Laptops AMD Turion Vs INTEL Core2duo

F

freakout

Disciple
Hey ppl,

Can somebody give some gyan on buying a better processor for a laptop? AMD Turion or Core2duo? Thanks in advance....

Freakout...
 
core 2 duo is way better than turion... go for c2d ... less heat consumption better speed.. better cache memory for hungry applications.
 
no such 'speculation' :p that was around 3-4 yrs ago. right now, the core2duos are wayyyyyyyyy ahead, especially in the laptops space ;) get the core2duo over the turion everyday :)
 
Ok, now. AMD Turion X2 is as far I know exists. Nothing beyond. As far as my knowledge goes, AMD does not have a four core processor. They were working on an 8-core processor called FASN8 (fascinate), but never heard of it after that news blip. It is now about to launch a 3-core processor. The difference between an AMD X2 and a C2D is simple -- AMD has 2 processors connected in parallel while C2D is 4 processors connected in parallel. Clearly, the C2D is faster. In fact the Core2Quad is eight processors connected in parallel. If you are going to compare Turion X2 with Intel dual core then AMD wins -- mostly because in most cases the AMD processors have a higher clock speed 1.8, 1.9, 2.0 or higher; whereas Intel mostly has 1.4, 1.6, 1.7 and cost a lot more than the AMDs. So the price to performance ration is quite large either ways. So as of now the best processor available is the C2D. The quad core processor for mobile applications will be out only by September 2008 or so. But I have no idea about their power consumption or heat emission estimates.

Conclusion: Go for the C2D. There's nothing that can compare with it. Not just performance wise, but also it terms of the technical architecture. Good luck. :)
 
pause said:
Ok, now. AMD Turion X2 is as far I know exists. Nothing beyond. As far as my knowledge goes, AMD does not have a four core processor. They were working on an 8-core processor called FASN8 (fascinate), but never heard of it after that news blip. It is now about to launch a 3-core processor. The difference between an AMD X2 and a C2D is simple -- AMD has 2 processors connected in parallel while C2D is 4 processors connected in parallel. Clearly, the C2D is faster. In fact the Core2Quad is eight processors connected in parallel. If you are going to compare Turion X2 with Intel dual core then AMD wins -- mostly because in most cases the AMD processors have a higher clock speed 1.8, 1.9, 2.0 or higher; whereas Intel mostly has 1.4, 1.6, 1.7 and cost a lot more than the AMDs. So the price to performance ration is quite large either ways. So as of now the best processor available is the C2D. The quad core processor for mobile applications will be out only by September 2008 or so. But I have no idea about their power consumption or heat emission estimates.

Conclusion: Go for the C2D. There's nothing that can compare with it. Not just performance wise, but also it terms of the technical architecture. Good luck. :)
Click to expand...
WTF !
:huh:
did not seee this comming

"The difference between an AMD X2 and a C2D is simple -- AMD has 2 processors connected in parallel while C2D is 4 processors connected in parallel.Clearly, the C2D is faster. In fact the Core2Quad is eight processors connected in parallel. "
:no: :no: :no:

by the way i think u were joking right ...
 
pause said:
Ok, now. AMD Turion X2 is as far I know exists. Nothing beyond. As far as my knowledge goes, AMD does not have a four core processor. They were working on an 8-core processor called FASN8 (fascinate), but never heard of it after that news blip. It is now about to launch a 3-core processor. The difference between an AMD X2 and a C2D is simple -- AMD has 2 processors connected in parallel while C2D is 4 processors connected in parallel. Clearly, the C2D is faster. In fact the Core2Quad is eight processors connected in parallel. If you are going to compare Turion X2 with Intel dual core then AMD wins -- mostly because in most cases the AMD processors have a higher clock speed 1.8, 1.9, 2.0 or higher; whereas Intel mostly has 1.4, 1.6, 1.7 and cost a lot more than the AMDs. So the price to performance ration is quite large either ways. So as of now the best processor available is the C2D. The quad core processor for mobile applications will be out only by September 2008 or so. But I have no idea about their power consumption or heat emission estimates.

Conclusion: Go for the C2D. There's nothing that can compare with it. Not just performance wise, but also it terms of the technical architecture. Good luck. :)
Click to expand...

i hope u were joking.

else........WTF :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

u have absolutely no knowledge of chips :p

as they say, little knowledge is much worse than no knowledge, n in ur case this shows :p please please please use google n hten we ll talk bout it ;)

P.S.: :rofl:
 
techie_007 said:
i hope u were joking.

else........WTF :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

u have absolutely no knowledge of chips :p

as they say, little knowledge is much worse than no knowledge, n in ur case this shows :p please please please use google n hten we ll talk bout it ;)

P.S.: :rofl:
Click to expand...
BIG, BIG blooper guys. sorry abt that. really. :blushing: and all this while i thought...GOSH!!
 
Ok. question: I have an AMD Athlon 1.9 dual core. it consumes a LOT of power. but tell me -- in terms of processing performance (and only processing performance) , how does it fare with a C2D?
 
clock for clock, i believe the "Core 2" architecture beats the Athlon's - is it "IPC" (instructions per clock) or something like that...? even tho the athlon has on-die memory controllers and what not...
 
pause said:
Ok. question: I have an AMD Athlon 1.9 dual core. it consumes a LOT of power. but tell me -- in terms of processing performance (and only processing performance) , how does it fare with a C2D?
Click to expand...

its way behind a core 2 duo. even the core duo.

AMD has 2 types of dual cores in lappies, the AMD athlon dual core and the AMD turion X2 dual cores.

The Turions are comparable to core duo (NOT core 2 duo still ;) ). the Athlons rate even lower, esp compared to power/heat generation as well as processing power too.

Hope that cleared things up :)
 
pause said:
Ok. question: I have an AMD Athlon 1.9 dual core. it consumes a LOT of power. but tell me -- in terms of processing performance (and only processing performance) , how does it fare with a C2D?
Click to expand...

its way behind a core 2 duo. even the core duo.

AMD has 2 types of dual cores in lappies, the AMD athlon dual core and the AMD turion X2 dual cores.

The Turions are comparable to core duo (NOT core 2 duo still ;) ). the Athlons rate even lower, esp compared to power/heat generation as well as processing power too.

Hope that cleared things up :)
 
hey thanks :) the one that i have has an athlon X2 1.9 gigs proccy. i read that in terms of performance there isn't much of a diff b/w athlon X2 and turion X2...but that the former was designed for desktops and consumes a lot of power.
 
pause said:
hey thanks :) the one that i have has an athlon X2 1.9 gigs proccy. i read that in terms of performance there isn't much of a diff b/w athlon X2 and turion X2...but that the former was designed for desktops and consumes a lot of power.
Click to expand...

exactly, so choose a turion over an athlon everytime.
 
AMD Turion X2 costs less than Intel machines, so the power stats & the little graphs doesn't matter.

If u opt for Linux instead of Vista it even costs $200 less.
 
Back
Top