NotebookForums.com › Forums › General Notebook Discussions › Notebook Forums - General › Have you all seen these Turion Benchmarks?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Have you all seen these Turion Benchmarks? - Page 3

post #41 of 99
Well, thats the best we have now. And even with a fair comparison, Turon sure ain't going to smoke the Pentium M, it may do slightly better, but definently not meet expectations.
post #42 of 99
Funny all the AMD zealot's jump in to complain when their fanboyism is in danger. The opposite happend when AMD turion64 beat out the Pentium M in the Turion64 article by the Inq but the only reason that the t64 beat the p.m. was because it had a better gpu compared to intel's exxtreme(ly lame) graphics.
post #43 of 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by JFvergara
... intel's exxtreme(ly gay) graphics.


I love how everyone rags on Intel's integrated graphics. It's not that bad, really; everything has it's place. For power consumption / battery life, it can't be beat.
post #44 of 99
Don't get me wrong, I love IE2 when it's in an ultraportable.
post #45 of 99
I don't think HardBall is an AMD fanboy... as he pointed out:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hardball
I have owned more computers with Intel chips than AMD chips in my life.
I myself am a big fan of AMDs (I reccomend them to everyone looking for a desktop PC) but when it comes to notebooks I recognize how well the PM's perform against the Athlon64's in battery_life/power/size, but the Turion64 is simply shrinking that gap. We will see how exactly the Turion's will perform once they come out for public use. By the way, I take a NBF member's opinion and review much more seriously than I do anyone else, but when it comes to a 'professional' review, I will look at Tom's or CNET (even then CNET seems like a chimpanzee yelling the specs back at me). Again... once it makes a State-side appearance and had awhile to get a hand on some decent GPUs (prays for Turion-X850 launch) then we will see how well it can perform.
post #46 of 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by BannedNinja
I don't think HardBall is an AMD fanboy... as he pointed out:
Thanks for pointing that out; my favorite laptop maker doesn't even use AMD CPUs, if you have seen my posts in the past; I would happily buy a PM laptop if the right deal comes along. But for desktops, hehe, that's a different matter.
post #47 of 99
hardball ::

You claim that the lowest chip from amd was used...

so hmm what is the 1.6 p-m ?? it is one of the lowest based on the sonoma platform..

and yet it performed better than the Turion??....... so dont claim otherwise..

lowest to lowest battle intel is ahead in that department from this review that is....

but yet.. when snoore was posting post about amd being ahead in bench marks and etc, all the amd fans boys were juming around and saying intel sucks etc etc.

i have owned amd since the k7 platform in my desktop.. and even in my compaq 915CA laptop.. so i have tried about both..

The truth be told with all the hype that was going around for the turion " as the centrino killer " i was waiting for something amazing..

and yes they use desktop motherboards.. but they have to ..

AMD was using the DFI was one of the best overclocking boards they say..
and intel chip was in a socket 479 i assume.. both with same crap basically..

and both made for desktop use..

intel is just clearly ahead in those results. end of story.
post #48 of 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by HardBall
Thanks for pointing that out; my favorite laptop maker doesn't even use AMD CPUs, if you have seen my posts in the past; I would happily buy a PM laptop if the right deal comes along. But for desktops, hehe, that's a different matter.

with this statement couldnt' agree more

got myself an asus sli - with a 3500 winchest. runs amazing. is all i can say
waiting for the diago chips to arrive up here in canada and all will be good

post #49 of 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by lastdon
hardball ::

You claim that the lowest chip from amd was used...

so hmm what is the 1.6 p-m ?? it is one of the lowest based on the sonoma platform..

and yet it performed better than the Turion??....... so dont claim otherwise..

lowest to lowest battle intel is ahead in that department from this review that is....
Please read my posts again


Quote:
Originally Posted by lastdon
hardball ::

i have owned amd since the k7 platform in my desktop.. and even in my compaq 915CA laptop.. so i have tried about both..
Good for you, people who pretend that there is only one company (either Intel or AMD) is only hurting themselves


Quote:
Originally Posted by lastdon
The truth be told with all the hype that was going around for the turion " as the centrino killer " i was waiting for something amazing..
Not too many people said it was s "killer" as much as the "equalizer". I think most people have always said that they are going to be pretty competitive, aside from the 64 bit capabilities.


Quote:
Originally Posted by lastdon
and yes they use desktop motherboards.. but they have to ..

AMD was using the DFI was one of the best overclocking boards they say..
and intel chip was in a socket 479 i assume.. both with same crap basically..
If that is the best board they have, then they must have done some time travelling back to July of 04 and somehow got stock in the worm hole and are imprisoned to the time nexus of SUMMER04.


Quote:
Originally Posted by lastdon
and both made for desktop use..

intel is just clearly ahead in those results. end of story.
Not just the mobo, the primary objection was against the chipset NF3, since NF4 has been out for what, 6 months now, why is there any reason to use a previous generation of chipsets, much less a desktop chipset for a LV processor.

How much sense does that make?
post #50 of 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by lastdon
with this statement couldnt' agree more

got myself an asus sli - with a 3500 winchest. runs amazing. is all i can say
waiting for the diago chips to arrive up here in canada and all will be good

Truth to your truth as well
post #51 of 99
they could use the nf4 platform for socket 754 but limited right now isn't it/
i have seen just the asus k8n4-e
post #52 of 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by lastdon
they could use the nf4 platform for socket 754 but limited right now isn't it/
i have seen just the asus k8n4-e
Dude, they are not the average poor college kid who has to skimp for the bottom of the barrel; they are running a substantial online review; and they can't find a board that is readily available to you and me on places like Newegg and Monarch???
post #53 of 99
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by HardBall
The answer to your first question is simply no. I have owned more computers with Intel chips than AMD chips in my life. I simply needed to point out the skewed nature of some of the tests, especially the gaming benches.

It makes me very suspicious that the A64 3400+ not just the Turion is beaten by so much in a test such as FarCry, which contrary to every other benchmark we have seen to date. A64 3400+ has topped PM on majority of the reviews in the past, certainly on games. Sure, PM 2.1 has barely topped the 3400 in some benches, but this would put the PM at nearly 130% of the performance of the higher clocked 3400+, which only lends to the suspicion.

After looking at the description in the fine print, everything becomes lucid. Of course; the way they are testing it, a P-III with superior graphics could probably beat an A64 on this form of test, if you are moving an object through pre-defined points in 3D space, there is no physics calculation at all. Of course then the PM would win with a bigger cache to access the geometry buffer faster! It's an oxymoron.

Unless fairer and much more rigorous tests are conducted, there won't even be close to a good comparison between the Turion and the PM.

If the AMD 3400+ hasn't been benched against the Sonoma, then how do you know it couldn't of lost? Sure the AMD 3400+ beat the 400 MHz 2 MB Cache DDR-333 MHz Dothan set, but maybe the 533 MHz 2 MB Cache DDR-400 MHz Sonoma can beat the AMD 3400+
post #54 of 99
Hello guys and gals.

Nearly 5 months that i browse this forum and i though it to be a good time for a first post. I'm surprised that so many people give credit to those benchmarks when they give so strange results (i'm speaking of the comparison of the p-m and amd 64).
I think you should take a look at thoose benchmarks ( http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets...px?i=2342&p=10 ) and mind a little at how two benchmarks can give such different results about p-m and amd 64, then wonder if the turion - pm comparison given by gamepc is that much accurate. I'm not saying that the p-m isn't better that the Turion or vice versa, just that the best is to wait for a Tom's review (or another serious hardware reviewer) before deciding which of the p-m or the turion is the best.

The only thing i'll notice for now is that the Acer Aspire 5024 wlmi is 1300$ (without taxes) by european sellers when i see the TravelMate 8104 at 2200$ on newegg (that i think is part due to the Turion and part to the lower screen, ram and HDD).
post #55 of 99
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by gilgalasfv
Hello guys and gals.

Nearly 5 months that i browse this forum and i though it to be a good time for a first post. I'm surprised that so many people give credit to those benchmarks when they give so strange results (i'm speaking of the comparison of the p-m and amd 64).
I think you should take a look at thoose benchmarks ( http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets...px?i=2342&p=10 ) and mind a little at how two benchmarks can give such different results about p-m and amd 64, then wonder if the turion - pm comparison given by gamepc is that much accurate. I'm not saying that the p-m isn't better that the Turion or vice versa, just that the best is to wait for a Tom's review (or another serious hardware reviewer) before deciding which of the p-m or the turion is the best.

The only thing i'll notice for now is that the Acer Aspire 5024 wlmi is 1300$ (without taxes) by european sellers when i see the TravelMate 8104 at 2200$ on newegg (that i think is part due to the Turion and part to the lower screen, ram and HDD).

That is exactly what I am talking about, the AMD 3400 wins in those benchmarks. But the comparison with the Turion, PM and AMD 3400 is with the Alviso Chipset the differences being

The P-M you posted
Dothan @ 400 MHz FSB
DDR-I Ram @ 333 MHz

The P-M compared to Turion and AMD 3400+
Dothan @ 533 MHz FSB
DDR-I Ram @ 400 MHz or DDR-II Ram @ 533 MHz (the Turion benchmarked paired the P-M with DDR-I @ 400 MHz)

So it is possible that the 33% speed gain in the FSB and extra 20% gain in DDR-I Ram could of pushed the Alviso chipset with PM to victory.
post #56 of 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by MichaelX30
If the AMD 3400+ hasn't been benched against the Sonoma, then how do you know it couldn't of lost? Sure the AMD 3400+ beat the 400 MHz 2 MB Cache DDR-333 MHz Dothan set, but maybe the 533 MHz 2 MB Cache DDR-400 MHz Sonoma can beat the AMD 3400+
Who said that, where are you getting this that I said 'AMD 3400+ hasn't been benched against the Sonoma'. They have been benched countless times against each other. Actually the PM 2.1 and 3400+ often go head to head since in most people's conception, they are very comparble CPUs. Please don't put words into my mouth, whence it never came!

This is a widely accepted ranking, for example:

http://www.systemshootouts.org/processors.html
PHP Code:
Intel Pentium 4 Intel Pentium M (Centrino) AMD Athlon 64 / Athlon XP PowerPC G5 / G4 appx. Pentium. 4 equivalent: appx. Pentium. 4 equivalent: appx. Pentium. 4 equivalent: . 4.5 .Dual Opteron 250 (2.4 GHz) 4.5 . 4.5 . 4.4 . 4.4 Dual 2.5 GHz PowerPC G5 4.4 . 4.3 .Athlon 64 FX-55 (2.6 GHz) 4.3 . 4.3 Dual 3.2 GHz Xeon 4.2 Dual Opteron 248 (2.2 GHz) 4.2 . 4.2 4.1 ual Opteron 248 (2.2 GHz) 4.1 . 4.1 . 4.0 Athlon 64 4000+ (2.4 GHz) 4.0 . 4.0 .Dual 3.06 GHz Xeon 3.9 Opteron 150 (2.4 GHz) 3.9 . 3.9 3.8 GHz Pentium 4 3.8 Athlon 64 3800+ (2.4 GHz) 3.8 2.5 GHz PowerPC G5 3.8 3.4 GHz Pentium 4 Extreme Edition Pentium M 755 (2.4 GHz) 3.7 Athlon 64 3700+ (2.4 GHz) 3.7 Dual 2.0 GHz PowerPC G5 3.7 3.6 GHz Pentium 4 3.6 Athlon 64 FX-53 (2.4 GHz) Opteron 148 (2.2 GHz) (???) 3.6 . 3.6 3.2 GHz Pentium 4 Extreme Edition 3.5 Athlon 64 3500+ (2.2 GHz) 3.5 . 3.5 3.4 GHz Pentium 4 3.4 Athlon 64 3400+ (2.2 GHz) Opteron 146 (2.0 GHz) (???) 3.4 . 3.4 . 3.3 Athlon 64 FX-51 (2.2 GHz) 3.3 Dual 1.8 GHz PowerPC G5 3.3 3.2 GHz Pentium 4 Pentium M 755 (2.0 GHz) 3.2 Athlon 64 3200+ (2.0 GHz) 3.2 . 3.2 . 3.1 . 3.1 2.0 GHz PowerPC G5 3.1 3.0 GHz Pentium 4 3.0 Athlon 3000+ (2.17 GHz) 3.0 . 3.0 2.9 Athlon 2800+ (2.08 GHz) 2.9 . 2.9 2.8 GHz Pentium 4 Pentium M 745 (2.0 GHz) 2.8 Athlon 2600+ (2.13 GHz) Athlon 64 2800+ (1.8 GHz) 2.8 1.8 GHz PowerPC G5 2.8 2.7 Athlon 2500+ (1.83 GHz) 2.7 . 2.7 2.66 GHz Pentium 4 Pentium M 745 (1.8 GHz) 2.6 Athlon XP 2400+ (2.0 GHz) 2.6 . 2.6 2.53 GHz Pentium 4 Pentium M 735 (1.7 GHz) 2.5 . 2.5 1.6 GHz PowerPC G5 2.5 2.4 GHz Pentium 4 2.4 . 2.4 . 2.4 . Pentium M 725 (1.6 GHz) 2.3 Athlon 2200 (1.80 GHz) 2.3 Dual 1.42 GHz PowerPC G4 2.3 2.2 GHz Pentium 4 2.2 Athlon 2100+ (1.73 GHz) Athlon 2000+ (1.67 GHz) 2.2 1.67 GHz PowerPC G4 2.2 . 2.1 Athlon 1900+ (1.60 GHz) 2.1 Dual 1.25 GHz PowerPC G4 2.1 2.0 GHz Pentium 4 2.0 Athlon 1800+ (1.53 GHz) 2.0 1.5 GHz PowerPC G4 2.0 1.9 GHz Pentium 4 Pentium M (Banias) 1.7 GHz 2.6 GHz Celeron 1.9 Athlon 1700+ (1.47 GHz) 1.9 1.9 1.8 GHz Pentium 4 Pentium M (Banias) 1.6 GHz 2.4 GHz Celeron 1.8 Athlon 1500+/1600+ (1.35-1.40 GHz) 1.8 Dual 1 GHz PowerpC G4 1.42 GHz PowerPC G4 1.8 1.7 GHz Pentium 4 Pentium M (Banias) 1.5 GHz 1.7 1.3 GHz Athlon 1.7 1.33 GHz PowrPC G4 1.7 1.6 GHz Pentium 4 1.6 1.2 GHz Athlon 1.6 1.2 - 1.25 GHz PowerPC G4 1.6
post #57 of 99
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by HardBall
Who said that, where are you getting this that I said 'AMD 3400+ hasn't been benched against the Sonoma'. They have been benched countless times against each other. Actually the PM 2.1 and 3400+ often go head to head since in most people's conception, they are very comparble CPUs. Please don't put words into my mouth, whence it never came!

This is a widely accepted ranking, for example:

http://www.systemshootouts.org/processors.html
PHP Code:
Intel Pentium 4 Intel Pentium M (Centrino) AMD Athlon 64 / Athlon XP PowerPC G5 / G4 appx. Pentium. 4 equivalent: appx. Pentium. 4 equivalent: appx. Pentium. 4 equivalent: . 4.5 .Dual Opteron 250 (2.4 GHz) 4.5 . 4.5 . 4.4 . 4.4 Dual 2.5 GHz PowerPC G5 4.4 . 4.3 .Athlon 64 FX-55 (2.6 GHz) 4.3 . 4.3 Dual 3.2 GHz Xeon 4.2 Dual Opteron 248 (2.2 GHz) 4.2 . 4.2 4.1 ual Opteron 248 (2.2 GHz) 4.1 . 4.1 . 4.0 Athlon 64 4000+ (2.4 GHz) 4.0 . 4.0 .Dual 3.06 GHz Xeon 3.9 Opteron 150 (2.4 GHz) 3.9 . 3.9 3.8 GHz Pentium 4 3.8 Athlon 64 3800+ (2.4 GHz) 3.8 2.5 GHz PowerPC G5 3.8 3.4 GHz Pentium 4 Extreme Edition Pentium M 755 (2.4 GHz) 3.7 Athlon 64 3700+ (2.4 GHz) 3.7 Dual 2.0 GHz PowerPC G5 3.7 3.6 GHz Pentium 4 3.6 Athlon 64 FX-53 (2.4 GHz) Opteron 148 (2.2 GHz) (???) 3.6 . 3.6 3.2 GHz Pentium 4 Extreme Edition 3.5 Athlon 64 3500+ (2.2 GHz) 3.5 . 3.5 3.4 GHz Pentium 4 3.4 Athlon 64 3400+ (2.2 GHz) Opteron 146 (2.0 GHz) (???) 3.4 . 3.4 . 3.3 Athlon 64 FX-51 (2.2 GHz) 3.3 Dual 1.8 GHz PowerPC G5 3.3 3.2 GHz Pentium 4 Pentium M 755 (2.0 GHz) 3.2 Athlon 64 3200+ (2.0 GHz) 3.2 . 3.2 . 3.1 . 3.1 2.0 GHz PowerPC G5 3.1 3.0 GHz Pentium 4 3.0 Athlon 3000+ (2.17 GHz) 3.0 . 3.0 2.9 Athlon 2800+ (2.08 GHz) 2.9 . 2.9 2.8 GHz Pentium 4 Pentium M 745 (2.0 GHz) 2.8 Athlon 2600+ (2.13 GHz) Athlon 64 2800+ (1.8 GHz) 2.8 1.8 GHz PowerPC G5 2.8 2.7 Athlon 2500+ (1.83 GHz) 2.7 . 2.7 2.66 GHz Pentium 4 Pentium M 745 (1.8 GHz) 2.6 Athlon XP 2400+ (2.0 GHz) 2.6 . 2.6 2.53 GHz Pentium 4 Pentium M 735 (1.7 GHz) 2.5 . 2.5 1.6 GHz PowerPC G5 2.5 2.4 GHz Pentium 4 2.4 . 2.4 . 2.4 . Pentium M 725 (1.6 GHz) 2.3 Athlon 2200 (1.80 GHz) 2.3 Dual 1.42 GHz PowerPC G4 2.3 2.2 GHz Pentium 4 2.2 Athlon 2100+ (1.73 GHz) Athlon 2000+ (1.67 GHz) 2.2 1.67 GHz PowerPC G4 2.2 . 2.1 Athlon 1900+ (1.60 GHz) 2.1 Dual 1.25 GHz PowerPC G4 2.1 2.0 GHz Pentium 4 2.0 Athlon 1800+ (1.53 GHz) 2.0 1.5 GHz PowerPC G4 2.0 1.9 GHz Pentium 4 Pentium M (Banias) 1.7 GHz 2.6 GHz Celeron 1.9 Athlon 1700+ (1.47 GHz) 1.9 1.9 1.8 GHz Pentium 4 Pentium M (Banias) 1.6 GHz 2.4 GHz Celeron 1.8 Athlon 1500+/1600+ (1.35-1.40 GHz) 1.8 Dual 1 GHz PowerpC G4 1.42 GHz PowerPC G4 1.8 1.7 GHz Pentium 4 Pentium M (Banias) 1.5 GHz 1.7 1.3 GHz Athlon 1.7 1.33 GHz PowrPC G4 1.7 1.6 GHz Pentium 4 1.6 1.2 GHz Athlon 1.6 1.2 - 1.25 GHz PowerPC G4 1.6

No no no no no no no

What about this do you not understand?

Calm down mike, when you get frustrated you call other people names and tend to be harsh

I'll be back in 5 minutes after a cool down

Edit: Ok I'm back

Those benchmarks are also using the Centrino technology which consists of the following

1. The Dothan with it's FSB @ 400 MHz
2. DDR-I Ram @ 333 MHz

The benchmarks that are against the Turion are using SONOMA intels updated platform which include

1. The Dothan with it's FSB @ 533 MHz, a 33% increase
2. DDR-I Ram @ 400 MHz or DDR-II Ram @ 533 MHz (The benches against the Turion used DDR-I @ 400 MHz)

The benchies in the thread you posted are not using Intel's newest platform, how hard is that to understand? How damn complicated is that to grasp? There is no P-M paired with Alviso which allows it to run @ 2.1 GHz like you are claiming.

The Current Alviso/Dothan speeds include

P-M 770, 2.13 GHz/533 MHz FSB
P-M 760, 2.00 GHz/533 MHz FSB
P-M 750, 1.86 GHz/533 MHz FSB
P-M 740, 1.73 GHz/533 MHz FSB
P-M 730, 1.60 GHz/533 MHz FSB

The ones in the benhies you posted are not using Intels latest platform, they are

P-M 765, 2.10 GHz/400 MHz FSB
P-M 755, 2.00 GHz/400 MHz FSB
P-M 745, 1.8 GHz/400 MHz FSB
P-M 735, 1.6 GHz/400 MHz FSB

Do you see the difference now? I really don't have the patience to teach this to you, after all you should know the difference since you are always correct.
post #58 of 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by MichaelX30
No no no no no no no

What about this do you not understand?

Calm down mike, when you get frustrated you call other people names and tend to be harsh

I'll be back in 5 minutes after a cool down
BY the way, why do you think my first name is mike (which is not even close) , I thought that was pretty funny.

For some real benches see this review:

http://techreport.com/reviews/2005q1...f/index.x?pg=7

And as you can see in FarCry, what I was referring to earlier:



And in UT2004





The last image is RENDERING, NOT GAMING


The A64 3200+ easily edged out the PM 2.0 at both games. So the 3400+ should at the very least be on par with PM 2.13, probably higher, even given the slightly higher I/O bandwidth of Alviso. Man, there is something seriously fishy about the GamePC review that posted PM2.1 beating the 3400+ by 30%.

Notice on previous benchmarks, the rendering scores of the PM were much higher than it gaming scores, and defintely beating comparable A64, as PMs always do with graphic rendering.

Rendering, except for some minor details == Gaming - AI - physics engiene. And from the description of the GamePC review posted by MichaelX30, this is precisely the case: setting PRE-DEFINED POINTS IN 3D SPACE. So whoever ran the "gaming" benchmark, in fact got scores that were close to what would the benchmark be if the task was rendering the scenes in the gaming, NOT PLAYING THE GAME!. Either this reviewer is less than knowledgable, or this review in its entirety is seriously bogus.
post #59 of 99
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by HardBall
BY the way, why do you think my first name is mike (which is not even close) , I thought that was pretty funny.

For some real benches see this review:

The A64 3200+ easily edged out the PM 2.0 at both games. So the 3400+ should at the very least be on par with PM 2.13, probably higher, even given the slightly higher I/O bandwidth of Alviso. Man, there is something seriously fishy about the GamePC review that posted PM2.1 beating the 3400+ by 30%.
FOR THE LAST TIME, THAT IS NOT USING INTELS ALVISO CHIPSET, HOW DAMN COMPLICATED IS THAT TO UNDERSTAND, IT IS USING INTELS OLDER 400 MHZ FSB CHIPSET, DAMNIT YOU ARE PISSING ME OFF

AND MY NAME IS MIKE, I WAS TALKING TO MY SELF TRYING TO CALM DOWN AFTER READING YOUR IDIOTIC AND IGNORANT BULLSHIT, BUT YOU JUST DONT GET IT

Now that I got that out of my system I am gonna so something more productive for the night other than trying to explain to an idiot the difference between 533 MHz FSB and 400 MHz FSB
post #60 of 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by MichaelX30
FOR THE LAST TIME, THAT IS NOT USING INTELS ALVISO CHIPSET, HOW DAMN COMPLICATED IS THAT TO UNDERSTAND, IT IS USING INTELS OLDER 400 MHZ FSB CHIPSET, DAMNIT YOU ARE PISSING ME OFF

AND MY NAME IS MIKE, I WAS TALKING TO MY SELF TRYING TO CALM DOWN AFTER READING YOUR IDIOTIC AND IGNORANT BULLSHIT
I didn't mean that the review had the Alviso or Sonoma, but I was just saying that even if it's with the Alviso, things would not be that different. Sorry if I caused you to misunderstand me.

And please read the rest of my post, I wasn't even finished when you posted.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Notebook Forums - General
NotebookForums.com › Forums › General Notebook Discussions › Notebook Forums - General › Have you all seen these Turion Benchmarks?