Help me chose between these two AMD proc's

[flyted]

Athlon TM 64X2 Dual core TK-57 1.9Ghz/256k

OR


AMD turion TM 64X2 dual core mobile TL-58 1.9Ghz/512k

Price difference $60

These are choices for a Dell 1000 Vostro notebook. How can I find out how much power each uses and what are the main differences between the two? Why is the TL-58 called Mobile when both are in a notebook? I also noticed the cache seems low, is that a AMD thing or due to the dual core technology. I have just basic notebook needs and don't game, but think a sempron may be too little power? I'll also look at the AMD site but wanted input from the forum, thanks.

 

[BlueAcolyte]

AMD tends to have lower cache than Intel, I would go with the stronger one.

 

[degibson]

Turion = AMD's name for its 'mobile' line of processors. Basically, there are some power optimizations in Turions that aren't in Athlons.

If you're not gaming or decoding movies on your laptop, you probably won't notice much of a performance difference. I would guess that the Turion might be less power-hungry, but thats just a guess based on nothing but AMD marketing propaganda.

 

[Ratman6161]

Originally posted by: flyted
Athlon TM 64X2 Dual core TK-57 1.9Ghz/256k

OR


AMD turion TM 64X2 dual core mobile TL-58 1.9Ghz/512k

Price difference $60

These are choices for a Dell 1000 Vostro notebook. How can I find out how much power each uses and what are the main differences between the two? Why is the TL-58 called Mobile when both are in a notebook? I also noticed the cache seems low, is that a AMD thing or due to the dual core technology. I have just basic notebook needs and don't game, but think a sempron may be too little power? I'll also look at the AMD site but wanted input from the forum, thanks.

See: AMD Mobile Processors

Basically both the TK and the TL series are designed to be mobile processors with the TL series having better power optimizations. At equal speed and cache sizes the performance will be identical but the TL will have slightly better battery life. In this case the TL may perform a bit better because of the larger cache.

I'm looking at the Dell vostro 100 on the dell web site (which is, I assume where you are looking since you quote the $60 price difference). Basically both the cpus you mention are 1.9 Ghz so the TL-58 will only be faster if you are doing some kind of work that benefits from a faster cache.

But if you are looking for more performance, the TL-58 option for $60 isn't so great an option when you can get the TL-60 (2.0 Ghz x2, 512Kx2) for $100. If I was buying this machine, thats the way I would go.

If you are talking about a notebook you already have and are considering upgrading - I'd say don't waste your money.

 

[flyted]

Not gaming or upgrading. This will be my 1st notebook and I'll just use it for movies on the plane and checking email and surfing the web at the motel. When I'm home it won't be used. I posted a question in the networking forum about the basic wireless card thats included in the price,the Dell 1395 802.11g, they said it was fine and don't pay extra for the N-card($50). or $10 extra for the 802.11a/g. Yet when I reas a review on this model, one of the comments said to make sure you upgrade from the basic wireless card, you'll br glad you did? Thee 11g will do everything and has the same range as the 11a/g doesn't it? And the N card is still a draft as I was told.

 

[bryanW1995]

don't know about the network card upgrade options, but I do think that based on your usage pattern you'll be better off with the cheaper unit. Save the $60.

 

[SickBeast]

Originally posted by: bryanW1995
don't know about the network card upgrade options, but I do think that based on your usage pattern you'll be better off with the cheaper unit. Save the $60.

Yep. Put the $60 toward 2gb of extra ram, and that will more than compensate for the performance and battery life differences amongst the two processors.

You're not going to notice much difference with that cache upgrade. Probably 10% overall, 20% in extreme cases (plus there will be cases where the difference is negligible).

 

[flyted]

Yeah I think your right. I could probably even get by with a sempron, but for a little more I got a lot of upgrades including the basic TK-57 which while not a superfast proc, I don't need one and it'll sure be better than a sempron. Thabks for the input and I'll head over to the network forum about the card, got to order one soon.

 

[Ratman6161]

Originally posted by: flyted
Not gaming or upgrading. This will be my 1st notebook and I'll just use it for movies on the plane and checking email and surfing the web at the motel. When I'm home it won't be used. I posted a question in the networking forum about the basic wireless card thats included in the price,the Dell 1395 802.11g, they said it was fine and don't pay extra for the N-card($50). or $10 extra for the 802.11a/g. Yet when I reas a review on this model, one of the comments said to make sure you upgrade from the basic wireless card, you'll br glad you did? Thee 11g will do everything and has the same range as the 11a/g doesn't it? And the N card is still a draft as I was told.

For your usage definitely do not waste money on a more expensive wireless card. 802.11G is rated for up to 54 Mbits but for any internet connection you might hook up to, you aren't going to get anywhere near that anyway. So paying for something with a higher theoretical maximum won't buy you anything in the real world. About the only place it would do you any good is if you use it on a corporate or home network to transfer files between machines inside the network.