Will I notice differences in processors? AMD v. Intel

I'm about to make a new laptop purchase. I had a Dell Inspiron 1525 for two years with a Intel Core 2 Duo 1.83(I think?) Ghz processor. This was fine for all of my computing needs-- Internet, iTunes, Netflix, and occasional Adobe CS4 work.

I was originally only looking at laptops with Intel processors-- Intel Core 2 Duo or i3 or i5 processors just because of brand recognition.

I don't know anything about AMD processors and was wondering what ones were comparable to the Intel ones.

I'm specifically looking at the HP dm4t vs. HP dm3z:
The dm4t has an i5 processor while the dm3z comes standard with the "AMD Athlon(TM) II Neo Processor K125 (1.7GHz, 1M L2 cache) +ATI Mobility Radeon(TM) HD 4225 Graphics " but is configurable up to "AMD Turion(TM) II Neo Dual-Core K625 (1.5GHz, 2M L2 cache) + 512MB ATI Mobility Radeon(TM) HD 5430"

With my computing needs-- Internet, iTunes, etc (no gaming or anything) will I notice a major difference between the processors?

Also, if you have any input on the ULV Intel Core 2 Duo processors (I believe they are 1.3 Ghz) that would be useful as well.

I've also heard that AMD gets hotter than Intel. I'm currently using an old Macbook Pro with an Intel Core Duo that's almost unbearable to rest on my lap if I'm wearing shorts (I never had this problem with my Dell). Will an AMD be comparable to this?

 

Take a look at this list to get a feel on how well CPUs compare with one another: PassMark - CPU Benchmarks - List of Benchmarked CPUs The higher the number, the better.

In the case of the two laptops, the i5 will severely outperform the AMD. No contest at all. I'd say go for the DM4.

 

For your uses, there won't be a difference in performance - remember if you're not stressing your CPU, your CPU will downclock and downvolt, so performance numbers don't mean a thing. Heat depends on the cooling capability of the laptop, some are better than others (not sure about those HP models), but the difference in heat shouldn't be much more assuming same cooling system and I doubt it would be as hot as your MBP. If battery life is a priority, then consider the ULV processors.

 

When doing normal stuff I doubt you will notice a difference but it anything processor intensive the i5 destroys the processors you listed, which are actually AMDs competitor to the ULV Intel line so it isn't really comparing apples to apples.

 

What tasks are processor intensive? Would the lower end processors be able to handle iTunes, Firefox, MS Word, and Photoshop at the same at a reasonable speed?

 

I think it is easiest to compare to what you already have. Relative to a 1.83 GHz C2D, the K125 will be slower by about a factor of 2 (literally!). The K625 will also be slower, but not by that much (only 20% or so). You did not specify which Core i5, but any of them will be faster than your old machine. Thus, your choice is essentially between a downgrade and an upgrade.

Now, whether you will see the difference or not depends on what you're doing. The K125 is so pitifully slow that it might actually be noticeable even in stress-free use. The difference with the K625 is smaller and thus you're unlikely to see it except when installing Windows updates or something of the sort. If you're going to continue using CS4, definitely go for the Core i5 as the difference with most of its tools will be substantial.

 

Well as a general rule of thumb,intel cpu have far greater performance/heat .So it will run a lot cooler than amd doing the same task.I know it depends upon the chasis of the laptop,but still the architecture that intel implements in their proc is efficient .May be in future amd will release an efficient,but now for a laptop i wud go for a intel one though a bit pricey

 

You get what you pay for.... literally. The Intel may cost a little more, but it will out perform the AMD at ANY task you throw at it by multiple factors on some stuff even. Plain facts.

 

@xgx2007
aGrEeD

 

I always go for Intel. Better performance, heat and power consumption.

If you want to start CS4 and iTunes faster get a Seagate Momentus XT. It's way faster than any hard drive.

 

The OP's uses are internet and iTunes (except maybe CS4)... for these tasks all CPUs will downclock and downvolt, bringing any benefit from Intel CPUs pretty much to nil compared to AMD CPUs. As I mentioned before, is the OP's priority battery life (or budget)? My dad's netbook w/ Atom processor is fast enough for his browsing and listening to music, and he doesn't notice much difference compared to his i5 on his MBP. As stated, the slowest component by far is usually the HDD, getting a Seagate XT will make things noticeably snappier - far more than any CPU upgrade (for basic tasks).

 

I wouldn't want to run iTunes and a virus scan in the background while doing some CS4 on a single core AMD K125 or let alone Atom. It will painfully slow.

I'm a basic user but I wouldn't want to buy anything less than 1000 Passmark CPU points.

The OP already has a Intel Core 2 Duo 1.83GHz. I don't think he should buy anything lower in his new laptop.

Well performance benefits during low CPU intensive stuff will not be big, but the Intel counterparts always get better battery life.

 

On the other hand, someone who's cash-strapped and somewhat computer savvy might run lightweight music and virus scan, and opt to save the $100+. We're spoiled by the snappiness of modern computers. If a modicum of patience will save me a good chunk of change, I'm all for it.

--former Sempron advocate

 

I guess that makes sense if your time is not worth very much. The problem is that developers are "spoiled" by modern computers: a lot of innocuous sounding programs (e.g. Google Earth) use a substantial amount of CPU power. Most people don't notice it because even an old Core 2 Duo can handle it, but with bottom of the barrel processors, you will run into scenarios where you're waiting for the CPU.

In fact, even Windows itself does things that are CPU bound -- when it is updating or when you install some programs, it is compiling and how fast it does that depends on the CPU. And of course if you ever want to do content creation (e.g. CS4), you shouldn't even think about downgrading your processor.

 

My time is worth plenty, but a matter of seconds or minutes is not worth much, especially since I'm likely to waste just as much time saved by flipping between programs or stretching.

Yes, CS4 can be an incredibly demanding program, but it does not run full tilt the entire time the program is open. There was a stretch when I had to deal with CAD and PS to engineering purposes, and until I got to the point where I actual had to fully render/flatten an image, the processor impact was minimal. The amount of time spent engaging the processor varies by usage, but my assumption, based on typical usage, is that (s)he doesn't spend the entire time in CS4 rendering and applying filters/effects.

The processors cited are by no means bottom of the barrel. They certainly aren't on equal footing, but either one is at least adequate. Will the i3/i5 be better? Sure. But my point is the AMD might be sufficient (at least the 625) and worth factoring in if CS4 isn't a primary use, and I honestly didn't get the feeling the CS4 was a primary usage for the OP, let alone developing content. Factoring in price, where the AMD-based model starts about $500 and the Intel around $730, and price is definitely a consideration. Focusing on a single usage that isn't even necessarily the primary usage is an easy way to waste money.

 

If I'm buying a new laptop I'd want something faster than what I've got, not slower.

If he wants to save money he might be better of keeping his old rig.