Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Dual Core Notebook CPUs Explored

Last response: in CPUs
Share
February 27, 2007 9:44:01 AM

AMD's Turion 64 X2 battles Intel's mobile Core 2 Duo. We X-ray both product families, and provide our test results in a new Interactive Charts category: please welcome our Mobile CPU Charts!
February 27, 2007 10:13:24 AM

Wow, I thought it would have been closer than that.
February 27, 2007 10:37:15 AM

Quote:
Wow, I thought it would have been closer than that.


Interesting because the last benchmarks I'd seen the X2's we're closer.
Perhaps the notebook C2's are better supported via drivers/firmwares now.
Related resources
February 27, 2007 11:04:54 AM

Yea I have the 1.86ghz 2mb cache c2d mobile (merom) and it flys past my friends 2ghz turion X2. They really are some fast chips, but his X2 gets the job done pretty well to.
February 27, 2007 11:21:02 AM

Quote:
AMD's Turion 64 X2 battles Intel's mobile Core 2 Duo. We X-ray both product families, and provide our test results in a new Interactive Charts category: please welcome our Mobile CPU Charts!


Core Powwahh :D 

Maybe I should build a Mobile on Desktop system instead with a C2D T7600 and AOpen i975Xa-YDG..
February 27, 2007 11:30:37 AM

This is a clear article on performance comparison.

I have one question.

When your relatives ask you which is better the AMD notebook or the Intel notebook what do you say? Your charts make it clear to me but go to the store and think about how its your aunt, uncle or mom doing the shopping. She sees, Intel Centrino, dual core notebook, core duo centrino, pentium dual core, core 2 duo. How in the he** is she/he going to figure out what to get let alone figure out the chip speed model ratings within each group. And she/he has not even begun to look at memory and HD specs and they won't ever be able to figure the difference between built-in and discrete video.

Notebook retails are making a killing by confusing their customers and I don't see it ever getting better.
February 27, 2007 11:33:30 AM

Good point.
There are still a ton of laptops with the shitty old Intel chips in them.
I'm sure a decent number of older crummy AMD's(?).
So if you are to recommend intel make sure you point to the right chip.
Or make sure they get the AMD X2.
They both perform well and give you better battery life than previous chips.
February 27, 2007 12:18:16 PM

Ok while i appreciate the work you guys are doing on the mobile processor testing front.
Wouldn't it be better to give us comparisons of the laptops that are out there. Yes the Ferrari is a wonderful laptop for someone who has endless cash.
Most people want to know about the laptops you can buy at say Best Buy or Circuit city. I am looking for a laptop that can play WOW. I don't require much in terms of processing power or grachics power. But i have no idea which one is better than the other.

Or if anyone knows who focuses on laptops i would happily rant somewhere else.

As always keep up the incredible work.

THanks

Randy
February 27, 2007 1:16:01 PM

I think the Turions would win in the game benchmarks (if there were unlimited funds, and if there were game benchmarks.) From what I've seen, the chipsets and video solutions for the AMD platform far exceed those of intel. I may be wrong, but I think nVidia made an SLi platform for AMD and not for Intel, which would give the AMD platform a huge advantage in the gaming/high-end market, enough to render the inferior CPU insignificant. Can anyone verify this?
February 27, 2007 1:35:36 PM

Heh I have seen some really sweet amd laptops with SLI.
I think your correct I am yet to see C2D laptops with SLI and raid ETC.
I remember them taking like.... 120-240 W I forget they we're beastly.
Alienwares and Cyberpower's best gaming laptops are AMD currently.
http://www.alienware.com/product_detail_pages/Aurora_mA...

Also Dell is only using AMD for low budget cheap systems anyway so the fact that AMD only holds what crown currently doesn't really hurt them a bit there.
February 27, 2007 2:11:42 PM

I am very disappointed with this article and agree they should talk about laptops you really can buy at CircuitCity or BestBuy or Compusa.

They go into talking about the list of Core and Core2 and Turion but somehow the benchmarks drop out many of the most common CPUs in favor of ones that i cannot even find in stores.

Why do they list 4 Core chips but leave out the low end Core2 chips like the T5200 and T5500? Why don't they include the new Pentium Dual-Core T2060? And why do they list the high end Core2 chips T7600 and T7400 that i can't even see in stores?

The prices are rediculous too. Why list retail prices when that's not how almost EVERYONE buys laptop CPUs? How about list the price delta's between similiarly configured laptops for different CPUs. And why are the high end Core chips listed and benchmarks when their prices seem to be HIGHER than the low end Core2 chips that they appear would have the same benchmarks? WHY WOULD I BUY A Core T2600 when it costs MORE than a Core2 T7200 that scores much higher? And a Core T2700 should be scrapped. (same price as a T6700 indeed).

Anyways, can't a Core2 be put in the same socket as a Core? So who would actually BUY a high end Core chip when they can buy the same clocked Core2 for the same price that seems to benchmark much higher?

So, PLEASE redo this review with REAL prices and REAL chips that can be bought in REAL stores.

Just give me Pentium Dual-Core T2060, Core T2250, Core T2350, Core2 T5200, Core2 T5500, Core2 T7200, and AMD TL-50, TL-52, TL-56.
And give me the price DIFFERENCES in real-world machines between these CPUs.
February 27, 2007 2:15:31 PM

Quote:
Wow, I thought it would have been closer than that.


Remember that the two Turions are 1.8Ghz one has 256K L2 and the other has 512K L2. I was hoping to see the TL-60 which runs at 2GHz. Of it would catch the T7300 but it would be closer.
February 27, 2007 2:16:57 PM

Thank you for compiling and publishing this information. I am one those who e-mailed you asking for a mobile processor comparison chart.

This is just the sort of information for which I have been looking. This information can be used to make an informed decision before purchasing a laptop.

From your article I appreciate how much more difficult it is to compare mobile systems. I hope that in the future you will keep adding to the information as you alluded to in the article by testing the T5000 CPUs.

I have faith that you will also find a way to meaningfully compare the graphics systems as well. Perhaps you will find a way to assemble an improvised platform from parts to test the discrete graphics cards available.
February 27, 2007 2:32:07 PM

WTF is up with these apple to oranges comparisons lately? :roll: Tom's Hardware used to be a reputable site for reviews, but the crap that has graced my screen in the last few months is just that, crap.

I'd rather see Tom's minions take an extra week to write/research these articles if that's what it takes to offer something that I used to find somewhat credible in the past (like when Tom himself used to write the articles back in the late '90s).

Comparing an AMD laptop to a mobile-on-desktop Intel config? How the hell does that offer any comparable data for a laptop system.... last time I looked, I couldn't fit a mobile-on-desktop system into a slim form factor i could throw in my bag and take to work.

Spend a little time shopping around on Dell, Gateway, etc's web sites, get two laptops with similar specs and capacities (RAM, HDD, battery size, screen size, price etc) and test them.
February 27, 2007 2:54:13 PM

Quote:

I think you missed the point of the article, they were working to get straight to the CPU performance, comparing mobile CPU against mobile CPU.... Patrick did point out:

However, performance depends very much on a mobile computer's particular configuration: memory size and speed, hard drive spindle speed and the graphics subsystem (discrete vs. shared graphics) have quite an impact on the result.


Please re-read the quote above.

Using a mobile-on-desktop system to compare CPU speed to a system with all laptop hardware is apple 'n oranges. Even Patrick stated this, but did it anyway. :roll:
February 27, 2007 3:04:34 PM

Quote:
Wow, I thought it would have been closer than that.


Remember that the two Turions are 1.8Ghz one has 256K L2 and the other has 512K L2. I was hoping to see the TL-60 which runs at 2GHz. Of it would catch the T7300 but it would be closer.

Ohhh dear, hear comes the 'they don't have enough cache' excuse --- Baron this is the purpose of the IMC....

A Tl-60 woud put it just above the TL-56 --- the performance would still be dominated by Core Duo and Core 2 Duo....

It was about time we have a comprehensive mobile review....


Beat it jerk. I state clearly that t would't catch T7300 but it would show what the fastest member of the family would do.

I don't worry about these things because AlienWare is stil pushing their AuroraM9700 Turion w/SLI. That means that it powers games. PERIOD! That's all you need unless you have self-esteem issues.

My Turion X2 (from which I'm posting this) is more than fast enough for my needs and I have single channel RAM and 5400RPM (though this will change when I get my return). with a TL52 (which by the way is 1.6GHz w/512K).
February 27, 2007 3:19:26 PM

Quote:
Wow, I thought it would have been closer than that.


Remember that the two Turions are 1.8Ghz one has 256K L2 and the other has 512K L2. I was hoping to see the TL-60 which runs at 2GHz. Of it would catch the T7300 but it would be closer.

Ohhh dear, hear comes the 'they don't have enough cache' excuse --- Baron this is the purpose of the IMC....

A Tl-60 woud put it just above the TL-56 --- the performance would still be dominated by Core Duo and Core 2 Duo....

It was about time we have a comprehensive mobile review....


Beat it jerk. I state clearly that t would't catch T7300 but it would show what the fastest member of the family would do.

I don't worry about these things because AlienWare is stil pushing their AuroraM9700 Turion w/SLI. That means that it powers games. PERIOD! That's all you need unless you have self-esteem issues.

My Turion X2 (from which I'm posting this) is more than fast enough for my needs and I have single channel RAM and 5400RPM (though this will change when I get my return). with a TL52 (which by the way is 1.6GHz w/512K).You're such a great spokesman for AMD...we know how much Hector worships you. :roll:

February 27, 2007 3:35:29 PM

Quote:
WTF is up with these apple to oranges comparisons lately? :roll: Tom's Hardware used to be a reputable site for reviews, but the crap that has graced my screen in the last few months is just that, crap.

I'd rather see Tom's minions take an extra week to write/research these articles if that's what it takes to offer something that I used to find somewhat credible in the past (like when Tom himself used to write the articles back in the late '90s).

Comparing an AMD laptop to a mobile-on-desktop Intel config? How the hell does that offer any comparable data for a laptop system.... last time I looked, I couldn't fit a mobile-on-desktop system into a slim form factor i could throw in my bag and take to work.

Spend a little time shopping around on Dell, Gateway, etc's web sites, get two laptops with similar specs and capacities (RAM, HDD, battery size, screen size, price etc) and test them.


i agree. tom's does it again.
if you can plug in a raptor into the amd, why not do it for the intel?

:roll:
February 27, 2007 3:45:10 PM

Quote:
You're such a great spokesman for AMD...we know how much Hector worships you.



It's possible. There's only one BaronMatrix and he is on like 10 sites. They should send me a laptop.
February 27, 2007 10:03:59 PM

I think this was a good review however I feel it could have been better. I must say that I am disappointed with the choice in hardware chosen. For a closer comparison I would have chosen Acer Ferrari 5000 and an Acer Travelmate 8200. These are pretty much the exact same laptop and would have provided a better real world application of each cpu. I have the Acer 8210 and would love to see a benchmark between the two. I know that my laptop does super pi in 1m 4.125s which is faster than any other core duo laptop that I know of and would like to see what the Ferrari does this in. No other two platforms are so close in specs or hardware as those two laptops.
March 3, 2007 5:27:21 PM

I have to agree with lschiedel . . . although the review seems detailed and comprehensive at first glance, this review is pretty useless for comparing current models in the marketplace. By far most of the Intel models out there right now use the T2050, T2060, T2250, T5200 and T5500. I had just purchased a well-priced HP notebook ($599) from Best Buy that has the AMD X2 TL-50 in it, and had hoped to compare it to the Intel cpu's that are out there like the T2060 and higher, and unfortunately, that's not the case here. If anyone sees this type of review elsewhere, please post it here . . . if I find it, I'll do the same.

Update - these older reviews and commentaries might be more helpful:

AMD X2 TL series vs. Intel T2500, etc.

AMD X2 TL-50 vs Intel T2300

AMD TL-50 vs. Intel T2050

Overclockers forum discussion of TL-50 vs T2050

If I had to venture a guess (without the T2060 being in the actual reviews and only having the 2050 and TL-50 in other reviews and the 2300 and TL-52 as "closest models" in this current 2/27 TH review), it would seem that the Intel T2060 and the AMD TL-50 would probably be pretty close on the performance benchmarks (with the T2060 probably still coming out ahead), and the TL-50 might suck wind in a battery life comparison. The T2060 seems to be viewed as considerably less than a T2050. Interesting comment in that Overclocker's discussion that the TL-50 is "really a Sempron X2." Well, I have a decision to make, but depending on how I decide to go on the processor, for my purposes, the battery life won't matter much, since I'll probably be on A/C power most of the time. And if I run into issues in the future, I might just upgrade from a 6-cell to a 12-cell battery. If I keep this system. Man, I wish someone would truly do a comprehensive review of all the current mobile processors that are being sold in systems advertised in the papers every week.
March 3, 2007 9:35:37 PM

Quote:
I think the Turions would win in the game benchmarks (if there were unlimited funds, and if there were game benchmarks.) From what I've seen, the chipsets and video solutions for the AMD platform far exceed those of intel. I may be wrong, but I think nVidia made an SLi platform for AMD and not for Intel, which would give the AMD platform a huge advantage in the gaming/high-end market, enough to render the inferior CPU insignificant. Can anyone verify this?

The turions still suck everywhere compared to Core2s, especially in the most important laptop feature; power consumption.
However, that is how sellers cannibalize sales; I almost got a heart attack one year ago when they told me a 3.0GHz Pentium4 had been chosen for my office PC when I had recommended a X2 4400+ which was even cheaper as a system overall. Most of the buyers trustfully ask a good PC for their needs but get screwed getting just a PC that helps the seller balance his inventory :evil:  .
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
March 24, 2007 9:40:33 PM

Hello. I wanted to ask yall some thing.
I'm looking in to geting a laptop for just watching movie and playing games.
But I dont have all the money in the world to spend on one.
I was looking at one with a Intel core 2 Duo T5600
2 gigs of ram and a7600 Geforce 512 video card..
Would this be all that Iw oudld need.
If this wasnt the right place to ask then I am sorry :oops:  ..
Just have this Deleted
March 24, 2007 9:41:47 PM

Hello. I wanted to ask yall some thing.
I'm looking in to geting a laptop for just watching movie and playing games.
But I dont have all the money in the world to spend on one.
I was looking at one with a Intel core 2 Duo T5600
2 gigs of ram and a7600 Geforce 512 video card..
Would this be all that I would need.
If this wasnt the right place to ask then I am sorry :oops:  ..
Just have this Deleted
March 25, 2007 9:52:06 AM

Well I have a 15.4 inch notebook with that same processor, 1.5gb of ram, and an ATI X1600 mobility and it is able to play pretty much every game out, just not at real high settings on alot of them, such as rainbow six vegas, which needs to be at 800x600 and low settings, but is clear and playable. So I imagine you will be fine. How much u payin?

Best,

3Ball
March 28, 2007 4:37:32 PM

I agree with several other posters - I don't see what the point of this article is with respect to laptop processors. No one would ever set up a laptop this way, so what is the point?

Myself, like some others would prefer that a comparison be done on laptop performance. I would like to see something on gaming with laptops - which inexpensive laptops can run a graphic-intensive game the best. Perhaps set a dollar limit of say $1200 and find out which current laptops can run some games and give framerates at certain resolutions. Now that would be an interesting article.
March 28, 2007 7:53:54 PM

Quote:
WTF is up with these apple to oranges comparisons lately? :roll: Tom's Hardware used to be a reputable site for reviews, but the crap that has graced my screen in the last few months is just that, crap.

I'd rather see Tom's minions take an extra week to write/research these articles if that's what it takes to offer something that I used to find somewhat credible in the past (like when Tom himself used to write the articles back in the late '90s).

Comparing an AMD laptop to a mobile-on-desktop Intel config? How the hell does that offer any comparable data for a laptop system.... last time I looked, I couldn't fit a mobile-on-desktop system into a slim form factor i could throw in my bag and take to work.

Spend a little time shopping around on Dell, Gateway, etc's web sites, get two laptops with similar specs and capacities (RAM, HDD, battery size, screen size, price etc) and test them.

C|Net has those. Tom's is looking to compare the individual components, in this case the CPUs, and how much relevance they have to a laptop's overall performance. There are millions of configurations available out there for laptops. Testing ones you find in stores wouldn't really shed much light on the matter IMO, unless you test a very large number of laptops. There are millions of potential notebook users out there and they all have very different needs.
My two cents.
March 28, 2007 11:08:29 PM

Quote:

C|Net has those. Tom's is looking to compare the individual components, in this case the CPUs, and how much relevance they have to a laptop's overall performance. There are millions of configurations available out there for laptops. Testing ones you find in stores wouldn't really shed much light on the matter IMO, unless you test a very large number of laptops. There are millions of potential notebook users out there and they all have very different needs.
My two cents.


Bottom line, putting a laptop CPU into a desktop motherboard and comparing it to a laptop CPU in an actual laptop offers very little comparative data.
March 30, 2007 3:42:51 PM

If you look at some of the posts here, people want to find the best laptop for their money. I don't think it makes much difference if it is a Intel or AMD processor, but can it run games and can video play smoothly, and how much will I spend? For business users, it really doesn't make much difference. For enthusists, they want graphics-intensive performance, but unless you have thousands of dollars to spend buying a Falcon Northwest laptop, you want the best your budget can afford. Compare 5 laptops, comparably equipped with a maximum budget of $1200. And forget business apps - do it for gaming.

I agree with Hemi - little comparative data for realists.
April 11, 2007 1:23:03 AM

wow i cant really beleve that toms hardware even ran tests like this

you cant compare a laptop to desktop pc, end of story
they were using high end ram in the intel board as well as a proper gfx card when the motherboard has onboard vga anyway

thier argument for this? the amd laptop uses a desktop hardisk
why not use a high end intel laptop?
im not a fanboy but i hate bios articles either way

iv been reading tomshardware for a while now and i never thought they would review hardware like this
May 4, 2007 2:29:54 PM

You can basically ignore this review; if you read on, you will find that Tom’s Hardware (which used to be a reputable review site) has not compared these processors in remotely similar systems; the Intel is running on a custom built desktop MoBo with a dedicated Video Card (x800), dedicated graphics RAM, and mains power (i.e. for all purposes a desktop, not laptop, system). The AMD is running on a stock notebook system, with NO video card at all (integrated), no dedicated VRAM, etc. (i.e. a notebook, what the other one SHOULD have been also). This is the epitome of an apples/oranges comparison… let’s compare an Intel laptop to an AMD desktop and see who wins! Also, the comparison includes the high-end core 2 duo chips (up to 2ghz) but NOT the high-end Turion 60 chip, which is 2.0 ghz and therefore much more comparable to the core 2 duo’s that they chose. Instead they compared the high-end Core 2 Duos (2.0ghz+, 4m cache, expensive) to the low-end Turions (1.6/1.8, 256/512k cache, cheap) instead of comparing similar chips. There are also no comparisons on other specs, like power usage, graphics performance, access times, games (how’d that one get left out?), battery life, overclocking performance, multitasking performance (dual core’s main advantage), price, etc. Wait for a better review, that reviews comparable-speed processors on identical systems, without any of this apples/oranges BS.
September 9, 2008 6:58:22 AM

warezme said:
This is a clear article on performance comparison.

I have one question.

When your relatives ask you which is better the AMD notebook or the Intel notebook what do you say? Your charts make it clear to me but go to the store and think about how its your aunt, uncle or mom doing the shopping. She sees, Intel Centrino, dual core notebook, core duo centrino, pentium dual core, core 2 duo. How in the he** is she/he going to figure out what to get let alone figure out the chip speed model ratings within each group. And she/he has not even begun to look at memory and HD specs and they won't ever be able to figure the difference between built-in and discrete video.

Notebook retails are making a killing by confusing their customers and I don't see it ever getting better.


Hey! I know this is going to sound stupid but is there any difference between Intel dual core and Centrino Dual core ( so it's just centrino, not intel centrino or at least that was what it said in the offer)
Thanks
September 9, 2008 11:51:09 AM

ion_pop said:
Hey! I know this is going to sound stupid but is there any difference between Intel dual core and Centrino Dual core ( so it's just centrino, not intel centrino or at least that was what it said in the offer)
Thanks


Welcome to the Lair of Necromancy stranger. You did well in using the search function, but badly in not checking the date.

Albeit wrong and punishable with castration, and endless reruns of the 25 series of "The Simpsons", It is fun to see thread rising from Davy Jones locker.

On a more serious note, forget all those definitions. That is only branding mambo-jumbo to keep the customer permanently confused.Check the T3xxx , T5xxx, T7xxx or TL-XX X2 in AMD case.. And then check the Intel and AMD Webpages for more official info. The sales-monkey will just tell you to buy.

Have fun !!
!