I think it's always hard to compare CPU versus CPU for performance and battery life. The overall design of a laptop has an impact on speed, as well as the other components they choose. You can even see two systems using the exact same processor, memory and hard drive, yet there is a performance difference between the two. To really test CPU power alone, you would probably need identical platforms, which of course isn't possible. Anyways, judging by the small performance difference (5% or less) I would consider both CPUs approximately the same. The difference is too small to really mean much.
Also, I find it strange that people will actually pick a computer based on CPU brand (AMD versus Intel). I pick the laptop I want, and then if it has Intel then so be it. Same goes for AMD. I don't think there's a huge difference in the end, and even though the AMDs have 64 bit support, I don't think home users will need it for the next little while. That's why whenever I see these reviews, I just wonder, who cares? The battery life performance of the CPUs mean nothing, since overall system battery life obviously has much more to do with the battery size/system design. Within the Sonoma platform, you see a huge variation in battery life - you can't see a CPU and assume anything about battery life. I really don't care if the AMD turion drains less power if all the systems available on the market don't get the same battery life as systems being sold with Pentium Ms. Realistically all of these factors (e.g. performance, battery life) are going to differ by system, so from a buyer perspective, it makes more sense to look at them case by case after you've chosen a set of laptops you like (and look at the factors alone by benchmarks, not judge the systems by components).
I say just pick the CPU that's in the system you like the most. The performance difference and battery life differences based on the CPU alone are probably marginal, and realistically will depend on the model in question. There's nothing wrong with AMD and there's nothing wrong with Intel. And for those who like to make the argument that 64 bit on the Turion is "futureproofing", think about it honestly. If you know that much about computers you must also know how rapidly this technology evolves. I don't care for futureproofing because I know that no matter what I buy today, in a year or two it will be obsolete. Normally this isn't a problem, but if you're "futureproofing" you obviously care about having the latest and greatest. So your CPU can handle the latest OS - will that really make you upgrade later if laptops 2lbs lighter than yours are faster, the platform yours is on is old, your RAM is out of date, your video card is "old" and the battery life of new laptops is better? Just buy for now and worry about the future later. Who knows what we'll have by then.