Rough equivilent in clock speed

G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell,comp.sys.laptops (More info?)

Anyone know what roughly a 3GHz Pentium 4 in a Dell Inspiron 5150 would
equate to in the newer Pentium M 7xx range?

Thanks, Rob.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell,comp.sys.laptops (More info?)

The rule of thumb is to add 1 GHz to the P-M processor to get the P4
equivalent - so a 3 GHz P4 will run like a 2 GHz P-M.



Rob Nicholson wrote:
> Anyone know what roughly a 3GHz Pentium 4 in a Dell Inspiron 5150 would
> equate to in the newer Pentium M 7xx range?
>
> Thanks, Rob.
>
>
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell,comp.sys.laptops (More info?)

> The rule of thumb is to add 1 GHz to the P-M processor to get the P4
> equivalent - so a 3 GHz P4 will run like a 2 GHz P-M.

Thanks, Rob.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell,comp.sys.laptops (More info?)

"Rob Nicholson" <rob.nicholson@nospam_informed-direct.com> wrote in message
news:dg8joc$jd$1@nwrdmz02.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com...
>> The rule of thumb is to add 1 GHz to the P-M processor to get the P4
>> equivalent - so a 3 GHz P4 will run like a 2 GHz P-M.
>
> Thanks, Rob.
>
>

I've heard similar rough estimates before and they strike me as quite odd.
To first order, the processing power of a given architecture is proportional
to the clock rate, so I would expect a multiplicative factor rather than an
offset. For example, you could state that PM behaves as a P4 at 1.5 times
the clock rate (e.g. 2G PM is equiv to 3G P4). I don't suspect that a 0G PM
is equivalent to 1G P4. That would mean the P4 is exceptionally bad or the
PM is doing something miraculous. It should be equivalent to a 0G*1.5=0G
P4. I am only using 1.5 because of the data given in previous posts. (I
would like to know what the factor is.)

I'm not trying to nit-pick. I have been wondering exactly the same thing
(trying to correlate a laptop with PM to desktops I have used with P4) and
have only heard the offset explanation. I suspect that 1G offset might be
appropriate over some limited range of clock speeds.

Peter
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell,comp.sys.laptops (More info?)

"P Ruetz" <parmailbox-news@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:CoZVe.2581$Ob2.1510@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com...
>
> "Rob Nicholson" <rob.nicholson@nospam_informed-direct.com> wrote in
> message news:dg8joc$jd$1@nwrdmz02.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com...
>>> The rule of thumb is to add 1 GHz to the P-M processor to get the P4
>>> equivalent - so a 3 GHz P4 will run like a 2 GHz P-M.
>>
>> Thanks, Rob.
>>
>>
>
> I've heard similar rough estimates before and they strike me as quite odd.
> To first order, the processing power of a given architecture is
> proportional to the clock rate, so I would expect a multiplicative factor
> rather than an offset. For example, you could state that PM behaves as a
> P4 at 1.5 times the clock rate (e.g. 2G PM is equiv to 3G P4). I don't
> suspect that a 0G PM is equivalent to 1G P4. That would mean the P4 is
> exceptionally bad or the PM is doing something miraculous. It should be
> equivalent to a 0G*1.5=0G P4. I am only using 1.5 because of the data
> given in previous posts. (I would like to know what the factor is.)
>
> I'm not trying to nit-pick. I have been wondering exactly the same thing
> (trying to correlate a laptop with PM to desktops I have used with P4) and
> have only heard the offset explanation. I suspect that 1G offset might be
> appropriate over some limited range of clock speeds.
>
> Peter
>

I think the original response was a reasonable rough estimate, but agree a
factor is more reasonable. I also believe the 1.5 is too low. I believe it
is closer to 1.8.

Tom
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell,comp.sys.laptops (More info?)

"Tom Scales" <tomtoo@softhome.net> wrote in message
news:qf_Ve.69130$p_1.44160@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
>
> "P Ruetz" <parmailbox-news@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:CoZVe.2581$Ob2.1510@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com...
>>
>> "Rob Nicholson" <rob.nicholson@nospam_informed-direct.com> wrote in
>> message news:dg8joc$jd$1@nwrdmz02.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com...
>>>> The rule of thumb is to add 1 GHz to the P-M processor to get the P4
>>>> equivalent - so a 3 GHz P4 will run like a 2 GHz P-M.
>>>
>>> Thanks, Rob.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> I've heard similar rough estimates before and they strike me as quite
>> odd. To first order, the processing power of a given architecture is
>> proportional to the clock rate, so I would expect a multiplicative factor
>> rather than an offset.

>> Peter
>>
>
> I think the original response was a reasonable rough estimate, but agree a
> factor is more reasonable. I also believe the 1.5 is too low. I believe
> it is closer to 1.8.
>
> Tom
>

That would be pretty impressive (factor of 1.8)! A 2G PM would then perform
like a 3.6G P4.

I did hear that the floating point performance of the PM suffers
significantly, though, in comparison to the P4. The reasoning was that it
was for laptops doing light work (i.e. non-scientific) rather than for
workstations. I run a lot of floating point intensive programs and was put
off by that claim.

Peter
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell,comp.sys.laptops (More info?)

> I think the original response was a reasonable rough estimate, but agree a
> factor is more reasonable. I also believe the 1.5 is too low. I believe
it
> is closer to 1.8.

So a 1.7GHz P-M would be roughly equivalent to a 3GHz P4? That sounds
actually a bit more reasonable. I was looking at prices of 2GHz laptops and
there's a significant price premium on them (e.g. £200) which made me think
that the 2GHz+ where still at the premium end of the market.

Cheers, Rob.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell,comp.sys.laptops (More info?)

> That would be pretty impressive (factor of 1.8)! A 2G PM would then
perform
> like a 3.6G P4.

There are some very confusing benchmarks out there. A Dell 5150 3GHz P4 (as
found in our dead 5150s) had a BAPCo MobileMark rating of 192. A newer Dell
Latitude with 1.6GHz P-M760 had a rating of 211. This does back up the 1.8
figure we're bouncing around.

Cheers, Rob.
 

ahall

Distinguished
Apr 13, 2004
67
0
18,630
Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell,comp.sys.laptops (More info?)

>>>>> P Ruetz writes:

P> "Tom Scales" <tomtoo@softhome.net> wrote in message
news> qf_Ve.69130$p_1.44160@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
>>
>> "P Ruetz" <parmailbox-news@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news> CoZVe.2581$Ob2.1510@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com...
>>>
>>> "Rob Nicholson" <rob.nicholson@nospam_informed-direct.com> wrote in
>>> message news:dg8joc$jd$1@nwrdmz02.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com...
>>>>> The rule of thumb is to add 1 GHz to the P-M processor to get the P4
>>>>> equivalent - so a 3 GHz P4 will run like a 2 GHz P-M.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks, Rob.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> I've heard similar rough estimates before and they strike me as quite
>>> odd. To first order, the processing power of a given architecture is
>>> proportional to the clock rate, so I would expect a multiplicative factor
>>> rather than an offset.

>>> Peter
>>>
>>
>> I think the original response was a reasonable rough estimate, but agree a
>> factor is more reasonable. I also believe the 1.5 is too low. I believe
>> it is closer to 1.8.
>>
>> Tom
>>

P> That would be pretty impressive (factor of 1.8)! A 2G PM would then perform
P> like a 3.6G P4.

As one point of comparison:

Dell Dimension 8250, 3.06 Pentium. Hyperthreading. Runs 2 Seti's at a time,
long term average, 12 units calc'ed/day.

Dell Inspiron 9200, 2.1 P-M, no hyperthreading, runs 1 seti at a time.
Long term average, 12 units calc'ed/day.

By this benchmark, the multiple is about 1.5.


P> I did hear that the floating point performance of the PM suffers
P> significantly, though, in comparison to the P4. The reasoning was that it
P> was for laptops doing light work (i.e. non-scientific) rather than for
P> workstations. I run a lot of floating point intensive programs and was put
P> off by that claim.

I expect seti does a lot of floating point. Perhaps Tom's 1.8 is a better
measure for more general tasks.




--
Andrew Hall
(Now reading Usenet in alt.sys.pc-clone.dell...)
 

TRENDING THREADS