AMD Turion X2 64 vs Pentium Dual Core

Hi

I have read some conflicting reviews. I can't really get a good answer. Which would be better, a Pentium Dual Core T3200 or an AMD Turion X2 64. I know the Turion differ, some are QL-60, some are RM-60. Are there any guides to confirm this.

 

Go for the T3200. That'll be quicker....The QL-60 and RM-70 are pretty slow, compared to even the PDCs.

 

The Pentium Dual Core T3200 is just a "dumbed" down version of a Core2Duo, right?

What does PDC mean?

Also, what does the QL and RM designate? Is it a different design or just different letters depending on how old it is.

 

It is a dumbed down version (in the sense that it has only 1MB L2 Cache), but uses the same core as the Core 2 Duo, which makes it superior to the Athlon and Turion.

It contains almost all the features of the Merom-2M, except VT.

PDC - Pentium Dual Core

I think the QL is an Athlon Dual Core, and the RM is the Turion Dual Core. Not sure, checkout the lists on Wikipedia.

 

The Pentium dual core for sure. My old AMD Turion X2 64 TL60 was pretty slow.

 

+1 for the Pentium

 

+2 Intel. AMD is 2 years behind.

 

So the Pentium Dual Core T3200 is superior to any mobile AMD Athlon or Turion, no matter what the AMDs letter/number designation is?

If so that would make things a lot easier when I buy around Christmas and New Years.

 

I personally recomment the AMD. My AMD system is far faster than my sisters intel system.

Hers is Intel 2.2 ghz dual core, mine is AMD Turion 2.2 ghz dualcore, everything seems snappier on the AMD, both have similar ammounts of processes running e.t.c.

 

go intel!!

 

NO that's not true. Clock for clock a dual core amd is gonna be slower than a pdc. a pdc will be about equal to a amd dual-core at about 85% of its clock speed. The T3200 is 2ghz.. so an x2 at about 2.4ghz should be about equal or may even beat it. (this is a generalisation of course)

 

The T3200 is based off the Core 2 Duo and particularly off the previous generation's T5750, so it is in essence not a bad processor(compared to what the old pentium dual cores were) even compared to a Core 2 Duo.

AMD's QL-60 and RM-70 core should perform similarly in my experience with all 3 processors, but the AMD cores are less efficient than the Intel one. This means they'll intake more power for a similar performance and output more heat as well. SO the AMD machine will probably have lower battery life(even though AMD improved their CPU efficiency over the past years).

Note that both are similar processors in their price range. I'm guessing budget is an importance to you if you're looking at these CPUs rather than higher end Core 2 Duos or the like? If that's the case I'll say go look at the rest of the machine(or go with the cheapest one) because you won't really notice that much of a difference between these cores.

 

Yeah, budget is important. And I would like to get the most battery life and least amount of heat possible. That being said, I would love to get a laptop with a Core2Duo, but I can't really afford much over $400-$500, so that about rules it out. And no matter what I get, it will be better than my current laptop in my signature.

 

I can tell you head to head the T3200 (2ghz 1mb l2) crushes a TK-55 (1.8ghz 512k L2 cache) in everything but memory access (because the memory controller is integrated in the AMD, also why they get away with smaller L2 cache sizes). I would tend to agree with jisaac's assessment that you need about 20% faster clock speed for an AMD to be competitive with the Pentium Dual Core. Also while intel's graphics have always sucked the new X4500 isn't bad especially if you're looking at a cheap laptop, frequently the AMD is coupled with the Nvidia 630m chipset with GeForce GO 7150 which performs much worse as it has no real shader processors etc where the intel does at least have a few. My G50 scores almost 50% higher in 3dmark03 than the DV6600 does and is about 30% faster in PCMark05.

AMD's don't use that much more power just sitting there, but the fact that it takes them longer to do the same work nets you power savings by going with intel. Intel's P series processors destroy AMD in that arena though. If you did decide to go AMD the RM chip is better than the QL clock for clock on power, and the ZMs are the best. I bought my G50 to replace my DV even though its a nicer notebook just because it's performance is head and shoulders above the DV. Also you asked if its superior to all of AMD's mobile CPUs, it might not out perform the ZM-84, but generally the ZM-84 is only going to be found in higher end notebooks that will be comparable in price to a better intel processor that will still whoop them.

And for what it's worth, I got my G50 for 350 bucks (left over from black friday, some best buys still had them for weeks afterwards at the same price) and put 120 bucks into the 4GB of ram and 7200rpm 320gb hard drive. It's build quality and graphics aren't amazing, but it is a decent performer for under 500 bucks and better than a lot of laptops that still sell for 700 bucks or so, just not quite as nice looking.

 

you can get a dell vostro or a dell inspiron for your budget....

 

It really depends what the OP will be doing though. If all he's doing is day-to-day applications, then the actual performance difference between these cores won't be noticeable. Heck, you might not even notice the difference between a single and dual core CPU if all you're doing is word processing and internet lol

But yeah, if you want the best battery life though, Intel would give you a slight edge.

 

You got the G50.... =(

That is the one I wanted. I stood in line at Office Depot for a G50-112nr for 3 1/2 hours for nothing trying to get it. That one was better than the Best Buy version as it came with 3 GB Ram and a 160GB Hard drive.

I am hoping to see the G50 again for a Christmas or New Years sale. Anything particular you like or dislike about it?

All I am doing on it is word processing, internet, youtube videos, watching DVDs, and playing some older games on it, like Half Life 2 Deathmatch and GTA San Andreas. I think the 4500MHD will come in handy there.

 

Go with the AMD they need help and they arnt even that slow. The only reason i go for intel is for the dedicated graphics card.

 

Yeah buy AMD because they need more people buying it!! Or is it that people don't buy it because intel ones are the actuall better choice

It's too bad AMD is so behind that they are nowadays, but that's not a good argument to get someone buying an AMD..


"Buy a friggin Lada because there's so much luxury in all those Mercedes Benzes!"

 

Actually, now that the OP mentions games I'd be prone to make him pick AMD, since those two CPUs are part of the new Puma platform and most likely come with the new ATI HD3200 .

The ATI HD3200 is significantly more powerful than the HD4500(nearly twice as fast if I remember well) which comes with the base Intel platform and could probably run the games he listed better than the HD4500 can(also note it's an ATI card, which favors Source games such as Half Life a lot)

 

...You just have to make this difficult for me now? ..lol

AMD really was ahead when I was last keeping up to date with computers. Around 2005 I lost interest and it was just recently renewed when my laptop search began. When I bought my Athlon XP it was really top of the line, looked upon much better than the P4s.

Edit: Now that I think about it, I don't recall see many of the laptops in my budget coming with any ATI IGPs other then like the 1250...

 

Yeah you're correct though. AMD was ahead in CPUs until multi-core technology came along, which Intel quickly gained the lead since it was developing it earlier than AMD.

As it stands, Intel cores are more efficient than AMD cores and perform better, but AMD cores aren't bad either. They make good budget notebook CPUs.

Like I said, look at the rest of the machine rather than just the CPU.

 

I do want the better battery life, though, so I will focus on getting the Pentium Dual Core unless there is a deal on a laptop with an AMD that I can't pass up.

 

You are not. AMD was never better in the mobile segment.

 

Let's see
Pros:
Cheap
fast/good hardware inside
HDMI out (at least on the 104NR)
has the smooth top integrated track pad thing (its not a seperate piece)
good speakers for a budget laptop

Cons:
The stock graphics settings look horrible (gamma is WAY off) and no easy way to change the graphics settings without getting an additional program(i downloaded quickgamma and fixed it right up)
Power button and wireless button, and absolutely no other "extra" buttons
No firewire
No Expresscard slot
Cheaper looking matte black finish on the keyboard/screen bezel (I don't think its ugly, but my DV is definately a nicer looking laptop)
PITA to install windows XP on (drivers are more difficult to get as its not a strong enthusiast notebook and I had to custom modify the registry to get the wifi and wifi on off button to work right)

The 104NR's 120gb hard drive is actually smoking fast for a 5400 RPM drive, and with 2gb it ran ok, but its a MUCH better laptop with the scorpio black and ram, I paid 80 for the hard drive slightly used and 20 after rebate for the ram, so for about 500 bucks after tax, upgrades and having my dad ship it to me because I couldn't find one here it's still a pretty nice laptop for the money. I don't care too much about the looks as long as the performance is decent, its noticibly faster than my DV at most tasks.

 

I was referring to desktops, although from my understanding didn't all P4s run quite hot?

I have gone to look at the G50 in the store, and as far as the bezel goes, the more matte it is the better. Too many scratches to worry about otherwise. The lack of an expresscard has disapointed me, but it is not a deal breaker since it is a cheap laptop (it seems though that most Toshibas with similar specs do include the Expresscard slot, but they still don't look as nice as HPs). Installing Windows XP isn't a problem, as I would be sticking with Vista, then again I have only used Vista playing around in the store.

 

Depends what you call a P4. Northwood was a P4 and it ran cooler than any AMD out there. PRESCOTT on the other hand was the oven. Yes, I ran hotter than the rest but it was due to its architecture and clock. If you have a look at the specs on paper you will see that, Pat also confirmed it, the technology was not advanced enough to fully use the architecture. Proof, that the I7 has HT.

The AMD camp had the edge in gaming and that was the main decider, for some, back then. In the mobile segment AMD was nowhere near as advanced. DOTHAN was an AMD killer in every respect. People would buy them off ebay and mount them on desktop mobos. Rarely and AMD could keep up with a DOTHAN on dry ice.

In any case, E6600 came out and trashed the famous FX series. Everyone was stunned, toms, slash, xbit, hexus, everyone said the results were fake. Pat did mention at a con that they are working on something consumers will love. They hit AMD right under the belt. They already dominated the video market so the gaming market was left.

More than 2 years later AMD takes 45nm k10 Phenom processors and benchmark results say they are still behind. No matter the outcome, AMD fanboys love to sugar coat their reviews. Read the latest Phenom test and you will see that they don't even dare to match frequencies because AMD will look bad.


The only area were AMD is competitive is the price. Unfortunately, that old chestnut is becoming a little...old. INTEL constantly drops its prices and more and more people will migrate to the I7.


AMD had its time. INTEL is in the spotlight and later on AMD will come back. In a technology war like this it is normal for the companies to swap places every now and then. It helps the consumer and innovations appear faster .


I use both AMD and INTEL. I had an FX52 and the Gallatin EE from INTEL. The first was amazing in games but rubbish in GK. The latter was flying in GK and it gave 10-12 frames less than the AMD. What's 75 and what is 60 when you play a game? Will you notice the difference?

 

Yeah from everything I've heard low end Toshibas have terrible build quality, the G50's styling and finish aren't uber nice notebook stuff, but it feels like a solidly put together machine, it's really not much different in underlying construction than my DV. If you toss in 4GB of ram and maybe a faster hard disk it'll run fine with Vista, Aero is a little rough on the graphics and you probably wouldnt want to play high end games on it, but for a productivity/web/etc notebook it's more than adequate. I was doing some autocad work on mine last night and it runs 2d autocad just fine.

 

Yeah sorry I was also referring to the desktop CPUs. But I agree with you, it's a constant struggle and AMD and Intel have their moments and lose them. It's good for the market as the competition allows for us consumers to have better prices and it gives incentive for the technology to advance .

 

How is the noise level on it, even when it gets heated up? it doesn't have a really loud fan, does it?

Right now Staples has the G50 for $399 (Fifth one down if you click the lin. It isn't up on the Staples page yet) but I have work tomorrow and I won't be able to get up early to get it. I don't know if $399 is as good a deal anyway, since I still have to upgrade the RAM and I was kind of wanting a Webcam, which some G50s have. http://www.salescircular.com/ga/computer/laptpp.shtml


This right here is the exact one I want. Maybe Newegg will have a sale?
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16834147823

And missing all those extra buttons for video playback and other stuff is fine to me. Just uses less power not lighting up those buttons as far as I am concerned.

Also, how do you like that trackpad that is the same smooth material? Is it hard to use, or does it take a few days to break it in so to speak.

Sorry I am kind of rambling. Its almost 3 am and I am kind of tired.

 

Well if you're looking for a deal you can upgrade the 399 Compaq G50 in the staples ad beyond the newegg one for 100 bucks so it's still 100 dollars cheaper than the current price and it looks like the cheapest its been from the reviews was 500 even, so for the same price you can easily get a better hard drive and 4GB ram. The webcam is the thing you'd have to decide if you can live without. There's no easy way to go back and upgrade that later.

I like the track pad ok on it, it takes some getting used to, the "scroll" area is less well defined to me than it was on previous synaptics powered notebooks ive had but I've managed ok. it's a nice look and feel not having it be a separate piece on the palm rest and instead be integrated into the overall piece. Of course that could mean you have to replace the entire palm rest if it ever breaks...

 

I have one last question about the G50. How does the screen look on it? From what I have read, HP is known for having good screens, but a couple of reviews have said this laptops screen seems washed out (or is that what you were referring to when you said the gamma was off?)

 

In laptops intel have many advantages over AMD, examples are:

Laptops with AMD processor always are very hot.
Battery and power savings works better in intel laptops.
HP DV2000, DV4000, DV6000 and DV9000 series with AMD processor have many problems (no power on, no charge battery, bad video, etc).

 

Yeah, the Gamma is WAY out of whack on this thing out of the box, I really thought it had an inferior panel until I downloaded and used QuickGamma. Now it looks just as good as my DV as far as my not that discerning eyes are concerned anyways. And washed out is exactly what I'd call it, the gamma was set WAY high so it was way to bright, i dropped it to 50% brightness (there's no readout but there appear to be 10 "steps" of brightness so I dropped it all the way down and then went up 5 steps) and adjusted the gamma, looks 100% better. It was so bad that the text was actually "shadowed" with a color halo because the screen was so overdriven. I was really disappointed with it until I got that straightened out.

 

Strange, the one I looked at in the store looked fine to me. Contrast maybe could have been bumped up a little but it was usable to my eyes. Then again I am used to looking at a horrendous active matrix 12 inch screen on a 10 year old laptop.

I don't know if I have anymore question about this or any laptop. I guess the time is approaching where if I see one I will go ahead and buy it if it's a good price.