NotebookForums.com › Forums › General Notebook Discussions › Notebook Forums - General › Turion 2.2 vs Core Duo 1.6?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Turion 2.2 vs Core Duo 1.6?

post #1 of 19
4/16/06 at 10:53pm
Thread Starter 
I'm planning to get a x1600 15.4"-inch, and with the MSI's 1039 being delayed, by the time it comes out I may be able to choose between it and the Core Duo laptops with x1600s about to come out (barring the Macbookpro and the Acer 8204). The MT-40 (2.2ghz) is the best processor that would fit in the MS-1039, so I'm assuming that a Core Duo laptop that would cost similarly would have the 1.6ghz processor, which costs the closest to the MT-40 online. The laptop would be mainly for gaming. Which one would be faster?
Reply
Reply
post #2 of 19
4/17/06 at 1:07am
Prolly the Turion.
Reply
Reply
post #3 of 19
4/17/06 at 1:10am
For gaming, a significantly faster single core will perform better than a slower dual core, since most games are still single threaded. In the future, when the landscape of the gaming world shifts to take advantage of SMP, then we will likely see more benefit in dual core/ multi-core gaming. When UT2007 comes, that's one of the first big titles that will have full support for multicore systems.


If you are talking about most games today In general; even between a 2GHz Turion and a 2GHz Core Duo, Core Duo's FP performance is not its strong point architecturally, having only one FP unit to Turion's three (FADD, FMUL, FMOV). So for first person games, you will probably see the Turion perform better at the same clock speeds on the physics engiene (which basically calculates the change in trajectory of objects when acted on by different forces in the environment, a classic FP rich operation), and AI algorithms (such as probablistic MiniMax, which also uses a large amount of FP operations) . Large scale scenen renderings in games, however would favor the Core duo, due to its good ALU performance, and especially its large L2 cache which would provide a nice little extra boost.
Reply
Reply
post #4 of 19
4/17/06 at 1:32am
Agreed, you would be better off with the faster single core processor in current games. However, in the soon future games will be programmed around dual core chips, since that is where the technology is taking us.
It might be a wise idea to hold off until the right dual core system comes your way. But, if you need something now, I would go with the turion. They are very well performing chips.

--oogami
Reply
Reply
post #5 of 19
4/17/06 at 2:44am
I love my turion! lol but then I am AMD Bias
Reply
Reply
post #6 of 19
4/17/06 at 8:16am
Even when they start utilising dual core I strongly believe the Turion 2.2Ghz compared to the core duo 1.6Ghz (a massive 600Mhz difference) the Turion would still win.
Reply
Reply
post #7 of 19
4/17/06 at 11:58am
Strictly gaming, the Turion is going to be faster, mostly because of what Hardball said. Turion has a few other advantages, most of which put it ahead of Intel interms of rendering games. As far as everything else goes though, the Core Duo screams. I have the 1.66Ghz Duo and it is an amazing processor, much faster than my 2Ghz Pentium M. If all you're going to be doing on the laptop is gaming, then by all means get one with the Turion. But, if you do other stuff, and usually have more than a couple of programs running, get the Duo. If you can wait a few months I'd see what the Turion X2 is going to look like, might be worth waiting for. Then you'd get the AMD advantage with games PLUS dual core. If you don't want to wait though just figure out what you'll be using the laptop for mainly and get what works best.

Good luck!

Reply
Reply
post #8 of 19
4/17/06 at 12:11pm
You may want to look at the following article:
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets...oc.aspx?i=2648

If you are talking mainly for gaming I would say that the Turion would be a tad better at the same speed. A 2.2 Turion should be a lot better for gaming than a 1.66 Duo. It is a shame that they did not include Turion in comparison. Notice that the the Duo actually performs slower than the Pentium M on 3 of the six games they tested.

The Duo has some clear advantages for other stuff but I suspect that the 2.2 Turion would perform better than a 1.66 Duo for anything (except running multiple apps). When games take advantage of the multiple cores that may change but that is a very significant difference in speed. To me it is questionable that 2 cores at that speed could perform better than the 2.2 Turion even on games using 2 cores.
Reply
Reply
post #9 of 19
4/17/06 at 10:02pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oogami-Ichirou
Agreed, you would be better off with the faster single core processor in current games. However, in the soon future games will be programmed around dual core chips, since that is where the technology is taking us.
It might be a wise idea to hold off until the right dual core system comes your way. But, if you need something now, I would go with the turion. They are very well performing chips.

--oogami
Seconded (or thirded?).

I had a chance to play with a 1.66 E1705 this weekend. My 2Ghz PM SMOKES a 1.66 Core Duo even in random desktop stuff, gaming would only show the difference more. Dual core will get to the point it is REALLY the way to go definitively but it's not quite to the point I'm thinking about upgrading. Another 8 months and Merom on the Santa Rosa chipset will be the next thing I think about.
Reply
Reply
post #10 of 19
4/18/06 at 10:42am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fry-man22
Seconded (or thirded?).

I had a chance to play with a 1.66 E1705 this weekend. My 2Ghz PM SMOKES a 1.66 Core Duo even in random desktop stuff, gaming would only show the difference more. Dual core will get to the point it is REALLY the way to go definitively but it's not quite to the point I'm thinking about upgrading. Another 8 months and Merom on the Santa Rosa chipset will be the next thing I think about.
Really? The Pentium M 760 in my I6000 seems slower than my 1.6 Core Duo in just about everything. It's faster in SuperPi and it does just about everything else faster as well. Not sure why you had such a different experience, but I was actually pretty shocked considering the difference in speed that the Core Duo was so freaking fast.

Now I only got the 1.66 becuase i'm planning on upgrading to Merom when it comes out, but still, the 1.66Core Duo is a monster. It does just about everything faster than my old Pentium M 2Ghz. The benchmarks in the above link from flipcody show that the Duo is indeed faster than the M in just about everything. Comparing gaming though the Turion still wears the crown though. So in a strictly gaming environment it's AMD FTW.

Reply
Reply
post #11 of 19
4/18/06 at 11:09am
My PM 780 completely smoked the acer's core duo 1.67 in everything. Even in multitasking I saw really no better performance from the core duo.
Then again my PM is clocked at 2.53Ghz, so maybe that is why
I would be hesitant to buy a non 64bit dual core chip... but that is just me.

--k1tty
Reply
Reply
post #12 of 19
4/18/06 at 11:18am
Kitty, no real comparison there! Any Pentium M overclocked to that kind of speed is going to smoke just about anything! Especially comparing it to a 1.66 Duo. If we could overclokc the 1.66 though, it might be a different story. I'd bet that if the Duo was around 2.2Ghz it'd be pretty darn close to your M. Or, if you started out with a comparable T2600(2.13Ghz) and OC'd it to the same speed as your M it'd be faster. But all that doesn't matter because we can't OC our Duo's unfortunately.

Nice OC on that M though! I bet that thing flies!
Reply
Reply
post #13 of 19
4/19/06 at 3:43am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Camride
Really? The Pentium M 760 in my I6000 seems slower than my 1.6 Core Duo in just about everything. It's faster in SuperPi and it does just about everything else faster as well. Not sure why you had such a different experience, but I was actually pretty shocked considering the difference in speed that the Core Duo was so freaking fast.

Now I only got the 1.66 becuase i'm planning on upgrading to Merom when it comes out, but still, the 1.66Core Duo is a monster. It does just about everything faster than my old Pentium M 2Ghz. The benchmarks in the above link from flipcody show that the Duo is indeed faster than the M in just about everything. Comparing gaming though the Turion still wears the crown though. So in a strictly gaming environment it's AMD FTW.
Hmm, that is contrary to everything I have read about the Yonah chips, what I read lead me to believe what I saw (meaning faster P-M > than slower core due for 1 thread tasks r gaming). So post a screen shot of the 1.66 Duo on a Super Pie and I'll do the same for a 2.0Ghz P-M; I feel pretty sure it will go my way (by a bit).

Whatever the benchmarks end up being I sat there and saw iTunes recode songs with a different volume tag WAY slower than it does them on my machine. I guess I should retract my request for a Pi score, I don't care really. 2MB L2 cache and the same architecture can only do so much; Merom is the real upgrade. You say the 1.66 feels fast, I thought I went back to a banias chip when I used it, to each his own (I recommend to get at least a 2Ghz Duo if you had a 2Ghz P-M if not it'll feel like a downgrade).
Reply
Reply
post #14 of 19
4/21/06 at 8:51am
Fry-man22, I have a Pentium-M 760 and a Duo T2300 right now in my possesion, the 760 does 1mil in 39 seconds and the T2300 does it in 34 seconds. I can run them both to 2mil also if you want me to. I'll get some screenshots for you if you don't believe me.
Reply
Reply
post #15 of 19
4/21/06 at 3:08pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Camride
Fry-man22, I have a Pentium-M 760 and a Duo T2300 right now in my possesion, the 760 does 1mil in 39 seconds and the T2300 does it in 34 seconds. I can run them both to 2mil also if you want me to. I'll get some screenshots for you if you don't believe me.
Your 760 and mine get the same 39 seconds and upon looking into it I do indeed believe your 34 sec time with the T2300, I found a few of those when I searched (though a lot of them where coming in around 36 there where at least 4 other 34s I found people posting).

I guess at this point what I can't believe is how much slower the 1.66 felt to me. I really sat there and hated on it a bit. I guess the RAM difference in the two machines was really what I was feeling. I'm impressed with the bench of the T2300.
Reply
Reply
post #16 of 19
4/21/06 at 7:47pm
Check this article.

http://www.anandtech.com/mobile/showdoc.aspx?i=2663&p=7

Pentium M clocked identically to core duo. Nearly everything is similar (apples for apples comparision)... The core duo is about 10-30% faster than the same clocked pentium-m on single threaded software but on multiple threaded software there was a massive 60% jump.
Reply
Reply
post #17 of 19
4/21/06 at 7:53pm
So lets just say a core duo at the moment is 1.2 (20%) faster than the pentium-m on single threaded software. So a Pentium-m 2.2 would still smoke a core duo 1.6 at the moment...

Core duo 1.6 is probably equivalent to a 1.92 pentium-m on single threaded applications but as more software utilise core duo tech it will jump significantly.
Reply
Reply
post #18 of 19
4/21/06 at 7:59pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by ez2remember
Core duo 1.6 is probably equivalent to a 1.92 pentium-m at the moment but will impove as software utilise core duo tech.
Core duo's dont come @ 1.6 Ghz, they're clocked @ 1.66 Ghz, so they're comparable to a 1.992 GHz Pentium M.. Therefore a 1.66 Ghz Duo compares to a 2.0 Ghz Pentium M.
Reply
Reply
post #19 of 19
4/21/06 at 8:02pm
yep you're right.
Reply
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Notebook Forums - General
NotebookForums.com › Forums › General Notebook Discussions › Notebook Forums - General › Turion 2.2 vs Core Duo 1.6?