AMD Totally Screwed?

Ok, I bet AMD is craping there pants now that the Core 2 Duo is out. Is there even point Of getting an AMD Turion 64 bit solo card anymore? Is there a big difference in speed and performace or is AMD still hanging in there?

 

The AMD Turion X2 is actually gaining in popularity with the notebook ODMs in Taiwan. It's not a bad CPU at all -- of course, it is outperformed by the Core 2 Duo, but people seriously overestimate how much processing power they really need - I'd bet that the majority of people would be fine on a Celeron M or Sempron.

 

AMD Turion/Turion X2 processors are priced lower then Core 2 Duo processors. The Core 2 Duo processors offer better performance and battery life but at a higher price.

 

So true. I used to bash the celeron from memories with the desktop line, and then I got a 1.5ghz Celeron M in my cheapo laptop. Incredibly fast for my needs, and still light on the juice.

If only they made laptops with cheaper CPU's and dedicated video cards.

 

yea very true, but im a guy who needs loads of speed, i hate slow downs on the net, or multi-tasking, make's me want to throw the computer across the room. I am i guy who games but id rather have more speed, then graphics power. The only major notebook ive seen thats perfect ( core 2 duo. 7900 GTX grpahics) is the Dell XPS wich is priced at over $2000

 

I put a 1.5ghz core solo in my x1600 based S96J for a killer sub-$1000 gaming laptop that still gets 3600 3dmarks05

 

I know that after this Core Duo machine dies, I will go back to AMD!

Im an AMD fanboy! hehe

 

I'm in no way an expert, so please correct me if I'm wrong here, but I think that in the notebook business, with most computers sold being already built, or custom built from a certain repertoire, the real competition AMD has with Intel, is getting their processors into more mainstream models...

 

to tell you the truth, i rather get the turion x2 than the core duo or core 2 duo. i regret buying the core duo because i should've opted for the x2, but then again the x2 prices were much higher when i bought my laptop.

 

either way, we should all thank AMD for making Intel competitive. At least we don't have to deal with that awful, P4-style Netbust crap any more. And you know that if AMD weren't around, Intel would STILL be pushing that as "performance"

 

As said above, people overestimate how much processing power they need.
"Slowdowns on the net" have nothing to do with your CPU. For most common purposes, a single-core Celeron is just as good at multitasking as a Core 2 Duo.

 

HAhahahahahhahaha

Pitabred is so right

i remember when the shopping television kept pushing that the p4 had 4+ ghz and will own all other cpus cause of their high clock speed

so funny that a core 2 duo 2.0 ghz > then p4 at 4ghz

 

Other then price there wouldn't of been any reason for you to of gone with the X2 Turion, especially if you had the option of the Core 2 Duo.

 

true, but i am an amd fan. all my custom built pcs have amd cpus in them. so far, im very satisfied with amd products especially if you compare performance/price with intel.

 

Yeah I also agree. My last notebook had a Sempron 3100+ and it was blaxingly fast for my purposes.
Also, the I find that notebooks with the Turion 64 X2 are also cheaper than notebooks with both of Intel's current CPUs (Core Duo and Core Solo); of course, these were preconfigured notebooks at retailers (Best Buy, Futureshop). This strikes me as strange since the core solo in single core only.
I think the Turion X2 is a great CPU, and is much more of a bargain than the Core Solo, Core Duo, or Core 2 Duo. It strikes the perfect balance between affordability and power.

 

Yes,that was true in the past, but if u take a look at large retailers like Best Buy, u will see a fast growing line-up of AMD powered notebooks. However, the thign that is brigning AMD sales down is customer's opinions about AMD. AMD is generally known for cheaper CPUs than Intel (besides their high-end AMD Athlon FX dual-core gamign CPUs) - this gives the impression that their CPUs are worse. This is not true; they are just... different.

 

I will always prefer a faster HDD to a faster CPU. Some people just don't seem to get it, it is the Hard drive that causes all the delays

On the AMD/Intel talk - maybe AMD had to dig deeper for the X2 cpu because they lost seriously on the marketing front. And this is all that matters - I'm quite sure that if I sell 100 X2 notebooks but advertise them as Intel based ones, only 2-5 of the people who buy them will notice.
Yet if I sell a hundred 5400 rpm HDDs as 7200 rpm HDDs, many will see the difference.

 

The Turions seem to be popular for gaming laptops mainly because they can be used easily with the Nforce4 SLI chipset (which can then be used for 7900GTX SLI).

It's not much of a problem for AMD anyway - they've never had a large portion of the laptop market. Core 2 Duo just means they still don't have a large portion of it.

 

Dell is definitely going to help them out with their 2 million AMD CPU order for next year (800K for notebooks).

http://forum.notebookreview.com/showthread.php?t=73252&highlight=dell+amd

 

I hope not.

AMD may be struggling at the moment as Intel appears to have finally got their technology game together rather than just relying on marketing and economies of scale. We have to remember that AMD have played an important part in Intel's renewal. If it wasn't for AMD pushing the processor curve over the last couple of years Intel would still be trying to sell us a P4!

I hope AMD come back soon with a new range of processors that push Intel.

 

I agree; the more competition these chip companies have, the better products will be for use consumers in the long run.

 

Don't worry. AMD is still running fine. Just as Chaz stated way up there. I'm running a Athlon XP 2600+ for six years now and it still can run CPU intensive program such as PS CS2. The only upgrades of my aged desktop system were an extra stick of 512MB 333mhz RAM and a XFX 6800 XT(AGP).

 

Intel may have the performance crown but that does not equal sales. The average consumer really doesn't have a clue about PC technology and will buy what they're sold. If they did know what they were buying then the P4 would have been a flop. Marketing is even more important than a quality product and AMD seem to be doing just fine in this regard at the moment. Their popularity in notebooks seems to be ever increasing and Dell's huge order of AMD CPUs is only ever going to push them in the right direction.

Think about it this way, for years Intel have drummed into their customers that more mhz = more power, and its worked very well. Intel are now in a position where they have to convince their customers that everything they told them was a lie and yet still retain their custom, this is not going to be an easy task. The Core 2 Duo has been a great success in its early days but that's only because its an enthusiast's wet dream, the difficult task is going to be convincing average joe to follow suit.

 

That is a great point. It only exacerbates the problem when C2D as lower clock speeds are also supposedly faster than a higher-clocked CD.

 

Needs to be quoted because it's so true.

 

Yeah thats very true. I remember when they first hit the 3.0GHz mark with the Pentium 4s; everyone thought that this speed increase meant more power. However, with these newer CPUs that are designed to do more at slower speeds (as well as run cooler and longer) that is now longer true. I find that, the Turion X2 runs quite a bit cooler than the Intel Core Duo (but that's just becuase, I am comparing my curretn notebook to my friend's macbook -a laptop with a major heat issue).

 

I bet I am one of those people who would be fine on a Celeron M or a Sempron since I've been using a 2 year old AMD-based HP laptop that worked well enough for everything I do (email, internet, office, videos and music). will the better processors improve my tasks much? more importantly, how do the celeron M and the Sempron compare head-to-head regarding battery life? and how does their battery life compare to the better processors? Battery life is the one thing I can knock about my old AMD laptop processor.

also, it seems like high-res screens are much less common these days, so I will probably buy a nice, big LCD for my desk. will I have any problems outputing to a monitor w/ higher resolution and/or using the laptop screen and the external as dual-monitors? do i need a good processor? do i need a video card with dedicated graphics? do i need >1 GB of RAM?

 

Well I have mixed emotions over AMD, concerning my history with the chip. AMD Athlon split down the middle in my pc by a surge (apparently), the replacement also likes to over heat, even though the fan has been replaced I think twice now.

 

Well, I do not think the deal is with dual core anymore, but I think the idea now is trying to create an energy savy quad core processor. Intel has a problem on because they are in the same boat with qx6700. Yeah, four cores but at 130W TDP. The same boat as with Extreme 965. I know there is a great performance gain, but I think that 38nm will be a break through with processors. That is late 2008-2009... I cannot wait!!!