Is this possible? Right now I have two laptops, I'm trying to decide which one to return.
Gateway EC1803u: 11.6" 1366x768, C2S SU3500 1.4ghz, 2gb DDR2, 4500MHD, Win 7 32-bit
HP dm3z: 13.3" 1366x768, Neo x2 L335 1.6ghz, 4gb DDR2, Radeon 3200, Win 7 32-bit
For testing I used a 1080p trailer of Avatar on youtube. I am playing using firefox with flash 10.1 (which includes hardware video acceleration). I found that the EC1803u plays nearly smooth video at 1080p full screen, while the dm3z plays it extremely choppy, esp during action.
This defies common sense. The ec1803u is a solo core processor, clocked slower, with an onboard video chipset, with less ram. Both are running clean installs of windows 7.
Windows PITS (Performance index) rates the HP at .5-1 points higher than the Gateway on every criteria.
So why is the HP worse at playing HD youtube?
(I know I installed 32-bit win7 on the hp, but that should only affect ram, which it has more of than the gateway. Not to mention I think 32-bit OSes should run faster)
-
I wouldn't say it defies common sense.
I would imagine the Intel system has better optimization routines, being an Intel and yes, with 32bit it should run faster but probably not so much considering you weren't multitasking, and 2gigs was plenty (also you are looking at 3vs2, not 4vs2).
You need a balanced system, and the Intel is well balanced, allowing each part to work to potential. The AMD CPU may be getting bled dry by the video card. Something people miss these days is that a powerful video card needs a powerful CPU to push it. I know people say GPU makes the real difference these days, and it does, but you still need the CPU. Years ago people would put the latest and greatest video card on a system expecting impressive results only to see the CPU grind to a halt just trying to feed the GPU. Desktops have gotten beyond that for the most part. North bridges have improved a lot taking some of the load cpu or maybe the CPU has gotten powerful enough for it to not be noticeable, but in lower powered CPU's you can probably still see the effect of it I would imagine.
Couple other possible reasons,
You may be only using one of the cores instead of both.
How large is the cache on the AMD?
Is ANYTHING else running in the background? Indexing?
Does the Intel have hardware acceleration for that codec?
Could you have a bad driver? Where did you get the drivers? Windows auto update? Those are to get you running, not necessarily be optimized or up to date.
Don't underestimate onboard chipsets, they handle most common tasks quite well, it's gaming where they get clobbered.
Last and most importantly, Mhz is a VERY poor way to judge a cpu's power. Which is probably the biggest mistake you made. An Atom 1.6 barely competes with an old Celeron 800. How does the Neo compare?
Update: a quick search shows the processors are pretty evenly matched. So it's either optimizations, a problem (drivers?), or the video card dragging it down. -
-
Well, yes, if I had no background on the processors you could argue that Intel is normally better than AMD. However, I also did google the performances and they're about equal, at least, and so does Windows PITS.
I got the HD3200 drivers straight from ati.com, so it should be fine.
They're both fairly new installs, so I don't know what I could've installed that's sucking cycles in the background (especially to that effect). I can't imagine search indexing bringing it down that badly. -
ctr shift esc and check if anything using cpu
-
-
H.A.L. 9000 Occam's Chainsaw
On the one with the AMD... After installing the AMD Catalyst drivers, when playing an HD video, right click on the video and make sure "Hardware Acceleration" is checked. Sometimes it isn't. Also, you are running the 10.1 GM?
-
its a driver problem for sure... the Dm3z should be a much better laptop...
-
I wouldn't say the SU3500 is faster than the L335 (cause it's not).
I'd say SU3500 & Intel 4500 handles Youtube acceleration better than the L335 & Ati 3200.
Youtube (Flash) is probably the only thing the Intel combo does faster. I can't tell you why though. -
H.A.L. 9000 Occam's Chainsaw
-
Optimizations can make a big difference in how things run.
Intel has always been ahead of AMD in this department. -
Well, even if it doesn't have more power, this gives the Intel ULV combo an edge over the AMD combo in ters of ultraportables- this is the generation of netbooks and thus everything I do will be mostly on the internet, including video and music. If it can't handle flash properly then its lost its primary competition for me (watch HD flash video).
I can't even watch hulu fullscreen... I can borderline do that on the gateway. Maybe I'll just find an intel dual core ulv then. -
I get over 8 real hours with my HP DM3 SU4100. L335 gets about half. -
-
H.A.L. 9000 Occam's Chainsaw
-
that's why i suggested middle ground of asus UL30JVT... it has G310M which is more than enough... and also has i5, i7 ULV CPU's with quite good battery life.. not sure about proce though..
-
I am interested in picking up the Gateway and would love to hear your feedback on video playback performance. Are you able to playback 720p and 1080p mkv files without issues? How about other formats like DVD rips or mp4 files? I am essentially looking for a small travel machine that can do basic things like web/email, occasional remote desktop with the work machines and playback of hd video. I am hoping that this machine will meet those needs. Any feedback would be appreciated. Thanks.
C2Solo Su3500 faster than AMD Neo X2 L335
Discussion in 'Hardware Components and Aftermarket Upgrades' started by xScorp1on, Jun 13, 2010.