I’m looking to buy a notebook computer and am wandering around the internet looking at prices.
Athlon? shakes fist They use a processor speed numbering system that I can’t make heads or tails of.
One computer has an Athlon 64 3000+. Which is clarified later as a 1.8 GHz processor.
Another has an Athlon XP-M 2800+. Which is clarified later as a 1.8 GHz processor.
Yet another has a 2400+ which, you guessed it, is a 1.8 GHz processor.
Color me baffled.
AMD’s manufacturing technique enables their Athlon processors to attain speeds higher than that of Intel’s. The smaller number is the actual speed whereas the larger is the speed which a comparable Intel would operate. In other words, the 3000+ is the equvalent of a 3.0 GHz Pentium.
If you’re buying a notebook, I would go with a processor with “M” in its title. M for “mobile.” They consume less power than their desktop counterparts, and so your battery will last longer. Speed, in the multiple gigahertz echelon, is pretty much irrelavent, unless you’re doing really heavy technical or multimedia work.
Irrelevant, even.
iwakura43 makes a great point. It depends on what you’re planning to do with the laptop, of course, but in general, you want to focus on size and battery life than processor speed. I made the mistake of buying the fastest, largest-screen Dell laptop I could find to use as a desktop replacement, and it just ended up being too big and heavy for a laptop, and too slow (because of the hard drive) and non-expandable for a desktop. Worst of both worlds.
The only consistent thing between Athlon’s and Intel’s CPUs is that the higher number is faster; GHz isn’t the only driving factor. Any time I’ve tried to get more than a rough correlation between an Athlon CPU and the corresponding Intel one, it’s just made my head hurt and I start sobbing.
SolGrundy, proud owner of a computer science degree and two computers I can’t reliably say how fast they are.