate more of VC1 which IMO is a less common format.

ATi cards in terms of DXVA have their own limitations and for Intel cards, generally only 4500MHD and the one with the i5/i3 will accelerate anything that matters.

...all of which need to have the proper software setup to have hardware video acceleration/processing/playback enabled in the first place.

 

ION i have always seen referred to as a 9400, not a 9300.

 

In terms of video acceleration capabilities (not 3D performance), 9400M G = 9400M = ION = 9300M GS.

In regards to sean473's post, I just meant that the 9300M GS in the Asus N10J would not have any improvements over the ION in terms of hardware video acceleration.

 

wouldn't the 9300M GS run faster since its not restricted by 1.0X PCI connection like the ION?

 

Video decoding runs in real-time. There is no faster or slower.

In other aspects, the 9300M GS will probably be faster than the ION.

 

None of these bottom feeder gpu's need much bandwidth.

 

yes the old days where a CPU could be undervolted as low as 0.7000v

Intel for limitting undervolting in the Core2 Duo and Core i....