T7500 or TL-60

which one do you think is better?

 

The 7500 is faster, and the core 2 duos are a little bit better than the turions in general, thus the T7500 is the better choice by far.

 

It rather depends on your actual use of the laptop.... Both the processors are good ones... I also heard that the AMD's implementation of the 64-bit architecture is far better than the Intel's.... But normally as of now you would be using 32bit only.... For mere office applications, web browsing, emails, casual gaming etc. the AMD is far more than enought and you can save a lot of money.... But if you do a lot of gaming and also require the best battery life then go with the Core 2 Duo....

 

For most things, the T7500 is better. If you have some specific high intensity numeric applications, then the TL-60 can be better.

 

For normal usage, the T7500 is far better. Even in Super Pi, any Core 2 can smash an old K8. I got my dad a TL-60, and it is not as fast as a Core 2.

 

If its the same price, go for the T7500, if not go for the TL-60

 

TL-60 seems to be more power efficient at idle, so other than a very specific usage pattern, like a 24/7 media center(where it is idle most of the time), core 2 duo is better.

However, if price is different, it would be the same old argument going back to even the 486 days, money is better spent on memory/GPU/HD than CPU to get an overall better system. I am seeing this effect, I have a mostly idle/low CPU utilization and a constant banging HD.

We don't buy a system to run benchmarks but use it.

 

Super Pi favors L2 cache which is unfair for TL-60.

Up to now I still don't know which one is better between the FSB vs L2 Cache.

 

I don't think that is true. The TL-60 my dad got does not have PowerNow!. It runs at full power 24/7.

 

Is it a model or CPU specific issue ? As most of the ad I saw about TL-60 based system mentioned PowerNow as a feature(or they may be cheating in that TL-60 is a crippled CPU). And AMD's CPU is known to use less power(if properly designed) at idle because of its integrated memory controller which allows the whole memory system to run at much lower power state.

Though for a notebook, the difference may not be that much of a concern, may be within 5W or so.

 

This is false information as all turions (being mobile processors) have built in power saving technology(i.e Powernow!). Powernow not only lowers the CPU clock frequency but also lowers the voltage when full power isn't needed. If you are running windows XP you need amd's cpu driver as this enables powernow to function as windows XP doesn't have the driver built in. However if you have windows vista the driver is already built into the OS like intel's Speedstep driver.

 

Also keep in mind that if your power setting is set to High Performance in Vista, the cpu will not throttle.

All Turions and Mobile Semprons have PowerNow..............

 

Sorry, but not all of us are hardened Windows users. When Windows was on the Notebook (Vostro 1000), I ran CPU-Z, superpi and toast to make sure everything was in order, then formatted it. I noticed that PowerNow! was not recognized by CPU-Z as a supported technology. Would installing the proper driver fix this?