Quote:
|
Originally Posted by runninkyle17
I cannot believe what I am seeing and hearing from you guys. First of all most people "in the know", know that Tom's Hardware is in Intel's pockets big time! So no wonder the tests are set to where everything is equal and the DDR and DDR2 tests are in Intels favor. Yes, I will admit that the DDR memory uses up more power than the DDR2 and this is why AMD is switching to DDR2, but c'mon people you need to look at the history behind the tests and who is doing the tests first.
It is no wonder that this review came out right after the Laptoplogic review (hmmmm...how convenient for Intel). Intel is rightfully scared of the Turion chips, even though Intel still makes and sells 85% of the CPU market (and I think the moble market is something like 95% to 98% Intel CPU's). Anyway, I am all about benchmarks and tests and everything else, but try not to read too much into the reviews of major websites and the like. Take PCWorld for example, their top 15 notebook PC's are usually pieces of crap (Dell, Compaq, HP, to name a few), but this is only because the magazine and website are deep into those companies pockets.
Let AMD have its fair share of the crown and in the mean time tell Intel to lower their prices and still churn out chips that can compete with AMD. Thank you very much, I will be here all week!!!  |
For someone who's "deep" in Intel's pockets, they seem to love AMD's desktop chips. Why don't you start making some sense before you say anything?
Also, PCMagazine isn't exactly "enthusiast" level, and they're rating it based on productivity and price--not gaming performance. Champ.
Quote:
| Since performance differences are so small I would go w/ what ever is your preference. However, there are some things you might want to consider before making the Turion 64 vs P-M (centrino platform) choice. If you are into future stuff like 64-bit generation of software and OS or SSE3, then you would simply go wrong if you get the P-M since it is incompatible with any of that. If you want to play it safe and save a fiew bucks go w/ a Turion 64 notebook. |
And yet nobody has yet to make a compelling argument as to why you should go with a Turion. Most people won't even use SSE3 unless they're doing a lot of media, and considering the equivalent Pentium M processor costs about $30 more than the Turion MT-37 (which isn't available for purchase by itself), you really WILL only be saving a couple of bucks. $30 for longer battery life and performance isn't exactly going to put anybody out. Additionally, Windows XP 64... has shown little to no performance increases. Once more... wasted money, especially if you have to buy x64 separately--which most people will have to do if they're ordering it from somebody like Acer.
Also, karma, another reason I'd be interested to see them test a notebook with DDR2 and Intel instead of just DDR is because the DDR2 RAM uses 1.9v compared to DDR's 2.5. So there's quite a difference there... the 2.5 is almost twice as much as the processor, so I'm guessing RAM is probably going to be a big factor as well.
Quote:
| Intels additional L2 cache and ability to switch off almost all of it's L2 cache also increases performance and decreases power draw. |
Just to put some numbers with that (for other people's purpose), it shuts down all but
1/64 of its L2 cache, whereas the Turion has to completely power its entire cache regardless. That's why I'm wondering what would happen if Turion used some of these same ideas and put them into its design. Also, the hard drives shouldn't make much of a difference; since they're both 5400, and have identical cache, spin, etc., the only real difference is that one is 20gb more than the other--specifically, the AMD system. So if anything, the only performance difference--aside from a faster read speed--would be additional power drain on the Turion system. I'm actually surprised that they didn't bother changing out the drive... however, they have the same speeds in general, so the difference is not going to be a test breaker.
About the speeds... if anything, the additional FSB of the Intel chip would use MORE power. But that being said, the difference should be so subtle, it's literally going to translate into a minute of battery life.
Currently, the only real argument for the Turion (its still a nice processor, don't get me wrong) is a very, very small price difference, and the fact that its 64-bit. Since most software doesn't take advantage of SSE3 instructions--of which Intel will be adding in 2006--and the 64-bit edition software that ramificatio seems to hold so highly holds no performance differences except for software specifically designed to take advantage of it (read: no consumer level programs), the performance difference and battery life of the Pentium M simply makes it more acceptable than the Turion. Like I said, I love AMDs (my next desktop is [hopefully] going to have an X2), but while they reign supreme in the desktop market, AMD is rather infantile in the processor market.
Don't worry... I really have faith that AMD will overcome INtel's current hold given time. In fact, I would even say that within the next year, AMD's hold on the laptop market will have strengthened ten fold.
Its just not reasonable to say that they're more powerful than the Intel for now, though...
I mean why be brand conscious? It's to the point that some people are seemingly blinded by the facts laid right before them. I am not pointing to anyone in particular but what happened to sound judgement? I believe that the report favours neither of the products. If i read correctly it basically says you can't lose with either. Both have pros and cons...depending on personal usage then an educated choice can be made.
