CPU Guide: How To Pick The Right Processor

by Dustin Sklavos

It's been a long time since Notebook Review's last mobile processor guide, but today we bring you our long-overdue update. The first half of our CPU Guide gives you a primer on mobile processors along with an outline of Intel's morbidly obese (yet still sexy despite being so voluptuous) mobile product lineup. In the second half, we'll go through AMD's lineup as well as discussing the future hardware Intel and AMD have in store for us.

It would be most prudent to go back to my oft-referenced “How it Works: Processors” column, which can give you a pretty solid foundation for what's being discussed here. With each processor discussed, I'm going to talk largely about overall performance and what effect the clock speed of the processor has on performance. While desktop processors are by and large plenty fast enough for most tasks, mobile processors are experiencing another massive difference in performance compared to their desktop counterparts. Desktop CPUs with more than two cores are becoming very common these days, only to be spurred further by AMD's recently released $99 demon, the Athlon II X4 620.

Speaking of cores, I want to make a key point here: More cores may not necessarily be better, but the software market is definitely moving in that direction, with more software able to take advantage of more than two cores. A dual core processor is both the minimum and the ideal at this point, but I need to be clear: a 2GHz dual core processor will not perform equivalently to a 4GHz single core. The performance isn't cumulative, and software needs to be written to take advantage of more than one core. Still, Windows is good at rationing out processes between cores to keep the system running optimally and snappily, so the main advantage of a multi-core processor is oftentimes just "smoothness" when doing multiple things with your computer.

Finally, there's the age-old battle: AMD vs. Intel. I'll make it simple: At the time of this writing, AMD is strictly for the budget consumer. If you want to play the odd game of World of Warcraft, AMD's integrated graphics are vastly superior to any Intel graphics, unless the Intel notebook sports Nvidia's GeForce 9400 integrated graphics. Likewise, some of the new AMD processors in ultraportable laptops packed with AMD integrated and discrete graphics may be superior to ultraportables using Intel's CULV processors and Intel integrated graphics. But beyond that, Intel's Core 2 chips are clock-for-clock faster than any of AMD's dual cores. Of course, none of this mentions Intel's Atom processors used in netbooks.

Intel Processors

ATOM
Fastest Model: Atom 330 (1.6 GHz dual core); Atom Z280 (1.66 GHz single core)
Speed Range: 1.2 GHz ~ 1.66 GHz

Intel's Atom processor has formed the cornerstone of the modern netbook and allowed that market to explode. Equipped with Hyper-Threading, which shows each core of the processor as two in Windows and essentially maximizes performance in the core, Atom was designed from the ground up to be an economical chip in both power consumption and expense.

And that's really about the nicest stuff I can say about Atom. While Intel may tell you Atom was never formally designed for the netbook market that it's now more or less the flagship processor of, I honestly think it's going to be pretty shortlived. The netbook buzz is gone. I've spoken to technology site editors whose honeymoons with Atom are essentially over, replaced with frustration at the mediocre performance of the chip. To be fair, the Atom processor was never designed to be a speed demon, but its poor multi-tasking and multimedia performance make it undesirable as of late. Internet content is only becoming more and more complex, and Atom just doesn't have the horsepower to handle it.

Even beyond this, Atom is quickly becoming obsolete. AMD's push to create a powerful yet inexpensive subnotebook resulted in the Athlon Neo, Athlon Neo X2, and Turion Neo X2 ... which may in fact dominate the ultraportbale market in 2010. Add to that Intel's recent response in the form of the CULV (Consumer Ultra Low Voltage) platform, and Atom's mediocre performance will be nothing but a distant memory within two years.

CELERON
Fastest Model: Celeron Dual-Core T3100 (1.9 GHz dual core); Celeron 900 (2.2 GHz single core)
Single-Core Speed Range: 933 MHz ~ 2.26 GHz
Dual-Core Speed Range: 1.2 GHz ~ 1.9 GHz

Intel's Celeron processors have always been somehow cut-down, cut-rate, cut-something, but models are available as part of Intel's CULV platform. Some older models have had their power optimization disabled or crippled, while newer ones oftentimes run at a lower bus speed or have reduced cache. As a result, Celerons are the lowest-of-the-low in terms of performance, short of making the undesirable decision of dropping down to Atom.

In a pinch, a Celeron will do, but Intel's Pentium line and even Core 2 proper have become so inexpensive that it's oftentimes easier and more reasonable to just spend up a little.

PENTIUM
Fastest Model: Pentium Dual-Core T4200 (2 GHz dual core); Pentium SU2800 (1.4 GHz single core)
Single-Core Speed Range: 1.3 GHz ~ 1.4 GHz
Dual-Core Speed Range: 1.46 GHz ~ 2.16 GHz

If Wikipedia is to be believed, Intel is phasing out their Pentium lines entirely, and it's probably for the best as their lineup is a horror show right now. The Pentiums are a touch better than the Celerons, but again, prices on notebooks with even Core 2 are so low that the cut cache on the modern Pentium Dual-Core chips is just unnecessary.

One place where you may want to look for these is in the aforementioned CULV platform, recognized by the “SU” prefix on the model number. Here they're a much better alternative to, say, Atom-based netbooks, though ideally you'd want a Core 2 Duo.

As a sidenote, I do want to mention that these modern Pentiums are completely different than the older desktop ones and the Pentium Ms that were hanging out in notebooks for a while, and feature more advanced architecture.

CORE 2 SOLO
Fastest Model: Core 2 Solo SU3500 (1.4 GHz)
Speed Range: 1.06 GHz ~ 1.4 GHz

I've often ridiculed the Core 2 Solo, from its inception long ago in the Core Solo and even today. A single-core processor is quickly proving to be inadequate for some tasks, though a Core 2 Solo is still vastly superior to the Atom.

Core 2 Solo lives almost exclusively as a CULV-platform processor, sporting extremely low power consumption and heat dissipation, making it a solid bump up for a user who needs very little from their machine but doesn't want to sacrifice too much. Still, in that situation I'd still shoot for a dual-core processor. Even one with lower clocks would be preferable.

CORE 2 DUO
Fastest Model: Core 2 Duo T9900 (3.06 GHz)
Speed Range: 1.06 GHz ~ 3.06 GHz

And now we come to Intel's bread and butter, but first there's a very important distinction I'd like to make. When Intel introduced their Centrino 2 platform and the shiny new Core 2 Duos that came with it, they added a new prefix to their model numbers. Now, a “P” model has a substantially lower wattage than a “T” model, which is choice because that typically translates into lower power consumption. These “P” series chips also dominate the mainstream notebook market, which is a big win for consumers.

The Core 2 Duo has been around for the long haul and will remain for some time, and Intel can coast on it with good reason: it offers the perfect blend of performance and power consumption. Even desktop Core 2s have excellent characteristics that rival the most modern chips from either manufacturer. These are extremely efficient processors, and highly desirable.

Another big score for the Core 2 Duo is its incorporation into the CULV platform, where it's the top of the heap and most desirable. The “SU” and “SL” prefixed chips operate at lower frequencies but at substantially reduced power consumption and heat dissipation as well, making them the most ideal processors for ultraportable notebooks.

At the end of the day, you can't really go wrong with a Core 2 Duo, but all that said, there's still a caveat, and it's specifically for gamers: while just about any frequency will do for most users, gamers are going to want at LEAST a 2 GHz chip and more likely about as fast as they can afford. Modern games and modern graphics processors can easily hit a performance wall with a slow CPU. A quad core processor at about the same clock speed can mitigate this somewhat, but quads are expensive still. A fast dual core is ideal.

CORE 2 QUAD
Fastest Model: Core 2 Quad Q9200 (2.4 GHz)
Speed Range: 2 GHz ~ 2.4 GHz

What's better than one Core 2 Duo? Two Core 2 Duos! Of course, since the Core 2 Quad really is exactly that – two Core 2 Duos stapled together on one chip – power consumption and heat dissipation gets a touch higher with the Core 2 Quad. These chips are also fairly expensive.

Honestly, it's impressive that you can even get a Core 2 Quad in a notebook now, and I personally prefer a quad core to a dual core as I've seen the benefits when doing serious multimedia work. But let that be the bar, here: if you're going to be doing any kind of serious multimedia work or high-performance gaming, only then should you fork out the extra bread for a Core 2 Quad. You're not going to find these in more portable machines.

If we were talking about desktop computers I'd honestly recommend just going straight to a quad core processor as the advantages are only growing with time, but in notebooks they're still just too unwieldy and pricey.

CORE 2 EXTREME
Fastest Model: QX9300 (2.53 GHz quad core); X9100 (3.06 GHz dual core)
Dual-Core Speed Range: 2.6 GHz ~ 3.06 GHz
Quad-Core Speed Range: 2.53 GHz

I'm not entirely sure why I've given the Core 2 Extreme its own section, but for those that simply must have the best of the best, here it is. The dual core X9100 has already been obsoleted by the standard Core 2 Duo T9900, which runs at the same clock speed but with substantially lower power consumption and heat output, leaving us with a beastly mobile quad core that's faster than a lot of desktop quads.

These chips also offer potential overclocking options for enthusiasts, but the price premium they command just isn't worth it unless you absolutely must have the fastest chip you can get in a notebook, and even then there are manufacturers fitting Intel's desktop Core i7 processors into notebook shells along with Intel's shiny new mobile Core i7 lineup, such as...

CORE i7 (AND i7 EXTREME)
Fastest Model: Core i7-920XM (2 GHz quad core standard, up to 3.2 GHz turbo)
Speed Range: 1.6 GHz (up to 2.8 GHz turbo) ~ 2 GHz (up to 3.2 GHz turbo)

And here we have what amounts to best of breed...sort of. While the base clock speeds of these chips seem low compared to their Core 2 Quad counterparts, the mobile Core i7 chips are faster clock-for-clock. If you're wondering what “turbo” means, it refers to a new feature introduced with Intel's Core i7/i5/i3 desktop lineup that has joined the mobile counterparts. Basically, the chip can overclock itself depending on how many cores are active and how much heat is being generated.

The excellent performance and top-of-the-line shiny new architecture do come with a price, though. Ignoring what some would call dishonest branding on Intel's part (the Core i7-920XM isn't even the same chip as the desktop Core i7-920, but a slower derivative), these chips still generate as much heat as the Core 2 Quads they stand to replace, and worse, they come with pretty high price tags to boot. The Core i7-920XM on its own sells to OEMs for close to what my desktop machine is worth.

<!--nextpage-->

Welcome to part two of Notebook Review's Mobile CPU Guide. In this concluding part, we're going to discuss AMD's chips and what AMD and Intel have in store for the future. But first I would like to make a couple of brief comments.

First, Via also has a mobile processor occupying the same market space as Intel's Atom. The Via Nano powers Samsung's NC20 netbook. The Nano generally performs about on par with Atom, though in some cases it can be faster. I suspect if Via had marketed harder and Intel hadn't delivered Atom, the Nano might've been the CPU of choice for the netbook market. Unfortunately, as I repeatedly mentioned in part one, Intel's CULV platform and AMD's own platform looks to supplant the cheap netbook by offering much better performance for not much more money.

Second, in order to make things easier for all involved, I'd like to point out that AMD's nomenclature for mobile processors is in many ways much more logical than Intel's. AMD breaks down their CPUs into essentially two lines: Athlons and Turions. The Athlons are generally AMD's older architecture while modern Turions tend to incorporate advances from AMD's desktop Phenom lines. Also, AMD does one very nice thing for the end user: the X suffix. X2 means a dual core processor, X3 a tri-core (desktop only, at least so far), and X4 a quad-core (again, desktop only for the time being.) This information should make things a bit tidier, but I'll still go into some detail on AMD's chips.

Third, AMD has recently added Athlon II, Turion II, and Turion II Ultra models to their lineup. These are based on their desktop Athlon II architecture, pared down versions with two cores. These should perform substantially faster than previous generation chips, but may not quite catch up to the clock-to-clock performance and efficiency of Intel's mobile Core 2 processors. Since all of these chips have exactly two cores, AMD opted to ditch the X suffix.

Thus, I ultimately do have to point out that AMD's solutions are generally inferior at this time to Intel's in a given market, with the exception possibly being the Athlon Neo and Athlon Neo X2. Though the processors are typically slower clock-for-clock than Intel chips, the integrated graphics and discrete graphics that appear in AMD-based budget machines are vastly more powerful and capable, and their drivers are much more compatible and stable. If you plan on doing any light gaming and are on a very tight budget, an AMD-based machine with one of their Radeon HD integrated (or discrete) graphics parts would be choice.

AMD Processors

ATHLON NEO (X2)
Fastest Model: 1.6 GHz (Athlon Neo MV-40/Athlon Neo X2 L335)
Speed Range: 1.6 GHz

Incidentally at present there's just one Athlon Neo speed grade, at 1.6 GHz. Produced as a different kind of response to Intel's Atom, the single-core Neo is essentially an old school Athlon 64 that's had its clock speed reduced and takes advantage of modern manufacturing processes to reduce power consumption and heat dissipation. Yet because it's a full-fledged, albeit single core, chip with a decent architecture, the Athlon Neo provides solid performance for basic usage.

There are two odd variants floating around that appear to be similar if not identical to the Athlon Neo MV-40 chip: the Athlon 64 2650e, and the TF-20. Performance should be basically the same.

More recently, AMD introduced a dual core version of the Athlon Neo. All the same principles apply, but with an extra core (which can make all the difference in the world).

ATHLON X2
Fastest Model: 2.2 GHz (Athlon X2 QL-67)
Speed Range: 1.8 GHz ~ 2.2 GHz

Modern Athlons are basically cut-down versions of the Turions (or on the desktop, Phenoms), sporting less cache. Still, performance of these chips is adequate, just nowhere near up to par with Core 2 Duos.

I wish I had something nicer to say about the Athlon X2s, but the best word I can ever seem to come up with is &ldquo;adequate.&rdquo; Intel tends to beat these soundly in battery life, heat dissipation and performance, but if you're on a budget you could still do much worse. A dual core processor is still preferable to a single.

TURION NEO X2
Fastest Model: 1.6 GHz (Turion Neo X2 L625)
Speed Range:1.6 GHz

The Turion Neo X2 processor is the dual core successor to the Athlon Neo X2. The Turion Neo X2 is just starting to show up and will be found in many value-priced ultraportables in 2010. Like the Athlon Neo and Athlon Neo X2, the dual core Turion Neo X2 is clocked at 1.6 GHz to help maintain low power consumption and improve heat dissipation. On that note, the Turion Neo X2 promises to offer much better battery life than the Athlon Neo. It's also pretty obvious this processor is trying to replace the Intel Atom as the dominant player in the high-end netbook and value-priced ultraportable markets.

We're already seeing this processor in the popular HP Pavilion dm3z, and there are rumors we'll be seeing the Turion Neo X2 inside many more ultraportable laptops in the months to come.

TURION X2
Fastest Model: 2.2 GHz (Turion X2 RM-75)
Speed Range: 2 GHz ~ 2.2 GHz

The Turion X2s are basically Athlon X2s that run at slightly better voltage, but honestly it feels like splitting hairs even including them separately and I'm not sure why AMD bifurcated the line this way, but at least the next generation makes a bit more sense.

Everything said about the Athlon X2 applies to these, and clock-for-clock they should perform more or less identically.

TURION X2 ULTRA
Fastest Model: 2.5 GHz (Turion X2 Ultra ZM-88)
Speed Range: 2.1 GHz ~ 2.5 GHz

The chief advantage the Turion X2 Ultra has over the lesser Turions and Athlons is an increased amount of cache on the chip, which can improve performance clock-for-clock. If you're going AMD, these are the best chips you can get.

Of course, the main problem is that you'll have to spend up a little for a Turion X2 Ultra, and I honestly can't give you a good reason why you'd do so. If you're willing to spend up, the Core 2 Duos are going to be your best choice. It's not always going to be this way, but right now, AMD just isn't that competitive outside of price in notebooks, and with Core 2 Duo-based notebooks hanging out near $600 or better these days, that's a razor thin place to try and compete.

ATHLON II
Fastest Model: 2.1 GHz (Athlon II M320)
Speed Range: 2 GHz ~ 2.1 GHz

AMD recently released a trio of new processors for the mobile market, derivatives of their somewhat more successful desktop Athlon II architecture with a lower HyperTransport speed and conservative core clocks. These mobile Athlon II chips sport 512KB of cache per core, and should be faster clock-for-clock than Athlon X2s at the same speed. Unfortunately, they still tend to consume the same amount of power as their predecessors, making them less than ideal for battery life.

TURION II
Fastest Model: 2.3 GHz (Turion II M520)
Speed Range: 2.2 GHz ~ 2.3 GHz

The Turion II is basically identical to the Athlon II, with the exception being the higher clock speed under the same power envelope. Why AMD opted to split this processor into two different brands the way they did is a mystery to me; they use the exact same silicon, so everything I said before applies.

TURION II ULTRA
Fastest Model: 2.6 GHz (Turion II Ultra M640)
Speed Range: 2.4 GHz ~ 2.6 GHz

You can see how the clock speeds linearly step up from model to model, but at least the Turion II Ultra brings something new to the table in the form of a full 1MB of cache per core and a higher HyperTransport speed, allowing the Turion II Ultra to perform slightly faster clock-for-clock than its other desktop Athlon II-based kin.

Yet at the end of the day, these three derivatives still have ground to make up against Intel's entrenched Core 2 Duo line.

COMING SOON FROM INTEL

If AMD has any reprieve, it's that it seems like Intel is largely going to be coasting on the success of the Core 2 Duo for at least a little while longer. Why wouldn't they? The Core 2 Duo is a great chip, and the competition just isn't there yet. The Nehalem architecture debuted in desktop Core i7 and i5 chips has proven to be a little more difficult to shoehorn into a notebook proper than the Penryn architecture modern Core 2 Duos are based on, and as a result, new hardware is still being forced to trickle into the market.

But time is running out for AMD. At some point in 2010, Intel will introduce mobile Core i5 and i7 chips codenamed Arrandale. These will be dual core chips based on the same architecture as the Clarksfield architecture the current mobile Core i7s stem from, but with a twist: they're not quads because that extra chip space is being taken by an integrated graphics part built directly into the chip itself. Hopefully this will mean at least decent integrated graphics performance, but more likely much improved power consumption.

COMING SOON FROM AMD

Unfortunately, AMD doesn't have anything new to report on the mobile front after the recently launched Athlon II and Turion II processors. Stuck playing catch-up on the desktop, AMD can at least compete on price there, where they've recently ducked a pretty swanky quad-core processor under the $100 mark.

On the mobile front, things are much sketchier. While the Radeon HD 3200 and integrated 4000 lines makes a compelling case for going AMD, it's just not compelling enough, especially with Nvidia's integrated GeForce 9400 running around on the Intel side. And Intel-based notebooks are damn cheap now, especially with their CULV platform running around. I wish I had better news to report for the AMD devoted. Maybe we'll see an AMD mobile quad-core in 2010.

CONCLUSION

Although I feel like I've kind of given AMD the shaft in this CPU guide, both Intel and AMD have solid processor offerings in the mobile market. Despite the superiority of Intel's top-of-the-line processors, AMD has a lot to offer the typical consumer this holiday season and in 2010. AMD's integrated graphics are FAR more capable in every way than Intel's and both AMD and Nvidia are making a concerted push towards employing the GPU more aggressively. Modern graphics hardware is remarkably complex and generalized and can lend itself well to specific tasks, with video encoding being the major starting point. AMD's graphics also don't have the driver issues Intel's do, both in terms of accelerating high definition video decoding and just general gaming compatibility and performance.

What I would like to do is announce the premature death of the netbook. I remain reasonably certain the honeymoon is slowly ending in this market, though cell phone companies are now looking to foist them on us with wireless internet access plans. But AMD's Athlon Neo and Turion Neo X2 processors and Intel's CULV processors are vastly more attractive than the Atom. The really nice thing is that the more portable notebooks that used to cost a fortune (my old 1GHz Pentium M Sony TR2A was $2,200 new) have now been brought well within the realm of reasonable prices (less than $600), and I think that's largely thanks to AMD pushing to open that market up with the Athlon Neo.

At the end of all this, my main recommendation for this holiday season is to go with AMD hardware if you're on a budget, select Intel if you want the highest possible performance at a higher cost, and to avoid single core processors for even basic usage. While the average grandma may not need a robust Core i7, a dual core processor may at least keep her from shaking her head in frustration at her laptop while waiting for it to actually accomplish a task.

Related Articles:

• AMD Takes Majority Share of Notebook Dedicated Graphics Market
• Intel Settles with AMD for $1.25 Billion

 

Somebody doesn't like the atom... Good read though.

 

Honestly I can't really tell too much of a difference between my AMD and Intel Core 2 system.... I'm sure on paper i'll see the difference but as for now...AMD just needs to bring out their 6 cores/8 cores and higher clock speeds 3.0ghz and above...But for price/performance AMD hands down...I have not had any problems with my MSI GT735...on games or regular use....more with my Gateway... and so so on my baby M17x...

To AMD....love your Video Cards....but pls...make some real Puma or Spider platforms.!!! Would buy AMD product in a heart beat!!!

 

there is a pentium dual core t4300 2.1ghz. faster than the t4200.

 

Hello there.

I wrote a full-guide, fully comprehensive covering the entire Intel Core 2 Duo current line-up and the Clarksfield, the architecture in which they are based and how it works. How does Core Architecture and Nehalem Architecture compare and what we are to expect from Arrandale and the future from Intel.


The Intel Processor Information Guide (the link is also in my signature).


Although I find this an interesting thread, I seem to disagree in some matters.


The single core is a disaster everybody says, but I highly doubt that most people have even used a single core and tax it. I know I have, I own a laptop (I am typing on it right now in fact) that uses a Mobile Sempron single core CPU. And even though this thing is old and does not cut it for my needs, for all basic tasks, such as web browsing, word processing, and even very light 3D modeling it works. And I am talking of AMD's lowest-end CPU more than 2 years ago.


My point is that the single core is highly underrated. Although a dual core is much better, when in a very tight budget, the single solution can also do it, considering a fully featured single core is not the worst case scenario...


Next thing is that the 9400M is not widely available. In fact it is very hard to find, so it should not be counted as a plus on the Intel side. The 9400M is a great IGP, but it is hard to find, expensive to get, and IMO has failed to cover more market and expand to the masses. Only some high-end models (M17x, MBPs, SXPS13, etc) carry it and very few mid-range ones (Studio 14z, MB13). Such a shame considering the potential it has.


On the other the AMD/ATI solutions normally come with a CPU/IGP for less than a comparable Intel CPU/IGP, that part is IMO favoring AMD, not to mention the edge AMD has with the 3200HD vs the GMA4500MHD and the 4200HD. Not to mention that the Intel/NVIDIA combo is a lot more expensive than Intel alone, and general performance is on par or just slightly above. And something else, is for example on the Dm3z when going AMD/ATI you can get AMD/ATI IGP+GPU in switchable versus the Intel+NVIDIA that gives GPU only.


According to another member in the Forums the P series while idling gives little to now difference than a similarly spec'd T series CPU from Intel. They are different brackets, but that does not mean that the TDP is strictly 25W and 35W, but a range. That should be cleared out as it is misleading. Considering that the P series seem to come with a "premium" (the P9x00 series) compared to a standard T9xx0, the T9xx0 is a better option. Same performance, cheaper, and when idling around the same consumption (this matters when on battery, and considering almost nobody will stress the GPU while on battery to the maximum for a long period, the TDP difference becomes negligible on most cases). There is more of this in my guide too.


About the Pentiums, they are cut-down C2D. Same architecture, same everything, smaller Cache, slower FSB (compared to the Montevina platform). But by no means terribly behind in design. A Pentium T4200 at 2.0GHz can perform very similar to a C2D T6400 at the same speed. The difference in L2 Cache is almost negligible on daily/common tasks. Where if the CPU is stressed it can show advantages, but other than that, for the market aimed, the Pentium is a good solution, capable enough of performing. It will be bottlenecked by the Intel IGP if trying to game, or the HDD that accompanies it, but other than that, as pure processing power, it is not as terribly slow as it sounds.


A note, you should explain that AMD does not use the same design as Intel. As the HyperTransport is a different architecture, and AMD uses dedicated in-die L2 per core, vs the shared L2 on Intel. Having the Phenom II up to L3 shared.


As for the future of AMD, there are more things, not "catching up" but they are, based on a leaked roadmap, designing Intel's HyperThreading competition, which promises to perform better than Intel's. While Intel's HT uses one core that can perform 2 things almost at the same time, using software and some tweaks on the hardware, it has no real dedicated hardware for dual-threading, while AMD's design seems to have almost two cores fused in one, having different hardware and few shared parts, promising to be better and faster than Intel's "virtual" core on the actual physical core. AMD's CPUs are named Bobcat and Bulldozer, and are due to 2010-2011. More news.

AMD's roadmap leaked



There are tons of info on this matter on the thread:


AMD outs Tigris!!! (the link is also in my signature)


Yes, AMD is behind on this matter, but things look promising in 2010, having the triple-cores on notebooks (which are quad-cores with one core shut-down) for a low price.


Oh yeah, Celeron will not die that easily. Based on Montevina, it seems like Intel is planning the T3300 Celeron CPU. A cut down (as usual) CPU using the same architecture than the fully featured C2Ds. IMO it seems like Montevina cores renamed...maybe I am wrong. Will double-check. And later one it seems like they are releasing an Arrandale based one, named P4500.


Atom does not seem to be dying that fast, having Pine Trail. Considering they are refreshing the Atom with a "much better" GMA 3150 (based on the X3100) for the new Atom line-up. Whether this will be a selling factor and Atom will stick around, it is yet to be seen, but Intel won't let their little under-performers just disappear. Though, with the expansion of the 11" laptops sporting CULVs or Neos inside, the Atom is losing terrain, and I agree that the acceptance they have will diminish largely with the time. Time will tell...On a side note to Atom, according to Intel's website, the Atom was designed for MIDs (mobile internet devices) and netbooks, basically it was designed for internet browsing only and some minor tasks. Intel Website.


Something else that is due to the 2010 is Intel's Larrabee GPU that is set to compete with NVIDIA Fermi and AMD 5000HD on the GPGPU market.

 

I'm glad there are a lot of CPU choices but only the informed knows which one is the best (gamers & power users). For ordinary folks it doesn't matter which CPU they use as long as it can handle the work they need to do and they tend to gyrate to the more affordable laptops. I've overheard too many buyers stating that they don't play games or manipulate images on their intended laptops so it's a hard sell selling the higher priced models. Lots of buyers only see the price difference and tend to buy the lowest one.

 

Nice guide Dustin. Just one thing that I'd to point out regarding the X9100 and T9900 CPUs. Besides the differences in TDP, the X9100 has unlocked multipliers while the T9900's are locked. This makes the X9100 easier to overclock given that your notebook supports it.

 

All in all a great guide. But I find that the value of the SU2300 Celeron CPU is not mentioned. Laptops based on this CPU blows any Atom based laptop out of the water and they competes in the same $399 price range. The next step up the, Pentium Dual-Core SU4100 has 1MB more cache and is clocked 100mHz higher but laptops based on this CPU start at $549.

 

Very nice guide - many thanks for taking the time to writing it all up!

 

I had a penryn 2.1ghz with a 800mhz FSB and it blew the turion in my HP away. The processor in the HP was a newer generation and couldn't keep up with the dell to save its life.

 

Some interesting news about AMD next gen mobile processor.

 

Great write-up.

Just a quick addition to the Atom section. I believe the Atom Z550 at 2.0 GHz should be added. AFAIK it is the fastest Atom processor at the moment.

I believe that for most office users C2Ds are not necessary. If I compare the performance of my ThinkPad T43 with Pentium M 760 2.0 GHz to my ThinkPad X61s with L7500 C2D 1.6 GHz - the performance is the same when it comes to surfing the web, Office apps, etc.

 

CELERON

The dual-core Celeron T3x00-series have the same 800MHz FSB, 1mb L2 cache, 35W TDP and 45nm (Penryn) architecture as the Pentium Dual-Core T4x00-series. The upcoming Celeron Dual-Core T3300 is identical to the Pentium Dual-Core T4200 in all specs.

The Celeron 900 (single core) is actually a much faster chip than any other single core models (Core 2 Solo, Celeron/Pentium ULV). Those ULV chips are far more energy efficient, but the 900 will out-muscle them anytime!


PENTIUM

The statement in the Wikipedia article (that the line is being discontinued) has not source citation to support the claim.

Currently, the fastest Pentium Dual-Core chip is the 2.1GHz T4300 (800MHz FSB, 1mb L2 cache, 35W TDP, Penryn 45nm). Intel also references a T4500 model with 2.3GHz clock speed as being "Announced" and planned to release in the 1st Quarter of 2010. Based on that, I would infer that the Pentium name may be around for a good bit longer.

The remainder of the article is very interesting and informative for the novice and pro alike! Between the transition of Intel processors to the Core i3/i5/i7 architecture and nomenclature and AMD's new model designations, laptop processors choices can be very perplexing!

Thanks for the well-written article! It is appreciated!

 

Thanks to the OP and to Serg for some interesting, informative posts!

 

Aarandale is going to be here sooner than you think.

 

Hello, do you have any sort of confirmation/source or base to corroborate this? Thanks!

 

The rumors regarding Arrandale have been pretty consistent: it's coming sometime in January 2010. Here's the latest story I could find:

http://www.digitimes.com/news/a20091113PD209.html

So basically, 4.5-6.5 weeks from today.

 

I thought it was confirmed for Jan 7 2010 official launch (not shipping)

 

It is, Arrandale will be unveiled around the time CES opens.

 

Thanx your guide help me choose an AMD m300 over a celeron 900 in a budget model, CPQ 61x. Mainly interested in viewing HD from the net.

http://technology-muse.blogspot.com/2009/11/m300-amd-athlon-ii-dual-core-and-acer.html
...A lot of visitors seem to be comparing notebooks with the Intel T4200 and T4300 processors with those with the AMD M300 - At least the M300 is capable of hardware virtualization whereas the Intel processors are NOT - regardless of any BIOS update that you may try to apply.

This also applies to the HP Compaq Presario CQ61-324CA - although Microsoft do say that you can adjust the Virtualization setting in BIOS...

 

Just about any modern dual-core processor is a better choice than a single-core like the Celeron 900. The AMD Athlon II M300 should perform similarly to the Intel T4200 for most users. The Compaq CQ61 also benefits from the very good ATI Radeon HD 4200 graphics chip. In terms of 3D-performance and HD-video decoding, the ATI 4200 can MORE than triple the performance of the Intel 4500M that would come with the Celeron 900!

Are you planning to order a CQ61 from HP or buy a pre-configured model?

 

Do AMD chips still suffer from power-hogging compared to Intel's?

 

Unfortunately, even the new Athlon II and Turion II aren't very efficient compared to Intel chips. They still seems to be lagging about 15-20% (or more) behind comparable Intel models.

The good news is that the new Turion II models are outperforming the previous-generation Turion models they replace. And integrated graphics, thanks to ATI, continues to be a strong point....just as long as you don't need to venture very far from a wall plug....

 

I bought from HP, they have a 299 special with an upgrade to athlon 2 a few dollars more. With taxes and delivery came to about 375. Still waiting 5-7 days, not here yet. Staples has a similar price but I can't stand waiting for refunds. Staples seeems to be the last of the big refund stores. Normally I prefer the 14 day return policy.

 

luee, which one was that? TIA

 

I wouldnt count AMD out quite yet.

Everyone did the same thing to ATI (except myself) and look at what went and happened.

 

AMD is in a tight spot. They are just now putting SSE4 45nm CPUs (Athlon 2 and Turion 2) in notebooks, but these are only on par with Penryn, which is years old architecture. The desktop monolithic quad core Phenoms aren't bad either, but AMD is forced to price their flagships at Intel's mainstream. If they're making money with that, then so be it, but I don't think they are.

This Nano X2 isn't a bad CPU, certainly a step up in performance from the Atom (even the dual core), but the power consumption is considerably higher. CULV is ultimately the best ratio of performance and power consumption, but it's more expensive. AMD only stands a chance in this case because of the price point... and Intel has been ragged on for their poorly performing Atom.

 

Great read and excellent guide, hopefully the su9400 will hold up for a while longer!

 

MZ; Cyber Monday deal, ran through tuesday at HP. A 15.6 fully equipped dual core for less than some netbooks. Some are predicting that smaller price differences will end the netbook craze?

 

At $400, any mid-sized dual core notebook is a steal. Netbooks have dipped to $250, but consumers have smartened up. The Atom is slow, most netbooks only have 1GB RAM (2GB max), and are stuck with XP. Believe it or not, people want Windows 7. If for $400 you can get Windows 7, 3GB RAM, Dual Core, and a big 15" screen to replace your aging tower at home, why wouldn't you take the deal?

On the otherhand, some of these deals aren't quite what they seem. Single core CPUs like the petty Celeron should be abolished altogether

 

^^The reviews also stating that netbooks are slow dont help a lot either. Most reviews these days seem to mention that there are better deals for performance.