AMD Processors
Decrease font size
Increase font size
Topic Title: CPUs
Topic Summary:
Created On: 02/13/2007 03:43 AM
Status: Read Only
Linear : Threading : Single : Branch
Search Topic Search Topic
Topic Tools Topic Tools
View similar topics View similar topics
View topic in raw text format. Print this topic.
 02/13/2007 03:43 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message

Author Icon
pcguy83
Junior Member

Posts: 14
Joined: 02/13/2007

Hey everyone! New to this site, just had some questions. I am looking at buying a laptop and trying to find out some differences in the AMD processors. What are the differences in the AMD Turion 64 X2 Dual-Core Mobile Technology, AMD Turion 64 Mobile Technology and the Mobile AMD Sempron? I know the dual-core is suppose to be faster, but i see the AMD 64 Turion Mobile processor which is suppose to be slower having a (2.5GHz) processor on some laptops and then the AMD Turion 64 X2 dual-cores showing a (1.8GHz). What is that all about, if the dual-core are faster how is the speed slower when listed on the specs?
 02/13/2007 04:21 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message

Author Icon
GremliN
Member

Posts: 116
Joined: 06/01/2006

Because you will have 2x 1.8GHz. In singlethreaded apps, the Turion 64 will be faster as it is 2.5GHz (2.4 was the fastest right) vs 1.8GHz. When apps are optimized for dualcore, it can use both cores so 1.8x2= 3.6GHz vs 2.5GHz.
 02/13/2007 11:12 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message

Author Icon
aggiebroz
Member

Posts: 66
Joined: 05/09/2006

Well dual-cores are not necessarily faster. if you have a single core and a dual of the same processor design and clock speed, you will mainly notice the difference when doing heavy multitasking as every program has its own thread if not more than one, and the threads can be split up between the two cores. Also some professional software like video encoding makes use of both cores at the same time. On the other hand all current games are single threaded, meaning they will only use the speed of one core, but if you have lots of stuff running in the background it can run on the other core. So the bottom line is, when gaming and such you wont see much of a benefit from dual core, but when multitasking the system will feel faster and more responsive.

oh btw the fastest signle core turion is the ML44 which runs at 2.2 ghz. the mobile semprons appear to be slightly less powerful versions of the turions, since they have less cache they will be slightly slower when compared at the same clock speed. Also the Turion MT&ML and semprons use socket 754 which means the system has DDR memory while the Turion X2&MK and newer semprons use socket S1 which has DDR2.
 02/15/2007 01:57 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message

Author Icon
pcguy83
Junior Member

Posts: 14
Joined: 02/13/2007

quote:

Originally posted by: aggiebroz
Well dual-cores are not necessarily faster. if you have a single core and a dual of the same processor design and clock speed, you will mainly notice the difference when doing heavy multitasking as every program has its own thread if not more than one, and the threads can be split up between the two cores. Also some professional software like video encoding makes use of both cores at the same time. On the other hand all current games are single threaded, meaning they will only use the speed of one core, but if you have lots of stuff running in the background it can run on the other core. So the bottom line is, when gaming and such you wont see much of a benefit from dual core, but when multitasking the system will feel faster and more responsive.

oh btw the fastest signle core turion is the ML44 which runs at 2.2 ghz. the mobile semprons appear to be slightly less powerful versions of the turions, since they have less cache they will be slightly slower when compared at the same clock speed. Also the Turion MT&ML and semprons use socket 754 which means the system has DDR memory while the Turion X2&MK and newer semprons use socket S1 which has DDR2.



Hey, thanks for the response. I kinda see what you are saying now. I basically do one thing at a time. I check email then close that and go to another page. Rarely would i run a few things at once. So if i just do a program or application at a time would i really need a dual core? I don t do encoding with videos and that seems to be what dual core is for along with multitasking. What is the threading stuff, what does all that mean? Singe thread and multi-thread, what s all that? If I just do one program or task at a time, i should get a single core processor then right? What do u mean the MT and ML use socket 754 with DDR memory vs. the X2 and MK in the S1 socket with DDR2? Is one better, should i look at that when i m deciding and what s the difference?
 02/15/2007 02:36 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message

Author Icon
pcguy83
Junior Member

Posts: 14
Joined: 02/13/2007

quote:

Originally posted by: GremliN
Because you will have 2x 1.8GHz. In singlethreaded apps, the Turion 64 will be faster as it is 2.5GHz (2.4 was the fastest right) vs 1.8GHz. When apps are optimized for dualcore, it can use both cores so 1.8x2= 3.6GHz vs 2.5GHz.



Let's see here.... I m kinda lost. The Turion 64 single core is 2.5GHz and the Turion 64 X2 which is dual-core is 1.8GHz, I got that. I understand that 1.8 x 2 = 3.6GHz for dual core, which means faster when needed for that application or multitasking. U say in single threaded apps, the Turion 64 single core will be faster since it is at 2.5GHz vs. single threaded on a 1.8GHz, makes since. In conclusion, when doing one program or a single threaded app. a faster speed single core is better, when doing multitasking the slower speed of a dual core is actually faster because it multiplies by two which really comes out to be faster in the end than the single core. So with a single threaded app. is it really slow with a slower speed from a dual core since your not using both cores and multiplying it by two? You would be doing a single threaded app. at a 1.8 and not 2.5, that s not a big difference in speed though. So despite a slower speed of a dual core it really is faster when multiplied when that second core is needed. So if i never really do a lot of tasking a single core would be better? Or incase down the road if i for some reason i should need to do a lot at once or have apps that require multi threading, should i get the dual core processor anyway to be safe? I guess it would make sense to have a dual core if i need to have apps that are mutli threaded instead of just a single core processor right? That way i won t be running slower with a single core on dual core necessary jobs. Thanks, sorry so long. Just new to all this stuff.
 02/15/2007 10:50 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message

Author Icon
aggiebroz
Member

Posts: 66
Joined: 05/09/2006

it sounds like you kinda understand it now, you can always do a google search about dual cores and single/multi-threading. there probably won't be a huge noticeable difference in from the x2 1.8 to the 2.4(there are no turions faster than 2.4) unless you do stuff like play games. going with the dual-core would kinda future-proof your system, as they are becoming more common and the software is being designed to take advantage of them. So right now it probably wouldn't make much difference but in the future it could, you should think about how many years you will plan to use the laptop and what you will use it for.

oh sorry to confuse you by mentioning the socket and ram info about the cpu's. for general use the difference between DDR and DDR2 memory is negligable.

oh an analogy for a dual core is a two lane highway, where the speed limit is the cpu speed. if there is just one or two cars at a time, one lane works fine, but if you have a line of huge trucks(a cpu intensive program like gaming or encoding) or many small cars then the highway slows down. with two lanes you can have two cars going side by side at the exact same time, so you could have the line of trucks in one lane while the small cars pass in the other lane, or the trucks could use both lanes(a multithreaded program) and get through faster. hope this helps
 02/16/2007 02:32 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message

Author Icon
pcguy83
Junior Member

Posts: 14
Joined: 02/13/2007

quote:

Originally posted by: aggiebroz
it sounds like you kinda understand it now, you can always do a google search about dual cores and single/multi-threading. there probably won't be a huge noticeable difference in from the x2 1.8 to the 2.4(there are no turions faster than 2.4) unless you do stuff like play games. going with the dual-core would kinda future-proof your system, as they are becoming more common and the software is being designed to take advantage of them. So right now it probably wouldn't make much difference but in the future it could, you should think about how many years you will plan to use the laptop and what you will use it for.

oh sorry to confuse you by mentioning the socket and ram info about the cpu's. for general use the difference between DDR and DDR2 memory is negligable.

oh an analogy for a dual core is a two lane highway, where the speed limit is the cpu speed. if there is just one or two cars at a time, one lane works fine, but if you have a line of huge trucks(a cpu intensive program like gaming or encoding) or many small cars then the highway slows down. with two lanes you can have two cars going side by side at the exact same time, so you could have the line of trucks in one lane while the small cars pass in the other lane, or the trucks could use both lanes(a multithreaded program) and get through faster. hope this helps



thanks, i see what u mean now. but, what do u mean when DDR and DDR2 is negligable? Do u want to have one or the other when you are looking for a laptop?
Statistics
112018 users are registered to the AMD Processors forum.
There are currently 0 users logged in.

FuseTalk Hosting Executive Plan v3.2 - © 1999-2014 FuseTalk Inc. All rights reserved.



Contact AMD Terms and Conditions ©2007 Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. Privacy Trademark information