General discussion AMD vs Intel, LGA775, Nehalem, etc - Page 10

Engineers know lots of info in their respective areas, including mainly their current project, and have somewhat better guesses than most on others projects, but I havnt seen and known many that are all that politically adept, and most likely theyd spew info they werent supposed to lol

Fanbois are one and the same.

LOL This started my day off good lol

within 10% worse case, not too shabby, I like

I did. The reviewers picked a less-expensive Turion QL rather than the Turion Ultra ZM that has a considerably lower idle speed and more L2 cache. The AMD unit in total cost quite a bit less than the Intel unit. If they'd picked the Turion Ultra, the price of the Intel and AMD notebooks would have been closer, making for a more evenly-matched review. I doubt that would change the overall conclusion, but it would be a fairer review.

Except that Gateway NV series only features QL-64, and at the most RM-74. So Anand didn't have a choice either. Its not like he can change the CPU in the notebook for a better comparison.

On the other side, ZM-82 is more than twice the cost of the T6500. So it may not be a comparable test either, don't you think?

Or that AMD fan(boys) just have a distinctive hate and distrust against Anand because his tests usually conclude that Intel is better (which in most of the case, true).

There are more units than just the Gateway NV series that can be used to compare AMD and Intel mobile platforms. An example of two units that are otherwise similar but can be customized are HP's Compaq CQ60z (AMD-powered) and HP G60t (Intel.) Both are 15.6" 1366x768 units that can be configured with otherwise identical options and do have the option of lower-end and higher-end CPUs to compare.

Where are you getting your notebook CPU pricing data from? I see no mention of notebook CPU prices anywhere in AMD's website. Intel lists the prices of notebook CPUs, but the T6500 is not currently listed. They also do not have a price of the T6500 in their specification website either.

So the only way to compare the prices of the two CPUs is to simply compare the prices of the two similarly-equipped machines. I'll use the HP units above for my comparison.

OS: Vista Home Basic
CPU: Turion Ultra ZM-85/Core 2 Duo T6500
RAM: 2x2GB
HDD: 160 GB 5400 rpm
Display: 15.6" 1366x768
Optical: 8x DVD-R/RW
Battery: 6-cell
WLAN: 802.11g

Total: $549.99 (after $100 rebate) for the Intel unit, $614.99 (after $100 rebate) for the AMD unit. However, one could substitute the Turion X2 RM-75 which is $75 less but still gets down to 575 MHz at idle rather than 1050 MHz of the TL-64. That would leave you with machines that cost within $10 of each other with equivalent specifications. That would be a good test comparison since the price is almost identical. I still think that the Intel unit would have a longer batter life as AMD's mobile chipsets seem to be more power-hungry than Intel's, but the difference should decrease somewhat.

No, people who look at things objectively see the test is sub-optimal due to the price difference. Note that I said that I doubted the outcome would change, only the magnitude of the difference between the two. My read of the test setup was that Anand was lazy and just picked up the two Gateway units off the shelf to test rather than go through the effort of finding machines that were equivalently-priced like in my HP RM-75/T6500 example. If he wanted to be a real fanboy, he'd use the fact that the AMD chipset consumes more power to his advantage and pit a machine with the cheapest 45 nm Intel unit with EIST left enabled and pit it against the most expensive Turion Ultra. Then he'd be able to claim the Intel unit had a longer battery life despite being significantly less expensive. The Turion Ultras are still K8s, so the Intel CPU would still be competitive in CPU-bound tests and he could rub that in AMD's face as well. He did not do that kind of a setup, which is why I'm saying he was just being lazy rather than biased.