AMD processor good choice for a laptop?

Ok, I have my eye on two laptops right now, both with AMD dual core processors. Here they are:

http://www.futureshop.ca/catalog/proddetail.asp?logon=&langid=EN&sku_id=0665000FS10108457&catid=#

http://www.futureshop.ca/catalog/proddetail.asp?logon=&langid=EN&sku_id=0665000FS10108183&catid=

the only thing from stopping me from buying either one is that if the AMD processor is reliable or not. Personally, I've read online that the only different between an AMD and Intel processor is the battery life and some minute differences that aren't noticable. But what i've really curious is that will AMD have a tendency to crash and screw up the long I have my laptop? Also, would you recommend AMD when chosing a laptop?

 

Of those two, I'd pick the 2nd one.
Why wouldn't the AMD be reliable? It's lifespan should far outlast the length of time you will have your laptop. I would/would not recommend an AMD depending on the tasks you're doing. If you are going to do heavy media work then an AMD is not for you, otherwise you won't notice a difference. Also, if you are planning on playing games, you had best get the 2nd one since it has a decent dedicated GPU.

 

no, your worries are unfounded, software runs fine on AMD processors.

Processor is only one part of the laptop I consider. I wouldn't be deterred by an AMD processor if the rest of the components are what I am after.

 

MOST users won't notice the difference, AMD's a safe choice.

 

The new AMD Puma platform really brings AMD up to speed with Intel. Hopefully this new found competition will mean good things for us consumers.

 

And the key word is platform, because the CPU in itself isn't anything great.

 

The second choice is much better because of the ATi graphics. They are much more powerful than the geforce 8200. The Puma platform is pretty powerful and gives intel a run for the money. The Ati is about as powerful as a 8600Gt, so you can at least play games on it. The 8200 is worse than the 8400GS, which is only a notch above integrated.

Plus Toshiba's build quality is much greater than hp/compaq's.

K-TRON

 

Right now we have 5 operating computers in our house, 4 of which get a lot of use. 1 has an Intel Core Duo, the others are 3 AMD 64X2s and 1 AMD Sempron.

2 Acer laptops, 1 with Sempron, XPSP2 and 1 gig mem runs great except for the 60 gig HD. Even though it's a Sempron, basically the slowest of the AMD line, it's a great web machine and does very well for simple photo editing. And the price was right. It is now about 1 1/2 years old.

The other 1 has an Intel Core Duo, Vista Home Premium and 2 gig mem. To me, the main reason I like it best is the better screen and 160 HD. It does have more photo editing ability, I think because of the 2 gigs memory.

My year and a half old power desktop is an AMD 64X2 5000+ with 2 gigs mem, Radeon 1300, 256 meg video, XFi Platinum and 2 X 250 HDs. Not built as bleeding edge, not intended to be. Still in probably the top 25% of computers on desks today and that AMD processor just keeps on keepin' on.

If you're looking for absolute bleeding edge, it's Intel. If you want a great computer that will keep on running and cost a good bit less, AMD makes a great product.

JMNSHO &, of course, YMMV

 

what i'm mainly planning on doing with the computer is schoolwork and some possible rendering, is AMD fine for that? Also, is toshiba better than hp/compaq? why?

 

AMD is considered behind Intel in mobile CPU market. AMD just can't produce fast enough, and cool enough mobile processors as Intel can.

But of course, it's AMD, so for sure it's good!

 

Am I correct by saying the order of performance is AMD ZM, then AMD RM, then Turion 64x2??

If Rm is better then Turion 64x2, what's the main difference?
Is it the gpu and cache?