old chipsets in recent ultraportables

I've been looking around for a shiny new "1kg" notebook since Santa Rosa was released this spring. It seems like a good time to upgrade to a new notebook as we both have the debut of a new graphics core and the "Merom" Core 2 Duo ULV processors.

But, I'm really surprised to see that in almost all models the new ULV processors are combined with the older 945GMS chipset, which means the old graphics core, no dual-channel RAM, lower FSB and RAM rates, etc. I can understand that the higher frequency rates may consume an unwanted amount of power but the new 965 chipset could be used with lower frequencies while still having all the other improvements...
Even using the (also old) 945GM chipset would be an improvement as it supports dual-channel RAM.

The only hint I've found is that the 945GMS chipset is said to be "optimized for small form-factor notebooks". Still, there are 1kg models like LG's A1 and C1 Express Dual that combine a ULV processor with 945PM chipset to do dual-channel RAM.

Can anybody help me understand this?

1. Am I over-emphasizing the importance of dual-channel RAM and higher RAM rate for total performance?
2. Would a 965/Santa Rosa solution suck up too much power in an ultraportable?
3. Or should I expect full Santa Rosa implementations to appear in ultraportables anytime soon?

Below is a list of the models I've been looking at:

CORE 2 DUO ULV MODELS

Toshiba Portege R500
U7600 (1.2GHz), 945GMS, DDR2 667MHz single-channel max 2GB

Dell Latitude D430
U7600 (1.2GHz), 945GMS, DDR2 533MHz single-channel max 2GB

Sony VAIO TZ
U7500 (1.06GHz), 945GMS, DDR2 533MHz single-channel max 2GB

CORE DUO ULV MODELS

LG A1 Express Dual
U2500 (1.2GHz), 945PM + nvidia 7300, DDR2 533MHz dual-channel max 2GB
(this is a model from before Santa Rosa but note the use of dual-channel RAM)

--
Mike

 

There's good reason for that. The old chipset and CPUs release much less heat due to slower front side bus and a less complex chipset. I'm talking about at full load at idle the new CPUs and chipsets are about the same but as soon as you put them to work they heat up.

 

The recent models I was referring to have the latest CPUs but old chipsets.

What puzzles me is that it is hardly the chipset that is the main power consumer of these two, and in articles on Santa Rosa I have read that the new chipset is needed to utilize some of the new power savings in the CPU (like cache flushing to avoid wake-up, and FSB downclocking). Then it would be counter-beneficial to use a new power-hungry CPU with power savings that cannot be used by the old chipset, if the goal is to reduce power?

Best regards
Mike

 

The new chipsets are way hotter and they can only enable those settings when the system is truly idle meaning you can't be doing anything.

SR consumes ~10-30% more power than Napa when the system is not idle. The CPU's themselves due to die shrinks don't consume more power. However the integrated Gfx card does suck more juice due to new and more shaders. The X3100 is a huge step up from the 950.

The 945 isn't that old and can still enable those features. Those are still C2D chips so it's not all bad.

 

Ok, so you're saying that the recent models with new CPUs and 945 chipsets are actually good compromises that will get me longer battery runs without losing so much performance compared to dual-channel 965 designs? (apart from graphics)

Then I guess I can stop looking for new machines. I'll probably go for the Toshiba R500.

Thanks for your help!

Best regards
Mike

 

RAM speeds have very very very small impacts on performance

 

I guess in a way I am telling you that.

With Ultraportables you have to forget about having top notch performance due to physical limitations. Having single channel if I remember correctly effective increases battery life about 10%.

The only ultraportable I can think of that packs a hard punch is the Dell 1330, it's a beast in it's own right with an Nvidia 8400 full feature SR platform.

The ultraportables you pointed out are pretty decent in the CPU area, they will lack in the graphics area (only matters if you're a gamer or keen on viewing HD material). They use the Intel 950 chip which is slow to start with, Intel designed it to be used with Dual Channel to get optimal performance so it's way slower that the X3100. Without dual channel the 950 is further crippled.

Just remember when you're looking at ultra portables (cost effective ones) you'll have to take a hit in performance.

 

Ok, interesting!
(My assumption was that it would make a big difference, but I guess it doesn't if most accesses can be done in cache.)

The 1330 is nice but it weighs almost twice as much as the machines I'm mainly looking at . And with a weight of almost 2kg I would go for a model with a higher resolution display.

Yes, of course. Or take the hit on battery time. (Or run at lower rates when on battery.)
The whole start of this wondering was that with the Santa Rosa release I was expecting Santa Rosa ultraportables, not mixed designs.

After hearing your arguments for the older chipset I find it strange that Intel didn't address the ultraportables better in Santa Rosa, as the new 965 chipset is mandatory for putting the Centrino Pro stamp on a design (though Pro actually specifying FSB 533MHz - not 800MHz - for ULV CPUs). This means manufacturers will be locked out of the Pro stamp if they want to conserve power.

Best regards
Mike