Turion 2.2 vs Core Duo 1.6?

I'm planning to get a x1600 15.4"-inch, and with the MSI's 1039 being delayed, by the time it comes out I may be able to choose between it and the Core Duo laptops with x1600s about to come out (barring the Macbookpro and the Acer 8204). The MT-40 (2.2ghz) is the best processor that would fit in the MS-1039, so I'm assuming that a Core Duo laptop that would cost similarly would have the 1.6ghz processor, which costs the closest to the MT-40 online. The laptop would be mainly for gaming. Which one would be faster?

 

Clock for clock Pentium M outdo the Turions and even the AMD64 line. And the Yonlah is more efficence then then the Pentium M. Also later in life you should be able to just drop a Merom in if you want 64bit programs. Go with the duel core over 64bit turion

 

I thought we still didn't know if Merom will fit in Yonah's socket. Also, to straighten something out:

duel = a fight
dual = 2
duo = a team of 2 people

Therefore, it should be called dual core, not duo core or duel core. The only exception is Core Duo, which is Intel's trademeark name for mobile dual core processors.

 

finaly, sumone who kan spik inglish !

 

No.

Clock for clock the Turion 64 and Pentium M perform about the same, the former wins in some, as does the latter.

Check this out:

http://www.laptoplogic.com/resources/detail.php?id=17

The Turion 2.2 vs. the Core Duo 1.6 is no contest, the Turion is significantly better.

 

Reize, what are you talking about?
any core duo destroys any turion
i had an HP L2000 2.ghz turion, and it got 1min56 on pi
my core duo (also 2ghz) gets 1min16
that's a HUGE difference, even without the second core working.
a 1.66 would still beat a 2ghx turion, and probably close to a 2.2 turion (and even then, the second you use the 2nd core, it's all over the turion)
i love AMD (and use them) for desktops, but lets face it, amd kinda sucks on laptops, they're usually just the budget ones (i said usually, cause the ferrari is an exception

 

Hm I did some searching, and apparently the lowest Core Duo (1.67GHz) outdoes the best Pentium M (2.4GHz): http://www.systemshootouts.org/processors.html

 

Super Pi is just number crunching, you can't base an entire CPU's overall performance on one area, though it does encompass many. Howabout some PCMark scores...

sabishii, I don't agree with that chart, simply because I agree with lonelymarine and other member's combined tests over some random other guy who posts a chart.

Super Pi also says that the 2.0 Core Duo outperforms the AMD FX-60, which it doesn't... At all...

 

yea what syxbit said, and where did you get the idea that the 2.0CD outperforms the fx60 reize, i want to see that

 

A Super Pi result had the Core Duo 2.0 outperforming a FX-60.

http://www.notebookreview.com/default.asp?newsID=2841

 

Super Pi is a basic indication of a processors performance...the FX-60 will perform a fair bit better than any core duo at the moment, but that benchmark does not reflect that. Don't just choose a processor by its Super-Pi performance...

 

That's what he's trying to prove, if you read his previous post. I'm paraphrasing but it was something like this:

"Super Pi shows a 2.0GHz Core Duo outperforming an FX-60, which...it...really doesn't"

"Super Pi does not reflect in all areas of CPU performance, though it does show many... How about some PCMark scores?"

 

A CoreDuo 2.0, cant beat the FX-60. its impossible!!

 

I compared 1.66 coreduo 1GB RAM, X2 3800 1GB RAM, and Pen D 840 2GB RAM in a Multi threaded app.
X2 3800>core duo>Pen D 840.
The differnece between X2 3800 and Core Duo wasn't that big so I think 1.83 GHZ will be the equivilant to X2 3800.
From this result, it's hard to imagine that Core Duo is faster than FX60.

Forget about single core turion. It's a joke compared to core duo. Even if it's a 64 bit chip, by the time there will be enough apps for vista 64, single core turions will be outdated.

 

Just because it's older technology, Turion 64s are no slouch.

Especially this situation, this is the almost bare minimum Core Duo vs. the BEST Turion 64.

 

I know Turion was not a bad processor.
I know the MT series performs as well as Pen M.
Then why am I critisizing Turion?
It's because even Pen M is a joke compared to core duo.
1.66GHZ core duo is 2 times faster than a 1.86GHZ pen M(533MHZ) at least in a music production app called Cubase(Multi threaded of course).

 

So, you're coming using a Dual Core CPU to a single core CPU in a multithreaded program...

Of course it's faster, multithraded programs are DESIGNED for Dual Core CPUs...

 

Merom will drop into the current Core Duo socket, and has been done without a bios update.

 

Yeah, but the question was which would perform better, not which was most upgradable.

 

I'd actually suggest the Core Duo over the Turion. While the Turion has more pure performance, the Core Duo will multitask better and offer an overall smoother computing experience. Processors are honestly so powerful at this point that for regular use, a multi-core processor is going to feel a lot better, regardless of the clock speed delta.

 

I thought we are talking about maximum potential?
Isn't windows XP a multi-threaded OS?
The fastest Turion WILL probably outperform the slowest Core Duo, but that is only if the user only uses a single app that is not optimized for multicores(Well maybe some CPU-friendly apps running at the same time might be OK).

 

Are there any benchmarks?

 

i couldn't find any benchmarks...however, when i was searching for it, i ran across this page with benchmarks for the turion x2 that i thought would interest some. if someone has already posted this information, then please disregard:

http://www.computerbase.de/news/hardware/prozessoren/amd/2006/maerz/cebit06_benchmarks_turion_64_x2/

 

Most apps are single threaded, the Turion 64 will perform better than the weakest core duo on single threaded apps.

No XP is not multithreaded.

 

i guess it depends what benchmark
the super pi that users here like to use. the core duo 1.66 would beat the turion 2.2 (the core duo is, clock for clock more efficient than ANY other processor)
i know 600mhz is a lot, but it's less efficient)

i agree that super pi isn't all encompasing.
it certainly isn't better than the FX's, but a 2.0 core duo is probably better than the athlon64 3200+ (2.0ghz)

 

Benchmarks aren't a good example of actual performance.

 

Lmao...... come on man. You cant be serious.

 

A benchmark puts the Core Duo 2.0 over the FX-60, which is complete bull. Don't base everything on benchmarks.

 

How would you know?


Do you own an FX-60?

I do..........what chip owns the world record for super pi? Let take a guess its not the FX-60 Its a Yonah!


What is the matter with you. Just because you have a hurt ego doesn't give you the right to miseducate members of this forum that come here for help. Biased opinions from ego hurt amd fanboys doesn't hold any water.


Im honestly getting tired of you posting garbage like its FACT. Get over it Merom does beat FX-60 in performance. I, not some guy own an FX-60 (a very fast one i might add) and i can admit my chip gets a beat down by the upcoming intel mobile chip (Merom)


Now you own a what? Turion........... and i guess that makes you think you know anything about FX-60 performance?

Get real boss. Its time to wake up and smell the coffee. Amd will come back strong when they're good and ready. Intel has been planning this for years......

PS go post over at XS and tell fugger he's a fake for posting BS benchmarks.

 

http://valid.x86-secret.com/show_oc.php?id=84027

Click the link. As you see there im currently #9 in the World for highest validated OC on an FX-60. When i get my ram back in next week ill possibly break the top 5.


So please tell me i don't know FX-60 performance.

 

I'm not an AMD fanboy. Accusing others of fanboyism in such a manner is a rather immature act.

The fact that we're not talking about Merom notwithstanding, the current Core Duo CPUs are NOT better than the FX-60. The fact that Super Pi says otherwise shows that benchmarks aren't the end-all be-all deciding factor of performance.

I didn't say the Merom doesn't beat the FX-60, I don't know as the Merom isn't out yet.

Frankly I'm getting tired of you shooting off your spout calling others fanboys simply because they disagree with you.

EDIT:

Another thing, my favorite company is Lenovo, they don't have AMD CPUs in their notebooks, that would make them hated by AMD fanboys thus that prooves I am not one.

 

Ok, what is a coreduo 2.0????????

But yes benchmarks are PERFORMANCE tests. Thats why they're called benchmarks.

Thats why every review includes benchamarks.

I just dont understand how you can vouch for the performance of something you haven't experienced before.

 

Everything boils down to dollars and cents really...

If 2 years down the road, you want to run 64 bit apps on your laptop... then get a Turion. - Planning ahead

If in 2 years, you're going to get a new laptop (because you can afford it or just because you want to) then get a core duo. - More performance today

Sure the turion gets beat down by the duo in multi threaded apps, but that's not what they're designed to do right? lets see a core duo crunch 64 bit apps then.

Its like comparing a Jet-car (or was it rocket car? you know... drag racing with parachutes to stop them?) with a street racer. The dragrace car will beat the **** out of a street racer, but can it handle turns and such?

Perspective...

 

No, synthetic benchmarks are not the end-all-and-be-all of peroformance testing. SuperPI, for example, is highly Intel-biased. Let's try taking a look at some 3DMark05 CPU scores, for example, in which the Turion and Athlon 64s beat down the Pentium M and Core Duo consistently.

And if you still think benchmarks are everything, let's take a look at some 3DMark results. 3DMark05 would have you believe that an x200M is more powerful than an FX5700 - almost twice as powerful. Now you take an x200M and an FX5700 and play some real games on each and you tell me which one is more powerful. How do I know this? Because I own a computer with each.

The fact of the matter is benchmarks aren't that important. They're good for simple comparisons, but basing a whole buying decision on one synthetic benchmark? That's nuts.

 

Point to some 64bit apps that matter atm in time. In 2-3 months conroe will be out, and long before windows vista. There wont be an abundance of 64bit apps for at least 1 year after vista's realease.

But this thread was about performance of the turion 2.2ghz vs the coredup 1.6. Which isn't a fair matchup at all. The Coreduo will win in almost every test.

And no, there aren't any real 64bit benchmarks out yet.

 

Yes i agree, the biggest mistake you can make is to buy something based on synthetic benchmarks. Simply because your not garunteed to the same results as the bencher.

Buying according to need is more like it.

And lowly 3dmark 80% gpu. (feel free to correct me if im wrong because i dont really care about these benches. I dont even own any pc games..)

Speaking of which i need so do some 3dmark tests and see what my desktop comes up with

 

Those two posts are very contraductory. First you say it'll win in all tests like that matters the most, then you agree in saying that synthetic benchmarks aren't a reason to buy one laptop over another...

 

You make no sense? Yes it will win the tests. Just like i said. But no where can you see me saying buy the chip because it wins all of the tests.

and BTW "contraductory" huh?

 

The "U" key sits directly to the left of the "I" key on the keyboard, humans are capable of error thus I can make a typo. If you're now resorting to making fun of others because of simple typos, I can point out an enormous amount of typographical and grammatical errors in many of your posts, that's a really low road to take.

Saying it completely bests the other in tests is a reason to buy something over something else.

 

I know im just messing with you. i do it all the time

 

Syx...what are you talking about...if benchmarks were everything we wouldnt be where we are today. The only thing duo cores destroys (because of its 2 processors) turion is muti-tasking not gaming. Turion features the 64 bit processor which is a large advantage of the duo 32bit processors.
In addition the duo core is meant for portability while Turion much like Pentium 4 arent. And keeping in this mind ... there is no comparision as they have totally different purposes.

 

Turion 64s are meant for portability, they're just not quite as good as the Core Duo battery allocation-wise.

 

Both cpus are meant for portability. Turion is amd's first real mobile chip. Its gonna take them a few years to get it right. But they will.

 

Ok let me rephrase...Its not meant as much for portability as the duo core. Intel rocks the notebook market and apparently AMD is not so close yet so technically its not so much for portability.

 

I don't think single core turion have enough power to handle 64 bit apps after 2 years.
After 2 years there will at least be merom, turion X2, and mobile athlon 64 X2.
I don't think any laptop processor is currently ready for 64 bit apps.
If you want something that will last for a while you will have to get a desktop.