No one here was rude to you until you started talking sh!t about sh!t that you clearly don't know anything about. Hell, in fact I'd say an apology is in order. Or you can just shut your cheeks before you talk out of your ass some more. You have two choices here: continue with your infantile behavior, being unnecessarily ugly to people and whining about fanboys & the such. AMD won't have anything new and exciting in the mobile arena until its next generation mobile chip, codenamed Bulldog. Turion 64 X2 is basically a low power Athlon 64 X2, similar to the Energy Efficient Athlon 64 X2's (Same TDP actually) available on the new AM2 platform. But I'm not surprised: Core Duo (Yonah) was an entirely new architecture only mildly based on its previous generation (Dothan).
Personally, I've been disappointed with Turion 64 X2. The screens are also not identical, so power consumption will differ there. Intel's GMA950 is likely more power efficient than ATI's Radeon Xpress 1150 IGP, as well as the chipset. However it is not only the CPU that makes this difference. Now, obviously we can see here that Turion 64 X2 (in an unofficial, not ideal comparison) does consume more power than Core Duo. HP dv1000t Core Dou average power consumption: 43.2Whr/4.12 hours = 10.48 wattsĪcer Ferrari Turion 64 average power consumption: 71.04Whr/3.73 hours = 19.04 wattsĪcer TravelMate Dothan average power consumption: 71.04Whr/3.75 hours = 18.94 watts MSI S271 Turion 64 X2 average power consumption: 63.36Whr/3.93 hours = 16.12 watts MSI S271 battery capacity: 63.36 Wattage Hours (Whr) HP dv1000t Office Productivity battery life: 4.12 hours MSI S271 Office Productivity battery life: 3.93 hours MSI S271: 14" glossy widescreen, Turion 64 X2, integrated graphics (ATI) HP dv1000t: 14" glossy widescreen, Core Duo, integrated graphics (Intel) Now we are in fact preparing an article directly comparing two identical systems using Core Duo & Turion 64 X2, but until then I can only make less accurate indirect comparisons, but still rather valid. If you still don't believe me, head over the CPU forum to and post about how much more power consumption dual cores have. Don't believe me? Look at Anandtech's dual core benchmarks of any dual core chip: power consumption is inceased very conservatively, as power saving technologies and smaller manufacturing processes allow for amazing power consumption reduction. Dual cores does NOT mean twice the power consumption. So, now that we've proved you wrong about single cores, let's look at Turion 64 X2 and Core Duo (Yonah).įirst, let's assess this statement you made:Ĭlick to expand.That right there tells each and every single person reading this post that you're a bloody moron. If you read the whole article, you'll see that it appears Dothan uses less power under heavier load circumstances (which makes sense, the Dothan architecture is much more power optimized in the small details than Turion) while Turion is more efficient in the less intensive circumstances.
I think we see the torch being passed between Dothan and Turion fairly steadily. Same screen, same HDD, same battery, same GPU with same drivers, etc. You can read your heart out to actually learn something true here:īut let's cut to the chase. How do you know I ask? It has something to do with that thing I like to call my job.įirst, let's take a look at Pentium M (Dothan) vs Turion 64.
My gf has a Dothan dv1000 and it gets 6-7 hours of normal usage on the 12-cell the 6-cell would yield no more than 3-4 hours if that. Frankly, I think that guy must have used the 6-cell for one and 12-cell for the other. There would have to be some extremely messed up testing circumstances for that to happen that way. The results of those tests are both unclear and cannot be accurate as stated. NBR's reviews and articles are half-assed at best, and the user reviews are even worse. First of all, you're referring to tests by a user NBR. Click to expand.Wow, you really are an idiot.