Intel beat out AMD?

what do people here think about this article? i never did much exploration into AMD CPUs, so i have no idea if what the author of this article is saying is true or not

Lack of competition is changing Intel's priorities | News | TechRadar

 

Ever since intel learned from their mistakes with the netburst architecture (p4) they have been moping the floor with AMD on the market. But on the other hand their lack of motivation to improve and a continuous rate may put them behind AMD and once again promote good competition. But then again AMD isnt makign terrible products and you do get ALOT for your money these days which has me wondering for my next SFF box if I ever feel so inclined.

 

Lots of truth to that article. Intel got the foot on the brake

 

IMHO, Intel could probably toss out mobile chips that would shut AMD down in short order, right this moment, but they can't because of anti-competitive reasons.

Even now, AMD's mobile offerings only perform as high as some higher end i5's. None of them really touch the i7, especially in single/dual threaded tasks. The only thing that's saving AMD right now is their Fusion iGPU. If it weren't for that they'd be done.

Well, that and AMD has Intel's Atom completely outclassed, which really wasn't hard to do at all.

 

In general, I don't mind. Intel's real competition now isn't from AMD, it's from the tablet ARM sector: and they know it. Hence, the move towards pushing much longer battery life from laptops--a few years ago, getting 9+ hours from a laptop on battery was nearly unheard of, but now it's a common reality.

With IB, we're not going to see massive performance increases (expect perhaps in the integrated GPU), but there should be some nice gains in power consumption.

 

AMD's mobile offerings don't even touch Sandy Bridge i5's, not to mention the very soon incoming Ivy Bridge stuff. Maybe if you compared it to Arrandale i5, you got yourself an argument there.

Intel can't crush AMD otherwise there is no competition, no other x86 manufacturer.

It's true AMD has Atom outclassed for performance, but for TDP, heat, power consumption, and price? Name me any AMD CPU that matches 4-5 watt TDP that can compare? AMD C30? There are some Pentium 3 mobile chips that are faster than the C30.

Bulldozer was a massive failure, showing that more cores doesn't equate to more performance, and they should have realized that with the introduction of Turbo Boost 2.0. Now Intel rolling out 3D Transistors, AMD can't compete.

 

AMD really needs to get something groundbreaking up ASAP. The only consolation is that they have the low end budget market pretty secured.

 

AMD is far behind Intel in overall computing performance, but thanks to the Fusion IGP and their lower price, they do a much better job of providing a processor that covers the average user's needs. If only "Intel Inside" wasn't such a powerful marketing brand, AMD would dominate sales in the lower price ranges. As it is, though, a lot of lower price-range consumers go for Celerons and Pentium B's and low-end i3's because of the sticker on the palm rest.

 

Intel's overall strategy of late has been integration -- bring as much of the PC functionality into the CPU's die. AMD has been doing this as well. Decent (enough for non-gaming) GPUs have been integrated, PCIe controllers integrated, and over time we'll see more integration with USB3.0 (or Thunderbolt) and SATA controllers (i.e. bring the south bridge into the CPU like they did the north bridge). All the while they'll be exploring power saving options (which in and of themselves are a form of higher performance / bleeding edge computing). Seems like it is just about what the consumer needs at this point -- smaller PCs with fewer components that meet the needs of today's software.

AMD had a big success with their Fusion APU but at the end of the day it isn't powerful enough (used and abused the E-350 before giving up trying to get 1080p streaming working and returning it).

For the last few years Intel has had the better product and that shows when you compare Intel and AMD current offerings. It is as simple as that.

 

No, they really don't... and that's the sad part since for the price, AMD has better solutions for the lower end market. I'd much rather have the A6/A8 than a Pentium Pxxx or an i3. You get comparable processing power, but MUCH MUCH better GPU performance.

 

Desktops are dying out, in laptops there is no way Intel will be able to beat AMD for awhile in anything other than CPU performance. Intel without discrete graphics can only run CPU tasks well. AMD laptops are don't need discrete graphics, the processors are already integrated with strong GPU (Llano and Trinity).
I'll take the GPU laptop any day and I can run everything whatever I want. CPU intensive tasks, just wait a few secs longer for the tasks to complete.

 

AMD notebooks need discrete GPU just like every other CPU that exist. I would not call it strong either, I would call it high low end GPU, perhaps low mid end GPU

 

Which is strong compared to past iGPU's. HD 3000 is far from able to play any current gen games with any kind of respectable detail or frame rate, and the GMA 4500 prior to that was atrocious. The Ivy Bridge HD 4000 while respectable, barely matches AMD's current gen Llano performance, which the Trinity *should* improve by 30-50% over Llano. But as HAL 9000 stated, if given a choice between Intel Pxxx or i3, heck even i5, even if price is comparable, if you care about GPU performance, choose the AMD. At least as it stands today. Let's hope Trinity doesn't disappoint.

 

Right but how many average joe schmoes out there play video games? Most people surf the web, do Facebook, Word. Llano offers them nothing IMO over a comparable Sandy Bridge/Ivy Bridge laptop, besides more heat, worse battery life, and more expensive. Oh btw, I've run Day of Defeat Source on SU7300 + X4500 with like 40-50 fps on low/med @ 1368x768. My HD 3000 can play TF2 medium @ 1280x768 with 60-70 average frames.

If I care about GPU performance, I'll buy a real gaming laptop, like my R2 which is a no compromise gaming laptop. Llano will choke compared to actual discreet video. I'm sure my R2 spanks any Llano laptop out there still. No I'm not an Intel/AMD/Nvidia fanboy. I just hate half baked laptops, and sure if you are a budget gamer, then Llano is great for you. But even a used ASUS G series or MSI Gaming series laptop with actually discreet video will pound the crap out of Llano.

 

There's no discussion that most anything with decent discrete card will murder Llano's IGP. But lets say you are getting a new laptop for your kid, who's 12. They may not be interested in gaming then, but maybe once having their own laptop, they get into that kind of stuff. With an Intel IGP, your screwed. With AMD, your not.

 

Ohh..., ok those Facebook staff really need faster CPU, pages will load microseconds faster or what difference will do Ivy over Trinity?

Have you ever had Llano? The first thing what I experienced it does not heat, with undervolting does not heat at all. The fan never turns on and I have absolutely noiseless laptop with SSD. One of my laptop before "Dell Latitude 6320" was noisy like hell!

 

Yea, Dell likes to let you know there's a fan in there with all their newer Intel notebooks. I swear they could have found a quieter fan supplier. My friends's Toshiba Core 2 notebook has it's fan on as long as the laptop is on, but even with it on and spitting out hot air it's STILL dead silent. Same for my Vaio... dead silent unless you're gaming on it.

 

Each notebook is different. HP and Toshiba models are known to have major heat issues. Yes I have used Llano. Don't get me wrong, if you are a gamer on a budget, Llano is perfect for you. But Llano laptops are 450+, and some of the nicer ones approach 800 bucks, for which you can get a used last generation ASUS G series or MSI gaming laptop which will shred Llano apart.

The E6320 is louder because it houses full voltage Core i series CPU's which do get somewhat toasty under full load.

 

Where do you get that Llano creates more heat, worse battery life, and more expensive? That's completely false information. As a matter of fact it's complete opposite. Just cruise through the HP DV6z and Asus K53TA forums. My laptop with 1080p, 6750m, 8 GB DDR3, WD SSD drains at about 11-12W/hr with normal use, wi-fi on, screen at ~ 50% bright. That's about 8 hours or more use on 9-cell battery.

And not everyone wants a gaming laptop to play a game on their laptop just on occasion. I don't want to spend $1200-$1500, sacrifice battery life, and add weight and heat for a gaming laptop for playing a game every once in a while. I refuse to buy used. Sure an older IGP might play the games you want to play but many people want to play more recent games which the Llano, and Trinity, will do quite admirably. You can play BF3, Skyrim, Metro 2033, Crysis 2 all with respectable framerates as it is with the AMD IGP in Llano. I like to play games, but only play games on my laptop any more on occasion, even less so now, but it's good for an occasional romp when the opportunity presents itself.

The "nicer" llano laptops typically house a blu-ray, 1080p screen, and a dedicated GPU. I understand what you're getting at, but the point isn't that it's a gaming powerhouse, and it isn't meant to be. But it can manage gaming on occasion for the person that doesn't want a full gaming laptop. It opens up options. I use my laptop for games these days probably only a few hours a month. Why would I spend the extra money, weight, sacrifice battery life, have increased noise and heat just for that. It doesn't make sense.

And as Atom_Anti points out, the Llano's are very flexible with adjusting voltage and overclocking, so heat, noise, and performance are easily configurable.

 

I'd say the average person would be more concerned with GPU performance than CPU, after all for everyday tasks there's no difference in system smoothness between a Llano and a Sandy Bridge. Heck IMO past AMD Athlon X2 at 2.2Ghz and C2D at 2.00ghz your average user will unable to detect more than a slight difference in system responsiveness (keep in mind these are both old architectures beaten out by Llano and Arrandale/Sandy Bridge which are more efficient per-clock, and in fact Ivy Bridge/Trinity will be even more efficient beyond that).

Also Llano's are OC'able for more heavy/budget-concious users, most people get to 2.6Ghz fine and a few make it 2.8-3.0Ghz. We're talking moderately high-end CPU performance for less than $600 here, with a GPU that is actually acceptable for gaming. And then you've got the freedom to undervolt and use power saver settings for a quiet system for tasks like Word 2012 (which btw runs perfectly at 400Mhz on an AMD Brazos lol), and get more battery life than Sandy Bridge while doing so.

So in the end, Llano benefits most people and as of now, due to price differences and how unlocked they are I'd take one over Ivy Bridge even, GPU performance is like the same, but without Intel driver bugs (I've had fun with those). Trinity, if they keep the <$650 idea going and leave it unlocked again (somewhat likely actually), will make Intel sink further into the rut they've dug themselves into by increasing CPU efficiency, battery life, heat, and GPU performance. Don't underestimated the tweaked Bulldozer architecture; they scale well on lower clocks and its really up to 3.5-4.0Ghz that they start increasing power usage exponentially.

Now Intel will always be better for those who just want top-of-the line performance, past $800. But most people are not in that niche, that's the problem. However I'd say alot of people would like to run CoD on some other setting than low with high textures.

 

I thought we beat the dead horse before on this topic.

A Core2Duo is plenty for average joe, but intel is just that good with marketing.
HD3000 vs %#$% 6650G? HD3000 sound better.
What your llano is 1.4Ghz? B950 with 2.1Ghz win hands down.

 

Exactly why I'm hoping for Trinity in a beautiful package by the summer. I don't want to get bigger or heavier or hotter than my Envy 14, but neither do I want to sacrifice the screen quality, looks, and build quality. Definitely crossing my fingers for something well-built and attractive with Trinity and a smaller AC adapter.

 

you get worse processor power but much better gpu but to be honest i rather have better cpu over gpu.

EDIT: if i am buying a lowend laptop its for work and general functions not gaming. I wont take a chance the the AMD APU will choke on processing.

 

Depends on what are you processing, a6/a8 are true quad, i3 is just a dual core.

As a matter of fact, what "processing" you going to do on a lowend laptop?

 

i run lots of background programs and some more cpu demanding programs. I rather have the higher single thread capacity of the intels over the lower AMD cpus (especially many older programs are not multithreaded)

sidenote...it was a long time ago but I remember reading a review saying that the i3s had better cpu performance then even the quadcore AMDs even with multithread applications. It might have been the first gen or previous model....not sure I honestly can't remember. Was a while ago. Maybe it was a preview of the cpus before they came out. It was I think notebookcheck that compared them.

take what i am saying with a grain of salt...mgiht be thinking of older models lol....so many different ones to remember.

 

Right, I was going to ask the same thing. What is it you're doing that an i3 or i5 will really make a difference over a Llano. I think Intel has won in marketing which is why it is so successful. They make users believe that they can't have anything but Intel, AMD is just too slow. Not close to the case. Users that haven't owned or used both extensively really have nothing to say.

Background programs rely on RAM not CPU power, and a Llano will perform comparably to an i3 even i5 with the AMD overclocked with single or dual threaded tasks, at least nothing that would be noticeably different.

 

My experience with their marketing is that
AMD keep pushing their consumer product to "gamer" scene(maybe some entertainment/productivity but not much) while intel pushing they are productivity based.

In fact , I never saw a AMD TV commercial, where the "da da dun dun" rung on my TV once in a while.

 

No, you don't. It's about equal CPU performance, if maybe skewed slightly in Intel's favor in single threaded performance since the Pentium P6xxx/i3 don't have TurboBoost. For true multithreaded performance on multiple cores, the AMD will win every time in that category. And if you're doing any kind of heavy work, those apps are usually highly multi-thread aware, meaning the AMD is the CPU you want in a budget notebook.

If you get a low end laptop you should know that you're not buying a notebook for "processing". You're buying it because it's cheap and it won't do any really heavy tasks with any sort of speed. And with that said, I'd much rather have something with a GPU that is capable of handling OpenGL/modern 3D apps with competency. The HD3000 is a huge step up on the 4500MHD, but it's still way behind the Llano GPU's.

 

I run more apps on my E-350 at the same time than any other the i3/i5 owners I know. A friend of mine actually was considering an i7 just to do a dozen FF tabs with music in the background lol, convinced him at least to fall to the i5 and save money. RAM is what matters for running apps at the same time as Windows usually idles down CPU priority for windows that aren't being used. These Llano's have no problem multitasking under these conditions.

My typical use involves me having 4 or 5 word documents open, music playing through foobar 2000, skyping, one or two different browsers open with a few tabs each, a game in idle, and a development IDE. This is on a 1.6Ghz dual core with the effective power of a 1.2Ghz Pentium B dual-core.
lrn2ram+ssd guys.

 

I'm running my Lenovo E425's dual-core A4-3300M ( stock 1.9GHz/2.5GHz Turbo) APU at [email protected] ([email protected] Turbo), temperatures never exceed 76~81 degrees Celsius while gaming for more than 1 hour straight, and voltages were actually reduced at those clocks. My WEI Processor score also increased to 6.3. I am running 2x4GB Corsair Vengeance 7-7-7-20 DRR3-1333 (WEI is 7.3). I used Fusion Tweaker to extract every last bit of performance from the A4-3300M. Stable, no BSOD.

Maybe more power than a B950? Maybe stock, maybe not overclocked. Most mobile APUs can easily be overclocked and undervolted, provided you have sufficient cooling, with software like FusionTweaker or K10STAT so performance exceeds that of entry-level Intel. Luckily for me, Lenovo did a good job to supply enough cooling to handle even an A8-3500M. I can play GTA IV and COD BO with the integrated 6480G while the B950/HD2000 probably won't

Trinity and Brazos 2.0 is what I'm waiting for! I like where AMD is going with their APUs.

 

AnandTech - The AMD Llano Notebook Review: Competing in the Mobile Market

 

Just for giggles I ran the same benches as Tom's Hardware in that link given by eurasianlynx on my HP DV6z with A8-3510MX running @ 2.4GHz because that is pretty typical and realistic of what most quad core Llano's can achieve without worries about heat. Used 6620G IGP only.

Here are my results:

DV6z A8-3510MX 2.4GHz

pcmark vantage
AMD Radeon HD 6650M video card benchmark result - AMD A8-3510MX,Hewlett-Packard 358D score: 8006 PCMarks
7437

pcmark05
AMD Radeon HD 6650M video card benchmark result - AMD A8-3510MX,Hewlett-Packard 358D score: 9241 PCMarks
9241

Cinebench R10
Single Thread 2597
multi thread 9392

Cinebench R11.5
Single Thread 0.67
Multi Thread 2.69
OpenGL (6620g) 23.74

x264 HD Benchmark
Pass 1 81.9
Pass 2 16.4

Edit: Added A8-3510MX @ 2.8GHz + 6750m @ 780MHz GPU / 880MHz GDDR5

DV6z A8-3510MX 2.8GHz 6750m 780/880

pcmark vantage
http://3dmark.com/pcmv/492632
8832

pcmark05
http://3dmark.com/pcm05/3147648
10493

cinebench R10
Single Thread 2792
Multi Thread 10676

Cinebench R11.5
Single Thread 0.65
Multi Thread 3.12

x264 HD Benchmark
Pass 1 91.5
Pass 2 19.0

I updated Tom's Hardware images just for reference. However they accidentally duplicated the Cinebench R10 single thread bench twice and have no results for multi threaded.

Edit: Updated images 4/3/2012 with A8 @ 2.8GHz + 6750m @ 780/880.

Spoiler

PCMark Vantage


PCMark05


Cinebench R10 Single Thread


Cinebench R11.5 Single Thread


Cinebench R11.5 Multi Thread


X264 HD First Pass


X264 HD Second Pass

 

Now rerun with an aggressive o/c that alot of us are running ^.^ 2.8ghz for me
=-)

 

I'll run 2.9GHz + 6750m @ 800/900MHz

 

I am not an average joe in any ways however my T9900 is still running pretty well. Can do any task just fine...


--

 

Pretty much the same conclusion by comparing wPrime. High clock llano is around top end i5. 2.2 is around low end.

The only thing that annoys me is that it is not "out of box" performance. But it is great for ppl with time and no money huh

@ramgen T9900 is not a a average joe Core2Duo though

 

@HTWingNut
Awesome job! Thanks for showing us the results on your A8-3510MX. How can I acquire those benchmark tools? I would like to bench my A4.

I'm surprised you can OC your A8 to 2.9GHz! I hope my A8-3500M OCs that high as well as OC my 6470M.

@ramgen
I had T9900 a while back and it definitely exceeds the average user's needs. Great CPU.

@baii
I'm comfortable with Llano having the CPU performance level of an i3-i5. For my needs, and probably the average user's needs too, it's plenty powerful. Extracting every last bit of performance from a Llano APU sure is fun and it doesn't cost a penny. Can't beat that.

I recently replaced my girlfriends dual-core Intel Pentium P6100 powered Gateway NV55C laptop for a quad-core AMD A6-3420M powered HP Pavilion G4 laptop, what an amazing budget laptop it is. I also bought myself the Lenovo ThinkPad Edge E425 with A4-3300M and were both pretty happy with the CPU/GPU performance. I would highly recommend an AMD APU-powered laptop to my friends or family if they were in the market for a computer.

 

I too have a T9900 and it's awesome. Too bad reviewers don't benchmark this chip along with current ones to give consumers a comparison with older vs newer technology.

 

That's a good point. I always feel that way too. They should bench to some popular older tech just to show users what performance improvement they should see.

 

Well TBH, most people should surf the web, and do Word fine with a Pentium M. Sure P-M will struggle on YouTube, but not everyone needs even a dual core. My D600 and Inspiron 6000 with a 1.7 GHz P-M do fine as a file server/print server. Core 2 Duo's are fine for most users. If you swap someone's i3 with a Core 2, they probably wouldn't notice the difference. Most people will feel a difference with an SSD long before CPU/RAM.

 

I think that AMD is the king of the Sub $600 Notebook. The "A" line of processors is just plain out killing it on the value end for anyone that wants to play a game occasionally.

 

I ran the benchmarks with A8-3510MX @ 2.8GHz and GPU @ 780 GPU / 880 vRAM. Will post later with updated graphics when I get a chance.

 

Updated with A8-3510MX @ 2.8GHz + 6750m @ 780/880.

http://forum.notebookreview.com/har.../652836-intel-beat-out-amd-4.html#post8401304

It's pretty clear that the Llano A8 can hold its own against the i5.

 

Single threaded performance, Sandy Bridge blows Llano away. Literally.

 

Sure, single threaded, but that's like saying Sandy Bridge blows away Llano in 3DMark05. It's fairly irrelevant to today's tasks. Pretty much everything is multithreaded, and even if the task isn't, the OS is.

Bottom line is if all you care about is raw CPU performance, get an Intel CPU, and a quad core. If you care about an overall package with good GPU performance and as powerful multi-threading, get AMD.

 

Yes Sir, that is the whole point of Llano.. and AMD's strategy going forward. Its not the fastest CPU, but with their combined GPUs, they make the best value package there is.

If you need a Dragster, buy a dragster.. but a lot of people will prefer a balanced sports car.

 

intel beat out AMD? ... its more like Intel has destroyed Amd, and Amd has been in the bargain computer aisle since.

The last time AMD had something worthy was their desktop FX-57 cpu's. I still have one somewhere in my basement. These were better than the Pentium 4 equivalent...especially in games.

But since then, Intel had a fire lit under them. First came Core 2, then i3/i5/i7, then sandy bridge, and now ivy bridge. Amd is getting killed and bulldozer has been a complete disappointment...and again relinquished to the bargain bin

 

Intel puts 5x the Market Cap of the entire AMD corporation into R&D.. The results are pretty obvious. AMD only had a boost way back then because the bought RISC maker NexGen and scavenged their technology.

However, their Purchase of ATI has had a similar result. Superior GPU functionality and it has allowed them to stay ahead of the game in some areas.

 

Blue, that's true...you can't compare the resources available to Intel vs Amd

I want so badly to support the underdog, but right now, I can't buy an Amd cpu cause it isn't close. I do like my 6990m though

 

AMD cpu's in the mobile sector are comparable to SB's i5 in multi-threaded performance, but also surpass Intel in the gpu department (when it comes to integrated solutions).

The desktop market is a bit different as the performance gap between SB's quads and AMD's high performing chips is smaller.

AMD would probably have an even bigger advantage if professional software devs decided to support OpenCL (Cuda alternative).
This is when I'd probably decide to get the AMD alternative as I use 3d Studio Max a lot... but as it is, one has to resort to Intel and Nvidia to get most of the performance.