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?

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

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.

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?

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?

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.

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.

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.

"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.

"Um hello?!!!! 'Displosal' is a huge problem. Out of sight out of mind
eh?"
What the heck does using a mobile CPU versus a cheap P4 have to do with
disposal?

When reading a thread of posts try to stay ON TOPIC or within the SCOPE of
the convo.



"JAD" wrote in message
...

"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.