AMD turion 64x2 or intel?

[Helenp1983]

Hi,

We have brought a couple of core duo's(1.83ghz) laptops that are slow straight out on the box(whilst i configure and install our software)-slow to boot, slow to browse the network, slow in excel. THey have 1 GB ram.

they feel like they need a reinstall and aren't an imporvement on a P4 centrino

Anyway i need a new laptop for me,

Core duo 2 is much better, seems fine- yet to see what it can really do.

But we have a budget, my team are getting core duo 2 but they don't mind the weight of these laptops

I need a light one so will i notcie the differnce between the AMD turion 64x2(cheaper so can have a light laptop) and a core duo 2?

or should i go with a PM4 and lots of ram?(can't afford a core duo 2)

I don't use excel much like my users, but my firewall software crashes on my current P4 2.80ghz.

 

[wahnula]

Avoid the Mobile Pentium 4...it is NOT the same as the Pentium M, a fabulous processor. The Pentium M is the "700" class of processor at Intel, who are trying to confuse people with their folderol nomenclature.

A Pentium M (any, new or old) would be preferable (to me) to a Turion dual-core...I own a 1.6 Pentium M and it is faster than my P4 2.53. Don't be fooled by the low clock speed...the Pentium M (the basis for Conroe) kicks butt. All Core CPUs are good, Core 2 duo

If I were choosing a new notebook I would definitely go with Intel, but avoid the P4. Here's a comparison sheet:

http://indigo.intel.com/compare_cpu/default.aspx?familyid=2&culture=en-US

Tony

 

[wahnula]

Sorry, posted incomplete. I would recommend the 65nm processors and would like to know the exact model # of the current, slow laptop procs you bought. It just should not be that slow if it's a 1.83 Pentium M-based dual core. Thanks

Tony

 

[cdogg]

Helenp1983,
I know you're going to hate to hear this, but your assessment of the core duo is not based only on the processor's performance. There are a ton of other factors involved - pre-installed applications, housing & cooling design of the laptop manufacturer, BIOS efficiency working with I/O and the CPU, etc...

It is quite possible that the laptop brand or model is to blame. A laptop, however, is one lump of integrated components to serve the purpose of saving space. When a new CPU or chipset is released, it sometimes takes the manufacturer several models to get it working right with other tightly integrated devices. Also just like name-brand desktop PC's, manufacturers often pile on a ton of applications/utilities you'll never need or use but are sucking up CPU and memory nevertheless.

The best test for you is to format the hard drive and install a clean copy of XP. Don't install any 3rd-party software just yet. You will be flat-out amazed at the difference in overall speed. Only install what you need and the end result should still have more noticeable zip compared to what you started with. Even if you want to keep what came installed, you should do this anyway. You can always go back using the Restore Disc they gave you.


The Pentium M and the newer Core Duos for laptops directly descended from the highly efficient Pentium III. Very little of these mobile CPUs resemble a P4. A 1.6GHz Pentium M can outperform a 2.6GHz desktop P4 easily. A 1.8GHz Core Duo outperforms a 3.0GHz Pentium D barely lifting a finger. The best part is that they run much cooler being clocked at a lower frequency and suck less power leading to longer battery life.

AMD is getting closer with the Turion, but it still has problems fending off the Pentium M (a.k.a. Centrino). The Core Duos are in a league of their own right now. You can rest assured that you're first impression was not the fault of Intel. And don't confuse the name "Core 2 Duo". That's the name given to the desktop version.

~cdogg
"Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." - Albert Einstein
[tab][navy]For general rules and guidelines to get better answers, click here:[/navy] faq219-2884

 

[Nelviticus]

And don't confuse the name "Core 2 Duo". That's the name given to the desktop version.

Just to add to the confusion: there are now mobile versions of the Core 2 Duo as well - see this Intel page:

http://indigo.intel.com/compare_cpu/default.aspx?familyid=2&culture=en-US

Helen, there is no reason why a Core 2 Duo-based laptop will be any heavier than a Turion-based one. Processors weigh next to nothing and the Core 2 Duo requires very little cooling. If you go for one of the low-end ones it probably won't be expensive either.

Having said that, if your existing Core laptops are performing as badly as you say there is something amiss. The Core processor (as opposed to Core 2) is still a new range - less than a year old - and should be out-performing your P4. See cdogg's suggestion, but you need to look into why they're so slow.

Regards

Nelviticus

 

[cdogg]

Just found this link on Wikipedia as well:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_Core_2

Apparently, they did release a mobile version of the Core 2. Sorry for the confusion. That link should explain some of the differences in more detail.

~cdogg
"Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." - Albert Einstein
[tab][navy]For general rules and guidelines to get better answers, click here:[/navy] faq219-2884

 

[Ploper001]

Well all this confusion makes me glad I've never bought an Intel CPU

So far I've bought:

AMD 486 100MHz (1996)
AMD Athlon K7 Thunderbird 700MHz (1998)
AMD Athlon K7 Thunderbird 1200MHz (2000)
AMD AthlonXP Thoroughbred 2000+ (2002)
AMD AthlonXP Barton 3200+ (2003, not for me)
AMD Athlon64 Venice 3200+ (2005, not for me)
Intel Centrino Duo (T2300) @ 1.67GHz per core (2006, Dell laptop, not bought by me)

I just love AMD lol

 

[cdogg]

Well, to be fair about it, AMD has had its share of the "confusion" pie over the years. When they transitioned to the performance rating, it was confusing to a lot of people that weren't computer savvy. In addition, it wasn't always accurate (though most of the time it was a conservative rating). And then there was the transition to the Barton AthlonXP's that ran at a slower speed than the Thoroughbreds with the same rating, but because of the additional cache and faster FSB, the rating didn't work the same way.

Intel then inherited the criticism when they switched to model numbers (600, 700, etc). It's all a matter of preference really.

~cdogg
"Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." - Albert Einstein
[tab][navy]For general rules and guidelines to get better answers, click here:[/navy] faq219-2884

 

[Ploper001]

Where can I find this Confusion pie?? I'm hungry

Yeah I agree I was confused at first as to why they did it, but model numbers don't tell you much about performance compared to the old system, whereas AMD's did so it wasn't a big jump.

With Intel's CPUs I have no idea what a "Pentium D 820" is! Let alone how it compares to AMD's CPUs...