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 5

post #81 of 99
4/28/05 at 12:11am
Quote:
Originally Posted by MichaelX30
It also depends what graphic cards were used in the other benchmarks. If the AMD setup used a 9800 and the P-M used a 9700 then there you go. I say we just cool down till we get some more benchies.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BannedNinja
Cool down forever. You are really bickering about facts that which are known to not be reliable... so why bother? Wait until someone we know as reliable gives a solid run-through of the Turion and compare it to P-Ms. We all have seen A64 performance vs. P-M, so a simple head to head of the latest chips (an O/Ced ML-37 vs an O/Ced 770 would be a good match) with not comparable mobos but mobos that would be sold with the unit (i.e. the SiS). Same goes for GPU/VRAM (so an actual battery mark can be taken... hopefully they'll have x850s!! *whimper*)
Good idea, I guess we won't really know until anandtech or edian.net comes out with a reliable review.
Reply
Reply
post #82 of 99
4/28/05 at 12:12am
This still doesn't help with me being anxious about the Turion... >,< thanks for making me a nervous wreck, you two!
Reply
Reply
post #83 of 99
4/28/05 at 12:31am
"Our test systems are equipped with the same GeForce 6800 Ultra AGP graphics cards, 1 GB of DDR memory, a WD Raptor 74GB hard disk, a Plextor DVD-RW drive, all connected through an Enermax Noisetaker 2.0 600W power supply. "

They all have, ostensibly, the same graphics cards, hard drives, and DVD drives.
Reply
Reply
post #84 of 99
4/28/05 at 12:41am
Yes, I saw that... but is that what OEM's will make their laptops with? I'd go to their HQ and kick them if they did...
Reply
Reply
post #85 of 99
4/28/05 at 9:45am
Quote:
Originally Posted by BannedNinja
Yes, I saw that... but is that what OEM's will make their laptops with? I'd go to their HQ and kick them if they did...
they are not laptops but desktops instead

all components they used are desktp components
Reply
Reply
post #86 of 99
4/28/05 at 10:26am
Quote:
Originally Posted by a_d_y_a
they are not laptops but desktops instead

all components they used are desktp components
Bingo, which is where one problem lies - the Turion wasn't in a board made for Low Power Mobile Athlon 64/Turion processors. It was in a board made for desktops. The odds are quite high that it wasn't made to conserve power, and it might even have been supplying a little unneeded voltage.

The Pentium M has, theoretically, the same problem. Of course, since the board was still made specifically for the Pentium M? Shouldn't be a problem at all, really.
Reply
Reply
post #87 of 99
4/28/05 at 11:07am
You get a strong point here, YuriSEAL.
Reply
Reply
post #88 of 99
4/28/05 at 11:59am
from what i have read on certain forums though the dfi has a bios to
acknowledge the Turion
Reply
Reply
post #89 of 99
4/28/05 at 4:15pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Woland
If the Turion starts to look like a serious threat to Intel's dominance in the mobile space, we'll see any price advantage slim down really quick. Intel has the advantage of being 10 times AMD's size (and that's an understatement); they will gladly take a smaller profit per chip to maintain volume.

This is, of course, good for all of us: a hungry AMD with a solid mobile offering will hold Intel's pricing down there too.

I agree with your point, though: performance at least in the ballpark of the P-M, probably not as good on the power front (but gads better than a P4 or full-blown A64), 64-bit capable today, and all for a bit less than a Centrino offering.

You can't complain about that.

cheers all
Honestly i think turion is not a threat shown by benchmarks and its produces more heat. Honestly i love amd which i have them on my desktop but a Pentium M is just way more powerful. People who want hardocre prefromance are not going to go for a turion which proiduces more heat and is slower but then again I see how turion could ghain market share only if the price is considerably lower than a pentium m like half the price. Then if thats so i would rather have the turion but if the prices are similar amd lost this battle again!
Reply
Reply
post #90 of 99
4/28/05 at 4:32pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Laptop&lt View Post
Honestly i think turion is not a threat shown by benchmarks and its produces more heat. Honestly i love amd which i have them on my desktop but a Pentium M is just way more powerful. People who want hardocre prefromance are not going to go for a turion which proiduces more heat and is slower but then again I see how turion could ghain market share only if the price is considerably lower than a pentium m like half the price. Then if thats so i would rather have the turion but if the prices are similar amd lost this battle again!
Let's hold off our judgement, until a real review comes out. This one, as we have seen, is highly suspiscious to say the least, and on top of that, does not use NF4 or K8T890 (the latest generation of chipsets), or anywhere close to an LV chipset. At least that part of the test is seriously flawed.

Also the way they tested the games also seems as if someone tried to doc the test in PM's favor by skipping certain tasks that are not in favor of intel. I'm not saying that anyone actually did, but just am saying that it sure has the appearance of being so. Either way, let's wait and see bigger and better tests ahead.

HB
Reply
Reply
post #91 of 99
4/28/05 at 6:00pm
The only way I'd get a bit itchy is if XSI shows a big increase with 64bit, then I'd sorta feel sad. But that's also assuming they team up a turion with a really good graphics card. Otherwise I'm perfectly happy with my PM laptop for the next couple years and then I'll get whichever 64bit cpu is best then.

Tellerve
Reply
Reply
post #92 of 99
4/28/05 at 8:13pm
I'd like to see several reviews from several different places before I pass judgment on Turion. As with ANY new technology, the more benchmarks/tests you get from more varied sources will allow one to accurately tell how good the technology is. I wouldn't trust only one test of anything from anywhere.
Reply
Reply
post #93 of 99
4/28/05 at 8:32pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hooga
I'd like to see several reviews from several different places before I pass judgment on Turion. As with ANY new technology, the more benchmarks/tests you get from more varied sources will allow one to accurately tell how good the technology is. I wouldn't trust only one test of anything from anywhere.
Well as of right now we have one, come on anandtech and tomshwardware guide what is taking so long
Reply
Reply
post #94 of 99
4/29/05 at 10:42am
Quote:
Originally Posted by HardBall
Let's hold off our judgement, until a real review comes out. This one, as we have seen, is highly suspiscious to say the least, and on top of that, does not use NF4 or K8T890 (the latest generation of chipsets), or anywhere close to an LV chipset. At least that part of the test is seriously flawed.

Also the way they tested the games also seems as if someone tried to doc the test in PM's favor by skipping certain tasks that are not in favor of intel. I'm not saying that anyone actually did, but just am saying that it sure has the appearance of being so. Either way, let's wait and see bigger and better tests ahead.

HB
get it thanx
Reply
Reply
post #95 of 99
4/29/05 at 11:43am
Let's just wait for reviews from TechReport and Anandtech. Even the most rabid intel fans have to admit that the numbers given by GamePC would make even an FX-55 look bad against a P-M.... and don't think even the most fanatical intel fans can disput the superiority of the FX-55.

TechReport showed in fact the P-M being schooled by the Athlon 64 not long ago. And Turion is just a mobile Athlon 64 with deeper sleep states. It has all the strenghts of the mobile A64 (1MB L2) plus a better memory controller and SSE3. So, if you want to feel better about what you own, go ahead, use those numbers. If you really wanted to know the truth, wait for a reputable site that knows how to tweal settings.
When the 3400+ s754 came out, it had a dogfight with the P4EE 3.2.... So keep it in perspective.


Alex
Reply
Reply
post #96 of 99
5/1/05 at 9:21pm
Quote:
Honestly i think turion is not a threat shown by benchmarks and its produces more heat. Honestly i love amd which i have them on my desktop but a Pentium M is just way more powerful. People who want hardocre prefromance are not going to go for a turion which proiduces more heat and is slower but then again I see how turion could ghain market share only if the price is considerably lower than a pentium m like half the price. Then if thats so i would rather have the turion but if the prices are similar amd lost this battle again!
1. gamepc.com suffers from the "TomsHardware" syndrome - that is, they are heavily supported by Intel. So objectivity is automatically in question.

2. THe tests did not even test using the motherboards & environments the Turion will actually be used in. Therefore, the accuracy is in question as well.

3. When the majority of tests offered by independent sites (i.e., not getting funded by Intel, AMD or some other company) directly contradict the gamepc.com results, the entire methodology of gamepc is caqlled into question.

4. The "real-world" game tests gamepc.com used were specifically tailored to test functions that the intel procs specialize in. This reminds me of the flap over 3DMark 2003 and the way it favored the nVidia GPUs over the ATIs. Coupled with 1-3 above, I fail to see how this review can be taken as factual, let alone objective.
Reply
Reply
post #97 of 99
5/15/05 at 10:14am
Quote:
Originally Posted by MichaelX30
I've seen this review and I agree it's very disappointing. Not the processor, but the review. The limited selection of benchmarks and setup used are seriously flawed:

1. The DFI LANParty UT NF3250GB Motherboard they used in the review dosen't support Turion 64 properly. It dosen't provide the correct voltage and dosen't support PowerNow! C3 Deeper Sleep state that is required by the Turion 64 to operate properly. This renders at least all the power consumption tests of Turion 64 invalid.

2. The DDR-400 (PC-3200) memory (CAS 3,3,3 Latency) they used in the review is very slow. They should rather have used DDR-400 (PC-3200) memory (CAS 2,2,2 Latency) to test the Turion 64, and DDR2-533 (PC-4300) memory (CAS 4,4,4 Latency) to test the Pentium M. This renders almost all the performance tests invalid.

3. Using only desktop components in this review like memory sticks, graphics card and hard drive renders the performance results from this review only valid for desktop systems and not very representative for notebook systems in any respect.

Hopefully we'll see proper reviews soon addressing all these issues, and making sound comparisons and not apples to pears like this.
Reply
Reply
post #98 of 99
5/15/05 at 12:02pm
Pairing the cpu's with desktop components is still a reasonable way to test the CPU performance.

All I can say is two things.
1) Lets wait and see
2) Is it too hard to accept that Intel may actually have designed a really good little processor in the PM and that AMD are gonna have issues outperforming it.

Anyway - Who cares, my attitude is just get the best chip in the market for the best price and not get bogged down in this stupid fanboyism.
Reply
Reply
post #99 of 99
5/15/05 at 1:23pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by eskimo_socks
Pairing the cpu's with desktop components is still a reasonable way to test the CPU performance.
Yes, for testing the performance of a desktop CPU but *NOT* for testing the performance of a laptop CPU. This is not the first time GamePC Labs have performed a rather poor review of a laptop CPU, just remember the first "desktop" Pentium M review they did. All proper reviews coming after this showed how flawed it really were, and I wouldn't be much surprised if this were to be the case with this Turion 64 review too.

Quote:
Originally Posted by eskimo_socks
All I can say is two things.
1) Lets wait and see
Agreed, as proper reviews should hopefully become available soon.

Quote:
Originally Posted by eskimo_socks
2) Is it too hard to accept that Intel may actually have designed a really good little processor in the PM and that AMD are gonna have issues outperforming it.
That's not the issue here, only a poor review. With time you'll also come to accept that AMD may actually have designed a really good little processor in the Turion 64 that Intel Pentium M are gonna have issues outperforming it

Quote:
Originally Posted by eskimo_socks
Anyway - Who cares, my attitude is just get the best chip in the market for the best price and not get bogged down in this stupid fanboyism.
Ofcourse, and what chip is the best still remains to be seen.
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 › Have you all seen these Turion Benchmarks?