PDA

View Full Version : Which one to go for?



hyperAura
September 18th, 2010, 10:35 AM
Hi guys, I am buying a new laptop and I have narrowed my search down to two laptops.

Now I have to choose between these two according to their processor since the rest characteristics are very similar.

The processors are the following:

1) http://ark.intel.com/Product.aspx?id=40739

2) http://www.notebookcheck.net/AMD-Turion-II-Ultra-M620-Notebook-Processor.24936.0.html

I have never had a laptop with amd processor so I am concerned about its reliability..

Which one do you guys think its the best? Both laptops have the same price.

Thanks

Swagman
September 18th, 2010, 10:37 AM
Comparable processors from competing camps will make little difference.. They are both good.

You should be more concerned with what Graphics chipsets they are using if you intend running Linux on it.

Lucradia
September 18th, 2010, 10:39 AM
Comparable processors from competing camps will make little difference.. They are both good.

You should be more concerned with what Graphics chipsets they are using if you intend running Linux on it.

Indeed, I'd suggest nvidia. However, if you can get AMD + nvidia, this is even better.

hyperAura
September 18th, 2010, 10:41 AM
the laptop is for my girlfriend and she is not a linux fan yet, so it will be windows atm..

what's the difference if it is amd+intel graphics vs amd+nvidia?

Lucradia
September 18th, 2010, 10:46 AM
the laptop is for my girlfriend and she is not a linux fan yet, so it will be windows atm..

what's the difference if it is amd+intel graphics vs amd+nvidia?

There isn't any AMD + Intel Graphics configuration that I know of (Intel is integrated only, not dedicated, and thus cannot be on an AMD processing board, due to the fact that AMD and Intel have incompatible motherboards.)

AMD+Nvidia is the best for a linux machine because A.) AMD doesn't use hyperthreading, you get what cores are advertised, not what threads are advertised. B.) Nvidia has much more better support on Linux with graphics than ATI, even with propietary drivers.

Even with Windows, I'd choose nvidia over ATI, simply due to the fact that most ATI boards are worth junk. After all, AMD fudged it up by going PRICE > POWER rather than POWER > PRICE like nvidia. It's also why people stay away from nvidia, too much price.

hyperAura
September 18th, 2010, 11:01 AM
Both laptops have ATI Mobility Radeon with 1gb dedicated ddr3 so I assumed its enough..

cascade9
September 18th, 2010, 11:44 AM
Not that this was what you were asking,but (as usual) it looks like the AMD is a better performer for the money. Have a look at the notebookcheck page on the T4400-

http://www.notebookcheck.net/Intel-Pentium-Dual-Core-T4400-Notebook-Processor.25726.0.html

Without solid benchmarks, that is an educated guess though. BTW, I did find this bit interesting-


T4400 has only 1 MB Level 2 cache and some power saving technology is deactivated

ubunterooster
September 18th, 2010, 01:45 PM
The AMD one supports virtualization, the Intel one does not. Beyond that I see no significant difference.

Also, I do have Bias towards AMD