Turion X2

CompGeek

Distinguished
Jan 23, 2005
455
0
18,780
0
Just found a bench for this one:
http://www.computerbase.de/news/hardware/prozessoren/amd/2006/maerz/cebit06_benchmarks_turion_64_x2/
It's in german but the graphics are conclusive enough. Turion X2 does not beat a Core Duo clock by clock though it comes rather close. See for yourselfs/ 8)
 

YO_KID37

Distinguished
Jan 15, 2006
1,277
0
19,280
0
9) Ycon (09.03.2006, 21:01 Uhr)

Editieren | Antworten

Wie zu erwarten nur eine schwache Leistung, selbst linear hochgerechnet kommt das Teil @ (imaginär) 2 GHz nur auf ~521 Punkte.
Lols, Ya check this page out? At the bottom its YCON lols
that's where he's been done these days eh?

http://www.computerbase.de/news/hardware/prozessoren/amd/2006/maerz/cebit06_benchmarks_turion_64_x2/
 

gOJDO

Distinguished
Mar 16, 2006
2,309
0
19,780
0
Yeap I hardly belive that TurionX2 can't beat CoreDuo without testing them. It is so simple for me to make the conclusion: I have Turion64 and Dothan and the Dothan kicks the Turion64 at same clock. So, 2 improved Dothans will kick 2 Turion64s. Thre is no magic in the Turion64 X2 chips.
 

CompGeek

Distinguished
Jan 23, 2005
455
0
18,780
0
The only magic that can be implemented in Poorions is lower pricing. :wink: so a costumer can at least say i got what i payed for even though it's a junky good for nothing.
I'm being too harsh i know, but there was just so much hype about it for no reason, i had to end it.
Turion X2 is after all a Poorion. Weaker performance,great price though. Still, Dell usually comes with special offers laptop wise that make intel powered laptops much more attractive even at cost/performance chapter.
 

gOJDO

Distinguished
Mar 16, 2006
2,309
0
19,780
0
Turion is not so poor about performance, if I just compare to the Pentium 4 Mobile.............that is a Poorion that I don't want working in my cases.
Anyway, I will wait for Merom before I make performance/price comparison to Turion64 X2 and make conclusion which one is worth less.
 

CompGeek

Distinguished
Jan 23, 2005
455
0
18,780
0
Well, i never take into consideration desktop optimised for laptop chips.
The energy needed to run those make the laptop itself less usefull. And the laptop interior would probably melt with a P4-mobile. A big case with good fans and air circulation doesn't. P4 was solely meant for desktops. I really don't understand what was the need of creating a P4-M that is so useless when compared to its brothers Pm and Celeron M.
 

gOJDO

Distinguished
Mar 16, 2006
2,309
0
19,780
0
The Pentium4 M was made before Centrino Pentium M. It consumes less power than the desktop P4s, but it is slow. Unlike the P4M, Turion64 is mobile K8 that performs good as desktop K8(s754) and needs less enegy.
An Pentium M/Celeron M are not brothers to Penrium4, they are very similar to the Turion64:)
 

MU_Engineer

Splendid
Moderator
I happen to be typing this from my old 2.2GHz Mobile Pentium 4-M laptop. It is a special version of the Northwood "A" Pentium 4 that runs at a 35W TDP and is lower voltage (by 0.1-0.2 volts) than the desktop P4 Northwood "A"s. It has SpeedStep and is otherwise similar in performance to the desktop Northwood A units. That chip stopped being produced when Pentium M Banias came out.

The Mobile Pentium 4 (no -M) is a desktop Pentium 4 with SpeedStep. TDP is very similar, as is Vcore. There have been Mobile Pentium 4s made from other Northwood cores and Prescott cores, as opposed to just the Nortwood A core of the P4-M.

And yes, my 4200+ at the same 2.2GHz kicks the poor P4-M around like none other even in single-threaded applications. The NetBurst chips are surely NOT known for having good IPC or even a decent thermal envelope.
 

CompGeek

Distinguished
Jan 23, 2005
455
0
18,780
0
Yes, but they are produced by the same company. (that's what i meant)
The difference between them is huge. Arhitecture wise totally different.
Makes you wonder why Intel has ever decided to change P3 design. Still, P4 wasn't all that bad, in fact a P4 has a lot more potential i think if we exclude energy consumption and the cooling needed than any of today's stuff IMHO.
 

rettihSlluB

Distinguished
Jun 5, 2005
296
0
18,780
0
Impressive numbers for a 512KB L2 cache. I'll have to wonder what would be the performance of a Turion with 1MB (2MB total) cache and dual channel DDR2-800. Let's not forget that those are not the real numbers of a Turion X2 since they're just representative. After all, we'll have to call the core-dua "poorion" since it will suck at multitasking against a comparable Turion-X2 and if you wanna now why, just search for the thread (indeed, they're two of them). :wink:
 

gOJDO

Distinguished
Mar 16, 2006
2,309
0
19,780
0
Impressive numbers for a 512KB L2 cache. I'll have to wonder what would be the performance of a Turion with 1MB (2MB total) cache and dual channel DDR2-800. Let's not forget that those are not the real numbers of a Turion X2 since they're just representative. After all, we'll have to call the core-dua "poorion" since it will suck at multitasking against a comparable Turion-X2 and if you wanna now why, just search for the thread (indeed, they're two of them). :wink:
They are with dual channel DDR2-667, and I am afraid that if they used DDR2-800, the RAM will be more expenceive than the CPU itself.....
1MB per core will give alittle performance boost, same as the boost of our desktops K8 with 1MB comapred to those with 512L2.
Core Duo is old and is faster. I wait to see what Merom will offer and I am afraid that no TurionX2 will be even close to that...
 

SexBomb

Distinguished
Mar 29, 2006
48
0
18,530
0
They are with dual channel DDR2-667, and I am afraid that if they used DDR2-800, the RAM will be more expenceive than the CPU itself.....
1MB per core will give alittle performance boost, same as the boost of our desktops K8 with 1MB comapred to those with 512L2.
Core Duo is old and is faster. I wait to see what Merom will offer and I am afraid that no TurionX2 will be even close to that...
I believe it's to soon to judge Turion-X2 performance just the way it's to soon to judge merom. I can also say that merom will not perform once it sees the light of day. :wink:
Once Turion-X2 is available to everyone, then we can make all kind of assumptions.
 

mesarectifier

Distinguished
Mar 26, 2006
2,257
0
19,780
0
Well of course Core is quicker than Turion. Like wusy says, Turion=Toledo, and Toledo=Current tech.

Even though that CPUZ shot says it's AM2, isn't AM2 AMD's next-gen tech. If so, why are they just putting out a 'glorified Toledo' with a new socket?
 

YO_KID37

Distinguished
Jan 15, 2006
1,277
0
19,280
0
I So Agree, it's shown That Intel Screwed Up in 64-Bit enviroments Just like they did with DDR Rams and "Prescott" CPUs

So in the Future, Core Duo might Fly in 32-bit threads, but might not be as bright a star in contrast with Native 64-bit AMDs
 

CompGeek

Distinguished
Jan 23, 2005
455
0
18,780
0
LOL, Core Duo does not support 64 bit. But 64 bit is just a cheap pretext on why not to buy it. Intel timed this time perfectly. In Q1 2007 when Vista will arrive they'll be selling Merom chips that will probably kill poorions and that will support 64 bit.
 

YO_KID37

Distinguished
Jan 15, 2006
1,277
0
19,280
0
you never know, AMD is changing and comming out with things or ideas everyday. you might have 128-bit processing by next year. Everything changes so fast, lol only a year ago i thought X2 Athlons were the fasteest thing on earth. lols FX-60 and Opteron 175 porved me wrong since then. Still did'nt buy a system yet, wating for Conroe to Prove me wrong
 

mesarectifier

Distinguished
Mar 26, 2006
2,257
0
19,780
0
In Q1 2007 when Vista will arrive they'll be selling Merom chips that will probably kill poorions and that will support 64 bit.
You don't sound awfully sure of the Merom chips. And how can it be a good thing that Core doesn't support 64bit?

I do think it'd be a bit pointless of AMD to release 128bit CPUs though, seeingas the uptake on 64bit software hasn't exactly been overwhelming (yet).
 

CompGeek

Distinguished
Jan 23, 2005
455
0
18,780
0
128 bit is highly unlikely next year given to the fact that even now with the much hyped 64 bit we don't have a decent OS(a bug free OS) to use it.(exept linux,but not for common users).
Technology does evolve very fast though. Remember 10 years ago? Who would have though that you'll be living to play games like FEAR, Doom3 ...
It's a crazy world we live in.
 

mesarectifier

Distinguished
Mar 26, 2006
2,257
0
19,780
0
128 bit is highly unlikely next year given to the fact that even now with the much hyped 64 bit we don't have a decent OS(a bug free OS) to use it.(exept linux,but not for common users).
You mean you don't have a stable x64 version of Windows? I haven't used it but you may incur the wrath of several people who run it on this forum who seem to think it's very good indeed.

Anyway, other than Windows, Linux and Mac OS X have been running 64bit for ages. Just one of the many adva.........(gets strangled by everypcuser)
 

spud

Distinguished
Feb 17, 2001
3,406
0
20,780
0
you never know, AMD is changing and comming out with things or ideas everyday. you might have 128-bit processing by next year. Everything changes so fast, lol only a year ago i thought X2 Athlons were the fasteest thing on earth. lols FX-60 and Opteron 175 porved me wrong since then. Still did'nt buy a system yet, wating for Conroe to Prove me wrong
And why do we need 128bit processors again?
 

CompGeek

Distinguished
Jan 23, 2005
455
0
18,780
0
Explain to me why do we need 64bit in the first place. I think the reasons are the same as there would be for changing from 64 to 128.
 

mesarectifier

Distinguished
Mar 26, 2006
2,257
0
19,780
0
The reasons for changing from 32 to 64 bit are the same as 64-128, 128-256, 256-512, 512-1024 etc... You have to do things gradually, though. I'm sure there were people saying 'explain to me why we need 32 bit' when Windows 95 came out.
 

YO_KID37

Distinguished
Jan 15, 2006
1,277
0
19,280
0
The reasons for changing from 32 to 64 bit are the same as 64-128, 128-256, 256-512, 512-1024 etc... You have to do things gradually, though. I'm sure there were people saying 'explain to me why we need 32 bit' when Windows 95 came out.
Word
 

TRENDING THREADS