P4 3.2 HT versus Pentium M 1.8 or 2.0
ok, I know a decent amount about the two. I don't want the "well this is designed for that and thats designed for this" answer. Is there anyone out there who has used both (even if not in these exact configurations)?
This would be the configuration (we're talking notebooks):
P4 3.2 HT
1024 DDR RAM
Pentium M 1.8 or 2.0
1024 DDR RAM
other that would be the same on either(might not matter)
60 GB drive partitioned with 8GB virtual memory
128 MB video card
wifi b/g (maybe a)
I currently have a
P4 3.2 HT (1024 DDR RAM, 128M video [dell 9100])
P4 3.06 HT (1024 DDR RAM, 64M video [dell 5150]).
The 5150 actually seems faster. I am thinking about sending the 9100 back (got cause I wanted a widescreen and the case is all silver), thinking of getting an 8600 with the M chip. The 9100 is HUGE, has a HUGE battery, is not faster, the battery is gone VERY quickly. Maybe due to the 'powered sub'- does anyone seriously listen to music out of those little notebook speakers? There are lots of USB plugs and a VERY cool svideo output adapter that has a composite video plug, digital audio, and svideo out. But the battery lasts less than an hour. If the performance was amazing, I would keep it. The 5150 is the fastest computer I have ever used. Press power, your starting Photoshop in under 30 secs, working in about a minute. Renders after effects projects effortlessly.
I would trade a little power for the efficiency of the M. Anyone? I would like some real world experience as opposed to benchmark tests (and I have been to http://cpuscorecard.com/), but if you know of some site that rates on things such as video rendering and the Photoshop liquify filter, that would be helpful. I mainly do web/print design, so Flash and Photoshop and Dreamweaver and Illustrator are my staples, video less often, if that helps clarify my situation.