Big in depth Turion 64 vs Pentium M comparison! - Page 2

It's not that the Intel system used higher-latency RAM; it's that, inherently, the Pentium M has higher memory latency.

AMD decided to build a memory controller into the CPU, decreasing memory latency; the P-M's have a separate memory controller.

Actually, the latency of DDR2 memory is much higher than DDR as they refine the chips for this newer standard.

Nice review between two notebooks not two cpus.

But really none of the outcomes should have come as a surprise in terms of performance aside from the battery life. Aren't the benchmarks right where you'd expect them to be?

YEAH!!! AMD BABY!!!!

1st thin & light cpu and already kicking P-M's Booty!! LOL Lets see 1 or 2 years down the road. AMD will kick Intel's @$$ in mobile platform aswell!! AMD rocks desktop CPUs(X-2 4800+, FX-57, A64 4000+, Turion64 MT)!!

Wow.

Interesting note about the DDR/DDR2 latency. I did not know that.

You can already see some of pentium M buyers getting a little bothered by the facts.
I figure if the AMD just matches the P-M and still has 64bit its better.

The fact that its just a little bit better then the P-M in 32bit land and it has 64bit makes it heads and tails better then the P-M.

As for market share who cares there are more fords then ferrari's on the road as well but I would still rather have a ferrari.

I don't know if these are actually facts, but anyways, does it really matter which CPU appears to perform better if there are no ideal systems with that CPU for a particular user? I don't think anyone can ever say which is "better" or not just because people need their computers for different things. As it has been said again and again in this thread, pick a computer not a CPU brand.

If you can prove to me where I absolutely need 64 bit right now then I would agree. Otherwise I wouldn't be basing a decision on that at all. Consumer applications aren't there yet, I think only servers really use 64 bit right now.

This analogy doesn't make sense - AMD and Intel are competitors because they make similar products for the same market. Clearly, ferrari and ford are not competing for the same market. Besides, ferrari has a small market share simply because it sells a premium/luxury product that most people could never afford, restricting its potential customers to the wealthiest in the world. I don't think that's an accurate description of AMD.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not some huge Intel fan. In fact I really don't care between the two - for a while I was looking at AMD Turion/Sempron systems and then I was looking at Pentium Ms. I just think it's weird to have such a bias towards one CPU manufacturer or another, when realistically, there are more important factors to consider when choosing a laptop.

i still find the z70va superior to the ferrari 4005
if the ferrari was on a MT processor and ddr400 stock... (which it shud be at that price) then we have a turion winner

The benchmarks IMO make the systems seem equal, with a slight edge to the turion especially in real-life situations, which I like, still, both processors seem competetive and that can only be good for the consumer. In the end, a lot of these type of decisions come down to personal preference, which I see many people exhibiting in this thread.

First of all dont be dumb...The turion battery life is no where near as the penitum m battery life My gateway m680xl can get over 5 hours of battery life while my bros acer 4000 series barely gets 2:50 minutes. You obvisouly have to understand that article had some false imforamtion! Also i am skeptiocal of the benchmarks as other mags have pointed turion slower than Pentium M . When i get my dell m70 Ill do many benchmarks agaisnt my bros acer 4000 series.

Given the manner in which they tested (they were quite specific about their methods and calculating in their metrics) I don't believe there was any false information contained in that review.

Under normal use wherein the CPU is not under constant stress, the Turion exhibited better battery performance (the design of the respective chips which contributes to this is addressed in the review so I won't regurgitate it here).

Thank you for exhibiting pure Pentium M fanboyism when everyone else here was rejoicing in the fact that there is now a viable option to the monopoly that Intel previously enjoyed which can only lead to good things for us consumers.

Necrosis,

I dont think buying a pentium M is a bad choice I just dont think its the best choice.

All the specs on X64 show that its faster when the applications use 64bit power.

I agree that right now theres not alot of 64bit software, although I have to give credit to Mathematica and Matlab which both do use 64bit proccessing already.

I think for Gaming it doesnt matter which CPU you get but for those of us that use computers for things other then "Boom Head shot" and surfing the Web then the AMD 64bit gives alot more computational power.

As for the metaphor I just meant I would rather have a fast car then an average one.

i dont think i have pentium m fanboyism as i have 2 desktops with an AMD ad 1 notebook with a turion and i perfer those better than a intel any day. But i demand quiiet and lonmg battery life computer something AMD CAN NOT OFFER. Those benchmarks were fasle, My turion does not even last 3 horus whenjsut sitting there its only 1 month old! Yea plzz

I think that battery life is directly related to what applications you are running.

an AMD can if not used hard last longer then a pentium M becuase of its power managment but if you are an FPS gamer then the pentium M will probablly give you better battery life becuase you are using less power over the whole chipset consistantly over alonger time.

Well first off you m680xl uses a 12 cell battery so a comparison between that and the Ferrari 4000 rundown times are moot. Untill you get a m680xl with a Turion chip inside you won't be able to compare performace between the PM and Turion accurately.

The Ferrari 4000 and TM8104 are asl close as you can get platform wise to get the best comparison for CPUs. And It turns out when you put them on equal footing the Turion comes out slightly ahead. No factor in the 64 bit compatability and NX bit protection and the Turion is the better CPU when all is said and done.

So my advice to you is don't be dumb when you post.

Amen!

Hmmm, absolutely fantastic review, very well done on laptop logic's part . I didn't read through the whole thread, but here are some thoughts: I too think that you can't call the turion a clear cut winner. It's definitely a fantastic CPU and will give Dothan a run for it's money though. I see some standard Intel/AMD trends coming up here though: the dothan is a better number cruncher, but the AMD is a better gaming/rendering CPU. But the differences are very close. It's too bad they didn't put the on-die memory controller on the Turions, then we would have seen some action . I'm still iffy on their gaming tests and the battery life test. There's too much that effects battery life in a note book beyond the processor. Even though they tried to get it close, I don't think you could do a fair test unless all the hardware was the same. Anyway, very well done and congrats to AMD

The turion DOES offer the on die memory controller:

"Dothan and Turion are evenly matched in memory bandwidth. Even though Dothan uses RAM that runs at 33% higher frequencies (266MHz DDR2 vs 200MHz DDR1) and has dual-channel memory support (compared to Turion's single-channel support), the extremely high DDR2 RAM timings (4-4-4-12 standard) reduce memory performance significantly. Turion's integrated memory controller, on the other hand, reduces latencies even further to maximize memory performance."

Im sorry but this seemed kind of funny to me since the best number crunching software I.E. mathematica is much better in 64 bit then it is in 32.

Also the memory control for the AMD is still on the chip the only thing it doesn't have is dual channel.

You're using a different battery in the Gateway, which has a more than small impact on battery life. The GeForce 6800 also should be cutting somewhat into that, so I'm fairly skeptical of your claim to begin with - you're the first I've ever heard claiming to get more than ~3 hours out of a 6800-using notebook under any usage.

A number of people have reported 3:45 with Acer Ferrari 4005s, so I don't see how your brother's "max battery life" of <2:50 could be accurate.

Other mags? You mean like GamePC? XD Interesting that this seems to agree with the large sum of user reviews on Notebookforums, though.

And you'll do benchmarks with a Dell M70, using...what is it, a Quadro 1400? That's lovely, although I'm not sure of how relevant that would be.