I think a direct answer to your question is:
The reason they don't make very many mobile CPUs for desktops is because
there is NO MARKET for it. Take a look around, is anyone else asking this
question? No.

Mobile CPUs are designed to be mobile. Not stationary. I just read through
this entire post and I still don't even know why you care? Why are you
doing this? What is your point? I heard some talk about computer companies
needing to be more green. What the heck is that crap all about? Noise? I
seriously doubt computer noise is affecting the environment. Heat? I think
the other equipment in your house generate more heat, not sure what the
point is here. Power, well, see below.

Buying a mobile cpu versus a cheap P4 is not going to change your bank
account very much and it's NOT going to change your electric bill either.

If you are doing this just because "you want to" then your first answer by
Paul was the end of this convo.

If all you need to do is "surf AOL/MSN, email, print pictures, balance the
checkbook, maybe play music and video" then go buy yourself a $300 Linspire
machine and REALLY save yourself some money.

Seems like you're splitting hairs here for no good reason.



"jaster" wrote in message
m...
On Tue, 20 Dec 2005 08:00:20 +0000, kony thoughtfully wrote:

On Tue, 20 Dec 2005 02:45:18 GMT, jaster wrote:

I know the motherboards are different but is there a reason why desktop
computer aren't built to use mobile cpus?

Because mobile CPUs are usually optimized for low power consumption, not
performance. It matters far more when one needs it to run off a
battery.

Exactly why cpu and motherboard manufacturers should consider mobile cpus.

If we're only considering green-ideals, then we can't very well focus on
only a CPU, would have to consider why people drive big SUVs, or buy
large TVs, etc, etc, etc. They don't because they don't anticipate the
effects to matter in their lifetime.

Not really reverent to discussion because most people buy complete PCs not
just the components. Like buying a car you simply make sure the car
engine is adequate for your needs but you don't buy a GM engines for a
Volkswagon cars.


I assume desktop and mobile are about the same performance for the
average user,

Then you'd be assuming wrong. Pentium - M is an unexpectedly good
performer but this has a lot to do with perspective too, as P4 isn't
nearly as good as Intel would have you believe if you start benching it
on the older/typical applications everyone's running, not the new
high-end professional stuff optimized for a P4.

mobile cpus are capable enough to run 99% of the games available,

"Capable" is rather arbitrary... The slowest desktop CPU of any (then
current) generation is also fairly capable of runing games, and yet
that's not usually what people would prefer for gaming.


That's my point. Joe and Jane Average use a home/office PC
good enough to surf AOL/MSN, email, print pictures, balance the checkbook,
maybe play music and video. Upgrades come when Joe or Jane
needs to run some software that won't work on the current system or the HD
fills up.

and mobile cpus run cooler and more efficient than desktop
cpus.

Yes, but don't forget "more expensive". I would buy a Pentium-M system
before a P4, but remember that for desktop usage, most people don't need
anything new, their fairly low requirements would run fine on their
current system- if only that system keeps running. If it breaks they'll
tend to want the cheapest thing that gets them a system that works, and
that isn't usually one with a mobile CPU in it.

They prefer lower cost over power savings, or simply buy OEM, when an
OEM will also prefer cost savings, especially since that OEM is not
paying the power bill to run the system.


OEMs have the same issue as Joe and Jane Average. There are few
motherboards using mobile (OEM) cpus, so they use regular motherboards
with desktop chips.



I'm not talking about bleeding edge computing but about the average user
happy running XP home on anything from 1-2.4mhz cpu. Wouldn't a
Centrino or Turino work ? Could I pop an AMD64 Turino into a desktop
motherboard?

Yes, it would work. It'd still be more expensive, including a specialty
motherboard that costs more per unit due to selling in lower volume.
Truth is, after all is said and done the cost to an OEM between one CPU
and another is less than all the other expenses, to get an otherwise
same system with a mobile CPU at same price, the system would be FAR
slower.

Yes currently looks like 17% more than an AMD desktop cpu of the same
speed but is that because of manufacturing quantity, ie, fewer chips made?


Even so, if one doesnt' need the performance why would they get a mobile
CPU at all instead of a Via CPU? Much cheaper, it suits the requirement
but the technically uninclined will end up deferring to some techno-whiz
that suggests the highest performance instead.

In summary, if one is only doing basic things on their system, the
question is not "why not a mobile CPU", it's "why buy anything at all,
instead of continuing to use their current system"... and that is what
most do, there are many people with sub-1GHz systems that find them
sufficient.

My question was not whether to get by on older or mobile cpus but more
of why aren't manufacturers focused on making mobile cpus instead of
desktop cpus. Since mobiles are more efficient and greener than desktop
cpus. I think nospam (Paul) has the right idea which is they've invested
research in desktop cpu m/bs but not yet mobile cpu m/bs.