Alright I am in a little bit of a quandary. I am a huge AMD Fan and all my computers have AMD Proc. I need to get a laptop for work and occasionally to play some games. Don't tell my boss though.   I have been waiting for the dual core laptops and Intel's Yonah is out and according to the inquirer Turion X2 will come out in May. http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=30020  
 
I have heard good things about Yonah since the Israelies have produced it and HP has a great sytem for $1500.00 with a 2.0 ghz Yonah Proc, 17.0" WXGA+ Ultra BrightView Widescreen (1440x900), 128MB NVIDIA(R) GeForce(R) Go 7400, 1.0GB DDR2 SDRAM (2x512MB), 80 GB 5400 RPM SATA Hard Drive,  LightScribe 8x DVD+/-RW&CD-RW Combo w/Double Layer, & Intel(R) PRO/Wireless 3945ABG Network w/Bluetooth.  
 
If what the inquirer site says is true, should I just go ahead and get the intel notebook? I really don't play a lot of FPS, mostly role playing games and Texas Hold Em.    
 
Let me know what you guys think. This is a fairly good price and I like what they offer in this system. I just wish AMD wasn't so slow in having their dual core Turion Proc out in the market.

Whoa partner... before you go doing something like that check out www.KillerNotebooks.com.
 
Magnesium Chassis
Turion MT-40 processor STANDARD
1 Gig CAS 2.5 on 1 chip STANDARD
80 gig 7,200 rpm 8MB Cache Hard Drive STANDARD
a/b/g/G+ 108 MBps Internal Wireless STANDARD
8x Dual Layer CD & DVD Burner STANDARD
x700 128 MB PCI Express video card (x1600 256 MB coming in March)
15.4" Glossy TruBrite Widescreen  
 
Do NOT buy an Intel! That is just investing in 32 bit obsolete junk! A year and a half from now you will be saying,"Why did I buy this? I can't even run 64 bit programs!" Programs have to be written specifically to take advantage of dual core architecture, the only thing dual core processors do on notebooks is eat up battery life.  
 
How many times are you running a virus scan when you are gaming or using other programs? A Turion MT-40 3900+ desktop equivalent can eat 3 and 4 apps at a time for breakfast. If you look on Intel's page it flat out says, "Core duo is 25% faster than it's single core counterpart." I can gauranty a Turion MT-40 is more than 50% faster than it's Intel counterpart so where's the advantage of a 32 bit dual core?
 

I've been a fan of AMD for awhile, but I have to say I like Intel's laptops overall. Yes they aren't 64bit enabled, but even with 64-bit coming to OS's last year I haven't seen 1 true 64-bit app. I have seen 1 game or 2, but its a long raod ahead. ALso, to the best of my knowledge Intel based laptops have longer battery life and are on par with AMD performance. Part of the advantage for Intel is the use of DDR2 and such, but that is just one component among many.  
 
Don't call me an Intel fanbuy, just look at my rig hehe . Turion was a big step forward for AMD, dont get me wrong but I personaly have to give the edge to Intel still.

Well if you check out my page, look at the Specifications Menu then the Memory and the Processor pages and you may change your mind about the mobile Intel processor.
 
Just because there aren't that many 64 bit apps out now, you have to figure with Intel going to 64 bit with their Mermon chipset they are going to appear like ants at a picnic soon afterwards.  
 

I've read up on both architectures and AMD has thier strong points with integrated memory controller but its still single channel. Also the Intel chip has the capability to literaly almost turn off one core if your just perusing the internet and not doing anything, but fire up another app and both cores come alive. Also, if im not mistaken, the AMD chip cannot turn off its internal cache where as dothan and Yohan can, reducing power consumption. I would love to see Turion X2 against Yohan, but sadly we can't see it yet. OH well

AMD has dual channel and the bandwidth of the AMD's are much higher, with lower latency with their onboard controller. (one of many memory articles)I think a lot of the marketing hype about it being not that big of a deal centers more around AMD having a patent on the technology more than reality.  
 
I mean Intel would have us believe that:
The onboard memory controller means nothing.
The 1,600 fsb mean nothing (although they are constantly trying to boost their fsb.)
64 bit architecture means nothing (yet they take AMD's 64 bit code verbatim for EM64T.)
We had heard for a long time that the greater size of AMD's cache meant nothing, yet Intel boost theirs to 2 MB and suddenly it is all important because theirs is larger.
 
Intel releases a 3.2 640 class desktop processor, then they release the extreme edition for booku bucks, which is nothing more than a 640 with an 800 mhz front side bus and larger cache. When AMD does it Intel claims, "There is little benefit." when they do it it is "extreme".

NO question INtel has sucked it up real nice with thier desktop procs since prescott, of that there is little conjecture. However, mobile parts still hold their own. Intel has been raising thier FSB to increase memory bandwidth and reduce latency among other things. I agree AMD has an advantage there, but when under light load Intel shines and AMD falls behind. When put under load the tables even up and AMD squeeks out ahead (by a mere 5-10min if I'm not mistaken). The key lies in Intel's ability to turn off all but 1/64th of the L2 cache (last I heard, it may be diffrent in Yonah) and also send 1 core into the C4 power state which virtually draws no power.
 
So again, yes AMD's are great in gaming and last a smidge longer under load but when it boils down to light usage (say note taking which is what i would do 85% of the time) Intel trumps AMD. Compromises on both sides, and I have always believed that so for me I give the advantage to Intel in the mobile arena FOR NOW    
 
Side Note: I know not to believe Intel's marketing, nor do I believ what little marketing I get from AMD. I judge things for myself depending on what I use them for, so I count myself among the intelligent who recognize  selective disclosure in marketing (any company not just Intel or AMD).  
 
PS. i appreciate the respect this discussion has taken place with, no personal flagerant remarks

Thanks for this discussion into the value of AMD versus Intell. I also am an AMD fanboy, but after reading many things on diffrent sites and giving the link to the inquirer on the story behind Yonah and Turion X2, I am still leaning the Yonah route for the laptop. I understand about the 64 bit extension that AMD has, but I figure I can use my desktop for that. My concern is the performance though of the dual core proc and it appears that Turion will not be able to beat Yonah if the configuration is correct.  
 
Understand that I value everyone's opinions because there is much merit in both sides, that is why I would like others to comment on this thread and give me your reasoning for your choice of processor for your dual core laptop. Thanks again to everyone joining this disussion.

 
Thats what we are here for, to share our knowledge/viewpoint. Either way you go it will be a good laptop, its just a question of which is best for you.

My 8 cell battery lasts about 3 hours under light load because the Turion Mt series only uses 25 watts. I believe that the most frugal Pentium-M uses 24 watts. I am not expecting to get more than 2 1/2 hours from my notebook myself, but I certainly do like its ability to multitask and handle the gaming requirements when needed.  
 
Just under normal usage it feels "snapier" than the Pentium M's (Dell D610 2.0 Ghz 1 Gig, ASUS 2.13 Ghz 2 Gigs, Ibm lenova) that I have had/used. I had a customer tell me that he went head to head against a Sony P-M machine with a guy at work. They were ripping DVD movies and he said that the Sony was basically locked up and could only do the DVD encoding while he was able to surf the web etc, and still came out at a 3-2 ratio of movies burned.  
 
That to me is what I do it for. I want my customers to be happy with what they get and stay happy. I have a real hard time selling 32 bit sytems and KNOW that they are going to be obsolete in a few years. That's me, everyone else in entitled to their opinion concerning AMD and Intel.

As long as your customers are happy then you are doing your job

Killernotebooks you stated in your reply that the Turion is a good proc for multitasking, but I am a little confused. The only dual core cpu for the notebooks is the Intell Yonah, which again has 1Mg of L2 Cache and while the Turion X2 is still not out for dual core, it is said to have only 512 Mg cache. So with that in mind how do you think it will out perform an Israeli reconfigured chip? Bear in mind this isn't your average sorry P4 or Pentium M cpu. The Israeli's did a marvelous job re-doing this CPU to out perform others in the notebooks class.

Now that ATI has the x1600 card out for AMD notebooks I hope they have their sights set on an x3200 dual GPU mobility card. ASUS has a system that can use onboard graphics for kicking around and 6600 GT (I believe it had 128 MB) for gaming... which is really a cool idea but why did they stop at teh 6600?  
 
How about onboard graphics chip for kickin' around town then step into a phone booth... rip open your shirt and you have an x3200 with 512 MB RAM and 3 minutes of battery life!
 

Yea dual core, dual core, dual core... all praise the dual core.  
 
The current Turion ML-44 has a 1 MB cache and runs at 2.4 GHz, but it started life as a lowely ML-42 with only 512 kb cache.  
The MT-40 runs at 2.2 GHz. Guys, these are Pentium 4 - 4 Ghz equivalent processors! listen to what you are saying... you are so caught up in this marketing hype that these chipmakers would have you believe you can't write an email and listen to an MP3 unless you have a dual core processor. I can run more apps than I can keep straight in my head without a problem.
 
Who cares if the Israeli's reconfigured Yonah? What differnce does that make? They "reconfigured" the Phantom, but that doesn't make it an F-16. The X2 desktop trounces Intel's desktop chip, it is far more advanced and innovative, why would I think that 512 kb of cache per core would turn the tables? Maybe they called it "Yonah" because the Turion X2 is the big fish that's going to swallow it up.
 
AMD more than likely spent a good piece of change on R&D for this chip... I'm sure they know what they are doing. BUT, just like my post today somewhere on this forum, "What is a chipmaker that makes the perfect chip that doesn't need to be upgraded?" OUT OF BUSINESS.  
 
They know they are going to sell a ton of 512 kb cache chips, then "OH MY GOD... WE FIGURED OUT HOW TO PUT 1 MB CACHE'S ON THE CHIPS [insert hype here]"  
 
3 more months later, "2MB SHARED CACHE NOW A REALITY!!!!" Unbelievable Performance you MUST have! Can't you just see the headlines?
 
New benchmarks proclaim the 2 MB cache dominates the OLD CRAPPY chip YOU have Then in reality it is like a 2% difference or something, but they "curb-fit" the tests to make it much more of course (that means tweaked to look better over a narrow range that exists for about a nanosecond once a lifetime in the real world) to say whatever they want.
 
We still have to go back to the fact that Microsoft is releasing their Vaporware Longhorn/Vista 64 bit this year and Intel will have 64 bit (nb)processors by then and LOOK OUT if you think you aren't going to hear the spin doctors then!
 
I re-read this post and it kind of sounds like I am AMPed Up, but I am not... I am just messin' around. The bottom line is that if Yonah or Mermon or the Turion X2 is really that much better it will be reverse engineered and stolen and that will propogate to the other camp and YOU and I will reap the benefits and be able to yak on endlessly in forums about whos weiner is bigger.
 

Mmm, marketing.
 
Yes, Intel markets. Just like you are marketing. Do you think Intel would come out and say that the competiton is better?
 
I'm sure 99% of the people here know not to listen to first party benchmarks (that's why we come to sites like Tom's Hardware). Preformance and price are not the only factors in the mobile segment, battery life is too and Intel's architechture is ahead of AMD in this area.

Yea, the difference is, I can build on any platform I want. If I thought Intel was betterI'd use 'em.
 
Intel changes so much stuff that a desktop you buy in January will probably not be worth upgrading a year later. You will be lucky if there isn't a new slot configuration, memory type, or some other essentially worthless dohicky that makes you HAVE to upgrade. How long has AMD been able to stretch DDR3200 memory? Cause Intel had Rambus and DDR2400, 533, 667 and that hurts consumers. How long has AMD and nVidia had SLi equiped motherboards, how long have they had the 939 and 754 chipsets?
 
I don't think I have "marketed" in these last replies at all, in fact I have a Super Squirrel and a guy riding a weiner dog to lighten it up a bit. Am I chanting KillerNotebooks or am I talking about intel and AMD? I guess we have to agree to disagree, and I think you are more pissed about the F-16 comment than anything else.

Funny part about that is you would barely get booted up and into the splash screen of a game before your laptop died lol. Oh the things imaginations can do. While we are at it lets add in a display that has 2 hidden screens and one comes out each side for a portable 3 monitor setup. Now that would be amazing.  8O  
 
Actually if we address the true problem of our power needs its Li-ion  batteries but that gets beyond my techinal expertise. What I do know is that they are limited in capacity (as is everything) and they are trying for a new tech jsut forgot what its called.

You know another thing is this 2 GB of RAM limitation these notebooks have. What's with that?  
 
How about 4 gigs with (2) 2 Gig chips and have 2 gigs for system and 2 gigs for a RAM drive for the OS? They could boost the existing battery life by not having to hit the freakin' hard drive so much.
 
Get the New Gigabit flash memory hard drivesout and save even more power there by not having to spin up the drive even further.  
 
Damn Fly, me and you is figurin' out all the worlds problems tonight!