Hello,
I'm considering either the hp dv9635 (amd 2.0gig processor) , or the dv9615(intel 1.5gig processor).
The price difference is about $300. Is there a huge difference between the processors in terms of speed? Will I loose much more battery power on a 2.0 vs 1.5? Any other striking differences?
Thanks in advance.
-
Is the Intel one a Core2?
-
Please list the specific model of the CPU. Also, which one is $300 more? Please be very specific so we can help you make a better decision.
-
Yes... The intel is a duo Core2.... the AMD is $300 more than the Intel. I think I'm leaning towards the Intel 1.5ghz core2. My only concern is that it may be slow with the Vista build since I cannot downgrade to XP.
Here is more detail on the hp dv9615 I'm thinking about getting that is $300 less:
Processor type
Intel® Centrino® Duo processor technology featuring Intel® Core™ 2 Duo processor T5250
- Operating system installed
Genuine Windows Vista® Home Premium
System bus
667MHz FSB
Cache
2MB L2 Cache
Chipset
Intel® 945G Express Chipset
Standard memory
1024MB DDR2 System Memory (2 Dimm)
And here is the specs on the AMD...
Processor type
AMD Turion™ 64 X2 Dual-Core Mobile Technology TL-64
• 2.20 GHz, 512KB+512KB L2 Cache, Up to 1600 MHz system bus running at AC/DC mode 35 Watt
Operating system installed
Genuine Windows Vista® Home Premium
Standard memory
2048 MB
Memory type
DDR2 System Memory
Memory layout
2048 MB (2 x 1024 MB)
Maximum memory
Supports up to 4 GB DDR2 memory -
How much more is it to upgrade to a better Intel CPU? I personally wouldn't go under a 2Ghz CPU for a laptop. Intel's are definitely better than AMD at the moment so I would stick with them, but 1.5Ghz just isn't a good choice. If I were you I would go with at least a 2.0Ghz Intel.
-
I have had both 2.0Ghz Intel Core 2 Duo, and the same 1.5Ghz version.
The 2.0Ghz is a faster, but in day to day use, you don't notice it much.
The Core 2 Duo is what really makes the biggest difference, regardless of proc speed.
For most general stuff the 1.5ghz Core 2 Duo is fine. The 2.0Ghz give you a little more speed, but is it work $300 more? I don't think so. You could use that for an Ipod Touch or Apple TV....or a bigger hard drive and more RAM.
I'm usually "Mister Max-it-out", but in this time of commodity PCs, I think the basics are decent for many people. While getting the faser processor feels new and spiffy, in the end, to me, the extra cost is not worth it (unless you have cash to burn.) In a few months, it will be cheaper anyway.
Obviously, I would say RAM would be 2GB min, 3GB preferrred (32 bit). -
Yes, in day to day use (browsing internet, using office, etc) you won't notice a difference. But if you were using it for any type of game, or graphic design, databases, etc (processor intensive applications) you will notice the difference. I just like to know that my laptop is going to last me at least 3 years when I buy it, and for the work I use my laptop for, I won't buy anything less than a 2Ghz.
With Vista though, I 100% recommend you never buy below 2GB of RAM. 3GB of RAM is the best choice if you don't plan on buying a 64-bit OS, because Vista is definitely a RAM intensive OS. -
Heck, it I had to buy today, I would go 2.5Ghz with the 6MB cache and nothing less.
I find it cheaper to "rent"; I replace my laptop annually, (selling off the old one) and find the overall cost to be less that buying just one laptop for 3 years, and I get to have the latest and greatest.
While I do some audio and video decode/encoding, virtual machines, and some dev and databases, if I really have a need to have a "dedicated" machine (ex gaming, video, CAD, etc.) I get a machine for that purpose (or just go desktop, which still smoke laptops. -
Hey, great information.
The information you both provided me will certainly help me out. Once I pick up my laptop, I will post back with what I purchased, as well as how it performs.
Thanks! -
1.5 gig processor vs 2.0?
Discussion in 'HP' started by Rashar, Feb 1, 2008.