AMD's Slides Showing That It's Faster Than Intel
Those are some mighty fine numbers you've got there, AMD.
Last week when AMD officially launched its new ultrathin mobile platform codename Congo and the mainstream notebook platform codename Tigris, the chipmaker also provided in its marketing material benchmark charts showing what it believes are key performance advantages over Intel's offerings.
While we won't be able to confirm any of these performance characteristics until we get our hands on test platforms, but if these numbers are true – particularly for the ultrathin category – then we're excited to see competition in the mobile segment.
41
Comments
XFX's ATI Eyefinity Video is Unusual
- Intel Exec Pat Gelsinger Leaves for EMC
- Windows 7 Commercial Shows Strange Slideshow
- BioWare Wants More Sex in Games
- AMD Next-Gen GPU Runs Crysis on iPhone
- Ballmer Makes Fun of iPhone-touting Employee
- Microsoft Employees Tweet Bing 2.0 Excitement
- Microsoft Not Selling the Zune HD Outside USA
- Yahoo! CEO: I Would Have Sold to Microsoft
- Where's Waldo? There He Is!
iPod Touch Tear Down Shows Space for Camera
- Asus Eee Keyboard Launching in October
- Bethesda Sues Interplay Over Fallout Game
- 802.11n Finalized After 7 Years in the Making
- Windows 7 Upgrade Could Take Over 20 Hours
- Ferrari Speeds Into Netbook Race
- Apple Causes NAND Shortage in Taiwan
- Intel Shows Off 32-nm Westmere CPU Wafer
- Microsoft Introduces Visual Search for Bing
- Apple Rumorama: Tablet in Feb '10, $800-$1000
Hmmmm... I can't help but think that these improvements could (largely at least) be explained by GPU acceleration. If the AMD chipsets are using ATI based integrated video chips and its being compared to Intel's chipsets using GMA type video chips then that would certainly explain the "Games" benchmarks and might also explain the encoding "Entertainment" benchmarks if they're using encoders that use GPU acceleration.
Forgot to add that if this is the case then a more interesting (and in some ways fair) comparison would be against an nVidia based Intel chipset that utilise things such as 9400m integrated graphics chips.
Which is why nobody should buy something with intel integrated "graphics" and expect it to... do stuff.
of course, and if it were intel slides then guess who would be on top...
we need independent reviews.
Hm, two things: one, AMD used a 1.6 Ghz processor versus a 1.2 Ghz Intel (not exactly a fair comparison).
Two, this says nothing about price, which is just as an important consideration as performance (not saying AMD can give those numbers, just saying that these numbers are not important without a price)
Most likely the GPU is helping.
1.6Ghz AMD gaming laptop vs an 1.2Ghz Intel middle-range laptop.
Just the CPU frequency mean around 10-14% more for AMD.
And the video card mean probably the difference in gaming.
And they don't talk about power comsumption.
This comparasion mean nothing!!!
More topic: AMD Q2 Loss Worse Than Expected; Stock Slumps in After-Hours Trading [CPU & Components]
Looking at the specs they use there are also a few of discrepancies.
AMD: 1.6GHz vs Intel's 1.2GHz
AMD: 2.5" 5400 rpm hard drive vs Intel's 1.8" rpm drive
AMD: 2x1GB 800MHz RAM vs Intel's 1x2GB 667MHz RAM (Dual channel? Note the Intel CPU supports 800MHz RAM too)
There's also the fact that the AMD machine is a .1" screen based laptop vs Intel's 12.1".
In the mainstream system comparison they don't even mention the CPU clockspeeds tested specifically although looking up the product parts, the Core 2 Duo P9600 is a 2.66GHz part (capable of 1066MHz DDR3 memory instead of the 800MHz DDR2 memory used) and the AMD part is 2.6GHz too so that's close enough, however the benchmarks could still easily be explained by the differing integrated GPUs used.
This is too crappy. AGAIN they are calculating and comparing with Intel based GPU notebooks. They always do it. Nothing new there. They need to realise that Intel would be like then only if they merged with Nvidia or something. Since AMD isw so strong on the GPU department. And what sucks for them is that they are both so behind in GPUs and CPUs that if Intel merged with Nvidia or anything similar AMD would be screwed up more than they already are, yet on the other hand so would we.
Anyhow, they should stop showing those charts till they include more fair cimbos from Intel's side too for the consumer that isnt aware of the reasons for such difference.
As for whether or not the GPU is helping, most likely. However, laptops are judged on system performance, not CPU performance, so these results are just as valid.
And as for using Intel with a NVIDIA chipset, sure you could do that, but Intel does NOT market their product in that way. Especially not with upcoming pinetrail and larrabee products.
Unless something is slipping my mind, the reality is that Intel is dominant in all market categories. AMD can spin the numbers any way they like, but that is the reality of it. In an apples to apples comparison, Intel holds the cards. Their marketing folks are in a bad position... and well, this is the best they could do. Intel would have done the same thing had the shoe been on the other foot.
What about battery life?
It's not impossible to stick a 2 or 4 core in a netbook, but the battery will suffer tremendously.
It seems AMD is aiming for a 11-13" laptop sector, with a crippled down processor.
If they would focus on the netbook sector, they should at least record battery life!
"43% better" coming from AMD about AMD products. Uhhh, ya sure, that's legit.
And yet another slanted comparison by AMD!
When will they actually give an unbiased comparison? I guess when they want to admit that Intel is better
Green is mo betta than blu. Thanks AMD, now I get it.
The AMD CPU in mainstream laptop is Turion II, 45nm K10.5 cores similar to Athlon II 2xx desktop CPUs. It is not that lagged behind Core 2 Duo, and should be on par with more affordable T6xxx, T7xxx series.
AMD Tigris solution is more attractive than Intel Centrino 2 solution in most cases. However, AMD's CPU line is no comparison to up coming Intel mobile Core i7 line. What AMD could do is to push DX11 integrated graphics as fast as possible, to push for OpenCL calculation.
chaosianchen: The Core i7 laptops look to be battery hogs that don't clock nearly as high as the Core2s, so badly that the performance may not even be as good. The way it's going, they may have to wait until 32nm to release a laptop version, so I would say that Core i7 is only better when it essentially has an unlimited thermal envelope, like in a 130w 8-phase+ desktop.
Well, I am happy that AMD is ready for war. The Phenom II really helped them out to get back into the game.
What is a netbool?
er, notebool :-p
Toms,
By reporting this kind of Misinformation you are dong wrong to your readers. Power points and Marketing messages from any company is not really news worthy.
Hm, two things: one, AMD used a 1.6 Ghz processor versus a 1.2 Ghz Intel (not exactly a fair comparison). Two, this says nothing about price, which is just as an important consideration as performance (not saying AMD can give those numbers, just saying that these numbers are not important without a price)
Comparisons between processors cannot be made clock per clock. You have to look at performance for the price point. If AMD competitively prices their 1.6 Ghz Turion Neo X2 against the 1.2 Ghz CULV Core 2 Duo, it's more than a fair comparison.
More marketing hype stretched to the limit.
Seeing is believing!
I don't think its misinformation. AMD's strength is price and platform. If they are comparing an AMD $500 model verse an Intel $500 it plays to AMDs strength since their IGP and processor are much more effecient and stronger performers. Also AMD has access to a greater video card selection then Intel has even attempted. It would exactly be fair to compare a $2000 Intel Laptop to an AMD $1200 laptop.
Why is everyone whining about the intel 1.2 vs the amd 1.6? The CULV platform intel supports IS a core duo 1.2. That's what they offer. Amd's offering is the 1.6. Unfair would have been Congo vs Atom.
Also, yes, hopefully the superior GPU is used and provides a boost. In case you haven't been paying attention intel does not support ion and has been fighting against ion since it's debut. Intel wants to force you into its terrible GPUs. Hopefully this will teach them something.
In other news . . . Apple adds say that Macs are better than PCs.
The comparison here its in price range. does not matter how AMD wins here, even if is with the help of God, it has it for the same price as intel or less. thats what matters.
Well, the 10 shader Intel integrated graphics vs the practically a dedicated 40 shader 3450 based AMD graphics. Yeah I'm not registering a whole lot of surprise here.
They forgot power usage. Its not hard to have a CPU more powerful than the U9300. Doing it with less power would be the key.
What does this mean? Its all about performance per watt. I heard that Mac is upping the clock & voltage for their intel based ultra thin notebook.