Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Pentium M
- Thread starter howard
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
In all the tests and reviews I've read (and I'vee read a few) the P-M is about 20% slower than a mobile P-4M with only marginally improved battery life and a higher price premium. But all the reviews have stated that they expect further revisions of the P-M to actually live up to Intels claims, unlike the first batch of 1.3, 1.4, 1.5 and 1.6 Ghz versions.
Ok, somebody correct me if Im wrong, but I remember reading in these boards long debates about G4 in PowerBooks vs. the 970s and most of them concluded that the G4 is better situated for laptops than the 970 (at least for now). As far as I remember, I believe the new G4s that run up to 1.33 GHz and have a 200Mhz bus (I think) were supposed to be far more energy efficient on power consumption; suggesting that If and only if they are used on the new generation PowerBooks, they will provide excellent battery life (A lot better than what we have). So if anybody has more info, please share, but I think the next crop of PowerBooks will be in better shape to compete against Centrinos in battery life. Lets Hope!
but we need 970s to compete with the performance, lol. but yeah, looks like the 970 is in the 40 watts range at the .13 micron process. have to wait for the .09 micron process 
That is similar to what I read in the technology section of the boston globe when the P-M first came out!! That the P-M is slower than the P4 but that Intel was really downplaying that fact so that people would focus on all of the other ways that it was a better mobile processor than the P4. But now I keep hearing that the M is faster... which is it?
And if the M is so much faster even at much lower clockspeeds, why not adapt the mobile processor for desktops? It should run even faster if they take out all the power saving laptop features...
I'm just saying, if the P-M is so much faster than the P4 in addition to being a better *mobile* chip, why aren't we seeing desktop derivatives of it across wintel product lines?
More work gets done per MHz, ala the G4 / G3 or even the AMD chips.
The M is designed to be a laptop proc, to put it in a desktop is foolish. Desktops don't have the power / heat constraints that laptops do. Only companies that can't afford to spend the money on a seperate proc line for laptops use 1 type for 2 different skill sets... (Motorola)
Also, a 3.2GHz HT P4 smokes the M's...
If more work gets done per Mhz, what if Intel could rev those processors up to the clockspeeds of that P4 3.2 Ghz? The M would smoke it, no?
I'm talking about a *modified* M processor in desktops. Of course you wouldn't just take it directly from a laptop. But as I said before, wouldn't the fact that you didn't have to worry about those heat constraints mean that the desktop version could be even more powerful?
It seems to me that if you have a processor that can do more work at the same speeds, it would be logical to push its clockspeed high enough that it can beat the "less efficient" processor. Now, this can't be done with the G4, hence why macs get smoked by higher clockspeed P4s that are "less efficient" per mhz. But if an M could be pushed to higher clockspeeds, why not remove the heat controlling aspects and have it be your fastest processor?
Look, I'm sure there's a reason I'm wrong here, but I'm hoping someone can explain what that reason is. Is it that the M, like the G4, simply can't reach the clockspeed of the P4 (so even though it does more work at the same speed, it can't do as much total work)?
It may well be to with Intels competitions with AMD. At the present time intel may not want to announce a processor that isn't megahertz orientated because it would damage its case with the P4 and strengthen AMD's Athlon XPs. Intel couldn't simply jump from 1.6Ghz to 3Ghz even if it wanted to because it needs the money to invest in R&D, money I assume it gets from selling previous versions of processors. So it maybe that Intel will work towards this, but to slowly scale the processor up and release say 1.8, 2, 2.2, 2.4, 2.6 and then say a 3Ghz P-M (perhaps called a P-D?) would damage its case against AMD. I don't know really. Seeing as intel already has a chip that beats AMDs fastest reasonably easily I suppose they don't really have any incentive to create an unber chip. The only reason I can think that intel may port the P-M to desktops is to create quiet, energy effiecient yet still powerful desktops for an office environment or library, or just for those consumers who want a quiet 'environmentally friendly' PC.
Edit: My next laptop may well be P-M driven but only if intel can unleash its full battery saving and raw processing power potential. Plus the 12inch power book is looking mighty tempting....
The P4 is a ever-moving target. Soon to be 3.2GHz, and then up to 3.6GHz. New bus speeds in the 1000-1200MHz range (depending on who you believe).
And then you have AMD with their new 64bit proc that will be out soon (before end of the year, i think).
Intel and AMD have been concentrating on things besides the clock... they have been trying to minimize the other bottle-necks in the system (memory access, hdd access, faster AGP, better PCI, etc).
Apple with Motorola has not been doing that. Here's to hoping Apple with IBM will.
And then you have AMD with their new 64bit proc that will be out soon (before end of the year, i think).
Intel and AMD have been concentrating on things besides the clock... they have been trying to minimize the other bottle-necks in the system (memory access, hdd access, faster AGP, better PCI, etc).
Apple with Motorola has not been doing that. Here's to hoping Apple with IBM will.
Catt, if you read the Andandtech article, it basically says the M, with its current architecture cannot reach the clock speeds of a P-4... But I feel what you are saying. Since the P4 is so flexible with its clock speeds, I think they'll stick with it for desktops.