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?
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.
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.
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
| 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. 
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 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.
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.
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...
| 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' 
However, I would also opt for the 2.0Ghz with a view of power preservation in mind 
| 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'
However, I would also opt for the 2.0Ghz with a view of power preservation in mind |
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. | 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...
