ForumGarden

Need to buy a new laptop, at least dual core but am told that the new intel chips I3. is just as good and the i5 & i7 even better than even quad core. Any advice anyone? I'm inclined to go for as high a spec as I can afford having made the mistake of buying the last laptop not realising it seemed a goof but because the chip was about to be superseded. Still works fine but is not powerful enough for my needs.

Does weight matter? high-end processing is often bulkier.

I reckon, if there are no constraints limiting your choice, that the nicest machine on the market today is the Elite ThinkPad T510 off the Lenovo website at £1,535.73 including VAT.

Intel Core i7-620M Processor (2.66GHz, 4MB L3, 1066MHz FSB)

Genuine Windows 7 Professional 64

15.6" HD Anti-Glare Display with LED Backlight and WWAN Antenna

NVIDIA NVS 3100m Graphics with 512MB DDR3 Memory

4 GB PC3-10600 DDR3 SDRAM 1333MHz SODIMM Memory (1 DIMM)

9 cell 2.8Ah Li-Ion Battery - Dual Mode

But that's solely based on you wanting it to have the processor power combined with me liking the way it feels.

Do you have any other hints? Like carriable or more picture space?

Here is a nice write-up

I want one that is portable - would prefer bigger screen but will settle for 15". I wear specs so a good quality screen is something I think worth paying for - I use a neovo monitor on my desktop because of the optical screen. I would like 3-4gb of ram although 2 will do. Hard Drive size doesn't matter as I use external hard drives as a matter of course. Like everybody else I want to pay as little as possible for as high a spec as possible. Don't know much about video cards I must admit, even less than I know about chips. I'm not a gamer but I need one that can take document scanning and allow me to continue working, sometimes even the dual core grinds to a halt hence my interest. . Can buy a dell in PC world but would prefer not to. Don't know how you get on but in India scottish accents are hard to be understood with.

I was looking at around £600 if i must but preferable less - hence the question as to whether the extra cost is worth it since I can get dual and quad core for less than that.

It's years since I last bought a laptop, if I step back for a few hours maybe you'll be offered personally backed recommendations for that description. The T-series was the best fit I could think of for the requirement you started with but I agree it doesn't match your refinements.

I bought one of these for a grandkid.

AMD dual Core is a good Proc.

I'm a speed freak demand it with my laptop and my PC. Having said that so much is determined by the actual speed of your internet connection for online functions, offline different story. It's all about what you want to pay faster, bigger, better costs more that simple.

LarsMac;1338400 wrote: I bought one of these for a grandkid.

AMD dual Core is a good Proc.


What i am wondering is is it worth paying the extra to get a chip that is supposedly faster than the dual core?

posted by carla

I'm a speed freak demand it with my laptop and my PC. Having said that so much is determined by the actual speed of your internet connection for online functions, offline different story. It's all about what you want to pay faster, bigger, better costs more that simple.


I have high speed broadband so online isn't an issue.

I have a i7 Module, Processor, Lynnfield, I7-860, 2.8, XPS DT

1 TF02D Processor, I7-860, 2.8, 8MB, Lynnfield, 95W, B1

in my desktop, 8gig ram, blah blah blah..!! much faster than dual core in my opinion. Mind you this is the 2nd desktop I have ever purchased I buy them to last at least 7 to 8 years.

I'd adjust that slightly. A dual core with a fast processor speed (say 2.8+GHz) will be faster for most applications than a quad-core with a medium processor speed (say 2GHz) and I'd go for the faster processor speed of those two rather than the additional cores. That's true this year, it might not be true in a few years, more software might run on multiple cores by then.

gmc;1338410 wrote: What i am wondering is is it worth paying the extra to get a chip that is supposedly faster than the dual core?




In the short term (1-3 years) no.

Long-term, who knows?

If the applications are designed to use multi-core technology then 3 years down the road, you will see a lot of benefit from spending that money, now. Maybe.

Then, again, the platform technology will have evolved significantly by that time, so the current Quad core may well be obsolete by then.

Ya pays yer money, and ya takes yer chances.

If you want the latest and greatest, now, get it, but be prepared for it to be obsolete in the next 2 years.

If you don't care about latest and greatest, get what you want to do the job, now, and then save your pennies for the next step in about 3 years.

I usually just buy the cheapest. Most processors are faster than needed anymore. It's hard to actually max them out, unless you are doing a lot of 3d rendering or media processing. There's so much CPU power that's not tapped, it's almost a waste not to run a client like "folding at home" to make some use of it all. I'd bulk up on memory before going for a faster chip. Memory swaps are what will kill the speed more than anything.

yaaarrrgg;1338424 wrote: I usually just buy the cheapest. Most processors are faster than needed anymore. It's hard to actually max them out, unless you are doing a lot of 3d rendering or media processing. There's so much CPU power that's not tapped, it's almost a waste not to run a client like "folding at home" to make some use of it all. I'd bulk up on memory before going for a faster chip. Memory swaps are what will kill the speed more than anything.


Absolutely. And memory is cheap, now.

My desktop has 2gb of ram and a dual core chip, my understanding is that the two cores allow multitasking but with some apps i still have to wait till it's finished loading before I can do anything else. My security suite (provided by the is provider) takes ages to load and everyth8ng else slows right down, running a virus scan will stall some applications if |I try and do both together.

So maybe dual core and 4gb of ram might be the answer to getting a good compromise between performance and cost. I3 and dual core seem to be about the same price and there seem to be a lot of quad core knocking about for not much more.

posted by larsmac

If you want the latest and greatest, now, get it, but be prepared for it to be obsolete in the next 2 years.

If you don't care about latest and greatest, get what you want to do the job, now, and then save your pennies for the next step in about 3 years.


I suspect that might be the best approach. The laptop I have is about seven years old it became obsolete surprisingly fast. It still does for letters etc but it's like watching paint dry waiting for it to do things compared to the desktop. It's just not usefully practical any more and I could do with one that will take the place of the desktop in case that fails on me - just had a new power source installed, they seem to just fail utterly at some point. . Goes against the grain to replace something that still works. Thanks for the help.

Virus scanners can suck the life out of a machine. I had a Windows XP laptop (for work) with Microsoft Forefront installed. The virus scanner lost it's mind and thought it was a virus itself, I think, since it acted like it was chasing it's own tail. The cpu would go up to 100%, and the machine would thrash to the point of being completely unusable.

If a virus scanner is acting weird, maybe it does have a virus. Just having a scanner won't tell you if it's clean, since the scanner can only detect what it knows is a virus (from a finite list of known exploits). Some viruses won't be on the list. Others are specifically designed to screw with particular virus scanners as well.

I suspect wiping and reinstalling the OS, without that particular virus scanner, would bring it back to original working condition. There's a couple free virus scanners that are decent. But that's a lot of work to reinstall everything.

Unfortunately, often it is the case that since Microsoft doesn't do a good job securing their OS, they get rewarded for doing a bad job. Since many people will see a slow machine and naturally think it's a hardware problem, not an OS problem. Or not want to go through the trouble of reinstalling everything. Most of Microsoft's money comes from OEM sales.

yaaarrrgg;1338474 wrote: Virus scanners can suck the life out of a machine. I had a Windows XP laptop (for work) with Microsoft Forefront installed. The virus scanner lost it's mind and thought it was a virus itself, I think, since it acted like it was chasing it's own tail. The cpu would go up to 100%, and the machine would thrash to the point of being completely unusable.

If a virus scanner is acting weird, maybe it does have a virus. Just having a scanner won't tell you if it's clean, since the scanner can only detect what it knows is a virus (from a finite list of known exploits). Some viruses won't be on the list. Others are specifically designed to screw with particular virus scanners as well.

I suspect wiping and reinstalling the OS, without that particular virus scanner, would bring it back to original working condition. There's a couple free virus scanners that are decent. But that's a lot of work to reinstall everything.

Unfortunately, often it is the case that since Microsoft doesn't do a good job securing their OS, they get rewarded for doing a bad job. Since many people will see a slow machine and naturally think it's a hardware problem, not an OS problem. Or not want to go through the trouble of reinstalling everything. Most of Microsoft's money comes from OEM sales.


It has picked up viruses that are quarantined in a e-mail archive somewhere. I've just left it since I can't work out exactly what file they are in. I don't want to go to the length of re-installing everything unless i really have to - if it's not actually broke don't fix it is my philosophy. Were it not for work requirements I would use one of the linux packages in preference, I use open source whenever I can anyway as a matter of principle. The security software is part of my broadband package - a free add on that seems pretty good.

I scan everything, the actual scanning process isn't a hinderence but when it is converting to pdf and saving a large document I have to wait for it to finish. May not sound much to bother about but when you use it a lot it gets irritating - that's why I got dual core in the first place so I could multi-task. My previous computer could take up to 20 minutes or so with one document. There are times when I have a dozen or more files in use. Afraid my interest in computers and computer technology wanes after I have worked out what I need to get it doing what I want that's why I was asking you guys. I suppose I'll have to get windows 7 which at least seems better than vista.

Is it correct that the 3, 5, 7 stand for the number of cores on a single chip? In which case it makes sense it would be faster than a dual core. What are the amd equivalents? anyone know?

gmc;1338565 wrote: Is it correct that the 3, 5, 7 stand for the number of cores on a single chip? In which case it makes sense it would be faster than a dual core. What are the amd equivalents? anyone know?


No,

i3 and i5 both have two physical cores. i7 has four physical cores.

Read report I linked to in my first post here. Lot's of good techy stuff.

Yeah, as far as I know, cores are always in even numbers.

AMD Phenom II is the series that best compares to i7

Another LINK

yaaarrrgg;1338587 wrote: Yeah, as far as I know, cores are always in even numbers.


unless there is one.

nyuck, nyuck.

LarsMac;1338712 wrote: unless there is one.

nyuck, nyuck.


Took me five minutes but I finally got that. I spent four minutes fifty eight seconds trying to work out what nyuck nyuck stood for:-5 you know how americans love to speak acronym and never call a spade a spade when you can call it a utility digging tool. :sneaky:

I did read your links. When it comes right down to it I know less about computers than you would think but I know more than some of the staff in PC world. I may be being unreasonable but if you ask a member of staff in a shop selling computers what the difference is between i3 and i5 compared with dual core they should know the answer.

The amd one looks good as well,they seem cheaper than the ones with intel inside. If I can get a high spec one without things I don't need like Microsoft windows that seems to bring the price down as well. I prefer to buy from a shop than over the internet.

Found a review written in english

Intel Core i3, i5, i7 laptop CPUs explained: i-Caramba | Crave | CNET UK

I'm ashamed to admit the tech stuff goes whistling straight through my brain.

Good stuff there.

Bottom line, for what you want to do, the lower cost CPU, with the savings being put into memory and disk size will serve you well, IMHO.

AMD Phenom II and 4 (perhaps even 8) GB of memory will give you the performance you need, better than an i7 and 2 GB memory. Assuming, of course you go with a newer OS, that can manage more than 3 GB of memory.

LarsMac;1338753 wrote: Good stuff there.

Bottom line, for what you want to do, the lower cost CPU, with the savings being put into memory and disk size will serve you well, IMHO.

AMD Phenom II and 4 (perhaps even 8) GB of memory will give you the performance you need, better than an i7 and 2 GB memory. Assuming, of course you go with a newer OS, that can manage more than 3 GB of memory.


Thanks very much for your help, I take it you realised i meant microsoft office not microsoft windows. The amd ones seem to be cheaper and so long as they both do the same I don't care what it's called. I've also discovered asking is the amd phenom the equivalent to intel 13 and i5 freaks out the sales people as well. Why can't they say they don't know and find out for you rather than bullshit? The thing is based on their advice youwould end up with a laptop that is obsolete already. that's what happened the last time my wife bought one but she was too nice to go back and complain about it.

I'm still following the thread. I still really really like that Thinkpad, too.

Come on chaps, cut to the chase. Link to a few models, preferably in sterling.

gmc;1338765 wrote: The thing is based on their advice youwould end up with a laptop that is obsolete already. that's what happened the last time my wife bought one but she was too nice to go back and complain about it.


Make your mind up online, regardless of where you end up buying it from. And yes, the sales staff have ulterior motives in shifting one line or another and it's not your well-being, it's quite likely their commission or at least doing what their manager tells them to do. Besides, I've never in my life spoken to any retail computer seller who wasn't backward to the point of drooling.

spot;1338766 wrote: I'm still following the thread. I still really really like that Thinkpad, too.

Come on chaps, cut to the chase. Link to a few models, preferably in sterling.


As you wish

Laptops from PC World - Get Laptops online here

All comment gratefully received.

spot;1338766 wrote: I'm still following the thread. I still really really like that Thinkpad, too.

Come on chaps, cut to the chase. Link to a few models, preferably in sterling.


Lenovo makes some good laptops. I work with a lot of IBM guys, who use the ThinkPads.

My company originally used TP's but went to Dell and HP a few years ago.

gmc;1338767 wrote: As you wish

Laptops from PC World - Get Laptops online here

All comment gratefully received.


Simple - no choice whatever, only one model fits. Go grab it before they sell out.

ADVENT Sienna 700 at cheap prices | PC World



Intel® Core™ i7-620M Processor - 2.66 GHz

Windows® 7 Home Premium

RAM - 4 GB - DDR3 RAM

Integrated graphics processor

1366 x 768 pixels

£600.

Just to play the "devil's advocate"

Laptops, Desktops, iPads, Printers, Gaming and more here at PC World

Toshiba Laptop:

AMD Athlon™ QL-65 (2.1 GHz),

Genuine Windows® 7 Home Premium,

4 GB memory,

Hard drive: 320 Gb,

DVD-RW rewriter,

Silver shell, 15.6 Widescreen

Main diff in price seems to be the Proc

Though the Tosh also comes with ATI Radeon Graphics card, rather than the integrated graphics.

There's these ones as well

Laptops, PCs and Laptops - Plus FREE McAfee Internet Security Software, Technology - Staples

My budget is a bit tighter than I would like at the moment, sadly I have had to buy a new car this month having sent my old one off to the great scrapyard up the road. I normally keep cars till they are almost falling apart but slipped up and it did actually fall apart on me. While I like cars, enjoy driving and like thinking about buying one when it really comes down to it I don't actually want to spend the money on it but can't do without a car . Needs must the laptop can wait a few weeks.

It's coming up to christmas so there should be a few good ones around soon anyway. The advent appeals, I was looking at it in store. I appreciate the help, if you're not really dealing with these things constantly it does get a bit confusing sussing out what is what.

Christmas is a great time to get deals you are wise to wait you will get more for your money.

It's coming up to christmas so there should be a few good ones around soon anyway. The advent appeals, I was looking at it in store. I appreciate the help, if you're not really dealing with these things constantly it does get a bit confusing sussing out what is what.

I think thats right because it will most likely be a lean x-mas and manufacturers will be discounting the merchandise to stores. What car did you buy, gmc?

Ahso!;1338827 wrote: I think thats right because it will most likely be a lean x-mas and manufacturers will be discounting the merchandise to stores. What car did you buy, gmc?


A Toyota Aygo. After due consideration I decided the cost of running a subaru imprezza could not be justified as a work expense - tempting as it was. Second hand they seem good buys but not at £1.16 a litre for petrol and 25mpg around town.

You didn't consider a drop-head pushbike?

GMC - get rid of the PC and get a MAC! They totally rock and they don't get viruses. Way easier and faster to use too.

Saint_;1338934 wrote: GMC - get rid of the PC and get a MAC! They totally rock and they don't get viruses. Way easier and faster to use too.


MacBook - Apple Store (UK) is the cheapest basic Mac laptop I can find and it's £850.

I agree but they cost a bundle doesn't matter how or when you buy one they are expensive and Office for MAC isn't the same and cost a ton of money to buy software for MAC'S. They are a beautiful piece of equipment but the startup cost are over the top if you want it to serve as your prime piece of equipment you will pay $$$$$$... !!

GMC - get rid of the PC and get a MAC! They totally rock and they don't get viruses. Way easier and faster to use too.

spot;1338877 wrote: You didn't consider a drop-head pushbike?


I have two mountain bikes and am seriously tempted to treat myself to a hybrid and take up touring again, as a compromise I have a couple of cross scotland mountain bike routes planned out for next year using the network of military roads. I might still get the hybrid but I don't need one, sadly a car is a necessity.

posted by saint

GMC - get rid of the PC and get a MAC! They totally rock and they don't get viruses. Way easier and faster to use too.


Not practical for work software which has to be the deciding factor. Otherwise I would be using one of the linux distributions.

50+ to the gallon round town and £20 a year road tax -the kind of car that says this is not a fashion statement.