Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Intel's Pentium M 760 versus AMD's Turion 64 ML-44

Last response: in CPUs
Share
February 14, 2006 12:30:18 PM

Looks like I'm still alive (let's see till when):

http://techreport.com/reviews/2006q1/pentiumm-vs-turion64/index.x?pg=1

Quote:
The Turion 64's on-die memory controller is hampered by the single channel DDR400 limitation, while the Pentium M's high memory bandwidth is handicapped by its slow front-side bus.


It's really impressive to know that Turion 64, with half the cache and running on single channel, gave the Pentium M a tough fight (and in some cases beating it). It's hard to believe that dual core Yonah would be competitive against a dual core Turion 64, which will feature dual channel and DDR2.

Quote:
From a power consumption perspective, the Turion 64 surprised me. Yes, our Turion 64 test system consumed a third again more power than the Pentium M system at 100% CPU load, but unless you're using your laptop to crunch that F@H work unit on the plane, maximum power consumption isn't usually all that important. For typical use, it seems likely the Turion 64 would be competitive with the Pentium M on the battery life front, as well.


This proves that Turion 64 is cooler than Pentium M (when running iddle).
If they ever used the MT instead of the ML, power consumption might be even lower than that of Pentioum M.
February 14, 2006 1:50:46 PM

Find a review from another site. Those guys are AMD bias. Just look at the 955 EE review (955 VS FX 60(but x2 4800 is mentioned)) there then look at Xbit/THD/AT review.

They carefully chose progs or versions that don't work so good at intel. I call that BS if you ask me. Xbit, Anand Tech and Toms Hardware have come up with fair reviews these guys from "Tech Report" are AMD fanboys. No need to post links that lead to such a biased site. Compare Intel 955 EE with the X2 4800 at encoding. In any of the trustfull sites Intel wins at least 1 benchie while in TR it doesn't.

There is nothing special about the Turion,it consumes more energy and now there is a Core Duo that kicks its arse.
February 14, 2006 2:01:37 PM

While I do agree with the first part about the pentium having a slow frontside bus, I don't agree with the power consumption part. IMO, no laptop hardly ever sits at idle speed. Yes, they are designed to be very efficient which means throttling back the power but as soon as you execute anything, that changes. With all the bloatware and junk that is shipped with every new laptop running, your CPU has to work while this junk is running in the background.
Related resources
February 14, 2006 2:10:35 PM

Turion is so poor, it can never keep up with a Pentium M. But that site basically tells you that Turion is better than a Pentium M which indicates that the site is cr*p.
Another thing: Why is it the top-of-the-line Turion against the 3rd fastest Pentium M? Someone trying to put AMD into a better light? They also try to find excuses (which btw are a laugh) for every loss of the Turion while they comment every Pentium M "loss" with "Turion crushes" "Turion roars back" *lol* AMD Fanboys...
February 14, 2006 2:24:25 PM

Quote:
Find a review from another site. Those guys are AMD bias. Just look at the 955 EE review (955 VS FX 60(but x2 4800 is mentioned)) there then look at Xbit/THD/AT review.

They carefully chose progs or versions that don't work so good at intel. I call that BS if you ask me. Xbit, Anand Tech and Toms Hardware have come up with fair reviews these guys from "Tech Report" are AMD fanboys. No need to post links that lead to such a biased site. Compare Intel 955 EE with the X2 4800 at encoding. In any of the trustfull sites Intel wins at least 1 benchie while in TR it doesn't.

There is nothing special about the Turion,it consumes more energy and now there is a Core Duo that kicks its arse.



Quote:
Turion is so poor, it can never keep up with a Pentium M. But that site basically tells you that Turion is better than a Pentium M which indicates that the site is cr*p.
Another thing: Why is it the top-of-the-line Turion against the 3rd fastest Pentium M? Someone trying to put AMD into a better light? They also try to find excuses (which btw are a laugh) for every loss of the Turion while they comment every Pentium M "loss" with "Turion crushes" "Turion roars back" *lol* AMD Fanboys...


I know that truth hurts, but you have to accept it when you see it. 8)


Quote:
While I do agree with the first part about the pentium having a slow frontside bus, I don't agree with the power consumption part. IMO, no laptop hardly ever sits at idle speed. Yes, they are designed to be very efficient which means throttling back the power but as soon as you execute anything, that changes. With all the bloatware and junk that is shipped with every new laptop running, your CPU has to work while this junk is running in the background.


Well, it looks like you're the only reasonably one to argue here.
It might be true that most of the time you don't keep your laptop iddle, but remember that the article was reviewing a Turion 64 ML model which draws more power than the MT derivative. I'm pretty sure if they've ever used the MT, things would have look a lot embarrassing for the Pentium. :wink:
And if your question is why they didn't do that from start, it's because it was a performance test.
February 14, 2006 3:06:13 PM

I still don't believe you man cause your such a bullshitter. lol :wink:

I think it is a step in the right direction for AMD in the mobile platform. Every article I've read so far indicates that the Turion has potential but like the Pentium M, it has its flaws too. I think if anything and the way Intel has been with their recent P4's, AMD will get these flaws worked out and prevail.
February 14, 2006 3:20:52 PM

Quote:
Turion is so poor, it can never keep up with a Pentium M. But that site basically tells you that Turion is better than a Pentium M which indicates that the site is cr*p.
Another thing: Why is it the top-of-the-line Turion against the 3rd fastest Pentium M? Someone trying to put AMD into a better light? They also try to find excuses (which btw are a laugh) for every loss of the Turion while they comment every Pentium M "loss" with "Turion crushes" "Turion roars back" *lol* AMD Fanboys...


http://www.tomshardware.com/2006/01/16/will_core_duo_no...

Lets think about the point of owning a laptop. Portability. You don't want your laptop sucking dry in less than an hour, that'd be completely pointless. So in all honesty, the turion is the better choice for battery life. I had a pentium m laptop, a dell 5150, and it was a piece of crap. Could barley run microsoft office without sucking the battery dry in less than an hour. Now I'm running an Acer TravelMate with a turion in it, and it goes around 3 hours no problem. I'm not a fanboy of either, but personally I would choose an amd notebook over an intel one due to the pure fact of actually having "mobility". And btw, when you people start bashing a websites credability, it puts your own on the line. Insults are a pathetic last stand. And also, check the new york stock exchange and see which companies stocks are worth more, imo that'd be the company to invest in...
February 14, 2006 4:40:10 PM

Why don't you look for yourself. All important sites have Intels 955 chip win over the 4800 in decent amount of benchies while in this one none except the obvious SySandra.
I don't need to be a fanboy to see that there is something not right with these comparisons. A site that favours a certain brand is not a credible site.
If everyone but X says Y and X says Z who should we believe? Well we should believe the world.
One review is usualy enough to prove a site's worth especially when it's obviuosly forcing the results.

The only problem with Core Duo is a leakage that shall be fixed (if it hasn't already, there is a fix by microsoft) . Intel laptops are known for better performance per watt and no recent turion changed that .
http://www.tomshardware.com/2006/01/16/will_core_duo_no...
Were is your mobility gone?
February 14, 2006 5:02:53 PM

I do find that most sites are biased in one way or another. I for one, do not rely on benchmarks or testing from these sites as, I find it rather confusing to go to one site and see an article praising one product and yet, go to another one and they are praising the other.

To me, the problem is this, if one person who uses a particular product for their own use, tends to not give any credit to the other especially while performing reviews. If I were to bring an Intel machine into an AMD users house, chances are, they've already formed an opinion about that Intel machine just by what they've read or may have experienced in the past. To me, that's just plain biased. Its present all over these forums and it always will be. I don't expect AMD users to jump on the Intel bandwagon when Intel starts kicking AMD around and it will happen sooner or later. It always does.

To me, reviews are biased no matter what so that's why I don't rely on them. What I rely on is what's on my bench in front of me. 4 machines, 2 Intel and 2 AMDs that I can compare.
February 14, 2006 5:38:32 PM

Good point.
You can't really have a clear view on 2 products unless you own them and use them. And that way you'll create a personal opinion that may differ from the rest.
Though benchmark should give a foggy view on the subject.
For example if X>Y by a long shot in all benchies , X is better than Y .
February 14, 2006 8:37:51 PM

It's been a while since I saw a Dothan vs Turion comparison. The problem I had with this comparison was that it's conclusion was fundamentally flaud. They claim that their results are representative of a labtop, but their comparison isn't set-up as such. A labtop's battery life is dependant on a lot more than just the processor. Motherboard and graphics cards are important power users. The advantage that Intel has with the Centrino platform is that they can design a lot of the system with power savings in mind. Component choice makes a lot of difference when talking about power consumption so it's difficult to compare. However, with most Intel Dothan labtops being Centrino certified, it's more likely that you will receive good battery life.

In the review they used AOpen i915Ga-HFS motherboard. If they had really wanted to be more reliable toward how much power a Centrino platform would use then they should have used the AOpen i915GMm-HFS. The results would then be more applicable toward labtops. The best of course would be a direct labtop to labtop ccomparison but cross platform standardization would be very difficult. I will admit that the results are reflective of desktop use, but not mobile use.

What I found interesting in terms of architecture was the fact that the 760 acquits itself very well against the ML-44 especially considering the Turion was operating 400MHz faster. Dothan generally appears superior in performance per clock although it's hampered by it's weak floating point performance. The 760 also has the advantage of being $60 cheaper.
February 14, 2006 8:59:08 PM

Comp geek is biasd towards intel!
February 14, 2006 9:18:41 PM

Those are good points man. The thing is too and as you mentioned, there are other factors involved. One of the things I had happen when I bought my one laptop was the battery would drain so fast even when fully charged. Turned out, the battery was bad. I had it replaced and it worked good.

Conditions of the battery, motherboard, environment of the machine, temperatures etc. are all factors in determining how the machine is going to run. Efficiency or none, all those things are factors.
February 14, 2006 11:36:53 PM

Quote:
Comp geek is biasd towards intel!


he is not

and

Dvdpiddy is biased towards AMD! 8O OMG!!! :o 
February 14, 2006 11:40:29 PM

WELL YOUT BIASED TOWARDS INTEL TOO!
February 14, 2006 11:41:53 PM

Quote:
Comp geek is biasd towards intel!


You're ate up dvdpiddy...Being biased towards amd or intel is like being biased towards peanutbutter or jelly. Each has their advantages and disadvantages that you can't ignore -.- It's pointless to dive straight into either platform and stick with it soleley, because things will change. Maybe intel will release some uber ass kickin processor that amd can't keep up with, 2 years later amd releases something the world's never seen and intel goes bankrupt, who knows...Just gotta get what ya need...
February 14, 2006 11:57:27 PM

WHY DO YOU THINK MORE INSTRUCTIONS PER CLOCKCYCLE AND BETTER RAM!
February 14, 2006 11:59:35 PM

damn it levium your right oh and btw

AMD FANBOY'S UNITE!!!!!
February 15, 2006 12:02:06 AM

Quote:
WHY DO YOU THINK MORE INSTRUCTIONS PER CLOCKCYCLE AND BETTER RAM!


but the Pentium M has precisely that! AND better RAM.... that's why the Pentium M pwns AMD... soon Conroe will beat all existing AMD's....
February 15, 2006 2:37:04 AM

Quote:
WHY DO YOU THINK MORE INSTRUCTIONS PER CLOCKCYCLE AND BETTER RAM!


but the Pentium M has precisely that! AND better RAM.... that's why the Pentium M pwns AMD... soon Conroe will beat all existing AMD's.... my New York ass it will amd pwns intel on the desktop market and i ad mit that amd getz pwned on the mobile market.
February 15, 2006 9:20:18 AM

Quote:
WELL YOUT BIASED TOWARDS INTEL TOO!

If Intel's mobile CPU is clearly better than AMDs why not to like Intel?
For its desktop CPUs? Well that's off topic my friend! :D 
You aren't biased if you have reasons to sustain the better product.
February 15, 2006 11:07:40 AM

Erm... cant we somehow get rid of dvdpiddy? :lol: 
February 15, 2006 11:33:07 AM

Yeah, just give him an original pentium 33Mhz chip and tell him he can't come back to the forums until he gets it overclocked as high as my machine :wink:
February 15, 2006 11:41:56 AM

Quote:
WHY DO YOU THINK MORE INSTRUCTIONS PER CLOCKCYCLE AND BETTER RAM!


but the Pentium M has precisely that! AND better RAM.... that's why the Pentium M pwns AMD... soon Conroe will beat all existing AMD's....


I disagree.

In 64bit mode the Turion is 20-40% faster which makes it faster than any Single Core mobile Intel CPU.
February 15, 2006 3:48:52 PM

Ya know, I gotta tell ya, I don't think Intel will ever get the whole 64 bit thing down like AMD has it. Here's a scenario for ya and you'll probably think i'm crazy for saying this but:

1. AMD came out with 64 bit in 2003 I believe.
2. Intel has never grabbed a handle on it
3. Nobody is really making 64 bit applications
4. Intel is now using EMT64 on basically everything now
5. Now i'm really starting to see more and more 64 bit applications
6. Microsoft Vista to join forces with Intel Viiv technology


See a pattern here? I wonder if Intel has some influence on the 64 bit applications and why they're not being developed. I for one would most certainly think we would have migrated to a 64 bit platform in everything we do now. Am I crazy for saying this?
February 15, 2006 4:01:59 PM

No, you're not crazy, and frankly... this has always been a weakness for AMD. Anyone remember when 3DNow! was first released? It was superior to Intel's MMX, yet there was barely any software support. AMD has got to get on the ass of software vendors and get them to fully support their processors sooner... rather than sitting around waiting for them. MS didn't announce 64-bit Windows until they knew Intel was going to release EMT.

AMD can design a superior architechture... but if they can't get software vendors to fully support it, then they are going to continue to have problems.
February 15, 2006 5:04:32 PM

Quote:
WHY DO YOU THINK MORE INSTRUCTIONS PER CLOCKCYCLE AND BETTER RAM!


but the Pentium M has precisely that! AND better RAM.... that's why the Pentium M pwns AMD... soon Conroe will beat all existing AMD's....


I disagree.

In 64bit mode the Turion is 20-40% faster which makes it faster than any Single Core mobile Intel CPU.
Yeah right! AMD fanboy.
http://www.tomshardware.com/2006/01/16/will_core_duo_no...
I highly doubt it!
February 15, 2006 5:45:13 PM

What I love about the Turion 64 is 64 bit support from start.

Why bothering buying a shitty Pentium-M or Core Duo (which are still 32 bit processors) when WIndows Vista is fully supporting 64 bits?

Here's a direct question to Intel's sibblings:
¿Why Intel didn't release Core Duo (or Yonah) as a 64 bit processor from start?

What really amazes me from Turion is that only operating with half the cache (well, this isn't so important to AMD than to Intel), operates with single channel DDR 400 and has 64 bit support it's cappable of raping any Pentium-M processor and still consumes less power.
Once AMD releases dual core Turion (witn dual channel DDR2 memory), things will look a lot difficult for Intel.

What's hampering Turion performance is the lack of a good chipset that consumes less power since the processor is not the fualt at this (as many fools tend to believe).

Anyhow, the most important thing to note here (this might shock many that read the following) is that AMD is competing with Intel in the mobile front with NOTHING.

Wanna know why:
Well, it's simple. Turion is not AMD's answer to Intel's mobile offerings. While Turion is giving a huge pain in the @ss to Intel since they lose 10% market share in the mobile segment sake of Turion, the real mobile processor from AMD will be coming next year. This mobile processor is made from the ground-up with low power usage from start.

After making public my few words on this topic, I'm still waiting for Intel's fanboys to answer the question.
February 15, 2006 6:06:44 PM

Wrong, AMD is actually right now concentrating on the turion.
And the turion is beaten at performance per watt. Only fanboys like you dream about a superior AMD product. Read some real reviews and stop spouting non sense.
But it will always be like this. AMD fanboys will always whine no matter the lead Intel has. It always happens. I remember how over confident were peeps of their newly bought XPs though my P4 beat them at most things without being heavily clocked and without costing much more. They bashed Intel whenever they had the oppurtunity.
Even in the most biased AMD site,AMD zone people do admit that Intel has better laptop CPUs.
But off course, fanboyism has no limits.
February 15, 2006 6:18:32 PM

Quote:
Wrong, AMD is actually right now concentrating on the turion.
And the turion is beaten at performance per watt. Only fanboys like you dream about a superior AMD product. Read some real reviews and stop spouting non sense.
But it will always be like this. AMD fanboys will always whine no matter the lead Intel has. It always happens. I remember how over confident were peeps of their newly bought XPs though my P4 beat them at most things without being heavily clocked and without costing much more. They bashed Intel whenever they had the oppurtunity.
Even in the most biased AMD site,AMD zone people do admit that Intel has better laptop CPUs.
But off course, fanboyism has no limits.


Sorry fanboy, your answer is wrong. :wink:

Two more tries and I'll answer for you guys.

Who's next??
February 15, 2006 6:27:12 PM

I know what are trying to get out of this, fanboy.
64 bit is still miles away from being vital to a PC,especially a laptop. La vista won't arrive this year,that's not around the corner.
February 15, 2006 6:31:16 PM

Quote:
I know what are trying to get out of this, fanboy.
64 bit is still miles away from being vital to a PC,especially a laptop. La vista won't arrive this year,that's not around the corner.


I'll do like if I didn't read that. :wink:

Does any one still knows why Intel's Core Duo didn't support 64 bit from start?????????????????
Please, don't make I answer.
February 15, 2006 6:44:52 PM

First of all, let me base this on two things, the products we have now and the average user.

1. We can clearly throw 64 bit out the window. Why? Because there simply is not enough or very limited 64 bit programming available and that, is why Intel has not come out with a 64 bit mobile processor. How long has AMD had their 64 bit processors out now? How many average users have 64 bit AMD processors and yet, never get past the 32 bit process? Too many IMO.

2. Its clearly very sad when Anandtech.com can take two Intel Mobile chips and throw them against two desktop X2 processors and they either keep right up or beat them at their own game. Read the article dude. Don't just look at it, read it. I don't particularly care for benchmarks at all but, Anandtech is one of the most respected sites around.

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=264...

Now, obviously your fighting a battle in the mobile market very much unarmed. Get yourself some armor and then come back and we'll talk.
February 15, 2006 7:07:43 PM

Intel fans, ignorance is bliss in this kind of situations. Ignore 9-inch's posts in this reply.
I think most Intel fanboys accept the fact that AMD has current lead in desktop area. But for some fanboys that's not enough!? Well,i'd accept that if AMD could even match Intel performance in mobile zone. 64 bit is still unexploited and won't be till La Vista comes(that will also have a 32 bit version BTW) . That's a cheap pretext. Intel will bring 64s but at current moment are they necesary? No. Cause it values a lot less in real testing than on paper.
"Yonah does not support x86-64" or
Intel stated that they weren't putting 64bit on Yonah because of power consumption and thermals
Happy? Merom will have 64 bit. For now you don't need 64 bit CPUs. Later,when you'll need 64 bit,you'll have Merom which will kill any AMD mobile CPUs.
Oh,so apparently 64 has become vitaly important, a difference between life and death!
Hah, don't make me laugh.
Even desktop CPUs with 32 have no problems and if they do it's have to do with their low clock speed.
Such fanboyism in very few lines. Truly worth of a submition in the Guinees(not sure how to spell that) book.
Seriously now, stop using a needle to destroy the Empire State Building. :lol:  Cause that's what you're trying to do right now.
February 15, 2006 7:10:42 PM

Quote:
1. We can clearly throw 64 bit out the window. Why? Because there simply is not enough or very limited 64 bit programming available and that, is why Intel has not come out with a 64 bit mobile processor. How long has AMD had their 64 bit processors out now? How many average users have 64 bit AMD processors and yet, never get past the 32 bit process? Too many IMO.


Not close, but I'll do it for you.

1) The real reason why Intel didn't make their mobile processors with 64 bit from start was because the damn thing will heat up a lot more than the average 25W the Pentium-M and 30W the Core Duo is supposed to handle. remember that 64 bit support means more registers in the processor. This will put a constrain in Intel's "current" mobile solutions.

2) Laptops are very different than desktops in the sense that the companies that makes them has their drivers optimized for their machines. In other words, companies like HP, Dell, Acer, and many other can release laptops with 64 bit OSs if they ever wanted to, and If I'm not wrong, SuSE, Red Hat and Fedore supports 64 bit and they work fine with Turion laptops.

3) And once again, if you want a future proof machine, make your self a favor and get a Turion laptop. It won't make sense to buy a crappy Core Duo or pentium-M and then have to upgrade it with Intel's upcoming 64-bit mobile processor just for sake of having Microsoft's Vista. :wink:

It's fun to rape fan boys that doesn't knows a sh*t about how their beloved company do their stuff to keep competitive agaisnt AMD.



Quote:
2. Its clearly very sad when Anandtech.com can take two Intel Mobile chips and throw them against two desktop X2 processors and they either keep right up or beat them at their own game. Read the article dude. Don't just look at it, read it. I don't particularly care for benchmarks at all but, Anandtech is one of the most respected sites around.

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=264...

Now, obviously your fighting a battle in the mobile market very much unarmed. Get yourself some armor and then come back and we'll talk.


The real contender of Yonah is the 2.0GHz X2 with 2MB of total L2 cache, not the X2 3800+. That's why Anand makes the 2.0GHz X2 available in the benchmarks (in fact, it's an underclock X2 4400+), and really, I don't see the Core Duo beating it. What really impress me from this review is the way they compare Intel's "next-gen" with AMD's current offerings and still can't perform the way it should. :D  :D  :D 
February 15, 2006 7:21:14 PM

You wanna know something about AMD?
I usually try to avoid saying this but as it goes:
The people working for AMD(and as well as other CPU manufactereurs) were cloners,that's right, cloners/ They cloned anything Intel made changed a bit here and there so they can sell them cheaper and gain market share. But P1 was so far ahead of its time that most of them were chanceless and left the market.
AMD was VERY fortunate to escape that slaughter.
That's a bit of truth for you, just to know about how your fav. brand started making competitive chips. And of course AMD doesn't admit but that's the truth. Many experienced in this domain(not me) believe/ know this.
February 15, 2006 7:21:21 PM

First of all, nobody is getting raped here as indicated in your post. If anything, what your doing is throwing around biased, unknown facts against something you know nothing about. Why? Because Intel doesn't even have a 64 bit mobile chip out so how do you know they heat up too much? Again, your very much unarmed dude.

Like I said, that comparison clearly has one of "todays" mobile Ms in it while yes, it does have a "tomorrows" chip included. Once again, your lost in your own AMD world with your baseless facts
February 15, 2006 9:00:54 PM

Quote:
You wanna know something about AMD?
I usually try to avoid saying this but as it goes:
The people working for AMD(and as well as other CPU manufactereurs) were cloners,that's right, cloners/ They cloned anything Intel made changed a bit here and there so they can sell them cheaper and gain market share. But P1 was so far ahead of its time that most of them were chanceless and left the market.
AMD was VERY fortunate to escape that slaughter.
That's a bit of truth for you, just to know about how your fav. brand started making competitive chips. And of course AMD doesn't admit but that's the truth. Many experienced in this domain(not me) believe/ know this.


And you wanna know something else? AMD made processors for Intel!

*GASP*

Yes, AMDs designs were essentially the same as Intel's in that time period. You're not bringing anything new to the discussion by saying so. Athlon was AMDs first real departure from Intel's designs.
February 15, 2006 9:11:26 PM

Error!
February 15, 2006 9:13:37 PM

Quote:
You wanna know something about AMD?
I usually try to avoid saying this but as it goes:
The people working for AMD(and as well as other CPU manufactereurs) were cloners,that's right, cloners/ They cloned anything Intel made changed a bit here and there so they can sell them cheaper and gain market share. But P1 was so far ahead of its time that most of them were chanceless and left the market.
AMD was VERY fortunate to escape that slaughter.
That's a bit of truth for you, just to know about how your fav. brand started making competitive chips. And of course AMD doesn't admit but that's the truth. Many experienced in this domain(not me) believe/ know this.

Keep crying loud fanboy. 8)

What Zoron said is truth.
I'd like to ad that AMD by being a cloner (CompGeek's word) made processors that clocked higher and performed better than Intels. (Any one remember the AM386?? :D  ).



Quote:
First of all, nobody is getting raped here as indicated in your post

Why did you got offended by my statement if you aren't a fanboy?? 8)


Quote:
Why? Because Intel doesn't even have a 64 bit mobile chip out so how do you know they heat up too much? Again, your very much unarmed dude.

Common sense tells you that. Intel would love to have their single and dual core mobile chips with 64-bit extensions, but once again they couldn't because that would add more heat to their flagship "low-power" processors. 8)
February 15, 2006 9:33:24 PM

Once again, that's clearly a baseless fact as we simply don't know if that's the case at all. Intel is expected to release their 64 bit mobile platform Q1 07 and we will not know until then.

Even if it does and that's all your comparing is heat index issues, especially with a processor that doesn't even exist, that's clearly biased and your still unarmed. The performance ratio is still very much different between Intel and AMD in the mobile arena.

Strike three man. Try, try again.

Oh, and the fanboy thing, no worries about that. I know i'm up against someone who's up the creek without a paddle. :wink:
February 15, 2006 9:39:29 PM

Quote:
Once again, that's clearly a baseless fact as we simply don't know if that's the case at all. Intel is expected to release their 64 bit mobile platform Q1 07 and we will not know until then.


Why so late man??
Why they didn't do that from day one?? 8)
The more you talk, the more you justify me. :wink:


Quote:
Strike three man. Try, try again.

Oh, and the fanboy thing, no worries about that. I know i'm up against someone who's up the creek without a paddle.

Who's getting owned by who? :twisted:
February 15, 2006 9:50:48 PM

Here's why they didn't release the 64 bit platform sooner. I've already responded to this earlier so i'll reiterate for you.

1. AMD was the first to get the 64 bit platform out in 2003 I believe.
2. The only 64 bit programs available are Linux based.
3. There are a few select software programs available NOW that are 64 bit
4. Intel knew 64 bit wouldn't take off yet so its not feasible to bring on a 64 bit mobile platform
5. Intels marketing department is way smarter than AMDs is. If AMD had the capital, resources and the marketing department Intel has now, we would all be in 64 land. Instead, they chose to just put out a 64 bit processor with absolutely no support whatsoever, and bank on the fact that the end users would take off with it. Didn't happen, at least not till now..
6. Intel now is preparing release of their 64 bit platform now that 64 bit is starting to take off. They've already done their homework ahead of AMD because they already moved onto 65nm technology AND they have a kick ass mobile processor already. That's been proven. Nuff said there.
7. What AMD needs to do now is get more aggressive with their marketing because we all know that marketing sells. Yes, AMD desktops may perform better, but Intel is still kicking AMD all over the place only because Intel markets good and to the right people.

There's your answer dude. Bank on it just like Intel does ...
February 15, 2006 10:03:13 PM

Quote:
Here's why they didn't release the 64 bit platform sooner. I've already responded to this earlier so i'll reiterate for you.

1. AMD was the first to get the 64 bit platform out in 2003 I believe.
2. The only 64 bit programs available are Linux based.
3. There are a few select software programs available NOW that are 64 bit
4. Intel knew 64 bit wouldn't take off yet so its not feasible to bring on a 64 bit mobile platform
5. Intels marketing department is way smarter than AMDs is. If AMD had the capital, resources and the marketing department Intel has now, we would all be in 64 land. Instead, they chose to just put out a 64 bit processor with absolutely no support whatsoever, and bank on the fact that the end users would take off with it. Didn't happen, at least not till now..
6. Intel now is preparing release of their 64 bit platform now that 64 bit is starting to take off. They've already done their homework ahead of AMD because they already moved onto 65nm technology AND they have a kick ass mobile processor already. That's been proven. Nuff said there.
7. What AMD needs to do now is get more aggressive with their marketing because we all know that marketing sells. Yes, AMD desktops may perform better, but Intel is still kicking AMD all over the place only because Intel markets good and to the right people.

There's your answer dude. Bank on it just like Intel does ...

Keep posting more excuses.
February 15, 2006 10:13:10 PM

Are you saying the only 64 bit programs that were available were Linux?

Also, 9-inch thinks that the Turion with 64-bit is so much better than the Pentium M, and CompGeek thinks that 64-bit doesn't matter. I doubt either of them have actually used Windows XP 64-bit edition. I myself have both Windows XP Media Center Edition 2005, and Windows XP 64-bit edition. The difference is amazing. It boots and loads applications much faster than 32-bit. Also, games that support 64-bit (Far Cry, Half-Life2, UT2004 doesn’t count because I can’t get sound) run much better.

I myself hate both of their viewpoints because they are obviously biased to one company.
February 15, 2006 10:49:16 PM

Sorry I forgot to mention WInXP 64.
It will run with no issues on a Turion laptop (well, maybe some missing 64-bit drivers for certain devices, but you can always download them).
February 15, 2006 10:55:15 PM

For quite a while, there was nothing but linux based programs. I did mention that there are others that are out there but I didn't include the windows 64 bit edition.
February 15, 2006 10:58:18 PM

These are not excuses by any means. Its called reality. IF these were excuses, Intel wouldn't have made Billions of dollars last year alone. They're smart and they are playing the game right. They chose to invest in something worthwhile and it paid off. (referring to mobile chips and 65nm) Now, they are in a far better position to keep themselves ahead of AMD.

If anything, AMDs marketing is nothing but an excuse.
February 15, 2006 11:10:21 PM

I was just trying to confirm you meant Linux was the only 64-bit OS at the time.
February 15, 2006 11:45:32 PM

That's cool, no worries :wink:
!