AMD Turion 64 X2 TL-56 (1.8Ghz) CPU...same as P4 3.2Ghz?

[mojo77uk]

I need a laptop that gives me equal/better performance than my current desktop PC:

My Desktop PC: Intel P4 3.2Ghz 800FSB, 2GB DDR 400Mhz, 128MB Ati X300, 200GB 7200rpm

This is the laptop I am thinking of buying (HP dv9030ea) to replace above mentioned PC:

http://h10010.www1.hp.com/wwpc/uk/en/ho/WF06a/21675-38187-38191-38191-38191-12435946.html

This laptop has a AMD Turion 64 X2 TL-56 (1.8Ghz)

Is this BETTER than my 3.2GHz Pentium 4 800FSB CPU??

Am I going to get a better performance with the laptop?

I've looked at benchmark comparisons with the AMD Turion X2 and other Intel Duo Core CPU's, but there aren't any benchmark tests with the Intel Pentium 4 3.2Ghz.

Can someone give me a rough idea if I'm going to get roughly the same performance?

I need a laptop that I can use for 3D Modelling and rendering (CAD work).

 

[diplomat696]

I am not an expert but I would think you would get far better performance with a dual core AMD than a single core P4. One of my friends recently switched over from a P4 to a dual core AMD and has been preaching dual core ever since so I would bet it would be better.

Laptop vs Desktop is a different story, i would think if u have the same components in a laptop as a desktop that you would get the same performance so that to me is a non-issue.

Not sure if Intel Dual Core would be better for CAD than an AMD though, you might want to look at some reviews to see what is better of an intel dual core and an amd dual core at handling graphihcs rendering.

To me when you say you cant find a comparison of P4 and AMD Dual core you really arent comparing apples to apples so if I was you and I was looking to buy a new comp I would compare new Intel Dual Core processors to Dual Core AMDs.

I think you may find the new Intel Dual Cores are quite a bit better than the AMD CPU's so maybe see if HP has a good core duo laptop out there in a similar price range.

 

[mojo77uk]

Thanks for your reply.

It's difficult, as a non-techy pc user, to compare all the different types of CPU's, when buying a new laptop.

The only comparison I have is with my old desktop PC, anything faster than that and I'm happy.

From what I have seen in the benchmark tests, the Intel Duo Cores has better results than the AMD Turion X2 equivalent. (Intel core Duo's are much better at multi tasking)

http://tomshardware.co.uk/2006/08/22/amd_dual_core_laptops_have_arrived_uk/page12.html

I'm unable to find anything about which CPU deals with graphics rendering better.

 

[yumi_cheeseman]

If you want a laptop to outperform your PC you will have to pay through the nose for it.

I could buy a PC for 1 grand, and get a laptop to possibly match it for 3 - 4 grand.

 

[BaronMatrix]

I need a laptop that gives me equal/better performance than my current desktop PC:

My Desktop PC: Intel P4 3.2Ghz 800FSB, 2GB DDR 400Mhz, 128MB Ati X300, 200GB 7200rpm

This is the laptop I am thinking of buying (HP dv9030ea) to replace above mentioned PC:

http://h10010.www1.hp.com/wwpc/uk/en/ho/WF06a/21675-38187-38191-38191-38191-12435946.html

This laptop has a AMD Turion 64 X2 TL-56 (1.8Ghz)

Is this BETTER than my 3.2GHz Pentium 4 800FSB CPU??

Am I going to get a better performance with the laptop?

I've looked at benchmark comparisons with the AMD Turion X2 and other Intel Duo Core CPU's, but there aren't any benchmark tests with the Intel Pentium 4 3.2Ghz.

Can someone give me a rough idea if I'm going to get roughly the same performance?

I need a laptop that I can use for 3D Modelling and rendering (CAD work).

I have a TL-52 and it is noticeably snappier than P4 2.8 @ work. For CAD (ANSys, 3DStudio) you would see a difference.

You could also choose the COre 2 models though I can't eally say if they are better for the work you do. Heavy FP will favor the Turion, where SSE will favor the COre 2.

I do believe though the AMD models cost less with adequate perf. I love mine.

V3030US Compaq

 

[darkstar782]

Out of those two my money would be on the Turion.

I'm actually not overly keen on Intel notebooks except for the extreme high end, even the Core Duos seem to run with shitty Intel GMA945 or similar graphics, which is just silly imho.

At the low and mid end, the AMDs tend to use ATI x300s and x700s, which although weak perform much better than any Intel gfx shite.

 

[kukito]

This is a very rough estimate and not measured in any way; just educated speculation. The nature of your question doesn't allow specific comparisons and desktop and laptop parts are hardly ever benchmarked comparatively.

My performance sweet spot before Conroe was 3 GHz for Netburst P4, 2 GHz for Athlon/Turion 64 and Pentium M. The difference between 3.0 and 3.2 is negligible. The performance you gain from dual core on single threaded apps is not so much raw speed but your PC's ability to run more programs simultaneously at the single core speed. With multi-threaded applications you do get a big boost in raw performance with a dual core.

The Turion 64 X2 should whip the P4's ass in multithreaded applications. It might run single threads a bit slower than the P4 but nothing to be too concerned about. The Core 2 Duo is faster than the X2 but you'll probably get a better price on the AMD system. A 1.6 GHz Core 2 Duo should outperform the X2 at 1.8 GHz but don't take my word for it.

Another thing to consider is the video card. The Go 7600 should perform much better than the X300. For professional 3D you'll need good OpenGL support. nVidia's OpenGL drivers are usually better than ATI's. And a laptop hard drive is slower (5400 rpm) than a desktop drive, although there are 7200 rpm laptop drives available.

I hope this helps.

 

[kukito]

Out of those two my money would be on the Turion.

I'm actually not overly keen on Intel notebooks except for the extreme high end, even the Core Duos seem to run with shitty Intel GMA945 or similar graphics, which is just silly imho.

At the low and mid end, the AMDs tend to use ATI x300s and x700s, which although weak perform much better than any Intel gfx shite.

The OP already provided a link to the spec sheet which you obviously didn't even bother to read. The laptop he/she is thinking about uses an nVidia Go 7600 with either Intel or AMD. :roll:

 

[gudodayn]

The X2 Turions are pretty good.......and I do believe they are cheaper than Intel Core 2 Duo laptops.

However, if you need a laptop for 3D stuff........
This is just a laptop that I've got my eyes on for about a month now.....ASUS ~ A84ST72DD (A8Js), it festures

T7200 2.0G 4MB L2 ~ Intel C2D CPU
NVIDIA 7700 512M ~ VGA
14" WXGA+ ~ Screen
1 x 1024MB DDRII 667MHz ~ RAM
Mobile Intel 945GM ~ MB Chipset
120G 8MB cache / 5400rpm (SATA) ~ HDD
802.11a/b/g,10/100
Bluetooth V2.0

This baby can be picked up here in Taiwan for $46000 flat ~ cash only.
Divide that by 32 and you get $1437.5 USD

Does that fit into your budget??

 

[darkstar782]

Out of those two my money would be on the Turion.

I'm actually not overly keen on Intel notebooks except for the extreme high end, even the Core Duos seem to run with shitty Intel GMA945 or similar graphics, which is just silly imho.

At the low and mid end, the AMDs tend to use ATI x300s and x700s, which although weak perform much better than any Intel gfx shite.

The OP already provided a link to the spec sheet which you obviously didn't even bother to read. The laptop he/she is thinking about uses an nVidia Go 7600 with either Intel or AMD. :roll:

Yeah I did read it thanks. It means his Turion laptop will be paired with a 7600, pretty cool.

However, you obviously didnt read, becase the P4 3.2 he is talking of is not an alternative CPU option for his laptop, its his existing desktop, so its kind of irrelevent that he could buy a Core Duo or Core 2 Duo from HP with a 7600, as he hasnt said he is considering that (probably because it is likely to be substantially more expensive). Fact remains that low end Core Duo and Core 2 Duo laptops are paied with Intel Gfx. **NO** AMD based systems in any price range are paired with Iltel Gfx.

Here is a quick preview article where some initial data puts the Turion X2 behind Core Duo and Core 2 Duo:

http://www.computerbase.de/news/hardware/prozessoren/amd/2006/maerz/ce...06_benc

The comparision you request technically does not exist in a form that would be considered a good systematic compare, this is the closest I have come to seeing a comparision of the processors in regards to the subject-title of this post.

While Cinebench alone is not a great benchmark, it does scale relative to one and the other in lockstep with other benchmarks that can compare performance. Use it as a rough guide and take it with a grain of salt.

Turion X2's good processors and a great effort by AMD, but in all they fall short of Intel's mobile offering pretty much across the board.

Jack

Good info as usual Jack, and you are right, in terms of CPU power I'd agree the Core Duo and Core 2 Duo usually leave the Turions behind. However they are more often paired with extremely weak Intel Gfx solutions, and in a Laptop it is generally easier to upgrade the CPU than the GPU, so I'd buy on the basis of GPU.

Added to that, the OP wants to know if the Turion X2 he mentions would perform better in 3d Modeling, Rendering, and CAD (likely to be multithreaded) applications than his P4 3.2 desktop.

Netburst sucks, Core Duo for laptops is expensive if you want to avoid Intel Gfx. In the bench you linked, a Pentium 4 3.8 GHz is bottom of the pile, below the Turion X2 1.6GHz

I'd say this makes it a safe bet the Turion X2 1.8GHz would be waaay faster in the multithreaded apps he has planned than his P4 3.2

 

[accord99]

Fact remains that low end Core Duo and Core 2 Duo laptops are paied with Intel Gfx. **NO** AMD based systems in any price range are paired with Iltel Gfx.

They're just paired with marginally less slow NVidia and ATI integrated graphics. All three are too slow for any recent games. In fact, going through HP's website, Intel based laptops have more graphics card options than AMD.

 

[mojo77uk]

I've decided that the AMD Turion X2 isn't as good as the Intel Duo 2 Core. Also, apparently I need at least 7900GS graphics card for 3D CAD work (so Nvdia 7600 256mb won't do either).

So now I'm going to be getting either a Dell 9400 or Dell m90 with the following specs:

They both cost £950/$2000, and I haven't got enough money to upgrade either of them.

Dell 9400:
Intel Core 2 Duo T7200 2.0Ghz
2GB DDR2 667Mhz Memory (2x1024)
120 GB 5,400 Hard Drive And a USB Floppy Drive
17 Inch WUXGA+ (1920x1200)
256MB NVIDIA Go 7900 GS Graphics
Intel® Pro WLAN 3945 Internal Wireless (802.11a/b/g 54 Mbps) Fast Wireless Lan And a fitted Bluetooth Card
8xDVD+/-RW Multiformat DVD&CD Writer

OR

Dell M90:
Intel Core Duo T2400 1.83GHz
1GB of DDR2 667MHz Memory
17 Inch WUXGA+ (1920x1200)
512MB NVIDIA Quadro FX-2500M Graphics
80GB Hard Drive
Wireless Lan And a fitted Bluetooth Card
8xDVDROM+/-CDRW


Which one should I get???

bearing in mind that I need it specifically for 3D CAD modelling and rendering work

 

[YO_KID37]

http://www.alienware.com/intro_pages/quadro_2500m.aspx

And the 512Mb Make It A Really! Really Tempting Deal< but I Find the Overall Advantage in the

Dell 9400:

 

[kukito]

So now I'm going to be getting either a Dell 9400 or Dell m90...

The Dell m90 doesn't use Core 2 Duo so you should go for the 9400. The m90 you mention uses Core Duo, the C2D's predecessor.

 

[kukito]

However, you obviously didnt read, becase the P4 3.2 he is talking of is not an alternative CPU option for his laptop, its his existing desktop, so its kind of irrelevent that he could buy a Core Duo or Core 2 Duo from HP with a 7600, as he hasnt said he is considering that (probably because it is likely to be substantially more expensive). Fact remains that low end Core Duo and Core 2 Duo laptops are paied with Intel Gfx. **NO** AMD based systems in any price range are paired with Iltel Gfx.

Nope. The OP requested a performance comparison between P4 (desktop) and Turion 64 X2 (laptop). In the third post on this thread the OP expressed an interest in the C2D. At no point did he/she say anything about budget laptops or express any interest in an integrated GPU. That's why I told you the machines the OP was considering did not use an IGP and that your point, that you would go for the X2 because Intel's integrated graphics were inferior, was completely irrelevant. :roll:

 

[mojo77uk]

True. I'm not sure how the whole integrated graphics cards discussion started :?:

Regarding the Dell 9400/M90......

The only thing tempting about the Dell M90 is the Nvidia Quadro 512MB card. But the rest of the system is average/worse than the Dell 9400.

I think the Dell 9400 is a better overall system, and I think the Nvidia 7900GS 256MB is good enough for me. (3D CAD/rendering work)

I personally am not going to be playing ANY fast games on it......but I would like to sell it on to my brother next year....and he IS a serious gamer :!:

 

[zenmaster]

True. I'm not sure how the whole integrated graphics cards discussion started :?:

Regarding the Dell 9400/M90......

The only thing tempting about the Dell M90 is the Nvidia Quadro 512MB card. But the rest of the system is average/worse than the Dell 9400.

I think the Dell 9400 is a better overall system, and I think the Nvidia 7900GS 256MB is good enough for me. (3D CAD/rendering work)

I personally am not going to be playing ANY fast games on it......but I would like to sell it on to my brother next year....and he IS a serious gamer :!:

I don't think this plan is the best.
In a year, your brother will be able to get a better laptop.
You would be better off getting what you need and letting him get what he needs.

High End graphics are great for laptops if you need them, but if you dont need them you will be getting a heavier, hotter running system with a shorter battery life for a lot more money.

Buy what you need and then sell on E-Bay when you are done.
In a year, let your bro get a good deal on outlet.dell.com

In the end you guys will spend less and he will have a better system.

Laptops are very much give and take.
I have both gaming and non-gaming laptops for this reason.
My monster for gaming in my living room.
My mobile laptop for long life when browsing the net at the park.

 

[kukito]

Regarding the Dell 9400/M90......

The only thing tempting about the Dell M90 is the Nvidia Quadro 512MB card. But the rest of the system is average/worse than the Dell 9400.

I think the Dell 9400 is a better overall system, and I think the Nvidia 7900GS 256MB is good enough for me. (3D CAD/rendering work)

I personally am not going to be playing ANY fast games on it......but I would like to sell it on to my brother next year....and he IS a serious gamer :!:

Very good points. I suggest you research this further. Either card would be great from a gaming perspective but the Quadro is top of the line for professional work. Looks like you've narrowed your choices down to two very powerful machines that I would envy. I'm not qualified to comment further but let me add one more thing. The Core Duo is a 32 bit part while the Core 2 Duo is 64 bit. This would normally not concern me since no consumer laptops support more than 4 GB of RAM. However you might want or need to run your professional apps in a 64 bit OS in the future and you could only do that with the Core 2 Duo.

Enjoy your new laptop. You have researched it well.

 

[zenmaster]

OK, I missed the CAD part.

I should fully read next time :>

 

[darkstar782]

Well, you seem to be looking at high end laptops, in which case Intel is definately the way to go.

Quadro FX 2500M is a G71 based chip, clocked at either 450MHz or 500MHz depending on where you look, and with 512MiB of GDDR3 on a 256bit bus and clocked at 600MHz (1200MHz effective). The G71 is a fully fledged version, with 24 pipes.

Geforce Go 7900GS is a G71 based chip, clocked at 375MHz and with (usually) 256MiB of GDDR3 on a 256bit bus and clocked at 500MHz (1000MHz effective). The G71 here is the crippled 20 pipe version also used in the Desktop 7900GS.

As for Core Duo vs Core 2 Duo, you may find these relevent:
Clicky

Core 2 has a 10-12% performance advantage at the same clock, so the Core 2 Duo you have there is roughly equivalent to a 2.2GHz Core Duo, vs the 1.83GHz in the Quadro system.

Bear in mind however that if you decide you need to, you can more than likely change the CPU in the Dell M90 to a Core 2 Duo at a later date, almost all Core Duo mobile chipsets support Core 2. Its also very easy to add a second GiB of RAM.

As such, I'd probably go for the Quadro FX 2500M, not only do you get the Quadro driver features like the Anti Aliased lines etc, but its a faster card anyway (by a significant amount imho)

A comparison of Geforce vs Quadro

 

[kukito]

You still made some valid points though.

 

[kukito]

Good post darkstar.

 

[Doughbuy]

Does no one mention the fact that quadro cards are optimized for OpenGL whereas GeForce cards are optimized for DX...

I'm not familiar with CAD so I don't know if they use OpenGL or DX, but if CAD is openGL optimized....

 

[mojo77uk]

Thanks alot for that darkstar782 That's clarified alot for me.

Intel Core 2 Duo has a marginal edge over the Intel Core Duo, and is a little better in every aspect.

The Quadro does seem specifically designed for CAD designers/3D modellers in mind.....Looking at the link you gave me it seems amazing 8O

Would you say the Quadro is 50% better performance/speed than the 7900GS?? (with 4more pipelines/200Mhz faster)

In answer to Doughbuy; I believe the 7900GS has "Complete DirectX support, including the latest version of Microsoft DirectX 9.0 Shader Model 3.0 AND Full OpenGL support, including OpenGL 2.0"

http://www.hothardware.com/viewarticle.aspx?articleid=868&cid=2

I don't know if this makes it smooth/quick enough for CAD users though. It always sounds good in theory, but the proof will be in trying it out - by which time it's too late if you've got it wrong



P.S. I'm not caring too much about upgrade possibilities because I only need this laptop for 6 months......

P.P.S. Just found another Dell and HP for $400 less than the 2 Dells I listed in Post #13. But I'm thinking the 256MB dedicated DDR ATi Mobility Radeon X1400, is inferior to the 7900GS :?: But maybe worth sacrifice for the savings in $$$ :?:

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&ih=009&item=190046146743&rd=1&sspagename=STRK%3AMEWA%3AIT&rd=1

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&rd=1&item=290044548473&ssPageName=STRK:MEWA:IT&ih=019

 

[kukito]

Yeah, I mentioned it in my first post (#7) but I'm not really qualified to go further into it.