amd equivalents to intel

So, I come here for some help with amd processors because I have no idea how to rate an amd processor based on performance from its name/version like I can with intel processors. This is probably my lack of knowledge but I have come for help. What are amd's equivalens to the following:


mainstream c2d (at c2d production time):
high-performance c2d (at c2d production time):
i3:
i5:
i7:

Thanks in advance!

 

Just an FYI, Core 2 Duo are at least 3 generations ago, or about 2 years since they stopped making them. i3 is more the entry level, i5 mainstream, and i7 performance.

 

There are no equivalents to Sandy Bridge i5/i7. Arrandale processors smoke the best offerings from AMD, only in heavily threaded applications do the Phenom II quad cores even come close.

Now Llano will change the market, but I want to see real benchmarks first..

 

I know but I have to buy a laptop for someone that is really entry level so I dont mind core2duo for internet and email. And I am interested to know the amd equivalents to them because I see alot of names around.

 

I would wait a month or two when AMD Llano notebooks come out.

Educated Prediction: Llano is going to have essentially Core 2 Duo performance, ATI Radeon 5650 HD Integrated GPU Performance, with Sandy Bridge power efficiency.

 

AMD equivalent would be like the new 45 nm AMD Champlain cores (Turion, Athlon) dual cores. But mind you AMD heat/thermal management has always been woeful at best compared to Intel.

Email and internet are kinda broad terms, what budget did you have?

 

Okay to make it easier, what will this do: AMD Athlon II P320 Dual-Core

 

Email and internet don't need much CPU power except flash and videos for the record.

 

sorry my fault on explanation, for me internet = flash and video (youtube)

 

Yeah but even then... it's not exactly heavy stuff

Any modern dual core(even past ones) can easily handle most common user internet uses including flash and youtube. My P8600 which is 3 gens old can do it fine.

 

Yea guess so; any laptop that is on sale in retail at the moment will be fine. thanks for the replies, got the info!

 

An AMD E-350 with SSD is a rough equivalent of a MacBook Air. In Windows Experience Index, the CPU differences are 3.8 vs. 4.2 with Apple being the latter. I think WEI numbers might be logarithmic and the difference may be larger than appears.

In any event, the E-350 is like a Core 2 Duo. The LLano should be Core i3 to Core i5 Sandy. Weaker on the CPU side but more than double Intel's HD3000.

If you don't game, get a Sandy.

 

Pretty much everything in the above post is incorrect and WEI scores can't replace actual benchmarks.

E-350 is about 5-10% faster than an 1.66Ghz Atom, it's not even close to C2D CPU performance, not even LV C2D's in the Macbook Air, which also has a better GPU by the way:
E-350 vs. 1.6 Ghz C2D 1MB L2
E-350 vs. Atom

Llano is expected to be C2D level CPU performance, since it's just a 32nm slightly enhanced version of the Athlon II, which is slower than C2D.

If you're in the <20% minority demographic that needs a 3D card, you can always get a discrete GPU in your laptop for not much more. The other 80% are better served with Arrandale and Sandy Bridge.

 

Did you just seriously try to compare the E-350, a netbook APU, to a desktop version of Core 2 Duo? Are you the Fox News equivalent of computers, guy? I stopped participating in your whirlwind of lies in the Llano thread, so now you're following me around?

I get it, you heart Intel. Great. I like price to performance.

Regarding my Lenovo vs. MacBook Air, performance is roughly the same. The MBA has a better CPU and GPU, true. My Lenovo has a faster SSD. In real life, speeds would be close. That leaves GPU. The MBA is better, but still not good enough to really game. Both laptops do 1080p video. Ultimately, for my usage, these are the same notebooks.

Battery life? Don't let those MBA numbers fool you. Their 9 hour battery life or whatever it was rated was cut in half if you turn on Flash. What a joke. My Lenovo lasts a comfortable 6 hrs light browsing.

MBA looks better, slightly lighter. >$1,000.
Lenovo X120e is slightly heavier, uglier. <$500.

Now, welcome to my ignore button.

 

The only difference between desktop and notebook versions of C2D are clock frequency (hence my pick of 1.6 GHz), bus speed (the desktop CPU I picked has actually a slower bus than what's in the MB Air), and process, where the mobile version is 45nm instead of the 65nm in the desktop, hence running cooler. So, don't judge on things you have no clue about.

When you can't refute me with factual evidence as I refute you, you refer to personal attacks. Classy. The only "whirlwind of lies" going on is your pathetic attempts to equate the E-350 to any kind of C2D.

The reason for MBA's price is better materials, better screen, and of course, the Apple Tax. I doubt the X120e comes standard with an SSD, so why don't you add that.

Let's compare your X120e to $500 Asus UL20FT, ignoring gaming performance since both are crap. It's not going to look pretty for the X120e in performance.

 

Guys: keep the personal attacks out, and stick to logical debate. Posting inflammatory remarks isn't going to help either of you, nor the OP.

That is definitely not correct, as capable as the E-350 APU is. The X120e feels noticeably less snappy than my T500, with slightly slower web page rendering and other general performance. So, the 11.6" MBA with its Nvidia graphics undoubtedly has more power than the X120e, although factoring in price, a better question would be whether it's worth it.

 

Instead of trying to find out what Intel/ AMD CPUs are equivalent, the OP should ask what is the best laptop/ netbook he can get for his money, and that will run his favorite software smoothly.

If you're friend wants a netbook (screen size up 11") the choice is somehow limited since most netbooks in the market have dual core atoms. The benchmarks show that the AMD E-350 is superior when it is compared to Intel's Atom though (mainly because of its better graphics solution)

For small size laptops (screen 12" to 13", possibly even 14").
If you want long battery live and you're on a tight budget you should opt for something with with ULV CPU (pentium u5400 or u5400 or even a celeron u3400 or u3600).
If you want long battery live and money is not a concern any laptop with core i ULV will do.
If money and battery live are not a concern, then go for a normal core i cpu as they are faster than the ULV ones.

Now if all your friend needs is a basic laptop that covers his every day needs, but still has a bit of power when he needs it, you should look around for a laptop with a Pentium Dual Core T4*00 copu (T4200, T4300...). There are a handful of them on the market and they are relatively cheap. For instance a Dell Inspiron N5030 (UK) with a T4500, 3GB RAM, 15.6" screen, 320GB HDD would cost a bit less than £330 (inc. VAT and delivery).

If your friend doesn't mind a second hand laptop, there a very good bargains in ebay at the moment. (with ebay I'll opt for the latest generation of Core 2 Duos; T6*00 series CPUs, P8*00 CPUs, or T9*00 series CPUs). The T9*00 are as fast as the first generation Core i3 CPU

If you're not in rush you could always wait and see what AMD goodies will be on the market in the next a few months. So far the review are confusing. Some think that the next generation of AMD CPUs (mainly the FX series; probably available for desktops only) is superior to the current Core i7 offering. Some think that it will be as powerful while others seems to think that it is nowhere near the current Core i7 CPUs. Anyways most of the discussion at the moment on the web are about AMD desktop CPUs. It is likely that their new laptop CPUs wont reach the market until the last quarter of this year or event until next year.

 

Sorry, I should have been clear about C2D CULV. It rates the same CPU speed as my VAIO TZ U7700 1.33GHz. If there's a newer C2D CULV that puts out more CPU speed, then my bad. Still, compare CULV apples to apples, not a desktop to CULV.

AMD E-350: PC Mark 3656.
Intel SU7300: PC Mark 3102.

 

PCMark Vantage is not a pure CPU test, so its results are meaningless if you have different GPU's. You can see this in the first link you provided where the Ul80Vt scores almost 1000 points higher when using the Nvidia GPU instead of the IGP. Therefore you cannot use it to compare CPU's. Unless you play 3D games, it's a useless benchmark.

Pure CPU tests include stuff like browsermark, sunspider javascript benchmarks, photoshop, cinebench, winrar, superpi, etc. You will see that E-350 CPU is a lot slower than even a CULV C2D in all these tests.

 

Thanks everyone for the help and responses.

Great post naton; it clears up most things. This section covers it up for me imo.

I ordered a laptop with 4gb DDR3 ram and a Pentium P6200 2.13GHz which is looking good on the benchmarks compared to the ones you suggested.

PassMark - Intel Pentium P6200 @ 2.13GHz - Price performance comparison
PassMark - Pentium Dual-Core T4200 @ 2.00GHz - Price performance comparison

Its for internet and flash/youtube/whatever fits in a browser without slowing down computer.

I think the laptop will be fine for its intended use, nothing intensive.

 

I'm sure that you're friend will be pleased with it. The laptop I'm using these days has an intel T7300, which is much slower than the P6200. Despite it been slower it is still OK. When I need to encode video, I just let it run overnight when I go to sleep.

I think only people that will see a good return on their investment should spend a lot on a laptop, like professional working with CAD, designers and so on. You know, people that use computers as tools to generate money...