AMD PUMA vs. Intel "G35" chipset with Penryn CPU notebook

Video here:

http://www.hexus.tv/show/2008/03/EXCLUSIVE_CONTENT_AMD_Puma_3x_quicker_than_Intel_integrated/



Good read.

I'd like to see some 3DMark06 scores.


Very nice for integrated CPU/GPU notebooks.

 

i m just curious, do you know what other settings he implemented in half life 2 besides it being in 1024x768.?? because i wanna compare it to my x1150..

 

Wow, Maybe I should have waitedup to this point in time before I purchased my first notebook.

But I still want to know how much do this things cost?
Also What brands will be offering them?

Well, I May still wait until 2010 when graphics cards will now have physics processors.(I think)

 

I'm not sure.

I ran the same test on my T61p (has dedicated GPU) just to see how these new integrated GPU systems compare and I found out that they are still much lower on performance.

I would like to see how they compare to the X3100 and the X1150 as well.


Not sure what map they did the test on. I ran the HL2 benchmark test from console mode and scored 110 fps on my T61p with integrated video GPU. Much better scores than either of these integrated gpu options.



They really should have benchmarked it with 3DMark06. I'm guessing that the ATI integrated chip performs just under a NVIDIA 8400m GS.



IMO the prices shouldn't be more $ than what is currently available. This is just improved technology. Not sure if that means it will cost more. I wouln't think it would cost more.

These new integrated mobile GPU options look great for advanced battery life and improved graphics but they don't really look like they will be the best option if one wants a notebook that can play the latest games.

 

DUPE

http://forum.notebookreview.com/showthread.php?t=231300

 

The AMD guy in the video is obviously using the X3100, which is GM965. The G35 chipset is only available in desktops and even then there is only a single motherboard that uses it.

Yes, the graphics in the Puma will still be faster nevertheless.

 

Maby he means it's GM45???


http://www.tgdaily.com/content/view/36373/135/


Why compare the ATI integrated chipset to Intel's older technology?

 

Cause the GM45 is not out yet, not even close. The engineering samples are coming in April. Can't even find preliminary benchmarks, except the ones Intel claims. And the guy said G35, which is pretty close architecturally to the GM965.

 

Oh so that means that there is still no real comparison between the x4500 and the new PUMA?

 

I suspect they had the game running on medium settings or lower. My dedicated 8600m GT only gets about 69FPS in HL2, but that is with resolution 1440x900 and all settings max except AA at 2x. And I use the Lost Coast benchmark.

I'd agree that it performs near the 8400m GS (possibly just about the same or a little bit better) considering they essentially popped a low-end 3000 series GPU into the chipset and turned it 'integrated'.

I believe that to be true, but unless Intel had something serious up its sleeve, I think this is one instance where AMD will be first to the market with a superior product.

 

Wow, Maybe this a good dtart for AMD'd comeback.

Still, Do you think that x4500 can defeat the New PUMA?

 

More likely that PUMA will end up faster than the Montevina IGP. Unless a miracle happens, at this state it might not even be competitive.

 

Ummm So you think that AMD should just leave the chip making to Intel?
I am just glad there is still a chance for AMD to be recognized once again(Hey if it wasn't for AMD we will still be purchasing $2000 dollar Pentium 4's today(maybe lower but you get the point)

I feel a lot of Hatred to AMD from your reply.(Not kidding)

 

If there is one thing you can always count on, it's the craptacular performance of Intel IGPs.

No wonder AMD is going for that market!

 

So x4500 does not really pose a threat to AMD??

 

I have not seen a single performance benchmark for x4500, so I really have no idea. I'm just going based on Intel's crappy IGP record. It is possible that they really have an ace with the x4500 and are just waiting to smack down AMD, but I want AMD to get at least ONE win this year so I'd be just as happy if the Intel stuff is slower.

 

I know that intel says that x4500 will be 3 times better than x3100.

So that means that It will be the same as the PUMA platform.

How about battery life since PUMA is said to be quite a saver.

 

There're 2 things that are NOT going to happen in ANY near future:


1) AMD releasing a faster CPU than any high-end Core2Duo/Core2Quad/Whatsoever...

2) Intel releasing a IGP that doesn't sucks (at least in 3D Performance... let's be "fair").

 

Why is this thread still up its a dupe

 

I'm looking forward to see what Puma can do though. The two graphics cards thingie looks awsome and with one of them being a new hd 3800 series card with over 8600m performance it should be solid for gaming and battery life.

 

Are u nuts???

It's not the HD3800 that is integrated!!! It's the HD3400....

And the performance is almost the same as a dedicated Geforce 8400m GS....

 

So this INTEGRATED GPU may as well be treated as a 8400 GS? (That is even better than my 8400G)

 

What?? How does that happen??

Intel says that the desktop X4500 will be 3 times faster than the IGP in the G33 chipset, which features non-X 3100. You see the GMA 3100(not the GMA X3100) is the one for desktop that does not support fancy features like SM3.0 and hardware shaders. The 3x they claim is in 3DMark06, which is a flawed test since the GMA 3100 can't run half the stuff anyway, lowering the score. They should have tested 3DMark05 or gaming benchmarks.

The G45 will be 1.7x faster than the G35 in the desktop, and same will be true with laptops.

 

I said one of them, so i obvious meant hd3800 as the discreet card. I'm not that nuts

 

Oh I see

okay now i know that intl GPU cannot outperform AMD's.

 

Even if the X4500 could be 3x times faster than the X3100 on 3DMark06... it'd still SUCK...

Because the average score for a X3100 is 250 points on 3DMARK06... thus, 3x250= 750 points = STILL Sucking for any descent 3D Task...

 

Unless you are talking about subscores, you are wrong. GMA X3100 gets 500+ in 3DMark06: http://tech.blorge.com/Structure: /2007/12/31/sony-vaio-sz640-performance-review/

The X4500 will get around 900-1100 for the mobile version.

 

Anything lower than 2k on 3DMark06 translates to this: "You shouldn't be trying to play in this crap!!!"

 

Then what about my Config? I don't have any 3d Mark score but I know that it is low.

I Play the latest games fine without any problems.

 

Try to play Crysis then, with a descent FPS rate and over 1024x768 res....

If you somehow manage to accomplish that in your lappy, I'll agree with you.

 

Nvidia bought Ageia... and they can run the physics in a shader (in the GPU)
And physics can be easily done by the CPU (with quad core mobile coming, itll be a breeze)

 

Sorry don't play crysis. but I only play at 800x600 res for FPS at low settings. That is already great for me.

 

Stop to compared dedicated graphic with IGP.
It's like compare apples to potatoes.
IGP allows you to play >2 years games with a long battery capability.
Dedicated graphics allow you to play modern games as long as you plug your latpop. Except if <1h mobility is acceptable for you (or if you like to charge yourself with heavy battery, smart bay and so on).
And stop with Crysis for god sake! Even Quad 9800gx2 cannot play the game decently on extreme settings at high res! This game is totally disconnected from today hardware reality.

 

Amd seems to be on the right road. Let`s see if they keep their end of the bargain.

 

I'm certainly waiting for the Puma launch to purchase a notebook. I have high hopes for the new memory controller in the new Turions, since AMD's old one was a dog. This alone is going to boost performance impressively.