Although synthetic metrics aren't representative of real-world performance, they do help us drill down into specific subsystems. Let's start by looking at graphics.
The HD Graphics engine in Intel's Pentium B960 does not support DirectX 11, so we have 3DMark Vantage (the green bar) as a secondary measurement. 3DMark 11 does yield viable results on the other two platforms.
Obviously, the Pentium B960 gets outclassed in 3DMark Vantage. Intel's HD Graphics 4000 engine is quite a bit faster in Vantage, though it's only slightly faster in 3DMark 11. AMD's GCN architecture tends to fare best in more modern titles, so this really isn't a surprise to us.
PCMark 7 yields conflicting results. The Pentium gives us the best Overall and Productivity suite scores. AMD's A4-5000 leads in the storage test. And the Core i3-3217U performs best in the Creativity suite.
Cinebench doesn't do AMD any favors; regardless of whether you're looking at single- or multi-threaded performance, the Intel cores are quickest.
The A4-5000 fares well against the Pentium in Sandra's floating-point benchmark. However, it's beaten in raw measures of integer performance.
With support for AES acceleration, the A4-5000 achieves a great result in Sandra's encryption/decryption subtest, moving data as fast as its memory subsystem allows. This is one of those features that Intel strips off for the sake of differentiation. As such, Kabini is handed an easy win.
Intel's Sandy Bridge architecture only supports OpenCL on its CPU cores. Ivy Bridge added support for HD Graphics, though the test only ran in Compute Shader mode for us. Meanwhile, AMD's A4-5400 is able to tackle Sandra's OpenCL workload across its x86 and graphics resources.
LuxMark tells a different story, though. We expect Intel to serve up potent performance from its x86 cores. However, the HD Graphics engine serves up great results as well compared to Kabini's 128 ALUs. It's not exactly clear why AMD's architecture, which is known for its compute alacrity, suffers so badly in this test. The Pentium-based notebook does not work in LuxMark, though its general-purpose cores should support OpenCL.
To see the Intel chips utilizing dramatically more watts than the Kabini brings up issues discovered by other reviewers. Just look at the graph of the i3-3217u rated at "17 watt TDP" playing F1-2012 at what is 100% or nearly 35 watts! This means that AMD Kabini A6-5200 which is being released in June will outperform Intel's $225+ i3-3217u for price-performance per watt, you can be on it.
While running the range of applications, the AMD Kabini remained cool while the Intel chips heat up dramatically. This heat has to be dissipated from the laptop and it takes a toll on both the machine and user.
HP just announced 10 point touchscreen laptops that utilize AMD Jaguar Kabinis for a breakthrough price of $399 and that is just a start of a flood of good old competition (hello AMD Kaveri APU Xmas).
Kabini will have to compete with Intel's upcoming ULV Haswell, which will go as low as ~10W TDP and will be an SOC. This is why I said in my previous comment that I feel AMD has a rare advantage right now and a narrow window of opportunity to make an impact. Jaguar will overlap Silvermont on the low end of its TDP range, and Haswell on its upper end. Both will likely outperform it in their given segments.
AMD told us the Kabini laptop they gave us would be priced $500 on the market, and that cheaper versions would be as low as $350.
We used the cheapest comparison laptops we could find. The only thing it illustrates is that we were trying to give Kabini the best chance of strutting its stuff.
AMD Kabini sleekbook. I am just drooling at the idea of that.
No, Kabini competes in the Intel Atom price range like its predecessor, AMD Brazos.
Sure they compete in a similar TDP range, but you wouldn't expect people to compare the chips that go into $999 ultrabooks with chips that will (ultimately) go into the same form factor as them, but are priced at <$400.
ULV processors from Intel are priced at a premium - because Intel is unchallenged in that space. AMD would be insane to try and price Kabini anywhere near IVB or Haswell ULV parts, because AMD will never win by overpricing their products.
"There's no such thing as a bad product, just a bad price point"
Edit: Not entirely sure why my comment got cut off, but here it is. Please note this comparison was made about the ultraportable area of the market, where the main concerns are weight, screen size and battery life. If we start comparing a CPU designed for primarily 11.6" or 10.1" screens with say 35W CPUs in a 15" form factor, you've lost the whole point of the comparison you're doing ultraportable vs. desktop replacements. Sure, if a manufacturer wants to put Kabini in a 15" form factor then it's fair game, but for the majority of Kabini chips, we'll see them in ultraportables, not desktop replacements.
This was a poor review because of the choice made there. I think a lot people were curious about how improved it was over the Bobcat. No data. How about the Atom? No data. Let's just compare it with chips the Piledriver competes with, instead of those it does. It makes no sense.
In case you guys haven't figured it out, Piledriver is the competitor for SB/IB, not Kabini. Two different markets. That you justify this so poorly by saying one particular notebook would cost x amount of dollars, is borderline insane. From one notebook, which are based on things other than the cost of the processor as well, you would assume all will cost the same? Strange.
The comparisons with SB/IB aren't worthless, but they should have been in addition to the processors in their market, and also with AMD's Trinity line. Maybe four or five processors, instead of just two that are addressing a higher performance market, and architecturally quite close.
You lost this one to other sites. Normally, especially when Chris writes them, Tom's ends up having the best information. Not this time. Not even close.