Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Turion X2 fails to impress

Last response: in CPUs
Share
May 18, 2006 10:10:59 AM

First review. Thanks to the inquirer.

More about : turion fails impress

May 18, 2006 10:15:21 AM

It really craps out in the "all important" gaming. We won't even mention

super pi. :wink:
May 18, 2006 10:30:43 AM

Quote:
First review. Thanks to the inquirer.

THIS HAVE TO BE POSTED IN ALL CAPS!
VERY INTERESTING AND USEFULL INFO!
NICE FIND KEYBOARD_MAN :wink:
KEEP THE GOOD WORK AMD! 8)
Related resources
May 18, 2006 11:20:12 AM

Well, everybody knew that Poorion is pure cr*p but it blows that badly its not even funny =)
May 18, 2006 11:26:16 AM

8O Wow my stock setting Super PI is faster with my 840. :lol: 
May 18, 2006 3:57:02 PM

Quote:
First review. Thanks to the inquirer.



I'd say it's looking prety good. There are no real sweeps that I saw. Yes it is a little slower than Core Duo, but not bymuch. Core 2 may do more damage but hey, AMD owns the server and desktop spaces right now.

I guess they were more concerned with TDP than perf. The next rev will probably be better. I would bet that it suffers from the same thing as AM2, DDR2 efficiency.
a b à CPUs
May 18, 2006 4:05:38 PM

good job action man! But I agree should be in all caps. lol
May 18, 2006 4:16:33 PM

Quote:
I'd say it's looking prety good. There are no real sweeps that I saw. Yes it is a little slower than Core Duo, but not bymuch. Core 2 may do more damage but hey, AMD owns the server and desktop spaces right now.

I guess they were more concerned with TDP than perf. The next rev will probably be better. I would bet that it suffers from the same thing as AM2, DDR2 efficiency.

Ha.... the HORDE spokesman, with excuses about AMDs failure.
They are looking bad and unsucesfull. They are their latest mobile chips and they are slow and power unefficient compared to the allready available chips.
May 18, 2006 4:16:44 PM

Quote:
First review. Thanks to the inquirer.


it simply shows who is better at mobile chips... which is surely 'Intel' as always... so failure of Turion X2 is not a surprise for me at all... i was expecting this to happen! :lol: 

Anyways... xcellent post Action_Man, i appreciate your wilingness to get people informed! thanx alot!
May 18, 2006 4:19:05 PM

Come on people, get with it. The turion isn't really any different than any other k8 dual core, it just has to use less power and is hampered by the fact is can't use faster than ddr2667 RAM. It only makes sense that the results would be like they are. Nothing surprising at all about it. k8 needs to ramp up speed to compete with yonah/conroe/merom. We ALL knew that already, didn't we? So, when a 2.4 or 2.6 35w dual core 64bit processor is out, then things might be different. But seriously, who is using a notebook as a main gaming system and expecting the same performance as a desktop? And why would a processor be a gaming bottleneck in a NORMAL notebook? It won't, the GPU will, you all knew that, too (I hope). If you are not looking for a NORMAL notebook, you can get a 4800x2 SLI heavy as h*ll notebook instead.
May 18, 2006 4:28:33 PM

K8 are the best for games. So for other purposs it is mostly like that Turion won't be better. The dualch DDR2-667 with its high latency is possible to decrease instead of increase the K8 performance. Anyway, the Dothan/Yonah was, is and will be better than K8/K8-X2.
May 18, 2006 4:31:15 PM

Clock for clock it is better, no doubt, but lets see how 65nm and AMD processor speeds go together.
May 18, 2006 4:40:32 PM

Is there an english version?
May 18, 2006 4:51:04 PM

why fails? Intel always had a large advantage on mobile cpu market, and this turion performs pretty close to the same clock speed core duo T2500. Even in batery life it loses for a mere 18 minutes, with a 90nm core versus 65nm from intel. Also, intel's core has 2MB of shared L2 cache, as the turion has 2x512kb
May 18, 2006 5:05:12 PM

Quote:
why fails? Intel always had a large advantage on mobile cpu market, and this turion performs pretty close to the same clock speed core duo T2500. Even in batery life it loses for a mere 18 minutes, with a 90nm core versus 65nm from intel. Also, intel's core has 2MB of shared L2 cache, as the turion has 2x512kb


So, you agree that the Turions are bad performers. And, you are trying to explain why they are so bad?
May 18, 2006 5:21:28 PM

18 minutes is pretty significant.
May 18, 2006 5:27:39 PM

No, there is a huge difference between "not quite as good" and "bad." The turion at this point is "not quite as good" as the yonah. It is also one of the only K8 designs that is actually bandwidth starved, due to the poor RAM for laptops. Because of this issue, it would make more sense to have a bit of extra cache. That's were the whole hybrid hard drive idea came from, so it is strange they stuck with 512/1024mb. I would have expected them to up it just for the portable systems to 1024/2048. And the 65nm processors are not that far away, so things will keep changing.
May 18, 2006 5:47:46 PM

I DONT SPEAK SPANISH!!!

lol i wish intel had some better competition in the mobile sector to drive prices down...
May 18, 2006 6:15:40 PM

so, you dont speak spanish and french? coz the site is in french :p 

Quote:
So, you agree that the Turions are bad performers. And, you are trying to explain why they are so bad?

no, i was saying that turions are not so bad performers. I was trying to show people like you taht, even with outdated technology and less L2 cache, it can come close to the intel processor.


Quote:
18 minutes is pretty significant.

hmmm yeah, that's 18%. but compared to older mobile cpus from amd, that's a good result
May 18, 2006 6:17:43 PM

not trying to be an a$$, but it's french....use google translate/babelfish or just read the numbers in the comparisons.
May 18, 2006 6:35:54 PM

Quote:
I'd say it's looking prety good. There are no real sweeps that I saw. Yes it is a little slower than Core Duo, but not bymuch. Core 2 may do more damage but hey, AMD owns the server and desktop spaces right now.

I guess they were more concerned with TDP than perf. The next rev will probably be better. I would bet that it suffers from the same thing as AM2, DDR2 efficiency.

Ha.... the HORDE spokesman, with excuses about AMDs failure.
They are looking bad and unsucesfull. They are their latest mobile chips and they are slow and power unefficient compared to the allready available chips.


I have no allegiances. If that's the case I would have mentioned that Dothan beat Yonah in several benchmarks. I also noticed that it is using the NF4 with the 410 not the 430. My point was that it's faster than Turion and in some cases the T2400.

I think it's a step up from AMDs previous gen. Besides, the generic nature of the AMD system is interesting. I know MSI and Acer have Turion X2 systems. Why do you guys act like Otellini's girlfriend?

I was just stating that it's not a total loss. I'd like to see what MSI and Asus can do.

I guess you Intel fanboys are using lots of lotion today. :wink:
May 18, 2006 6:39:19 PM

Quote:
not trying to be an a$$, but it's french....use google translate/babelfish or just read the numbers in the comparisons.


Lol its okay. ANytime there is a foriegn language thing I like to qoute Anchorman.
May 18, 2006 7:10:55 PM

Quote:
No, there is a huge difference between "not quite as good" and "bad." The turion at this point is "not quite as good" as the yonah. It is also one of the only K8 designs that is actually bandwidth starved, due to the poor RAM for laptops. Because of this issue, it would make more sense to have a bit of extra cache. That's were the whole hybrid hard drive idea came from, so it is strange they stuck with 512/1024mb. I would have expected them to up it just for the portable systems to 1024/2048. And the 65nm processors are not that far away, so things will keep changing.

I disagree. It is not starved for bandwidth, it suffers from high latency RAM. The cache hit rate on the K8 is excelent, so the L2 cache size don't impact on K8 performance much. The role of the IMC is to avoid lost cycles when accessing RAM, so with high latency RAM it is loosing its role.
Anyway, the most important factor is the performance/price. Does any one have any info about T64-X2 pricing, so we can make conclusion is it "bad" or not?
May 18, 2006 7:23:45 PM

The top model Turion 64 X2 TL60 (2GHZ) costs $354, the lowest model Turion 64 X2 TL50 is only $184. Intel's 32 bit Core Duo T2600 costs $700.
May 18, 2006 7:25:16 PM

Quote:
The top model Turion 64 X2 TL60 (2GHZ) costs $354, the lowest model Turion 64 X2 TL50 is only $184. Intel's 32 bit Core Duo T2600 costs $700.


Nice point. Since i didnt read the articles, is the tl 60 comprable to the t2600?
May 18, 2006 7:34:21 PM

I found the pricing on Sharikou's blog. I'm not sure how accurate it is, as he has a tendency to color facts to his liking.
May 18, 2006 7:36:45 PM

Quote:
The top model Turion 64 X2 TL60 (2GHZ) costs $354, the lowest model Turion 64 X2 TL50 is only $184. Intel's 32 bit Core Duo T2600 costs $700.


Nice point. Since i didnt read the articles, is the tl 60 comprable to the t2600?

Nice point, I'll take the Turion for sure.

Quote:
I'd say it's looking prety good. There are no real sweeps that I saw. Yes it is a little slower than Core Duo, but not bymuch. Core 2 may do more damage but hey, AMD owns the server and desktop spaces right now.


You sure got that right. Intel doesnt own anything at this point.
May 18, 2006 7:56:55 PM

From Xbitlabs.com:

The initial series of Turion 64 X2 processors consist of three models: TL-50 (1.60GHz, 256KB L2 cache per core, 512KB of L2 cache in total), TL-52 (1.60GHz, 512KB L2 cache per core, 1MB of L2 cache in total), TL-56 (1.80GHz, 512KB L2 cache per core, 1MB of L2 cache in total) and TL-60. When purchased in 1000-unit quantities, the TL-50, TL-52, TL-56 and TL-60 processors cost $184, $220, $263 and $354, respectively.
May 18, 2006 8:22:03 PM

I'm no expert, but the AM2 makes up for its latency issues at ddr800 speeds pretty well, so if S1 could use ddr800, I don't think there would be an issue.
May 18, 2006 9:28:38 PM

Quote:
I'm no expert, but the AM2 makes up for its latency issues at ddr800 speeds pretty well, so if S1 could use ddr800, I don't think there would be an issue.

I told you allready. There is no need for more bandwidth. s754 is the prove. CAS latency is the problem
May 18, 2006 9:46:57 PM

Quote:
The top model Turion 64 X2 TL60 (2GHZ) costs $354, the lowest model Turion 64 X2 TL50 is only $184. Intel's 32 bit Core Duo T2600 costs $700.


Nice point. Since i didnt read the articles, is the tl 60 comprable to the t2600?
No, The T2600 is the 2.16GHz model. The T2500, which already beats the TL60 is $453 while using less power. Plus Intel will make price cuts on the current models as the T2700 slots into the price position now held by the T2600.
May 18, 2006 10:23:02 PM

Quote:

No, The T2600 is the 2.16GHz model. The T2500, which already beats the TL60 is $453 while using less power. Plus Intel will make price cuts on the current models as the T2700 slots into the price position now held by the T2600.


Good to know.

Are laptop CPUs easily interchangeable given the same socket (replace t2300 with t2700)
May 19, 2006 6:48:47 AM

Quote:
If you like AMD, buy the Turion, if you don't care buy Core Duo -- it more for the money.

To a conscientious consumer, a quick analysis reveals the better deal, to someone who prefers a certain brand, then price is as not as big a factor.


If everyone followed that logic, there would sure be alot less threads going

on in here. Nice summation. :wink:
May 19, 2006 8:17:44 AM

Quote:
I found the pricing on Sharikou's blog. I'm not sure how accurate it is, as he has a tendency to color facts to his liking.


This is like the FBI asking Martha Stewart if she ever sold shares in the biotech industry.....
It is like asking old wh*re with 10 children from unknown male parent if she is virgin.

Quote:
The price of the 2.16GHz Core Duo will reportedly drop from $632 to $423, a reduction of about 33 percent. Meanwhile, the 2.0GHz model will drop in cost from $423 to $294 (30.5 percent), and the 1.83GHz model from $294 to $241 (18 percent).


http://www.appleinsider.com/article.php?id=1545

The compare was 2.0 G Turion to 2.0 G Core Duo. Less power dissipation, more batter life, average 10% better performance, cheaper price.
So my final conclusion is both Core Duo and Turion64-X2 are bad, but Turion64-X2 is worse. I want to have fast computers for free.
May 19, 2006 8:28:57 AM

Since I understand French pretty well, I'd just like to add a little comment:
- the Turion X2 laptop tested in this article is a prototype; it may still be modified or tweaked for better performance or better power consumption, for example better CnQ;
- these are 1st series Turion, still using the 0.09µm cores; they will eventually be replaced with 0.065µm;
- you can run 64-bit systems on these. Yes, it can be interesting to a few people: some programmers actually run WinXP-64 on their laptops, or run Linux.

The latter isn't cited in the article, but I wanted to add it because it's not nice picking on a chip's weaknesses without citing its advantages.
May 19, 2006 8:45:35 AM

Quote:
No, The T2600 is the 2.16GHz model. The T2500, which already beats the TL60 is $453 while using less power. Plus Intel will make price cuts on the current models as the T2700 slots into the price position now held by the T2600.


Hmm. Inquirer said that Intel *MAY* be power binning Core Duo, or the future processors. Meaning that higher end consumes LESS power and is faster in performance. Justifies getting higher priced CPU more than before, but whether that's done is not sure.

Quote:
hmmm yeah, that's 18%. but compared to older mobile cpus from amd, that's a good result

why fails? Intel always had a large advantage on mobile cpu market, and this turion performs pretty close to the same clock speed core duo T2500. Even in batery life it loses for a mere 18 minutes, with a 90nm core versus 65nm from intel. Also, intel's core has 2MB of shared L2 cache, as the turion has 2x512kb


Those are from two posters. I combined them into one, since they are similar.

18% doesn't look significant. And it also looks like 65nm *MAY* make up for it. However it won't.

Here's why: 18%, while it seems minor, is a TOTAL power consumption. We know Intel has platform advantages, but even then, 18% TOTAL means MUCH GREATER CPU power difference.

Quote:
I disagree. It is not starved for bandwidth, it suffers from high latency RAM. The cache hit rate on the K8 is excelent, so the L2 cache size don't impact on K8 performance much. The role of the IMC is to avoid lost cycles when accessing RAM, so with high latency RAM it is loosing its role.


True, but since Core Duo's laptop has same latency and same speed memory, I don't see they won't benefit more. Plus I haven't really seen a person in real life who buys extra extra low latency memory to get few % increase when they can buy a mid range video card for the same price, let alone a laptop.
May 19, 2006 8:56:18 AM

Quote:
No, The T2600 is the 2.16GHz model. The T2500, which already beats the TL60 is $453 while using less power. Plus Intel will make price cuts on the current models as the T2700 slots into the price position now held by the T2600.


Hmm. Inquirer said that Intel *MAY* be power binning Core Duo, or the future processors. Meaning that higher end consumes LESS power and is faster in performance. Justifies getting higher priced CPU more than before, but whether that's done is not sure.

Quote:
hmmm yeah, that's 18%. but compared to older mobile cpus from amd, that's a good result

why fails? Intel always had a large advantage on mobile cpu market, and this turion performs pretty close to the same clock speed core duo T2500. Even in batery life it loses for a mere 18 minutes, with a 90nm core versus 65nm from intel. Also, intel's core has 2MB of shared L2 cache, as the turion has 2x512kb


Those are from two posters. I combined them into one, since they are similar.

18% doesn't look significant. And it also looks like 65nm *MAY* make up for it. However it won't.

Here's why: 18%, while it seems minor, is a TOTAL power consumption. We know Intel has platform advantages, but even then, 18% TOTAL means MUCH GREATER CPU power difference.

Plus, Turion X2 already uses individual core voltage, which may be an advantage since Core Duo needs to synchronize, but I am not clear on X2, maybe X2 needs the same thing. Turion X2 also has technology similar to DC4, Core Duo's new Enhanced Deeper Sleep technology.

Quote:
I disagree. It is not starved for bandwidth, it suffers from high latency RAM. The cache hit rate on the K8 is excelent, so the L2 cache size don't impact on K8 performance much. The role of the IMC is to avoid lost cycles when accessing RAM, so with high latency RAM it is loosing its role.


True, but since Core Duo's laptop has same latency and same speed memory, I don't see they won't benefit more. Plus I haven't really seen a person in real life who buys extra extra low latency memory to get few % increase when they can buy a mid range video card for the same price, let alone a laptop.

Quote:
You sure got that right. Intel doesnt own anything at this point.


Yes they do. Its called mobile/portable space.

Quote:

K8 are the best for games. So for other purposs it is mostly like that Turion won't be better. The dualch DDR2-667 with its high latency is possible to decrease instead of increase the K8 performance. Anyway, the Dothan/Yonah was, is and will be better than K8/K8-X2.


Performance wise K8 was better than Dothan, and even Yonah, according to Anandtech.

Anyone who looked at Anandtech's AM2 review would have know the performance coming. DDR2-667 was actually slower even with very low latency(for the memory tech anyway).

Quote:
Also, intel's core has 2MB of shared L2 cache, as the turion has 2x512kb


Funny how people say 2MB shared L2 cache will cause thrashing and all that crap, but in this case, they say its an advantage. :?

It's not that the theories are wrong, but how people selectively use words to make AMD look somewhat better in that case.


I think the reason for 512KB L2 cache per core could be the leakage issues, as keeping almost same power at 90nm and dual core will be difficult.[/quote]
May 19, 2006 9:01:59 AM

Quote:
- these are 1st series Turion, still using the 0.09µm cores; they will eventually be replaced with 0.065µm;


Yeah....next year!

Quote:
- you can run 64-bit systems on these. Yes, it can be interesting to a few people: some programmers actually run WinXP-64 on their laptops, or run Linux.


Or vista. :wink:
May 19, 2006 9:02:50 AM

Quote:
I found the pricing on Sharikou's blog. I'm not sure how accurate it is, as he has a tendency to color facts to his liking.


Not sure why you would go to a private blog, especially one known to be HEAVLY biased, when you can do it the simpler way. The Turion X2[/quote] CPU has press releases, just go to AMD's site.

Similar for Intel's chips. When the chips are out, you go to the respective manufacturer for CPU pricing, Intel for Intel, AMD for AMD.

Now if you want to know the REAL pricing you'll buy at, check your favorite store.
May 19, 2006 9:37:30 AM

...yeah. Or Vista.

Actually this is pretty relevant as these new Turion chips will be readily available on laptops at the moment Vista comes out.

Still, for a company that always treated mobile chips as an afterthought, these chips look nice.
May 19, 2006 9:57:24 AM

u cant say amd fail. afterall amd deliver another good processor better than turion single core is it?and make the performance gap between core duo and turion closer.

Action_Man good job for giving that nice french article. dont expect everyone to be able to read french though....
May 19, 2006 10:19:50 AM

No I don't expect them to but I expect them to be able to read the benchmarks. :wink: :roll:
May 19, 2006 12:49:01 PM

I actually see this chips selling pretty well in the retail sector. Reason being that they are being sold as the only 64bit out in the market. I can see the sales person (usually 17 year old geek) telling them that this chip is 64bit and intel's chip is only 32bit...and hey that must mean that a 64bit chip is twice as fast as a 32bit right, so guess what that poor fool will buy that laptop for that reason, evendough he may never upgrade the OS to vista. Hey the mhz thing worked for intel. I think that you get what you paid for, so if you want to buy a turion then go for.....hell vista is only a year away.
May 19, 2006 1:02:27 PM

You're taking into account FUTURE intel price cuts and not taking into account FUTURE amd price cuts? That makes no sense. Right now, the intel is faster and more expensive, not cheaper. Amd has already made the statement that they are going to keep their prices BELOW intel prices for laptop cpu's because that is the only way that will be able to compete with price/performance.
May 19, 2006 1:08:26 PM

Quote:
You're taking into account FUTURE intel price cuts and not taking into account FUTURE amd price cuts? That makes no sense. Right now, the intel is faster and more expensive, not cheaper. Amd has already made the statement that they are going to keep their prices BELOW intel prices for laptop cpu's because that is the only way that will be able to compete with price/performance.


Well the future is next week.

http://www.digitimes.com/mobos/a20060518PR209.html

Oh by the way has anyone seen this???

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/core-duo-o...
May 19, 2006 1:54:21 PM

Nice find...although the Inquirer isn't the best place for info...still from what I see it looks legitimate...

Ah well, I never really considered getting a Turion anyway....

(just a random question for Action_Man: I was just wondering if you ever used an AMD on one of your computers. Just want to see how unbiased you are ;) )
May 19, 2006 2:12:05 PM

Quote:
This is the problem with group think.

The problem is that thinking is not group. You've explained that nice when you explained the principels of the HORDE.
There are many sheeps in the herd, but there is only one sheepard. While there are sheeps there will be wool. There are green and blue colored sheeps. The difference makes them belong to one of the colored groups becouse they don't have personality to figure out their missing wool.
May 19, 2006 8:00:02 PM

Quote:
u cant say amd fail. afterall amd deliver another good processor better than turion single core is it?and make the performance gap between core duo and turion closer.

The thing is, nobody says that about Intel's Netburst line. It's latest extreme edition dual core is close to the performance of AMD's FX60, yet everyone except for the few unbiased individuals on this board were raving about who much of a failure Intel's newest processor was (even the author of the review here at THG), how it couldn't compete with the FX60 cpu that came out months before. Now that the shoe is on the other foot, suddenly everyone gets all sympathetic for AMD and their inferior Turion X2 chip. I'm just looking for some consistencey on this forum. :idea:
May 19, 2006 8:05:43 PM

Hey man i get what your saying but look if the turion x2 is as bad as they say then intel has nothing to worry about or do they?
May 19, 2006 8:22:46 PM

Quote:
Hey man i get what your saying but look if the turion x2 is as bad as they say then intel has nothing to worry about or do they?


I hear ya, but I don't think that Intel is going to be really bothered by this, at least not in the foreseeable future. Intel still has a smash hit one their hands with their whole "Centrino" propaganda, and now that the Mac Zealots are also singing the Intel tune, I don't think there will be much room for AMD to get any market share in the Notebook sector. Intel is trying right now to corner the booming HTPC market with their VIIV "Technology" (more PR propaganda, like Centrino). Once consumers start demanding Viiv Technology, retailers will have no choice but to carry Intel PCs. Ignorance is Bliss.
!