Purchasing A Laptop - Your Suggestions

[faulty.lee 0]

Have you try look for DOS or Linux one?

[jimmy89 0]

I want to purchase the laptop from a store, just so if I have any problems, I can get it sorted out with the store. But so far, I haven't found any with just Linux or DOS on it.

[xboxrulz1405241485 0]

I guess the graphics accelerator you're talking about is GMA 950. It's good, but it sucks at anything 3D. It use a bit less energy, you won't even notice. About Core 2 Duo, prepared to pay more for it compared to AMD laptops.

That's why I just got myself a brand new HP Pavilion dv2410ca (I'm receiving it in the mail tomorrow).

NAME = penguin2 (Fang1 until it goes through a transfer "ceremony")PROC = AMD Turion X2 TL-56 1.8GHz (512KB+512KB L2, 64KB+64KB L1 Cache)
HDD = 160GB
RAM = 1GB DDR2-667
OPTI = HP Lightscribe 8X DVD-RW (May add HD-DVD ROM in the future)
GFX = NVIDIA GeForce Go 6150 (287MB shared)
BATT = HP Li-Ion 12-Cell Battery

NET LAPTOP COST: CA$899.96 (no tax incl.)

It's replacing my old Samsung NV 5000.

NAME = penguin2PROC = Intel Pentium III Coppermine 701 MHz (256KB L2 Cache)
HDD = 20GB
RAM = 192MB DDR-133
OPTI = Toshiba 8X DVD-ROM
GFX = S3 Savage 8MB RAM
BATT = SAMSUNG Li-Ion 6-Cell Battery

xboxrulz

[faulty.lee 0]

I guess the graphics accelerator you're talking about is GMA 950. It's good, but it sucks at anything 3D. It use a bit less energy, you won't even notice. About Core 2 Duo, prepared to pay more for it compared to AMD laptops.

I'm a supporter of AMD too. But there's no doubt that Core 2 Duo is great performer when it comes to laptops. Further more the battery life is significantly longer than AMD's. The power management of built in GMA950 is definitely more efficient compare to external graphic chip. Being on the same die as the northbridge, means they can save energy from the interface glue logic and memory management logic. Being less powerful in terms of graphic capability also means lower power consumption. As i've mentioned before, if it's not for gaming, then being a lesser performer at 3D will not show any difference for normal 2D application. Unless of cause you're willing to give away some CPU resources for Vista and it's Aero effect.

For desktop I'll definitely recommend AMD. I hope they can survive the recent attack from Intel.

[jimmy89 0]

I think I will go with the onbaord graphics accelerator. I wont be doing that much (if any at all) major 3d work and won't be playing any games, so it shouldn't worry me!I already have a AMD Sempron at home which is a desktop. Its only something like 1.6Ghz, but it works really well! I have Win XP and Suse and it does wonders (well, enough for me!)Should I be expecting a huge performance increase with the core duo also?

[faulty.lee 0]

Should I be expecting a huge performance increase with the core duo also?

Core 2 Duo yes, but not core duo. Core duo is basically 2 slow P4 slap together on the same die. Maybe you can look at some performance benchmark between core 2 duo and AMD sempron, turion and 64. Tomshardware http://www.tomshardware.com/ should give you enough info on this.

[jimmy89 0]

Tomshardware http://www.tomshardware.com/ should give you enough info on this.

Thanks, 'll go have a look at this now!

[kelvinmaki 0]

I'm a supporter of AMD too. But there's no doubt that Core 2 Duo is great performer when it comes to laptops. Further more the battery life is significantly longer than AMD's. The power management of built in GMA950 is definitely more efficient compare to external graphic chip. Being on the same die as the northbridge, means they can save energy from the interface glue logic and memory management logic. Being less powerful in terms of graphic capability also means lower power consumption. As i've mentioned before, if it's not for gaming, then being a lesser performer at 3D will not show any difference for normal 2D application. Unless of cause you're willing to give away some CPU resources for Vista and it's Aero effect.
For desktop I'll definitely recommend AMD. I hope they can survive the recent attack from Intel.

Honestly getting a laptop really depends on what you want. And of course try to get better performance specs if possible. For laptop, its not that easy to upgrade compare to desktop. So if you just need it for programming or something related, a good graphics card is not necessary. I mean just go for the minimal. An onboard graphics card from Intel are pretty good. But of course its not comparable to ATI or Nvidia.

So the you can invest those $$ on higher performance processor. For now, Intel Core 2 Duo and AMD, I would go for Intel. Laptop are suppose to be portable, so go for 14.1' screen. so when it comes to battery life. It's my first priority. You will really get frustrated when you are out there doing something important and the battery is running out.

Cheers

[xboxrulz1405241485 0]

I'm a supporter of AMD too. But there's no doubt that Core 2 Duo is great performer when it comes to laptops. Further more the battery life is significantly longer than AMD's. The power management of built in GMA950 is definitely more efficient compare to external graphic chip. Being on the same die as the northbridge, means they can save energy from the interface glue logic and memory management logic. Being less powerful in terms of graphic capability also means lower power consumption. As i've mentioned before, if it's not for gaming, then being a lesser performer at 3D will not show any difference for normal 2D application. Unless of cause you're willing to give away some CPU resources for Vista and it's Aero effect.
For desktop I'll definitely recommend AMD. I hope they can survive the recent attack from Intel.

I played around with two laptops, both Acers. One of them was a Core 2 Duo and the other was a Turion 64 X2. Both lasted maximum of 2 hours on batteries.

As for the response to Core 2 Duo, it's coming Fall 2007 with the new Phenoms. It uses even less power than Core 2 Duo! (Well, at least the EE versions)

xboxrulz

[unimatrix 0]

I use a Macbook Pro with Core 2 Duo and I get decent battery life with the screen brightness turned down and using standard applications. Watching a DVD or doing a heavy render job kills the battery, but listening to iTunes and working with Office and even Photoshop I seem to get 3 - 4 hours usually per charge. I have the 15" version which is nice. If you travel a lot, the smaller screen comes in handy. I know the old 12.1" model iBooks/Powerbooks was perfect for a plane tray table. I'm guessing the 13" Macbooks are about the same other than they have the crappy Intel graphics adaptors built in.

[jimmy89 0]

a friend says that their graphics accelerator does them well for the basic stuff (which is really, all im interested in!) which is good. So I will defiantly go with that!Battery is very important, so the graphics accelerator helps with that also. Though I'm not too fussed about the portability as much, as most of the time it will be on my desk. Does the screen size ultimately define how long the battery is going to last, or is it a minimal factor? I like to have a big screen to be able to spread everything out, instead of it being all on a small monitor, plus i already have a nice 21 inch monitor (I'm, used to BIG monitors )

[xboxrulz1405241485 0]

Usually, the larger the screen, the more power it sucks. Just stick to the conventional maximum of 17 inch.xboxrulz

[xboxrulz1405241485 0]

Core 2 Duo yes, but not core duo. Core duo is basically 2 slow P4 slap together on the same die. Maybe you can look at some performance benchmark between core 2 duo and AMD sempron, turion and 64. Tomshardware http://www.tomshardware.com/ should give you enough info on this.

Its figures are old, its according to 2005, not the latest. Plus, their memory configurations are different. I know that Core 2 Duo is a great chip, but it's too expensive to achieve the same performance of RAW power/$.

Its performance/watt is not really different than AMD's either.

xboxrulz

[faulty.lee 0]

Jimmy89:Bigger screen usually require bigger lighting element (florescent tube), thus more power consumption. You need to look at the native resolution of the screen also. Some 15" and 14" will have the same native resolution, say 1024 or 1280, then it serve no purpose to get the 15" other than for bigger font display, normally for shortsighted or for those who're not used to small font. If the 15" comes with higher resolution, then by all means, it's a better choice.xboxrulz:"Its performance/watt is not really different than AMD's either." Direct calculation is not very accurate. As i've read some article mentioning about idle power consumption. If your CPU is operating at 100% full throttle all the time, then the performance/watt is applicable. But as normal computing is consuming the cpu at non consistent pattern, and most of the time it's idle, that calculation is not very representative in this sense. The performance/watt is measured at maximum power consumption. It's actually more of a marketing gimmick then an actually technical information.

[xboxrulz1405241485 0]

Jimmy89:Bigger screen usually require bigger lighting element (florescent tube), thus more power consumption. You need to look at the native resolution of the screen also. Some 15" and 14" will have the same native resolution, say 1024 or 1280, then it serve no purpose to get the 15" other than for bigger font display, normally for shortsighted or for those who're not used to small font. If the 15" comes with higher resolution, then by all means, it's a better choice.

xboxrulz:
"Its performance/watt is not really different than AMD's either." Direct calculation is not very accurate. As i've read some article mentioning about idle power consumption. If your CPU is operating at 100% full throttle all the time, then the performance/watt is applicable. But as normal computing is consuming the cpu at non consistent pattern, and most of the time it's idle, that calculation is not very representative in this sense. The performance/watt is measured at maximum power consumption. It's actually more of a marketing gimmick then an actually technical information.

That could be true too. Right now I'm on my new laptop which is powered by AMD Turion X2 TL-56 and I'm very happy with it =)

xboxrulz