If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Q: Why don't desktops us mobile cpus?
I know the motherboards are different but is there a reason why desktop
computer aren't built to use mobile cpus? I assume desktop and mobile are about the same performance for the average user, mobile cpus are capable enough to run 99% of the games available, and mobile cpus run cooler and more efficient than desktop cpus. I'm not talking about bleeding edge computing but about the average user happy running XP home on anything from 1-2.4mhz cpu. Wouldn't a Centrino or Turino work ? Could I pop an AMD64 Turino into a desktop motherboard? |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Q: Why don't desktops us mobile cpus?
In article , jaster
wrote: I know the motherboards are different but is there a reason why desktop computer aren't built to use mobile cpus? I assume desktop and mobile are about the same performance for the average user, mobile cpus are capable enough to run 99% of the games available, and mobile cpus run cooler and more efficient than desktop cpus. I'm not talking about bleeding edge computing but about the average user happy running XP home on anything from 1-2.4mhz cpu. Wouldn't a Centrino or Turino work ? Could I pop an AMD64 Turino into a desktop motherboard? There are a few Turions running on DFI motherboards. There are Pentium-M processors using Asus CT479 adapters on some older Asus S478 motherboards. There are Aopen and DFI 855GM and 915GM motherboards, intended for Pentium-M. Searching on 855GM or 915GM could turn up more of them. Here is a tiny product, with Pentium-M http://www.mini-itx.com/store/?c=2#p1630 You have to look around to find them, but there are products out there. Remember that mobile processors are mainly an OEM thing, used in making laptops/notebooks. The distribution channels are not set up for hobbyists. But maybe that is changing... http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16819103523 http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16819111172 Motherboard makers think in terms of "concepts", like desktop, workstation, server, multimedia_machine. It can take a lot of time, before the momentum builds, to create new "concept" designs. Why would a motherboard mahufacturer spend $1 million developing a motherboard, and only sell 10,000 of them ? There has to be a solid proven market, capable of selling a lot of motherboards, before the effort would be put into such products. Keep looking, and you may find something useful. Paul |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Why don't desktops us mobile cpus?
the pentium M uses less power than a regular P4
so that is why they use them in the notebooks. You can with an adapter put one a desktop if you are having power issues. Happy Holidays "jaster" wrote in message ... I know the motherboards are different but is there a reason why desktop computer aren't built to use mobile cpus? I assume desktop and mobile are about the same performance for the average user, mobile cpus are capable enough to run 99% of the games available, and mobile cpus run cooler and more efficient than desktop cpus. I'm not talking about bleeding edge computing but about the average user happy running XP home on anything from 1-2.4mhz cpu. Wouldn't a Centrino or Turino work ? Could I pop an AMD64 Turino into a desktop motherboard? |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Q: Why don't desktops us mobile cpus?
On Tue, 20 Dec 2005 02:45:18 GMT, jaster
wrote: I know the motherboards are different but is there a reason why desktop computer aren't built to use mobile cpus? Because mobile CPUs are usually optimized for low power consumption, not performance. It matters far more when one needs it to run off a battery. If we're only considering green-ideals, then we can't very well focus on only a CPU, would have to consider why people drive big SUVs, or buy large TVs, etc, etc, etc. They don't because they don't anticipate the effects to matter in their lifetime. I assume desktop and mobile are about the same performance for the average user, Then you'd be assuming wrong. Pentium - M is an unexpectedly good performer but this has a lot to do with perspective too, as P4 isn't nearly as good as Intel would have you believe if you start benching it on the older/typical applications everyone's running, not the new high-end professional stuff optimized for a P4. mobile cpus are capable enough to run 99% of the games available, "Capable" is rather arbitrary... The slowest desktop CPU of any (then current) generation is also fairly capable of runing games, and yet that's not usually what people would prefer for gaming. and mobile cpus run cooler and more efficient than desktop cpus. Yes, but don't forget "more expensive". I would buy a Pentium-M system before a P4, but remember that for desktop usage, most people don't need anything new, their fairly low requirements would run fine on their current system- if only that system keeps running. If it breaks they'll tend to want the cheapest thing that gets them a system that works, and that isn't usually one with a mobile CPU in it. They prefer lower cost over power savings, or simply buy OEM, when an OEM will also prefer cost savings, especially since that OEM is not paying the power bill to run the system. I'm not talking about bleeding edge computing but about the average user happy running XP home on anything from 1-2.4mhz cpu. Wouldn't a Centrino or Turino work ? Could I pop an AMD64 Turino into a desktop motherboard? Yes, it would work. It'd still be more expensive, including a specialty motherboard that costs more per unit due to selling in lower volume. Truth is, after all is said and done the cost to an OEM between one CPU and another is less than all the other expenses, to get an otherwise same system with a mobile CPU at same price, the system would be FAR slower. Even so, if one doesnt' need the performance why would they get a mobile CPU at all instead of a Via CPU? Much cheaper, it suits the requirement but the technically uninclined will end up deferring to some techno-whiz that suggests the highest performance instead. In summary, if one is only doing basic things on their system, the question is not "why not a mobile CPU", it's "why buy anything at all, instead of continuing to use their current system"... and that is what most do, there are many people with sub-1GHz systems that find them sufficient. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Q: Why don't desktops us mobile cpus?
On Tue, 20 Dec 2005 03:51:28 +0000, Paul thoughtfully wrote:
In article , jaster wrote: I know the motherboards are different but is there a reason why desktop computer aren't built to use mobile cpus? I assume desktop and mobile are about the same performance for the average user, mobile cpus are capable enough to run 99% of the games available, and mobile cpus run cooler and more efficient than desktop cpus. I'm not talking about bleeding edge computing but about the average user happy running XP home on anything from 1-2.4mhz cpu. Wouldn't a Centrino or Turino work ? Could I pop an AMD64 Turino into a desktop motherboard? There are a few Turions running on DFI motherboards. There are Pentium-M processors using Asus CT479 adapters on some older Asus S478 motherboards. There are Aopen and DFI 855GM and 915GM motherboards, intended for Pentium-M. Searching on 855GM or 915GM could turn up more of them. Here is a tiny product, with Pentium-M http://www.mini-itx.com/store/?c=2#p1630 Interesting little motherboards. Mini-itx needs HDTV and SPD/IF in their Hush-E line. You have to look around to find them, but there are products out there. Remember that mobile processors are mainly an OEM thing, used in making laptops/notebooks. The distribution channels are not set up for hobbyists. But maybe that is changing... Intel doesn't list selection of mobile processors as an option in their selection chart. http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16819103523 http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16819111172 Motherboard makers think in terms of "concepts", like desktop, workstation, server, multimedia_machine. It can take a lot of time, before the momentum builds, to create new "concept" designs. Why would a motherboard mahufacturer spend $1 million developing a motherboard, and only sell 10,000 of them ? There has to be a solid proven market, capable of selling a lot of motherboards, before the effort would be put into such products. Keep looking, and you may find something useful. You're probably on the right track. Like automakers they've invested in desktop cpu/motherboard computing and haven't yet committed to green processing, ie, low noise, low heat, less toxic materials. With Via leading the charge, Intel and AMD are addressing heat and noise issues but it'll take time for motherboard vendors to catch up. Media Center PCs may turn this around. Probably AMD/Intel develop the bigger, faster cpus and push these out to recoup research costs and motherboard vendors just follow the flow. Hats off to Mini-Itx, DFI and AOpen for bucking the trend. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Q: Why don't desktops us mobile cpus?
On Tue, 20 Dec 2005 08:00:20 +0000, kony thoughtfully wrote:
On Tue, 20 Dec 2005 02:45:18 GMT, jaster wrote: I know the motherboards are different but is there a reason why desktop computer aren't built to use mobile cpus? Because mobile CPUs are usually optimized for low power consumption, not performance. It matters far more when one needs it to run off a battery. Exactly why cpu and motherboard manufacturers should consider mobile cpus. If we're only considering green-ideals, then we can't very well focus on only a CPU, would have to consider why people drive big SUVs, or buy large TVs, etc, etc, etc. They don't because they don't anticipate the effects to matter in their lifetime. Not really reverent to discussion because most people buy complete PCs not just the components. Like buying a car you simply make sure the car engine is adequate for your needs but you don't buy a GM engines for a Volkswagon cars. I assume desktop and mobile are about the same performance for the average user, Then you'd be assuming wrong. Pentium - M is an unexpectedly good performer but this has a lot to do with perspective too, as P4 isn't nearly as good as Intel would have you believe if you start benching it on the older/typical applications everyone's running, not the new high-end professional stuff optimized for a P4. mobile cpus are capable enough to run 99% of the games available, "Capable" is rather arbitrary... The slowest desktop CPU of any (then current) generation is also fairly capable of runing games, and yet that's not usually what people would prefer for gaming. That's my point. Joe and Jane Average use a home/office PC good enough to surf AOL/MSN, email, print pictures, balance the checkbook, maybe play music and video. Upgrades come when Joe or Jane needs to run some software that won't work on the current system or the HD fills up. and mobile cpus run cooler and more efficient than desktop cpus. Yes, but don't forget "more expensive". I would buy a Pentium-M system before a P4, but remember that for desktop usage, most people don't need anything new, their fairly low requirements would run fine on their current system- if only that system keeps running. If it breaks they'll tend to want the cheapest thing that gets them a system that works, and that isn't usually one with a mobile CPU in it. They prefer lower cost over power savings, or simply buy OEM, when an OEM will also prefer cost savings, especially since that OEM is not paying the power bill to run the system. OEMs have the same issue as Joe and Jane Average. There are few motherboards using mobile (OEM) cpus, so they use regular motherboards with desktop chips. I'm not talking about bleeding edge computing but about the average user happy running XP home on anything from 1-2.4mhz cpu. Wouldn't a Centrino or Turino work ? Could I pop an AMD64 Turino into a desktop motherboard? Yes, it would work. It'd still be more expensive, including a specialty motherboard that costs more per unit due to selling in lower volume. Truth is, after all is said and done the cost to an OEM between one CPU and another is less than all the other expenses, to get an otherwise same system with a mobile CPU at same price, the system would be FAR slower. Yes currently looks like 17% more than an AMD desktop cpu of the same speed but is that because of manufacturing quantity, ie, fewer chips made? Even so, if one doesnt' need the performance why would they get a mobile CPU at all instead of a Via CPU? Much cheaper, it suits the requirement but the technically uninclined will end up deferring to some techno-whiz that suggests the highest performance instead. In summary, if one is only doing basic things on their system, the question is not "why not a mobile CPU", it's "why buy anything at all, instead of continuing to use their current system"... and that is what most do, there are many people with sub-1GHz systems that find them sufficient. My question was not whether to get by on older or mobile cpus but more of why aren't manufacturers focused on making mobile cpus instead of desktop cpus. Since mobiles are more efficient and greener than desktop cpus. I think nospam (Paul) has the right idea which is they've invested research in desktop cpu m/bs but not yet mobile cpu m/bs. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Why don't desktops us mobile cpus?
On Mon, 19 Dec 2005 23:39:54 -0500, BigJIm thoughtfully wrote:
the pentium M uses less power than a regular P4 so that is why they use them in the notebooks. You can with an adapter put one a desktop if you are having power issues. Happy Holidays Yes that's my point if they are good enough for laptops they should be good enough for Joe and Jane Average desktop pc. Joe and Jane might be using a laptop for work but a desktops at home. "jaster" wrote in message ... I know the motherboards are different but is there a reason why desktop computer aren't built to use mobile cpus? I assume desktop and mobile are about the same performance for the average user, mobile cpus are capable enough to run 99% of the games available, and mobile cpus run cooler and more efficient than desktop cpus. I'm not talking about bleeding edge computing but about the average user happy running XP home on anything from 1-2.4mhz cpu. Wouldn't a Centrino or Turino work ? Could I pop an AMD64 Turino into a desktop motherboard? |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Q: Why don't desktops us mobile cpus?
I think a direct answer to your question is:
The reason they don't make very many mobile CPUs for desktops is because there is NO MARKET for it. Take a look around, is anyone else asking this question? No. Mobile CPUs are designed to be mobile. Not stationary. I just read through this entire post and I still don't even know why you care? Why are you doing this? What is your point? I heard some talk about computer companies needing to be more green. What the heck is that crap all about? Noise? I seriously doubt computer noise is affecting the environment. Heat? I think the other equipment in your house generate more heat, not sure what the point is here. Power, well, see below. Buying a mobile cpu versus a cheap P4 is not going to change your bank account very much and it's NOT going to change your electric bill either. If you are doing this just because "you want to" then your first answer by Paul was the end of this convo. If all you need to do is "surf AOL/MSN, email, print pictures, balance the checkbook, maybe play music and video" then go buy yourself a $300 Linspire machine and REALLY save yourself some money. Seems like you're splitting hairs here for no good reason. "jaster" wrote in message m... On Tue, 20 Dec 2005 08:00:20 +0000, kony thoughtfully wrote: On Tue, 20 Dec 2005 02:45:18 GMT, jaster wrote: I know the motherboards are different but is there a reason why desktop computer aren't built to use mobile cpus? Because mobile CPUs are usually optimized for low power consumption, not performance. It matters far more when one needs it to run off a battery. Exactly why cpu and motherboard manufacturers should consider mobile cpus. If we're only considering green-ideals, then we can't very well focus on only a CPU, would have to consider why people drive big SUVs, or buy large TVs, etc, etc, etc. They don't because they don't anticipate the effects to matter in their lifetime. Not really reverent to discussion because most people buy complete PCs not just the components. Like buying a car you simply make sure the car engine is adequate for your needs but you don't buy a GM engines for a Volkswagon cars. I assume desktop and mobile are about the same performance for the average user, Then you'd be assuming wrong. Pentium - M is an unexpectedly good performer but this has a lot to do with perspective too, as P4 isn't nearly as good as Intel would have you believe if you start benching it on the older/typical applications everyone's running, not the new high-end professional stuff optimized for a P4. mobile cpus are capable enough to run 99% of the games available, "Capable" is rather arbitrary... The slowest desktop CPU of any (then current) generation is also fairly capable of runing games, and yet that's not usually what people would prefer for gaming. That's my point. Joe and Jane Average use a home/office PC good enough to surf AOL/MSN, email, print pictures, balance the checkbook, maybe play music and video. Upgrades come when Joe or Jane needs to run some software that won't work on the current system or the HD fills up. and mobile cpus run cooler and more efficient than desktop cpus. Yes, but don't forget "more expensive". I would buy a Pentium-M system before a P4, but remember that for desktop usage, most people don't need anything new, their fairly low requirements would run fine on their current system- if only that system keeps running. If it breaks they'll tend to want the cheapest thing that gets them a system that works, and that isn't usually one with a mobile CPU in it. They prefer lower cost over power savings, or simply buy OEM, when an OEM will also prefer cost savings, especially since that OEM is not paying the power bill to run the system. OEMs have the same issue as Joe and Jane Average. There are few motherboards using mobile (OEM) cpus, so they use regular motherboards with desktop chips. I'm not talking about bleeding edge computing but about the average user happy running XP home on anything from 1-2.4mhz cpu. Wouldn't a Centrino or Turino work ? Could I pop an AMD64 Turino into a desktop motherboard? Yes, it would work. It'd still be more expensive, including a specialty motherboard that costs more per unit due to selling in lower volume. Truth is, after all is said and done the cost to an OEM between one CPU and another is less than all the other expenses, to get an otherwise same system with a mobile CPU at same price, the system would be FAR slower. Yes currently looks like 17% more than an AMD desktop cpu of the same speed but is that because of manufacturing quantity, ie, fewer chips made? Even so, if one doesnt' need the performance why would they get a mobile CPU at all instead of a Via CPU? Much cheaper, it suits the requirement but the technically uninclined will end up deferring to some techno-whiz that suggests the highest performance instead. In summary, if one is only doing basic things on their system, the question is not "why not a mobile CPU", it's "why buy anything at all, instead of continuing to use their current system"... and that is what most do, there are many people with sub-1GHz systems that find them sufficient. My question was not whether to get by on older or mobile cpus but more of why aren't manufacturers focused on making mobile cpus instead of desktop cpus. Since mobiles are more efficient and greener than desktop cpus. I think nospam (Paul) has the right idea which is they've invested research in desktop cpu m/bs but not yet mobile cpu m/bs. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Q: Why don't desktops us mobile cpus?
On Tue, 20 Dec 2005 18:26:01 GMT, jaster
wrote: On Tue, 20 Dec 2005 08:00:20 +0000, kony thoughtfully wrote: On Tue, 20 Dec 2005 02:45:18 GMT, jaster wrote: I know the motherboards are different but is there a reason why desktop computer aren't built to use mobile cpus? Because mobile CPUs are usually optimized for low power consumption, not performance. It matters far more when one needs it to run off a battery. Exactly why cpu and motherboard manufacturers should consider mobile cpus. Actually that is exactly why they wouldn't, because they're (desktops) not running off battery power the vast majority of the time. If we're only considering green-ideals, then we can't very well focus on only a CPU, would have to consider why people drive big SUVs, or buy large TVs, etc, etc, etc. They don't because they don't anticipate the effects to matter in their lifetime. Not really reverent to discussion because most people buy complete PCs not just the components. Quite relevant, because when people buy the SUV the manufacturer could've optimized it for lighter weight and/or put a smaller engine or higher gear ratio as well, but that's not what the demand is. Like buying a car you simply make sure the car engine is adequate for your needs but you don't buy a GM engines for a Volkswagon cars. Not really true, take any random car, with example above take a Chevy Blazer SUV- they made 'em with 4 cylinder engines and while they did the base things- accelerate, keep speed going up a hill when used as a passenger-only mover, etc, the V-6 option did much better. While I'm in favor of reducing emissions, conserving fuel, WHO is to decide that someone else make that sacrifice? If you, personally want to, or I, that's one thing... but for a product to be cost-effective it has to sell in large enough volume and there isn't that demand. I'm not talking about ideals here, I'm cutting to the point which was your query about why (not) mobile CPUs. I see now you're not asking "why not" at all, you're just trying to argue their benefits as if it makes any difference... which it doesn't, even if your points are valid (and some are), it makes no difference as to why they aren't used, those are not the factors others are considering. "Capable" is rather arbitrary... The slowest desktop CPU of any (then current) generation is also fairly capable of runing games, and yet that's not usually what people would prefer for gaming. That's my point. Joe and Jane Average use a home/office PC good enough to surf AOL/MSN, email, print pictures, balance the checkbook, maybe play music and video. Upgrades come when Joe or Jane needs to run some software that won't work on the current system or the HD fills up. True, and many people don't need the fastest system available at any point and time, so they keep using their current system, not buying a new one with mobile CPU. When the time comes to upgrade again, then they will get more performance per $ without a mobile CPU, or if you argue they don't need the performance, they will still get a lower cost system without the mobile CPU. Any way you look at it, the choice is lower power or lower cost. Yes, it would work. It'd still be more expensive, including a specialty motherboard that costs more per unit due to selling in lower volume. Truth is, after all is said and done the cost to an OEM between one CPU and another is less than all the other expenses, to get an otherwise same system with a mobile CPU at same price, the system would be FAR slower. Yes currently looks like 17% more than an AMD desktop cpu of the same speed but is that because of manufacturing quantity, ie, fewer chips made? I imagine the cost of a mobile CPU would go down, but how much is something only AMD-plus-a-crystal-ball could project. Is it necessary though? What I mean is, you can buy a board that uses a Mobile Pentium-M, so if you haven't, who is to blame? If someone else doesn't, who is to blame? The option is there and if it doesn't sell very well, that alone is a good reason why there won't be further offerings, or the opposite, more products to follow this growing market segment. Keep in mind that the difference in power usage on a desktop between a mobile CPU and an Athlon64 desktop CPU is not that much, as the desktop CPU is put in HALT-Idle state by modern OS such as Windows or Linux so if there's a dozen watts difference it is within context of a system using over 100W. It'd be a bit different if one cut total power consumption by 30% or more but the mobile CPU will not do that much good... more difference will come from switching to LCD monitor from CRT than whether CPU is a mobile version. My question was not whether to get by on older or mobile cpus but more of why aren't manufacturers focused on making mobile cpus instead of desktop cpus. Because they don't preceive there is enough of a market for them. What would make them perceive otherwise is shortages, if orders were going unfilled. So, why not is because they're not being bought. Since mobiles are more efficient and greener than desktop cpus. I think nospam (Paul) has the right idea which is they've invested research in desktop cpu m/bs but not yet mobile cpu m/bs. It should not be a difficult thing to make a mobile desktop board, but there has to be the perception that the market would buy sufficient quantity. That's a gamble... are you willing to finance that gamble? It's a hard thing to predict new trends. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Q: Why don't desktops us mobile cpus?
"ISOHaven" wrote in message ... I think a direct answer to your question is: The reason they don't make very many mobile CPUs for desktops is because there is NO MARKET for it. Take a look around, is anyone else asking this question? No. Mobile CPUs are designed to be mobile. Not stationary. I just read through this entire post and I still don't even know why you care? Why are you doing this? What is your point? I heard some talk about computer companies needing to be more green. What the heck is that crap all about? Noise? I seriously doubt computer noise is affecting the environment. Heat? I think the other equipment in your house generate more heat, not sure what the point is here. Power, well, see below. Um hello?!!!! 'Displosal' is a huge problem. Out of sight out of mind eh? Buying a mobile cpu versus a cheap P4 is not going to change your bank account very much and it's NOT going to change your electric bill either. If you are doing this just because "you want to" then your first answer by Paul was the end of this convo. If all you need to do is "surf AOL/MSN, email, print pictures, balance the checkbook, maybe play music and video" then go buy yourself a $300 Linspire machine and REALLY save yourself some money. Seems like you're splitting hairs here for no good reason. "jaster" wrote in message m... On Tue, 20 Dec 2005 08:00:20 +0000, kony thoughtfully wrote: On Tue, 20 Dec 2005 02:45:18 GMT, jaster wrote: I know the motherboards are different but is there a reason why desktop computer aren't built to use mobile cpus? Because mobile CPUs are usually optimized for low power consumption, not performance. It matters far more when one needs it to run off a battery. Exactly why cpu and motherboard manufacturers should consider mobile cpus. If we're only considering green-ideals, then we can't very well focus on only a CPU, would have to consider why people drive big SUVs, or buy large TVs, etc, etc, etc. They don't because they don't anticipate the effects to matter in their lifetime. Not really reverent to discussion because most people buy complete PCs not just the components. Like buying a car you simply make sure the car engine is adequate for your needs but you don't buy a GM engines for a Volkswagon cars. I assume desktop and mobile are about the same performance for the average user, Then you'd be assuming wrong. Pentium - M is an unexpectedly good performer but this has a lot to do with perspective too, as P4 isn't nearly as good as Intel would have you believe if you start benching it on the older/typical applications everyone's running, not the new high-end professional stuff optimized for a P4. mobile cpus are capable enough to run 99% of the games available, "Capable" is rather arbitrary... The slowest desktop CPU of any (then current) generation is also fairly capable of runing games, and yet that's not usually what people would prefer for gaming. That's my point. Joe and Jane Average use a home/office PC good enough to surf AOL/MSN, email, print pictures, balance the checkbook, maybe play music and video. Upgrades come when Joe or Jane needs to run some software that won't work on the current system or the HD fills up. and mobile cpus run cooler and more efficient than desktop cpus. Yes, but don't forget "more expensive". I would buy a Pentium-M system before a P4, but remember that for desktop usage, most people don't need anything new, their fairly low requirements would run fine on their current system- if only that system keeps running. If it breaks they'll tend to want the cheapest thing that gets them a system that works, and that isn't usually one with a mobile CPU in it. They prefer lower cost over power savings, or simply buy OEM, when an OEM will also prefer cost savings, especially since that OEM is not paying the power bill to run the system. OEMs have the same issue as Joe and Jane Average. There are few motherboards using mobile (OEM) cpus, so they use regular motherboards with desktop chips. I'm not talking about bleeding edge computing but about the average user happy running XP home on anything from 1-2.4mhz cpu. Wouldn't a Centrino or Turino work ? Could I pop an AMD64 Turino into a desktop motherboard? Yes, it would work. It'd still be more expensive, including a specialty motherboard that costs more per unit due to selling in lower volume. Truth is, after all is said and done the cost to an OEM between one CPU and another is less than all the other expenses, to get an otherwise same system with a mobile CPU at same price, the system would be FAR slower. Yes currently looks like 17% more than an AMD desktop cpu of the same speed but is that because of manufacturing quantity, ie, fewer chips made? Even so, if one doesnt' need the performance why would they get a mobile CPU at all instead of a Via CPU? Much cheaper, it suits the requirement but the technically uninclined will end up deferring to some techno-whiz that suggests the highest performance instead. In summary, if one is only doing basic things on their system, the question is not "why not a mobile CPU", it's "why buy anything at all, instead of continuing to use their current system"... and that is what most do, there are many people with sub-1GHz systems that find them sufficient. My question was not whether to get by on older or mobile cpus but more of why aren't manufacturers focused on making mobile cpus instead of desktop cpus. Since mobiles are more efficient and greener than desktop cpus. I think nospam (Paul) has the right idea which is they've invested research in desktop cpu m/bs but not yet mobile cpu m/bs. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Tuning NF7-S and Athlon Mobile 2600+ for images and audio / low energy use | [email protected] | Overclocking AMD Processors | 7 | March 22nd 05 04:24 PM |
Mobile desktops? | Veritech | Overclocking | 2 | February 7th 05 10:04 PM |
Gigabyte GA-8IDML with mobile CPU? | Cuzman | Overclocking | 1 | December 8th 04 08:20 PM |
AMD MObile CPUs? | Krell | Overclocking | 3 | April 12th 04 03:56 PM |
Different mobile processors??? | Henry | Intel | 7 | September 16th 03 12:48 AM |