New Laptop YEEEEEE!

  • Thread starter Thread starter BurnBarfield
  • Start date Start date
B

BurnBarfield

New member
A friend of mine today was talking to me about selling his brand new laptop that he got for graduation because he wants a Mac. I was thinking about picking it up as I was planning on switching my interface anyways to a firewire setup.

This computer is a lot more tempting than my desktop that I currently would be using.. The specs on it are as follows:

Intel Core 2 Duo Processor 1.73 GHz
3 GB DDR2 SDRAM
160GB 5400RPM HDD

Do you think I could use this in a semi professional studio environment that would be seeing close to 50-60 hours a week of work? Would I run into any problems with track count and plugins?
 
open up device manager and see what the firewire chipset is, and the cardbus controller also. 3GB of DDR2 is kinda wierd.
 
Yeah, 3GB made my eyes a bit wide. If all of that is accurate, seems like it'd be a beast of a machine, even for desktops.
 
It came stock with a single 1GB stick, and then he got a 2GB stick from 4allmemory soon after with thoughts of using it as a gaming computer.
 
be careful, because with DDR2 if you run them unmatched on most motherboards they only run in single channel and way slows the memory performance.
 
like 1GB and 2GB... you need to have 2 sticks of equal size and type.
 
If I can get the laptop cheap enough, then I may pick another 2gb stick up
 
All that memory won't make a difference with that processor. Unless that new intel designs are different, that clock speed is extremely slow.
 
myhatbroke said:
All that memory won't make a difference with that processor. Unless that new intel designs are different, that clock speed is extremely slow.
Click to expand...


Um, a 1.73 (T5300) C2D is plenty fast, the days of clock speeds determining performance are long gone and that thing would demolish a P4 3.4 gig without breaking a sweat
 
myhatbroke said:
All that memory won't make a difference with that processor. Unless that new intel designs are different, that clock speed is extremely slow.
Click to expand...

yeah they are different. They turned to AMD's philosophy and put out more work per cycle. Majority of the intel core 2 duo's outperform even the top AMD's easily. By a nice margin too. A 2.4ghz (6600 c2d) would out perform 99% of AMD's high end FX lines & some opterons.
 
altitude909 said:
...that thing would demolish a P4 3.4 gig without breaking a sweat.
Click to expand...

You are inclined to understatement.

myhatbroke said:
All that memory won't make a difference with that processor. Unless that new intel designs are different, that clock speed is extremely slow.
Click to expand...

New Intel designs are different. Very different.

First, C2D is a dual-core CPU, for one thing, so you have two cores running at 1.75 GHz. It's usually faster than a dual-processor CPU, generally speaking, because the cache is shared between the cores, minimizing (maybe eliminating?) cache coherency stalls.

Second, C2D is based on the Pentium M design, not the bloated NetBurst (Pentium 4) design. Because the pipeline is much shorter, pipeline stalls don't waste as much time, and thus in the average case, a CPU can have a much slower clock speed and still perform similarly.

Third, C2D is a 64-bit chip, which gives you some interesting potential for the future. A 64-bit application has twice as many registers available as a 32-bit application. This can provide substantial performance improvements if you're running a 64-bit app.

Fourth, CD and C2D were significantly redesigned, and differ greatly from their Pentium M predecessors. They make better use of each clock cycle, with smarter prefetch, etc., resulting in significantly faster performance per clock.

A C2D 1.75 GHz is not a slow CPU by any stretch of the imagination. it's a speed demon compared with Pentium M or Pentium 4 at the same clock speed. It should utterly bury the fastest Pentium 4 chip on any test. Indeed a dual-core 3.6 GHz Pentium D might outperform a 1.75 GHz C2D on some tests, but not by much.

This is not your father's CPU.
 
dgatwood said:
You are inclined to understatement.



New Intel designs are different. Very different.

First, C2D is a dual-core CPU, for one thing, so you have two cores running at 1.75 GHz. It's usually faster than a dual-processor CPU, generally speaking, because the cache is shared between the cores, minimizing (maybe eliminating?) cache coherency stalls.

Second, C2D is based on the Pentium M design, not the bloated NetBurst (Pentium 4) design. Because the pipeline is much shorter, pipeline stalls don't waste as much time, and thus in the average case, a CPU can have a much slower clock speed and still perform similarly.

Third, C2D is a 64-bit chip, which gives you some interesting potential for the future. A 64-bit application has twice as many registers available as a 32-bit application. This can provide substantial performance improvements if you're running a 64-bit app.

Fourth, CD and C2D were significantly redesigned, and differ greatly from their Pentium M predecessors. They make better use of each clock cycle, with smarter prefetch, etc., resulting in significantly faster performance per clock.

A C2D 1.75 GHz is not a slow CPU by any stretch of the imagination. it's a speed demon compared with Pentium M or Pentium 4 at the same clock speed. It should utterly bury the fastest Pentium 4 chip on any test. Indeed a dual-core 3.6 GHz Pentium D might outperform a 1.75 GHz C2D on some tests, but not by much.

This is not your father's CPU.
Click to expand...
it's about time intel caught up with amd :p
 
We all waiting till AMD catches up with Intel now. It's looking gloomy. While AMD start releasing 65nm chips, Intel will drop to 45nm chips.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top