AMD Turion 64 x2 versus Intel Core Duo

I was curious as to everyones opinion or the facts on which is better between the two processors (mentioned in thread title).

 

Currently Yonah has better battery life and better performance. It depends on whether you need 64 bit capability. Very few do. Also I believe the AMD solution in cheaper; at least slightly.

 

Both processors are plenty powerful. I would not choose a notebook on which processor it contained. The most important performance aspect of a laptop is the graphics card, and I would recomend getting the most powerful possible in size laptop you want.

 

They are about the same. Intel has better battery life in most laptops though. Most Intel Core Duo laptop are compatible with the new Intel Core 2 Duo which just kicks the s*it out of the AMD Turion X2.
I'm happy with my AMD TL-52 though

 

because a high end GPU can significantly raise the price of a notebook, i would only recommended doing this if you need it; i.e., you're a heavy gamer or use 3D based apps (3d animation/modeling, etc.). if you only want to surf, chat and watch dvds, an integrated GPU is a perfectly good solution; it's cheaper, runs cooler and gives you better battery life.

an expensive high end GPU is not for everybody.

 

Core Duo will have noticable better battery life only if you choose 950GM. Nivida or ATI GPU will do the same on both AMD X2 and Intel Core Duo.

Nvidia report better TDP compare to ATI over the edge, not much.

 

If you have to choose between core duo and amd turion x2, pick the core duo. It's better in every possible way.

 

And if you get a notebook with a low-end GPU, the ATI and nVidia shared memory GPUs that AMD notebooks come with are a LOT better than the Intel GPUs Intel notebooks usually come with. Ideally you'll get a dedicated memory GPU but that isn't always an option.

64-bit capability is good for future-proofing and AMD's implementation is better than Intel's. If you upgrade notebooks annually it's not likely to be too big a deal, especially since Vista keeps getting delayed, otherwise it's a good idea.

 

Hi,
a little disappointed abt not hearing good things abt AMD Turion X2. I have been waiting for notebooks to arrive with dual core-64bit procs. Wanting to buy HP dv6000(AMD Turion X2, NVIDIA 256MB Go 7200). Things like heat, battery life, weight etc. dont concern me much. The only thing I was hoping for is good(not excellent!...just good will do) processor performance from Turion X2 in its category. My main usage wud be mild gaming and 3d packages besides everyday computing and browsing. Is the Turion X2's performance really too dismal to put off the purchase plan. The only reason i am not interested in intel dual core is bcuz it isnt 64bit. Dont think I can afford a new notebook every year, and with Vista on the horizon I would like a dual core 64bit proc(Maybe with Vista the Turion X2 turns out to be a winner...u think?). Also how wud the Go 7200 fare with 3d games?

I know, this isnt a "What notebook should i buy?" thread, but since we are talking abt Turion X2 I thoght I might ask here.

Thanx
Manditri

 

As long as you get one of the Turion X2 processors with 2x 512k cache, you should be alright. However, the Core Duo is a superior processor overall, and you will have a lot more options to choose from. The Go7200 is much better than an integrated card, but still rather poor for gaming. You'll want an X1400/Go7400 for modern gaming purposes. The HP dv5000t or Dell E1505 are good ~$1,000 choices.

 

Hey Chaz...
dont have expert knowledge of videocards...at home i have a simle desktop with 5200FX 128 MB video card. Is the Go 7200 better than that?... That way i have a comparitive info bcuz i do most of my gaming(mild...remember ) on it. From Prince of Persia to Half Life 2 and Quake 4, I play everything on it...ofcourse with a few visual niceties turned off

Thanx

 

Chaz, I'm confused.
Why nVidia 7300 Go that is worst than the ATI X1400, it's more expensive.
Did nVidia make a commercial thing, that's weird.

If you like to customize your Dell e1505, dell web site shows nVidia 7300 Go much more expensive than ATI x1400 but like everybody knows ATI X1400 it's better, so, why the other card it's more expensive...........

 

Really? Do you have support for this?

I thought the Core Duo was the more efficient processor, period. Isn't the GPU a separate question?

Chris

 

People report very close battery life X2+6150 vs. Core Duo+ 7200. But 950GM seems lasting at least 30 mins longer.

 

The GeForce FX is quite poor as far as performance goes in modern games, and even last-gen games. The Go7200 is better, yes, and by a noticable amount. I still would go for a Go7400 or X1400; they will be able to run games at considerably better settings. And thinking of the future, it's better to get a slightly faster card than you need so you have the ability to play more demanding games in the future (today's low-end may not cut it).

I do not know why Dell charges more for the Nvidia card, perhaps they're more expensive to get, or perhaps Dell is trying to make an extra dime. Either way, skip it and get the X1400 - more power for the money.

Remember that the processor isn't the only thing in the system that determines battery life - the main factors include
-Size/Capacity of battery
-Screen size
The chipset also affects battery life to a lesser extent; I don't know whether the Radeon Xpress 200M, 1100/1150, Nvidia Go6150, or Intel 945 has better battery life; it's very hard to compare - hard because each system with them is going to have different components. Too many variables. The Intel chipset probably has the lowest power consumption though.

 

Will the geforce 7200 consumes a lot more power than the 6150? Or in the same load, they both use the same amount of energy, and the 7200 just can do some heavier thing that 6150 cannot?

 

A bit of both. The Go7200 will consume more power than the Go6150 because it has its own RAM, and also a faster processor.
Now, whether or not a game that cannot be played on the Go6150 can be played on the Go7200, I don't know - hard to say. If a game is absolutely unplayable on the Go6150, then it might be just playable on the Go7200. Like I said, hard to tell.

I would advise against any shared-memory video card if you want to game.

 

Just gaming a little bit, like Jedi Knight Old Republic, FreeLancer, Empire 3 v.v.
Is 6150 ok with this?

 

As long as the requirements are modest and they are older games, then it will probably be fine, but not ideal. I'd try to at least get a dedicated card.

 

Actually, on the Latin American site, the Go is cheaper to get than the x1400 by $70 bucks.

 

I'm not sure I understand everyone's concern with 64-bit computing... In the x86 space, the only thing that 64bit will buy you is additional memory addressing space - 2^32 vs 2^64. Any 32bit OS will allow you to address 4294967296 bits which equates to roughly 3.6GB. How many laptops will you have more that 3.6GB of memory? If you're talking outside x86 space, in the midrange/Unix world then 64bit CPUs always provide you more floating point operation computing than 32. Trust me, you aren't concerned with floating point for a laptop unless you writing code to calculate hundreds of places right of the decimal point in your figures. If you're doing that, forget all this and go buy a desktop from Sun or HP Integrity class and call it a day.

 

ok, I know this is an old thread..
but if you don't play games, a graphic card isn't that important? Or do you still need a good one for watching films?

 

No, current IGP will play movies including HD. Kind of funny how wrong all those people were a year ago "Core Duo beats Turion in every way" Not! Sure if two of the most basic benches of a CPU don't matter then OK. Clock for clock Turion beats core duo in MIPS and MFLOPS. In MFLOPS by about 12% and it is 64 bit. Also the 1600Mhz FSB is a nice bonus with the RAM.

 

This is an old thread and is now completely off-topic so it is closed. Please search the forums and I am sure you will find your answer. Use the site search box in the top right corner.