AMD bad?

Is a 1.9GHz AMD bad compared to a core 2 duo?

 

Depends on which core 2 duo. And no it's not bad, just not nearly as powerful clock for clock.

 

Compared to the same GHz C2D

 

Depends...Why do you ask?

Mobile AMD's offer slightly lower performance for a lower price, better for the average, non-tech savvy user (in some cases).

 

yea it should be fine if you wont be running any intensive apps.

 

Yeah, im just going to be surfing the web, music, videos. I was wondering if I was missing out on anything great.

 

I would like to post a related question. Is heat going to be an issue ?

 

Had an Intel 1.8 CoreDuo (Santa Rosa)....For what I do with it...
I saw absolutley no difference when compared to AMD 1.8 Turion 64x2...
(for some reason, the AMD ran "smoother"....Maybe it was laptop settings instead of the processor)..
I don't run CAD or play games...
But like to have multiple Word and Powerpoint documents open at the same time, the internet, mail, and maybe some music playing.....(All school related stuff....for the most part).
So I see no prob with Turion....

 

For office work and basic media stuff (watching TV/DVDs, maybe even using a TV Tuner) you'll be fine with the AMD, especially if battery life isn't a concern

Another advantage of the AMD is that it typically comes paired with an ATI or Nvidia IGP - which can be nice if you're looking to play some older 3D games but don't really want to spend extra money on a graphics card. Though I've been told numerous times that the Intel X3100 is a much better graphics chip then their older chips. I don't think I'll ever have faith in Intel IGPs though

Anyway, the AMD can be a good way to save money if you've got a tight budget for your notebook because given certain types of tasks (email, web browsing, office work, and the aforementioned media stuff ) you're unlikely to notice the difference.

 

For most people the AMD would have enough power for basic tasks, but one of the bigger concerns would be battery life, the AMDs tend to just east batteries up.

Greg

 

Heat wouldn't be an issue where it will over heat. (Unless like 100% cpu for hours and hours or something)
But I will be a few degrees hotter than an Intel and therefore more fan usage.
Depending on the CPU model, you CPU will idle in the 50C's and hit up to the 80C's under heavy load.
You can undervolt your cpu to bring down the heat, sometimes by quite a lot.

 

Don't worry, I left my laptop on for 5 days straight and it did not overheat

Also It's processing power is also quite good unless you want to pay for core 2 duo lowest model which only gets a small bit of gain.

Battery life is the only problem

 

AMD's are better in some non-mainstream aspects such as they require less cache to work with... they are 64 bit ..etc.

AMD IS for tech savvy user... Most avg. user says AMD is bad...but he offers no reasoning coz he is sucked in my intel ads.

AMD offers SLIGHTLY lower performance for much less price..(hardly matters for most tasks)

 

Ok....give me your opinion.

Same price
Both 200gb HD
Both 3gb DDR Ram
Both compareable gpu's
One is AMD 2.0 turion 64x2
Other is Core Duo 1.66 t5450
Same OS
Slightly better battery life on core duo, for the sake of argument, this is not a huge issue.
Burn cd's, Word, Power Point, Play music, watch DVD's
Internet, email
Have most of these open at one time. (2 word) (powerpoint) (internet) (email) (low music)
Is it a coin toss??? I was going to go with the Turion....i'll take your advice.

 

Same Price, probably the T5450 will be better. There won't be much in it though. I'd honestly have a hard time choosing. The Intel might be more upgradable cpu-wise.

 

You should read this review by Pulp - 1.5GHz Intel Core 2 Duo vs. AMD X2 1.9GHz:
http://forum.notebookreview.com/showthread.php?t=200203
I'd take the Intel if it is around the same price. You won't notice a performance difference between the two chips.

 

thanks for the link..
I'll read it....
I am stuck between these two....taxes will be done this week, if things go well i'll get one of these systems.
I was going to go 2.0ghz turion........
but we'll see.
I do want responsiveness. so i am leary of the 1.66....not that it's slow, but if it can throw around vista and it's programs, i'm all set.

thanks alot.

 

Both cpu's will be adequate for the usage you listed. The 1.66 C2D is more than enough, the clock speed isnt an issue. My Turion X2 1.6GHz has no issues with running multiple programs & have been using it for close to 1.5yrs now. You will be fine as long as you have a clean system with no bloat-ware running silently hogging the system resources. Most of the time thats what makes the system slow rather than the hardware.

 

I'd go for the C2D, but that's just me.

 

I don't think he meant that AMD is "bad"...I think he was asking a question..."like is AMD bad?"

 

imo

AMD's run as good as intel and its hardly noticable, ive been gaming, internet, videos and word processing, photoshop and illustrator and what have you and everything works great.

amd is cheap which is good for cash strapped people

but it runs a bit hotter than an intel, and eats up battery life.

amd b great

 

Only for the most powerful applications will there be a performance difference in programs. But like lokster said, AMDs run a little hotter and a little shorter.