that's for the older K8-based... the new K10-based CPU are much better in terms of both performance and heat...

a perfect example is Phenom II x4 P920... quad core, 1.6GHz, 25W... Intel's quad core all minimum 45W...

clock for clock, they are still no match, but advantage is that they are heaps cheaper...

multitask, honestly speaking, i think that is a pretty mis-used word...

if by multi-task u mean Internet + MS Office + Adobe Reader + video + music + MSN all at the same time, well, even a Pentium 4 is more than capable of that...

some pretty nice AMD-based laptops:

Compaq CQ42-205AU, AMD Turion II P520 + ATi HD4250@RM1649
Asus A42Dr, AMD Athlon II P320 + ATi HD5470@RM2099
Asus A42Dr, AMD Phenom II N830 + ATi HD5470@RM2599
Dell Inspiron M101z, AMD Athlon II Neo K125 + ATi HD4225@rm1499
Dell Inspirom M301z AMD Athlon II Neo K325 + ATi HD4225@rm1799

to differentiate between K8 and K10, the most obvious way is the CPU name... the K10-based models carries the "II" suffix... for eg Turion II (K10) instead of Turion (k8), Athlon II (K10) instead of Athlon (K8)

also, for the K10-based CPU, the CPU number prefix starts with X, N, P or K, as opposed to M, TK, TL, MV of K8...

that's Hyper Threading Technology, or HTT, for short

basically, HTT makes better use of idle CPU resources so that the CPU can be more efficient... Intel claims up to 30% more performance when HTT is used, while only increasing the die size by 10%...

however, do take note that to make use of HTT, the program needs to be optimized for it, else they wouldn't use the feature at all... afaik, most, if not all, pro apps like Photoshop, AutoCAD are optimized, but not games (except for Resident Evil 5 only) and normal day to day programs like Adobe Reader, etc...

---

Added on September 14, 2010, 7:33 pmwell, put it in AMD's term, "Real man use real cores"...

AMD is never about performance starting from K10, it's about value...

i can get a HP dv6 with Phenom II x4 P920 and HD5650 for only AU$1k (approx. rm3k)... can Intel do the same???

This post has been edited by astria: Sep 14 2010, 07:33 PM

haha, take ur time...

gaming dun need so much cache... 3/4MB is the current sweet spot...

yes, that would make a great CPU for gaming... together with Core 2 Quad, Phenom II x4 is ahead of Core i7 quad in gaming performance... firstly X920 has higher clock speed, and u can overclock it further, and secondly, HTT is bad for games...

Core 2 Quad + GTX 460M...

man, that will be a killer combo...

talk abt that, i really miss Core 2 Quad...

now if only we see Phenom II x4 in the market...

especially from the likes of AW, Asus ROG and Sager... surely they understand that Core i quad core is not good for gaming...

Phenom II x4 Black Edition + Mobility Radeon HD 5800 sounds yummy to me...

This post has been edited by astria: Nov 5 2010, 12:03 PM

generally speaking, 35W CPU idles between 30C-45C, while 45W CPU idles between 40C-55C, depending on the ambient temp...

not that Hyper Threading is really useful in the first place...

basically, clock for clock and core for core, AMD will lose...

AMD excels in price and having a complete platform... it's integrated Radeon graphic is way more useful than Intel GMA...

the way i see it, only pro applications will get optimized...

it's been over a year since Resident Evil 5 is released, what how many more games get HTT optimized? none...

looking from the point of a software engineer, if i am developing a program that is used by the mass general public (think Internet browser, music players, etc), y should i spend more resources on HTT juz to accommodate less than 10% of the market?

oh, and all AMD P CPU are 25W TDP, in case u didn't know...

that includes Phenom II x4 P920/P950, they are also 25W, and they are quad core...

combine that with Radeon graphic, we ve 1 complete solution of performance and battery life...

---

Added on November 17, 2010, 5:55 pmit depends on wat u re looking for...

generally speaking, go for Intel if u want performance, and AMD if u re tight on budget...

sad to say AMD high end laptops are rare in the market... thx to Intel splurging money on marketing...

This post has been edited by astria: Nov 17 2010, 05:55 PM

Intel employs the tick tock strategy, where a "tick" means new architecture and a "tock" means an upgrade of the current architecture... 1 "tick" will only be replaced by a tock after 1 year, and vice versa...

Nehalem (aka current Core i) is a tick announced last year, so Sandy Bridge is a "tock", in very simple term, Sandy Bridge is juz an upgrade of Nehalem, main improvement would be using better technology and thus bring abt lower heat and higher clock speed...

actually my bad, let's put it this way...

Conroe (65nm Core 2) was the first tick... tick being no more Netburst but Core architecture...

then Penryn (45nm Core 2) was the first tock... using 45nm instead of 65nm... lower heat, higher clock

then comes Nehalem "tick" (45nm Core i quad core)... integrated memory controller

and then Westmere "tock" (32nm Core i hex core and dual core)... juz switching to 32nm, nothing more...

so Sandy Bridge will be the next "tick"... ve yet to see wat's the architecture like...

if u ve only 256MB RAM, give u a 6 core CPU also no use...

but if u ve say, 2-4GB RAM, even a Pentium 4 is enuf to handle daily multitasking

depends on ur work...

if u need to deal with Photoshop on a daily basis, u will want 8GB...

for casual users, 2GB is already enuf...

gamers, 4GB...

that's the general guideline... it's really up to u...

depends on the work u do...

games = dual core
work (Photoshop, video editing) = quad core

depends on if u work more or game more...

yup... Intel's quad core are 45W while the dual cores are 35W...

according to users, A42Ja last at most 2.5hr with web browsing and some office works...

4820TG Acer claim up to 8hrs... under normal use u can expect abt 5-6hrs...

it's not that the quad core dun support games, rather the quad cores run significantly slower than the dual cores... u may argue that Intel's TurboBoost can bump up the speed, for eg 740QM, it can run 2.53GHz @ 2 cores, which makes it the same as 460M... but hey, y not juz save the money and get 460M straight? besides, it consumes more power and cannot be used with Nvidia's Optimus or AMD's switchable graphic to save power when in battery mode...