WOW Looking at the benchmarks Athlon 4 is really getting a beating from both Pentium 4 and Pentium 3 which is actually lowered clocked processor. And the PowerNow Crap doesn't seem to help either it only provides 10 more minutes of extra time for battery. That's not good at all.
"640K ought to be enough for anybody." - Bill Gates.
Realize that they were all different laptops, chipsets, and manufacturers, so direct compairisons of all the features are not fair. The mobile 1600+ stayed competitive with the P4 in some CPU related tests though, so I wouldn't be too worried.
I don't need an anti-virus program, I just boil my computer once a week.
The main point the article was making, I think, is that the AMD based systems all have integrated video chips and that is a major problem especially in gaming performance. The Intel machines tested, otoh, have discrete video chips.
The AMD system, aside from the gamingbenches (which are very much affected by the video chip) actually fared quite well.
One other note I have on the first part of the article covering AMD's 40 marketshare.....AMD has stated 40% marketshare in ONE segment of the mobile market. That being the consumer desktop replacement category.
AMD has little presence in the thin and light, ultralight or in business class notebook category. AMD has said this on several occasions so why is the article interpreting things differently? In reality, because of this segmentation of the mobile market, AMD's TOTAL share of the notebook/mobile PC market is closer to 20%.
<font color=blue>When all else fails, throw your computer out the window!!!</font color=blue>