View Full Version : Buying a laptop, help me!
How does intel core 2 duo compare to let's say AMD Turion?
1.83 GHz intel core 2 duo <--> what kind of AMD processor (or at least what frequency?)
And if we compare graphics shared with ram compared to separate, how huge is the actual difference? 128mb separate still better than "up to 256mb shared with ram"?
We assume 2gb ram, so lack of ram shouldn't be an issue.
Lots of money buying a laptop when you're a student, so I thought I might as well ask.
Thanksee!
if your going to do anything 3d on the computer shared memory is bad, it uses system memory for the video card
so the more memory you allocate to the video card the less memory the system has
dedicated video cards have faster memory than the computers system memory
for the processors looks like the intel beats the amd
http://islandgamers.wordpress.com/2007/03/01/notebooks-intel-core-2-duo-vs-amds-turion-64-x2/
intel core 2 duos beat AMD's dual core processors i believe.. although I think turion saves more power and conserves battery better.
A dedicated graphics card is still pretty much always better than anything integrated.
ragnar_ii
03-04-2007, 01:49
if your going to do anything 3d on the computer shared memory is bad, it uses system memory for the video card
so the more memory you allocate to the video card the less memory the system has
dedicated video cards have faster memory than the computers system memory
for the processors looks like the intel beats the amd
http://islandgamers.wordpress.com/2007/03/01/notebooks-intel-core-2-duo-vs-amds-turion-64-x2/
According to the comments in that link, the processors were compared in completely different systems, meaning that those comparisons are garbage.
there's a full comparison here: http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1697,2014685,00.asp
Rynefire
03-04-2007, 02:16
Although that particular review wasn't fairly done, there are other reviews that have been published with both sides using as equal hardware as possible. Intel has been proven to have beaten AMD's Athlon 64 x2 with their Conroes. As for the op, you might wanna try google searching for comparisons in labtop processors. Although imo it doesn't really make a huge difference as long as you aren't doing anything too processive intensive.
That's what I was thinking, almost.
It's mainly not for playing 3d-stuff, but on occasion I might try. Still I guess it's a better investment with a separate graphics card.
As for the processors, I don't really care about the power saving. I won't use much enough to get bad feelings about the environment, and when I use it, I'll stick a cord in the wall.
Thanks.
I reccomend IBM (anything from T series) as the best at this moment. HP as second choice.
I reccomend IBM (anything from T series) as the best at this moment. HP as second choice.
Seems like I'll end up buying a HP, found best performance for my ~$1400 there.
Read this entire article about the AMD vs Intel debate. (http://reviews.cnet.com/4520-10442_7-6389077-9.html?tag=lnav) As close to completely identical machines as possible were used and AMD came out on top. Neither processor was sponsored and the company doing the compare has no stake in either brand.
personally they are both fine for the average user and only the hardcore guys that wish to tweak will really notice the difference anyhow so get what works with your budget or is most readily available in a laptop with the other specs your are interested in.
Both are the same thing but intell is a little more "compatible" with other hardware on the market.
I've always maintained that you'd have to be an incredibly pedantic speed nerd to notice a difference between AMD and Intel. It seems this assumption is still true.
3dmark checks but it the 3d card makes a bigger difference than the processor
pcmark tests everything, processor, memory, hd speeds, video card, and more and gives detailed results for each
Uncle_Mike
03-04-2007, 15:03
Definitely go for a stand-alone graphics accelerator. In case of some budget, integrated ones even older games are unavailable at times.
Also, graphics card memory is significantly faster than system memory, i believe, at least it used to be that way :)
Mike
How does intel core 2 duo compare to let's say AMD Turion?
1.83 GHz intel core 2 duo <--> what kind of AMD processor (or at least what frequency?)
Is it a Turion X 2 or simply a Turion? If it's a X2, then it's dual core, like the Core Duo, and they are very similar.
And if we compare graphics shared with ram compared to separate, how huge is the actual difference? 128mb separate still better than "up to 256mb shared with ram"?
We assume 2gb ram, so lack of ram shouldn't be an issue.
Depends on what you're doing. If you play any games whatsoever, and if you're getting Windows Vista -- PLEASE do not go with shared memory. Look for something with an independent GPU.
My brother just got an HP with 120 GB HD, 1.8 GhZ Core Duo, GB RAM, and 256 Nvidia GeForce 7600 for $800.00.
If you watch the sales, you'll be able to find something similar.
garublador
03-04-2007, 19:05
I've always maintained that you'd have to be an incredibly pedantic speed nerd to notice a difference between AMD and Intel. It seems this assumption is still true.
I'll agree with that, assuming "pedantic" means "anal" and "speed nerd" means "loser with nothing better to do." ;)
also remember to look for college discounts from either your school or the manufacturer.
also remember to look for college discounts from either your school or the manufacturer.
Buying off a company which offers a student discount. I will get almost 10% off and free deliverance, so I'd say it is a good deal.
Ah, Vista. From what I've heard, it sucks (cpu usage, that is). It comes with XP installed, and even though I can get Vista for free I'm not sure if it's worth it.
(No, I'm no pirate, I get it via school. Horray for MSN Academic Alliance! I download music instead!)
omegaFFX
03-04-2007, 21:30
Most of Intel Core 2 Duo beat or tie AMD's Turion X2, same with desktop versions.
There a detailed comparison here:
http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/02/27/dual_core_notebook_cpus_explored/
If you remember this simple rule you'll be fine!
Single processor is now Bad!
Core 2 Duo> AMD Turion X2> Core Duo> all single processor (pretty much)
meh dual cores will be obsolete in 4 years.. then quad cores come into full swing.
meh dual cores will be obsolete in 4 years.. then quad cores come into full swing.
Can't wait that long! If you're about to buy a computer you need to finally get to it. The evolution for computers is always standing on a threshold to something new and revolutionary. :tongue:
But why, oh why, do they need to put a built-in webcam on the top of the screen on every new laptop? I have a feeling they charge extra for that one... :mask:
they can come in handy sometimes. beats taking a photo of yourself and uploading it onto your computer AND THEN putting it on myspace. :rolleyes:
they can come in handy sometimes. beats taking a photo of yourself and uploading it onto your computer AND THEN putting it on myspace. :rolleyes:
Swedes don't use myspace! We use...uhm...gah. Nevermind. I don't use myspace anyway.
Ah, Vista. From what I've heard, it sucks (cpu usage, that is). It comes with XP installed, and even though I can get Vista for free I'm not sure if it's worth it.
Vista is certainly more secure than XP, but that's not really saying anything.
And just for the record, it's RAM and GPU usage that's huge in Vista, not CPU usage. Vista Home Premium consumes between 400-450 MB of RAM in and of itself, with no other apps running. Obviously, that's why you need at least a GB of RAM.
And also for the record, Windows will offically stop supporting XP in 2011, from what I've heard.
If you can get Vista for free, I would do it, but my opinion is only one among many. It's certainly not perfect, but it seems superior to XP if your system can handle it -- which yours would be able to.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.0 Copyright © 2013 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.