NFB - Computer processor question

[Jeff_in_Atl]

What is the performance difference between a Pentium 4 and a Pentium M processor? I heard they were about equal but I don't see how a Pentium M at 2.13 GHz can be as fast as a Pentium 4 at 3.6 GHz. I'd like to see some numbers like MIPS.

I'm looking at laptops but the Pentium 4s are hard to find. I need horsepower because I do CAD work on it. I don't care about weight. I like the HP8000 series but I don't want the wide screen and I don't like the docking station for it. I have a 21"TFT that I want to use at home..

Thanks,
Jeff

[Z Ya Later]

I can't really give you numbers right now, but the Pentium 4 will outperform the Pentium M. Think of the M as faster than the Celeron M but slower than the Pentium 4. I do believe, though, that laptops ship with a Pentium 4 M, not the full-blown Pentium 4. The IBM Thinkpad T42 and T43 have the P4M available and are pretty nice (we just got a T30, which the T42/43 replaced). I'll talk to my boss and see if I can get a page with the comparisons between the chips. Hope this helps.

[Craig 94 TA GT]

Well, here's a chart of the specs: http://www.directron.com/pentiummvsp4.html

Out of personal experience, I don't see much of a difference. I'm running a Pentium M 760 (2.0 GHZ, 533 FSB), Geforce 6600, 1 GB RAM, 7200 RPM hdd laptop. I don't see any difference between that and my deskptop, which is an Athlon XP 2200+ (1.8 GHZ), 256 RAM, 7200 RPM HDD, Geforce4 Ti4200. 3D benchmarks are only significantly different for DX9+ apps. That shows its probably mostly due to the video card, since the Ti series is getting old. The processor itself doesn't seem to be any faster. I'm not sure how the 3.6 GHZ P4 would hold though?

[Jeff_in_Atl]

That's what I was guessing.

IBM Thinkpads have Pentium 4Ms in them but crappy video cards.

Dell doesn't make any notebooks with Pentium 4s. (although I hate Dell anyway)

My wife has one of these http://www.shopping.hp.com/webapp/sh...computer_store (well she has the ZD7000 but it isn't made and has been replaced by the ZD8000) at home and the Compaq version at work. Both have true Pentium 4s in them along with a kick bootie video card. My wife's has the NVIDIA GeForce5700go video. The new ones have the ATI Radian mobile version. They are amazingly fast with our CAD software. It's faster than my 2.53 desktop with a NVIDIA Quadra 980 video card. It has convinced me to go to a notebook.

Yea I would love to see some real numbers on the processors. I can't find anyone who really knows.

Thanks

[Jeff_in_Atl]

Well, here's a chart of the specs: http://www.directron.com/pentiummvsp4.html

Out of personal experience, I don't see much of a difference. I'm running a Pentium M 760 (2.0 GHZ, 533 FSB), Geforce 6600, 1 GB RAM, 7200 RPM hdd laptop. I don't see any difference between that and my deskptop, which is an Athlon XP 2200+ (1.8 GHZ), 256 RAM, 7200 RPM HDD, Geforce4 Ti4200. 3D benchmarks are only significantly different for DX9+ apps. That shows its probably mostly due to the video card, since the Ti series is getting old. The processor itself doesn't seem to be any faster. I'm not sure how the 3.6 GHZ P4 would hold though?

What are you using for benchmarking? I'd like to run it on my wife's hot rod and post the results for comparison.

[Craig 94 TA GT]

I used 3DMark05, with default settings, and got around 1500. Here's what I use to reference what it can do: http://graphics.tomshardware.com/gra...l#3d_mark_2005
The biggest problem with my laptop is that it's a very thin, 14.1" system. In my opinion, it's too powerful for its size. The thing gets so hot, I can hardly touch it at times. It often has to reduce the graphics card's clock speeds when it overheats.

I think I tested with 3DMark2001 too and got around 13000. My desktop got 10000, but went up to 12000 when I overclocked the video to 300/600.

I'm eager to hear your results

Also, here's an old test done for Pentium M vs. P4M. This may be old, but hopefully insightful. http://www.tomshardware.com/mobile/2...ntrino-09.html

[RangerBob]

I've been salivating after this platform for a while

Prostar

The same laptop is sold by other companies

Xtremenotebooks

Sager

The price varies, but it will cost over $4k for a maxed out machine. This notebook has been out several months. (Different companies put them together, brand them and sell them. Don't forget Alienware.

For my CAD people I ordered some Dell Dual Xeon Processor Desktops running WIN XP 64. I orderd RAID and great graphics cards. Cost under 5K if you don't get the wide screen HD monitor.

[DeWynter]

What is the performance difference between a Pentium 4 and a Pentium M processor? I heard they were about equal but I don't see how a Pentium M at 2.13 GHz can be as fast as a Pentium 4 at 3.6 GHz. I'd like to see some numbers like MIPS.

I'm looking at laptops but the Pentium 4s are hard to find. I need horsepower because I do CAD work on it. I don't care about weight. I like the HP8000 series but I don't want the wide screen and I don't like the docking station for it. I have a 21"TFT that I want to use at home..

Thanks,
Jeff

MIPS are not a good way to measure processor power. Its better to run a bunch of benchmarks to get a feel for a processors power. 3D mark is ok but contains synthetic benchmarks which do not use real world power. A bench mark can be made to show anything. The pentium M is built alot like the Athlon from AMD, that is why it can keep up to many of the pentuim 4s. The athlon has a significantly lower speed than a P4 but can keep up or exceed the P4 in many tests. Megahertz is no longer king and that is why AMD and Intel are headed into the dual processor and greater core(2+ processors in one chip). Just make sure what ever you buy for processor you buy, make sure the Motherboard is capable of running dual core or better processors later. If you have any othe quetions send me a PM if you want, as I build Computers for a living. Ic an give you some ideas on where to go and what direction to go in for what you want to do with the computer(gaming/work/internet/etc.).

[Jeff_in_Atl]

I did not forget about this. The last 2 days have been hectic. Not only did I have a blow out yesterday, my wife's car broke down on the highway. So we got to rescue each other on the same day.

[Jeff_in_Atl]

I used 3DMark05, with default settings, and got around 1500. Here's what I use to reference what it can do: http://graphics.tomshardware.com/gra...l#3d_mark_2005
The biggest problem with my laptop is that it's a very thin, 14.1" system. In my opinion, it's too powerful for its size. The thing gets so hot, I can hardly touch it at times. It often has to reduce the graphics card's clock speeds when it overheats.

I think I tested with 3DMark2001 too and got around 13000. My desktop got 10000, but went up to 12000 when I overclocked the video to 300/600.

I'm eager to hear your results

Also, here's an old test done for Pentium M vs. P4M. This may be old, but hopefully insightful. http://<br /> http://www.tomshardwa...ntrino-09.html

3d_mark_2005 wants me to enter a user validation code. I have to buy it to use it. I don't have that much desire to know it.

[Craig 94 TA GT]

Ummm...did you download the free version?? http://www.futuremark.com/download/?3dmark05.shtml

I don't see how it's possible to download the the pro version without buying it, but maybe you did?
You should see this screen at startup:



Initially, there will be a count down rather than the "continue" button. It starts at around 5 seconds....hits 0, then changes to "continue". Just click continue to get in.

[Jeff_in_Atl]

When I tried to install it, it came back with a message saying to enter a code. (see attached file). Then I noticed an icon on my screen for it so I double clicked on it. It then brought up the page you are showing and the countdown went to zero and it went on. The when I tried to run it, it gave me an error saying I didn't have pixel 2.0 on this machine whatever that is. It said I had to use the 2003 version. So I'll go look for that.

Oh I did not get the pro version and I got it from the same site as your link but that doesn't matter now.

[Craig 94 TA GT]

OK, I see what happened. According to their site:

Q: 3DMark05 installs and starts nicely, but when try to run the benchmark or demo, I get an error message saying something like 'create shader failed'.
A: There can be many reasons for this. Your installed DirectX version may be too old, and you should update to DX 9.0c or later. Your graphics card drivers may also be badly installed, or just lacking full shader support, and you should update your graphics drivers. It is also possible that your card just does not support shader model 2.0. You should in that case benchmark your system using 3DMark03 or 3DMark2001 instead, and try 3DMark05 again when you have upgraded your system with a graphics card that supports shader model 2 or higher.


I'll try 2003 on my systems to see what the benchmarks are.

[Jeff_in_Atl]

3DMark03 at my work I got a 1962. It's a 2.53 GHz Pentium 4 without hyperthreading, 2 gig ram, Nvidia Quadra 980 128 meg of ram. (The Quadra is a CAD video card so it may not have the same shaders as a GeForce card.)

Should I do the 2001 version?

[Craig 94 TA GT]

Not bad. You're right...I think the tools is developed more for the Geforce series, and it won't show the full potential of the card.
I ran the test on my laptop and desktop.

The desktop got ~1500: http://s94938520.onlinehome.us/desktop_results.txt
The laptop got ~4000: http://s94938520.onlinehome.us/laptop_results.txt

Do you have any more in-depth test info it?

I think 2001 was better than 2003 when they came out during their years. You can try 2001...I believe it was optimized for all the new features in 2001, and DX8. The best reason to use 2001 is that we can find many more charts of system tests, where we can do comparisons. 2003 doesn't have too many.