help to AMD comparison and computer test

Does anyone know where my AMD Turion and processors are compared to intel...

Is there a program to show how much my computer can perform and what would be fixed og improved??

I think I am starting to regret buying this laptop...

 

Its comparable to a 1.6-1.8GHz Intel proc.

 

intel duo ??

 

use the passmark or pcmark benchmarking tool and run the cpu tests to get a score. just compare this score to others on the internet. A TL-58 1,9 GHz is comparable to about a 1.5-1.6ghz core duo

 

you should not regret that. You have a good rig, which is just slightly less powerful than intel for most apps, thats it.

 

Install SiSoft Sandra (free) benchmark your CPU. You can then compare it to many CPU's they have stored to see how yours compares. And no Thomas does not mean Core Duo he means Core 2 Duo. TL's and CD's are about equal C2D are said to be about 25% more efficient clock for clock so maybe 1.5Ghz to 1.6Ghz would be my guess. But it does vary you can't directly compare all as on some things TL might be almost equal to C2D clock for clock. What is it you are not liking about your setup? The CPU is not responsible for all issues. If you explain maybe suggestions could be made?

 

That GPU isn't the hottest, so if you're trying to use it for heavy gaming or GPU intensive tasks (3d modeling, etc) then you might be suffering. The Good News is most GPU's are upgradeable, and almost for sure anything by Nvidia since the the 6k series in laptops can be outfitted with a newer version of the card. You'll want to check voltages and if you really upgrade the GPU you'll probably need a beefier PSU (I.E. the 7900 GS needs more juice than that 8400, as it's a much faster card, even a 7800 or 7600 might be faster than that 8400-too many people think that the"8" is better than the "7" when really it's the 2nd number that indicates the cores and then the GO/GS/GT/GTO/GTX that designates the memory and clock speeds on the core!)... Yeah if you were told you have a CAD/Game rig when you bought it, you were lied to. It MIGHT play some older games, yeah?

It's a nice system though- it will do all the work I would need for a multi-media and CAD system outside of that video card, which is simply entry level casual basic stuff... It's as low as you can go with the latest generation of Nvidia GPU's that isn't an IGP (I.E. there is no 8200- and a Gf 7600 GT would be an upgrade!). For sure the CPU is plenty for everything outside of heavy number crunching (you're not using it for compiling or DVD ripping are ya? But even if so, unless you're doing it all day you won't notice but a few minutes less on a better CPU in 1/2 hour or something to that effect)....and the rest of the specs are fine- and even with that Entry-level Non IGP, it's STILL far better THAN an IGP solution!!!! (Integrated Graphics Processor) so it WAS worth it- and you CAN upgrade almost for sure... But post what apps you want to run that are not and we can help a bit better with recommendations for upgrades and if you even will see any results WITH an upgrade, that make is worth it.

...The CPU is just fine though, even might be better than a C2D 1.6-1.8... certainly comparable, 100% in the real world!!!!

 

Tom's Hardware has some mobile CPU benchmarks for both Intel and AMD.

John

 

oh yeah forgot about that website any ways according to the website an AMD turion 64 x2 TL-58 is roughly equal to a 1.4ghz core 2 duo according to pcmark 05 and in sisandra the amd is rougly equal to a 1.5ghz core 2 duo and according to vista's experience cpu score (which is not really a good indicator) it is 0.8 points below a 1.4ghz core 2 duo which would correspond to something like a 1.2ghz core 2 duo. So all in all an AMD turion 64 x2 TL-58 is equal to a 1.4ghz core 2 duo processor.

 

So like I said a 1.5Ghz to 1.6Ghz C2D. I was not making it up. I hate to say (not) but I was correct!

 

Most notebook GPUs are not upgradeable. Sorry, but do some homework. Either parts can't be swapped because they are soldered, or they are upgradeable but no better part exists to fit in the (usually proprietary) card slot in the notebook in question.

Desktop GPUs are upgradeable, but generally you cannot upgrade a notebook GPU.

 

So do anybody know if the GeForce 8600M GS is upgradable?

It's not possible to upgrade the cache on the motherboard is it?

 

The graphics card in your laptop is not upgradeable.
First off, the cache is not on the motherboard, but on the processor. You can upgrade the processor to a Tl-68 if you really wanted to, but I believe even that processor has 512kb l2 cache per core.
Do not warry to much about the cache levels. AMD processors utilize cache differently than an Intel processor. Intel cpu's run better with more cache, but amd processors can run great with 512kb cache.

K-TRON

 

I don't really know much about these scores,... Is this ok?

3DMark Score 2438
SM 2.0 Score 953
SM 3.0 Score 925
CPU Score 1249

 

The problem with AMD Turion x2 chips is that the memory controller is intergrated in the CPU. This is BAD for laptops as the CPU must constantly be running at full clock speed since integrated graphics constantly access system memory.

AMD/ATI actually made a fix for this by adding a small amount of 16 to 32 bit dedicated memory for the integrated graphics. This fixed the problem but sadly 95% of laptop Mfr dont add this extra memory to keep costs down (only $10). Stupid if you ask me.

This is another reason why AMD Turion x2 chips run so much hotter than intel core duo /C2D chips.

 

I think you are mixing so many concepts as to be so totally wrong. You are clearly confused. Either post links so we can explain or ask questions. A little knowledge can be dangerous. With your scenario, what if discrete GPU? Still the same heat issues. Integrated and onboard are not the same thing. AMD's on board is brilliant and in theory offers much. The traditional FSB? Intel is doing all to hang onto and improve until they have the ability to develop a chip that does what AMD's already does. I am not saying they can't but as long as they can keep tweaking FSB issues they will. When they finally do? Watch out it will be one wicked mean CPU!

Edit: Oh and your reference to on board RAM? Well the UMA I have largely addresses that. I believe what you were referring to is called "side porting" and has little to do with much of what you say.

 

Oh powerpack you have much to learn about electrical engineering....I dont think you understand the relationship between GPU, dedicated\shared mem, and system RAM and how AMDs integrated controller affects everything.

Here is an example, http://techreport.com/articles.x/7588/2. I lost the link detailing this issue with laptops but here it goes...

If you have descrete GPU then no, no heat or latency issues since the GPU has its own dedicated memory to store your screen image and would not have to constantly access system RAM. The problem with AMD having an integrated controller on the CPU is that the integrated graphics must constantly access system memory. This is a problem because to access system mem the integrated GPU must first go through the hyper transport bus, then the CPU (integrated mem controller) and then finally hit system RAM where as Intels integrated graphics have DIRECT access to system memory! Because the only way to access system mem is through the CPUs memory controller the ENTIRE cpu must run at clock. This is a major problem which is why AMD/ATI decided to add a small amount of narrow mem directly attached to the integrated graphics. This design is not aimed at stupid 3D gamers but at 2D users which is 95% of users out there especially laptop users. This would eliminate IGP access to system mem and allow the CPU to reduce its clock for a much longer period of time hence saving battery life and running cooler since anything other than stupid 3D games NEVER uses more than 16mb even at 1440x900 at 32bit resolution. A good example of this is the zv6000 laptop which is one of the VERY few laptops which used this extra memory and MANY were confused if it had decrete or dedicate. The answer was BOTH. It had NARROW (32bit) dedicated memory which purpose had NOTHING to do with playing stupid 3d games but it had everything to do with reducing latency and saving battery life and having the laptop run cooler.

Like I said Mfr dont even include this essential and CHEAP memory on AMD laptops that have int. graphics. Just look at the T-1616 review and you can see missing chips. http://www.notebookreview.com/default.asp?newsID=4102 BIG shame on Mfrs!!!

 

I really do not want to continue this as long as you refer to Intel for discrete and AMD for IGP's! Let us do apples to apples!

Well not what you said! I may need to study electrical engineering but you need to work on accurate communication? Who should be more offended? I don't care I am cool I never claimed to be a CS major, but I do use English everyday.

I already told you it was called side porting and UMA is all they do now? What are you talking about? An HP with what I think a 200m? Come on! Telling me I don't know about electrical engineering? Dah! I am not but you still lack much to your argument. And I might even add if validity you so convoluted as to be factually incorrect. Example. You compare Intel Discrete to AMD integrated. Observe and comment on substantial differences? What? TF are you talking about? If you have a point? Consider it and it's implications. I would then consider what you are saying. Do not throw out 9 things that are incorrect, that I then dismiss, and play a game of calling me on the 10th! I am not joking, learn English, and I know it is your 1st language so work on it.

Edit: I spell checked your post and fixed!

 

1. Side porting STILL uses UMA but only when stupid 3D gamers launch games as that requires large amounts of memory.
2. YES, UMA is all Mfr do today. They do NOT include the extra side port memory even though they have the option to. Its a shame and AMD laptops with IGPs suffer because of it. The zv6000 with 200m is one of if not the LAST laptop that did side porting and its a SHAME.
3. I still dont think you understand the technical aspects of what I am saying. There is a great article about this is I can find the link.
4. AMD Turion x2 is still based on the original Athlon 64 core which was designed for DESKTOP use. Not laptop. For example Intels Pentium M based CPUs were desgined for laptops from the ground up (same structure of core duos and core 2 duos) and are able to power off sections of L2 cache to save power. AMDs chips MUST have all L2 cache powered on and since L2 cache takes up MORE than 50% of the CPU you can see why AMD has run into a problem. All they did was shrink a DESKTOP cpu. on top of all that if the laptop has IGP withOUT side porting memory (95% of laptop do NOT have the side port memory) it will query the CPU constantly for memory access and not let the CPU reduce its clock to save power.

 

PP calm down. no need to jump on the guy.
Grimster has some important points, but as an AMD user, I can say that having the integrated memory controller does in fact offer a great performance gain. However, the integration of the memory controller adds to the power requirement of the cpu, so the TDP will increase and thus run slightly hotter. However, the memory controller is not why AMD chips run hot. This memory controller will use less than 1 watt of power, which is not that much in terms of heat production. In an intel system, this 1 watt of heat will be dissipated by the passive or actively cooled chipset.
AMD chips do not get hot, its the crappy heatsinks in the laptops which cause the processors to get hot. My AMD is a server processor in my laptop, and it never breaks 55C under full load for hours on end.
PP has a turion processor in his Gateway, and I have an Opteron in my Voodoo. In both laptops, the memory controller is built into the processor. If PP or I use the system with task manager open, we can see the process usage of the system. I know on my system, my cpu usage is rarely over 10%. I use Cpu rightmark to montor my processor, and the clock speed rarely has to run more than 1Ghz when using heavy memory usage programs like the adobe CS3 suite. The power required to continually access the memory is very low in relation to how powerful modern processors are. Plus the integration of the memory controller actually speeds up the system more than slowing it down. This is why amd based laptops can make use of slower memory and still have higher memory bandwidth than an intel system with faster memory. My processor will also run cooler than pp's processor or anyone else's turion, cause my system has a 2 lb copper heatsink, which can actually dissipate the 125 watts the processor uses. Most amd laptops have small heatsinks, and the odm's only allow the fans to come on at 60C anyways, so the memory controller is not what causes the amd chips to run hot.

Integrated graphics suck no matter what system you have. I do not have any systems with integrated graphics, so I cannot tell you off hand about my experiences.
I know that onboard gpu's suck mainly because they are basically enough to run the basics of an operating system and no more. Therefore the bandwidth of the chipset based graphics are very low. Having onboard graphics does take a toll on the cpu since the cpu has to run the programs and the graphics.
In a system with a dedicated graphics card, the processor just talks to the graphics card, the graphics card than translates the processor talk into an image and sends the image back to the processor.

EDIT:
okay who said the amd athlon core architecture is bad. Actually the amd athlon core has one of the most complex processor architectures. The turion processors were out before the intel core based processor, so AMD was just trying to bring out their best into the amd market at this time. When the turion processors were launched AMD was king, and amd had a very low share in the notebook production lines. Almost all laptops were intel based. Amd wanted to gain a share in the laptop industry, so they pushed their renowned athlon core into a processor designed for laptops.
Intel processors utilize cache differently than an amd processor. AMD processors are much more efficient in their use of cache memory. A amd with 512kb of cache will perform much better than an Intel with 512kb of cache at the same given clock speed

K-TRON

 

Grimster, I really am not a hard ass. I am a jerk. You were actually trying to say things that might may be relevant regarding "memory controllers". That peaked my interest. I would like to hear more. I also would like to hear more of your knowledge. I apologize for getting off on the wrong foot. So with that said I would like to say welcome! And you certainly have some thoughts. I would like you to share, that is how I learn. So forget about me arguing with you, tell/teach us. I mean it.

 

why is Grimster referring to 3D gamers as "stupid" all the time? What is so stupid in having a break after a busy working day? That is just not a nice attitude.