64-bit Turion X2 vs Core Duo - which is faster?

Hey guys. Done my research but stuck, please help me out with your knowledge.

Would the 64-bit of the Turion X2 make it faster than a better Core Duo (32-bit) processor? In video editing and surfing the web. Sad thing is my laptop broke which was 64-bit and i don't want to replace it with something much slower on Video Editing.

(Keep in mind - core duo is 10% better. wont use much ram)

 

you're never going to put it to rest because a) all 'benchmarks' are synthetic and b) anything else depends in end-user impressions/opinions of their specific workload.

 

keep in mind that the Turion's run much warmer as well.

 

The answer is what the answer is. What that means is where the issue is. The design is significantly different. The CD/C2D have less L1 if I remember correct vs Turion. But the CD/C2D have substantially more L2 than Turion. This is by design. Notice the The "i" has gone to a smaller L2, yes they have added L3.

In the real world there are applications where the CD clearly had advantage over Turion clock for clock. Is this because of Intel's dominance and programs being coded to take advantage of the larger L2 of Intel? I don't know I am not a programmer but have heard it raised. In synthetic benchmarks it is called a "boutique" benchmark. If in the real world it would be efficient use of the cache.

AMD was a little too far ahead of the curve on 64bit. Intel did catch up fast enough.

If someone was buying a system with CD or Turion clearly if you wanted to run Vista or W7 the Turion has advantage as it can run the 64bit versions make use of more RAM. That alone has advantage. A bit of history the 1st C2D's (64bit) had a 32bit chipset limitation.

32bit vs 64bit the the answer is clear, Turion. Which is faster? Well you have two links that say the Turion. One says on GFLOPS Turion faster this is the standard for rating "super" computers. But on that note I will mention that I know on many 32bit apps the CD was faster at the time. Also consider that even when AMD/ATI cards have far superior computational power Nvidia seems to know how to get better gaming performance out of many games. And even more telling is at least in the past far superior performance on f@h which if nothing else is a real world raw power performance indicator.

You know the answer to your question you will never get everyone to agree. Good luck.

PS Also consider the test beds are not the same so you cannot ever isolate the CPU. Turion's RAM bandwidth advantage only helps it but it is not the CPU itself.

 

True but im not trying to compare two specific processors. Im going for something much simpler, just knowing which type if more advanced. Like with a Pentium 4 and Core 2 Duo, the C2D would be more advanced, but obviously not that dramatic. I see Turion being compared with the C2D, is the Core Duo previous technology to the Turion.

 

Yes 32bit vs 64bit answers that in and of itself.

 

So are you saying they are direct competition. One architecture not being "older" and less advanced?

The Laptop would not be using too much RAM. Architecture and benchmarks aside, would the 64 bit on a casual PC make it noticeably faster?

 

If you are going to be using a laptop with either AMD or Intel; you should just choose Intel.
I love AMD and their line of desktop processors (powerful, and cheap.. but not efficient, though it doesn't much matter in a desktop), but on the mobile side they have always been behind Intel (AMD mobile processors are notorious for running hot, very inefficiently, and at slower speeds to a Intel that has similar thermals)

I don't like Intel much more than the next guy, but their mobile processors are something to behold when compared to AMD's.


In other words, processing power isn't the only way to judge performance.

 

But im not even sure if they're in the same generation

 

intel chip is the better cpu out the 2

 

They're almost the same generation. Here is the timeline:

Core Duo (Yonah) first came out in January 2006.
Turion 64 X2 came out in May 2006.
Core 2 Duo (Merom) came out in August 2006.

You can find some benchmarks where Turion 64 X2 is marginally better than Core Duo; the choice would be clearer today because 64-bit matters whereas in 2006 it did not. However, Core 2 Duo was fater than either one of them.

 

So would you say the technology is equal, direct competition. No architecture being superior or faster?

Okay so the two laptops im considering have pretty much equal chips benchmark wise, Intel being 5% better and the general consensus (T2600 and TL-60). Though the Turion X2 is 64-bit on a 64-bit processor. Would this make the computer faster and run better for general stuff? Tipping the scale? Or just if you want more RAM and stuff.

 

Being faster in the OS will depend on more than just the processor. RAM, running processes, health of the drive all contribute.

 

Ofcourse. Everything is identical besides those two. Would you go for the 64 bit even if its a slightly slow chip. Would this make it run faster.

 

Core 2 Duo is unquestionably superior, the other two depend on what you want to do with them. The Turion has 64-bit, but the Core Duo was pretty innovative for its time in terms of power consumption and various other technical details (like how the two cores communicate).

Again, what do you want to do with these laptops? If you need them for 64-bit applications, get the Turion. Otherwise, get the T2600 -- it is going to be faster and probably runs somewhat cooler. AMD's downfall in mobile CPUs was that the darned things were simply too hot. People could live with less CPU performance (they were never competitive after Core 2 came out), but the heat and low battery life were intolerable. I don't know whether the Turion falls in that category.

 

Ah man it makes it a little confusing for me when you say "innovative for its time", are you saying its any behind technologically than the Turion. Or equal competition. "The way the two cores communicate" being better than the Turion or just innovative. Would be great if you reword the answer to that quote buddy. Thanks though!

I would do a lot of Encoding with it. How much faster would the Turion be for this, seeing as its 64-bit?

 

encoding of what ? a lot is how much ?

if you really do A LOT, get a i3/5/7 they are pretty cheap now.

 

yea, if you will be doing ANY intensive tasks (anything above using a internet browser on lite weight sites) then you really should get a (at minimum) decent Core 2 Duo processor, but if you can save up some more money then get a decent computer with a i3/i5; either of those would last you a LOT longer.

I can't see a CoreDuo or Turion processor lasting anyone even a year or two(except those few that do very minimal stuff, and I mean really minimal); a good Core 2 Duo should last you 2-3 years pretty well, and a decent core-"i" should last 3-6 years (or maybe even longer, depending on if you get a Ultra Low Voltage, a Low Voltage, or a Full Voltage chip -listed from lowest performance to highest performance). \

I'm not sure what screen size, or battery life you are looking for, but there have been huge leaps forward in technology (improving every aspect of a computer) since the days of Core Duo. It really is worth the extra money to get a quality product the first time

 

Encoding of movies. Converting to DVD daily. Besides that its standard internet usage.

Thing is, i have a $200 budget. I'm lucky to even get a dual core laptop at that price arent I. I could always wait around for a C2D to pop up...do you think it would make that much of a difference? Ill consider it. Plus i would probably buy a nicer one in the future.

When you say lasting a year or two...do you mean technology wise or parts lifetime?

Totally. My old broken laptop is a Core 2 Duo. Kind of why im so picky on getting the best i can, so not so much of a downgrade. The 64-bit part especially as my old one was probably that. Its my only question still standing really. If having 64 bit (on a regular 1.5GB ram computer) makes Video Editing / Encoding much faster.

 

What are the 2 notebooks model numbers you have to choose from? In general I would go for the CD for what you say about encoding. I thought the CD does just a little better at that and the thermal advantage.

 

Why is Core duo relevant today. that is more than 5 years old. we have had 3 generations of uarch released since then.

 

Really? Core Duo over even though the other one is 64 bit?
All i hear is forum posts that 64-bit is only good if you do stuff like encoding, but cant find encoding benchmarks. So im not sure if its actually like two times faster or theyre just talking about the ram availability.

O the Core Duo is definitely better than the other model. Like i said to Agent, dont want to waste your time with that but out of respect ill answer there TL-60 and T2600. Only thing i have left is if 64 bit makes encoding like two times faster. Which is not true?

 

The only real difference between 64bit, and 32bit is that 64 bit OS's can see more than 3.5GB ram (hence it is useful for ram heavy applications, but only when paired with enough ram -ie: more than 4GB, though the usual max is 8GB); well, that and 64bit OS's tend to use up more ram by itself (ie: just having 64 bit Win 7 will use .5-1GB more ram than 32 bit win 7, even right after a boot up when everything is idle). there is no "speed boost" from having 64 bit. I would recommend comparing the two processors you are looking at, to the processor you had in your old laptop, using - Notebook / Laptop Reviews and News - Notebookcheck.net- that way you get an eyeball on how it will compare to what you had.


Well, if you plan on purchasing a new system in the future; depending on how far off you think that might be (and how great your need is for your own computer is right now -after all you are on some device right now talking to us, so maybe bum a ride on that [or other] computers until you can get the dream computer? well, its a thought, as $200 can get you a decent SSD, rather than dumping it into old tech)


Also, if you don't mind my asking, what happened to your "old" computer? did it drop and smash up, or was there an internal error (does it even boot up to the bios, or display anything at all?) reason I ask for details on that is you could very well fix up that computer with some of the $200 you would have spent (again, it depends what was wrong with it, and if you even have it anymore)

EDIT: when I say it may last you a year or two, I mean that it will likely die (or at least a part of it will), and it will just be infuriatingly slow to use; and that is at most, with your needs I don't think it would do too well for you as a computer for a few months (considering your needs that is, and from coming from a C2D notebook)

 

So the 64 bit capability of the Turion doesn't mean anything unless you plan for more than 3GBs of RAM?
Very helpful response your great. Both chips are better than my C2D actually.

Plan to upgrade when business goes good, so just under a year. Not that it make a difference though as nothing i do would need to be stronger than the dual cores mentioned. Need for a laptop is pretty large, though that would of been a good idea.

Old computer just wouldn't power on one day. No lights, nothing. Pretty much was overheated every day for over a year (when i wasnt using it) so maybe a reflow might fix this.

 

Core Duo runs cooler than the Turion X2's in my experience. My mom has a Toshiba Satellite A215 with a Turion X2, and my brother has a Dell Inspiron 6400 with a Core Duo.

The Core Duo in my brothers laptop, with the slower as 1.60GHz, feels way faster than my moms laptop with a 1.9GHz Turion X2. Both laptops are the same, except the Toshiba has a 7200rpm drive, and the Dell has 5400rpm.

 

Unless both computers are running the same exact softwares it's not an accurate comparison.

@OP: Take the turion 64, you can undervolt it and make it run cooler quite easily. Clock to clock the Core Duo is faster than the turion 64.

Here is an example: MSI Megabook S271: a Look at AMD's Turion X2 - AnandTech :: Your Source for Hardware Analysis and News

 

That is a C2D not a CD in your link.

 

Which do you need, efficiency/battery, or raw power...

If you can get 4gigs or more in it, then take the AMD, it will benefit from the 64bit instructions. In any other case, I would take the CD. It runs more efficient for similar amounts of computing power.

In a desktop, that might change, but in a notebook, no. Only the extra memory addressing would make me take the AMD.

 

I'm saying that it is a 5 year old CPU, but yes, better than the Turion except for not being 64-bit. If you are using 64-bit applications (not just a 64-bit OS, but actual applications) then get the Turion. Otherwise go with the Core Duo.

 

Take the Core Duo
Even though it isn't a 64-bit processor, I doubt you are going to be using any "64-bit only" applications that will actually run too well on ether processor.

 

I still think that it may be a better option to go to the i3/5/7 route. May be borrowing from friends/parent and repay 30 bucks a month for a year so you can up the budget to 200 + 360 => 560 which would get a reasonable i3/5 machine ?

putting 200 bucks in an 5 years old stuff just doesn't sound right for me especially you are not intending to use it for just browsing/office stuff.

Just an option to consider.

 

yea, it would be best to just buy a good and powerful notebook now (or as soon as it can be afforded) but...

he seems to be set on getting a old computer (that IMO won't last long at all for his uses, I don't think either is suitable for his uses; but if he absolutely must buy one of those two, then it should be the Intel Core Duo)


One thing I forgot about is that the graphics chip on those laptops would most likely struggle with any kind of work, and especially even just playing movies (and I don't think it could handle video work of any kind); you will also need to run either XP, or a version of Linux for it to feel even somewhat fast (and XP usually didn't have "64-bit versions" or drivers; or it might have, but they don't work that well).
Do you know what graphics chip either laptop is using?

 

If it were running 64-bit programs how much performance gain/faster would they be?

If its only 10-20% i might as well get the Core Duo regardless, as its that much better anyways. True definitely no 64-bit only, but all my programs are available in that.