dv2: Athlon Neo Single core Versus Turion Neo X2

I was wondering if the new Neo X2 chips in the dv2z are a big improvement over the original Athlon Neo MV-40 single core. IIRC All three are clocked at 1.6 ghz and the single core and dual core Athlon Neo have the same amount of cache (512k) but the Turion has 1mb. I'm up in canada and am considering getting a dv2 to play some older games on, and the dual cores are not yet availible up here, so I am wondering if its going to be worth waiting for the dual cores to become availible up here or should I just go ahead and get one with an MV-40. I already know I am going to be getting one with the HD3410 graphics (not even going to try to game on the X1250, although its probably better than just about everything Intels got out there...).

 

If you plan on playing "older" games, they will most likely be CPU intensive, in which case it doesn't matter how good a GPU you have, the CPU will be the bottleneck. Since both chips are clocked at 1.6GHz, and those older games will probly utilize one core, it doesn't matter which version you get.

Now if you will be playing games that you know utilize more than one core, the Turion X2 is your best choice. Other advantages over the single core MV-40 version, is you will be able to load "multiple" apps and programs faster, have more tabs opened when browsing, etc.

 

Well older games generally run fine on a single-core Athlon so i think the'll be fine.

But for general use waiting for the duals would be a good idea.

 

yeah i agree, games like star craft or roller coaster tycoon... the CPU intensive games I was talking about are the games that were released between the transition period from single to dual core. A lot of great first person shooters then had high clocked CPU minimum requirements.

 

thanks for the recommendations. I was also wondering if anyone did any direct benchmark comparisons between the 3 CPUs, also I see on the HP US website that the Athlon Neo X2 has been dropped, its either Athlon MV-40 or Turion Neo X2

 

There's a mini (but very well written) review posted on this board last month. Why don't you check it out and compare with existing DV2 benchmarks?

 

You seem to forget that the new processors are more effective clock-per-clock. Besides, i can play Call of Duty 2 and Red Alert 3 just fine on a Pentium 3. It is a dual-CPU board with 1GB RAM and a Radeon 9800 Pro, but still.

 

Just in case you were wondering about the Neo X2 L335, I ran CpuMark and Geekbench and got 823.9 and 1687 respectively. The single core MV-40 scored around 400 and 1200 on the same tests.

 

i finally found a thread with these CPUs!!!



anyways, my question was if it's possible to play Battlefield 2 with either of those 2 cpu's?

i'm definetly getting the dedicated GPU, now it's just a question of the CPU.

if this ain't possible i might have to take a look at the lenovo u330...

i hope you guys can help me out here

 

Can anyone explain to me why the Athlon Neo X2 beats the Turion Neo X2 on the CPU Passmark benchmark list? Is this a mistake or is it possible that the Athlon is better (even though less cache)???

Athlon Neo X2 = 852
Turion Neo X2 = 766

http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu_lookup.php?cpu=AMD+Athlon+Neo+X2+Dual+Core+L335


NOTE: I just looked at the 'samples', and the Turion samples averaged 1335 Mhz vs 1595 Mhz for the Athlon X2...could it be that people were using the Turion in some sort of power saving mode that underclocked the processor for the test? THanks for your help.

 

Yes. It's most likely that the Turion was used in its power saving mode. Regardless, the mobile Athons are simply Turions with less cache, and one less (official that is) power state. So the Turion is going to be the better processor no matter what.

 

The U330 is better between the two, but it costs a little too much for Intel P7350 and increasingly outdated ATI HD3450 that tops out at 2000 in 3DMark06. If you have that kind of money to blow why not look at Asus U80V instead?

 

In my opinion, the single core machine was already expensive enough for what you get. A dual core Turion is still going to get beaten up by any Core 2 Duo so I don't see the value there.

 

Umm, care to show any proof? I have compared my DV9700 with an Acer with a 2GHz Intel C2D T6400 and Geforce 105M (which is simply a rename of the 8400M GS btw), and they were identical in gaming/Photoshop/Flash performance. The C2D got more points in 3DMark06 though - a whopping 30 points. Hahaha. If that's what you call "beaten up", well...

The only advantage is that the Intel used less power when idle, but it also felt slower doing regular tasks, the Aero interface isn't as smooth as with the Turion.

My desktop computer is Intel/ATI btw, so i know both sides well. Both have their strenghts and weaknesses - and AMD's strength is their attention to details. I have never had AMD/ATi drivers bug up other devices, while i cannot say the same about Intel's wireless and nVidia's video cards.

 

Hey, I agree, the AMD systems I have run windows faster at least and opens apps.

The reason the Intel systems get a good amount more battery life is their crummy IGPs.

I do wonder though what power state is it that the turion offers over the Athlon Neo, and would I expect it to increase battery life at all? Right now Im not thinking the extra $50 is worth it on a DM3z. Im ordering one tonight or tomorrow.