AMD zm-70 + ATI hd3200 vs. Intel t8100 + IntelX3100

which is the better setup for graphic design (photoshop, indesign and illustrator) and movies? what are the pros and cons of each setup?

 

AMD - superior graphics

Intel - cooler, quieter, more energy efficient and more powerful

For your purposes, the Intel machine is the way to go.

 

Bog - that's interesting... in the "what notebook should I buy" forum, when I put the notebooks (studio 15 with intel, HP dv5z with amd) against each other, Johnny T said the Amd setup is a better deal...

 

You've asked two different questions, though. In the "What NB" thread you asked about the best deal between two specific NBs, not just about a comparison of CPU/GPU combos.

I think, in theory, for your stated purpose, that maybe Intel > AMD; but this doesn't mean that every possible NB with a t8100/X3100 combo is a better deal than every possible NB with a ZM-70/3200 combo.

Did that make sense to anyone other than me?

 

A better deal in terms of what? Price? AMDs do tend to be cheaper, but the Intel CPU will thrash the AMD. While the Puma platform has a stronger graphics solution, programs like Photoshop have the bare minimum graphics requirements, while demanding a very powerful CPU and more RAM.

What processor is better for you depends on what tasks you plan to run on it.

 

As far as I know none of those applications are GPU accelerated, so they'll run fine on the Intel platform.

(I'm not 100% sure whether indesign and illustrator are GPU accelerated because I don't know them but I'm assuming they're not)

I agree.

 

I think that Photoshop's system requirements can answer that for us:
http://www.adobe.com/products/photoshop/photoshop/systemreqs/

# Intel® Pentium® 4, Intel Centrino®, Intel Xeon®, or Intel Core™ Duo (or compatible) processor
# 512MB of RAM
# 64MB of video RAM
# 1GB of available hard-disk space (additional free space required during installation)
# 1,024x768 monitor resolution with 16-bit video card

That said, there have been some articles reporting that future versions of Adobe software will be GPU-accelerated: http://www.tgdaily.com/content/view/37611/140/

 

I was aware of current Photoshop not being GPU accelerated, I was not sure about Illustrator and Indesign.

 

Doesn't look like it:

http://www.adobe.com/products/indesign/systemreqs/
http://www.adobe.com/products/illustrator/systemreqs/

Anyways, back on topic; if I had to choose between the AMD and Intel, I think I would sacrifice a bit in the CPU department just to get some decent graphics capability. The most demanding game I play is C&C3, and my current Nvidia card isn't very good.

 

That not entirely true. Undervolted AMD cpus run cooler than Intel's.

In my opnion a good laptop is one with a good graphics and a good CPU. what you get with the intel based laptop is a very good CPU but a poor graphics card. For this reason alone I would go with the AMD/ATi laptop.

 

lol... It seems that I just need to flip a coin.

 

What you say is true. However, this largely depends on the OP's level of technical knowledge. Secondly, Intel's CPU is still more powerful. Third, the definition of a good laptop is pretty subjective; it depends on what you're going to do with it. Simply put, the Intel machine is the best for the job.

 

T8100 beats ZM-70 very easily, but not as bad as how Radeon HD 3200 totally trashes X3100.

 

absolute conjecture based on unfounded gossips. the hd3200, despite its 3dmark06 score, still suck for real world gaming. i should know since i myself own an amd rm-70 and hd3200. some example of the card. warcraft3 : average 40fps. counter strike source : 30-40fps. gta:sa : below average below 25fps. even the 4 years old ati radeon 9600 can do 60fps easily in those games.

dont get me wrong, the hd3200 is an improvement over the x3100. but better crap is ultimately still crap.

 

I understand you... Realy. But I don't game. At all.

 

With the x3100 you'll be getting less than half those frame rates that you are getting with the ati 3200 .

 

Okay I think you just go with AMD.

Adobe will release Photoshop with graphics accleration(I do not know when) and for movies HD3200 has a technology to help you get clear videos.

 

The HD3200 smokes the x3100 not only in 3dmark06, but in games as well. Another thing to note is that the HD3200 is an IGP, not a dedicated card and only a fool, or an ignorant (i use the word in its least derogative form) would attempt to use it for higher end gaming.

If this will happen within the next 12 months or so i suggest the AMD, if not, the Intel.

 

hi do you happen to have the hd3200? if not then i ask you to stop providing unfounded praise for its that type of ignorance misinformation that persuaded me(and doubtless others) to purchase a laptop with a hd320. so i guess if you dont have one theres no need to act like you know more about the card than someone who does.

i never expected this card to be used for high end gaming( when do 4 years old games like warcraft3 and counter strike source qualifies as high end gaming?). but i did expect it to play older games, like those i pointed to above, at somewhat smooth framerates. sadly what i got was an inconsistent mess, with frames in the highs 80, and lows 20s, but never "smooth". i suppose i wouldnt have been as disappointed had the card maintain a meager 40-50fps constant. but when playing warcraft3 or counter strike source and getting framerate dips into the 20s during certain scenes, it gets frustrating and even unplayable in the case of counter strike where killshots is especially reliant on framerates.

when i first began reading reports from this very site and other places of how the "puma" platform is suppose to deliver performance similar to a hd2400 or gf8400, i was more than excited. i never intended to play crysis or cod4 on a laptop, but i did expect to play warcraft3 and csss. needless to say, upon first impression this hd3200 was not any better than my previous igp, the xpress 1100. why do places like these give verdict base on 3dmark06 scores? they quoted the hd3200 as being 3 times faster than previous igps, but in truth, real world performance was 20-30 percent faster. after this lesson, ive learn to take sites like these with a grain of salt next time i read their review. funny how they mention heat on the tx2500 as only being slightly warm, battery life being in the 3-4hrs zone, and didnt mention the crappy mic, speaker, fingerprint reader, webcam.

funny thing, this hd3200 cant even play that 3d vista chess game at smooth framerates.

okay im done ranting, sorry ignorance accusation from speculators upset me.

 

Hmm...So...because i dont actually own something, i am completely ignorant of what it can and can not do? I guess its not possible that I could've used it myself to play games on right? Jeez, well in that case I guess half the user reviews that a written by people that get to test out laptops are completely off base; I mean, the company lets them borrow it to test it out to give a review right? But since owning it and using it are two different things, they have no idea what they are talking about.

I apologize for your terrible framerates and im sorry that you were misguided into buying something that didnt perform to your expectations. But could you indulge me for a minute and compare your current frames to an x3100 or even an x4500? Even though the HD3200 is better than its predecessors, its still an IGP; and an IGP will always be and IGP. What i said about the HD3200 is not based on 3dmark06 score; I absolutely detest this software because its readings can be so of base. The only way real way to bench a GPU is in game performance. Period.

One more thing, I wasnt acting like i knew more than anyone about the HD3200, what i said was based off of experience.