AMD and Intel Mobile Rematch: Gateway NV5933u vs. Acer 5542
by Jarred Walton on June 18, 2010 1:14 AM ESTGeneral Application Performance Compared
With the general overview of the two laptops out of the way, it's time to look at performance numbers. Starting with our general application benchmarks, we expect the i3-330M to easily win in these tests, particularly if an application can leverage more than two CPU cores. The i3 line doesn't have the Turbo modes found on i5 processors, but you still get Hyper-Threading which is good for an extra 10-20% performance depending on the application.
[Note: We're still collecting the Toshiba A505 with M600 results; at this point, the A505 Futuremark results are preliminary scores, as we've only had a chance to run them once. We'll have the final results in the forthcoming review.]
Let's start with PCMark, since it's a good representation of real world applications. PCMark puts the NV59 quite a bit ahead of the 5542, though with different hard drives there are other factors in play. The gap in Vantage is 52% while it's "only" 42% in 05, and in general use the NV59 certainly feels quite a bit faster. Results in the other application tests continue the trend of Intel leading in general performance. The closest score is in Peacekeeper, a single-threaded Internet benchmark, with the NV59 leading the 5542 by 21%. The x264 encoding advantage is 43% for pass one, and the second pass where multithreading really plays a role has the i3-330M leading by 73%. Cinebench is similar: 47% lead for i3-330M in single-threaded mode, and a 76% lead in the multi-threaded test.
It's no surprise that Intel is leading in CPU performance, as they've been ahead of AMD since Core 2 launched and Core i7/i5/i3 only increased that lead. That's not to say that the 5542 is slow, but the M300 isn't a very good competitor as far as general CPU performance is concerned. Clocked at 2.0GHz, architectural improvements make it slightly faster than the old QL-64, but chips like the M500 and M600 are much more competitive. We've included the Toshiba A5050 with a Turion II M600 for reference here, and it does much better. Of course Intel has plenty of faster CPUs as well—the i3-330M is their slowest i-Series processor. Anyway, as Atom has proven, if you're just surfing the Internet and running office applications any modern laptop is more than sufficient; these systems are substantially faster than netbooks and CULV laptops, so they're certainly in the category of "fast enough".
Also worth noting is the improvement in performance both platforms have shown relative to last year's models. We're using our Windows 7 results here, so the OS isn't a factor, and the basic entry-level AMD laptop is still 10-15% faster in many of the tests, even with a slightly lower clock speed. Clearly the change from an old K8-based architecture to the 45nm K10-based design helps, with PCMark05 being the only test where the 5542 didn't beat NV52. On the Intel side, the performance gap is much greater. The smallest gains are around 15% in single-core Cinebench and PCMark05. PCMark Vantage improves 33%, with Peacekeeper and x264 pass 1 around 30% as well. The biggest gains are in multi-threaded tests where Hyper-Threading is able to boost performance by up to 45% over the old T6500.
We also tested the latest release of Flash 10.1 with the latest drivers from both AMD and Intel. Unlike previous tests, all of our Flash video testing went off without a hitch—yes, even 1080p YouTube videos played in full screen mode without dropping frames. The NV5933u comes with a Blu-ray drive, and we also tested several Blu-ray movies, the most intensive being a 37Mbps AVC encode. There were no issues there either. But there's more to laptops than general performance, so let's look at a few other metrics.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
38 Comments
View All Comments
mojtabaalemi - Saturday, June 19, 2010 - link
I meaned 1005p with 11hrs (6cells, 48W/h) battery nor 3cell .could you please say what player you use with coreavc ? WMP ?
I read that wmp12 in win 7 can play 720p x264 on atom 1.66GHz beacuse of its multithread codeks . is it right?
mojtaba alemi from iran
JarredWalton - Saturday, June 19, 2010 - link
I used Media Player Classic Home Cinema in my more recent testing. I think I tried WMP11 in the past and it worked as well (maybe?), but I don't think I've ever tested with WMP12 and x264. I don't have any Atom laptops right now either, so I can't retest. :-|IntelUser2000 - Friday, June 18, 2010 - link
No, that's because 3DMark Vantage uses the retarded scheme where it includes the CPU scores as part of the final score. 3DMark06 was barely acceptable as a gaming benchmark because it started that, Vantage makes it worse.
JarredWalton - Friday, June 18, 2010 - link
Yes, it includes CPU performance as well, but you'll notice that nowhere in our CPU specific tests do we get 86%. In heavily threaded testing, we can achieve a 76% performance increase, but that's purely CPU based. Vantage includes CPU performance, but it's not as big of a factor as the GPU. 3DMark06 also includes CPU but shows only a 5% lead, which is more realistic.IntelUser2000 - Friday, June 18, 2010 - link
You should test this out if you have the chance/time.The 3 reasons that it has such a vast lead from greatest to smallest
1. 3DMark Vantage scores=GPU score(which is affected by the CPU like in real games) + CPU score
2. Some some CPU offloading(Never seen the game do that on the HD Graphics though)*
3. DX10 behavior on Intel is kinda like Nvidia. There's less loss from DX9 to DX10 code than on AMD.
*You can test this out by using the graphics control panel and going from Application(hardware mode) and Software Processing(software mode)
OldPueblo - Friday, June 18, 2010 - link
I just picked up a similar tigris laptop, except it had better specs and was only $380. At that price, I don't care if the Intel one wins because I doubt it'll ever compete at that price point. :) I didn't even bother with a warranty, it's disposable basic gaming on the go.M320 (2x2.1Ghz)
3GB RAM
250GB 7200RPM
Radeon 4200
802.11 B/G/N
8x DVD burner w/ lightscribe
5-in-1 card reader
etc.
OldPueblo - Monday, June 21, 2010 - link
Damnit! >:(http://www.frys-electronics-ads.com/ads/2010/06/18...
JarredWalton - Monday, June 21, 2010 - link
What size battery is in that? Probably a 48Wh, but I'm curious. Looking directly at Frys, I can't find the laptop listed above. What's the exact Lenovo model? I'm guessing it's the G555, but with some downgrades relative to the Lenovo store model. But yeah, $330 it can break in a year and you still won't care much.Roland00 - Monday, June 21, 2010 - link
It is a G555, I can't tell you which exact submodel it is, but the chasis/generation model is G555Roland00 - Friday, June 18, 2010 - link
I know you are at the mercy of what OEM sent you (since you don't want to spend $1000 to $2000 buying hardware for a simple article), but please try to get some of these AMD processors for these are going to be the more competitive AMDs (and more relevant).Note all these processors have hardware virtualization unlike the atoms and some of the intel culvs/core 2 offerings. Also note that none of the current AMD mobile processors offer l3 cache
Nile platform (2010) 9W, 12W, 15W with DDR3 support. All these processors are Champlain processors
9W, AMD V105, Single Core*1.2 Ghz, 512 kb L2 cache total
12W, AMD K125, Single Core*1.7 Ghz, 1 mb L2 cache total
12W, AMD K325, Dual Core*1.3 Ghz, 1 mb L2 cache per core, 2mb total
15W, AMD K625, Dual Core*1.5 Ghz, 1 mb L2 cache per core, 2mb total
15W, AMD K665, Dual Core*1.7 Ghz, 1 mb L2 cache per core, 2mb total
Danube platform (2010) 25W, 35W, 45W with DDR3 support. All these processors are Champlain processors
25W, AMD P820, Tri Core*1.8 Ghz, 512kb L2 cache per core, 1.5 mb total
25W, AMD P920, Quad Core*1.6 Ghz, 512kb L2 cache per core, 2 mb total
35W, AMD N620, Dual Core*2.8 Ghz, 1mb L2 cache per core, 2 mb total
35W, AMD N830, Tri Core*2.1 Ghz, 512 kb L2 cache per core, 1.5mb total
35W, AMD N930, Quad Core*2.0 Ghz, 512 kb L2 cache per core, 2mb total
45W, AMD X620BE, Dual Core*3.1 Ghz, 1mb L2 cache per core, 2mb total
45W, AMD X920BE, Quad Core*2.3 Ghz, 512 kb L2 cache per core, 2mb total
While the instructions per clock per core is not going to change much with the
Champlain processors (Mid 2010 with DDR3 uses K,P, or N monikers) vs
Caspain processors (Late 2009 with DDR2 uses M moniker, the dual cores come only in 35w tdps).
The Champlain processors achieve lower tdps, have ddr3 support or have more cores for the same tdp with ddr3 support when compared to the Caspain processors. I did not list the other new Champlain processors (the "value" models) for performance wise they should be similar to the one you demoed today (P520, N530, P320, N330). We won't get processors with more instructions per clock per core until the upcoming Llano (fusion, phenom II based with 1mb l2 cache per core, 10watts and above) and Ontario (fusion, bobcat based, 1-10watts aimed for netbooks, tablets, and other low power devices) . AMD finally has a competitive line of notebook processors on paper, for low tdps they may have something as good or almost as good as intel culv, at higher tdps they may not have as many instructions per clock as intel but then they are fighting that with more cores, or against the i7 720qm an extremly lower tdp.
(finally I just want to say that I am not an AMD fanboy, the last 4 processors I have bought have been intel. I7 920, Q6600, SU2300 Notebook, T7700 Notebook)