Intel i3-2367M 1.4ghz ulv or Amd fusion e-450 1.65ghz

[nels04]

Hello,

I'm looking to purchase a Lenovo X121e and I have a choice of these two processors. The Amd is paired with an AMD Radeon HD 6320 and the intel with an Intel GMA HD Gfx 3000.
The question is "which is best?"

Any help would be gratefully received.

Mark

 

[blubricks]

I'm interested as well, but I was looking at the HP version. I believe I saw somewhere that the Lenovo has a matte type screen as opposed to the glossy of the HP dm1z / dm1-4010,4050 ?
I certainly wish i could find any of these in a store Best Buy, Staples, etc... I'll be on the road for a month and wouldn't know where to ship it to. Anything similar/better in the price range?

 

[esrever]

The AMD is better if you want to run some simple games but the intel is more powerful for general computing.

they should both be good for general use.

 

[blubricks]

Thanks for the quick response. How about HD video, streaming Hulu, and using as media streamer to PS3?

 

[esrever]

They'd both work well with that, you'd not really notice any differences.

I think you should look at other things to decide like price or battery ect.

 

[alanmoss]

esrever doesn't know what he is talking about. The intel processor blows away the E-450. The i3-2367M scores a 1726 on 3dmark to 1021 for the E-450. The i3-2367M 27 seconds for super pi and the intel i3-2367M is 47 seconds. Here is my source:
http://www.notebookcheck.net/Mobile-Processors-Benchmarklist.2436.0.html

I just cancelled my order for the HP DM1Z with the E-450 and ordered the HP DM1-4050US instead since it is a lot faster and only costs a little bit more.

 

[alanmoss]

Oops sorry. I meant to say the intel is 27 seconds on super pi and the E-450 is 47. I suppose I should proofread before I hit submit

 

[esrever]

@alanmoss
yes because looking at super pi is the way to go for checking a cpu. Intel cpus are always better at superpi even if they are way worse. The difference of 1726 on 3dmark for the cpu compared to 1021 is negligible in everyday computing, 3d mark looks at how well a cpu does at working with a GPU under the best conditions, It wouldn't matter since the i3 has a hd3000 and the 450 has a 6320, neither cpu will bottleneck either graphics solution.

Keep looking at super pi for your benchmarks and keep telling yourself you know anything about computing.

 

[joecarver]

Both will be very similar performance wise, but I'd go for the Intel as battery life will most likely be far longer. (I have a thinkpad x121e AMD version, and the battery life is baaaad.)

 

[joecarver]

Alternatively, buy the cheapest one and upgrade to an SSD if you can afford it.

That is where you will see the most dramatic performance increase.

 

[alanmoss]

@alanmoss
yes because looking at super pi is the way to go for checking a cpu. Intel cpus are always better at superpi even if they are way worse. The difference of 1726 on 3dmark for the cpu compared to 1021 is negligible in everyday computing, 3d mark looks at how well a cpu does at working with a GPU under the best conditions, It wouldn't matter since the i3 has a hd3000 and the 450 has a 6320, neither cpu will bottleneck either graphics solution.

Keep looking at super pi for your benchmarks and keep telling yourself you know anything about computing.

You are laughable. You hop on here and reply trying to help the guy out without citing any references or benchmarks. You are probably pulling the information out of your nether region. He would probably be better off going to a grocery bagger for computer advice than getting it from you.

The intel i3 blows away the e-450 in every one of those benchmarks. Wprime32 is used as a cpu bench mark by many reputable sites and the I3 beats it by 88%. Wprime doesn't use a old instruction set like super pi and therefor has no "CPU brand bias".
"What we do know is that WPrime scales well across multiple CPU cores, and can push a CPU to 100 per cent load on all its cores." http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/cpus/2011/01/03/intel-sandy-bridge-review/7

You state that "neither CPU will bottleneck either graphics solution". This is incorrect. According to the an anandtech review of the E-350 which is very similar in performance to the E-450 the CPU does bottleneck the GPU:
"This smells like a CPU limitation, in which case it would mean that AMD didn't skimp at all when it came to the E-350's GPU."
http://www.anandtech.com/show/4134/the-brazos-review-amds-e350-supplants-ion-for-miniitx/5

I suspect that the I3 will also be CPU limited with certain graphics intensive applications.

The I3 blows away the E-450 by 216% in cinebench R11.5. According to bitech, "As Cinema 4D is a real-world application - used on films such as Spider-Man and Star Wars - Cinebench R11.5 can be viewed as a real-world benchmark." Cinebench renders multiple CPU/GPU intensive scenes and times the ability of the computer to render those scenes. The score is a linear composite of multiple tests.

Go back to bagging groceries....

@Joecarver, I am interest at why you say that the intel will have far better battery life? The AMD E-450 is rated at 18Watts TDP and the Intel I3 is rated at 17watts. Not much of a difference there.

 

[alanmoss]

I just found some more evidence that you don't know what you are talking about. The HD3000 scored 79% higher than the 6310 (very similar performance to the 6320) in a series of 3d mark tests. Of course the HD3000 performance will probably be a little bit slower when paired with I3 since it will probably be slightly CPU limited (contrary to what you say).

 

[alanmoss]

http://www.notebookcheck.net/AMD-Radeon-HD-6310.40952.0.html

 

[ravenhq]

I just found some more evidence that you don't know what you are talking about. The HD3000 scored 79% higher than the 6310 (very similar performance to the 6320) in a series of 3d mark tests. Of course the HD3000 performance will probably be a little bit slower when paired with I3 since it will probably be slightly CPU limited (contrary to what you say).

It is "CPU limited" its also TDP limited. The link for the AMD performance is the real deal. That's how it performs.

http://www.notebookcheck.net/AMD-Radeon-HD-6320.54746.0.html

However, the Intel HD 3000:
http://www.notebookcheck.net/Intel-HD-Graphics-3000.37948.0.html
This page lists the general rating for all HD 3000 from Desktops to ultralow voltage. Although the ratings on notebookcheck.net show that the Intel has higher graphics performance, the actual low voltage version's gpu is underclocked at half the speed of the full power version since it uses half the power. Saying "HD3000 performance will probably be a little bit slower when paired with I3" is an understatement since the HD3000 itself is underclocked at half speed.

Here's a link to the gaming portion review of the Samsung Series 9 Ultrabook with the Intel HD 3000 Samsung Series 9 Gaming. Take a look at their graphs where the AMD E-350 (which doesn't even have turbo) runs circles around the HD 3000. Even the AMD C-50 which is a tablet CPU, beats it in some of the tests.

The Intel i3-2367M and the other Intel ULVs can not beat the AMD e-450 in real world usage. The ULV Intel's can't do anything more graphic intensive than watching movies, and you can check the benchmarks of the ULV Intel laptops/netbooks/ultrabooks and not the generalized rankings. They will all show that the Intel ULV have much MUCH weaker CPU+GPU performance than the AMD E series.

 

[alanmoss]

Well said Raven. I will disagree with you on a couple points though. Everyday use varies for each person. I personally did not buy a laptop with a 12 inch screen to do 3d gaming on, so the 3d performance isn't a big factor for me. The Intel i3-2367M processor handily beats the E-350 in everything but 3d games. The link you sent just confirms the "office" benchmarks that I referred to in my earlier posts. I can tell you that my laptop is pretty darn snappy for the things that I use it for which includes streaming movies to my TV via HDMI out.

I did happen to install COD4 on my HP DM1 with the Intel i3-2367M processor. I can confirm the benchmarks that the Samsung Series 9 review had. The game wasn't playable except for at 800x600 with low settings. I noticed that the intel web page for the Intel i3-2367M states that the base frequency for the HD3000 graphics is 350MHz and has a "graphics max dynamic frequency" of 1000MHz. I wonder if they are not enabling the dynamic capability in these lower power consumption notebooks to save on the battery life? Just a wild guess. If I have time I will look into it a little bit more.

http://ark.intel.com/products/59798/Intel-Core-i3-2367M-Processor-(3M-Cache-1_40-GHz)