<p>Nameless is right. Processors are rarely a bottleneck for processes and upgrading them isn't very cost effective. RAM (and GPUs) will increase performance much more. Also, is it really worth hundreds of dollars to decrease the loading time of an application from 2 seconds to 1 second? Double the speed, but it's not worth it. FYI, you can't use clock speeds to compare CPUs because there are many factors that affect performance. For example, pentium Ms are better than P4s even though their speed is 1/3 lower.</p>
<p>
[quote]
</p>
<p>Celerons are usually looked down upon for slow clock speeds and whatnot.</p>
<p>Whoa, dont get catty..im just saying that a 2g dual core isnt the same as a 3.6 pentium 4. About the comparison...if your talking raw power..a single core 3.2ghz can beat out a dual core 2.0ghz...you have to understand that there are two microprocessors using the same bus. Bringing down performance. Now if both microprocessors worked on the same application then your comparison may be true, but then that defeats the purpose of the dual core...usually one microprocessor is working while the other lay dormant so to speak. Im not saying 2.0 dual core isnt damned good...b/c it is...You still have faster clock speeds and it takes up less energy, especially with the centrino's....but dual core's do tend to heat up alot faster than single cores, but thats not much of a problem
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Poeple looking down on celerons have nothing to do with there clock speed. The processor or die is the exact same, the difference between lets say a P4 and a Ceneron P4 based, is the lack of the L1 cache that is built onto the processor along side the die. The L1 cache is the most expensive component of the entire processor, even more than the actual cpu. This is how manufactures cut costs and are able to provide Celeron, Duron and Semron chips.</p>
<p>Sometimes especially with the first celeron chips the clock speeds were only slightly slower and this was to show a difference between the pentium branding and the celeron. Today we nolonger see this, and the processors are exactly identical except for the L1 cache.</p>
<p>as for what processor I use, I have to many computers to even give a number on, the current computer I am on is 2.4ghZ at 3.9Ghz overclocked.</p>
<p>
[quote]
including the latest games at max settings/resolution).
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Nameless it is impossible to do such a thing on any laptop.</p>
<p>ah, thanks for clearing that up...I can see how that effects performance. And about the 2 gigs of ram...thats if one is upgrading to Vista..you're already req'd 1G and I like 2 just to be good :)</p>
<p>haha, I dont even think you can play css at max settings/res on an xps lappy</p>
<p>You can play the latest games at full settings on a laptop. A 7900 GTX with 2 GB of RAM can handle almost any (perhaps all) game on the market.</p>
<p>However, a desktop will have better performance for a lower price. Laptops can still game though.</p>
<p>not the same experience. and if you're going to be gaming you won't want a notebook. Desktop with 19 inch flat panel > 17 inch uber laptop anyday.</p>
<p>Yup celerons are looked down on.. but from personal experience, they work fine. they run programs like Photoshop CS2 (which is known to slow down on some comps because it's HUGE) without no problem...and my computer's 2-3 years old. Only problem might occur if you are a heavy gamer... Though my bro has celeron too and he's been playing the latest Winning Eleven game on his comp without problems..</p>
<p>Processor speed means nothing. Any Core Duo kicks any Pentium-M's arse. A 2.13 GHz Conroe will destroy any 3.60 GHz Pentium 4 that runs against it, and pretty much any Pentium D too, also generally true with an athlon 64x2 3800+.</p>
<p>And CPU's last a long time too, everyone else is right, you really don't need that much power. The only reason to get a good CPU is that 2 or 3 years from now, a crappy CPU will start getting outdated, while a good one will still last. An X2 3800+ or a Conroe E6300 are probably the best buys on the market now (well, the E6300 will only start becoming available sometime later). About $200 for the E6300, $130 for the X2 3800+ if you find the right reseller, it's all good.</p>
<p>Of course, your Celeron or Sempron will work fine (I'm using a Athlon XP 1.25 GHz that still runs fine, though of course it sucks). But when you're buying a new computer, you generally don't look at Sempron's or Celeron's any more (assuming you live in a first world country).</p>
<p>Considering how long most people stick with a CPU, I think Dual Core will start to gain greater superiority over Single Core's, which means they become obsolete much faster than Dual Core's do, which is the primary reason to buy a fast CPU. </p>
<p>And trying to run max settings on a laptop (or even a desktop) is nigh impossible for some games (read: Oblivion). For really high settings, you'll probably want 2 7900 GT's SLI-ed (or 2 X1900 XT's Crossfired), some decent processor like the Athlon X2 I mentioned above, and 2 GB's of RAM. Not going to be cheap.</p>
<p>Alot of stuff here are a load of crap. First of all Pentium Ms are generally twice as fast as Pentium 4's at the same clockspeed...which means a 2ghz Pentium M is roughly a 4ghz Pentium 4. Pentium Ds is basically 2 Pentium 4 cores stuck onto the same chip. Core Duo is an improvement over Pentium M with higher FSB and more efficiency + lower power usage. Also dual core doesnt mean the chip will run hotter. As for all Core Duo kicking any Pentium M's ass thats untrue too. A 2ghz Pentium M will be faster than a 1.66ghz Core Duo with most applications. The Core Duo will only be faster when multitasking or running multi-threaded applications. </p>
<p>Anyway back to Celerons. Chips are "binned". Say 100 Pentium 4s are being made. 60 of them came out alright. The rest have some problems. Intel isnt going to throw them away. What they do is downclock the chip and disable parts of the cache and sell them as Celerons. They should be more than enough for most users.</p>
<p>Plese stop comparing apples to bananas, it is hilarious.</p>
<p>The amount of variation among even chips of the same make and model make this entire thread irrelavent. Pentium Ms were laptop chips, made to run slower to use less engergy. Core Duos are based off of the Pentium 3 architecture, which is completly different from that of a P4. Desktop chips are designed for one thing, laptops another, please, please, please don't even try to speculate on which equates to what. </p>
<p>Also Specifications don't change. 2ghz or 4ghz is the frequency at which a chip runs, you have to be dumb to say that 2ghz = 4ghz. Thats why they (Intel/AMD) have stopped naming their chips after these numbers, there is MORE THAN ONE FACTOR. Take into account Cache, pipelines, FSB, everything.</p>
<p>Let us please stop spreading what each of us believes to be the truth, because from what I've seen, not much of it actually is. Actually, I wouldn't believe most of whats in this thread. Go do real research.</p>
<p>"Nameless it is impossible to do such a thing on any laptop."</p>
<p>Well I play Prey for example at 1600x1200 (which is max for the game although my laptop goes to 1920x1200--I just use 16x10 mode and it looks great) with every setting on max. I use 16xAF and, although I don't usually use AA, I have tried it at 2x on that game and didn't really notice significant slowdown (but still enough to keep it off). I also play Day of Defeat: Source (that really doesn't count as "latest" I guess, but they have been adding new graphical features continuously) at 1920x1200 at full settings with 16xAF and 2xAA, with no perceptible slowdown.</p>
<p>Like I said, my processor is only a 1.73 Ghz Core Duo, but I've got two Gigs of RAM and a Geforce Go 7900 GS, overclocked moderately. I'm sure I won't be able to handle the latest graphics at those resolutions for too much longer, but for now I have yet to encounter a game that really tests my laptop.</p>