I am shopping for a new laptop for the mrs. Likely will be a Dell - she has one now and likes it and we have had little trouble with it.

They have either the AMD or Intel processor configs. How do these compare?

In particular the alternatives would be:

Intel® Core™ 2 Duo T7250 (2.0GHz/800Mhz FSB/2MB cache)

OR


AMD Turion™ 64 X2 Mobile Technology TL-58 (1.9GHz/1MB)

She does pretty standard user tasks - email, web-surfing, music - but is also a heavy PS3/Lightroom user as she is a Photog.

The price difference between the two variations nets to around $100 (intel dearer).

Personally I am an AMD fan. I think that it is great that in a few short years another U.S. company was able to equal and surpass Intel while doing so for less money per equal unit of performance.

If it weren't for AMD offering an equivalent option, Intel's monopoly would have resulted in much higher processor/computer prices today.

Having said that, right now Intel's laptop Core 2 Duo is one hell of a processor. It is equal or faster than the equivalent Turion and generally uses less power -very important in a laptop where battery life and heat are serious issues.

I am surprised that you found only a $100 difference because as a part the Intel processor costs about $200 more than the equivalent AMD.

Generally speaking the AMD will perform a bit better on office apps like Word, Excel, etc. and the Intel will perform better on tasks like processing video, high-end video games, etc.

If you are looking for more-than-adequate speed at a great price go AMD, if you are looking for best possible performance right now - go Intel.

While generally an AMD fan also, pretty much every hardware review site (sorry, too lazy to look them up) ranks laptop processor performance this way, from fastest to slowest:

Intel Core 2 Duo Extreme (Conroe)
Intel Core 2 Duo (Merom)
Intel Core Duo (Yonah)
AMD Athlon 64 X2 T-xx (higher numbers are faster)
Intel Celeron M & AMD Sempron - toss up

In Core 2 Duo, the T series is fastest, followed by the L series and the U series. The U & L series are not used for performance but for low energy use and heat output. In both Intel and AMD series, higher numbers give better performance (and cost more), e.g., Core 2 Duo T7600 will be faster than T5600.

Note, this is laptop only. I still prefer AMD for desktop processors, mostly because of the bang for the buck.

If so, the only figure of merit that deserves consideration is battery life.

Unless a laptop is going to be used a lot for computation-intensive apps as a substitute for a desktop, the only thing that matters is how long it will run before requiring a recharge. It amazes me how users beg for more and more CPU and GPU power, and then are disappointed when the sucker has to be plugged in everywhere they go - as if their supercomputer-with-a-handle didn't devour batteries.

For my portable word processing and email, I use a 386/16 with 1024k that will run all day without recharging - and it has a spare battery pack that can be populated with 8 throwaway AA cells.

If I'm going to be doing Windows application development on the road, then I take the Vaio - and plan on swapping the battery in two hours. P.I.A.

For laptops, Intel all the way.

I not only read every site when making the same recent decision, but actually tested equivalent procesors on the machines I wanted in store. I found no discernable difference WHATSOEVER and actually gave the slight advantage to AMD as it was a bit faster in several applications and processes (including a video editing related program/file) I tested. As the AMD machine offered a lot more bang for the buck, (more like a $400-500 savings I opted for the AMD and am not disappointed

Whilst I agree about battery longevity, how does this affect processor choice in this case? And isn't the Intel supposedly less power hungry and thus allows batteries to last longer.

She doesn't really do all THAT much portable work - it's a 17" laptop - not exactly a road warrior model It's her desktop replacement ( we don't have desktops in the family).

As for applications, the most common use if Photoshop/Lightroom - does that qualify as "computation-intensive apps"?

I am an AMD fan but moved away completely once the Core Duo/Core 2 Duo series came out. They run cooler, are equivalent or faster in performance, and are excellent at balancing power use with performance. It's that power management that's vastly superior to AMD who is quite a bit behind in the laptop stakes at present. As a desktop replacement the AMD should be OK but IMO the Intel is a better choice.

For Photoshop/Lightroom you'll get a much bigger bang for your buck by maxing out the memory.

I don't think it's possible to generalize about brand and power hunger. It varies from one CPU generation to the next. And since I try to buy technology "behind the price curve" (getting last year's model for half the cost of this year's), I'm not very concerned with the latest and greatest processor technology wars.*

In any case, I'd rather have a marginally obsolete AMD that used less power than a brand-new Intel.

(The first CPU chip I owned was a Motorola 6800 that cost me $375 in 1976.)

* This strategy also finesses the "low serial number" syndrome that often afflicts bleeding edge technology.

Bad choice in this case considering the older Core Duo machines are already very cheap and are now 'last gen'. The first Core 2 Duos are getting there. IMO it's about finding a good brand/price/performance balance. It's always easy to pay too much to get a 'value' in old technology. It's much harder to find the best deal on later technology but is possible.

Memory is so cheap now there's no reason NOT to stuff a laptop to it's maximum.

The best deal on later technology always depreciates faster than the best deal on earlier technology.

There is a reason if it's made by Sony. If you max out its RAM, it creates more heat that the machine was designed to dispose of. The solder connections in the SODIMM slots go bad, and you have to repair or replace the sockets. "Bleeding edge."

Totally concur. I use several of Adobe design suites including PS CS3 and LR2. Do max out on main memory (4 GB up preferred), and a large capacity drive with min 7200 RPM (may be hard to find for laptops). Be sure the laptop supports an external flat panel monitor (like a 24").
I will go with AMD (dollar for dollar; given same performance)

Keep in mind that the rotational speed of a hard drive is only one of the determinants of throughput - the aggregate data transfer rate is limited by the speed of the interface and seek time. If interface is slower than the drive, kicking it up to 10,000 RPM won't make anything happen faster.

I get a kick out of people bragging about their 7200RPM laptop drives when I know they're running them through an IDE interface designed for 4200 or 5400.

So i went with Intel given the better reviews, power consumption and performance and only $100 difference. Here are the specs:

Inspiron 1720, Intel Core 2 Duo T7250, 2.0GHz, 800Mhz, 2M L2 Cache
Expresso Brown Color with Microsatin Finish
1GB, DDR2, 667MHz 2 Dimm
Anti-glare, widescreen 17.0 inch display (1440 x 900)
Intel Integrated Graphics Media Accelerator 3100 Inspiron 1720
120G 5400RPM SATA hard drive 5400RPM
Microsoft Windows Vista Home Premium Edition, English
Integrated 10/100 Network Cardand Modem, for Inspiron
24X COMBO CD-RW/DVD
Intel 3945 WLAN (802.11a/g) Mini Card
Integrated 2.0M Pixel Webcam
56 WHr 6-cell Lithium Ion Primary Battery, Inspiron 1720
MS WORKS 8.5
1 Year Limited Warranty
Dell Wirless 355 Bluetooth Mod

$869 + $71.68 tax

So the one thing I am going to buy is more RAM. Does any memory fitting the above description (ie "DDR2, Dual Channel 667MHz 2 SODimm") do/fit or does it need to be specific to Dell. Does it need to have specific number of pins?