I agree. It doesn't change the facts. But since there is no proof, we can't really say what the facts are.
We can only assume from what we've seen, and from what we've seen from benchmarks and the like, AMD lags behind in both battery and performance to its Intel counterpart. Nevertheless, AMD is much cheaper than Intel.
Well, at least on a machine level.
(I'd love to be proven wrong, though.)
Lower end chips are just lower clocked/binned versions of those chips. The relationships will still hold at lower end, since they are still the same architectures.Not fair. You are trying to compare chips that cost as much as the laptop itself... things are a little different when you get down to entry level and mobile chips like you find in lower priced laptops.
Don't want to break the party, :P but how do I disable the swap files ? And should I do it with 3gb of RAM ?
I wouldn't recommend it with 3 GB of RAM, but just for reference...
Goto system -> advanced system settings -> settings under performance -> advanced tab -> change under virtual memory.
Untick "automatically manage...".
Select the drive you want to disable the page file on.
Select no paging file, then select.
Repeat for every drive you want to disable page file on, then click OK and close all the dialogs to get out of there.
You're done.
Unless you are really tight on space, and want to reclaim the reserved space, you really shouldn't need to, though.
If you have enough RAM, the swap/pagefile won't be used (much) anyways. It just provides a safety net.
3gb of ram is plenty for a 32 bit OS... but I wouldn't try it with a 64 bit os.
Disabling swap files is pretty easy in windows...
Control Panel -> System -> Advanced System Settings -> Advanced tab -> Performance Settings -> Advanced ->
Virtual Memory -> Change -> uncheck Automatically Manage Memory -> select No Paging File for each drive ->
Ok your way out -> Restart your computer.
Yes it's buried in there pretty deep... and for good reason.
So did you hear how the brand new 8-core AMD Bulldozer at 3.4 gHz got it's ass handed to it by the i7 2500k and i7 2600k which both cost less and run at 3.4 and 3.3 gHz, and has half as many cores as well.
AnandTech - The Bulldozer Review: AMD FX-8150 Tested
You sure you don't wanna revise that statement?
How I need a drink, alcoholic in nature, after the heavy lectures involving quantum mechanics.
You can't compare the number of cores on the bulldozer like that. All the cores in the i7 are full-fledges cores, so to speak. They can all stand on their own.
The bulldozer clusters two cores into one bulldozer core, since the two cores share pipeline and some units such as the FPU. So they cannot stand on their own. It's simply a new architecture that puts more emphasis on the number of logic cores, while putting a little less on things such as the FPU and pipeline.
Btw, the bulldozer reminds me of Vista. An unpolished jewel. Let's hope it can compete better with Intel in the future.
That sounds a lot like hyperthreading to me, except with a little more duplicated stuff.