Toshiba Satellite A660D-ST2G01: AMD's Quad-Core Phenom II P920 Joins the Mobile Party
by Jarred Walton on August 31, 2010 12:45 AM ESTToshiba A660D-ST2G01 LCD
The LCD is another run-of-the-mill offering, with the ubiquitous 1366x768 resolution. Given the 16" chassis/panel size, we'd really have liked an HD+ or 1080p panel (with a Blu-ray combo drive!), but Toshiba instead goes with the crowd. Like other TN panels, horizontal viewing angles are restricted, colors are average, and the contrast ratio is mediocre.
The A660D LCD is one of a variety of panels that scores roughly the same. In this case, we're looking at a Samsung 160AT06-U01, but AU Optronics, Chi Mei, and Hans Star all have similar displays available. This is a case of LCD panel makers cutting manufacturing costs and sacrificing quality; nothing more or less. We've praised the few panels that have bucked this trend, and we've complained vigorously about laptop LCD quality for over two years, but until the OEMs pony up for higher quality displays nothing will change.
We understand going with 1366x768 panels from the standpoint of keeping gaming performance up, but we'd still prefer better LCDs. Sure, a 5650 is going to struggle to run a 900p display at Medium detail, but while you can drop the resolution down if necessary, there's no way to increase resolution outside of games. From a productivity perspective, 768p is a lousy "compromise" that we're being forced to endure. 900p should come standard on any 15.6" or larger laptop, and 1080p options would be more than welcome. Or if you really want to make us happy, forget the 16:9 aspect ratio and go back to good old 16:10 displays! [Sheds a tear thinking about the glory days of WUXGA laptops….]
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
33 Comments
View All Comments
JarredWalton - Tuesday, August 31, 2010 - link
My Google-Fu was obviously weak. This is the only P520 + 5650 laptop around right now it seems, and we are working with AMD to get one. Acer likely will clock the 5650 at the full 550MHz as well, which would make it a lot more interesting.silentim - Tuesday, August 31, 2010 - link
Hi, nice review. Glad to see AMD back to the game. Intel need competition these days.I m sorry for being off-topic here, but I can't find any anandtech official email. I'd like to ask for review for system76, one of few OEM other than Apple to ship consumer laptop other than windows, ubuntu in this case. I want to have references where I can buy laptop without m$ tax other than overpriced Apple.
JarredWalton - Tuesday, August 31, 2010 - link
jarred.walton@anandtech.comanand@anandtech.com
dustin@anandtech.com
vivek@anandtech.com
ryan.smith@anandtech.com
One of those should work. ;-)
Cal123 - Tuesday, August 31, 2010 - link
Nice review btw, I thought it was objectively done. The only important thing I could think of to possibly add would be temp readings under load for cpu and gpu, to make sure the cooling system was up to snuff.andrewaggb - Tuesday, August 31, 2010 - link
I seriously considered getting one of these laptops about 2 weeks ago, until I realized it didn't have amd's version of turbo boost/core. One quick look at some starcraft cpu benchmarks made me realize I would get half the frame rate of the i7-720qm. I also wasn't sure if toshiba let you use amd's laptop drivers, which you say they don't. I got a gateway one instead for $200 more, but it has the intel quad core and you can use amd's drivers. No regrets. 50% slower frame rates just wasn't worth it.Roland00 - Wednesday, September 1, 2010 - link
AMD would be competive to Intel if it had turbo and powergating.For example the best 35w AMD processors that AMD currently has are these three models
AMD Phenom II x4 n930 at 4x2.0 ghz
AMD Phenom II x3 n830 at 3x2.1 ghz
AMD Phenom II x2 n620 at 2x2.8 ghz
Now compare that to intel i7 720qm which works as follows with turbo (note this is a 45w processor)
1.6 ghz Quad Core no turbo
1.73 ghz Quad Core with turbo
2.40 ghz Dual Core with turbo
2.80 ghz Single Core with turbo
If AMD had turbo and power gating it would not be unreasonable that the n930 could act as a 2.0 ghz quad core and a 2.8 ghz dual core. Thus if we are comparing straight ghz amd would possess 25% more ghz as a quad core with no turbo, 16% more ghz as a quad core, and 16% more ghz as a dual core. Now comparing ghz from different architectures is foolish for they are not the same thing, that said intel i7 mobile has a higher ipc than the phenom II mobile (which is a variant of the Athlon IIx4 of Desktops). That said the higher ipc of intel vs the higher ghz of AMD would put them real close in final speed (intel may win the benchmarks, but ask a person to "feel the difference in speed" and they would be hard pressed to differentiate.)
Sadly AMD has no turbo or powergating thus it won't be comparable. Rumors say llano will have these features, thus that is good news for AMD, but then AMD will be competing against mobile Sandybridge which will be 10-30% faster compared to Nehalem.
LaptopDoctor - Wednesday, September 1, 2010 - link
I own and operate a laptop repair business and after reading months of comments in various articles where folks are trying to justify AMD's recent poor performance, I thought I would throw in my two cents. Over the past 2-3 years I observed (and fixed) a 12 to 1 ratio of AMD based failures to Intel...mostly because of over-heating and chipset failures (HP's DV series is a great example). Seems like the vendors are trying to make AMD products compete at the mid to higher levels in thermal packaging which can't hold up much past the limited 12 month warranty. Guess this is why you can't find a ThinkPad (T-Series) with an AMD solution inside it. Unfortunately the consumers purchasing the Toshibas and HPs in this price range are really the ultimate loosers. It would be interesting for this forum to take a look at longivity in addition to speed. A fast laptop that lasts 12.5 months is a bad investment regardless of how many frames per second it can do!!!The Crying Man - Wednesday, September 1, 2010 - link
Can you specify the most common AMD CPUs? I have an HP L2005CM with a Turion 64 that's still running after 4 years with the first 2 years seeing heavy use. Curious if my CPU is part of that or if it's more with the Turion Ultras that came out after.LaptopDoctor - Thursday, September 2, 2010 - link
In most cases it is a HP, Compaq, or Toshiba with Turion 64 based system with Nvidia chipset...best examples are HP DV2000,DV6000,DV9000,Compaq F500/700 series etc. But in general it is in the retail packaging versions commonly seen and sold at local retailers in the $450-800 price range. When you get inside them the quality, fit, finish - especially with the heatsink/fan and venting, point out obvious issues. Little foam pads to make up for poorly fitting heatsinks, etc. The really sad part is that if you had an unmarked Acxx or Asxx open next to a Tosxxx or Hxx (any model except their commercial machines), you would wonder what happened to American and Japanese quality. Sort of reminds you of when Honda and Toyota taught GM and Ford what quality meant. You can observe the same issues when you lay a ThinkPad or Sony heatsink/fan assembly down next to a Dell Inspiron/XPS counterpart. After the 12 month warranty is gone, you really find out that "you get what you paid for"!! I just finished taking a CQ62 apart to remove a piece of tape that was supposed to hold the wires away from the fan, instead it was acting like a mini noise maker when the fan ran....they used to route those wires in a channel so this would not happen...now it's scotch tape. Guess this site caters to "gamers" who are only concerned about how fast it will run Crysis for the next 6 months....but then again, high failure rates in the 12-20 month range is great for my business.DanaG - Thursday, September 2, 2010 - link
"Nvidia chipset" -- remember nvidia's bumpgate fiasco?But yeah, it's always sucked that manufacturers include weak GPUS with AMD processors. It really reflects badly upon AMD.
Also Toshiba fail for not offering DisplayPort. No DisplayPort means you can only use two displays at once.
Anything with Evergreen and DisplayPort should allow three displays at once.
DP->VGA adapters are a mere 25 bucks, and the single-link DP->DVI adapters should be 30, soon.