Duo2>Turionx2>Duo>Turion64>pentiumM??

After doing a lot of searching about, this seems to basically be the gist of things in terms of speed for a CPU with the same list Ghz. Is there agreement on this? There does seem to be some debate about the turion x2 vs the Duo1, so I'm not sure about that one.

Assuming I'm more or less right, can someone give me an idea of how much faster one runs compared to another. eg a Pentium Duo is 20% faster than the same rated Centrino? etc. I understand the differences in architecture between the single and multi-cores but not much of an answer to how much difference there is in actual performance on a single CPU intensive task(ie not multitasking)

Also, I'm wondering what difference 64bit dedicated software (Vista, for example) will make in terms of performance for the AMD chips. Will a Turionx2 have a longer lifespan/run significantly better than the Duo?

 

Actually, Duo consume the least power of all, even beating it's elder brother, the Duo2. I can only say Intel still holds the upper hand in the mobile market, the all rounder.

The highest clocked Duo2 is bout 10% faster than the highest Duo, but this might be due to their clocked speed, 2.33ghz vs 2.16ghz

 

Core 2 Duo performs best, dont know about power consumption.

 

For multi-threaded:

Core 2 duo> Core duo> Turion X2> Pentium M > Turion 64

For single threaded:

Core 2 duo> Core duo> Pentium M > Turion X2 > Turion 64

Yes the Pentium M outperforms the X2 in apps such as Super Pi, look at the benchmarks

 

Super PI only uses one of the cores (It was programmed more than 10 years ago so, it can't be helped), so better to go for more "civilized" benchmarks.

 

Just because it uses one core doesn't mean it isn't civilized. The reason you would use that test is for single threaded processing checks. That would be necessary for comparing these processors with the Pentium M.

 

It's too bad for AMD that the order is actually

Core 2 Duo > Core Duo > Turion 64 X2 > Pentium M > Turion 64

 

AMD has strugled in struggle in the mobile market, because Intel always had a good competitor for it. Intel were very clever in the mobile market, as they didn't advertise the processor speed in terms of clockspeed, but rather the ability for them to run efficintly per cycle. AMD might be able to hit back with a release of a mobile processor based on K8L. We shall just have to wait and see.

 

Well, the Core (not 2) Duo is very slightly faster than the Turion64 X2 clock per clock, yes. However, when 64-bit becomes important those Core Duo chips will fall flat on their faces - they're 32-bit only. Also, the single-core Turion64 and Pentium M have nearly identical performance-per-clock, and the Turion64 MT series actually uses slightly less power than a Dothan Pentium M (25W vs. 27W). It should also be noted that the Pentium M, in addition to being 32-bit, lacks SSE3.

So the order is, essentially:
Core 2 Duo >Turion X2 > Core Duo > Turion 64 > Core Solo > Pentium M > Mobile Sempron > Celeron M

In terms of pure performance-per-watt and feature set, at least. That doesn't take in to consideration the fact that AMD's chips are almost universally cheaper. Still, if you need the best performance, Core 2 is the way to go.

 

Are there any other benchmarks (other than super pi) that doesn't give the core duo's a huge advantage because of their significantly larger l2 cache??


The whole program sits inside the memory lol.

 

Have you tried PCMark?

 

Thanks for the advice, guys!

I guess it depends a lot on whether 64bit takes off over the next couple of years and what advantages 64bit based apps will bring. Vista seem to offer some nice security features, so that's a good start

As a follow-up question, can someone give me a decent idea of how the dual cores compare to the pentium M and Pentium4? I have a centrino 1.66 in my old computer that was said to run the equivalent of a 2.8 pentium 4. (about 1.75 times the speed approx I've been told)

Seeing as most minimum requirements seem to use the pentium 4 clock speed as a guide, what kind of rule of thumb can I use for calculating the equivilent on a Duo1??

 

I assume you mean your 1.66 was a Pentium M? Core Duo runs slightly faster than pentium m in single thread apps (its like a core solo in single thread apps), and almost double the pentium in multithreaded tasks, So I assume in multithreaded tasks, A 1.66 ghz core duo should run the same as a 5.6 ghz pentium 4. (And I shudder to think what core 2 duos add on top of that)

 

yeah i just tried running pcmark 05' but one of the tests didn't work and i couldn't see my results...are there any other decent cpu benchmarking programs that are widely used? Or used on NBR?

 

Lol at the Amd Fans I know that Amdx2 and Amd havnt done very well in most benchmarks and amd1 doesnt out perform a core solo actually

 

Let me just add in one point missing from this discussion - Price. If you compare clock to clock, AMD is generally cheaper.

Intel's recent offerings (core & core 2) nicely outperform AMD's X2. But AMD's are generally cheaper, and are often built in cheaper machines. It is also easy to find cheap AMD laptops with "decent" integrated grafics solutions (ATI 200M, x1100, x1150; Nvidia Go 6100, 6150). Most of the cheap Intel laptops I find only have GMA 950.

While GMA 950 is the minmum required to run Vista Areo, the integrated GPU's by ATI or Nvidia will do a much better job. If you are into some lower-end gaming I'd also avoid GMA 950 if you can.

I found that what I really wanted was a Core 2 Duo and ATI integrated graphics. There were a few options out there, but in the end I found a comperable AMD X2 with Nvidia graphics that was a few hundred less than similar Intel machines.

 

Hmm I guess if that happens dramitcallyi can upgrade the procccessor to core 2 duo fairly easily

 

There's gonna be a tradeoff here for CPU performance vs. GPU performance?
Turion X2 & better gpu or Core 2 duo & GMA?

 

I'm not an AMD fan. In fact I'm using Intel at the moment, and am just deciding where to go with my next purchase. Until the last couple of days I've had no preconceived notions or advice of which is better. Except retail people just saying 'duo is better'... and I tend not to trust them because it's possibly not a coincidence that duo is also more expensive. Also, when you try to discuss anything in depth they generally don't know what the hell they're talking about.

I was sort of expecting the AMD people to be the most defensive (AMD being the under-dog and all) but discussing this in other forums it seems the Intel owners seem to get the most testy. Weird.

But anyway, in all the more professional benchmarking tests, the AMD x2 does seem to beat out the Duo1 fairly consistently.

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2648&p=1 (tests using BF2, Quake4 etc)
http://www.cowcotland.com/article149.html (uses Sandra 2007, PCMark05, Super pi, CPUmark99, ScienceMark 2.0, Cinebench 9.5, CrystalMark , 3dMark05)


Sorry, the second one's in French, you'll just have to trust me on it (or use google translator I guess)

That's what I've found too. Some good deals especially with the go7600.

AMD seems quite under-rated to me. The 64bit option (although I'm not convinced I'll ever use it, but it's nice to have the option), and the performance being at least as good as the duo1 for less price... I think maybe people just look at the L2 cache and just assume duo is better (like how it was with the Pentium M). But there's more variables than that.

From everything I've seen, I still think it's:

Duo2>X2>Duo1>64

Although maybe:

duo2>>x2>duo1>>64

is more accurate

 

I agree with you 100%.

Here's an excerpt from an article I've been reading on how mainstream review sites like Anandtech, XbitLabs, and Toms Hardware Guide that claim to provide balanced reviews of current processors which is really the contrary. This has become a two horse race between near monopoly, Intel and underdog, AMD.

"Dual core processors are becoming more common now. AMD had designed the Athlon 64 for dual core from the beginning. Intel's first attempts at dual core by simply sticking two chips inside the same package gave very poor results. Intel is doing much better now with the Core 2 Duo chips. However, there are some differnces in architecture and these differences are used to give Intel an advantage during testing. Conroe has a 4MB L2 cache that is shared between the two cores whereas K8 has a separate 1MB L2 cache for each core. One of the latest common ways to skew results is to only run a single benchmark so that the Intel core can use the entire L2 cache. Since AMD's cores have separate caches this only gives an advantage to Intel. This is very dishonest. The whole point of having dual core is to use both. The proper way to test would be to run a program on the second core to load it while the first core is tested. Running the same benchmark on both cores is not a proper test as this allows the Intel processor to share the benchmark code betwen the cores and save some space in the cache. In the real world, it is incredibly unlikely that anyone would have the same code in use by both cores at the same time. The program that loads the second core should be different from what is used on the first core to have a proper test. Yet, this proper way of tesing is still being avoided by review sites because the Core 2 Duo chips would not only have to share the oversized cache between the two cores but would also have to share meory accesses using the slower FSB. This kind of proper testing could end up erasing all of Conroe's apparent advantage and no review site has risked this publicly. If they have done this kind of tesing privately they have not published the results."

 

While I think plattnum may be a little biased in favor of AMD (if his avatar is any indication ) he brings up some valid points.

If I were to compare based only on architecture & clock speed (which most people do), I'd say it goes something like this:

Core2Duo>>CoreDuo>TurionX2>>CoreSolo>Turion64=PentiumM>>Sempron>Celeron

If we look at similarly priced processors (which I think is a more valid comparison), it’s something like this:

Core2Duo>TurionX2=CoreDuo>Turion64>CoreSolo>PentiumM>Sempron>Celeron

If we include chipsets and integrated graphics (which I think is the most valid comparison) it’s like this:

Core2Duo + GMA 950 > TurionX2 + Nvidia/ATI > CoreDuo + GMA 950 > Turion64 + Nvidia/ATI > CoreSolo + GMA 950 >> PentiumM >> Sempron > Celeron

If you want me to go on ad-nauseam, you’re in luck. If not, sorry. I was just typing this up for some relatives that asked me help them pick out a laptop. I guess I may as well paste it here for everyone.

INTEL
Core2Duo - All the way around Core2Duo beats them all. Its' 64-bit, Dual-Core, and nicely battery optimized for laptops. The only disadvantage is has is that Core2 chips aren't cheap. Core2's come in 2 types, 5000 series and 7000 series. The 5000 series have 2MB cache (shared between the cores) and the 7000 series have 4MB (shared as well). Yes, even the 5000 series beats the Turion X2 (clock for clock or price for price).

CoreDuo (the first one) has most of the benefits of the Core2 lineup, but they are not 64-bit. For the most part this is irrelevant for most consumers as there isn't much 64-bit software support out yet. Still if you are looking to keep you laptop for 3+ years then 64-bit may be more mainstream by then (but I don't think 64-bit will be a requirement even 3-5 years from now). The first CoreDuo's were not as battery optimized and don't quite perform as well as Core2 either, but the difference is small. They have 2MB shared cache again. The big disadvantage is that Intel sells the CoreDuo chips for the same price as Core2 chips (clock for clock), although Intel does offer some OEM only chips to the big retailers (HP, Dell, etc) that are discounted even more.

CoreSolo - As you probably guessed this is a single core version of the CoreDuo. In fact is actually a CoreDuo chip with one of the cores disabled. Some people think these are a CoreDuo where something went wrong, but that's not totally correct. It's actually cheaper to just disable half the chip in production instead of redesigning a whole new chip. I'm not totally sure, but I believe CoreSolo's are only 32-bit, but this may change in the future (if it hasn't already). You may think that you are only getting 1/2 the processing power of a dual-core chip, but in reality there isn't much support yet for multithreaded applications (software that uses both/multiple cores at once). If you are someone who does a lot of multi-tasking you'll still get a benefit from dual-cores as one core can concentrate on one program while the other core does other things. But if you are pretty strictly a one-thing-at-a-time kind of person you may not see any difference at all. In fact, for some things like single threaded games where the processor pretty much puts everything else on hold to only play the game there isn't much difference at all - you would even be better of with a faster single-core chip than you would with a slower, dual-core chip. Still I like to have the 2nd core on standby to handle all the other stuff that always seems to come up (i.e. playing games in the middle of the night when I have my anti-virus scheduled to run along with downloading updates, and scheduled maintenance). I still notice some slow-down when something that that happens, but its nowhere near as bad as it was on a single core chip.

PentiumM - Prior to the Core architecture Intel had the PentiumM. While its obsolete now, you may still find them for sale somewhere, and clearance pricing can be a good thing. PentiumM's were decent with battery support. They were only single-core and only 32-bit though. Still if you find them at a good price you are better getting an PentiumM than you would be to get a Celeron or Sempron. At least they were a full featured chip. If you are looking at getting a PentiumM make sure you do your research. This name was in use for a long time, so there are a wide variety of PentiumM chips available. You have to look at more than just the clock speed to determine what kind of performance you can expect

Celeron - These things are the bottom of the barrel for chips. You have to pay attention to the model number here. Celeron's have always been a disabled or crippled version of some other chip. A core based Celeron is better than a PentiumM based one for sure - but all Celerons are lousy chips. One of the key things that Intel disables is their speed stepping. This allows the chip to run slower than full speed if the processing load is light. This is particularly important for laptops as it can really impact your battery life.

AMD
Turion X2 - This is AMD's first dual-core mobile processor. AMD has been 64-bit for a while. They also have clock speeds similar to Intel Core chips and they are generally cheaper so you'd think this would be a clear winner, but its not. While it does have some advantages (price) it's based on an older architecture and generally does not perform as well as Intel's Core architecture. It is also not as battery optimized as the Core lineup. All that said it is still a great chip - it’s just not the best.

Turion64- If you want a little history, the Turion64 was designed to compete with the PentiumM. It was a pretty close competition with some things performing better with the PentiumM and other with the Turion64. The Turion64 ML/MK was a little cheaper, but with slightly less battery life. The Turion64 MT version had similar battery life as the PentiumM and priced about the same. The PentiumM was only 32-bit so I'll credit the Turion 64 as the winner, but it was basically a tie. From here AMD decided the next step was to build a dual-core version of the Turion. That's where the TurionX2 comes from. AMD had designed their chip from the beginning to be a dual/multi-core chip, so it scaled pretty well. Intel kinda caught AMD off guard by not just making a single design change, but by almost simultaneously rolling out a greatly improved architecture, 64-bit support, dual-core chips and shrinking the die size. In the same time AMD moved to dual-core as well (and they already had 64-bit support), but AMD hasn't released a new architecture yet, and they are just now beginning to shrink their die size. If you consider that the Turion64 and the PentiumM were basically equals, you can think of the TurionX2 as a dual-core PentiumM with 64-bit support.

Sempron – This is AMD’s version of the cheap chip. Its better than a similarly priced Celeron just because AMD doesn’t disable as many features (like cool n’ quiet, their version of speed stepping), but this is still a disabled/crippled chip.

CHIPSET & GPU
This leaves GPU’s as about the only thing left to talk about. I won’t get into comparing much between GPU’s as there are several other articles out there about that I can point you too. Unless you are into playing games, or some heavy graphics work on your laptop there’s not much reason to spend much money on a dedicated GPU card. So that leaves us comparing the integrated GPU’s. I’m also not going to get into an ATI vs. Nvidia discussion. Both of them are better than Intel graphics (or SIS or Mirage for that matter – avoid them like the plague if you want to run Vista Premium). Most often Intel CPU based laptops come with integrated Intel GPU’s – GMA 950. While GMA 950 is the bare minimum needed to run Vista Aero Glass, ATI or Nvidia do a much better job of it. If we look at AMD CPU based laptops you’ll see that the integrated GPU’s are from ATI or Nvidia. This is almost like getting a small upgrade for free. If I had to give it a monetary value, I’d say its worth about $25 to me. If you upgrade to a dedicated video card this advantage goes away. If you want to be able to play games, then spend the $50-$200 for a dedicated GPU.

Now there’s a lot more that goes into making a computer other than the CPU and GPU. RAM, hard drive and the accessories come to mind. (I’m not going to say that things like screen size and resolution, DVD/CD-ROM players and recorders, speakers, etc. aren’t important – but they generally aren’t customizable. I won’t get into hard drives at all either. So long as you are comparing comparable RPM drives (4200, 5600, 7200) they are fairly similar in terms of performance. Just pick the capacity you need and allow some room for growth.

I will say that you need to watch it when you are comparison shopping between AMD and Intel laptops at the big US retailers. AMD has become known as the “value” brand as often retailers package AMD laptops with lower-end parts. This isn’t necessary a bad thing as you can often upgrade these if you want, but it can make direct comparisons difficult. Likewise if you decide you want a Core2Duo based laptop you may find yourself getting stuck paying for options you don’t really want.

As for RAM – I’d get at least 1GB if you are looking to run Vista. (Even if you aren’t, I’d still recommend at least 1GB.) If you shop on-line, RAM is about $100 for a 1GB module. If you are looking at any of the big retailers and they want much more than $100 to upgrade you from 1GB to 2GB then its not worth it. They shouldn’t ask more than $50 to upgrade you from 512MB (1/2 a GB) to 1GB either. If they are asking more than street prices for RAM, just forget it and do it yourself. Anyone can add/upgrade RAM on their laptop easily. It won’t even void any warranties.

If I had to find the cheapest laptop possible, I’d go with a Sempron. But if could find any way to scrape together another $25-$50 I’d find a CoreSolo or Turion64. Sometimes you can even find a CoreDuo for about the same price as a Turion64 (that’s a good deal). Generally it takes an additional $25-$50 more to get a Core Duo, or a Turion X2 (I’d take whichever one was cheaper at the same clock speed). But I really wouldn’t be happy until I found another $25-$50 (that’s about $125 more than the original Sempron) and got a Core 2 Duo.

If you’re looking at staying as cheap as possible (Sempron with 512MB RAM) and your budget will only allow you to upgrade the RAM or the CPU, but not both (i.e. about $50), I’d go for the CPU. You can easily upgrade the RAM later, but it’s relatively difficult, maybe impossible, to upgrade CPU’s.

If you had another $50 and had to choose between RAM or another CPU upgrade it would be difficult, but I’d still go with upgrading the CPU so long as you figured you can upgrade the RAM later. If you look strictly at the performance numbers under Vista you may see more improvement by adding RAM first (especially with an integrated GPU already stealing system memory), but so long as you can still add RAM later, I’d say its not as critical.

If you make it the next upgrade (you already have a dual-core CPU, TurionX2 or CoreDuo, but still have only 512MB RAM) then I would say you will see a bigger improvement by upgrading the RAM than you will by going to a Core2Duo. Still if you think its at all possible that you can find more money in the upcoming months to upgrade RAM later, then go ahead and order your laptop with a Core2Duo now.

If you are trying to decide between 2GB of RAM with a Core2Duo or a 1GB with a faster Core2Duo, I’d go with the faster CPU and upgrade the RAM later.

CONCLUSTION & RECOMMENDATIONS

~$500 ($550 - $50 mail in rebate + $13 shipping (no tax) = $513)
NASCAR PC NCL3006 on NewEgg.com
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16834228002
AMD Turion 64 ML-30(1.60GHz) 15.4" Wide XGA 512MB DDR333 (1 Dimm) 60GB DVD±R/RW ATI Radeon Xpress 200M Integrated
This is a decent deal. Everything here is about year old technology, but you can’t argue with the price ($550 with $50 mail in rebate and $13 shipping). Other similarly priced laptops I found didn’t come with a DVD +/- RW (so you can record DVD’s, not just play them) or with a Turion processor (others have an inferior Celeron or Sempron processor). The only real disadvantage here is that you don’t get a bundled copy of Vista, and there’s no option to get a discounted upgrade later.

~$580 ($500 + $49 shipping + $29 tax = $578)
HP V6000Z at HP.com
http://www.shopping.hp.com/webapp/s...ding=notebooks&a1=Usage&v1=Everyday computing
You can configure this for about the same price as above. You do get Windows Vista Home Basic included, and there’s a free hard drive upgrade from 60GB to 80GB. The rest of it is pretty unimpressive; Mobile AMD Sempron(TM) 3400+ (1.80GHz/256KB), 15.4" WXGA Widescreen (1280x800), NVIDIA(R) GeForce(R) Go 6150, 512MB DDR2 System Memory (1 Dimm), DVD/CD-RW Combo Drive.

~$820 ($735 + $49 shipping + $35 tax = $819)
HP V6000Z at HP.com
Compaq Presario V6000Z customizable Notebook PC
This is about the same thing, but with a few upgrades. I actually don’t recommend getting all these upgrades as it will then put you close to the Dell deal below which is a much better deal. I just want to show you what a few more $$ can do. When you are below $1000 on a laptop every $50 will allow you to upgrade something.
• Genuine Windows Vista Home Premium ($35 over Vista Basic)
• AMD Turion(TM) 64 X2 Dual-Core TL-50(1.6GHz/512KB) ($100 upgrade over the Sempron)
• AMD Turion(TM) 64 Mobile MK-36 (2.0 GHz/512KB) ($60 upgrade over the Sempron
• 1024MB DDR2 System Memory (2 Dimm) ($60 upgrade over 512MB)
• DVD+/-R/RW ($40 upgrade over DVD/CD-R/RW)

~$860 ($819 + $40 tax (free shipping ) = $859)
Dell Inspiron 1501 (AMD) or E1505 (Intel)
http://www.dell.com/content/products/category.aspx/inspn?c=us&cs=19&l=en&s=dhs
Once you get above $800 the Dells are a better deal. There’s a coupon for 20% off any Inspiron laptop over $1000. So of course the idea is to get is just over $1000 and take $200 off. Dell is also offering free shipping at the moment so that helps too. Here’s 2 comparably priced builds. You’ll see that the processor in the AMD side is clocked faster than the Core2Duo. You may also see that the AMD build has a better battery. That’s because at the same clock speed the AMD was too cheap (it wasn’t over the $1000 limit to qualify for the 20% discount). I upgraded the processor and other components as much as I could, but the AMD laptop was still too cheap, so I upgraded the battery to get me to a similar price as the Intel system. I wish Dell had the AMD Turion X2 TL-60 (2.0 GHz) in stock. That would have been a better upgrade and still allowed me to keep the same battery as the Dell. A TL-60 is generally about $50 more than a TL-56 so that would show you how comparable priced Intel vs. AMD systems would compare. An AMD Turion X2 TL-60 with ATI x1150 GPU vs. Intel Core Duo T5500 with GMA 950 would be pretty comparable. I’d expect AMD to win some benchmarks with those setting and Intel to win some others.

AMD Turion™ 64 X2 Dual-Core Mobile Technology TL-56 (1.8GHz, 2x512 kB L2 Cache)
FREE Upgrade to Genuine Vista Windows Home Premium with 1GB of memory
15.4 inch Wide Screen XGA Display with TrueLife™
1GB DDR2 SDRAM at 533MHz, 2 Dimm
120GB 5400RPM SATA Hard Drive
8X CD/DVD Burner (DVD+/-RW) with double-layer DVD+R write capability
ATI RADEON® Xpress1150 256MB HyperMemory™ (Integrated)
85 WHr 9-cell Lithium Ion Primary Battery


Intel® Core™ 2 Duo T5500 (1.66GHz, 2MB L2 Cache, 667MHz FSB)
FREE Upgrade to Genuine Vista Windows Home Premium with 1GB of memory
15.4 inch Wide Screen XGA Display with TrueLife™
1GB Shared Dual Channel DDR2 SDRAM at 533MHz, 2 Dimm
120GB 5400rpm SATA Hard Drive
8X CD/DVD Burner (DVD+/-RW) with double-layer DVD+R write capability
Intel® Graphics Media Accelerator 950
53 WHr 6-cell Lithium Ion Primary Battery

 

Well, one would sure hope that the AMD would do better if its running a dedicated card if the Intel is running the 950.

Still, from what I've seen even with similar graphics cards the X2 puts up a much better account for itself vs the duo1 then seems to be generally accepted fact.

Looking at a lot of those benchmarks I've linked, even comparing the same clockspeed x2=duo1 overall, and in 3d games it seems like x2>duo1.

 

pcmark05 didn't work for my computer, the results wouldn't display for some reason. Successfully installed and ran 04 though...I cant find any results for the Core 2 Duo though except for pcmark05...anyone know where i can find their numbers for 04?

 

I think you missed my point. I'm not trying to compare AMD with a dedicated card to Intel with an integrated one - that would totaly not be fair. What I'm saying people need to look at is the Intel with intigrated Intel graphics (GMA 950) and AMD with integrated ATI/Nvidia graphics (no one makes AMD laptops with Intel graphics). Even though the chipsets add a similar cost to the laptops, the integrated ATI/Nvidia GPU's are superior, and that gives AMD a nice advantage.

 

Oh, sorry Jak - I see now. That was my ignorance talking there. Thanks for all that info, by the way - it's helped me a lot, and I'm sure other people too.

 

Yes - the only incentives AMD has are the better IGPUs and 64-bit (which core 2 has anyway)

 

Don't forget price...AMD is cheaper. For many who don't use all the CPU power anyway, that means more savings for them.

 

so nobody has an c2d pcmark04 scores?

 

Yes, that and they're just as good.

I'm still not why everyone insists duo1 is so much better than x64. All the reputable application benchmarks I've seen show the x64 at least as good as the duo1. (both with dedicated graphics cards)

Core 2 duo is another matter of course.