Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Intel Vs AMD  
User currently offlineItsonlyme From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2006, 149 posts, RR: 0
Posted (6 years 10 months 5 days ago) and read 1933 times:

OK so I need a laptop, but not sure which is the better processor. Intel Core 2 Duo 1.5Ghz or for about $50 more AMD Turion 1.9Ghz. From what ive been reading, Intel has the edge this round, is that true?

49 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineAAce24 From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 849 posts, RR: 11
Reply 1, posted (6 years 10 months 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 1921 times:

Intel all the way.

It's worth 50$ if not more.


User currently offlineBagpiper From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (6 years 10 months 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 1918 times:

I'm pretty sure the AMD will give you better battery life, and less heat. Turions are better in laptops than C2D's.



Besides, I prefer AMD... so I am biased  Wink


User currently offlineGkirk From UK - Scotland, joined Jun 2000, 24936 posts, RR: 56
Reply 3, posted (6 years 10 months 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 1892 times:

I'd go Intel, but AMD aren't bad either.  Wink


When you hear the noise of the Tartan Army Boys, we'll be coming down the road!
User currently offlineFuturecaptain From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (6 years 10 months 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 1878 times:

Compare the FSB speeds too. AMD has come a long way and makes some amazing processors nowadays. Everyone knows the Intel name, it doesn't mean it's the best.

What laptops are you looking at?

[Edited 2007-11-20 15:44:50]

User currently offlineJetsGo From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 3083 posts, RR: 5
Reply 5, posted (6 years 10 months 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 1872 times:



Quoting Itsonlyme (Thread starter):
Intel Core 2 Duo 1.5Ghz or for about $50 more AMD Turion 1.9Ghz.

Are you sure? Intel's are almost always more expensive then AMD's. I have a 2.0Ghz Turion in my laptop and it works flawlessly. There is nothing a similar Intel can do better then my AMD. The two companies make equally ideal processors now days.



Marine Corps Aviation, The Last To Let You Down!
User currently offlineYfbflyer From Canada, joined Sep 2006, 299 posts, RR: 1
Reply 6, posted (6 years 10 months 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 1864 times:

The C2D will generally give better performance but the Turion generally does better with power consumption.

User currently offlineItsonlyme From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2006, 149 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (6 years 10 months 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 1806 times:

Well im looking at Dell, and its not technically for me which is why im on a bit of a budget. The Intel Core 2 Duo 1.5Ghz has 1mb cache 533Mhz FSB, the AMD Turion 1.9Ghz also has 1mb cache. The AMD laptop also has double memory (2gb vs 1gb).

User currently offlineBagpiper From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (6 years 10 months 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 1789 times:



Quoting Itsonlyme (Reply 7):
Well im looking at Dell, and its not technically for me which is why im on a bit of a budget. The Intel Core 2 Duo 1.5Ghz has 1mb cache 533Mhz FSB, the AMD Turion 1.9Ghz also has 1mb cache. The AMD laptop also has double memory (2gb vs 1gb).

since it will be coming with Vista, get 2gb.

That explains the price difference.

If the AMD is also 533mhz FSB, then go with the AMD. Every Dell laptop I've bought recently or suggested for people to buy has been AMD, and they work perfectly.

Too bad Dell rips us off when it comes to FSB Sad


User currently offlineKlaus From Germany, joined Jul 2001, 21462 posts, RR: 53
Reply 9, posted (6 years 10 months 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 1789 times:



Quoting Bagpiper (Reply 2):
I'm pretty sure the AMD will give you better battery life, and less heat. Turions are better in laptops than C2D's.

Only if you don't really need the performance. The AMD chips are way behind the Intel ones at this time when it's about achievable performance per watt. Hence the lower prices on the AMD side.

I'd of course recommend a MacBook (with Core 2 Duo CPU) for most people, but of course it depends on the circumstances.


User currently offlineBagpiper From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (6 years 10 months 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 1780 times:



Quoting Klaus (Reply 9):
Only if you don't really need the performance. The AMD chips are way behind the Intel ones at this time when it's about achievable performance per watt. Hence the lower prices on the AMD side.

But the price adjusts that, so they are on a level playing field of sorts. Sure, they both have their advantages and weaknesses... but, when it comes down to something like that, the average user will not notice the difference.

Plus, he says the AMD based laptop comes with 2gb instead of the 1gb for the intel. That right there will give a better performance boost since the laptop will be running Vista, I'm sure, than the Intel vs. AMD.


User currently offlineKlaus From Germany, joined Jul 2001, 21462 posts, RR: 53
Reply 11, posted (6 years 10 months 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 1767 times:



Quoting Bagpiper (Reply 10):
But the price adjusts that, so they are on a level playing field of sorts.

Well, the slower Core CPUs are (much) cheaper than the top models as well, so it doesn't necessarily come down to an advantage on the AMD side.

Quoting Bagpiper (Reply 10):
Plus, he says the AMD based laptop comes with 2gb instead of the 1gb for the intel.

That's nothing but another price compensation. Again, the question is whether the AMD machine offers more than a Core machine of comparable performance (which would mean a lower clock rate) when fitted with the same amount of RAM.

RAM can be added later; The CPU is much more difficult or impossible to upgrade.

Quoting Bagpiper (Reply 10):
That right there will give a better performance boost since the laptop will be running Vista, I'm sure, than the Intel vs. AMD.

Yes, insufficient RAM will significantly degrade effective performance, but that depends on whether it is in fact insufficient.

Whether Vista is an actual advantage is another issue entirely...  mischievous 


User currently offlineKlaus From Germany, joined Jul 2001, 21462 posts, RR: 53
Reply 12, posted (6 years 10 months 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 1742 times:

By the way: Business Week just publicized their "best and worst in tech" list.

Guess who makes the best desktop PC and laptop:
Best PC - Mac Attack

And guess who makes the worst:
Worst PC - Inspiron: Hardly an Inspiration


User currently offlineSBBRTech From Brazil, joined Jul 2007, 722 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (6 years 10 months 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 1733 times:

As far as 64 bit dual processors are concerned:
Cost x benefit for most users = AMD
Overall performance = Intel

I wouldn't say that AMD is way behind Intel, but the Core2Duo (not Core Duo) has a better overall performance. If you are planning to use the laptop only for MS-Office, internet or for floating point applications, like Pro Tools, SolidWorks, MathLab, etc... you won't see any difference, stick with AMD Turion X2, which is cheaper and burns less energy.

Buying hardware only by the brand of the CPU isn't enough. Either Intel or AMD none will work properly if the other parts suck, like the video card (avoid like hell the Intel GMA crap) and the amount of RAM (1GB is the least you should use).



"I'm beginning to get the hang of this flying business" - C3PO
User currently offlineN74JW From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 14, posted (6 years 10 months 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 1726 times:



Quoting Klaus (Reply 9):
I'd of course recommend a MacBook (with Core 2 Duo CPU) for most people, but of course it depends on the circumstances.

I would go with the 2GB RAM option, thus, the AMD CPU. Vista works nominally with 2GB of RAM. 1GB is a stretch by any comparison. I would know, I am running that now on an old IBM ThinkCentre


User currently offlineItsonlyme From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2006, 149 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (6 years 10 months 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 1723 times:



Quoting Klaus (Reply 12):
And guess who makes the worst:
Worst PC - Inspiron: Hardly an Inspiration

Ha, thats just what I needed to hear!


User currently offlineBagpiper From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 16, posted (6 years 10 months 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 1712 times:



Quoting Klaus (Reply 11):
That's nothing but another price compensation. Again, the question is whether the AMD machine offers more than a Core machine of comparable performance (which would mean a lower clock rate) when fitted with the same amount of RAM.

RAM can be added later; The CPU is much more difficult or impossible to upgrade.

Right. I know that. But, thats how he was comparing them - so I'm comparing them the same way. I'm not going to change what we compare just to confuse the poor guy; I don't know how much or how little he knows. So while we aren't comparing oranges to oranges, we need to stick with what he put on the table in the first place.

If thats the case, another gig of ram is better than maybe possibly having an edge of an Intel processor when he really, to be honest, won't ever notice a difference.

Quoting Klaus (Reply 11):
Whether Vista is an actual advantage is another issue entirely...

Yes. We know you hate Vista. And Windows. Get on with it dude. Why take every ****ing topic about computes downhill into a Mac or PC thread. And don't give the crap about just trying to make people "aware of the choices". I'm sure every person on this board has seen the different choices - whether from you, or from others. Some things need to be done in life (such as making people aware of Mac, Linux, etc) but those can still be overdone.

So please, why can't we stick to the topic on hand, that the thread started posted? Is it that hard to do?


User currently offlineKlaus From Germany, joined Jul 2001, 21462 posts, RR: 53
Reply 17, posted (6 years 10 months 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 1708 times:



Quoting Bagpiper (Reply 16):
Right. I know that. But, thats how he was comparing them - so I'm comparing them the same way.

RAM is a variable item in actual practice even over the lifetime of the same computer; Choosing a CPU means you're stuck with it. Not the same thing.

Quoting Bagpiper (Reply 16):
If thats the case, another gig of ram is better than maybe possibly having an edge of an Intel processor when he really, to be honest, won't ever notice a difference.

Possible, but it depends on what's to be done with the machine. When video cutting is among the intended uses (which is not exotic at all these days), CPU performance differences can become quite noticeable.

Quoting Bagpiper (Reply 16):
I'm sure every person on this board has seen the different choices

Nope. Just look at the threads where the matter is actually discussed - most people have never had a closer look at the alternatives and just stick to Windows by default.


User currently offlineBagpiper From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 18, posted (6 years 10 months 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 1696 times:



Quoting Klaus (Reply 17):
Possible, but it depends on what's to be done with the machine. When video cutting is among the intended uses (which is not exotic at all these days), CPU performance differences can become quite noticeable.

If that were the intended use, I think he's get a better machine, or mention that he plans to add more RAM.

I get the feeling this is just for office-type work, pictures, and music. But, I may be wrong.


User currently offlineKlaus From Germany, joined Jul 2001, 21462 posts, RR: 53
Reply 19, posted (6 years 10 months 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 1680 times:



Quoting Bagpiper (Reply 18):
If that were the intended use, I think he's get a better machine, or mention that he plans to add more RAM.

Video processing requires lots of CPU power, but relatively little RAM.


User currently offlineItsonlyme From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2006, 149 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (6 years 10 months 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 1666 times:



Quoting Bagpiper (Reply 16):
I'm not going to change what we compare just to confuse the poor guy; I don't know how much or how little he knows.

Dont worry mate, I know quite a bit! But ive never looked at AMD before and only bought desktops. Also as i said it wasnt for me - if it was then id stump up more cash and look at a batter machine, and consider Apple too. I want the best specs possible for the price but reliability is also a big issue.


User currently offlineBagpiper From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 21, posted (6 years 10 months 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 1636 times:



Quoting Itsonlyme (Reply 20):

Well, I'd say go with the AMD one. Klaus gets his vote too. Just seems like more RAM and a lower-power-consumer processor is the way to go.

So thats my vote, to keep it simple.  Smile


User currently offlineBHMBAGLOCK From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 2698 posts, RR: 5
Reply 22, posted (6 years 10 months 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 1611 times:



Quoting Futurecaptain (Reply 4):
Compare the FSB speeds too.

AMD doesn't use a FSB.

Quoting Klaus (Reply 11):
RAM can be added later;

On a desktop I would agree with you. However, laptops normally have only two DIMM slots, sometimes just one for very low end models like we're talking about here. "Adding" memory can often mean removing memory to replace it with higher density memory at substantially higher cost. Even with the price of memory going down over time, you're generally better off buying memory for laptops with an eye to the future. FWIW, this happens to be equally true for both the Apple and PC platforms.

As for the original question, there's no doubt that a Turion 2.0 is at least as good, probably a bit better than the 1.5 C2D and double the RAM is always good. Unless there's a huge difference between the other features I'd go with the AMD; of course I'd probably look at other brands besides Dell but that's just me.



Where are all of my respected members going?
User currently offlineKlaus From Germany, joined Jul 2001, 21462 posts, RR: 53
Reply 23, posted (6 years 10 months 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 1599 times:



Quoting BHMBAGLOCK (Reply 22):
"Adding" memory can often mean removing memory to replace it with higher density memory at substantially higher cost.

Of course it's always best to go for maximum RAM from the outset, we're still just talking about a few Dollars or Euro for an upgrade later on. It's not that big a deal, really.

When you're stuck with a slow CPU it means that your next computer replacement will probably be needed earlier, and that can make a much larger difference in effective cost of ownership (especially under Windows, where the general experience is that it gets slower over time, not faster like MacOS X, and especially right now with Vista looming large).


User currently offlineGoldenshield From United States of America, joined Jan 2001, 6037 posts, RR: 14
Reply 24, posted (6 years 10 months 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 1591 times:



Quoting Klaus (Reply 23):
not faster like MacOS X

How does cost of ownership relate to the performance of a given chipset/RAM combination? And better yet, how can OSX make it FASTER over time? The computer and the user don't magically speed up becuase they are using OSX.



Two all beef patties, special sauce, lettuce, cheese, pickles, onions on a sesame seed bun.
25 Klaus : It depends on the CPU, chipset and RAM (with only the latter being upgradeable) when you'll need to swap it out for a new machine when you want to us
26 BHMBAGLOCK : I've been using Vista for 6 months now and it absolutely is not slowing down with time, not even a little bit. This was definitely a real problem in
27 Post contains images Bagpiper : same here. Sometimes I wish all the anti-windows / anti-vista people would install vista as their OS for a good three months, and spend as much time
28 WGW2707 : I'm going to reply to Klaus's two posts, in a somewhat out-of-order fashion: 1. The phenomenon of Windows installs becoming "slower" over time (common
29 Klaus : Sure, that's another issue, but I wasn't referring to that. The topic was the question what impact the available hardware choices would have on the l
30 WGW2707 : I guess its just that OS X Tiger seems to experience a lot more heavy virtual memory swapping going on (on ia-32 chips) than other OSes... Also, Appl
31 Post contains images Klaus : MacOS X has from the start in 2001 used a real-time compositing engine for its Aqua user interface. Depending on what you're doing, that will often r
32 WGW2707 : That's because OS X always uses a 32 bit kernel, and various hacks to make 64 bit applications and more memory work with it than default. It's not a
33 Mike89406 : I've been told that AMD processors are better in quality than Intel processors by some computer guru's, and Celeron's are the lower in quality than I
34 Bagpiper : With all due respect, you might want to read up on some of this before posting. Celeron's are pieces of crap - however, intel makes them. Not a bash
35 Dougloid : steaming pile of crap is more like it there brother. Friends don't let friends use Vista. Oh crap...I'm agreeing with Klaus again....better have a co
36 WGW2707 : I've also heard the exact opposite from plenty of people. Ultimately, a major factor in the answer to that question depends on your definition of "qu
37 WGW2707 : Believe it or not, Vista is not that massively horrible...I actually prefer using it to Windows XP (but then again, I'm using it on a really fast, po
38 Mike89406 : I didn't know that Celeron was made by Intel. However my point exactly Intel was definitley better than Celeron despite Celeron being a Intel product
39 Dougloid : This is kind of a Ford vs Chevrolet dispute, I think. For most folks who'll never look at the inside of their computers until it self destructs (there
40 Post contains images Bagpiper : Ok, sorry for ratting you out. I agree. I'm sure Intel is better than AMD (except for a few specialized cases, where by design, AMD outperforms Intel
41 Post contains links and images Klaus : A "real" 64 bit OS is one which provides a 64 bit CPU, a 64 bit address space and 64 bit system APIs. And Leopard does that. Even Tiger already suppo
42 Bagpiper : Not true, not true, not true! They haven't even implemented that yet, and, as far as I can tell, they probably won't. Besides, if - IF - it happens,
43 Post contains images Klaus : As far as I'm aware HD playback gets disabled once Vista 64 is in debug mode and outside of debug mode it won't load non-certified drivers at all. My
44 Post contains images Klaus : Yet another aspect is that as soon as that certificate should get revoked - for instance through the developer dropping off the radar and failing to
45 WGW2707 : Most people apparently find Windows acceptable enough, but it does have some usability and performance problems that tend to drive sophisticated user
46 Post contains links Dougloid : The cheap computing project just got a boost here last Wednesday, Klaus. I went to Iowa State University Surplus and scored a very nice ViewSonic Grap
47 Post contains images Bagpiper : Oh come on, you trust official statements? Surely they wouldn't release an official statement saying they decided NOT to implement DRM. This is micro
48 Post contains images Klaus : Well, at least your desk-weight and room-warmer won't live forever as well... But it should indeed allow reasonably decent resolutions in the mean ti
49 Post contains links Dougloid : Being able to fix stuff has its drawbacks. There's a picture of the blown up fan on my blog, http://cornponepapers/blogspot.com Last night my H-P 120
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Intel VS. AMD posted Fri May 18 2001 05:03:03 by LOT767-300ER
So I Ask Again, Intel Or AMD... posted Mon Aug 14 2006 05:40:47 by JetsGo
Intel Or Amd? posted Tue Feb 12 2002 10:39:51 by AMSMAN
AMD Vs. Intel, Difference Is FSB? posted Fri Jan 13 2006 02:04:56 by Lehpron
AMD Vs Intel - Interesting Article posted Tue Dec 6 2005 02:25:52 by Regupilot
AMD Vs. INTEL, How Do They Do It? posted Sun Sep 12 2004 21:23:24 by Lehpron
AMD Athlon XP1900 Vs. Intel P4 2Ghz posted Wed Nov 28 2001 20:00:48 by Singapore_Air
86 Mac Plus Vs. 07 AMD DualCore : Mac Wins! posted Fri Jun 1 2007 20:39:41 by Bezoar
Intel Core Duo Or AMD Turion? posted Sun Aug 13 2006 05:49:58 by JetsGo
AMD, Kicking Intel's Butt! posted Thu Apr 6 2006 23:31:00 by 777DadandJr