Dv2000t Vs Dv6000z

For those of you that know these 2 models, could you give your preference on one or the other. Forget about size please, and try to base your answers on overall performance. I guess this basically come down to the processor, Core Duo Vs. Turion X2.

 

The Turion X2 and Core Duo are pretty closely matched and more or less offer similar performance, given the same clock speed...
http://www.tomshardware.com/2006/08/22/amd_dual_core_laptops_have_arrived/page12.html

Also note that the Go 7200 is 32MB dedicated + 96MB shared in the dv2000t and with the dv6000 it is 64MB dedicated+128MB shared. So, the dv6000 will have a very slight advantage when it comes to 3D performance.

 

I would choose DV2000z or V3000z. Personally, 6000z is too big for me to carry with hand(not bag). And the build is a bit of soft to me especially those quickplay and power buttons.

I finally decide to give up Go 7200, since it consume slightly more power than 6150 and I am not a gammer but produce media quite a bit.

And I have no hope to upgrade to C 2 D, the 34W power consumption scared me further away from Intel. I would rather choose a 35 W X2 since AMD is much engineer type of CPU, and Intel is much car sales man type of CPU.

 

You got it wrong. I just checked hp.com. The 7200 go is 64md dedicated and 192mb shared. "64mb is dedicated to video memory plus up to 192mb is allocated from system memory" hp.com

 

Right, thanks for the correction. But rh dv2000t still has only 32MB dedicated memory versus 64MB with the dv6000z. The hypermemory/turbocache does little to improve performance.

 

This is not true for notebook processors. Core Duo clearly outperforms X2 in all categories. X2 seems to suck the battery dry two times faster then Core Duo.

 

Well, my arguement is based on this post:
Look at the comparison figures for C 2 D

Maybe X2 dry battery somehow faster than C D, but I don't think it is 2 times faster. Besides, Yonah is in 27 W and Merom is in 34 W. I don't think Merom will have significant longer battery life than Yonah. If you equip Nvidia 7200 with C D, chances are you will have very close battery result compare to X2 + 6150.

 

Wrong.
http://www.tomshardware.com/2006/08/22/amd_dual_core_laptops_have_arrived/page17.html
Mobile Mark 2005 DVD Playback Test
Duo 1.83GHz: 3.1 mins/WHr
TX2 2.00Ghz: 3.0 mins/WHr
Tur. 2.00GHz: 3.2 mins/WHr

Office Productivity
Duo 1.83GHz: 4.1 mins/WHr
TX2 2.00GHz: 3.3 mins/WHr
Tur. 2.00GHz: 3.6 mins/WHr

Normalizing by battery capacity you see that the Duo does have the edge, but it's slight to 25% or so depending on what you're doing and the precise notebook configuration (shared or dedicated memory GPU, which chipset, etc). Tom's should have normalized their results for us rather than make people do the math on their own to straighten out the misleading bar graphs.

Edit: Well, OK, they did that on the next page, but still.

 

Then why are X2 equipt systems easily €300 cheaper then their Core Duo rivals? Also I would note that currently AMD still provides the only available Dual Core 64bit option (although that will change in the comming weeks). Core 2 Duo is the powerusers choice no doubt about it but AMD X2 remains the budget option.

In early 2007 the tables will likely turn against Intel once again as it stands now. the 65NM process will then be adopted by AMD as well and that will give the AMD processors the energy and speed avantage again. Although that has nothing to do with current notebook choices obviously.

 

You should ask why Intel keep their profit margin so high. Just look back the 90nm age, and see how the price trand goes. P-M's price is always higher than Turion. Before AMD had solid market share, Turion will almost always cheaper than Intel's. But if you look at desktop CPU, AMD kept high price at 64 X2 for more than a year before Intel D 64 came. That means something.

 

The reasons behind the prices are irrellavant in this comparison. The point is that Tomshardware claims the X2 lost out on the pricing to Intel and that is only partially the case.
Yes, the price/power ratio is in Intel's favor at the moment but the ACTUAL price is lower for AMD.

 

Nope, they actually claim that "...compared to an Intel platform based on the Core Duo and the company's own GM 945 chipset, the combination of AMD CPU and ATI chipset is inferior in terms of battery time and multitasking performance."

 

Read the quote in my first post in this thread.

 

OK. Here is a comparison of identical machines albeit different processors doing the same tasks (pdf format). The study was commissioned by Intel, but I doubt they fudged the results:

http://www.principledtechnologies.com/clients/reports/Intel/ConsNotePerf0806.pdf

 

I read it, but the point is AMD loses on all fronts. The cost of Intel Core Duo system, at least in the US, is often cheaper than a comparable AMD Turion/x2 system, so Tom's Hardware is right. Plus, AMD lacks in multitasking and battery life.

 

I have no view on the US market but over here (The Netherlands) X2 equipt systems are invariable cheaper then Core Duo's. I guess that is a Euro vs. US difference then. Lucky us.

 

How can I buy AMD from Euro and ship to US?

 

AMD is a bit cheaper here apparantly but overall prices are still about 20% higher so no one would be doing you a favour if they bought it here for you. (sorry )

 

Why didnt they use a 2.0GHz duo? Just so intel has the edge or what?

 

Possibly to compensate for the larger screen the Intel had.