AMD Turion vs. Intel Core 2 Duo

I'm not really sure what it all really means in the grand scheme of things, and I don't even know if it really gives us any simple rules for picking one over the other, unless you're going to be mainly using a computer for one type of task that fits easily in either the AMD mold or the Intel mold.

Overall, in terms of absolute performance, the Intel C2D is a better chip - that's where I'd put my pin-money if I were buying a new computer right now. In terms of using the available resources more efficiently, the AMD is a more efficient processor. From what I've been able to glean from a variety of sources on the internet, the C2D is going to bog down the worst in situations where the cores have to move large, but not gigantic, blocks of data into/out of L2 cache - in that situation, the conflict between the two cores is likely to cause both to lag; however, even with that lag, the C2D will probably still do a little better than the AMD.

With respect to the remainder of the conversation, I don't really think there's any disagreement over the conclusion that the C2D generally outperforms the AMD; what disagreement there is seems to center on exactly how optimal the C2D shared L2 cache architecture is. As far as I can figure out, while that arrangement is generally beneficial (if it didn't provide at least some positive net gain Intel would not have adopted it in the first place), it is not always the best use of available resources, and is open to significant performance degradation if it's used to multitask several processes that require a cache size that is at or slightly over half of the total shared cache size.

 

Shyster1 OK I put My money on you! Good explanations not one sentence! Why you have to call me out? I don't know? I enjoyed watching! I am sorry, I agree as with everyone else C2D is faster but maybe not more efficient, benchmarks designed to take advantage of larger cache are crap!!!! And most are to give Intel the advantage!!!!!

 

Thanks. Now that I've taken the Cooks' Tour of cache-land, it's actually an interesting area of cpu architecture and systems theory. One of the really interesting points that came up is that the software itself can cause significant performance degradation if it isn't optimized to work with, rather than against, the particular caching structure of the computer the software is run on.

Ultimately, though, what I gleaned from my reading is that some sort of a hybrid that includes elements from AMD's exclusive cache structure and Intel's shared cache structure is most likely to be the best long-term solution. The question then becomes whether AMD or Intel is best positioned to expand its current architecture into that sort of hybrid structure.

From what I can tell, AMD may be moving toward this by adding a shared L3 cache to its chipsets, see, e.g., http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2987 , see also, http://www.amd.com/us-en/assets/con...Technology_Analyst_Day_News_Summary_FINAL.pdf

I haven't found anything indicating that Intel is considering, say, adding a private L1.5 cache between the L1 and shared L2 caches on the C2D, but that may be only because I haven't looked hard enough. Intel does have an L3 cache on its Itanium and Xeon server processors, which suggests that they do have the theoretical know-how to add a third cache level - although doing that on a mobile cpu may be an entirely different kettle of fish. They also have an L3 cache on the Pentium 4 extreme edition.

So, this all seems to suggest that, notwithstanding the "roadmaps" put out by AMD and Intel, there may be some interesting new chip designs lurking in the woodwork.

 

It all makes sense now.

What confused me about the Intel paper is that by block size I thought they meant line size, which is usually what is meant.

I admit that I don't really know much about multithreaded architecture.

 

I'm part of a research project where we are developing a new service oriented programming model called SERVO and a corresponding class of (probably heterogeneous) multi-core architectures. We aren't published yet as the project is very young, but it is interesting stuff. Drop me a pm if you are interested to hear more.

 

http://www.notebookcheck.net/Mobile-Processors-Benchmarklist.2436.0.html
Helped with my decision to go with a C2D T7500 (#4 according to those benchmarks), even though I like AMD, the intel just seemed to be the superior chip and worth the extra dollars.

 

If you feel a little at sea, don't feel too lonely; after all the reading I've done, I mostly feel like the only thing I know is that I don't know too much. My guess is that you probably have a better general knowledge than I do, and that I just got lucky with some Google hits.

 

Ok, I don't see what the dispute is about, here it is in a nutshell. Intel c2d is faster clock for clock, especially on encoding, question is , how much faster and does it matter. In all the games (and games are pretty much the only thing that even pushes either cpu to breathe hard, ) I play, which is most, the problem is not the cpu, but the gpu that is limiting. It is possible, or was last time i looked, to buy an amdx2 based lappie with a dedicated vid card for substantially less than a c2d with intel integrated (which is major suckage, I don't care what any of these bought off reviewers are claiming- side by side, I will tell you it SUCKS!!!) so then, "which is faster" takes on a whole different meaning. One thing tho, the x2 chips in laptops seem to run consistently hotter than the c2d ones, so plan on a cooler for longevity. Fry's has a new one that clamps on the exhaust grate and SUCKS the air out, it actually works but is a bit loud so bring some earphones. I think its about 20 bux and is called a Rhino Ferret. There is another similar one out there that doesn't do squat, not enough flow.

seer

 

i agree entirely with the above statement..if its games you play then the gpu is what your looking for and the cpu (intel/amd) doesnt matter as much as long as it dual core and of reasonable high speed.

oh and rhino ferret ? would go with my username quite well

 

I do not understand this thread at all, there clearly is no battle.

The Core Duo and Core 2 Duo are both more powerful than their AMD counterparts.

Of course what your budget is and what your needs are will determine which one you need.

 

so am i to believe that wprime benchmark is rigged?

as mine a tl60 beats of loads of c2d cpus even higher spec ones....maybe its the only fair benchmark and all other benchmarks programs are intel supporters (paid cash i believe )

i hear a conspiracy brewing

 

I don't trust benchmarks much.

 

And you say C2D is better than amd cuz ???

 

Great thread, very fascinating stuff. Even at a budget C2D isn't going to cost you all that much in a budget laptop, say a T7100 or less for example. What is happening however, like with Dell for instance, is that you see AMD models, even high end Tl56 models with lesser specs like less memory offered and no options for video card upgrade.

If you are new to computers (you don't play games, you use a word processor and the internet 90% of the time) you will save a lot of money going with a low end model laptop.

Even with that said a typical laptop with core duo T2000 series will only run you sub $500 easy and would be perfect for those needs. Whereas a Inspiron 1501 with a tl56 will cost you $609.

All that said, if you play games, run applications, use photoshop or CAD, listen to music, encode home movies, and use the internet. Then you will very much enjoy the C2D T7100 or higher. In fact if you are like me and expect performance per your dollar, then C2D is your only option today.

 

I would also like to add that i find this whole thread fascinating and exceedingly informative.