Intel Core 2 Duo vs. AMD Turion and UPGRADING?

Most of the computers I am currently looking at come equipped with either a Core 2 Duo 5250 or an AMD Turion TL-58? Most people I have spoken with like the Intel chips more right now, but the 5250 is rated at 1.5 GHz while the TL-58 is rated at 1.9 GHz. All of these computers are relatively identical otherwise. Is the AMD actually fast, but cheaper so put in computers of the same price range, or when all is said and done, is the 1.5 GHz from Intel about equal to the 1.9 GHz from AMD? Also, say I buy a toshiba A205/210 laptop, how difficult would it be to upgrade later to one of the faster processors in the line later on? One more question, anyone know where to find a laptop internal HD DVD player, DVD recorder?

 

The 1.5GHz C2D is as fast as the 1.9GHz AMD...with the C2D using much less power.

 

Currently Intel has the best Dual core, so the Core 2 Duo is better. There isnt much difference in the speed and the Intels better quality will make it faster. Plus AMDs usually dont have alot of Cashe either. And Yes the Core 2 will use less power and alot less heat production.

Hope I could Help

 

Here is a link that compares those exact 2 CPU's head to head. Overall there are some splits in results. All in all the C2D seems to win in the CPU area. It does lose in wPrime by 13 seconds. And if using IGP AMD has some pairings that crush Intel's IGP's.

C2D run cooler and use less power. What GPU's do both have?

 

Intel® Graphics Media Accelerator X3100 with 128-356MB dynamically allocated shared memory
and
ATI Radeon™ Xpress X1200 graphics and 319MB of shared video memory

 

They should be pretty evenly matched, the X3100 will handle Vista Aero better but the ATi X1200 might be better for gaming if you're planning on doing any.

If you're not I'd recommend the X3100/C2D T5250 system, there's a load of upgradability over the T5250 up to the T7700 and you'll get better battery life.

 

Well, the Radeon X1250 is a better IGP (more consistent performance). The X3100 has potential, but the drivers are nowhere good enough. Neither are meant for gaming though.

Most present Santa Rosa laptops can be upgraded To the new penryn CPU's, so the upgrade path is very good.

 

Other than the very good upgrade potential of the Intel, I would say.

Either is fine, I would by AMD if it cost less. If they cost the same Intel.


Moon your avatar looks angry, what movie is it from?

 

I'd say it's closer like:
1.5GHz C2D=1.7GHz AMD

 

Thomas take a look at link I provided it seems to support Johnny T's opinion.

 

The test powerpack has linkd to does prove that the T5250 and TL-58 are pretty even in performance while the T5250 uses considerably less power, so 1.5 C2D currently = 1.9 AMD for mobile chips. For desktop chips, 1.8GHz PDC = 2.1GHz AMD.

That's Susan Storm A.K.A. The Invisible Woman, from the Fantastic Four films.

 

Aka jessica Alba, Hotness personified .

Good thing about the intel desktop CPU's is that they OC extremly well.

 

They do. The AMD Athlon 64 used to be the king of overclocking, It was common to get 2.0GHz versions that would clock up to 3.0GHz, I myself managed to get my 1.8GHz A64 to 2400MHz on an MSI motherboard!

These days the PDCs and Core 2s overclock better.