Hey All,
I'm looking for benchmarks for the new chips from AMD (M300 and M500) and found some pretty useless opinions here.
So to add to the pool of uselessness - PCSavvy - stick to the M500 if you're taking the long view. The extra cache helps. If its damn cheap, I don't think you'll regret it. (I'm assuming light gaming means Direct X 9 games and stuff from PopCap.)
wwswimming, nice specs BIG ASS SCREEN. What ever floats your boat man, but the chip is good. Just compare prices with similar spec'd intel's at the same clock speed. (AMD M5's finally look to be equivalent.)
On to some facts (sorely missing from the responses you've received).
First off, the Turion 2 M series is a version of the K10 core. not K8 (think Core vs Core 2.) Secondly, the M3xx series is a little cache starved but can compete. The M5xx is generally a better option and runs about equiv. to the Core 2.
This analysis is primarily based on the Windows CPU scores popping up all over the net. Not exactly definitive, but the best metric we have to work with right now.
ex:
http://optimitza.cat/news/2009/10/22/amd-turion-ii-m500-performance-it-scores-5-7-in-wei-windows-7/
As for the useless opinions I've read in this thread:
Saying the last generation (K8 based core) was bad should have no bearing on the current generation (K10 based.) Remember P4 vs Pent. M?
I'm not an AMD fan boy, my laptop has a 2.4 core 2, and my desktop is a Core 2 Q6600 (fantastic overclocker).
I'm only interested in facts though so let clear a few things up.
1) The M300 and M500 chips are based on the K10 design not the K8!
If you don't know the difference, please leave the anandtech forums and hit the main site for reviews. Also keep in mind that this is a later revision (I've seen referred to as K10.5 - would love to see anand put out something definitive on this.)
2) The M300 has 512KB cache per core, the M500 has 1MB per core.
3) This chip has a 35watt thermal envelope. Same as a number of the intel chips (I personally go for the intel 25W chips as I like to squeeze out as much battery life as possible).
If you last laptop overheated, blame the manufacturer, not the chip. Thermal management is everything when you're looking at a 10watt thermal range between chip models. Don't believe me? Lenovo T60 vs Lenovo T61 - same thermal footprint but a completely reworked cooling system. I've had both - the T60 = sterility, the T61, a thing of beauty (Lenovo press releases claim 10% decrease in service area temps. Both my my laptops used 25watt chips and integrated graphics).
As far as speed - this thing isn't going to win any contests, but unlike the previous K8 Cores, they are finally able to keep up with intel's Core 2's. Of course once the i5/i7 based cores hit laptops . . . right back where we were.
Moral of the story, if the price is right and everyone is offering integrated graphics in your price range -> AMD for the win. Why? Better graphics hands down. Between the light gaming scenarios and upcoming IE, Silverlight, and (hopefully) Adobe Flash graphics accelleration, AMD is the better platform. Of course, if you don't mind dropping a little cash for something with external graphics the situation gets a little murky. Oh, and intel will prob. always win out in the battery dept. (they have fast 25watt cpu models, AMD doesn't.)