Buying a new laptop - how important is FSB speed compared to RAM/cache?

defenstration

Buying a new laptop and checking out different specs.
I'll only be using it for typing up stuff, internet and a bitta Football Manager (no insane graphics needed for that!) so it doesn't make too much of a difference what spec I get, but that said, might as well get the best I can for my money (around 800 euro max).

I'm definitely sticking with Intel Core 2 Duo processor and at least 2GB RAM, but there are different combinations of RAM/processor speed/FSB speed and L2 cache, so can anyone tell me which is most important to consider, or even list them all in order of importance?

Am I correct in thinking that processor speed is probably the most important?
Then RAM?
Then cache?
Then FSB?

Cheers in advance.

AlmightyCushion

More or less yeah. Processor speed and ram will make a bigger difference than cache and fsb.

defenstration

And is that the case to the extent that I should pretty much just ignore the FSB and cache and go for the spec with the highest memory and processor speed, end of story? Or should I still consider them when weighing up my options?
For example, would the difference between 667MHz and 800MHz be worth worrying about as regards the FSB?
1GB cache vs 2GB cache - would that be worth worrying about?

Alanstrainor

Dont worry about FSB and CACHE for your uses. Almost completely irrelevant. You wont notice the difference.
What you should be looking to get is Core 2 Duo processor and 2gb RAM minimum, You can't go too far wrong with that. In the case of the higher the clock speed the better, it's not universally true, as the more modern dual core 2.0Ghz, will be far far superior to say a pentium 4 2.0Ghz.

Voodu Child

Ram isn't particularly important, in Vista 2Gb will be plenty for the average (non-power) user. Upping it to 4Gb won't make much difference, because you physically don't need the ram, its just going to be sat there used for prefetch (which will help app startup times etc..).

You can only really make CPU/FSB/L2 comparisons if you're comparing like with like.

A T8100 (2.1GHz, 800MHz, 3Mb) will outperform a T5750 (2Ghz, 667, 2Mb) by a good margin. The performance difference isn't just because of the CPU speed (only 5% higher), or faster FSB, or bigger L2 cache - its partly because of all 3, but also more importantly because of the newer/better architecture. It will run cooler and use less power too. So its all kind of related, and hard to separate unless you're comparing like with like.

TBH, you'd only notice the performance difference if you were doing intensive things with a timer (ie you might knock a few minutes off a video transcode). But you will notice heat and consumption improvements. So i'd go for the newer one every time.

aidanki

following this discussion with great interst as looking at buying a new laptop around €500 to spend, and looking to get the greatest bang for my buck
>100GB HD ~1.7GB Processor with L2cache size of 2MB, 2MB RAM something like that is what I want to buy, should be possible for €500
wondering whats the difference between all these processors "core 2 duos" and "core duos" , centrinos etc, is there any difference in performance with any of these, not so worried about battery life as just use laptop as a desktop

for those heavy users are Intels better than AMDs these times or is there any difference?

also is XP better than Vista, Vista I hear is supposed to hog RAM?

anyone that knows of any good deals/ good computer articles about this type of thing feel free to post the links etc.

Alanstrainor

Core 2 duo>core duo>celeron m
both the dual cores above would far out perform the celeron m processor. 2gb of ram and really any dual core would suit your needs, but intel processors are superior the their amd counterparts

Dartz

Penryn processors make a difference. T8100 > T5750. The way I was made to understand it, it's the cache that's the big deal for Core 2 Duo's. The more cache you have, the more data the cores can share between themselves without having to go through the FSB and the system RAM (which is a nice bottleneck). It is, in my opinion, money well spent.

That's not forgetting to power and heat dissapation advantages the newer T8100 would have over the T5750. Even a T9300 is noticeably better than a T8100.... but that's getting up towards the silly money territory of processor prices.

RAM is cheap anyway, if you find you don't have enough of it, you can pick it up pretty easy and cheaply. It's harder to replace the processor than the RAM.

ytareh

Just gone from a C2D E6700@3.6(4Mb Cache?) overclock to an E8500(6Mb Cache) at same and found big increase in performance and massive drop in temps ....Worth at least 200MHz CPU 'equivalent speed' in my opinion ...Then again motherboard chipset(nF590i>P45) may have been boosting upgrade also ...

aidanki

again addressed to those of you who know what you are talking about or anyone who has dealt with dabs.ie

http://www.dabs.ie/

same machine from dell is €629 dearer from what I can see

they are all the same with regard to MS Office + Anti-Virus free trial for 30days and pay-up after that

Alanstrainor

What do you mean the same machine? Dell sell there own machines, so they are completely different. And i assume you mean €90 dearer?
Read this How to get help on this forum. Answer the suggested questions, and post your own thread.