Centrino vs Pentium clock speeds
Centrino vs Pentium clock speeds
Author
Discussion

t1grm

Original Poster:

4,657 posts

308 months

Saturday 10th July 2004
quotequote all
Does anyone know what the equivalent of a 1.5GHz Centrino is in normal Pentium terms? I was under the impression that a Centrino was faster than a Pentium of the same clock speed due to a different architecture?

>>> Edited by t1grm on Saturday 10th July 17:34

annodomini2

6,964 posts

275 months

Sunday 11th July 2004
quotequote all
don't know if there's a ratio, but my 1.4 centrino at work is quicker than a 2.4 p4

Jay-Aim

598 posts

265 months

Sunday 11th July 2004
quotequote all
t1grm said:
Does anyone know what the equivalent of a 1.5GHz Centrino is in normal Pentium terms? I was under the impression that a Centrino was faster than a Pentium of the same clock speed due to a different architecture?

>>> Edited by t1grm on Saturday 10th July 17:34


you're right

just do a search, this was explained in great details a week or so ago

t1grm

Original Poster:

4,657 posts

308 months

Sunday 11th July 2004
quotequote all
Thanks Jay. Now I just need to figure out why my one month old Samsung laptop running XP Pro on 512Mb RAM and a 1.5 GHz centrino is only marginally faster than my 3 year old Thinkpad running Win 2K Pro on 256Mb RAM and a 900 Mhz PII.

annodomini2

6,964 posts

275 months

Sunday 11th July 2004
quotequote all
Depends what you're trying to do? how each laptop is configured? How full the hard drives are? there are a lot more variables in the equation!

t1grm

Original Poster:

4,657 posts

308 months

Monday 12th July 2004
quotequote all
Most of my time is spent using MS office apps or web based apps. The IBM had a 20 GB HDD which was always about 80% full, the Samsung has a 40 GB HDD which is less than half full. I've got the default windows config on both machines.

My guess is Samsung are using crap HDD's compared to IBM since it seems it's thrashing the HDD all the time. e.g. 20-30 secs to open IE6 with no other apps running is not the response time I'd expect from a new laptop.

d-man

1,019 posts

269 months

Monday 12th July 2004
quotequote all
Sounds like you're very low on free memory for some reason. Even if the new hdd was slower than your old one it shouldn't take that long to start IE.

Look in Task Manager under the performance tab for Available Physical Memory, if that seems low look in the processes tab and arrange by memory usage to see where its all going.

Windows XP uses more memory than 2000 anyway but 512Mb is a realistic minimum for decent performance so you shouldn't be having any probs.