About Intel Pentium M Processor

Message

karim_ps · #1 Post by **karim_ps** » Wed Sep 03, 2008 7:03 pm

Hi there
i was using Windows Vista Ultimate on a desktop (P4 2.8Ghz/1GB of memory/Nvidia GeFroce 3 64MB ) ,it worked very bad and slow ,Now I'm using it on a thinkpad T41 (with the specifications below) I surprised !!! it works just fine more better than the P4 ,All i wanna know is : How powerful is Pentium M (compared with p4 and/or others)
thanks .

DrThinkpad · #2 Post by **DrThinkpad** » Wed Sep 03, 2008 7:23 pm

P4M 1.6 Ghz = PM 1Ghz or so.

aaa · #3 Post by **aaa** » Wed Sep 03, 2008 7:26 pm

The cpus should be about equal. Maybe it was more of a Vista compatibility issue.

karim_ps · #4 Post by **karim_ps** » Wed Sep 03, 2008 7:33 pm

oh i see thank you
But look here( http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2005-11/ ... -chart.gif )
P-M 1.83Ghz is more powerful than Mobile P4 3.4Ghz !!!that's amazing

DrThinkpad · #5 Post by **DrThinkpad** » Wed Sep 03, 2008 7:39 pm

aaa wrote:The cpus should be about equal. Maybe it was more of a Vista compatibility issue.

I shall beg to differ.

awolfe63 · #6 Post by **awolfe63** » Wed Sep 03, 2008 10:02 pm

Vista runs poorly (***self edited out of respect for the Moderators***) with 1GB. Add RAM.

#7 Post by **schen** » Wed Sep 03, 2008 11:07 pm

awolfe63 wrote:Vista runs poorly (***self edited out of respect for the Moderators***) with 1GB. Add RAM.

Thanks, it's appreciated!

And I'll agree 100% on the other. My rule of thumb on any Microsoft OS is:

* The "minimum" and invitation to a crash.
* The "recommended" typically runs, but poorly.
* Double the recommended runs pretty well.

May be overkill, but has always worked well for me.

awolfe63 · #8 Post by **awolfe63** » Wed Sep 03, 2008 11:55 pm

schen wrote: * The "minimum" and invitation to a crash.
* The "recommended" typically runs, but poorly.
* Double the recommended runs pretty well.

I might even expect more. Min for XP pro was 64M. Recommended was 128M.

I find 256M minimally acceptable and 1G or more to be ideal.

For vista (other than home basic) , min is 512M, recommended is 1G. I find 1G to be tediously slow, 2G to be acceptable, and 3G+ desirable.

#9 Post by **schen** » Thu Sep 04, 2008 12:04 am

awolfe63 wrote:I might even expect more. Min for XP pro was 64M. Recommended was 128M.

I find 256M minimally acceptable and 1G or more to be ideal.

For vista (other than home basic) , min is 512M, recommended is 1G. I find 1G to be tediously slow, 2G to be acceptable, and 3G+ desirable.

Higher SP, more stable, also takes more resources. It's a double edge sword.

Way back when, I was happy running XPP with 256 to 512Mb
After SP2, it became 512 to start, 1Gb to be happy
These days, it's 2Gb. It's a slow bloat to where-ever....

Even companies that that prided themselves on lean code in the old days are falling prey. Just look at Firefox, OpenOffice and AVG these days.

karim_ps · #10 Post by **karim_ps** » Thu Sep 04, 2008 6:57 am

Thanks, it's appreciated!

And I'll agree 100% on the other. My rule of thumb on any Microsoft OS is:

* The "minimum" and invitation to a crash.
* The "recommended" typically runs, but poorly.
* Double the recommended runs pretty well.

May be overkill, but has always worked well for me. [/quote]

I agree ,Microsoft always makes that to sell its products and get more clients ,it doesn't care of what will be happen after sold

karim_ps · #11 Post by **karim_ps** » Thu Sep 04, 2008 7:00 am

karim_ps wrote:Thanks, it's appreciated! And I'll agree 100% on the other. My rule of thumb on any Microsoft OS is:

* The "minimum" and invitation to a crash.
* The "recommended" typically runs, but poorly.
* Double the recommended runs pretty well.

May be overkill, but has always worked well for me.

I agree ,Microsoft always makes that to sell its products and get more clients ,it doesn't care of what will be happen after sold

Sorry for double reply

gongo2k1 · #12 Post by **gongo2k1** » Thu Sep 04, 2008 9:01 am

the dothan pentium-m series outperforms the old netburst pentium 4 by a long shot. it does more work per clock and fewer watts per clock.

and yes, vista REQUIRES 2 gigs of ram to keep your sanity. i used vista on a asus z71v (p-m 760 (2ghz), 1gb pc4200 (512mb x2), 80gb pata 7200rpm, geforce go 6600 128mb, 15.4" wsxga+... a fairly high end machine for late 2005) and it ran sooooo slow. it's part of why i shy away from vista.

pianowizard · #13 Post by **pianowizard** » Thu Sep 04, 2008 9:06 am

aaa wrote:The cpus should be about equal. Maybe it was more of a Vista compatibility issue.

I used PCMark2002 to benchmark my 2.8GHz P-4 Sony Vaio and my 1.6GHz P-M T42 (the OP has a 1.6GHz T41) and got the following:

2.8GHz P-4: 6274
1.6GHz Dothan: 5275

So, the Pentium 4 is actually even faster than the 1.6GHz Pentium M. I'm running Vista Home Premium SP1 on my 3.33GHz P-4 G41 with only 1GB of PC2700 and a 5400rpm 80GB HDD and I've nothing to complain -- it feels almost as fast as XP. If it had 2GB RAM and a 7200rpm HDD, I bet Vista would run just as well as XP on this G41.

gongo2k1 wrote:a fairly high end machine for late 2005) and it ran sooooo slow. it's part of why i shy away from vista.

Was it a beta version of Vista? I tried Beta 2 and RC1 back in 2006 and they were painfully slow, so I was one of the countless Vista bashers on this forum. But the current version is much better, and I don't bash Vista any more. In addition, I've heard that after a fresh install, Vista spends the first few days indexing all files on the HDD, majorly slowing down the computer. Afterward, the machine speeds up.

gongo2k1 · #14 Post by **gongo2k1** » Thu Sep 04, 2008 10:29 am

it was rc2. to be completely fair, the buggy nvidia drivers didn't help the experience very much, and i was already in the throws of my linux-only conversion, so i wasn't really looking to switch to vista anyway. and it didn't help that i was working at a mac lab at school at the time. i do have to say that the media center in ultimate totally blew me away, i felt it was a great improvement over xp mce.

so, if i'd had a non-nvidia card, 2gb+ ram, and a non-beta version of vista, it might have lasted longer than 10 days on my laptop. i wanted to like vista, i really did, but in the end i was cheap and settled for linux instead of buying vista. i try to keep my vista bashing to a minimum since i really haven't given it another chance since sp1, and i don't post much in windows-only threads being that i'm not using windows outside of work. i try to only comment on things that i can reasonably and intelligently talk about.

with vista, i just don't have any compelling reason to upgrade yet...

denisky · #15 Post by **denisky** » Thu Sep 04, 2008 12:37 pm

My R51e has Intel Pentium M Dothan running at 1.73GHz. For everyday use, I think it is more than enough. It runs cool too.

I hope you enjoy your T41

sjthinkpader · #16 Post by **sjthinkpader** » Thu Sep 04, 2008 12:56 pm

schen wrote:...

Even companies that that prided themselves on lean code in the old days are falling prey. Just look at Firefox, OpenOffice and AVG these days.

I was surprised by the latest release of MapSource from Garmin, dog slow.

karim_ps · #17 Post by **karim_ps** » Thu Sep 04, 2008 3:18 pm

denisky wrote:My R51e has Intel Pentium M Dothan running at 1.73GHz. For everyday use, I think it is more than enough. It runs cool too.

I hope you enjoy your T41

oh thank you ,me too

About Intel Pentium M Processor

About Intel Pentium M Processor

Who is online