AMD A10 5750M vs Core 2 Duo T7500 - Which is better in single-threaded programs?

In the not-entirely-unlikely event that I break my laptop while repairing it, I would likely want to buy a newer laptop to replace it. So, I've been casually perusing what's available, and the A10 5750M CPU looks kind of interesting. It's fairly inexpensive, and even the integrated graphics would be a nice step up from the 8600M GT that I have.

However, I'm not sure how it would compare in single-threaded performance, particularly for integers. Several of the games I play are more CPU-bound than GPU-bound, so CPU performance is something I care about. And I know that AMD has been trailing Intel in single-threaded performance for many years.

So, my question is, can the 5750M match the T7500 in single-threaded performance, and if so, how much better is it? I hope that AMD's 2013 CPUs have matched Intel's 2007 CPUs in IPC, but I can't really assume that to be true. Actual benchmarks would be preferable. If it's to a T7700 or something otherwise pretty equally comparable by adjusting frequency, that's fine.

As an aside, are there any laptops currently available with an AMD desktop CPU? I kind of doubt it, but something like an FX-6300 would be a nice way to pack some horsepower at a reasonable cost provided the cooling were up to par. There used to be quite a few Intel-based laptops with desktop CPUs, but those were usually very expensive, and even they seem to be less common these days.

 

the AMD outscores the core 2 in absolutely all aspects. Performance wise it destroys it, saddly you wont see much battery life increase out of it as both are 35w processors. However I would expect the amd being newer, has better power management capabilities. The core2 has only pretty basic power down abilities.

 

It'd be roughly double the performance as far as a CPU goes. It's not all that impressive though, considering it's a quad core model. :/

 

Sadly enough, the ancient Core 2 CPU's are still quite competitive with AMD's newest APU's. They even beat them on a clock-for-clock core-for-core basis. Despite the massive clock speed disadvantage, the T7500 is still quite competitive with the A10-5750M in single-threaded benchmarks. It keeps up in Cinebench 32-bit single-threaded and even beats it in SuperPI:

Mobile Processors - Benchmarklist - NotebookCheck.net Tech

I still have an old C2D T7300 and Quadro FX 1600M (GeForce 8700M GT) laptop which I mainly use as a media center PC nowadays but it has no problem playing even the newest titles, albeit at extremely low settings and resolution. Older games, web browsing, and productivity stuff it absolutely breezes through. Honestly, I would consider an A10-5750M machine to be a sidegrade to the laptop you have now, not a clear-cut upgrade.

The A10-5750M is AMD's fastest mobile CPU ATM. AMD gave up the race for efficiency to Intel long ago, which is why they are a basket case on the notebook CPU side even more so than they are on desktops. Even the slowest Vishera FX-4300 is 95 W TDP and it only goes up from there. Completely impractical for fitting inside a notebook form factor and even an i3 at half the power consumption kicks the living daylights out of it.

 

Now that I had a chance to search for their numbers side by side (was busy earlier), pretty much what Octi said. The core 2 did pull a higher single core score in cini 10. It was a little more difficult getting some scores (not many benches for the nvidia on current games) but it does look like the amd would edge out your current laptop, but not by much. It would be more or less a side grade. You may get an upgrade in battery life but it won't be any cooler, and you will probably be left wondering why you paid for a new laptop for the same old stuff.

AMD as far as laptops is bottom of the barrel. They offer some solid performance when stuffed in cheap computers, but you quickly jump to the 4th gen i3's and i5's whos HD 4400 and 4600 integrated graphics match AMDs.

 

The AMD igpu's are a lot more powerful than the Intel ones.

 

It doesn't excuse the fact that the CPU bit is absolutely though...

 

Cool, thanks. Sorry I was away for awhile and kind of forgot about the thread until seeing another AMD thread today. I suppose that's not all bad since it means my laptop is still working. +rep to octiceps for the hard numbers and detailed comparison. I hadn't realized that Notebookcheck let you compare CPUs like that. I use it for GPU comparisons routinely, but it's even more useful now.

So that means I'll be sticking with my current laptop at least for now. The GPU on the 5750M would be a bit better from what I've read, but as much of what I run is CPU-bottlenecked (and on my laptop, nearly all single-threaded bottlenecked) as GPU, even with the 8600M GT, so a sidegrade on the CPU front doesn't really cut it. Rather unfortunate; I'd hoped that Richland would at least be equal on a clock-per-clock basis and thus slightly faster overall.

 

Just curious what games you're referring to? 8600m GT and Windows XP are DirectX 9 only not to mention driver support is lackluster at this point for XP and the 8600m GT. AMD has DirectX 11 support, plus Windows 7 and Windows 8 can offer improved gaming performance just from the way the OS is managed. I wouldn't discount it so much, because the GPU still plays an important part even if it is single threaded. If you want to let me know the games I have an A10-5750m laptop that I can possibly test the games out for you if I have them.

 

I wouldn't rely on Cinebenchmark, it's somewhat controversial due to their usage of Intel's compiler.

On a side note, the Kaveri APUs are going to replace the Richland very soon. Kaveri 19W APUs can trade blows with Richland 35W APUs.