Since there are so many people who are in a dilemma on which to choose,so lets post your comments here and give some suggestion.

This post has been edited by Tainted: Apr 1 2006, 12:25 PM

turion performance not bad at all.
company just bought fujitsu S2110 turion model.

between centrino core duo vs turion64...

one is dual core but 32 bit....but turion64 is a 64bit proc but single core...

can anyone tell me which would have a better performance??interm of gaming as well as moderate web design and programming languages...

so far i know the Centrino have built in WIFI....but how about AMD Turion?? sorry because poor knowledge of AMD Turion....
if finding a gaming notebook, the AMD Turion is the best choice?

but my friend just bought a compaq laptop with amd turion 64 inside...it has built in wifi-g...

Both comes with wifi.

agreed.....but the matter between this 2 procs i think its not the matter of Wifi...

but i think its the matter of processing power and speed...which one of these will have the advantage??i wonder..

a dual core will definitely perform better comparing to a single core proc....but looking into the near future with windows vista coming out soon....a 64bit proc seems to be having the advantage.....

any sifoo here on notebook procs care to help to explain here??

Generally the Centrino will get you longer battery life. If all you are worried about is battery life, the Centrino will be the way to go. The processor speed will open up all kinds of arguments if mentioned "generally" and possibly even specifically.

hope to use any OS release in the next 3 years you will want 64bit. Which will be faster at 2.0ghz each will be debatable, both will seem faster than 2.0ghz by design (compared to P4 which has been discussed, was a poor design). They should be comparitable, probably some win on one, some on the other. Any application that can take advantage of SSE3 the AMD will use and beat the Centrino hands down -- and more applications are starting to use the SSE3 extension set. Centrino will be noticably more efficient in wireless communication. Since you mentioned a 3 year life span, and the possibility of doing bio data analysis, I would say Turion for the 64bit future support and the SSE3 extension set to speed up some applications

The difference in CPU speed was 5% between the Turion and PM, yet memory processing will be 30%. This was why you see some tests show the Turion as faster, some the PM. Anything strictly core processing will show the PM as slightly ahead, anything that processes large datasets through memory to the CPU will show the Turion as ahead. But if you look at that comparison, they run pretty close, I would look at other features, often the PM is feature rich unless you get a good sale on AMD.

most games will not use the SSE3, they've barely moved to SSE2, one of the reasons is you don't compile your binaries for the highest hardware. SSE2 is mainstream now, cheap and easy and old news, so binary wise all games will be SSE2. The specifics of the game will test graphics card, memory and CPU in combination which is why one game will run better on on piece of hardware and another will run better on another piece of hardware. Assuming the same graphics, I would put the two at a tie, no edge either way as one will get an edge there, the other the edge elsewhere.

Turion actually beat Centrino in battery life when running simple applications like word, excel, etc..., but not when running other more cpu intensive applications. Why is it that people are saying that the Centrino is faster than the Turion? Both systems were virtually the same thing, and the Turion was able to allow a faster graphics board.

A lot of it comes down to what you run on the system. There is a lot of confusion because of how the Centrino runs. Intel chips as you know are CISC design, they keep getting larger instruction sets to handle more capability. There are also extension sets that are industry standard SSE/SSE2/SSE3, this adds more complexity to the mix. AMD tosses in their extension of 3Dnow just to make things more complicated. You cannot really compare CPUs on the Ghz level anymore with any chip. It all depends on the microcode and how fast it can process the given function, and how often that function is called from the application. How often can the processing cycle loop of function within an application fit within the CPU cache, etc. Then you get into processor prefetch of data, and more.

So it all comes down to user evaluation for their needs. In a perfect world where data is designed such that it is bad for the Turion, but better for the Intelligent prefetch on the Centrino, Centrino gets a boost in effective speed. When the instructions are such that they can take advantage of the SSE3 extension, Turion gets a boost in speed. If one has a larger cache, then it may get a boost in speed. When you jump to a new location in execution (call a function) the cache has to be emptied and reloaded, now the larger cache can slow you down, too much random activity defeats the purpose of the processor cache and prefetches (and then you are on raw horsepower).

QUOTE from 1src Forums.

This post has been edited by Tainted: Mar 14 2006, 04:39 PM

go for duo core...trust me...when ms vista is launch u wont regret it....

personally.. i prefer AMD still.. gaming with this proc is superb

no idea whether the yonah chip now is 64bit capable?

http://www.gizmodo.com/gadgets/intel/intel...sers-153822.php

It depends ,

Are you into gaming/64-bit related stuff or are you into mobility

even though if u say it depends...but im pretty sure gaming will soon be in 64bit technology am i right?

Intel Celeron M is good enough for assignment like typing and powerpoint,Internet,simple online games?

oh man.. stoopid thread again

first thing first

centrino is NOT a processor

u can compare Turion and Pentium-M and Celeron-M

but u can't compare turion and Centrino

it's just like comparing a motorcycle and a car


anyway, this thing has been debated over and over again

the clear winner is pentium-m

it beats turion in eveery way - speed, heat and power consumption

celeron-m is basically a pentium-m with the cache lowered and no speed step

pentium-m dual core is the rage now

This post has been edited by lucifah: Mar 14 2006, 11:41 PM

i think...in an indirect way we are refering pentium-m/celeron-m as centrino...is there any harm in that??smart people will know wat we are debating about..

anyways why would u say p4-m wins??wat about in terms of 64bit technology as well as gaming is concern and also 3d work?

dont care it is amd or intel..just get a duo core processor...

my laptop with duo core 1.66 can score a 3800+ for 3d mark 2003

how about that..!

AMD cpus don't gain much, if any at all, from SSE code because they don't provide any speedups using packed SSE data. So all that stuff about SSE3 code being faster on turion can be thrown out the window. AMD mostly includes support for compatibility reasons.

And all AMD and intel x86 cpus today are CISC on the outside and RISC on the inside. In fact, most current CPUs are like that.

I'm using a Celeron-M 1.5 for me the speed is ok already. Only doesn't come with speedstep and only has half the cache. Feels like a speed limited Pentium-M and also depends on the support of the chipset.

Anyway,between Pentium 4,Pentium 4-M,Pentium M and Turion,can someone arrange it from fastest to the slowest?