Turion Vs PM

Druga Runda

Sleepy Substitute
Regular
Don't know if this was discussed here before

however a very thorough comparison where Turion comes up on top, albeit with a small but clear margin.

Despite our new test results, things are even more un-clear than before. Sure, we have concrete results that have been verified and re-verified. We know for sure that Dothan is SLIGHTLY better on battery life and that Turion is SLIGHTLY better performing (in most cases). But these results leave the "winner" of this architectural comparison even more vague. Our final decision for Turion 64 still stands, but not because it "beat" Dothan or is supremely better than Intel's Centrino platform. Turion 64 offers equivalent or better performance, very comparable batter life, and a lower price tag (in most situations).

really good review
icon14.gif
 
Mariner said:
Ultimately, I don't think you can really go wrong with either chip - both are very good.

this is pretty much what the review concludes, except that the Turion is usually cheaper or in other words you can get better components for the same price (like more RAM, or faster gfx, a speed grade higher or something similar )... not much but should be worthwile if you are not bent on owning Intel.
 
The battery life test is suspect, there are a number of reviews that show a significant edge to the P-M versus the Turion.


http://babelfish.altavista.com/babe...s/Duel-Turion-64-Pentium-M-Asus-A6000-327/11/
This has a comparison of a P-M and Turion ML based Asus A6000 series. With cpu-burn, the Turion ML 2.2GHz uses 84W at the wall vs 46W for a 2GHz P-M. Playing Doom 3 with the same GeForfce 6200 video card, the 2GHz P-M has an average power consumption of 44.4W vs 74.7W for a 2GHz Turion ML.

And here:
http://babelfish.altavista.com/babe...ire/251/le-turion-dans-les-desktops/page4.php
The difference between idle, fully stepped down and and full load with cpu-burn is 42W for a 2.2GHz Turion ML, 26W for a 2.2GHz Turion MT and 17W for a 2.13GHz P-M.

In regards to the Life portion of BatteryMark, PC Magazine got a battery life of 5:11 for a Gateway M680XL using a 98WHr battery. This is about an average power consumption of 18.9W compared to laptoplogic's review of the Acer 8104 life of 2:51 with a 71WHr battery, or an averager power consumption of 24.9W. The M680XL has a 7200RPM drive, a 17" LCD and a faster 2.13GHz P-M, while equipped with the same video card.
 
The battery life test is suspect, there are a number of reviews that show a significant edge to the P-M versus the Turion.

QFT

Everything I've seen not only shows the PM with a decently longer battery life over the Turion but a slight performance advantage as well.
 
well this is what they had to say for themselves

The reason that these benchmarks contradict many others is simple: they base their benchmarks in a desktop setting, while this article bases its benchmarks in a laptop setting. This may seem like an insignificant difference, but the truth is that the Dothan architecture is merely held back; it's not allowed to unleash its full potential while confined in a laptop. The general rule is that processors with short pipelines, like both Turion and Dothan, face an unusually large disadvantage when working with high latency RAM. The only method of utilizing Dothan with lower latency RAM is with the Asus desktop motherboard converter, effectively removing the memory bottleneck but restricting it to desktop use only.


and they matched the laptops as much as they could, that is the chipset was different and so was the memory, all else being equal... anyhow the review was very thorough and it is definitely suprizing.
 
Only good thing about the Turion is that it is somewhat future proof in that it will be able to run Vista. There isn't really a better GPU for a Turion laptop other than an X700 at the time. I really don't know what an X700 is comparable to in the realm of laptops, but the Pentium M could be had with a 7800 if one were to really desire it bad enough.

Both chips are pretty good and can run current software with ease.
 
Druga Runda said:
and they matched the laptops as much as they could, that is the chipset was different and so was the memory, all else being equal... anyhow the review was very thorough and it is definitely suprizing.
[/SIZE][/FONT]
What's surprising? That they perform close to each other, most reviews have shown that. It's just that the P-M uses half the power of a comparable Turion, which is why it's a much better mobile CPU.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Sonic said:
Only good thing about the Turion is that it is somewhat future proof in that it will be able to run Vista. There isn't really a better GPU for a Turion laptop other than an X700 at the time. I really don't know what an X700 is comparable to in the realm of laptops, but the Pentium M could be had with a 7800 if one were to really desire it bad enough.

Both chips are pretty good and can run current software with ease.

What keeps the PM from being Vista compatible? Uhh, please explain.
 
I am sorry, today has been pretty rough. What I meant to say was that the Turion is 64 bit so it will bemore future proof if there are specific programs that require 64 bit Windows in the future. I apologize for the lack of thought put into the statement.
 
Accord1999 said:
What's surprising? That they perform close to each other, most reviews have shown that. It's just that the P-M uses half the power of a comparable Turion, which is why it's a much better mobile CPU.

yes the power rating. The whole point is that the PM CPU does not seem to be 1/2 power as one would think. On top of it the Turions come in 25W envelopes that were not tested there but bottom line is that AMD and Intel have different ways of declaring TDP.

A lot of people see Dothan's 27W TDP & Turion ML's 35W TDP and assume that Dothan is automatically lower power. Intel computes thermal design power as 75% of the maximum load on the chip, while AMD's TDP rating is derived from the absolute worst case power dissipation of the chip.


So if all the other components are the same it doesn't seem that there is a real difference. But companies tend to provide PM as a more high end solution therefore the battery life is usually longer for PM platforms.

 
i'll just say that reviewing laptop battery life by playing Doom3 is stupid IMO.
laptop is for work and _IF_ you are playing on it, you are also prolly near power line.... i just dont see people playing FPS games in moving cars or trains or whatever....

if you poiunted that turion lasts less when you are giving big presentation (Powerpoint, Flash, whatever)... then i would find that result intreseting, but meh.... Doom3????:rolleyes:
 
Druga Runda said:
yes the power rating. The whole point is that the PM CPU does not seem to be 1/2 power as one would think. On top of it the Turions come in 25W envelopes that were not tested there but bottom line is that AMD and Intel have different ways of declaring TDP.
TDP are specifications. Empirical measurements are the only thing that matters. The P-M in two indepedent reviews show a significant edge against the Turion ML. Against even the MT, a comparable P-M uses less than 2/3rds of the power. And the MT is running at 1.2v, the P-M can be undervolted better than the Turion.

So if all the other components are the same it doesn't seem that there is a real difference. But companies tend to provide PM as a more high end solution therefore the battery life is usually longer for PM platforms.
There was a review I provided of comparably equipped Asus A6000 series laptops and under full load and typical usage, the P-M was clearly superior. The Turion even throttled under full load. High end solutions tend to have more power consuming components, like bigger screens, faster HDs and graphics cards.

Here's another review, this time of a 1.8GHz Turion MT in a 12" WS form factor:
http://www.hardwarezone.com/articles/view.php?id=1659&cid=14&pg=6
It uses more power under typical usage than a slightly slower 1.73GHz P-M that has a 14" LCD, a faster HD and a discrete x600 video card.

silence said:
if you poiunted that turion lasts less when you are giving big presentation (Powerpoint, Flash, whatever)... then i would find that result intreseting, but meh.... Doom3????:rolleyes:
It's one way to test the TDP. It also correlated well with their cpu-burn test. If you bothered to read the review, they also setup a "typical usage" scenario.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Accord1999 said:
It's one way to test the TDP. It also correlated well with their cpu-burn test. If you bothered to read the review, they also setup a "typical usage" scenario.

i didnt bother to read it....
 
Back
Top