Notebookcheck Logo
, , , , , ,
search relation.
, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
 

AMD Turion 64 X2 TL-62 vs AMD Turion 64 X2 TL-68 vs AMD Turion 64 X2 TL-53

AMD Turion 64 X2 TL-62

► remove from comparison

The AMD Turion 64 X2 TL-62 is a Dual-Core processor clocked at 2.1 GHz. It is based on the K8 core and offers only 512KB Level 2 Cache per core. The TL-62 is part of the in 65nm produced TL processors with a TDP of 35W.

The performance of the Turion TL-62 is compareable to a 1.9 GHz Core Duo with 1MB Level 2 Cache (e.g. in 3DMark06 CPU and Cinebench 10 Benchmark). However, some benchmarks like SuperPi perform far worse (see benchmarks below).

The power consumption compared to the Core Duo processors is noticeable higher on average leading to a shorter battery runtime.

AMD Turion 64 X2 TL-68

► remove from comparison

The AMD Turion 64 X2 TL-68 is the fastest processor of the TL series clocked at 2.4 GHz. It is based on the K8 core and offers only 512KB Level 2 Cache per core (two cores - dual core CPU). The TL-68 is part of the in 65nm produced TL processors with a TDP of 35W.

The performance of the Turion TL-68 is compareable to a slower clocked Core Duo with 1MB Level 2 Cache (e.g. in 3DMark06 CPU and Cinebench 10 Benchmark). However, some benchmarks like SuperPi perform far worse (see benchmarks below) and the typical Core Duo with 2.4 GHz has more Level 2 Cache.

The power consumption compared to the Core Duo processors is noticeable higher on average leading to a shorter battery runtime.

AMD Turion 64 X2 TL-53

► remove from comparison

The AMD Turion 64 X2 TL-53 is a Dual-Core processor clocked at 1.7 GHz. It is based on the K8 core and offers 512KB Level 2 Cache per core. Compared to the slower 1.6 GHz clocked TL-52, the TL-53 is already manufactured in 65nm and offers a lower TPD of 31W. 

The performance of the Turion TL-53 is compareable to a 1.6 GHz Core Duo with 1MB Level 2 Cache (e.g. Pentium T2060 to T2330 in 3DMark06 CPU and Cinebench 10 Benchmark). However, some benchmarks like SuperPi perform far worse (see benchmarks below).

The power consumption compared to the Core Duo processors is noticeable higher on average leading to a shorter battery runtime.

ModelAMD Turion 64 X2 TL-62AMD Turion 64 X2 TL-68AMD Turion 64 X2 TL-53
SeriesAMD Turion 64 X2AMD Turion 64 X2AMD Turion 64 X2
CodenameTylerTylerTyler
Series: Turion 64 X2 Tyler
AMD Turion 64 X2 TL-682.4 GHz2 / 2
» AMD Turion 64 X2 TL-622.1 GHz2 / 2
AMD Turion 64 X2 TL-581.9 GHz2 / 2
AMD Turion 64 X2 TL-531.7 GHz2 / 2
» AMD Turion 64 X2 TL-682.4 GHz2 / 2
AMD Turion 64 X2 TL-622.1 GHz2 / 2
AMD Turion 64 X2 TL-581.9 GHz2 / 2
AMD Turion 64 X2 TL-531.7 GHz2 / 2
AMD Turion 64 X2 TL-682.4 GHz2 / 2
AMD Turion 64 X2 TL-622.1 GHz2 / 2
AMD Turion 64 X2 TL-581.9 GHz2 / 2
» AMD Turion 64 X2 TL-531.7 GHz2 / 2
Clock2100 MHz2400 MHz1700 MHz
FSB800800800
L2 Cache1 MB1 MB1 MB
Cores / Threads2 / 22 / 22 / 2
TDP35 Watt35 Watt31 Watt
Technology65 nm65 nm65 nm
Features2x 512 kB Level2 Cache, DDR2-800 memory controllerMMX, Extended 3DNow!, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, AMD64, PowerNow!, NX-Bit
Architecturex86x86x86
Announced
ManufacturerAMD Turion 64 X2 TL-62AMD Turion 64 X2 TL-68
L1 Cache256 KB

Benchmarks

Cinebench R10 - Cinebench R10 Rend. Single (32bit)
100%
1 TL-62 +
1559 Points (14%)
Cinebench R10 - Cinebench R10 Rend. Multi (32bit)
100%
1 TL-62 +
3162 Points (4%)
wPrime 1.55 - wPrime 1.55 1024m *
100%
1 TL-68 +
1065 s (4%)
wPrime 1.55 - wPrime 1.55 32m *
100%
1 TL-68 +
32.6 s (17%)
3DMark 06 - CPU - 3DMark 06 - CPU
100%
1 TL-62 +
1475 Points (3%)
Super Pi mod 1.5 XS 1M - Super Pi mod 1.5 XS 1M *
100%
1 TL-62 +
45.5 s (10%)
102%
1 TL-68 +
37.4 s (8%)
Super Pi Mod 1.5 XS 32M - Super Pi mod 1.5 XS 32M *
100%
1 TL-68 +
2035 s (9%)
PCMark 05 - PCMark 05 - Standard
100%
1 TL-62 +
3631 Points (23%)
105%
1 TL-68 +
3802 Points (24%)

Average Benchmarks AMD Turion 64 X2 TL-62 → NAN% n=

Average Benchmarks AMD Turion 64 X2 TL-68 → NAN% n=

- Range of benchmark values for this graphics card
- Average benchmark values for this graphics card
* Smaller numbers mean a higher performance
1 This benchmark is not used for the average calculation

v1.17
log 22. 14:03:08

#0 checking url part for id 387 +0s ... 0s

#1 checking url part for id 431 +0s ... 0s

#2 checking url part for id 432 +0s ... 0s

#3 not redirecting to Ajax server +0s ... 0s

#4 did not recreate cache, as it is less than 5 days old! Created at Wed, 18 May 2022 13:12:25 +0200 +0s ... 0s

#5 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0.003s ... 0.004s

#6 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s ... 0.004s

#7 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s ... 0.004s

#8 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s ... 0.004s

#9 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s ... 0.004s

#10 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s ... 0.004s

#11 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s ... 0.004s

#12 composed specs +0s ... 0.004s

#13 did output specs +0s ... 0.004s

#14 getting avg benchmarks for device 387 +0s ... 0.005s

#15 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s ... 0.005s

#16 got single benchmarks 387 +0.008s ... 0.013s

#17 getting avg benchmarks for device 431 +0.001s ... 0.014s

#18 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s ... 0.014s

#19 got single benchmarks 431 +0.006s ... 0.02s

#20 getting avg benchmarks for device 432 +0s ... 0.021s

#21 got single benchmarks 432 +0s ... 0.021s

#22 got avg benchmarks for devices +0s ... 0.021s

#23 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s ... 0.021s

#24 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s ... 0.021s

#25 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0.001s ... 0.022s

#26 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s ... 0.023s

#27 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s ... 0.023s

#28 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s ... 0.023s

#29 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s ... 0.024s

#30 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s ... 0.024s

#31 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s ... 0.024s

#32 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s ... 0.025s

#33 min, max, avg, median took s +0s ... 0.025s

#34 return log +0s ... 0.025s

Please share our article, every link counts!
> Notebook / Laptop Reviews and News > Benchmarks / Tech > Processor Comparison - Head 2 Head
Redaktion, 2017-09- 8 (Update: 2017-09-11)