Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

"THG's Review of the Turion X2"

Last response: in CPUs
Share
August 23, 2006 12:41:19 AM

I've told many of you (intel fanboys) that Core Duo isn't a worthy competitor to the Turion X2 processor, instead, I received insults and mocks from these idiots.

Anyhow, here's Tom's own benchmark of the Turion X2:

http://www.tomshardware.com/2006/08/22/amd_dual_core_laptops_have_arrived/

8)

P.S: Too bad they didn't include 64-bit benchmarks in those tests. I believe they avoided doing so to prevent the core duo from looking as a real loser.

More about : thg review turion

August 23, 2006 12:44:21 AM

Yes, and their conclusion is startlingly anti-Core Duo.

http://www.tomshardware.com/2006/08/22/amd_dual_core_la...

Quote:
However, compared to an Intel platform based on the Core Duo and the company's own GM 945 chipset, the combination of AMD CPU and ATI chipset is inferior in terms of battery time and multitasking performance. Therefore, under equal conditions, it can only be regarded as the second choice - if it is worth getting at all. The Core Duo 2, Intel's next generation of laptop processors is already at hand, and first measurements show that the Core Duo 2 is even more powerful while not consuming more power.

I would think you would want to downplay the THG article rather than promote it.
August 23, 2006 12:52:24 AM

Quote:
Yes, and their conclusion is startlingly anti-Core Duo.

http://www.tomshardware.com/2006/08/22/amd_dual_core_la...

However, compared to an Intel platform based on the Core Duo and the company's own GM 945 chipset, the combination of AMD CPU and ATI chipset is inferior in terms of battery time and multitasking performance. Therefore, under equal conditions, it can only be regarded as the second choice - if it is worth getting at all. The Core Duo 2, Intel's next generation of laptop processors is already at hand, and first measurements show that the Core Duo 2 is even more powerful while not consuming more power.

I would think you would want to downplay the THG article rather than promote it.
I've said it once and I'll say it again: Turion X2s real contender is NOT core duo, it's Merom becasue this is intel's first 64-bit mobile processor.
I'll die to see both Turion X2 and merom 64-bit benchmarks. :wink:
Related resources
a c 479 à CPUs
August 23, 2006 12:55:04 AM

Quote:
I've told many of you (intel fanboys) that Core Duo isn't a worthy competitor to the Turion X2 processor, instead, I received insults and mocks from these idiots.

Anyhow, here's Tom's own benchmark of the Turion X2:

http://www.tomshardware.com/2006/08/22/amd_dual_core_laptops_have_arrived/

8)

P.S: Too bad they didn't include 64-bit benchmarks in those tests. I believe they avoided doing so to prevent the core duo from looking as a real loser.


Ahh yes. Good ol' dependable and reliable 9-inch.

Still spewing out lies and half truths.

As ltcommander_data quoted:

Quote:

However, compared to an Intel platform based on the Core Duo and the company's own GM 945 chipset, the combination of AMD CPU and ATI chipset is inferior in terms of battery time and multitasking performance. Therefore, under equal conditions, it can only be regarded as the second choice - if it is worth getting at all. The Core Duo 2, Intel's next generation of laptop processors is already at hand, and first measurements show that the Core Duo 2 is even more powerful while not consuming more power.


You should read the article before posting because this clearly shows you are a boy with less than half a brain.
August 23, 2006 12:59:54 AM

Theres an offical topic dipsh!t.


August 23, 2006 1:01:12 AM

Quote:
I've told many of you (intel fanboys) that Core Duo isn't a worthy competitor to the Turion X2 processor, instead, I received insults and mocks from these idiots.

Anyhow, here's Tom's own benchmark of the Turion X2:

http://www.tomshardware.com/2006/08/22/amd_dual_core_laptops_have_arrived/

8)

P.S: Too bad they didn't include 64-bit benchmarks in those tests. I believe they avoided doing so to prevent the core duo from looking as a real loser.


Ahh yes. Good ol' dependable and reliable 9-inch.

Still spewing out lies and half truths.

As ltcommander_data quoted:

Quote:

However, compared to an Intel platform based on the Core Duo and the company's own GM 945 chipset, the combination of AMD CPU and ATI chipset is inferior in terms of battery time and multitasking performance. Therefore, under equal conditions, it can only be regarded as the second choice - if it is worth getting at all. The Core Duo 2, Intel's next generation of laptop processors is already at hand, and first measurements show that the Core Duo 2 is even more powerful while not consuming more power.


You should read the article before posting because this clearly shows you are a boy with less than half a brain.


Everyone must have a skill in life.
9 inches is taking information out of context. Hopefully, he has found a way to make a living with this skill. At least one that wont harm the general populace.

Peace
August 23, 2006 1:02:31 AM

Quote:
I'll die to see both Turion X2 and merom 64-bit benchmarks.


How about you just die instead.
August 23, 2006 1:12:03 AM

Quote:
I've said it once and I'll say it again: Turion X2s real contender is NOT core duo, it's Merom becasue this is intel's first 64-bit processor.
I'll die to see both Turion X2 and merom 64-bit benchmarks.

I'm interested in 64-bit performance too. Still, that kind of implies that you are conceding 32-bit performance to Core 2 Duo, which is still going to be the most common OS standard, especially for notebooks, for quote some time.
August 23, 2006 1:26:17 AM

Quote:
Yes, and their conclusion is startlingly anti-Core Duo.

http://www.tomshardware.com/2006/08/22/amd_dual_core_la...

However, compared to an Intel platform based on the Core Duo and the company's own GM 945 chipset, the combination of AMD CPU and ATI chipset is inferior in terms of battery time and multitasking performance. Therefore, under equal conditions, it can only be regarded as the second choice - if it is worth getting at all. The Core Duo 2, Intel's next generation of laptop processors is already at hand, and first measurements show that the Core Duo 2 is even more powerful while not consuming more power.

I would think you would want to downplay the THG article rather than promote it.
I've said it once and I'll say it again: Turion X2s real contender is NOT core duo, it's Merom becasue this is intel's first 64-bit processor.
I'll die to see both Turion X2 and merom 64-bit benchmarks. :wink:

Shouldn't matter, Merom is based on the same architecture as Conroe, Turion is based on K8 -- Conroe trounces K8 in 64 bit per the data:

http://forumz.tomshardware.com/hardware/ftopic-192762-0...


Or can't you read.


C'mon now, Jack. We know he cant read. It the only logical explanation for the way he owns himself everytime he posts a headline which doesnt actually state what he thinks it states

Peace
August 23, 2006 1:59:18 AM

Quote:
Yes, and their conclusion is startlingly anti-Core Duo.

http://www.tomshardware.com/2006/08/22/amd_dual_core_la...

However, compared to an Intel platform based on the Core Duo and the company's own GM 945 chipset, the combination of AMD CPU and ATI chipset is inferior in terms of battery time and multitasking performance. Therefore, under equal conditions, it can only be regarded as the second choice - if it is worth getting at all. The Core Duo 2, Intel's next generation of laptop processors is already at hand, and first measurements show that the Core Duo 2 is even more powerful while not consuming more power.

I would think you would want to downplay the THG article rather than promote it.

All I can say that the more THG try to make their reviews unbiased, you still "smell" the biasness in their reviews (i.e. this one). After all, benchmarks won't lie (not the case if intel makes them) and the Turion X2 IS better than the core duo, but still, once you've read the entire article you get that anti-AMD impression in THG's reviews. :wink:
August 23, 2006 2:04:03 AM

Poor sock puppet, it must really burn you up that intels cpus crush AMDs.
August 23, 2006 2:07:07 AM

Quote:
Yes, and their conclusion is startlingly anti-Core Duo.

http://www.tomshardware.com/2006/08/22/amd_dual_core_la...

However, compared to an Intel platform based on the Core Duo and the company's own GM 945 chipset, the combination of AMD CPU and ATI chipset is inferior in terms of battery time and multitasking performance. Therefore, under equal conditions, it can only be regarded as the second choice - if it is worth getting at all. The Core Duo 2, Intel's next generation of laptop processors is already at hand, and first measurements show that the Core Duo 2 is even more powerful while not consuming more power.

I would think you would want to downplay the THG article rather than promote it.

All I can say that the more THG try to make their reviews unbiased, you still "smell" the biasness in their reviews (i.e. this one). After all, benchmarks won't lie (not the case if intel makes them) and the Turion X2 IS better than the core duo, but still, once you've read the entire article you get that anti-AMD impression in THG's reviews. :wink:

did a friend read read this and tell you or did you learn to read?

oh btw didn't you make this topic about how the review was pro amd?

idiot
August 23, 2006 2:10:53 AM

What's the going rate for Billy Goats to cross?
August 23, 2006 3:36:31 AM

The reason why the Turion X2 seems to stay with the Core Duo is because the Turion ML60 is the top end Turion, whereas the T2500 is a mid-range processor.

You can get a T2700 for a price premium (2.33Ghz), or a T2600 (2.16Ghz) for about $30-40 more than the ML-60, or get the 2Ghz T2500 for about $90 less.
August 23, 2006 4:21:52 AM

9-inch, BM, etc... can we hav discussions about this stuf and not turn everything into a name calling mess and ruining every thread we can look at in this section

and unless ur stupid thg encourages ppl to buy amd laptops as quoted by someone above, and as for them being paid off by intel....urge to kill rising...

lastly, all this bs on 64bit performance, well pretty much all windows users will keep on 32bit, because buying a new os with apps that wont come out for at least a year is retarded
August 23, 2006 4:27:00 AM

Quote:
I've said it once and I'll say it again: Turion X2s real contender is NOT core duo, it's Merom becasue this is intel's first 64-bit mobile processor.
Then Turion X2 is going to suffer tremendously.
August 23, 2006 4:28:26 AM

Quote:
Yes, and their conclusion is startlingly anti-Core Duo.

http://www.tomshardware.com/2006/08/22/amd_dual_core_la...

However, compared to an Intel platform based on the Core Duo and the company's own GM 945 chipset, the combination of AMD CPU and ATI chipset is inferior in terms of battery time and multitasking performance. Therefore, under equal conditions, it can only be regarded as the second choice - if it is worth getting at all. The Core Duo 2, Intel's next generation of laptop processors is already at hand, and first measurements show that the Core Duo 2 is even more powerful while not consuming more power.

I would think you would want to downplay the THG article rather than promote it.

All I can say that the more THG try to make their reviews unbiased, you still "smell" the biasness in their reviews (i.e. this one). After all, benchmarks won't lie (not the case if intel makes them) and the Turion X2 IS better than the core duo, but still, once you've read the entire article you get that anti-AMD impression in THG's reviews. :wink:
Judging from the attitude displayed in your post, you're being stressed by the idea of a contradictory conclusion. Stress, if not relieved, can build to unhealthy levels and cause several health problems such as high blood pressure and untimely death. You need to find a healthy, positive way to reduce your stress level.

Therefore, I give you this, to help you feel better.
Try to reach step four, as that will relieve all of your stress and some of ours in the process - then everybody wins.
August 23, 2006 4:31:26 AM

Quote:
Yes, and their conclusion is startlingly anti-Core Duo.

http://www.tomshardware.com/2006/08/22/amd_dual_core_la...

However, compared to an Intel platform based on the Core Duo and the company's own GM 945 chipset, the combination of AMD CPU and ATI chipset is inferior in terms of battery time and multitasking performance. Therefore, under equal conditions, it can only be regarded as the second choice - if it is worth getting at all. The Core Duo 2, Intel's next generation of laptop processors is already at hand, and first measurements show that the Core Duo 2 is even more powerful while not consuming more power.

I would think you would want to downplay the THG article rather than promote it.

All I can say that the more THG try to make their reviews unbiased, you still "smell" the biasness in their reviews (i.e. this one). After all, benchmarks won't lie (not the case if intel makes them) and the Turion X2 IS better than the core duo, but still, once you've read the entire article you get that anti-AMD impression in THG's reviews. :wink:
Judging from the attitude displayed in your post, you're being stressed by the idea of a contradictory conclusion. Stress, if not relieved, can build to unhealthy levels and cause several health problems such as high blood pressure and untimely death. You need to find a healthy, positive way to reduce your stress level.

Therefore, I give you this, to help you feel better.
Try to reach step four, as that will relieve all of your stress and some of ours in the process - then everybody wins.



Nice! :lol:  :lol: 
August 23, 2006 4:41:16 AM

Quote:
I've told many of you (intel fanboys) that Core Duo isn't a worthy competitor to the Turion X2 processor, instead, I received insults and mocks from these idiots.

Anyhow, here's Tom's own benchmark of the Turion X2:

http://www.tomshardware.com/2006/08/22/amd_dual_core_laptops_have_arrived/

8)

P.S: Too bad they didn't include 64-bit benchmarks in those tests. I believe they avoided doing so to prevent the core duo from looking as a real loser.


Picked up an Acer Aspire 5102 with a Turion X2 TL-50 + Xpress 1100 + 1GB of memory. Compared to my old Inspiron 6000 with a Pentium M 740 + X300 + 1GB of memory, it's nothing special. Battery life is worse not to mention.
August 23, 2006 4:46:55 AM

Quote:
I've told many of you (intel fanboys) that Core Duo isn't a worthy competitor to the Turion X2 processor, instead, I received insults and mocks from these idiots.

Anyhow, here's Tom's own benchmark of the Turion X2:

http://www.tomshardware.com/2006/08/22/amd_dual_core_laptops_have_arrived/

8)

P.S: Too bad they didn't include 64-bit benchmarks in those tests. I believe they avoided doing so to prevent the core duo from looking as a real loser.


Picked up an Acer Aspire 5102 with a Turion X2 TL-50 + Xpress 1100 + 1GB of memory. Compared to my old Inspiron 6000 with a Pentium M 740 + X300 + 1GB of memory, it's nothing special. Battery life is worse not to mention.

Let me save 9 inch the effort of replying. :wink:

""Well thats yur prob Inteliot fanboy. Turion Rulz the land, I said so. Yur just not smart enough be push the on button the right way" :wink:

Peace
August 23, 2006 3:02:26 PM

The review is full of flaws:

1. Lacks at least a game or 3Dmark2001 or any other program that could test the IGP. Not stupid 3Dmark 2006 or Quake 4 where one would do 4 fps and the other 5 fps.

2. The battery tests are completely stupid. One as 80Wh and the other 54Wh, those 26Wh are enough to feed the system more time and keep it warmer.

3. The Multi tasking benchmarks Scenario have to be taking with grain of salt because the HDD performance takes a very important rule here. If they aren’t the same you can’t compare. Unless you are reviewing the notebooks and not the processors.

4. The conclusion is not very correct Therefore, under equal conditions, it can only be regarded as the second choice - if it is worth getting at all.. In some of the tests the AMD notebook wins so I don’t know what the author of the article wants.

5. Intel mobile still lacks 64 bit, so Turion 64 is a great choice. I didn’t see any mention to the fact that Intel doesn’t have it and Amd does. I bet if AMD processor lacks SSE3 or even SSE2 we would ear something like this: The processor showed good performance but the lack of SSE2 and SSE3 makes it difficult to recommend because newer applications will make use of the new instructions making the processor already obsolete.
August 23, 2006 3:47:53 PM

You do have some good points, however, mobile 64-bit processors are not realy a requierment. 64 bit is more of a server thing. Besides, how many useful aps are there for 64 bit? Altho I will say that 64 bit for the laptop would be more of a pressing issuse when vista comes out. By then the mobile version of Conroe (forgot the name) would have been out for a while.
August 23, 2006 3:59:45 PM

I just have to ask one thing - the 64 bit argument, is it really plausible?

How many people are benefitting from 64-bit in consumer laptops/desktops?

I ask, because this point keeps getting brought up, but really, how many people are using 64-bit operating systems with a wide range of applications that use 64-bit addressing? I would be very surprised if this even hit a full % point of the market.

As such, do we need to keep hitting this point over and over? I say wait until a 64-bit OS is mainstream, then start looking at more 64-bit benchmarks.
August 23, 2006 5:16:01 PM

Quote:
I've told many of you (intel fanboys) that Core Duo isn't a worthy competitor to the Turion X2 processor, instead, I received insults and mocks from these idiots.

Anyhow, here's Tom's own benchmark of the Turion X2:

http://www.tomshardware.com/2006/08/22/amd_dual_core_laptops_have_arrived/

8)

P.S: Too bad they didn't include 64-bit benchmarks in those tests. I believe they avoided doing so to prevent the core duo from looking as a real loser.


9-nm stop giving the others so much material to trash you.
It's embarassing. Read before you post something.
August 23, 2006 5:34:13 PM

Yes. 100% with you. But that same could be said about Radeon 9700 (DX9) and no games for it (DX9) when released. We still have too see the hardware first, then the software later. With those thoughts we would never see a 64 bits processor ever.

For example MatTheMurdera, how do you expect me to create (or test or use) some 64 bits server application on my notebook with a 32 bit processor inside? Or do you want me to develop a 64 bit sound card driver on a 32 bit processor? Or some Winzip type application? Or notebooks are only to run Word and Excel?

In the end its better to have it, than lack it. At some point it will be needed. It isn’t more spread because of Intel and AMD. 64 bit isn’t a huge thing, but isn’t some minor thing either.

PS: By the way, did you know that in x64 mode MMX and 3dnow does not work.
August 23, 2006 11:55:23 PM

Quote:
Yes. 100% with you. But that same could be said about Radeon 9700 (DX9) and no games for it (DX9) when released. We still have too see the hardware first, then the software later. With those thoughts we would never see a 64 bits processor ever.

For example MatTheMurdera, how do you expect me to create (or test or use) some 64 bits server application on my notebook with a 32 bit processor inside? Or do you want me to develop a 64 bit sound card driver on a 32 bit processor? Or some Winzip type application? Or notebooks are only to run Word and Excel?

In the end its better to have it, than lack it. At some point it will be needed. It isn’t more spread because of Intel and AMD. 64 bit isn’t a huge thing, but isn’t some minor thing either.

PS: By the way, did you know that in x64 mode MMX and 3dnow does not work.
You have a point, however, its easy to solve: use desktop 64-bit processors (which are wide spread). Laptops dont need to have 64 bit processors for 64 bit programs to be made, because they can be made on server or desktop platforms that 64 is more benifical for. After that, it can simply be ported over with little or no changes having to be made.
August 24, 2006 12:04:54 AM

Quote:
Therefore, I give you this, to help you feel better.
Try to reach step four, as that will relieve all of your stress and some of ours in the process - then everybody wins.


(still laughing at that one! :lol:  )


Cheers!
August 24, 2006 7:03:59 AM

Quote:
The review is full of flaws:

1. Lacks at least a game or 3Dmark2001 or any other program that could test the IGP. Not stupid 3Dmark 2006 or Quake 4 where one would do 4 fps and the other 5 fps.

2. The battery tests are completely stupid. One as 80Wh and the other 54Wh, those 26Wh are enough to feed the system more time and keep it warmer.

3. The Multi tasking benchmarks Scenario have to be taking with grain of salt because the HDD performance takes a very important rule here. If they aren’t the same you can’t compare. Unless you are reviewing the notebooks and not the processors.

4. The conclusion is not very correct Therefore, under equal conditions, it can only be regarded as the second choice - if it is worth getting at all.. In some of the tests the AMD notebook wins so I don’t know what the author of the article wants.

5. Intel mobile still lacks 64 bit, so Turion 64 is a great choice. I didn’t see any mention to the fact that Intel doesn’t have it and Amd does. I bet if AMD processor lacks SSE3 or even SSE2 we would ear something like this: The processor showed good performance but the lack of SSE2 and SSE3 makes it difficult to recommend because newer applications will make use of the new instructions making the processor already obsolete.


BINGO!! :wink:
August 24, 2006 8:11:51 AM

Problems with laptops and this is with Intel or Amd. Most laptops can't run high end games. (note I'm not talking about desktop replacements with a desktop cpu) I would love anyone who like to play computer games. Look on a few game boxes and read Not suited for laptop use. I'm Not saying they will not work. But laptops tend to have problems with games. This is a major draw back to laptops.

I read all the info on the tomshardware on laptops intel vers amd. I will say Intel would be a better choice in one area and that is battery life and amd is the 64 bit. But they seem to be about even on alot of the test. There was a few AMD beat intel and a few intel beat AMD. So it depends on the person and what they use the laptop for.

I like to use my laptops when I out so battery life is a must for me. So I picked centreno duo right now and like others seid why do we need 64 bit right now.
August 24, 2006 9:31:08 AM

Yes MatTheMurdera I also use desktop.

But Laptops are very useful if you have to take your work to some other place. And you don’t need 64 bits processors for the programs to be made but you need to be used :wink: .

Using server is completely out of question; my boss would kill me if I do that. However I have see some colleagues of mine installing Visual Studio on a server which for me is plain stupidity. Server is production only, no testing and no developing.

Yes applications can be ported, but if you want native 64 bit not just recompiled stuff (from where real performance boost comes), some things already don’t exist in x64. That’s why Microsoft will go 64 bit only on their next server version is very difficult to have native 32 bit and 64 bit simultaneous.

Don’t get me wrong Intel notebooks are great, much better than the AMD ones. But this was a processor or notebook review?
Because the processor is not that bad as the author intends to say. Most of the AMD mobile systems quality has nothing to do with AMD, but their partners.
Want a good example?
Provide me a link of a good Intel processor based notebook without centrino (non Intel).
!