Intel® Pentium® M processor 730 90 nm 2MB L2 1.60 GHz 533 MHz

Its a 2.6Ghz with a 533Mhz Front Side Bus.

Honestly, by the time the 64 bit O/S's get here and become useable (i.e. stuff is written for it, drivers and hardware have been optimized), your soon to be bought notebook will be worthless.

Here is my $.02 on PC buying. Buy something cheap to midrange. Do not splurge! It is truly not worth it anymore. PCs are becoming appliances; you upgrade every 2-3-4 years.

That is the rule I use when buying desktops. It is just so easy to get caught up in the whole buying expierience. Right now, BestBuy has a Compaq, Athon 64 3200, 512mg mem, 15.4" screen, blah, blah, blah - 899 after rebate. I will probably end up with that one.

If I were in the market for a new laptop or desktop, I would be more interested in getting a 32 bit hyperthreaded processor than a 64 bit. I just received XP/64 at the office the other day and the 64bit machies are not only cost prohibitive, but there aren't any 64 bit applications that will take advantage of the processor. I'm not even going to buy a 64 bit machine to screw around with at the office for probably a few months. A hyperthreaded 32 bit processor acts like 2 32 bit processors and will give you more bang for the buck.

__________________
You have your way. I have my way. As for the right way, the correct way, and the only way, it does not exist.

As others pointed out, going 64-bit is largely useless for the next 2-3 years. Plus by then, you will want a new laptop too.

I would recommend staying away from Pentium 4-powered laptops since:

1) they create a LOT of heat
2) they ensure LOW battery life

The laptop you are looking at does indeed come with the specs that Chris F posted. That processor is 32-bit. However, it will nearly double your battery life because of the SpeedStep technology (runs at half speed when laptop isn't plugged in the wall).

If you want to buy an Athlon64-based system, those will do a great job, too. However they will create much more heat and lower battery life. AMD's offerings are great, but they are still having problems with the heat dissipation.

__________________
2008 ML320 CDI | Iridium Silver | Black ARTICO Leather | Premium Package (H/K Logic7, Parktronic, Rear Heated Seats, Rear Power Hatch, DVD Nav, 10-way Front Seats w/ Memory) | Backup Camera | Aluminum Running Boards | 4500K MTEC Low-beam HID | 30% Metallic Tint | Boomerang2 Recovery System | Weathertech Front Floorliners | Bridgestone Blizzak DM-V1 Winter Tires

I know this thread got old but I wanted throw in some information considering I work at Intel...

For laptops, there is no substitute for Intel's centrino-line processors. They are very low-power and the performance is top-notch. Intel has a very strong laptop processor road-map. AMD can simply not compete with Intel's centrino line as far as performance and power/heat are concerned. I don't know how they are labeled in the market (I work in design).

They are NOT 64bit, however. A 64bit centrino line will be available probably in latter half of 2006 which will be incredibly powerful yet with low-power consumption and, in fact, a real dual-core design.

I won't spill the info on everything since it's already readily available here:

www.theinquirer.net

In fact, many of us at Intel visit this site to get the low-down on what the heck we're even doing.

BTW: I just bought my wife a 2002 BMW X5, Green-Gray, Premium pkg. Picked it up just last week w/ only 35k miles for $26k. Beautiful car. Now if I only had a bluetooth cell phone!

--Phot0n

Intel hasn't had a good track record recently. The move to 90-nm didn't bring any relief, even though some of the other semiconductor companies saw gains. Processors that consume way too much electricity. Who needs a light bulb for an Easy Bake oven; just use an old Intel P4 processor. Intel has had to redo their roadmap to catch-up with competitors that saw changing times years ago. Intel thought MHz was the road to take, and look at their direction now. Look at the Itanic; it has done well. Then Intel is going to make their 64-bit x86 design more like AMD’s. I wish Apple would stick with the PowerPC.

In the past 5 years, Intel has made mistakes and left itself vulnerable. AMD has managed to punch us in every soft spot. Being first to x86, security technology, and dual core are big examples. Intel got lucky by having Centrino when the market realized that 90nm P4's turned your desktop into a roasting oven.

90nm was a tough move for Intel. It was also the first time we switched from 8" to 12" wafers. I was on the the 90nm P4 design team, Prescott, which is practically considered one of the toughest ill-managed products at Intel. The rest of the industry followed the 90nm route but Intel hits the tough issues first. It's the price they pay for being ahead as far as having a production-quality process is concerned.

"Itanic" was definitely a good idea not executed well. AMD really hit Intel where it hurt by expanding to 64 bits on x86. Early in Prescott, when we learned about it, we decided to throw in 64 bit as well to compete. It hurt Itanium because it now lost its goal for becoming the general 64 bit arch from Intel. Now, it's slated for only large servers and directly competes with it's 64-bit Xeon cousins and is losing. 64-bit x86 will eventually "sink" the Itanic to farther depths.

I think you mean 64-bit. Intel invented the x86 processor, but IBM wouldn't use it initially, as they required two vendors. Intel had to basically fund their competition.

The Centrino is a mobile processor; which shares a lot with the PIII, which is related to the PII and that is related to the Pentium Pro.

What do you call Ti? Ti had a second-generation 90-nm processor available shortly AFTER Intel released its first 90nm processor. Ti had none of the issues the rest of the industry had. Maybe that's because they've been using newer technology before most of the others do. Partly due to making products for mobile phones and other low powered devices. That means that they re going to use technology that reduces power consumption as well as heat. Wouldn't to correct term be 300mm wafers?

Itanic is already as low as it can go, it's hardly moved off the bottom; it was sunk before its maiden voyage. Intel had the competitive advantage in the x86 space for the longest time as companies were not willing to try something new, so when PeeCee's needed to be upgraded, they always looked at systems with Intel processors. Using one of the competitors looked cheaper upfront, but it was the possible hidden issues. Intel decided that it wanted to compete with the likes of Sun and IBM in the big iron arena. Intel got to see what the likes of AMD have to go through everyday. Most companies were not interested in looking at a new processor design for critical apps; too much effort in porting applications over with a big risk and price tag. Even without 64-bits being added to x86, it would never have been taken seriously. If EPIC was such a good idea, then why was it used in the 70's and didn't make any headway then either?

Eh... you're very on point exceppt in the beginning.

Centrino is simply a name for a combination of P-M + Intel Wireless.

If you are going to get a laptop, no matter what, make sure it's branded Centrino. Some people will call it marketing hype, whatever. IMO AMD doesn't make a decent laptop oriented CPU just yet.

Having 7 hours of constant web browsing / chatting use of battery time rocks.

__________________
admin @ mbworld.org