FRIHOST • FORUMS • SEARCH • FAQ • TOS • BLOGS • COMPETITIONS
You are invited to Log in or Register a free Frihost Account!


CPU question: 2.0 GHz or 2.2 GHz (Dual-Core)





Guelila
Hello.
Im thinking on getting myself a new laptop, but i have a question before I do.

I have two laptops in mind, and they each have the same specs except for the CPU.

One is:
AMD Turion 64 X2 Dual-Core Mobile Technology TL-60 2.0GHz

the other one is:
AMD Turion 64 X2 Mobile TL-64 2.2 GHz


They are both dual-core, and the only difference is that one is 2.0 GHz and the other is 2.2 Ghz.

I want to know if there is a big difference between these two, especially because they are dual-core.
Is there a big performance difference between these two?
RiCtee
The only difference is the clock speed (GHz). If you have the money, I would suggest you go with the 2.2GHz one. The speed and performance difference isn't that noticeable and since they are dual cores, the 2.0GHz one would be up to scratch, just a bit below the 2.2GHz. Choosing which one is just a matter of funds.
emem
well 200mhz is not a negligible difference, but it is not so big. If there is no such a difference in price, I'd say take the 2.0Ghz.

By the way, I think laptops with intel core duo processors are cheaper AND a bit faster.
Guelila
the laptop im trying to buy only offers AMD Turion cpus..
and im buying it from ebay, so I don't have the options to customize..

So the conclusion is that there isn't a big difference between 2.2 GHz and 2.0 GHz?


One more question..
what does the TL-60 and the TL-64 stand for?


AMD Turion 64 X2 Dual-Core Mobile Technology TL-60 2.0GHz

AMD Turion 64 X2 Mobile TL-64 2.2 GHz
RiCtee
Guelila wrote:
what does the TL-60 and the TL-64 stand for?


AMD Turion 64 X2 Dual-Core Mobile Technology TL-60 2.0GHz

AMD Turion 64 X2 Mobile TL-64 2.2 GHz

That is just the model number. So that common, un-geek people like us can identify which is which. Usually the higher the number the better it is, and more expensive. Smile
emem
That is just the model number. So that common, un-geek people like us can identify which is which. Usually the higher the number the better it is, and more expensive. Smile

<-- I agree with that, but in most cases it is all about money, not so much about the performance Smile Smile
DarkAkira
GO with 2.0 if you want to be mobile most of the time. Consumes less power, and creates longer lasting battery times.

If you plan to plug-in most of the time, then go 2.2 GHz. Its not alot of a power drain, but every little bit matters when going portable all the time.
mystzero
Go with the 2.0Ghz one. Although the 2.2Ghz one may give a better score from synthetic benchmarks, you wouldn't notice a significant difference when you're dealing with real-world applications.
kansloos
Pick the one that has the best performance/price ratio.
I think that would be the cheapest Comp, though I'm not sure...

And as said before you wouldn't really feel the difference in your everyday office applications...
Jaspa
Quote:
well 200mhz is not a negligible difference, but it is not so big.


Please correct me if I'm wrong, but being Dual Core, as I understand it would mean that each core has a clock speed of either 2.0Ghz or 2.2Ghz. Therefore wouldn't the difference in over-all clock speed be 400mhz. If so, then that's almost half a Ghz... definitely 'not a negligible difference' Think

However, I would also opt for the 2.0Ghz with a view of power preservation in mind Very Happy
Guelila
Jaspa wrote:
Quote:
well 200mhz is not a negligible difference, but it is not so big.


Please correct me if I'm wrong, but being Dual Core, as I understand it would mean that each core has a clock speed of either 2.0Ghz or 2.2Ghz. Therefore wouldn't the difference in over-all clock speed be 400mhz. If so, then that's almost half a Ghz... definitely 'not a negligible difference' Think

However, I would also opt for the 2.0Ghz with a view of power preservation in mind Very Happy



Yea... I was wondering about that too.
Well after all, it all comes down to the difference in price I guess, and I don't really mind the power preservation, as I plan to use it at home most of the times. Smile
kansloos
Quote:
well 200mhz is not a negligible difference, but it is not so big.


Jaspa wrote:
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but being Dual Core, as I understand it would mean that each core has a clock speed of either 2.0Ghz or 2.2Ghz. Therefore wouldn't the difference in over-all clock speed be 400mhz. If so, then that's almost half a Ghz... definitely 'not a negligible difference' :-k

However, I would also opt for the 2.0Ghz with a view of power preservation in mind :D


Well your'e not wrong, nor totally right, first you shouldn't give an absolute value as it says nothing,
400mhz on 100mhz is a lot. 400mhz on 4000mhz is the same amount, but it makes relatively less of a difference...

So the relative performance difference we would expect here is 10% ({2*2.2Ghz}/{2*2.0Ghz}*100 - 100 = 10)

But wait this is not all, you have other parts of your system bottlenecking the speed in common office applications, like the memory and hard drive. So the extra performance you would gain would probably be even less then 10%.

Ofcourse when you start encoding stuff you will definately see the difference, but in common office applications it doesn't really matter.


You should think about how you're going to use your system and decide if you need the extra power.

When I write a letter or do homework, it doesn't really matter if I pick my fancy E6750 Dual Core machine or my old rusty though trusty Pentium 4 - 1.7Ghz and let my brother play a game on the good PC, but when I want to convert a movie, my brother gets well placed kick under his ass...
remshad
no bigperformance difference between this two laptop
ForceRun
It matter what you use for it is, if you are using CPU intensive apps as in video editing, I wouldn't get this Laptop in the first place. If you are just going to use it for Word and the Internet, just get a netbook. If you want to watch normal quality movies and such this laptop should work.
weableandbob
I'd go with the 2.2Ghz
miniman17
there is not much difference but personaly id go with the 2.2ghz if you have the money to spend if you dont i would just uy the other one . but it also depends on the cost difference if it is only $50 in a laptop it is not that much if it is more it is probably not worth it
Related topics
Dual core or 64 bit?
Intel: We rushed the dual-core P4 to market
Can somebody tell me the defference of ...
DUAL CORE GPU
AMD vs. INTEL
dual core dilemma
18x DVD writer!!!
Dual Core P4
J'ai craqu้ :-)
P4 3.0 Ghz vs P4-D-2.6 (Someone please reply, site needed)
Intel Preps Dual-Core Celeron Microprocessors
need feed back which os is best
Which distro of Linux is best for a laptop?
Battlefield 3 (Beta opens Sept 29th!)
Reply to topic    Frihost Forum Index -> Computers -> Hardware and Electronics

FRIHOST HOME | FAQ | TOS | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
© 2005-2011 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.