The Pentium M has been doing so well that Intel's desktop line will eventually be migrating to a processor based on a similar architecture. Heck, even Apple joined in on the fun. Near the top of the heap is the Pentium M 760, which features a 533MHz front-side bus, an operating frequency of 2.0GHz and a whopping 2MB of L2 cache.
AMD's answer to the Pentium M is the Turion 64, an Athlon 64-based design which rides in a 754-pin socket. The Turion 64's attributes include an on-die memory controller, a 1GHz HyperTransport link, and of course the ability to run 64-bit code. The model we'll be looking at today is the ML-44, a new chip with a 2.4GHz operating frequency and 1MB of L2 cache.
We have been watching the mobile processor space for a while now with some interest, wondering whether the Turion 64 really matches up well against the Pentium M. The Pentium M's power-saving features and performance per watt are the stuff of modern legend. AMD has done well with Opteron in servers and the Athlon 64 in desktops, but surely AMD's K8-derived mobile competitor doesn't match up with the likes of the Pentium M. Does it?
The match-up :
Ours is not a perfect world, and we acknowledge that this is not a perfect match-up, at least not in terms of price. The problem is that AMD's Turion ML-44, priced at $354 by AMD, lands in the middle of a large gulf in Pentium M pricing. Our two closest options for comparison were the Pentium M 760 at 2.0GHz, with a price of $294, and the Pentium M 770 at 2.13GHz and a price of $423. The $60 price difference between the 760 and the ML-44 was slightly less than that the $69 separating the 770 from the ML-44, so we based our comparison on the former.
Conclusions :
What strikes me about these results is how, for all of the differences in architectures and the back-and-forth battles on individual tests, on the whole the two processors seem evenly matched, as evidenced by the tie on the overall WorldBench score. It seems that every place where one chip should have an advantage, it's brought back into check by another deficit. The Turion 64's on-die memory controller is hampered by the single channel DDR400 limitation, while the Pentium M's high memory bandwidth is handicapped by its slow front-side bus.
From a power consumption perspective, the Turion 64 surprised me. Yes, our Turion 64 test system consumed a third again more power than the Pentium M system at 100% CPU load, but unless you're using your laptop to crunch that F@H work unit on the plane, maximum power consumption isn't usually all that important. For typical use, it seems likely the Turion 64 would be competitive with the Pentium M on the battery life front, as well.
This mobile processor match-up is interesting in itself, but it may be just as compelling as for other reasons. By now, everyone and his dog knows that Intel has backed away from the Pentium 4's Netburst microarchitecture and will soon be releasing a desktop chip based, with a number of improvements, on the Pentium M we looked at here today. AMD's current and future desktop processors share their basic architecture with the Turion 64, though their focus is more on performance than power savings. These two microarchitectures have been fleshed out into two very competitive products for the mobile space, with similar overall performance but some different areas of strength. Could this competitive performance balance offer a glimpse of things to come?
For the detailed review visit Techreport
AMD's answer to the Pentium M is the Turion 64, an Athlon 64-based design which rides in a 754-pin socket. The Turion 64's attributes include an on-die memory controller, a 1GHz HyperTransport link, and of course the ability to run 64-bit code. The model we'll be looking at today is the ML-44, a new chip with a 2.4GHz operating frequency and 1MB of L2 cache.
We have been watching the mobile processor space for a while now with some interest, wondering whether the Turion 64 really matches up well against the Pentium M. The Pentium M's power-saving features and performance per watt are the stuff of modern legend. AMD has done well with Opteron in servers and the Athlon 64 in desktops, but surely AMD's K8-derived mobile competitor doesn't match up with the likes of the Pentium M. Does it?
The match-up :
Ours is not a perfect world, and we acknowledge that this is not a perfect match-up, at least not in terms of price. The problem is that AMD's Turion ML-44, priced at $354 by AMD, lands in the middle of a large gulf in Pentium M pricing. Our two closest options for comparison were the Pentium M 760 at 2.0GHz, with a price of $294, and the Pentium M 770 at 2.13GHz and a price of $423. The $60 price difference between the 760 and the ML-44 was slightly less than that the $69 separating the 770 from the ML-44, so we based our comparison on the former.
Conclusions :
What strikes me about these results is how, for all of the differences in architectures and the back-and-forth battles on individual tests, on the whole the two processors seem evenly matched, as evidenced by the tie on the overall WorldBench score. It seems that every place where one chip should have an advantage, it's brought back into check by another deficit. The Turion 64's on-die memory controller is hampered by the single channel DDR400 limitation, while the Pentium M's high memory bandwidth is handicapped by its slow front-side bus.
From a power consumption perspective, the Turion 64 surprised me. Yes, our Turion 64 test system consumed a third again more power than the Pentium M system at 100% CPU load, but unless you're using your laptop to crunch that F@H work unit on the plane, maximum power consumption isn't usually all that important. For typical use, it seems likely the Turion 64 would be competitive with the Pentium M on the battery life front, as well.
This mobile processor match-up is interesting in itself, but it may be just as compelling as for other reasons. By now, everyone and his dog knows that Intel has backed away from the Pentium 4's Netburst microarchitecture and will soon be releasing a desktop chip based, with a number of improvements, on the Pentium M we looked at here today. AMD's current and future desktop processors share their basic architecture with the Turion 64, though their focus is more on performance than power savings. These two microarchitectures have been fleshed out into two very competitive products for the mobile space, with similar overall performance but some different areas of strength. Could this competitive performance balance offer a glimpse of things to come?
For the detailed review visit Techreport