Quote Originally Posted by Donnie27 View Post
Shadowmage is wrong. Not just a differing opinion, just wrong.

http://www.amd.com/us-en/Processors/..._13911,00.html

AMD + 65bit vs Core1 no 64bits. What if Intel's first Conroe Demo was vs. an FX 55?

http://www.engadget.com/2006/05/17/a...ight-core-duo/

Computex 2005 AMD formally launched its Athlon 64 X2 dual-core desktop processor today (May 31, 2005).

Turion X2 was paper launches a year later May 2006 and actually went on sale AFTER Merom.

So AMD implies that Turion shipped before Merom, Intel's Notebooks aren't 64bit compat, C2D notebook are newer and rare, and yada yada, all BS. But we should believe what they say about Barcelona, yea, right!

AMD doesn’t market Turion as a Budget Processor vs. Celeron or C1-Dothan. Unless you guys don’t read AMD’s marketing. No way in hell Intel lies that much. Conroe's debut was a prime example.

Lastly, we shouldn't accept or make excuses for shi-tte like this from Intel or AMD BTW. That’s not doing ANYONE any kind of favor and just muddies up the info pool. I only hope the problem AMD is having is thermals and not performance bugs. Thermal problems can be fixed, Prescott and the first TBreads pretty much proved that.
It doesn't matter. Turion 64 X2 is targeted towards Yonah, not Merom. If it was targeted towards Merom, that page would be displaying information comparing Turion 64 X2 and Merom (pretty much the only thing on that page that would change would Intel would go from 32bits to 64bits, so it is evident that the skewing could have been accomplished easily). However, AMD did not. This is proof that Turion 64 X2 is competing against Yonah. Why else would they compare against Yonah if they were actually competing with Merom?

Being released later doesn't mean anything. Budget CPUs are usually released later than the high end models. Does this mean that budget CPUs must be compared against high end models?