Hi Mike, I felt I had to say something, as some of the things you say about P4-M's in the "CPU's Ranked By Noise And Heat" article are simply incorrect. For example:The truth is that the P4-M's power ratings are almost identical to the P4 anyway, which is why I didn't bother. They have to be more $ and there's not much advantage, your can underclock most P4s anyway. It seemed like a lot of work to put the thing in there with all the different speeds -- would have been another 3 rows to be added... Convince me otherwise, I listen to reason
This is not true. Intel spec's show that P4-M's will typically put out HALF as much heat, clock-for-clock, as a standard 478-pin P4:P4-M's power ratings are almost identical to the P4 anyway
ftp://download.intel.com/design/mobile/ ... 068607.pdf
ftp://download.intel.com/design/pentium ... 988703.pdf
The thermal specifications are on pages 89 and 79 respectively.
As for the cost advantage, P4M chips are pretty easy to pick up on ebay out of old laptops or on their own:
With an undervoltable motherboard and one of these there is no question that some seriously low power dissipation can be obtained, easily below the threshold where fanless CPU coolers can be used, and they seem to me to be a very advantageous component to have in the quest for truly silent computing.
So, to sum up, I think there are some factual errors in the "CPU's Ranked By Noise And Heat" article which need to be corrected, and also I think P4-M chips deserve more of a mention than they are currently getting, especially here on SPCR.
EDITED BY ADMIN TO EMBED LONG URL LINKS