No AMD Thinkpads?

I'm curious, why hasn't Lenovo ever introduce AMD based Thinkpads? I'm sure people wouldn't mind buying one if it was cheaper then a Core 2 Thinkpad. Since its obvious that Lenovo is trying to cut costs to push Thinkpads into become more mainstream it would make sense if they offered a cheaper processor.

Sure the recent R61 prices are pretty attractive but I would think cheaper AMD cpus could drive it down even more. Lenovo offers AMD based desktops but for some reason they don't offer AMD Thinkpads or even consumer 3000 series notebooks.

Maybe Intel has Lenovo under its thumb? It seems like it except for the AMD desktops.

 

Core 2 Duo is the clear winner right now. Less heat, less power, and more performance. The ~$100 difference is well worth it.

 

No, no its not.
http://forum.notebookreview.com/showthread.php?t=78769

 

Yeah right now it is, but back in the Core Duo and Turion days it wasn't. Back then, it was pretty much neck and neck. Where Core Duo had better power savings while Turion had better performance (I believe).

I think it would be a good idea to have AMD notebooks in case AMD pulls something off when they introduce their mobile version of the Phantom and after that maybe Fusion.

Yes Core 2 is winning right now in performance but there should at least have an AMD model.

 

I dont belive C2D is winning in terms of performance.
http://forum.notebookreview.com/showthread.php?t=123570
indicates AMD X2 @2Ghz is beats Core2Duo@2Ghz by around 10% !!!

 

I don't trust artificial benchmarks :/

Do you have any comparisons involving audio/video encoding or gaming?

 

AMD hasn't kissed enough ass.

 

Sorry, but AMDs current chips couldn't hope to compete with the Core 2 Duos.

Things very well may change in the next generation, though.

 

AMD mobile chips could compete just fine.
Unfortunately for us, the consumers, Lenovo seems to be playing by Intel rules.

 

Sounds like the only reason that really makes sense. Both HP and Dell have AMD based notebooks and AMD isn't the top performer. Dell even adopted AMD cpus after Core 2 cpus have been out, so it really doesn't make sense that Lenovo said "we don't want to offer any AMD processors because they aren't the fastest around" for the reason not to offer AMD Thinkpads.

I think Intel is probably still doing its monopolistic tactics with Lenovo. Maybe being based mostly in China is protecting them somehow while HP and Dell are American companies.

 

the truth is intel use illegal actions to "force" companies keep on using their stuff. for example, they know companies demand. they give discount when a company purchase "enough", which happened to be their demand number. and so does microsoft.

 

Nope. Not in power consumption and certainly not in clock-to-performance ratio.

 

And you base this on .... ?

 

Google: AMD Turion 64 X2 vs. Intel Core 2 Duo

Look, I understand if you place the burden on me when I'm trying to challenge a common understanding. But the fact that Intel Core 2 CPU's KILL the AMD Turion 64 X2 CPU's in power consumption and performance is a very common understanding (look at any AMD vs. Intel thread on NBR, any computer hardware website like ExtremeTech, AnandTech, Tom's Hardware, Hard OCP) and if you want to debate that, you go find proof.

 

Core Duo (Yonah) and Turion X2 (Trinidad/Taylor) were pretty much equal back in the day.

Then Core 2 Duo (Merom) rolled along and beat the Turion X2s senseless.

One year later, AMD finally decided to refresh their mobile processor line from 90 nm to 65 nm. And as the benchmarks show here, the newer Tyler X2s seem to hold their own against Merom, not that'd it matter since the typical consumer wouldn't notice the difference between a T5470 and a T7300.

Btw, I hate my AMD TL-50 for the record.

Will Lenovo ever stick an AMD in a Thinkpad? Probably not due to the target audience for a Thinkpad. In it's own Lenovo line? It's only a matter of time. They already do it in their desktops.

 

Don't think that one instance is reliable enough. I'll reserve judgment until I see more benchmarks from more reputable sources like Tom's, AnandTech, so on and so forth.

 

So I assume that businesses, corporate and otherwise, prefer Intel cpus over AMD for notebooks? I find it kinda hard to believe where businesses would use AMD Opteron servers yet they would rather have Intel in their notebooks.

Maybe some business just buy new notebooks in bulk and just decide what brand they want regardless of specifics like cpu. As long as it gets the job done and a decent upgrade in speed from their older machines.

But I really don't see how this stops them from having a business line dedicated to AMD like HP and Dell do. Maybe someone like Skibunny might have inside information.

Maybe johnny drove her away or something

 

http://forum.notebookreview.com/showthread.php?t=78769

 

I coudln't care less about AMDs chip clock-to-performance shortcomings in the notebooks.
All this talk about different mobile chips raw speed is mostly non-sense marketing and won't matter a bit for the vast majority of the notebook buyers, who run their machines mostly off the batteries at half the chip's rated clocks.
If you're so power hungry, buy the new desktop and then overclock some.
What matters the most in the notebooks is thermal efficiency.
Price is important too.
And AMD still can deliver on those.

 

OK, that's totally fine if you don't care for performance. What about battery life? AMD doesn't deliver. Look at HP Pavillion dv2000t vs. dv2000z battery life comparisons. Easily half an hour if not more.

Here we play this game again. Look, let's set aside the "real world performance" discussion for now. If I saw an AMD processor at the same price as an Intel Core 2 Duo, I would choose the Core 2 Duo for better performance, EVEN if you believe it is theoretical, plus the advantages of lower power consumption.

 

I wanna see credible battery tests since they're extremely hard to conduct considering difficulties in obtaining two otherwise identically specced Intel and AMD machines.

 

I don't think this matters. It's not like coincidentally, all the manufacters happened to put power-hungry hardware in AMD-powered laptops and power-conserving hardware in Intel-powered laptops. Furthermore, if the AMD-powered laptops offered on the market are bad at battery life, then that's already AMD's disadvantage. It's really stupid to say, oh I did my own custom test and AMD held its own in battery life tests even though not a single product on the market reflects my study.

 

If all you guys care about is what you call "real-world performance" (aka the minimum necessary to achieve decent laptop performance) then why don't you all just buy Celeron M's. Why stop at Turion 64 X2? Celerons offer great "real-world performance" and decent power savings for the "average user." Give me a break. There's a reason why you all chose to buy Intel Core 2 laptops and that reason is pretty intuitive.

 

Yup.
Marketing

 

I actually haven't seen any Intel commercials in a very, very long time. Where did they all go?

 

I for one would like the to see Lenovo come out with a AMD ThinkPad line, not because I prefer AMD(I was kind of an AMD fan when they were the underdog and offering better performance for less money back in the P4 days, but then when they got the lead with the Athlon64s they totally jacked the price up and lost their underdog status in estimation), but I would like to see two healthy CPU companies competing for my money. Competition is a good thing.

 

ANY time you see a dell or HP or whatever commercial, its an intel commercial.
At the end of these commercial there is the intel inside jingle.


And for that intel picks up around 50% of the entire marketing tab.

 

Yeah, but there used to be real Intel commericals, not just Intel piggybacking on other companies' commercials.

 

Yeah I think I remember the blue man group involved. Might have been something else.

In almost every benchmark I've seen, performance and efficiency edge go to Intel. Of course none have every other variable exactly equal, but I think it's pretty close to consensus that c2d's are more clock speed and power efficient.

 

On what level. For you? Fact of the matter is that about 90% of people who buy notebooks today would be fine with whatever was offered 2 years ago, let alone what is offered today. Maybe you think that the 10% edge intel has is the breaking point, but in reality it's not going to hurt anything to buy AMD instead.

I pretty much had to go with intel because AMD's new chipset isn't coming out till next summer, and I'll be damned if I'm going to wait. Lenovo's already made me wait 2 1/2 months for my computer though, so maybe I should just get the next amd

 

Battery life. Discussion's over.