[vox-tech] New notebook computer for Linux - AMD or Intel?

[Bill Broadley]

Jim Lowman wrote:
> I've been looking at a couple of HP notebook computers
> on the HP site after severe customization on my part.
> 
> All else being equal, the AMD version has the top CPU,
> the TL-60, while the Intel version has the T7200.

Are they really equal?  Seems like intel laptops often
come with the extremely slow intel built in chipset,
where AMD laptops usually come with something better.

Kinda sad to see machine with killer CPUs (the core/core2
Duo) only to have them end up slower than an old G4 because
of lame graphics.

Many were rather shocked that the frame rates of new
minis on some games are slower than old G4 minis.

> The Intel version has the advantage in L2 cache; 4MB
> vs. 1MB.  Also, it is a Core 2 Duo vs. a dual-core CPU.

Sort of.  Do you plan to use it mainly for 1 CPU job or 2?
Keep in mind the AMD has separate L2 caches and the intel
is shared.

Do you plan to run a 32 bit OS or 64?  In general the intel
is faster in 32 bit mode (than 64) and the AMD is faster
in 64 bit mode (than 32).

> Both have approximately the same HD capacity, and both
> are SATA, but the Intel version runs at 7,200 rpm where
> the AMD version runs at 5,400 rpm.

How are you going to use it?  Mostly a desktop with occasional
portable use?  Mostly portable use?  In general the 5400 rpm drives
are quieter, generate less heat, and take less power (longer
battery life).

So for portable use I'd get the slower... for mostly desktop use I'd
consider the faster.  In general I don't find most desktop/laptop
type usage disk bound under linux, the cache works quite well
assuming you have neough ram.

> [Perhaps I've answered my own question at this point?]
> 
> Both have 2GB of memory and 17" screens.  No doubt the wireless card in 
> either will turn out to be incompatible
> with Linux, but that's the story of my life.

Do they advertise battery life?  The AMD has an onboard memory controller
which in general makes them run a bit cooler than the intel equiv.

> The Intel version costs about $300 more, which is not a
> deal breaker.

In general the intel chip wins most performance benchmarks at
the same clock speed as the amd.  Do they advertise battery life?
Do they have the same graphics?  Got anything else to spend $300
on?

Both sound good, I'd definitely get the 3 year warranty.

> BTW, I'll be dual-booting XP and Linux, but Linux is the
> primary concern.

Is the max ram 2GB?  If not $300 could give the linux box
a big advantage (more ram).