AMD Equivalent Of Intel T6400

Dear all,

On the lookout for a notebook for 2d/3d graphics design.

1. The laptops which fall under my budget have an Intel T6400 processor. So I was just wondering what an AMD equivalent would be? Not because I'm an AMD fan or anything but if I could squeeze out better performance from an AMD for the same price, then why not go for it?

2. How do the a] Athlon™ X2 QL-62 & the b] Turion™ X2 RM-72 stack up against the T6400?

3. I've heard that ever since Intel came up with the Core2Duo, the AMD processors are no match for the Intel processors. Is that true & if so, then should I even be considering the AMD 'equivalent' then?

4. How much of a difference exists between the T3400 [Dual Core] & the T6400 [Core2Duo]?

Thanks!

 

I suggest you stick with the t6400. It's pretty good. Part 3 is correct. The core2duo is better than the dual core. The cpu architecture has been updated on the t6400.

 

Yes, better on the maximum performance end, which doesn't mean you can't find equally performing AMD dual core on lower performance level. Doesn't matter which brand you are using then, can't notice the difference really. Plus, amd option can be cheaper (afaik?).

 

Dear "You",
There is no "equivalent" - AMD processors have been the single biggest cause of problems with many notebooks that have them. Those with Intel's? S'alright.

Microsoft and Intel put up with AMD because they have to, otherwise they could be sued (or in Microsoft's case, again) for anti-trust violations. But remember that the partnership that changed the world as we've known it for the past 20-odd years is when Microsoft and Intel teamed up. They might have to put up with AMD, but they don't have to make it easy for their stuff work as good. Intel processors will always be the top processor on a Windows based system. When 2 companies like Microsoft and Intel form a partnership that changes history, they don't throw that out the window because some new kid has a cheaper competitive product.

Unless one of them shoves a REALLY BIG knife into the other's back - but doing so only cuts their own throat. Even though Microsoft could theoretically dump Intel and use AMD, it's not in either company's best interest - especially with the kind of business numbers they generate annually.

No one will ever prove that Microsoft has a double-standard when dealing with AMD, and AMD won't rock the boat as without Microsoft they're essentially a non-player. But you don't have to be a Rocket Scientist to see that problems with AMD based systems are a lot more prevalent than Intel systems.

 

You sound like a big **** intel fan. Did you forget back when AMD came out with 64 bit and their processers ran cooler faster and were cheaper? Exactly. An AMD equivalent of the t6400 would be a ZM ( turion ultra ) around 2.2ghz so a zm-82 i belive.

 

Even AMD's top offerings, the ZM-series Turion X2 Ultra, can't keep up with the Intel T6400. They're slower, use more power and generate more heat than any of Intel's current products.

As for the T3400 (Pentium Dual-Core) compared to the T6400 (Core 2 Duo), the T6400 is the way to go. The T3400 is based on Intel's older Merom architecture (65nm), while the T6400 is based on the newer Penryn (45nm) design. The benefits are improved performance, lower power usage and they run cooler.

Note- the T3400 is being phased out and the newer Intel T4200 (Pentium Dual-Core) based on the newer Penryn architecture is replacing it. A T4200 and T6400 will perform almost identically in most conditions.

 

Something near the top of the Turion X2 Ultra ZM series. I doubt it will be much cheaper though; AMD's problem in the mobile market is that the processors they have are so far down in the performance line that Intel's offerings are comparable.

Poorly. They are comparable to each other, but the T6400 is better than either of them.

If you can find one that is dirt cheap and you're sure it doesn't suffer from issues like the fan not being set to turn on at the right time, then yes. It is true that AMD is completely and utterly outclassed by the high end and mid-range mobile Core2Duos (i.e. the (T/P)(8/9)XX processors) and of course they have nothing even remotely like mobile Core2Quads, but at the level of a T6400, they're OK.

Not that much, but you're better off with the Core2Duo.

 

AMD's branding (Athlon vs. Turion) doesn't make much sense, either.

The Athlon X2 QL-62 and Turion X2 RM-70 are identical in all specs except TDP- 2.0GHz, 1mb L2 cache, 3600MHz System Bus. The QL-62 is 25W vs. the RM-70 at 31W.

The Athlon X2 QL-64 and Turion X2 RM-72 are identical, right down to their 35W TDP. There are no differences in specs at all.

They should just call them all Athlon X2 or Turion X2. Then there's the Turion X2 Ultra with 2mb L2 cache, otherwise they have almost identical Athlon/Turion X2 models also....

 

Yeah the t6400 is pretty good, Id stick with it for now.

 

I dont think athlons have VT

 

Actually as tippey pointed out the athlons do not have AMD virtualization technology (VT) but there are a few other differences as well. Athlons do not use the new memory controller therefore they can only use a maximum ram speed of 667mhz (DDR2) while all turions can use the faster 800mhz (DDR2) memory. They also because of their listing QL vs RM and ZM mean that they are less power efficient that the turions.

The turion ultra while being similar architecture wise to the turion 64 x2 is also slightly different, in that the ultra processors are the only current AMD processors that have independent core technology. That means that they can control both the core frequency and core voltage of both cores independently as well as independently of the northbridge. The ultras also have the ability to turn off parts of the processor core that are not in use.

The turion 64 x2 as well as athlon QL cannot do any of this therefore making the turion ultra AMD's best mobile processor.

 

Thanks to all of you for your replies. They are so informative & so well written. One couldn't ask much more. Thanks again!

There is a consensus then that the Intel chips are better atm for mid-range performance as in the case of the t6400 & that the AMD equivalent would be much more expensive, right?

Now, if only I could get a laptop here with the Intel t6400 & the Ati 3200....

 

AMD processors tend to overheat faster compared to Intel processors, which is probably one good reason why they don't do well with portable computers. But they do fine with desktops since ventilation is better and the cooling system more flexible..

 

core2duo FTW

 

AMD's desktop processors are worlds apart from their mobile ones! For several years after the original Athlon was introduced, Intel was the one trying to play catch up!

Unfortunately, AMD has fallen far behind in mobile processors. They're slower and use more power (which means they generate more heat and have abysmal battery life). Now that Intel has switched even the Pentium Dual-Core (the T4200) over to their 45nm Penryn architecture, the peformance gap is even wider. Intel's entry-level 2.0GHz Pentium Dual-Core outperforms AMD's top-of-the-line 2.1GHz Turion X2 Ultra by 15-20% on any given task!