Mobile Platform Wars: AMD vs. Intel
by Jarred Walton on October 5, 2007 9:10 AM EST
Closing Thoughts
At least in the mobile sector, we've got good news and bad news for AMD. We'll start with the bad news first.
While battery life and power requirements look to be reasonably competitive with Intel's offerings, in terms of raw performance AMD gets beat pretty easily. This occurs even when comparing AMD's latest $400 Turion X2 TL-66 to a system using Intel's $250 Core 2 Duo T7300. If you are concerned with mobile CPU performance, AMD is essentially unable to compete at all with Intel's current Core 2 Duo laptops. While you can typically find AMD-based solutions for less money than Intel-based notebooks, features often end up being cut in order to reach a lower price point, and similarly equipped notebooks usually end up favoring AMD by a mere $50. With potentially 25% more performance on tap, we would recommend most spend the extra money to get a Core 2 Duo notebook.
So what's the good news? First, AMD's 65nm process does show improvements over the 90nm process, even if the improvements are relatively minor. The TL-66 does manage to use a bit less power than the TL-60 when both are idle and running at the same 800 MHz clock speed. Given the maturity of the 90nm process and the relative newness of AMD's 65nm process, we expect that AMD can make further improvements that will both increase clock speeds as well as further reduce power requirements. However, it's unlikely that the current Turion X2 will ever be competitive with Core 2 Duo, at least when CPU performance is the criterion used to judge.
Perhaps the more important good news is that AMD's integrated graphics still come out as being superior to Intel's latest offering. The margin has narrowed considerably since the GMA 950 era, and even the past several months have helped Intel a lot in terms of improving performance on the GMA X3100. That being said, the Intel drivers since the launch of the G965/GM965 chipsets (and Q33/Q35/G33) have been more than just a little painful when it comes to running 3D applications. Users have been promised numerous updates, and while compatibility and performance has certainly improved, there's still a lot of work to be done. Let's not even talk about the delays with releasing G35... though perhaps the drivers will finally be ready when those motherboards hit the market. (We can hope, at any rate.)
There's another fringe benefit for AMD when it comes to notebook graphics, of course. As we've shown, both the Radeon X1250 and the GMA X3100 are painfully slow at running 3D graphics when compared to even a relatively inexpensive Radeon Mobility HD 2300. Anyone that needs more GPU performance in their notebook than the current IGPs offer will need to pick up a discrete graphics chip, and that means AMD has a chance at selling one of their mobile GPUs even if they don't provide the CPU or chipset. They'll have to compete with NVIDIA here, but ATI has always had a pretty strong presence in the mobile graphics market.
Looking to the future, we're still waiting to finally see how Phenom actually performs on the desktop, and after that launch we will probably have to wait a few more months before we see the new Griffin mobile architecture. Griffin is based off of K8, so it may not be all that different from current Turion X2 offerings, but we'll have to wait and see. Long-term, we would expect more of the Barcelona technology to make its way into a mobile CPU (assuming Barcelona ends up competing well against Intel), when that might occur is not yet known. Let's not get ahead of ourselves, though. Early indications are that Phenom will be more competitive with Intel's Core 2 Duo/Quad, but we're skeptical that they will actually be able to lead in any benchmarks. Unless Griffin sports some significant changes, we also don't expect it to close the gap in the mobile sector. As usual, time will tell.
While we would definitely prefer a Core 2 Duo notebook over a Turion X2 notebook at this point in time, one of the bigger factors is going to be price and features. The truth is that even though the HP 6515b is clearly slower than the HP dv6500t in our benchmarks, in typical use it would be very difficult for most people to tell the difference. A moderately fast dual-core processor with 2GB of RAM packs more than enough performance for most home and business users. Far more important than the raw performance numbers will be the design and features of the notebook. Laptop bargains come and go, so if you happen to find a good sale on any Core 2 Duo or Turion X2 notebook, outside of gaming performance such a notebook will be more than sufficient.
At least in the mobile sector, we've got good news and bad news for AMD. We'll start with the bad news first.
While battery life and power requirements look to be reasonably competitive with Intel's offerings, in terms of raw performance AMD gets beat pretty easily. This occurs even when comparing AMD's latest $400 Turion X2 TL-66 to a system using Intel's $250 Core 2 Duo T7300. If you are concerned with mobile CPU performance, AMD is essentially unable to compete at all with Intel's current Core 2 Duo laptops. While you can typically find AMD-based solutions for less money than Intel-based notebooks, features often end up being cut in order to reach a lower price point, and similarly equipped notebooks usually end up favoring AMD by a mere $50. With potentially 25% more performance on tap, we would recommend most spend the extra money to get a Core 2 Duo notebook.
So what's the good news? First, AMD's 65nm process does show improvements over the 90nm process, even if the improvements are relatively minor. The TL-66 does manage to use a bit less power than the TL-60 when both are idle and running at the same 800 MHz clock speed. Given the maturity of the 90nm process and the relative newness of AMD's 65nm process, we expect that AMD can make further improvements that will both increase clock speeds as well as further reduce power requirements. However, it's unlikely that the current Turion X2 will ever be competitive with Core 2 Duo, at least when CPU performance is the criterion used to judge.
Perhaps the more important good news is that AMD's integrated graphics still come out as being superior to Intel's latest offering. The margin has narrowed considerably since the GMA 950 era, and even the past several months have helped Intel a lot in terms of improving performance on the GMA X3100. That being said, the Intel drivers since the launch of the G965/GM965 chipsets (and Q33/Q35/G33) have been more than just a little painful when it comes to running 3D applications. Users have been promised numerous updates, and while compatibility and performance has certainly improved, there's still a lot of work to be done. Let's not even talk about the delays with releasing G35... though perhaps the drivers will finally be ready when those motherboards hit the market. (We can hope, at any rate.)
There's another fringe benefit for AMD when it comes to notebook graphics, of course. As we've shown, both the Radeon X1250 and the GMA X3100 are painfully slow at running 3D graphics when compared to even a relatively inexpensive Radeon Mobility HD 2300. Anyone that needs more GPU performance in their notebook than the current IGPs offer will need to pick up a discrete graphics chip, and that means AMD has a chance at selling one of their mobile GPUs even if they don't provide the CPU or chipset. They'll have to compete with NVIDIA here, but ATI has always had a pretty strong presence in the mobile graphics market.
Looking to the future, we're still waiting to finally see how Phenom actually performs on the desktop, and after that launch we will probably have to wait a few more months before we see the new Griffin mobile architecture. Griffin is based off of K8, so it may not be all that different from current Turion X2 offerings, but we'll have to wait and see. Long-term, we would expect more of the Barcelona technology to make its way into a mobile CPU (assuming Barcelona ends up competing well against Intel), when that might occur is not yet known. Let's not get ahead of ourselves, though. Early indications are that Phenom will be more competitive with Intel's Core 2 Duo/Quad, but we're skeptical that they will actually be able to lead in any benchmarks. Unless Griffin sports some significant changes, we also don't expect it to close the gap in the mobile sector. As usual, time will tell.
While we would definitely prefer a Core 2 Duo notebook over a Turion X2 notebook at this point in time, one of the bigger factors is going to be price and features. The truth is that even though the HP 6515b is clearly slower than the HP dv6500t in our benchmarks, in typical use it would be very difficult for most people to tell the difference. A moderately fast dual-core processor with 2GB of RAM packs more than enough performance for most home and business users. Far more important than the raw performance numbers will be the design and features of the notebook. Laptop bargains come and go, so if you happen to find a good sale on any Core 2 Duo or Turion X2 notebook, outside of gaming performance such a notebook will be more than sufficient.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
33 Comments
View All Comments
Pirks - Saturday, October 6, 2007 - link
Jarred, you wrote "Even better would be a midrange HD 2600 or GeForce 8600M/8700M, though those tend to only be found in laptops that cost over $1500" - this is totally not true. I've got myself a nice Dell Vostro 17" laptop last week, with Vista, Core 2 Duo, all the shebang... AND A REAL NVIDIA 8600M GT 256M VRAM inside, for <drumroll> $1049 </drumroll>So why don't you change your number from $1500 to $1000?
JarredWalton - Saturday, October 6, 2007 - link
There's a difference between "tend to be" and "absolutely are not available for less than..." I checked out the Vostro 1700, configured a minimum cost version with the 8600M GT 256MB, and ended up at a price of $1249. That's with a Core 2 Duo T5270 (1.4GHz 2MB cache). I'd say T7100 is a better minimum choice, and probably would look for a T7300 instead personally. That would put the price pretty darn close to $1500 ($1459 with the T7300). That's also with a current rebate to bring the price down from $1881 ($1671 minimum cost), which may not always be available.I'll take out the word "only" as it's superfluous, but I stand by the statement that most laptops with 8600M -- that aren't on sale -- will be very close to $1500 total (shipped).
BitJunkie - Friday, October 5, 2007 - link
First up, nice article.Second thing, did you notice if one system had any defining characteristics compared to each another? I've been pretty much an intel user for the last 18 months, but previously I was an AMD-holic. While P4s were about, you could notice that the UI responsiveness and load times were kind of strange for intel P4 systems compared to AMD Athlon systems - they would often be a pause or stutter on an intel system when an AMD system would just feel a lot smoother during UI operations and associated disk access. Okay, so that could have been due single core, possibly also due to cache misses and stalled pipeline on the P4, so this might be a useless braindump.....but a quick throw away comment in response to this post as to whether the architechtural differences translate in to a different feel when you're driving a system would be cool...even if it's to tell me to get a grip :)
JarredWalton - Friday, October 5, 2007 - link
Generally speaking, both laptops perform fine in Windows Vista. Without running stress tests or benchmarks, only the exterior would really let people know the difference. Interesting to note is that the Intel setup gets a 3.5 Windows Experience score while the AMD gets a 3.0, with the low score on both coming in the graphics department. Apparently, the lack of SM3.0 limits the AMD setup to a maximum score of 3.0 (the same score I get with an X800 desktop system).The bigger differences are in the styling and keyboard layout. Obviously, being a business laptop the 6515b is pretty boring looking. Honestly, though, I didn't mind that part. The dv6500t does come with better speakers as well as two headphone jacks. I think the display on the 6515b might look a bit nicer, but neither LCD is all that great. If I were to choose, though?
dv6500t with T7500, 8400M GS graphics, 2GB RAM, 160GB HDD, 802.11n+Bluetooth, and a 3-year warranty runs about $1350 and represents a pretty good deal. Drop to a T5250 and you get the price down to $1300. The dv6500z with identical options (8400M GS, 2GB, 160GB, 3-year) based on an AMD platform with a TL-64 comes to about $1350. You can drop the CPU down to a TL-60 to save $100. You can also ditch the 3-year extended warranty to bring either option under $1100. The dv6500t ends up at $1092 with T5250 and the dv6500z costs $1062 with a TL-60.
$30 more and the Intel platform should be about 15% faster on CPU tasks. Not enough to really notice, true, but it's also only increasing the cost by around 3%. I'll spend the $30 for sure. Maybe some other company can do Turion X2 for less, but I doubt it. CPU cost is only a small part of the whole.
duploxxx - Sunday, October 7, 2007 - link
well since you would choose from the budget systems for the more expensive systemwhy don't you first give us an idea how the raw cpu performance will differ from T7500 vs T5250 and for sure a t5250 versus tl-60.
because in that budget round on price/performance you should think twice. The tl-60 will outperform the T5250 on everything exept power consumption.
JarredWalton - Sunday, October 7, 2007 - link
No it won't - not even close. Look at the results in this article. A T7300 outperforms a TL-60 by an average of 25%! Do you know what a T7250 is? It's a T7300 with half the L2 cache, which causes a loss of 5-10% performance for Intel (so we're down to 15-20% performance advantage on average). Both will run at 2.0 GHz, and clock for clock AMD is at a disadvantage. Sorry, but your guess is way off. A Pentium Dual-Core running at 2.0GHz would basically match the AMD dual-core offerings clock for clock, but those tend to be cheaper.JarredWalton - Sunday, October 7, 2007 - link
Sorry - I apparently put "T5250" in my earlier comment when it should have been "T7250" if you didn't notice. T5250 is another $100 off the price of the laptop, and would compete more against an AMD TL-50.BitJunkie - Friday, October 5, 2007 - link
Excellent, thanks for the reply.nitrous9200 - Friday, October 5, 2007 - link
AMD is improving on it's existing products but still can't touch Intel. You've still got some more work to do, guys.Another thing, I don't like macs but when I looked at the side profile view of the HP, I really though "ugh!" It's so thick and ugly looking. The manufacturers should start working on aesthetics just a little bit.
JumpingJack - Friday, October 5, 2007 - link
Performance isn't everyting only when you are not the performance leader :) Price/performance is pretty much the ticket, how you define performance may vary, but in mobile that is usually a convolution of computational prowess and battery life.
I am sure if, or when, Intel no longer holds the performance "heavyweight belt", then Intel will be the one who claims performance isn't everything and AMD will be droning home what performance is all about.