Are amd's that bad?

I'm looking for a laptop and i seen some good deals but alot of them come out to be AMD Turions <---really dont know where they stand on the amd scale and the amd64 series. Anyways i wondering if a amd processor can provide me with the same performance as a intel core duo processor and if so which amd processor could?

 

AMD turions are the notebook versions of the AMD desktop CPUs. I think they are 64bit and are more or less based on the AMD64 and X2 brands. In the notebook arena, AMD hasnt been able to rival Intel compared to CPU performance so dont expect the same speed Turion to beat a core or Core2Duo. Maybe you need to get a faster CPU to compete say for a intel 1.5 you might need an AMD 2.0 but this is just speculation.

Its not that theyre bad per se but they just arent as good. Theyll do the job just fine but in the end the intel C2D is just better at it. so any AMD will do really, theyll perform well and do anything you want, just not AS good or AS fast as the C2D would.

 

AMDs are great. They are fact, perform well and run pretty cool. That being said, th intel Core Duos are faster and run cooler.

So don't sweat it, get you AMD and enjoy it!

 

AMDs are cheaper chips than Intel usually which is why they're seen more in lower end laptops. While they aren't quite as quick as Core Duo and Core 2 Duos they generally have enough power for most tasks, more than enough for basic use such as office/internet.

 

AMD's are by no means bad as they would be fast enough for most people's needs, they're just *slower* than Intel processors.

 

They're not bad, it's just that as with every CPU generation there is a side that is not as good. In this case, the AMD's are not as good performance-value wise, but as mentioned will perform just fine for everyday tasks.

 

They arent bad.

I will most likely have my next laptop be AMD.

 

reason is because core duo has 2mb l2 cache, turion x2 only has 512kb

 

AMD ain't that bad. It's just that intel got the upperhand with their core duos for the time being until AMD figures sth out

 

True, and the AMD's have significantly faster memory latency. For example, there are many so-called toy benchmarks like SuperPi and Prime95. These programs are tiny and can fit entirely inside the L2 cache on some processors. This can give these programs a tremendous boost in speed because memory is much slower and, if they fit entirely inside the L2 cache, they don't have to access memory very often. However, these toy benchmarks don't actually measure real processor performance because real applications are much larger and would never fit inside the L2 cache. Since Intel typically uses caches that are twice the size of caches used by AMD these scores from toy benchmarks only benefit Intel in the comparisons.

 

in short...no AMDs are not bad. to a majority of people the AMD processors have more than enough processing power. it really depends on what you plan to do with your pc.

 

Amd x2 is not really competitive but the desktop cpus are great.

 

Actually, the Athlon and Turion are both based on the same k8 architecture. AMD64 CPUs don’t have noticeable performance difference between them, as all of them use the very same memory controller (the one inside the CPU).

 

Are are asking about single Core Turions or the Dual Cores.
The dual core AMD CPU's are weaker,a bit more consuming but cheaper than Intel CPU's.But if you are asking about single Core AMD's, they are good , in fact AFAIK better than Pentium M CPU's.
If you are just a home user with a couple of not-so-complicated games, it's fine,but if you want to run demanding applications the scenario will be different.

 

Even the Pentium Ms are faster than any single core AMD mobile chip.

With the exception of the desktop market (in which Intel recently took the lead), Intel has always had the upper hand in performance and battery life...but you pay a little extra.

That being said, the AMD are really darn good in and of themselves. They can hold their own, especially in standard office, email, browsing, iTunes, etc, etc. They cost less too...which means that non-power users generally can get an AMD machine that fits their needs for a little less money. And since the GPU is usually the first bottleneck of a gaming system, that means the AMD chips are equally good in gaming (most of the time).

However, as soon as you start encoding video and audio, running HDTV, engineering/math intensive software...you'll want to pick up an Intel CPU. They'll cost more, but you save time on all those operations...and that time adds up. But keep in mind that general user tasks will take about the same amount of time when Intel and AMD chips are compared.

 

They're good, I have one.
Mine's the older series, not dual core like the X2 series or with the new socket like the MK series, but I'm loving it.
The Core 2 outperforms it, but it is by no means bad.