Does anyone have a AMD Turion 64 TL-64? If so, can i get some comments and feedback about it? It has a 1MB cache and blehh, don't knwo if i should get it.
Like dann said, explain why. I hate how people just say " get this cuz i said its better" or "buy this". Anyways, I personally prefer Intel because I do a lot of video encoding where Intel has be proven to be better in that aspect.
Yeah it's the mobile series for notebooks. I'm thinking about buying an HP TX2000 from a family member, the Specs are okay enough for me except just worried about the 1MB cache on the processor with an integrated video card. I have another laptop that has a 2 MB Cache intel core duo with an integrated video card, and it ran really smooth, i'm just curious if 1 MB cache will make a HUGE difference? Edit : I forgot to mention I plan on programming, flash, photoshop, and html. All these ran smoothly with the integrated video card on my old laptop so i don't think the video card should be a problem.
what are ur other options? lol... i mean it seems pointless to get this laptop if u have a better one that fits ur needs better... everything u stated u want to do is processor heavy rather than graphics heavy... therefore, the more cache the better unless the difference in clockspeed is rather large...
FUCK YES. FUCKING HELL and i find that a LOT of artsies say shit like that... and a faggot acquaintance of mine too they should shut up lol
personal experience 3 yrs back. duno how AMD have gone now... =P knocked off CPU fan then the AMD CPU died 5 seconds later, didnt have enough time to put fan back on. smoke came out and then the CPU went black. -noclue
1MB cache!! is that all. you can get better ones than that now with Intel processors. they can go up to 3/4MB much better and easier to use.
That ain't a good reason -_- AMD is good for it's ability to overclock the cpu really well... If you're just planning to have a normal computer then Intel would be better
AMD overclocking is horrible now compared to Intel overclocking thats why intel is preferred for people that want to OC
Get Intel, back in the day AMD was the better choice but its all about Intel now and i used to be AMD only
lol personal experience doesn't mean jack shit about the actual brand itself anyways, i find it hilarious how no one has considered OP's uses, even after the dude said it. people just yelling out 'go for intel' and shit AMD is MORE than enough to do what OP wants, and for a cheaper price, overclocking or no overclocking. fuck i used to own a shitty AMD +3500 CPU, and i did ALL OP is planning to do with no problem. programming, flash, photoshop, html, fuck a damn 1990s computer can do programming and html... to OP, unless you run so much shit that you REALLY need a quad core, just get an AMD +5000 or similar. that's more than enough for what you want to do and saves you quite a few bucks. that can even run recent games if you want to.
Well me and MasterG already said why Intel > AMD right now its because Intel processors are better than AMDs, Yes AMD was better Before. For a normal user any processor will do but from a person that goes for performance or anyone who builds their own pc know Intel>AMD. AMD right now is for budget systems IMO Honestly, Any processors can fit a persons needs. it just depends how long you want it to take for whatever you want done, done! key word "used" AMD > Intel before. i can probably use a P3 1ghz and do all that stuff but does it mean its as fast as a dual core or quad? itll probably take triple the time to render and image or w.e. in PS Running "so much shit" requires ram and has nothing to do with CPU other than when its processing shit and all you're talking about is desktop processors =\ are you talking about the X2? A64? =\ anyways back on topic, im guessing its pointless for us to talk about intel because the laptop is an AMD socket? and the cache shouldn't make a huge performance issue from what i was told and know.
Yes, agreed. But do you see anywhere that OP wanted to have super high performance and overclock it? I am suggesting a CPU that fits his needs. No need to buy a Formula F1 car to drive on normal road. True again, but if my 3500 can do all OP wanted at reasonable speeds, then for sure a 5000 can do it much faster, which is MORE than reasonable. Why go for an Intel Quad? OP ain't running 3 games at once. I changed to Intel because the laptop I bought came with it. Yes you're right about speed. But do you see OP wanting to pay more to get a few milliseconds faster? Maybe OP will be willing to sacrifice a few milliseconds to save like 200 bucks. OK, perhaps I failed to check if OP wanted info on a laptop CPU or desktop CPU, but back to my point, so why go for a CPU that OP maybe doesn't need? The point I'm trying to make is, find out what OP wants, and suggest the product that fits OP's needs. Don't be suggesting products that are better than others, because maybe OP doesn't care about being "slightly" better, and maybe OP wants to save a few bucks. Usually, I would agree with all when said Intel > AMD, but I'm just trying to point out in a sales and marketing perspective that a client doesn't need to buy the best of everything. If you're a salesperson, and you suggest products client doesn't need, you wont make the sale, and client wont even listen to you. Then again, PA isn't a store. But when suggesting things to others, the same concept applies.
Haha thanks for the info guys. I just went ahead and bought the laptop. HP tx2000 AMD turion tl-64 2.2ghz. It's pretty decent on par to the intel core duo t2300 1.66ghz that i use to have. Nothing that great, but $500 for a tablet is a bargaiN! So far it can handle the things I wanted it to do, and can play some old games which I only play. Not really into the new graphic intense games on computer. Haha.
