AMD vs Intel GPU+CPU

I had a question regarding HP's dv3z and dv3t. Both are essentially the same setup, but one is a AMD based platform, the other is an Intel based platform.

Assuming equivalent marketed clock speeds (say 2.4GHz) and the basic dedicated graphics (ATI solution vs Intel solution), overall would the AMD platform run better or the Intel? I'm pretty sure based upon CPU alone, the intel processor wins, but if you included the whole system, which platform is really better? Is there any real difference?

This is assuming you were going to use the laptop for basic tasks like word processing, internet/e-mail, watching movies, light gaming.

 

You're more likely to notice a faster GPU than a faster CPU.

 

Agreed. Any ATI IGP will be faster than any Intel IGP, while the Core 2 Duo's are the fastest cores right now

 

for gaming, amd igp wins. for number crunching, intel wins

 

so it looks like a barebones laptop between amd and intel, amd would win since the gpu is better...

thanks for the info!

 

another questions, how's battery life in a comparison between the 2?

 

Not really, AMD wins for GPU performance. In all other areas Intel wins. So only for gaming AMD is the better choice.

Add to that that Intel runs cooler and uses less power.

 

Get AMD its a much better platform granted the cpu is a bit slower you wont notice in day to day activites or even in gaming. You will only notice if your sole point in life is to calculate pi then intel will be better. AMD platform > intel in my opinion

 

If you're poor, AMD is the best choice. If you're a millionaire, Intel is the best choice. If you're somewhere in between, then the choice is not clear. Sometimes AMD is better, sometimes AMD is worse than Intel.

 

Heh i missed the original amd bandwagon and ended up getting one too late. I love my Core 2 Duo cant wait to get this T9600 in here.

Outside of gaming (where no the amd doesnt automatically win cpu wise) a friend was benching his current system before he starts upgrading. His Athlon X2 5000+ 2.60 Ghz Desktop CPU versus my laptops cruddy 2.13Ghz C2D at stock or overclocked, the C2D was a clear winner.

That said I am building a cheap desktop based around a 58 dollar AMD Athlon 7750 Black Edition which is basically a defective phenom.

 

AMD CPUs are worse than Core 2 Duos, but they're not bad CPUs. They do everything they're supposed to do and the fact that they're cheaper can make up for the lack of performance. In the mobile market however, AMD CPUs tend to generate a bit more heat which might be problematic if the rest of that hardware configuration isn't set up properly.

If the budget is low, an AMD CPU/ATI IGP combo will significantly outperform an Intel CPU/Intel IGP in terms of graphic power. The ATI HD3200, while being weak, can compare to some older low end GPUs and can run quite a surprising amount of games.

 

hmm thanks, heat may be a concern so that might move me away from the AMD setup.

 

a new 2.13Ghz dual core verses a 4+year old Dual core? not a fair comparision

PS. I built a Desktop a couple moths ago using the 7750 chip, it's a fantastic chip considering how cheap it is.

 

Actually if heat is an issue for you you might want to move away (or at least be careful with) dedicated IGP's, since not only CPU but also GPU's can make a laptop heat up pretty quickly, so yeah, if you're really into very light gaming maybe you'd want to look at laptops with the Intel 4500MHD.

 

Well my idiot friend decided he wanted to brag, you know I have to shoot him down. To be honest though that chip is still common on the prebuilt market so its fair to say if he was buying, to go intel if he has the money.

To be fair the current Brisbane 5000+ came out in late 2007 not 4 years ago. But to be fair December 06 is when that core came around.

Yeah the 7850 is out now but with them both being unlocked unless the 7850 cores are that much better i can easily make up the 100mhz in the overclock. Im building a mame/emulator cabinet. Overkill but the chips are so damn cheap lol.

 

I just built a computer with a 7750 for me mom. I wouldnt say its a defective phenom. Its over stock they moved to 45nm so they took some of the 65nm stuff and made them into athlons. Read on toms hardware. Anyways i have intel and AMD systems i like the AMD systems better they always preform better for me. Intel just pisses me off so im not buying one any time soon.

 

The 7750's are 65nm Phenom's with 2 disabled cores. AMD gets higher yeild's just like Sony, Nvidia, ATI(now amd) by disabling defective cores hence the Phenom X3. Not all the chips have defective cores, but at the same time not all the chips have cores that were able to operate at the target speed and there for were prime for the 7750. Some people have apparently had luck in unlocking the other cores.

Sony took a cheap route on the PS3 using only 7 of the 8 Vector cores in the design so they wouldnt have to ditch chips with one bad vector unit.