Posted October 7, 200618 yr I am somewhat wery on the performance in regards to the AMD Turion 64 X2 TL-50 1.6GHz processor with 512KB L2 Cache (256KB for each core). Is this processor okay? I mean, I remember hearing clockspeed is not as big a deal with AMDs than when Intels, but, I mean I have this really nice laptop and I am wondering if the little premium I paid for all the other hardware has been limited by the processor itself? Additonally, that cache count is a bit scary yes? or is that just me again? The laptop has 2GB DDR2 Memory; 160GB SATA 5400RPM Drive, LG Super-Multi-Writer, ATi X1600 128mb Dedicated / up to 512MB HyperMemory, 15.4" Widescreen, built in wireless, built in bluetooth, webcam, Media Center Edition; and so fourth. Do you personally think the processor is up to par with the other hardware? and, if so, will this machine run Vista Premium fine in your personal opinion; I know the requirements charts will say it does, but personal opinions are often more realistic.
October 7, 200618 yr It should run vista jsut fine since you need 1gb of ram to run it and i think a 2.4ghz proc to run it (intel). even though its 1.5 ghz, that proc is in a laptop so its equivalent to a 2.0ghz desktop proc for amd, and with amd having lower proc speed than most of intel's procs on the netburst architecture, you should be fine. The turion also supports 64 bit so it should even run both the x64 and x86 versions of vista. In my opinion that is a very good deal for a laptop except for the hd which is 5400rpm. (they put that in thier because they want a quiet htpc). if I were you i would probabaly upgrade the hd if you're a power user and if not then that laptop should be jsut for you. LAstly, with my experience with turion's compared to the centrino's, (botht he single core and core duo) the integrated wireless inside the turion always seems to have more range when connecting than that of centrino's. i don't know why since i think both are integrated with the 802.11a, b, or g wireless solutions, but its jsut one of those things.
October 15, 200618 yr Well it used to be true that clock speed didn't matter as much when comparing AMD's to Intels......until Conroe shipped. Intel finally got wise and ditched NetBurst and the Prescott cores. Now Conroe chips beat the crap out of AMD's best at near the same clock speed. But I'm still a AMD fan. For example. My wife has a Sony Viao laptop with the following: Intel Core Duo (dual core) T2400 CPU @1.83Ghz nVidia Geforce 7400 Go 128MB it came with 1GB (2x512) of ram but we ditched that in favor of 2GB (2x1GB) of DDR2 kingston memory and her computer is just as fast in applications as my laptop: AMD Athlon 64 (socket 754) @2.0Ghz nVidia geforce4 440 Go 64MB 1.25GB(1.0GB of kingston+256MB of cheap stuff) of DDR ram The only thing she has over me is she can run stuff that needs shaders whereas I cannot. In games she has me beat because her GPU simply outclasses mine. But I murder her in multitasking which doesn't make any sense cuz she has a dual core AND DDR2. I've seen some reviews and they say that the Turion X2 is good but not as fast as a Core Duo.....BS. My point? You'll be more than happy with the performance of the Turion. I would get it.
October 16, 200618 yr remember its an x2 so thata dual core AMD, i have an AMD x2 4400+ and its great
October 16, 200618 yr Dual core Intel is a joke right now. Intel puts out shitty products to say they got to market first (RE: quad-core+) then after AMD comes out with a true solution, Intel will finally go back and maybe implement it correctly. Besides you can't compare Intels Core architecture to last generation AMD chips, not only are they a generation ahead but they're produced on a 65nm process which AMD hasn't even started with. Compare a AMD Dual/Quad core on a 65nm and a same clocked Intel Dual/Quad 'Core' and the AMD would win hands down because the Intel bus is a piece of shit right now and has barely enough bandwidth for two chips, much less four which is two dual cores slapped together. Whereas with AMD any cross-CPU stuff willl hit the fast HT links, with the Intel it'll have to cross the bus and saturate the fuck outta that, limiting all the rest of the cores from getting/sending data from the rest of the system. In other words, I'm not too worried about AMD right now, they're doing what they do best, putting out fucking good chips and doing it right.
October 22, 200618 yr NOT AN HP! what you want a DELL! Fuck DELL. HP is the best place to go for good computers gaming or not (this is not including those SUPER AWESOME Alienwares or Ibuys).
