Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

I can't see WHY the core 2 duo is superior to the turion X2

Last response: in CPUs
Share
July 18, 2007 1:29:00 AM

Hi

I apologize to bring this topic up once again but after reading hours of reviews and
forum posts I came to the conclusion that everyone says the C2D is superior but
I can't find a real reason for it.

1) Performance
After reading the tom's hardware cpu charts I came to the following conclusion regarding processor speed.
If you consider the same frequency you get the following
Core 2 Duo: Best
Core Duo: 9-25% slower (avg~ 15%)
Turion X2: 9-40% slower (avg ~25%) (compared to the core 2 duo)

However, with the same amount of money I can get a core 2 duo with 1.73Ghz or a Turion X2 with
2.2Ghz. That is a difference of ~25% which on average would the two processors perform equally well.
So performance can't be the factor right?

2) Power consumption/ Battery life
I mainly used this page as a benchmark http://www.tomshardware.com/2006/08/22/amd_dual_core_la... .html

As one can see the difference in power consumption is about 2-11% (avg~ 6%) that would given
equal batteries result in a difference of about 15min (given around 4h of battery life). Which is not
a important factor

3) Heat
Often it is claimed that the turion causes more heat but heat should be proportional to power consumption.
And it also relies heavily on the case of the notebook etc..


I want to buy a new notebook in the foreseeable future and I'm somewhat confused after seeing the
benchmark und reading stuff on the internet. So maybe someone can give me a explanation.
thx
July 18, 2007 2:26:26 AM

Then buy a Turion X2.

Are you looking for people to give you reasons not to, when you already seem to have your mind made up to get the Turion X2?

What information are you exactly looking for? You did a performance, battery/power, and heat comparasion. So, what did you need?
Are you looking for reasons why the Core 2 Duo is a better performer? Or why the Turion is a better choice?

Again, you seem to have made up your mind, and this kind of thread can start a mini-flame war, imo. I mean, you start the thread with "I came to the conclusion that everyone says the C2D is superior but
I can't find a real reason for it
" and you just seem to open the topic up for a flame war.

Buy the Turion. There. Simple.
July 18, 2007 2:41:21 AM

no joke, really not sure what the meaning of this post.
Related resources
July 18, 2007 2:45:32 AM

Hi

Sorry you misunderstood me completely, and I dont't have made my mind up either (That's
actually part of my problem).

I first wanted to buy a Core 2 Duo out of the reasons which are always mentioned
like performance or battery life.
But then I discovered somewhat contradictory benchmarks results and now I don't know
at all what to buy.

I don't think that the X2 is superior, at best it is equal (for the same price). But what puzzles me is
why the c2d is considered to be that superior when it comes to mobile processors.

And I don't believe that most people who make statements like "intel is by far leading in mobile
processors" or "I have a c2d because it has better performance and battery life" don't base
this opinions on facts. In fact I regard myself as not very well informed in the current processor
and notebook market and therefore my question is.

Did I forgot to consider something? Are the benchmarks not applicable in real life?
Are there other factors I should consider buying a new notebook?
....

thx
July 18, 2007 3:08:04 AM

Okay.

Well, most benchmarks aren't considered 100% real life experiences. They are mostly just a gauge of what a product (CPU, GPU, memory, etc) can do, when running a particular task (synthetic or not). So, use a benchmark to see how a CPU can perform on a specific task, but don't use it as an "end all" result that you or anyone can get. It may be lower, equal, or better. It all depends on configuration.

As for whether the C2D is better than the Turion X2. Well, that again depends on what the person needs their laptop to do. Most people don't go around saying that their laptop is better cause they have a C2D or Turion. They mostly talk about the screen size, hard drive size, Wi-Fi compatibility, and other stuff.

You're taking what reviewers have seen the Core 2 Duo do, versus the Turion. Take reviewers opinions like benchmarks. Find the parts that apply to your decision, and go from there. Otherwise, I don't really see a huge difference in either. They both play DVD movies the same way (if they have a DVD drive) and they both surf the internet the same way, which is what I use my laptop for the most. I don't game on it, I don't encode home movies on them, or do any hardcore tasks on them. I use it when I travel, and that's about it. My main desktop is for all the other stuff.
July 18, 2007 3:15:19 AM

a C2D is superior to K8 'clock for clock', it has a higher IPC, compared to K8 (it also has a shared L2 cache as well, that 'can' largely contribute to performance). in general, the lower the clock speed and voltages there are, the more ideal your battery life and heat issues will be as a result. a K8 'usually' lags behind C2D by around 400-600MHz, also depending on the benchmark. but if that deficit is made up for, then the performance will be more or less equal. i dont know a ton of specifics, but thats the typical performance difference between them.
July 18, 2007 3:22:38 AM

^ What NMDante said. ^

It looks like you've done your homework and you're not missing any part of the picture - Turion X2s are just as good a value as C2Ds.

Which is good, because now you can focus on comparing aspects like screen size, battery life, memory etc. in your laptop candidates.
July 18, 2007 3:28:40 AM

i would say that it really doesn't matter since with your laptop your going to be doing what.. using e-mail, internet browsing, msn?? etc

if you are using it for gaming, i suggest you read this article: http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=41039

*c2d is easily the best choice for desktop computers, but again as i said for laptops it doesn't really matter.. i would still go with c2d because it is newer technology, and is better.. at least by a small amount
July 18, 2007 4:38:52 AM

Hi

Well it is not exactly a gaming laptop. It is used mostly for programming, internet and yes of course
maybe playing a game. But I don't need to play Doom in the highest resolution I prefer strategy
games etc...

But thx I think I have got the most important information so we'll see which notebook fits.

by
July 18, 2007 5:05:47 AM

DELETED

it you adjust or tune ...aka overclock you will see the core 2 is superior to any other chip made at the same price.

does that open you eyes!
July 18, 2007 5:39:00 AM

Calling him dum really hilites *someone's* studipity.

The C2Ds do, however, overclock exceptionally well, and the highest stock speeds sold yield performance levels that AMD cannot touch. AMD has dropped prices to match Intel's performance-to-price-ratio. For a notebook, as the others here have suggested, it's probably not a huge deal. You probably can't/won't overclock your notebook, and for anything you're likely to do either CPU will serve you just fine.
July 18, 2007 6:34:37 AM

I use My Laptop for video editing. While shopping it seemed that the Turions just didn't have anything as powerful as the top tier merom chips. I'm Happy with my C2D chip. My T7200 at 2.0GHZ is as fast than the 4 Processor opteron system I use at work for most of my tasks, and faster for a few. It is faster than my E6300 kick about home system that I'm typing on right now as well. T7400 & T7600 processors must scream. Does AMD have a Turion to match any of these? I think I will get my $ worth out of this laptop. :D 

Dung
July 18, 2007 7:03:24 AM

Just looked up to see that since buying my Lappy AMD added a few faster Turion X2 chips to the line up,
namely a 2.2ghz and 2.3ghz. I couldn't find any benchmarks to compare but, there ya go. I'm guessing based on the length of my nose hair that the turion 64 X2 TL -66 @ 2.3GHZ might go round for round with my merom T7200(2ghz), but there still isn't a match for the T7400(2.16ghz) & T7600(2.33ghz).

dung
July 18, 2007 8:07:18 AM

Here's my thoughts, OP. The Core 2 Duo can scale higher clock-wise, and therefore performancewise, than the Turion X2 can. You might be able to find a 2.4GHz Turion X2 and a 2.33GHz Core 2 Duo, and the Core 2 will be faster, and the Turion will be cheaper.

If you want the cheapest notebook with decent performance, you might be looking at the Turions. If you want the fastest notebook, you'd be looking at the Core 2's. Sure, you can offset the performance loss on the Turion by spending more on a higher model. But at the end of the day, the Core 2 Duo's are still about 25% faster, and the Turions are about xx% cheaper.
July 18, 2007 8:07:44 AM

dragonsprayer said:
its simple your dumb u see

it you adjust or tune ...aka overclock you will see the core 2 is superior to any other chip made at the same price.

does that open you eyes!


I see that you have some of the worst grammar I've seen on this forum, and I also see that you point out a completely irrelevant fact that the core 2 is a good overclocker, when was the last time you overclocked your laptop?
July 18, 2007 8:15:02 AM

I'd like to add something to AMD's defense here: in general use, especially programming and web browsing the CPU isn't taxed much. As such, you need to look at power consumption when the CPU is idle - and right there AMD still beats the pants off Intel. Why?
C2D: idle clock speed is 1.6 GHz.
Turion: idle clock speed is 1.0GHz.
Now, the integrated memory controller of the K8 makes it save power (one less chip for the north bridge). On top of that, said IMC can throttle down memory clock speed too, and power down some lines on the HT links (most recent models, but this model may not be out yet). On the other hand, the C2D's Front Side Bus still uses fixed clock speed (which is too bad, considering that even the venerable 440BX chipset could handle on-the-fly clock speed modifications for FSB and memory).
Thus, right now, I'd say that the AMD platform uses up less power than Intel's on a typical laptop use.
July 18, 2007 11:42:23 AM

mitch074 said:
I'd like to add something to AMD's defense here: in general use, especially programming and web browsing the CPU isn't taxed much. As such, you need to look at power consumption when the CPU is idle - and right there AMD still beats the pants off Intel. Why?
C2D: idle clock speed is 1.6 GHz.
Turion: idle clock speed is 1.0GHz.
Now, the integrated memory controller of the K8 makes it save power (one less chip for the north bridge). On top of that, said IMC can throttle down memory clock speed too, and power down some lines on the HT links (most recent models, but this model may not be out yet). On the other hand, the C2D's Front Side Bus still uses fixed clock speed (which is too bad, considering that even the venerable 440BX chipset could handle on-the-fly clock speed modifications for FSB and memory).
Thus, right now, I'd say that the AMD platform uses up less power than Intel's on a typical laptop use.


Mitch, I would like to point out the fact that Intel's idle speed is totally dependent on what the base clock frequency that it is supplied. So, for a 266 MHz clock which equates to a 1066 FSB speed you are correct that the processor with EIST enabled will idle at 1.6GHz. Drop the base clock frequency and you drop the idle speed.

So any 800 FSB processor with EIST enabled will idle at 1.2GHz. If you drop down to a slower 667 FSB speed then you would idle at 1.0GHz the same as AMD's Turion's idle clock speed.
July 18, 2007 12:11:04 PM

The C2D is not superior.
Its way more than superior.
July 18, 2007 12:42:14 PM

I'm Agree with NMDante. When turion processor introduced Power consumption or performance wise it got the highest bechmark. Now according 2 ur comparison(valu based comparison) & other frm other bech. there is not much difference between these two guys. Think abou environment worry about ur requirement. eg: if u really worry about battery life choose ur exact processor wich is satisfies frm more bech.lke that. Hey!worry abou HDD Cap, memory, WiFi,available optical drive also stylish look.......... then go 4 turion if u r a fan.
a c 99 à CPUs
July 19, 2007 12:47:36 AM

The reason that the Core 2 Duos are generally seen as superior:

1. They are on average 15-20% faster clock-for-clock than the Turion X2s. That average is across a lot of applications. Apps that use the FPU heavily will be faster on a 2.0 GHz Turion 64 X2 than on a 2.0 GHz Core 2 Duo. But I've also used apps that are 50-60% faster clock-for-clock on a Core 2 Duo than on an AMD dual-core. Your mileage WILL vary.

2. The top speed of the Core 2 Duo is 2.40 GHz in shipping models (T7600) versus 2.30 GHz for the Turion 64 X2s (TL-64.) This gives Intel a significant performance advantage when paired with the fact that they are also faster per clock cycle as well.

3. AMD does not have anything that burns less than 30 watts, while Intel has the 17-watt C2D LV and 10-watt ULV series. Few here likely get excited about a chip that runs a fuzz over 1 GHz, but Intel has no competition from AMD in the thin-and-light segment. In this context, "thin-and-light" means something about an inch thick and weighs <4.5 lbs, not the "I can carry it without a forklift" metric a lot around here use for a "thin and light" notebook.

4. Even fewer will care about this, but Core 2 Duos typically ship with only Intel ICs on the motherboard- northbridge, southbridge, GPU core, WLAN and LAN NICS. These parts have excellent open-source driver support for OSes other than Windoze, which is sometimes lacking in non-Intel parts, specifically wireless cards.

Three plusses for the Turion 64 X2:

1. It's less expensive than Intel's offerings, sometimes substantially.

2. The chipsets are usually AMD (ATi) or NVIDIA, both of which are generally better than Intel's offerings, especially if you're comparing IGPs.

3. It does not have a minimum lower voltage lock as at least the T-series Intel's Core 2 Duos do, not sure about the LV or ULV chips. You cannot undervolt a Core 2 Duo T series chip under 0.95 volts, while a Turion 64 X2 will go as low as the chip will be stable at, usually under 0.800 volts.

And if you worry about battery life- get a smaller notebook with a large battery and either undervolt the CPU or get a lower-voltage CPU in it, or best yet, both. I am a battery-life junkie and am looking forward to getting my C2D U7500 unit and seeing just how much I can get it down to.
a c 99 à CPUs
July 19, 2007 12:51:55 AM

pausert20 said:
Mitch, I would like to point out the fact that Intel's idle speed is totally dependent on what the base clock frequency that it is supplied. So, for a 266 MHz clock which equates to a 1066 FSB speed you are correct that the processor with EIST enabled will idle at 1.6GHz. Drop the base clock frequency and you drop the idle speed.

So any 800 FSB processor with EIST enabled will idle at 1.2GHz. If you drop down to a slower 667 FSB speed then you would idle at 1.0GHz the same as AMD's Turion's idle clock speed.


On the desktop, that's true. An E4300 or 4400 will idle at 1.2 GHz. The 800 MHz FSB Core 2 Duo mobiles will do a "fast idle" at 1.2 GHz also, but they can drop the FSB from a 200 MHz clock rate to a 133 MHz clock rate (533 effective) to hit a "slow idle" speed of 800 MHz in times of extended idle. Note that requires an 800 MHz FSB processor and the 965 mobile chipset family. A 533 MHz Core 2 Duo like the ULV series with the 965 chipset will not cause the FSB to scale down like that as the FSB is already running at its slowest speed. For more info, look in the latest Core 2 Duo Mobile Datasheet.
!