Mobile Platform Wars: AMD vs. Intel
by Jarred Walton on October 5, 2007 9:10 AM EST
AMD vs. AMD
We'll start with a quick look at how the TL-66 compares to the TL-60. AMD informed us that there are no major architectural changes to the 65nm processor, so any performance improvements should be directly attributable to the increased clock speed. As the TL-66 processor is clocked 15% faster, we shouldn't see any performance improvements larger than 15%, and bottlenecks elsewhere in the platform should keep the performance improvements closer to 10%.
As expected, we see performance improvements across the board, and the overall average increase is pretty close to 10%. The pure number-crunching benchmarks show the largest performance increases, while benchmarks that stress all areas of the computer show smaller improvements. The latter is best represented by SYSmark 2007, and notice that the productivity suite in particular only shows a small 3% performance increase.
Besides performance changes, it's also interesting to note battery life. The TL-66 is faster than the TL-60, which is expected, but it also offers the same or slightly better battery life. This can be directly attributed to improvements in the process technology that lead to lower power use. While the differences aren't all that dramatic, improving performance by 10% without reducing battery life is always a good thing.
Now let's see how these two AMD processors to compare to a similar Intel Core 2 Duo chip.
We'll start with a quick look at how the TL-66 compares to the TL-60. AMD informed us that there are no major architectural changes to the 65nm processor, so any performance improvements should be directly attributable to the increased clock speed. As the TL-66 processor is clocked 15% faster, we shouldn't see any performance improvements larger than 15%, and bottlenecks elsewhere in the platform should keep the performance improvements closer to 10%.
| Performance Comparison | |||
| HP 6515b TL-60 | HP 6515b TL-66 | TL66 vs.TL60 | |
| DivX 6.6.1 (FPS) | 5.10 | 5.71 | 11.9% |
| QuickTime 7.2 H.264 (FPS) | 31.82 | 34.41 | 8.1% |
| WME9 Advanced (FPS) | 32.10 | 37.11 | 15.6% |
| iTunes 7.4.2 MP3 192kbps (MB/s) | 4.90 | 5.58 | 13.8% |
| Cinebench R10 (Score) | 3189 | 3556 | 11.5% |
| SYSmark 2007 Overall | 75.25 | 80.25 | 6.6% |
| SYSmark 2007 E-Learning | 77 | 82 | 6.5% |
| SYSmark 2007 Video Creation | 71 | 75 | 5.6% |
| SYSmark 2007 Productivity | 69 | 71 | 2.9% |
| SYSmark 2007 3D | 84 | 93 | 10.7% |
| MobileMark 2007 Productivity Performance |
125 | 140 | 12.0% |
| MobileMark 2007 Productivity Battery |
156 | 156 | 0.0% |
| MobileMark 2007 DVD Battery | 127 | 131 | 3.1% |
| Average Performance Difference | 9.6% | ||
As expected, we see performance improvements across the board, and the overall average increase is pretty close to 10%. The pure number-crunching benchmarks show the largest performance increases, while benchmarks that stress all areas of the computer show smaller improvements. The latter is best represented by SYSmark 2007, and notice that the productivity suite in particular only shows a small 3% performance increase.
Besides performance changes, it's also interesting to note battery life. The TL-66 is faster than the TL-60, which is expected, but it also offers the same or slightly better battery life. This can be directly attributed to improvements in the process technology that lead to lower power use. While the differences aren't all that dramatic, improving performance by 10% without reducing battery life is always a good thing.
Now let's see how these two AMD processors to compare to a similar Intel Core 2 Duo chip.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
33 Comments
View All Comments
Foxy1 - Friday, October 5, 2007 - link
Honestly, who cares about AMD v. Intel when there are more important things in life....like OU v. Texas - Go Sooners!JumpingJack - Sunday, October 7, 2007 - link
Hook 'em Horns!!Xenoterranos - Friday, October 5, 2007 - link
Here I was expecting some sort of exciting outcome.Seriously, you should have called this article, "Salt vs. Wounds: The Continuing Saga of AMD".