AMD vs. Intel (why is AMD so much cheaper?)

Could someone please explain the difference--in non-techy terms--between AMD and Intel processors? If a processor is 1.8 ghz (for example) does it matter who made it? Aren't both reputable companies?

And if Intel are better/faster, does it matter if 95% of what I do is internet browsing and word processing?

Thanks!

p.s. for example, this HP Pavilion is on sale for $550; a comparable computer with an Intel Core Duo would cost at least a couple hundred dollars more. Why?

 

AMD is cheaper for unknown reasons mostly.
That CPU will run comparable to similair C2D
It has a faster bus(double of the C2Ds because of the memory controller),65nm(like C2Ds) etc.

It's not AMD vs. Intel
It's Processer vs Processer

 

I understand your confusion! But you cannot just compare CPU's. I guess what I am trying to tell you is there is more than CPU involved. I can tell you AMD has better Graphics than Intel. Intel CPU's are considered better than AMD but if you buy a good one from either at the same clockspeed not very much difference, I would buy Intel if the price was the same, GPU same,

 

So the linked laptop with an AMD Athlon 64x2 processor, 1.8 ghz, would be comparable to the Intel Core 2 Duo of the same ghz?

And which is better, the Athlon or Turion?

 

1) yes
2) depends on the particular proc. Turions are up to 2.4GHz but Athlon X2 TK series max at 1.8GHz I believe.

 

1.8 Intel vs AMD, Intel overall is considered faster. What GPU comes with? How do I consider? AMD runs hotter, What do you really want to know.

 

So for my purposes--as I said above, mainly writing and internet--is there any reason to pay more than the $550 Pavilion at BestBuy that I linked to? I am trying to resist the temptation to always go for the "upgraded" model, when in actuality--at least for my purposes--there is very little difference between a $550 laptop and a $1500 one.

For some reason I was under the impression that AMD was lower quality, slower.

 

PowerPack you are referring to 65nm vs. 90nm The newer turions & athlon TK series are 65nm.
Get the AMD.

 

My young little friend, do not be so sure.

 

AMD is cheaper because it does not perform as well. An Intel based notebook will out perform an AMD one. Guaranteed. Intel also has lower power consumption and lower heat output.

 

Vivek, do the AMDs burn up the battery quicker?

 

As burn up do you mean lifetime or 1 charge?

 

Both, but especially one charge.

 

1)I get 3+hours.(21% wear)
They consume about the same amount.
2)CPU doesn't affect batter lifetime.

 

I never really understood AMD vs Intel in ghz terms. I have an AMD 64 (and I only run 32 bit anyways? don't get that either) 4000 at 2.4 ghz on my PC, and I've had this with a x800 for like 2 years now or more and the thing still runs everything on max settings. I always heard that AMD was better for gaming so I'm not sure if that was just a myth or what. Either way it's never given me any problems whether its a just a game or running a game while surfing the net and using 3ds max and photoshop at the same time.

 

Recently I don't find the AMD units to be much cheaper (with HP anyway). I equipped two dv9500 Pavilions to my liking and the AMD was about $30 cheaper, with a lesser graphics card and cpu. Not a real major bargain there once you start piling on the options.............

 

for your needs, get the AMD

 

I wonder why Turion 64 TL-53 renamed as Athlon 64 X2????

 

You mean TK-53? The half L2 cache disabled cpus are dubbed Athlon64 X2 in following with Intel's Pentium Dual-Core nomenclature (a separate budget-branding).

Personally, I think it is a bad choice of naming. When I think of Athlon64 X2, I think desktop cpu (= higher performance).

 

AMD are slightly slower but I doubt you'll notice any difference if you're mainly going to be using it for internet and word processing. Even my VERY old 700Mhz desktop could do that without breaking much of a sweat.

I hope this helps.

 

Maybe the OP should be looking at this machine?
http://www.bestbuy.com/site/olspage...=6720&lp=1&type=product&cp=1&id=1188558584033

How would that compare to the one he originally posted?

Has the new Intel T2310 chip (based on C2D/Merom?), but with a 1MB cache, 533 bus.

$100 less too.

I'm sure that would be more than fine for internet/word processing.

 

Nah, it's a Yonah-based (Core Duo) Pentium Dual Core.

 

You sure? Look at Intel's page here
http://www.intel.com/support/processors/mobile/pentiumdualcore/sb/CS-028241.htm

Blows away the T2130.

Also there's another page somewhere on Intel that show's it supports 64bit and I don't think the Yonah's do.

 

It's under the Pentium dual core page and it's the slowest CPU there (1,46GHz). It's yonah Based. Or maybe not. It's apperantly merom based. It's still 1,46ghz and the slowest pentium mobile.

 

even if its merom based it has 1mb l2 cache and very low clock frequency, so it is sure that it will perform much worse in everything than what the op has chosen.
I think you should target 1,6 Ghz as minimum being dual core or not.

 

AMD processors are much cheaper than Intel processors mainly because AMD is trying to make up for their lack in sales. Intel processors have taken the lead over AMD, and AMD is combatting this by decreasing their prices. If I were you, I would get the Intel Core 2 Duo, it will be much faster and cooler than the AMD turion. The AMD turion line is not that great, and yes, I am an AMD fanboy, but their notebook processors are not as good as Intels.

This is why I had to buy a huge expensive notebook, becuase I wanted a real AMD in it.

I would go with the Intel.

K-TRON

 

yeah sorry about that. I suppose it is so hot?

 

What's hot? The cpu, or the name?

 

They consume more power, so they have lower battery life.

 

But how much lower? For example, let's say the 6-cell would give an HP Pavilion Intel on low usage 2.5 hours; how long would it give the AMD one?

 

they'd be about the same, i believe

 

yes, the difference would be negligable. alot also depends on other components and the screen size.

 

For gaming and impressive benchmarks to wow your friends, go Core2Duo. For general tasks and everything else, get whichever is the best deal. I was recently faced with a similiar decision between the Asus F9Dc-A1 (AMD) & the Asus F9J-A1 (Core2Duo). Similiar specs and I finally settled for the AMD which was $200 cheaper which I used towards a RAM upgrade and I couldn't be happier.

 

I agree with Mobil1. You won't see much of a difference using a C2D versus an AMD processor. Both will do your job of websurfing just fine.

I heard AMD is cheaper because they need an edge to sell their chips. I remember when Intel's Core Duo came out, and it blew away all of AMD's chips. AMD has still not caught up, and none of their comparable chips are better than Intel's. So what AMD did to compete is to sell their chips at a much lower price.

 

That's true for some applications and false for others. It depends on what you do with the machine which is faster.

 

the cpu is what I am talking about

 

Since the TK-53 is in your notebook, you'd be a better judge of that than me.

As for my 65nm TL-58, I think it runs a bit warmer compared to my old 90nm Sempron 3300+.