1.8 ghz versus 2.1 ghz if price/cost not a concern

[Ragtopgeek]

Is there any reason to choose a 1.8ghz processor over a 2.1ghz processor is the cost is not an issue? Being that heat is the death knell of laptops, does the (presumed) extra heat of the 2.1 more than offset the added performance if longevity is an issue?
Thanks and sorry if this was a ridiculous question,
Ragtopgeek

[aznmikex215]

I guess if you have to have the cream of the crop 2.1 would be your choice, but 1.8ghz is defintiely fine for today's applications.

2.1 ghz would probably eat your battery if you were to run a program that would fully use it.

As far as heat, my T43 with 1.8ghz and x300 get insanely hot when playing games. Unreal Tournament 2k4 makes the Laptop temperature rise to about 63C which is like 140 F. HOT! I dont think it would be any hotter with a 2.1 ghz.

2.1 ghz if you think you will be doing some hardcore computing such as compiling large programs.

1.8 ghz should be fast enough for almost everything else.

[NeoteriX]

the two major concerns with higher clock processors is the increase in heat, and the decrease in battery life (ish). Most of the processors on battery will run at 800 mhz anyway, but the lower the native clock rate, the lower you can undervolt it.

[StarTraveller]

63 C isn't that hot for playing a game. My 2.13 GHz with a FireGL V3200 will put the machine in the 90's C when gaming - at least according to the sensors.

I've worked a bit with undervolting, though, so now I peak in the 70's C instead. Big difference!

[onix]

It is not easy, based purely on GHz, to tell if a CPU runs hotter. Two other major factors are drive voltage and CMOS technology, i.e. 0.13um, 0.09um, etc. Best is to go to the manufacturer's website and check for power requirements.

Since price is no concern, I would in general favor a slower CPU, and a super-fast HD, a lot more DRAM, and the best GPU.

[suaveguyc]

I have the 2668-71U (2.0ghz) and I can tell you that the processor speed really is a non-issue; memory is the issue. 512 is the standard on this machine and it really limits it. For Christmas I recieved a nice 1gb upgrade (1.5gb total) and now this baby flies. Espescially if you want to keep all the IBM apps, then I would certainly recommend 1gb+, while the 1.8ghz should be more than fine.

[dr_st]

Is there any reason to choose a 1.8ghz processor over a 2.1ghz processor is the cost is not an issue?

If cost is not an issue, go for the 2.1GHz. Even if you lose some battery life, I think the extra bit of speed is worth it. Of course, also make sure to have at least 1gig of RAM.

[3to4]

If money is not an issue, I would also go for the fastest CPU available.

[christopher_wolf]

Same here; I would go for 2.0GHz but I would also make sure to bump up some more tangible things, i.e. things you would notice more on a day to day basis, such as Memory, HDD, etc. if you aren't doing some intensive number crunching.