1.10 gHz processor -vs- 3.2 gHz processors
 

Riddle me this: I know bigger is better when it comes to video editing. So, can sombody explain to me why a Sony Vaio laptop computer with a 1.10 gHz goes for over 2K and an HP with 3.2 gHz is $1,800.00?

What am I missing here? I notice these unreal prices for computers that don't appear to have the power behind them, and then I see very affordable prices for computers that sport 800 mhz frontside busses versus the 512 mhz frontside busses in the more expensive models.

And, is a 1.10 gHz processor with 2 MB of L2 cache better than a 3.2 gHz processor with 1 mb of L2 cache?

What am I missing here? I just cancelled my laptop order because things are suddenly becoming unclear to me.

Any help would be greatly appreciated.

Well, without any other specs its hard to say why the prices vary so much when compared to GHz. Sony makes some super light weight machines that are big in Japan that don't have internal Optical drives and only have 10 inch screens, yet still cost $2000. You might be seeing a price difference for rarity or portability.

You can't compare processors by clock speed unless they are from the same line. Intel has different lines for their processors, so you have to watch out for that too.

Assuming the Sony laptop uses a Pentium-M/Centrino processor (it may be using something else), you can multiply by 50% to get the equivalent Pentium speed. So 1.10ghz (Centrino) is equivalent to about 1.7ghz. This is a dirty little rule of thumb that works fairly well for that particular comparison.

The Centrino may be a much better processor since it consumes less electricity (more battery life, less heat on your lap). For video editing I would probably lean towards laptops with Pentium processors and use them as like a portable desktop / desktop replacement. You won't want them on your lap and they'll need to be plugged in, but they'll be a little faster which counts if you have to render. If you want something you don't plug into a wall then maybe a Centrino-based (or similar) laptop would be better.

2- For Intel processors for laptops, you have a choice between:
Centrino/Pentium-M
Pentium
?Celeron-M (watered down version of Centrino; slower, very similar power consumption)
?Celeron (watered down version of Pentium; slower, very similar power consumption)

Front side bus: There's the 800mhz and 533mhz FSB speeds, but no 512mhz FSB speed. (800mhz and 533mhz are actually four times what they actually are because of marketing-speak... but that shouldn't really concern you)
FSB speed and cache are not linearly related to performance so you need to rely on rules of thumbs (derived from real world benchmarks).

Glenn here knows more about it then me, A LOT MORE, I actually don't know a lot of it, just that I was interested in buying a laptop too, but I am gonna wait some time, they still keep being very expensive in comparison to a regular PC.

But offcourse 'expensive' is a very relative therm, maybe people in the field say that that kind of money is actually fairly less for such a device.

The first thing I notice is that one is a Sony and the other is an HP. Sony can charge more because they have stronger brand recognition. Personally I think Sony has much nicer, user friendly laptops too. Everybody got on this kick of making Laptops the size of small buildings and Sony is one of the few companies that are still making nice petite laptops. There are a few other companies but their offerings are even MORE expensive.
I was casually checking out PC laptops (I have 2 Apple Powerbooks) and was dumbfounded by how enormous they have gotten and how few features they really have. Sony has some very nice machines, but as you've noticed, they charge for it.

I thank you all for your responses. Just when I thought I knew enough to purchase, new questions about power crop up. I was searching for a laptop to run my Vegas proram and DV Rack. But I might just disregard buying the laptop because I have too many unanswered questions. I'm sure somebody more computer savvy would have the answer in a flash were he buying a laptop for himself.

Thank you all again.

I'll bet you could find a decent Sony laptop for running Vegas on. It was DVRack that made me consider looking at PC laptops in the first place but to get what I want in a laptop would be to expensive for just running that one app (and maybe Authorware). I might change my mind in the future.

I really like the Sony FS550 or FS570 but I would want Windows XP Pro instead of the Home Edition. It should be plenty fast for what you need and it's around $1800.

You just need to compare features and capabilities and get what you need.

Screen size, CPU type & speed, cache, RAM & disk storage, USB2 ports, DVD burner speed & types, firewire port(s), external monitor support, network speed, are the main criteria I can think of in a video laptop. Maybe battery capacity too, for those on-site edits.