Korean Job Discussion Forums

[skconqueror]

If I visited yongsan, what kinda beast could I get for 300,000. I have a dvd player so I dont need one on the computer. Thanks, just want to know if buying here or there is best.

[jazblanc77]

[Bulsajo]

You have a monitor already? If not then you're going to want a 17" crt to stay within your budget, and since those are heavy and don't travel well you'll be wanting to buy 'here' rather than 'there'...

[BigBlackEquus]

I have to say one thing about the celery in the mobile version.

My laptop has a 1.5 celeron M in it. I almost cringed at buying another computer with a celery in it (got burned 3 years ago with a 1.7 celery desktop that just sucked because it only had 128k of cache!). This little NEC laptop was too darned cheap to pass up, at 550,000 won NEW in Thailand.

So I buy it, expecting I can't do much with it but basic net and word processing. Boy, was I shocked. I can do everything I want on it (I don't play games, and the video is shared, so that's a no) from encoding to video editing, which I never expected.

I have since learned that in the Celeron M chip, the cache is 1 meg. They are the exact same processor as the Pentium chip used in the Centrino packages, but the Centrino chips have a 2 meg cache. Also, the Celeron M has the speedstepping disabled, which means that when your computer sits idle, the Centrino Pentium throttles down just a little more so its speed to save a bit of power. How much power? Only about 2 watts, on average. Again, that is ONLY if it goes into 'deep sleep' mode, and you are not using it.

In fact, there have been reviews online that are now telling people it's about the same price to buy Celeron M 1.6 laptop that is maybe a tad faster clock than a Centrino 1.5, but get an extra battery, because it comes out to be the same price as a Centrino laptop would be. And performance is nearly identical, because both chips are loaded with enough cache that cache performance isn't such an issue as with the old desktop pentium vs. desktop celeron.

If you buy an extra battery with your celery, you have a lot more battery time than a Pentium Centrino does total. Basically, they are saying that it's not worth it to spring for a Centrino if you are on a budget and going for a lower-end machine. The 'big power saving' feature is rarely an issue, and other than that and the cache size, the chips are exactly identical.

Again, I'm talking laptops here. Here is a good explanation from computer.net article, which I had to copy and paste here because the only way I could get to it was Google Cache. Keep in mind that Celeron Ms now have a total of 1 meg of cache, which further takes the cache issue out of the speed equation when comparing processors. :




Many people are thinking that centrino is the way to go, and celerons are the cheap version of pentiums, but what defines "cheap"? In prices, yes, in performance, no, and in hardware, absolutely not.

There are only two differences in the two processors, both through the usage of its identical hardware, the L2 cache and the speedstep unit.

Performance is almost identical at equal clock speeds, and so if I were to get a celeron m at a higher clock speed than a centrino, then the celeron would be just as good as the centrino, yet, at a lower price.

This is because L2 cache is short for Level 2 cache, cache memory that is external to the microprocessor. L2 cache memory, also called the secondary cache, resides on a separate chip from the microprocessor chip. Pentiums have between 256kb to 512kb, while Celeron M's also have 512kb cache, making its performance equal in that sense.

When compared to a Pentium M, though, it does have less L2 cache, or I should say "uses" less cache, because its hardware is exactly identical. Just that half of its cache and its speedstep unit is not functional.

The speedstep unit is where the main difference is, its a hardware that allows for deeper sleep, when the processor is not being used. But how often is that? not very; more often than not, youve got music playing or some program running, which means you wont be utilizing the centrino's "special" speedstep unit, that which the celeron m, sadly, does not have.

This second difference in centrinos is that it has a functional speedstep unit, that celerons cant use, that allows centrinos to go to one level lower of sleep, which is called "deeper sleep" than the celerons.

The processing done by celeron vs centrino at each level of sleep is identical. The voltage used by celeron vs centrino at each level of sleep is only fractions of a watt difference, the thing that people pride over their centrino, is the "deeper sleep" which it can accomplish, and at that stage it uses only about .6 watts, again, how likely will your computer be able to go to deeper sleep? Even if it gets near it and reaches just "deep sleep" the celeron uses only about 7 watts while the centrino uses about 5 watts, 2 watts difference for more of your cash? Not very smart.

So if we look at the performance, pretty much identical. If you do want to play high res games, get a stronger graphics card; if you want to do high end apps, get an apple, haha. If we look at the "batery saving" yea, couple watts, and if you dont plan on just looking at your comp and not using it, then the speedstep unit, is useless; the difference then, in battery saving power? Few measly watts. So watt' so hard about making the decision, get a celeron, save some money, and get your girlfriend a gift instead!