Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Turion X2

Last response: in CPUs
Share
April 13, 2006 11:00:03 AM

Just found a bench for this one:
http://www.computerbase.de/news/hardware/prozessoren/am...
It's in german but the graphics are conclusive enough. Turion X2 does not beat a Core Duo clock by clock though it comes rather close. See for yourselfs/ 8)

More about : turion

April 13, 2006 11:01:04 AM

that's in one test of course
April 13, 2006 11:58:56 AM

Quote:

9) Ycon (09.03.2006, 21:01 Uhr)

Editieren | Antworten

Wie zu erwarten nur eine schwache Leistung, selbst linear hochgerechnet kommt das Teil @ (imaginär) 2 GHz nur auf ~521 Punkte.


Lols, Ya check this page out? At the bottom its YCON lols
that's where he's been done these days eh?

http://www.computerbase.de/news/hardware/prozessoren/am...
Related resources
April 13, 2006 12:12:43 PM

Yeap I hardly belive that TurionX2 can't beat CoreDuo without testing them. It is so simple for me to make the conclusion: I have Turion64 and Dothan and the Dothan kicks the Turion64 at same clock. So, 2 improved Dothans will kick 2 Turion64s. Thre is no magic in the Turion64 X2 chips.
April 13, 2006 12:40:29 PM

The only magic that can be implemented in Poorions is lower pricing. :wink: so a costumer can at least say i got what i payed for even though it's a junky good for nothing.
I'm being too harsh i know, but there was just so much hype about it for no reason, i had to end it.
Turion X2 is after all a Poorion. Weaker performance,great price though. Still, Dell usually comes with special offers laptop wise that make intel powered laptops much more attractive even at cost/performance chapter.
April 13, 2006 12:46:57 PM

Turion is not so poor about performance, if I just compare to the Pentium 4 Mobile.............that is a Poorion that I don't want working in my cases.
Anyway, I will wait for Merom before I make performance/price comparison to Turion64 X2 and make conclusion which one is worth less.
April 13, 2006 1:05:06 PM

Well, i never take into consideration desktop optimised for laptop chips.
The energy needed to run those make the laptop itself less usefull. And the laptop interior would probably melt with a P4-mobile. A big case with good fans and air circulation doesn't. P4 was solely meant for desktops. I really don't understand what was the need of creating a P4-M that is so useless when compared to its brothers Pm and Celeron M.
April 13, 2006 1:09:44 PM

The Pentium4 M was made before Centrino Pentium M. It consumes less power than the desktop P4s, but it is slow. Unlike the P4M, Turion64 is mobile K8 that performs good as desktop K8(s754) and needs less enegy.
An Pentium M/Celeron M are not brothers to Penrium4, they are very similar to the Turion64:) 
a c 99 à CPUs
April 13, 2006 2:07:10 PM

I happen to be typing this from my old 2.2GHz Mobile Pentium 4-M laptop. It is a special version of the Northwood "A" Pentium 4 that runs at a 35W TDP and is lower voltage (by 0.1-0.2 volts) than the desktop P4 Northwood "A"s. It has SpeedStep and is otherwise similar in performance to the desktop Northwood A units. That chip stopped being produced when Pentium M Banias came out.

The Mobile Pentium 4 (no -M) is a desktop Pentium 4 with SpeedStep. TDP is very similar, as is Vcore. There have been Mobile Pentium 4s made from other Northwood cores and Prescott cores, as opposed to just the Nortwood A core of the P4-M.

And yes, my 4200+ at the same 2.2GHz kicks the poor P4-M around like none other even in single-threaded applications. The NetBurst chips are surely NOT known for having good IPC or even a decent thermal envelope.
April 13, 2006 2:39:50 PM

Yes, but they are produced by the same company. (that's what i meant)
The difference between them is huge. Arhitecture wise totally different.
Makes you wonder why Intel has ever decided to change P3 design. Still, P4 wasn't all that bad, in fact a P4 has a lot more potential i think if we exclude energy consumption and the cooling needed than any of today's stuff IMHO.
April 15, 2006 6:02:30 AM

Impressive numbers for a 512KB L2 cache. I'll have to wonder what would be the performance of a Turion with 1MB (2MB total) cache and dual channel DDR2-800. Let's not forget that those are not the real numbers of a Turion X2 since they're just representative. After all, we'll have to call the core-dua "poorion" since it will suck at multitasking against a comparable Turion-X2 and if you wanna now why, just search for the thread (indeed, they're two of them). :wink:
April 15, 2006 10:35:43 AM

Quote:
Impressive numbers for a 512KB L2 cache. I'll have to wonder what would be the performance of a Turion with 1MB (2MB total) cache and dual channel DDR2-800. Let's not forget that those are not the real numbers of a Turion X2 since they're just representative. After all, we'll have to call the core-dua "poorion" since it will suck at multitasking against a comparable Turion-X2 and if you wanna now why, just search for the thread (indeed, they're two of them). :wink:

They are with dual channel DDR2-667, and I am afraid that if they used DDR2-800, the RAM will be more expenceive than the CPU itself.....
1MB per core will give alittle performance boost, same as the boost of our desktops K8 with 1MB comapred to those with 512L2.
Core Duo is old and is faster. I wait to see what Merom will offer and I am afraid that no TurionX2 will be even close to that...
April 15, 2006 2:56:56 PM

Quote:
They are with dual channel DDR2-667, and I am afraid that if they used DDR2-800, the RAM will be more expenceive than the CPU itself.....
1MB per core will give alittle performance boost, same as the boost of our desktops K8 with 1MB comapred to those with 512L2.
Core Duo is old and is faster. I wait to see what Merom will offer and I am afraid that no TurionX2 will be even close to that...


I believe it's to soon to judge Turion-X2 performance just the way it's to soon to judge merom. I can also say that merom will not perform once it sees the light of day. :wink:
Once Turion-X2 is available to everyone, then we can make all kind of assumptions.
April 15, 2006 3:12:05 PM

Well of course Core is quicker than Turion. Like wusy says, Turion=Toledo, and Toledo=Current tech.

Even though that CPUZ shot says it's AM2, isn't AM2 AMD's next-gen tech. If so, why are they just putting out a 'glorified Toledo' with a new socket?
April 15, 2006 4:53:08 PM

The only advantages the Turion X2 will have over the Core Duo are in a 64-bit environment.
April 15, 2006 5:02:43 PM

I So Agree, it's shown That Intel Screwed Up in 64-Bit enviroments Just like they did with DDR Rams and "Prescott" CPUs

So in the Future, Core Duo might Fly in 32-bit threads, but might not be as bright a star in contrast with Native 64-bit AMDs
April 15, 2006 5:36:06 PM

LOL, Core Duo does not support 64 bit. But 64 bit is just a cheap pretext on why not to buy it. Intel timed this time perfectly. In Q1 2007 when Vista will arrive they'll be selling Merom chips that will probably kill poorions and that will support 64 bit.
April 15, 2006 5:47:14 PM

you never know, AMD is changing and comming out with things or ideas everyday. you might have 128-bit processing by next year. Everything changes so fast, lol only a year ago i thought X2 Athlons were the fasteest thing on earth. lols FX-60 and Opteron 175 porved me wrong since then. Still did'nt buy a system yet, wating for Conroe to Prove me wrong
April 15, 2006 6:00:03 PM

Quote:
In Q1 2007 when Vista will arrive they'll be selling Merom chips that will probably kill poorions and that will support 64 bit.


You don't sound awfully sure of the Merom chips. And how can it be a good thing that Core doesn't support 64bit?

I do think it'd be a bit pointless of AMD to release 128bit CPUs though, seeingas the uptake on 64bit software hasn't exactly been overwhelming (yet).
April 15, 2006 6:02:12 PM

128 bit is highly unlikely next year given to the fact that even now with the much hyped 64 bit we don't have a decent OS(a bug free OS) to use it.(exept linux,but not for common users).
Technology does evolve very fast though. Remember 10 years ago? Who would have though that you'll be living to play games like FEAR, Doom3 ...
It's a crazy world we live in.
April 15, 2006 6:27:32 PM

Quote:
128 bit is highly unlikely next year given to the fact that even now with the much hyped 64 bit we don't have a decent OS(a bug free OS) to use it.(exept linux,but not for common users).


You mean you don't have a stable x64 version of Windows? I haven't used it but you may incur the wrath of several people who run it on this forum who seem to think it's very good indeed.

Anyway, other than Windows, Linux and Mac OS X have been running 64bit for ages. Just one of the many adva.........(gets strangled by everypcuser)
April 15, 2006 7:29:38 PM

Quote:
you never know, AMD is changing and comming out with things or ideas everyday. you might have 128-bit processing by next year. Everything changes so fast, lol only a year ago i thought X2 Athlons were the fasteest thing on earth. lols FX-60 and Opteron 175 porved me wrong since then. Still did'nt buy a system yet, wating for Conroe to Prove me wrong


And why do we need 128bit processors again?
April 15, 2006 8:10:29 PM

Explain to me why do we need 64bit in the first place. I think the reasons are the same as there would be for changing from 64 to 128.
April 15, 2006 8:14:16 PM

The reasons for changing from 32 to 64 bit are the same as 64-128, 128-256, 256-512, 512-1024 etc... You have to do things gradually, though. I'm sure there were people saying 'explain to me why we need 32 bit' when Windows 95 came out.
April 15, 2006 9:13:26 PM

Quote:
The reasons for changing from 32 to 64 bit are the same as 64-128, 128-256, 256-512, 512-1024 etc... You have to do things gradually, though. I'm sure there were people saying 'explain to me why we need 32 bit' when Windows 95 came out.


Word
April 15, 2006 10:29:50 PM

Quote:
Explain to me why do we need 64bit in the first place. I think the reasons are the same as there would be for changing from 64 to 128.
'

Flat address space is a bit limited in 32bit addressing to a meager 4 gigabyes of RAM, 64bit is a bit more beefy ringing in at 16 exabytes of RAM. Software is beginning to nip at the 2gig, so it's a safe bet the next 4-7 years will be last days of 32bit machines.
April 15, 2006 11:34:54 PM

Quote:
First release of S1 based Turion X2 will be using DDR400. *hint* Toledo

As I saw on the link the benchmarked TurionX2s are using dual channel DDR2-667 and as other links are saying about AMD mobile roadmap, TurionX2 will support DDR2 and will be socket 6xx(don't know the number exactly but not s754).

For those who does not undrestand what 64bit CPU menas, it is only the memory addressing and has nothing with performance. Anyway there is not available 64bit software and drivers today, so consider it as useless and marketing for uneducated people.
About Merom, it will overperform K8 desktop and mobile computers at same clock more than Core Duo is doing that today. It so simple, check out the Core architecture and Dothan/Yonah architecture and see the adventages of the new technologies and supported features.
April 16, 2006 3:37:24 AM

Quote:
For those who does not undrestand what 64bit CPU menas, it is only the memory addressing and has nothing with performance. Anyway there is not available 64bit software and drivers today, so consider it as useless and marketing for uneducated people.


You are misleading people with those statements. Indeed, A64 has an average increase in performance of 40-80% once you run 64 bit programs on a NATIVE 64 bit OS.

That's the reason why people like you and compgeek can't handle the idea that conroe and siblings will not perform comparably to an Athlon 64 running native 64 bit programs.

Quote:
About Merom, it will overperform K8 desktop and mobile computers at same clock more than Core Duo is doing that today.

:roll:
April 16, 2006 3:39:42 AM

Quote:
For those who does not undrestand what 64bit CPU menas, it is only the memory addressing and has nothing with performance. Anyway there is not available 64bit software and drivers today, so consider it as useless and marketing for uneducated people.


You are misleading people with those statements. Indeed, A64 has an average increase in performance of 40% once you run 64 bit programs on a NATIVE 64 bit OS.

That's the reason why people like you and compgeek can't handle the idea that conroe and siblings will not perform comparably to an Athlon 64 running native 64 bit programs.

Quote:
About Merom, it will overperform K8 desktop and mobile computers at same clock more than Core Duo is doing that today.

:roll:

How do you know Conroe won't perform in 64 bit when we have absolutely no idea how it will perform? You afraid of the fact that it seems to run so well in 32 bit that it will absolutely suck in 64 bit? The chip isn't even out yet.
April 16, 2006 3:47:42 AM

Quote:
How do you know Conroe won't perform in 64 bit when we have absolutely no idea how it will perform? You afraid of the fact that it seems to run so well in 32 bit that it will absolutely suck in 64 bit? The chip isn't even out yet.

Because Intel didn't touted any additions OR enhancements to 64-bit registers. Even Arstechnica's extensive review of conroe (some might call it paper) doesn't mention ANY advancements in 64 bit processing for conroe and family; in contrast, AMD will add 64 bit extensions to the AMD64 instruction set with K8L. This will sure will make wider the gap of overall 64 bit perfromance between AMD's offerings and intel's. :wink:
April 16, 2006 6:46:28 AM

Oh well,guess in 2 years or so i might throw away my old desktops. :?
April 16, 2006 8:18:55 AM

Other than FarCry, which other games were 're-done' in x64? I remember something about HL2? Did any of them show any improvement?
April 16, 2006 12:23:38 PM

Quote:
gojdo, are you sure about that claim that the bit of a cpu won't affect performance?

absolutely. There are a lot of articles about that, but I am afraid that not all non-programmers will understand that, and the programmers knows this well, especially those who were programming in 16bit mode and were working with segments and offsets.
April 16, 2006 5:39:13 PM

Quote:
How do you know Conroe won't perform in 64 bit when we have absolutely no idea how it will perform? You afraid of the fact that it seems to run so well in 32 bit that it will absolutely suck in 64 bit? The chip isn't even out yet.

Because Intel didn't touted any additions OR enhancements to 64-bit registers. Even Arstechnica's extensive review of conroe (some might call it paper) doesn't mention ANY advancements in 64 bit processing for conroe and family; in contrast, AMD will add 64 bit extensions to the AMD64 instruction set with K8L. This will sure will make wider the gap of overall 64 bit perfromance between AMD's offerings and intel's. :wink:

Well, my point is if Conroe shows a significant improvement in 32 bit, who knows how well it will do in 64 bit. It's too soon to tell.
April 17, 2006 8:23:51 PM

PPl 4 me i support AMD 64bit caus Since u PPl dont no.. WE do live in The 64bit word 2day.. n the day after 2more.. Every thing will be 64bit 4 sure..
man. havent u seen 64bit gameing "Farcray 64" n 64 bit Program.! 64bit is the furture of next gen of CPU man.!
i mean i do agree that now we might not c so much product of 64bit. but i gas. it will soon be... Engeniering jsut cant leave 64bit with in the furture Man..so just w8. n u will c that having a non 64bit CPu is a DUm move..
for the furture.! n the bigest advantage is that 64bit allow More RAM.. ppl so if it More ram. it mean GOing into furture.. I mean say now it 2020 or sumthing. i dont think we would be still on GB of RAm more like TGb right..
so Think twice I think 64bit is important.. so for thos that just brought an New CPU that is non 64bit enable i say 2 u What the point.. i mean just 1 thing u cant run all OS.. well not the 64bit os. so....
Just think angin ppl 64bit it is Important. we soon going 2 be 64bit gameing.. all over n program.. then u will c the advantage of it..!
Peac out..
AMD rule. With it Power road map.!
April 17, 2006 8:29:40 PM

Quote:
Just think angin ppl 64bit it is Important. we soon going 2 be 64bit gameing.. all over n program.. then u will c the advantage of it..!


Why don't you take advantage of your ability not to post absolute crap.
April 17, 2006 8:50:19 PM

Quote:
INtel Suck They should Go make heater.. HAHA Razz
Yeah, Intel a company whose market value is $112,894,770,000 got where they are by sucking.
April 18, 2006 1:27:30 AM

Quote:
He doesn't. He lied.
Even if synthetic benchmarks shows that they're not counted.

Wusy: Please don't make me flood the thread with 64-bit benchmarks that proves that I'm right. Just do a google search yourself.
Gaming doesn't sees a great performance benefit from 64 bit (5-10% in some cases), but apps like encoding, databases, compiling and encription algorithms does benefit greatly (20-80%) from 64-bit.
April 18, 2006 3:29:43 AM

Quote:
Yes, but they are produced by the same company. (that's what i meant)
The difference between them is huge. Arhitecture wise totally different.
Makes you wonder why Intel has ever decided to change P3 design. Still, P4 wasn't all that bad, in fact a P4 has a lot more potential i think if we exclude energy consumption and the cooling needed than any of today's stuff IMHO.


at the time they could lower the process and had heat issues with the p3, + they wanted more money that a newer product would bring
a b à CPUs
April 18, 2006 4:33:15 AM

translated: http://64.233.179.104/translate_c?u=http://www.computer...

just a higher quality version of an X2 with 512k L2 per and DDR2-667, Yonah was equal clock for clock to a A64 x2, DDR2 does nothing but lower power/heat levels (and should extend battery life) so its prolly more compeditive then before atleast, until merom comes out and after that quad core laptop chips - then again Intel always owned in laptops.
April 18, 2006 8:53:49 PM

Quote:
my ps2 is 128bit

Your PS2 also runs at 300MHz, and has no dedicated graphics processor.
April 18, 2006 9:01:02 PM

Quote:
Your PS2 also runs at 300MHz, and has no dedicated graphics processor.


Hey, you just hurt the feelings of my Emotion Engine :cry: 

And it did have a graphics processor, it was called the Graphics Synthesizer and ran at 147mhz.

So there!
April 18, 2006 9:22:40 PM

64bit = ability to address more than 4GB ram in a "normal" desktop.
April 18, 2006 9:50:38 PM

I decided to exclude the NEC GPU because it was so bad it isn't worth mentioning.
April 18, 2006 9:51:25 PM

hmm sounds a bit like the inspiron 5150 that you're talking about. I got that too :D 
April 19, 2006 7:46:00 AM

Quote:
I decided to exclude the NEC GPU because it was so bad it isn't worth mentioning.


Hehe, yup 147mhz with no dedicated VRAM if I remember correctly, although it could interface with DRAM at 47.0gb/s and had a 2560-bit interface!

I just Wiki'd PS2 - did you know that the I/O bus was actually controlled by the same chip that was the CPU in PS1?

Back to 64-bit, I just had a look at the description of a SODIMM I bought recently - it says that they have a '64-bit data path' - what does that mean?
April 30, 2006 11:53:35 PM

why are we all arguing about this anyway? somebody care to explain to me why the screenshot clearly shows "Socket AM2" when the Turion x2 is coming out on socket S1?

940 pins vs. 638 pins.............
perhaps i am the only one that is confused/skeptical about this supposed benchmark
a b à CPUs
May 1, 2006 12:13:07 AM

it is 638 aparently the original design for s939 used more pins then required, and its not as if cpuz is totally correct at all times (prolly is thistime tho).

Quote:
why are we all arguing about this anyway? somebody care to explain to me why the screenshot clearly shows "Socket AM2" when the Turion x2 is coming out on socket S1?

940 pins vs. 638 pins.............
perhaps i am the only one that is confused/skeptical about this supposed benchmark
a c 99 à CPUs
May 1, 2006 4:00:48 AM

Two things:

1. Transmeta already made a 128-bit CPU in the Crusoe. The Efficeon is a 256-bit VLIW chip. The Crusoe acts like an x86 32-bit chip while the Efficeon can run x64_64 OSes.

2. I would like to see some benchmarks of chips being run on a REAL 64-bit OS. You're right that Windows XP x64 is a buggy POS. But x86_64 Linux isn't and it seems to be conveniently forgotten when people talk about 64-bit software. And I have a sneaking suspicion that my chip runs the 64-bit version of the OS and programs at least 10% faster than the i686 version.
!