Any reason to consider AMD instead of Intel?

The Intel Core 2 Duo outperforms AMD Turion X2s rated at the same clock speed. For instance, the C2D T7250 vs. Turion X2 TL-60 are both 2.0GHz but the T7250 wins in every test I've seen. The main benefit of choosing an AMD is the (usually) lower price compared to the Intel-based notebooks.

Currently, I'm thinking about ordering a new HP Pavilion dv6700 and it's available as both the dv6700t (Intel) or the dv6700z (AMD). I configured each of them to similar specifications, the only difference is the amount of RAM. I built the AMD model with 3GB of RAM (the Intel just has 2GB) thinking it could help offset the difference in processors.

I was shocked with the results- the total was absolutely identical for each of them- $937.99. Here are the specs I selected-

Both have Vista Home Premium, 256mb nVIDIA GeForce 8400M GS, Webcam, Fingerprint Reader, Wireless A/B/G/N + Bluetooth, 120GB HD, DVD RW and 6-cell High Capacity Battery upgrade.

dv6700t- T8100 CPU (2.1GHz/3mb L2 cache)- only $25 more than T7250, 2GB of RAM

dv6700z- AMD TL-64 CPU (2.2GHz/1mb L2 cache), 3GB of RAM

For the same exact price, is there any reason to choose the AMD? Does the additonal 1GB of RAM have much benefit?

Inquiring minds want to know.... Thanks.

 

The only reason to chose AMD is price, AMD used to offer better integrated graphics solutions but the X3100 is a big step up from 950GMA so that is less now. I would go Intel at this point.

 

Well, there is. But it's you to decide if these benefits will cover the loss by choosing AMD

AMD has way faster ram to CPU and GPU to CPU connections, which makes game smoother (assuming you have same graphics card) and you have faster ram performance (and your vista ram index goes up by 4.5 to 5.5 if that matter to you=P) and also AMD platforms can currently support DDR2 800. Intel can't. And this is also why AMD has less cache. Intel doesn't have integrated memory controller and they have to cover it up by putting more cache in it.

But until puma platforms comes out in couple of months, I would still recommend intel if same price. Although AMD and Intel are head to head competitive in low frequency (1.6-1.9) CPU, Intel definately takes over AMD in high frequency

 

AMD has 64 bit capable processors... so future proof.

 

So are Intel's.

 

*whistles casually* just look at the sig

 

Wrong conclusion.
AMD's memory bus is a lot more efficient than Intel's yes.
Intel compensates by putting more cache on the CPU.
Overall, systems with an Intel CPU are generally faster.

The implementation details don't really matter then. As long as an Intel system is faster, it doesn't really matter who has the most elegant memory bus, or whether one chip "needs more cache" than the other.

 

Intels have been 64-bit capable for quite some time now. That used to be a big reason a lot of people chose AMD processors. Intel, by far, is the better processor now, in my opinion. AMD, however, still makes a very good processor. OP, I don't think you can lose either way.

 

Other than the raw performance right up front, I would pick the intel for the upgrade options. I would prefer the socket P option over the AMD, because like you mention PUMA is going to be the big AMD focus and IMO that older board isn't going to get any nice potential CPU upgrades. Anything's possible, but I'd prefer the intel for that reason ontop of current performance.

Memory can be updated later, and having the better CPU pfront is nicer since 'usually' the memory upgrade is easier. Just be sure to check with the mfr that you can upgrade that 2GB in the intel up to 4GB without all the issues many of us had with the BIOS and mfr trying to restrict the home upgrade despite all the components supporting those sticks (and even them showing up in BIOS and memtesting in other similar specd laptops ok).

And as mentioned intel chips have 64bit suppor, but of course it's AMD 64bit support not the oldschool intel i64 support so just like in every AMD chips there's a little intel, same vice versa.

 

AMD is far superior, their mobile line sucks but their opteron series is amazing. I have an opty in my laptop and it flies. It has much faster mflops, Mips and io's than any intel mobile chip. Of course the Q6600 and 6700 in the d901c outpaces my opteron, but it still is blazing fast.
I have the fastest AMD laptop, which makes me smile. I am an AMD fan, but unfortunately, the performance of Intel has been much higher than AMD in the past years.
I would never pay for an Intel based system, but those are just my fan boy sides kicking in.

Get the Intel its much faster than the AMD turion.

K-TRON

 

Just so all know I do have AMD and a much better graphics solution than Intel offered so I am no "fan boy".

 

Both are still integrated so still are poor compared to dedicated graphics cards.

I hear AMD has better Virtualization technology and I like that its enabled on most of their processors.

But with Intel, the processor can have hardware virtualization but they let manufacturers disable it or lock it off.

 

Despite Intel's improvements to the X3100 graphics system, I think the AMD system's Geforce 7150 Go probably wins the match there.

Conversely, it is likely that Intel wins on battery life. Current AMD CPUs are a little more power-hungry than the Core 2 Duo T8100, which is based on the new Penryn-core and is arguably the most power-efficient laptop CPU on the market (excluding ultramobile CPUs like the Intel Atom or VIA/ARM/etc alternatives).

If you wanted to do something with heavy graphics, I'd recommend an alternative to either of these laptops, so I'd probably go with the Intel. I love AMD's products, but I'm a person who looks at what you're getting for your money, and at the same pricepoint, I'd say you get more with the Intel CPU model.

P.S. RAM is relatively cheap and easily upgraded. I wouldn't factor that into your decision.

 

This is my first AMD powered comp & i bought it because it had nVidia graphics.

nVidia Gfx have much better drivers compared to Intel.

Due to this even 6100 performs better than X3100 on VISTA only so i bought AMD .

And also because i wanted to try out what the fuss is about AMD's.. i am using it and i am happy . they are good .

It all depends on the user how he maintains his comp.. if u bloat it with junk it ll slow down.

But ya intel is better for XP.

 

Intel CPU's are better for Vista too.
But of course, more powerful graphics help too, and Intel's integrated tends to be a problem there.

It'd be more accurate to say that both AMD and Intel are good enough.

It's been something like 10 years since it was even possible to get a too slow CPU. Yes, for gaming and other CPU-intensive purposes, Intel might have an edge, but it's not something you're really going to notice if you buy AMD:

 

What are you likely to be doing with this laptop? Anything that'll use 3GB ram? I must confess even I who likes to root for an underdog would choose the Intel in this case. Even with the newer 65nm AMD, the 45nm Penryn would give you better battery life, run cooler and have faster overall performance. With 2GB ram sticks at £36 even in the UK (i.e. likely cheaper in the US) ram is easily upgradable.

The TL-64 would certainly be the more interesting choice, it'd be good to get some proper becnhmarks out there for the cpu to see how AMD's newer high-end mobile cpus compare. Apart from that I'd probably go Intel.

 

ya... but i bought AMD just cause everyone i knew said it 'sucks' ..i wanted to give it a try.

How many here are like me?

 

When I chose my current laptop from the store shelves, a deciding factor of my decision was b/c of the fact that it was the only laptop that had a decent graphics solution (by that I mean good enough to run my games). Although I knew that most of the Intel laptops in the store could outperform the AMD, I chose the latter b/c it had a useful graphics card.

In the end, my money didn't even go to AMD because of the processor!

 

Well on top of everything else that has been said, I've had better wireless connectivity with Intel over AMD.

 

Wireless cards do not work that way!

That has to do with the integrated wireless card, and AMD doesn't make any IIRC

 

Ha ha! So let me get this straight. When I bought AMD and my love life improved, it had nothing to do with AMD? Hmmm, interesting, not sure if I agree.

 

I've had little complaints with the AMD machines over the years, with the exception of heat. The current 65nm ones are not much better, and comparing them to a 45nm Penryn............

Granted, my observations have all taken place from inside an HP consumer chassis (so your result may differ).....

 

I think big advantage with Intel is that u can get a 2.5ghz core 2 duo based laptop for around $900 (Check HP/thinkpad deals). I got a R61 with 1GB RAM/250GB HDD/T9300/NVdia 140/Vista Ultimate for $990. I bought 2GB of RAM outside for $20 AR AGO. I clean installed 64-bit Vista Ultimate and now it flies.
I dont think AMD has any system close to that performance.

But if u r planning a low end intel system with integrated graphics, AMD can match and exceed it. If u r getting Intel I would recommend T8300 at least and a dedicated graphics card unless u r extremely concerned about battery life.

 

Check anandtech review comparing T7300 (2ghz) vs TL-66 (2.3ghz) and intel just wins every benchmark.

http://www.anandtech.com/mobile/showdoc.aspx?i=3117&p=6

 

My Turion 64X2 TL-56 1.8 Ghz on HP compaq Presario heats up the Touchpad & the upper surface much more than my Dads Intel C2D 2.4 Ghz on Sony VAIO.

Either its AMD or is it HP poor ventilated chassis.

 

Unless I miss read the Intel in question is the T7300. Still the point is the same, Clock for clock C2D beats AMD.

 

Good catch. I shall fix it. Big fact is that merom with 15% less clockspeed beats turion x2 by almost 15%. Penryn is slightly more efficient than merom. I would say overall penryn would be between 15-20% fast clock for clock than turion x2. plus it runs cooler. With all thinkpad and HP deals it is a no brainer at this point to get a intel based laptop.

Hopefully griffin changes things.

 

I also bought mine because of that reason(My parents think that Intel is the only processor around)

I also bought this beacuse of

1. Price(cheaper than the intel version by 75$)
2. Has a Bluetooth(Intel version has none)
3. Has 1x1gb RAM instead of 2x512RAM for Intel(default specs)
4. Has a 8400G graphics card(Intel = x3100)

Which would you choose then???

 

Not in my opinion.

 

Isnt price and IGP a room for deciding between AMD or Intel unless of course you are rich

 

Buy AMD to help them recover from their losses and eventually they will regain the performance crown, in both CPU and GPU!

lol.

 

Sorry for off-topic, but have you run any other benchmarks on your laptop? I'm currently looking at a laptop which has very similar specs to yours (Acer 5520g, Tl-58, 2gb, 250gb hdd, 8400m g) and am trying to find some user feedback on the performance of the laptop (ie. performance, heat, battery etc)

Thanks.

 

So you want me to run benchmarks???? might be hard but as for

Performance- The performance of my laptop is quite good Processor can be easily overclocked to 2.25 Ghz(safe zone) and the GPU can handle most recent games in low settings(tried WiC, HellGate,GRAW2)

Heat- Processor under full load= 73-75 degrees Celsius GPU= 75-80 Degrees

Battery- Little on the cons here

Battery under "High Performance"= 1 hour
Battery under "Power Saver"= 2.5 hours

Oh also your laptop is has a 15.4 inch screen right then you will have a cooler temp since there will be more air vents

What kinds of test will you like me to perform????

 

Don't worry about running any benchmarks just for me, if you had any 3dmark/pcmark results handy then that would have been cool, but don't worry about it.

CPU temps seem a little high under load, do you run your processor overclocked 24/7 or is that normal temps for a Turion x2?

Thanks for your help, it is much appreciated. I'll send some rep your way.

 

Umm it is actually normal, you can ask person with AMD's what their temps are.

Yes it is on 24/7.

Your welcome glad to be of service.( Yes!!! my second rep point)

 

Downloading PC mark 05 right now from Guru 3d. I'll post my score later

 

So your CPU temp could be higher as a result of you overclocking it to 2.25ghz? I would be running mine at stock speeds, and given that your in the Philippines I'm guessing its a little bit warmer there than it is over in the UK. Sorry for the questions, but if I upgrade I don't want something that is going to be worse on battery life and temperatures, just want to know everything about the laptop before I buy.

Is that your laptop in your avatar, an Acer Gemstone?

 

Yes it is summer right now, I am even sweating even if my electric fan is just pointed at me.(normal temp here right now is 35-45 degrees Celsius)

Yes that is my laptop

 

Its always summer in the Philippines. Its a tropical country haha

Under full 100% dual cpu load your expected to get at least 70-85c with intel or AMD

 

Yeah, I should probably take that into account when looking at laptop temps from the Philippines. My father lives in Thailand and I know his laptop fan is pretty much on by default!

I wasn't expecting the Intel/AMD dual cores to run so hot, but I just ran WPrime 32m on my Pentium M 1.7ghz and that was up to 70c after 2 minutes so.... perhaps I'm just expecting too much of these 65nm dual core machines. I never run anything stressful when I have the laptop on my lap, its usally firefox and WMP11. If I want to game then the laptop goes on my desk, and there it is elevated at an angle to allow air to get underneath. Perhaps I'm just worrying about nothing here!

 

Hey if you compare our countries temperatures then of course it is always summer here. Actually if the Temp outside goes to 25 degrees Celsius I would consider it cold already and I'll be wearing a jacket(This happens when the snow in China melts)

To sionyboy

see i told you my temp is just fine

 

Yeah, it did alarm me at first, but its the first real-user feedback I've had on the Turion X2 65nm range. I did start a thread asking about the Turion Tl-58 but I didn't get many responses, perhaps everyone here is on Intel (with good reason of course....but still!)

 

Maybe you just in the wrong time when most of the AMD users are all offline.

Just downloaded PC mark. Will run 2 tests under "my" normal settings and Overclocked settings

 

Okay here are my test results.

First Pic is in normal state
Second Pic (overclocked shader clock and PCI-express card FSB)
////////CAn't overclock the CPU to 2.4 GHZ anymore since it overheats///////////

 

You rock. Is your CPU at stock speeds (1.9ghz) in both of those results?

I ran PCMark on my laptop earlier, 1998... so I'd probably see a bit of improvement if I did get this new laptop.

 

No, They are both at 2.25 Ghz. That is my safe zone for overclocking.

I only go beyond this (2.4 GHZ) when

1. Running a benchmark
2. Running a single threaded application

Of course if the benchmarking process is long then it will overheat just like PC mark

 

Cool, looks like my concerns over heat were not needed, I'd be running at stock speeds anyway, and it very rarely goes over 25c in the UK anyway!

Think I may have to place an order for a new laptop tomorrow. Thanks for all your help, if I could give you anymore rep I would (but it won't let me....yet!)

 

Interesting. What idle temps are you getting when in the overclocked state? My TL-58 is around 48-50C idle (stock), which is admittedly way better than it was before my BIOS update........

 

Your welcome. WOW I made someone decide something in this forum.

Looks like the answer for "Any reason to consider AMD instead of Intel" is
"If people already tested it out and you liked the results then buy AMD instead of Intel"

Hey how do i know that you gave me rep points???

 

what overclocked state 2.25 GHZ or 2.4 GHZ??

2.25 GHZ is the same as yours

2.4 GHZ never really tried it because it overheats quicky