Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

a104375

macrumors 6502
Original poster
Oct 8, 2007
463
147
Matamoras, PA
Okay i have always been under the impression that amd was badd and intel was good and i have been offered what appears to be a good deal but i am not sure how to compare it to a intel laptop

I have a Compaq M2000
-AMD Turion @ 1.6Ghz
-512MB RAM
-15" Glossy screen
-60GB 5200 RPM Seagate HD
-AC Adapter (Battery is dead)
-One dead USB port
-No onboard wireless, but can throw in a Belkin PCI card for free
-Windows XP Home SP2
$95 Shipped

so i am looking for insight on intel vs amd
 
You're right, I'm probably thinking of Sempron. Anyhow, with only a max of 1MB of L2 cache, I wouldn't expect much.
There's nothing wrong with small amounts of cache. Keep in mind that AMD uses an onboard memory controller and for the most part the lower latency between the CPU and RAM off sets smaller L2 cache.

You can see Intel on the other side using larger L2 caches to off set the latency between the CPU and RAM.

For $95 a somewhat usable laptop with Windows XP isn't that bad.
 
didnt amd just ship a 3-core cpu because they couldnt get the 4th core working reliably, doesnt sound to great to me.
 
didnt amd just ship a 3-core cpu because they couldnt get the 4th core working reliably, doesnt sound to great to me.

lol no that does not sound good at all!! Thanks for the input i would also like to see some peoples opinions on this subject, what processor you like better and why
 
didnt amd just ship a 3-core cpu because they couldnt get the 4th core working reliably, doesnt sound to great to me.
The same can be said of Intel as well. The Celeron and the lower L2 cache processors are a shining example.

I'll go with the manufacturer with the best processors.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.