AMD Turion ii Ultra M600 vs. Intel Core 2 Quad Q9000

I would appreciate getting insight into the differences between the 2 processors listed in the message title. Specifically: - heating/cooling issues - speed advantages - is price differential ($250 more for Intel)worth it?

Message quoted 1 times

Add a reply

Register or log in to remove.

What's your usage ? For anything like gaming,3D apps,multitasking etc,Q9000 is a clear winner and well worth it

Reply to Maziar

That depends on what you're using it for.

The Q9000 will run hotter, and is probably slower for single threaded tasks (including much of gaming). For multitasking, rendering, and in general anything that can take advantage of the threads, the Q9000 will be faster.

------------------------------ Asus P6T deluxe
i7 965 @ 4.2GHz (200*21), 1.384V
12GB Corsair Dominator DDR3-1600 CAS 7
Reply to cjl

I don't think so:
http://reviews.cnet.com/laptops/hp [...] 96193.html
"Most of the systems in the Budget section of our Winter 2009 Retail Roundup (covering laptops from $600 to $899), have Intel's 2.0GHz Core 2 Duo T6400 CPU, but the HP dv7-1245dx was one of the few to use a 2.1GHz AMD Turion X2 Dual-Core RM-72. While we were able to use the dv7 for normal multitasking and media playback, the two AMD-powered systems in our lineup fell behind the pack in our benchmark tests. In real-world terms, the slower AMD performance won't affect everyday work unless you're doing something like serious video editing (and a comparable 17-inch with an Intel CPU we tested was $150 more)"

Its not the exact model but its from but it does compare T6400 with its AMD's rival,and T6400 does better and it has less cache than Q9000,so overall Q9000 would be faster IMO.
However it depends on the usage and other specs too

Message quoted 1 times

Reply to Maziar

AMD suck in laptops atm

and btw iv seen some core i7 720 laptops for around £899 which is the same kinda price as a core 2 quad laptop id go for the i7 rather than quad

Reply to mildiner86

Maziar wrote :

I don't think so:
http://reviews.cnet.com/laptops/hp [...] 96193.html
"Most of the systems in the Budget section of our Winter 2009 Retail Roundup (covering laptops from $600 to $899), have Intel's 2.0GHz Core 2 Duo T6400 CPU, but the HP dv7-1245dx was one of the few to use a 2.1GHz AMD Turion X2 Dual-Core RM-72. While we were able to use the dv7 for normal multitasking and media playback, the two AMD-powered systems in our lineup fell behind the pack in our benchmark tests. In real-world terms, the slower AMD performance won't affect everyday work unless you're doing something like serious video editing (and a comparable 17-inch with an Intel CPU we tested was $150 more)"

Its not the exact model but its from but it does compare T6400 with its AMD's rival,and T6400 does better and it has less cache than Q9000,so overall Q9000 would be faster IMO.
However it depends on the usage and other specs too

The M600 is faster than the RM-72 that was used in that review. Not only does it have a 300MHz higher clock, it is also a 45nm instead of the 65nm of the RM-72. The M600 also has more cache (2MB L2 instead of 1MB). Basically, I would think that the M600 would beat the Q9000 in single threaded tasks most (if not all) of the time.

The M600 should also get a better battery life - the mobile quads are quite power hungry.

------------------------------ Asus P6T deluxe
i7 965 @ 4.2GHz (200*21), 1.384V
12GB Corsair Dominator DDR3-1600 CAS 7
Reply to cjl

I did a search and unfortunately didn't find an exact review which compares these 2,so we can't come to an accurate conclusion but maybe as you said it can beat the Q9000 in single threaded tasks,but again we can't tell the exact difference

Reply to Maziar

It's true - I couldn't find any reviews of the new 45nm Turions.

------------------------------ Asus P6T deluxe
i7 965 @ 4.2GHz (200*21), 1.384V
12GB Corsair Dominator DDR3-1600 CAS 7
Reply to cjl

elan419 wrote :

I would appreciate getting insight into the differences between the 2 processors listed in the message title. Specifically: - heating/cooling issues - speed advantages - is price differential ($250 more for Intel)worth it?

Why would you want to compare a desktop quad core to a mobile dual core? They are, effectively, two different computing solutions and are comparing apples to oranges.

Message quoted 1 times

------------------------------ ASRock X58 Extreme - Core i7 920 - 6GB Crucial Ballistix DDR3 1600 - Sapphire 4890 2GB - Creative Xtreme Gamer - 4-80GB WD in RAID0 on HighPoint RR 2310 as OS drive - 1-320GB WD scratch drive - Corsair CMPSU 750TX - HAF 932 - Hanns-G 281DPB @ 1900x1200
Reply to chunkymonster

that's because they are still 65nm not 45nm on the Turion II'2

Reply to kg4icg

chunkymonster wrote :

Why would you want to compare a desktop quad core to a mobile dual core? They are, effectively, two different computing solutions and are comparing apples to oranges.

Both Q9000 Turion ii Ultra M600 are mobile CPUs

Message quoted 1 times

------------------------------ Q6600@3.4+ TT V1 Cooler,SAPPHIRE HD 4870X2,ASUS MAXIMUS FORMULA,4GB OCZ DDR2 800,LG W2452V 1920x1200
Reply to Maziar

Maziar wrote :

Both Q9000 Turion ii Ultra M600 are mobile CPUs

They sure are!
It would help if I took more time to comprehend...I just saw quad and 9000 and didn't put the two together...that's what I get for posting to thread's from work and alt-tabbing between spreadsheets, Access, and Firefox...

------------------------------ ASRock X58 Extreme - Core i7 920 - 6GB Crucial Ballistix DDR3 1600 - Sapphire 4890 2GB - Creative Xtreme Gamer - 4-80GB WD in RAID0 on HighPoint RR 2310 as OS drive - 1-320GB WD scratch drive - Corsair CMPSU 750TX - HAF 932 - Hanns-G 281DPB @ 1900x1200
Reply to chunkymonster

Focus On

Forum CPU & Components : CPUs - AMD Turion ii Ultra M600 vs. Intel Core 2 Quad Q9000