Pros and Cons: AMD and Intel CPU's

What are the pro's and con's to an Intel cpu and a Amd cpu??
More specifically the CD T2450 @ 2.0 with GMA950 and Athlon 64 X2 TK-53 @ 1.7 with Nvidia 6150
Like speed ie wPrime(SuperPI don't count because it is single core), power consumption, heat dissipation etc.

The intel is $50 more than the amd, is it worth it?

 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the T2xxx series a Core Duo, and therefore NOT a 64bit capable CPU?
The Intel will be faster anyway, but you won't be able to install a 64bit O/S (eg Vista Ultimate 64bit etc.)
I think all Intels (Pentium M, CD, C2D) are better in power consumption and heat aswell.

 

T2450 is core duo. Tuff death match here, speed T2450, Heat and power guess Intel but I think TK-53 is on 45nm so don't know. Future TK-53 64 bit. It is a toss up! I would go intel unless I was maybe going to go 64 OS, or Intel came with GMA 950.

 

Yea I'd agree with that, though no CPU is 45nm yet (talking about Intel/AMD mobile). AMD and Intel are both on 65nm now. Intel ramping up 45nm for early next year.

 

Yea, that's what I meant, 65nm!!

 

intel cpu's are hands down better than amd since the core duo. the one thing is that the core duo won't run 64 bit operating systems. the core 2 duo will. the only downside is that intel cpu's are more expensive. still- they are better in both performance and performance / watt.

 

I think amd are more easy to fried than intel...

 

Eh? Last time I heard of a fried CPU was when watching a Youtube of a processor without heatsink. I don't think either one is easy to fry.

That said, the intel is better and most likely worth the 50$

 

My TL-52 besting a 2Ghz core duo and below , also 3.8Ghz P4 Intel should be ashamed!!

 

So you really think it is because they are not 64? How about they are slower? Will you give that much? C2D's are faster but the rest have to take a break!!!!

 

Welcome back, had a long break under that rock? Yeah things have changed since the introduction of the Athlon series back in 1999/2000.

Plus clock for clock the core 2 duo is simply faster. No ifs, or buts. Plus the C2D consumes less power.

 

In the past 9 or so issues of MaximumPC, theres always been editorials about how intel pwned AMD with the C2D. Now apparently AMD is working hard to come back into the performance market with a better chip, but as for models that are out already. Get a C2D

 

I'll swear by an ATI or Nvidia IGP over an Intel one any day (even the supposedly "improved" X3100...I won't believe it until I see it with my own eyes)

AMD isn't completely worth writing off just yet...for a lot of people AMD processors can be a good way to save a bit of money in the notebook if having a ton of processing power doesn't really matter. If you're more minded to having the best performance possible (namely where things like hard drive speed really REALLY matter to you) then the C2D is the clear preference at this point.

 

baddogboxer, you forgot to mention that your screenshot shows that your TL-52 is overclocked It's running at the same speed as a TL-58 I believe?

 

Pros and Cons: AMD and Intel CPU's

Intel Core2Duo

• Pros - only exists because AMD invented the X2
• Cons - only comes in one colour

AMD X2

• Pros - Forced the innovation and progression of CPU design, while keeping Intel prices affordable.
• Cons - It too, only comes in one colour.

Without AMD, laptops today might still be slow and unresponsive compared to desktops. I don't mean to state the obvious, but AMD provides the competition that fuels progression in this industry. If you are buying a laptop today, you should not be concerned about processor speed. spend your money on real (real world) bottlenecks like memory, hard drives and graphics.

 

depends on the task at hand.

also depends on the battery life you want.

average user should really focus on memory > hard drive > cpu

gamers should focus on memory > graphics > cpu > hardrive

specialists should know what to focus on.

also, if you want your battery to last you as long as possible, (in hours, not talking about long term battery longevity) then you should be using a core 2 duo processor, among other components.

 

A few things here:
1) we're not talking about Core 2 Duo, the Intel CPU in question is a Core Duo.
2) as such, the Turion/A64 X2 lines up very nicely in terms of performance and power given similar clockspeeds.
3) the X2-powered system has vastly superior graphics capability (Geforce 6150 vs. GMA 950 - no comparison)

 

good call.

"CD T2450 @ 2.0 with GMA950 and Athlon 64 X2 TK-53 @ 1.7 with Nvidia 6150"

intel pro:

the processor is considerably faster for processor intensive tasks. the battery life will be longer.

intel con:

3d graphics capability will be lower. you cannot run a 64 bit operating system.

 

"A few things here:
1) we're not talking about Core 2 Duo"

Sorry techguy2k7, you are correct and I got off topic. But the Core Duo is still Intel's answer to AMD's X2.

I would definitely choose the Athlon 64 X2 TK-53 @ 1.7 with Nvidia 6150 over the Intel laptop. The GMA950 is not the best choice if running Windows Vista. However, if running XP and not concerned about graphics, the Intel laptop may be a better choice.

 

The GMA950 can run Vista without any problems. However, if games are in the equation, then indeed the Nvidia 6150 would be better.

If only the CPU is taken in consideration though, I think that the Core Duo would perform better than the Athlon 64 X2. Especially in the power consumption area, since the Athlon64 X2 is even less efficient than the TurionX2 as can be seen by the product code (TK versus TL).

 

They are both the exact same laptop, except the intel is $50 more but has the CD T2450 and GMA950. The AMD is $750+tax, and has a TK-53, and Nvidia 6150.

The TK-53 is supposedly in between the TL-50/52 and Tl-56

Both are 14.1", 1gb ram, 160gb, 12-cell.

My bro wants to get the AMD and see how it performs. He will likely upgrade to 2gb ram.

You think his/it will beat mine if he has 2gb ram?(see sig)