Gateway AMD and Intel Laptops, a Platform Analysis
by Jarred Walton on August 12, 2009 2:00 AM EST- Posted in
- Laptops
PCMark Performance - AMD vs. Intel
Futuremark's method of determining composite scores in PCMark (and 3DMark) can be something of a mystery. Rather than taking the results at face value, we felt it would be more beneficial to show the individual scores for the various tests. We'll start with PCMark05, which is somewhat outdated relative to current software but also provides a more realistic look at how many people continue to use their computers (i.e. most people continue to use single-threaded applications more than multi-threaded applications).
In PCMark05, the Intel system ends up 20.5% faster in the overall metric, but individual scores range from Intel leading by 66% (File Encryption) to AMD leading by 26% (3D Pixel Shaders). A couple other important metrics are Web Page Rendering, HDD XP Startup, and HDD General Usage. These are all common situations that you encounter any time you use a computer, and Intel leads by 38%, 37%, and 17% in these tests, respectively. During testing, it was obvious that the Intel system was substantially faster in general use. Booting both systems, it would always finish loading Windows noticeably faster, and when we ran a disk defragment on both systems after installing all of the test software the AMD system took hours longer to finish.
It should be clear why the AMD system wins in the Physics and 3D (9%) and 3D Pixel Shaders (26%) tests. What's not so clear is why AMD would win in the HDD Virus Scan (8%) result, and the likely culprit is the Seagate hard drive is faster than the Hitachi HDD in the NV58 in this specific test. It's also important to remember that individual scores can fluctuate quite a bit between runs on PCMark05 - up to 12% between the various runs we conducted on these two laptops. The overall scores on the other hand remain relatively consistent. Let's move on to PCMark Vantage and see if the picture changes at all.
This time the Intel system is 32% faster in the composite score, with individual scores ranging from 6% in AMD's favor to 61% in Intel's favor. Again, AMD takes the Gaming crown, although as we shall see shortly the 6% margin of victory is highly suspect when we get to actual games. Outside of the HDD test - a test that logically focuses more on the hard drive than the rest of the system - Intel maintains a comfortable lead of 20% or more.
The short story to this point is that not only does the Intel system provide substantially better battery life, it also provides a much snappier user experience. If all you're looking for is a typical office computer, the extra $80 you spend for the NV58 is definitely a worthwhile investment compared to the NV52. There is still the question of graphics, of course, so let's look at the last area and consider how much gaming performance matters in your laptop purchasing decision.
Update
Here's an alternate chart for PCMark Vantage showing relative performance. Given the disparity in scores for PCMark05, we didn't bother creating this style of chart.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
67 Comments
View All Comments
RandomUsername3245 - Wednesday, August 12, 2009 - link
Now that would be an interesting technical analysis article -- compare the different idle power states of something like the Studio 16 and the Macbook Pro & see exactly where the differences are.balancedthinking - Wednesday, August 12, 2009 - link
I do not agree with the conclusion.Everything you can do with the Intel system, you can do with the AMD system too and i highly doubt anybody would notice a difference with normal applications.
That subjective "snappier" of yours sounds like marketing bullshit. Browsing and loading apps is limited by the harddrive, not the cpu.
On the other hand, Intel can not do blueray via HDMI and accelerate HD content and encoding. You totally missed that one in the whole article.
WORLD OF WARCFRAFT is playable with the AMD system but it is not with the Intel system.
Why do you recommend spending an extra 80$ to artifically limit the capability to do different tasks?
You are constantly downplaying the advantage of a good igp and overestimate the importance of the cpu.
You will not notice the difference in cpu performance but you will notice the missing capability to play accelerated HD content via HDMI and to play games on the intel system.
Wellsoul2 - Wednesday, August 12, 2009 - link
I feel the same way...the intel graphics aren't good enough.Another test I'd like to see...can it play a 1280x720 video in Itunes? If you like to play music vids this is a big deal.
For what I do better video at a cheaper price beats Intel.
Your conclusion isn't right. If I want super cheap best hardware
I'd go for the AMD with better video.
I'd rather be able to play a Youtube HD video and MMO game.
To me..future internet leans toward better video not cpu.
Seriously..can I play back an episode of NCIS in HD on the Intel?
(I'm pretty sure I can on the AMD..just by the numbers)
JarredWalton - Wednesday, August 12, 2009 - link
See, you people are making assumptions here - assumptions that aren't entirely correct. Besides the fact that Blu-ray support isn't a real concern on a $500 notebook (are you really going to spend $150 more to get that feature on a budget offering?), video playback is a big can of worms.Notice the x264 720p battery life test... I couldn't tell a difference between the two in terms of image quality. x264 1080p on the other hand showed some real problems on the the Intel setup (periodic dropped frames and loss of A/V sync). So AMD wins, right? Well, that's using a 1080p movie on a 768p panel, so I'm not sure it's really that important. However, Hulu (in 480p) was better on the Intel setup than the AMD, typically running 24FPS compared to 18FPS. So chalk up a win for Intel as well.
The real problem is that you people are reading my opinion on the platforms as a 100% statement, and then you're giving your opinion and saying I'm wrong. Read what I wrote and you'll see I'm more than willing to admit there are benefits to the AMD platform.
After personally using both of these laptops for the better part of a month (three weeks of intense testing), given the choice I wouldn't hesitate to take the Intel NV58 over the AMD NV52 (and spend the extra $80). That's because I don't care about WoW or a few specific tests where I can make sure AMD comes out on top. Again, what percentage of laptop users actually play 3D games on a regular basis - or at all?
If you really care about such things, then of course there are far better options than an Intel IGP laptop. There are also FAR BETTER choices than an ATI HD 3200 IGP laptop. I mentioned one in the gaming section, the http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N8...">Acer Aspire AS6920-6898. At $650 it will beat the pants off of either laptop in gaming, probably offer slightly worse battery life than the NV52, and have overall performance that's equal to or slightly better than the NV58 elsewhere - and it will handle all the video stuff at least as well as the NV52.
I figure most people will go into a budget laptop purchase with a set of requirements. Unless gaming and 1080p video playback are in the list of requirements, the Intel platform will offer a better overall experience. If gaming and 1080p video are desired, you can choose between barely adequate gaming performance at $500, or you can more than triple your gaming performance for $650. And frankly, the gaming experience on a GeForce 9500M GS still leaves a lot to be desired.
balancedthinking - Wednesday, August 12, 2009 - link
Did I miss something? Is not the conclusion of a review meant to be neutral and objektive? Instead you are advertising your completely biased opinion which reads like an Intel commercial!These low cost notebooks are often bought by families (mums) or students. Both groups like to play casual games and use their notebooks for entertainment.
On the other hand you have professionals like writers or business guys, (YOU!!!). These guys do not need capable graphics and often do not care about cost so you will find 1000$ subnotebooks in this range. Battery life and mobility are the key factors for this group.
You are really telling us NOBODY plays 3D games at all on their laptop? What a shame you are writing for anand!
So if you do not care about graphics, HDMI and HD content, it is up to you but articles are meant to be neutral and not biased towards a company. This one reads like an Intel commercial. "We have better battery life and the faster cpu, nobody needs graphics"
Also very funny telling your readers: "Intel IGP sucks but HD 3200 still sucks to so it makes no difference" that is a real bad excuse and is in fact untrue. But that is the typical marketing reaction, just downplay where the competition is good.
The HD 3200 is perfect for casual gaming like spore, world of warcraft, the sims 2/3 and a lot of older games that are real fun to play at lan party like warcraft 3, counterstrike, call of duty, battlefield or flatout.
All these games are playable quite well on the AMD system but NOT on the Intel system. "barely adequate" is just marketing bullshit by Intel and a really sad excuse to downplay the huge advantage of ATI and Nvidia IGPs vs. Intel IGPs
Of course 1080p matters. Never thought of pluging your notebook in your big flatscreen via HDMI and playing the latest blockbuster?
tempestor - Thursday, August 13, 2009 - link
Great article Jarred!As opposed to "balancedthinking" i think your conclusion was even too neutral!
It is great for me because i know a lot about computers and know what i want from my notebook but an average Joe would have a problem choosing a notebook.
Average Joe would prefer a straight recommendation at the end and not something like: model A is good, but model B is good too. As if you don`t want to say anything bad about either of them?
But then again: average Joe doesn`t read your website i guess.
Sorry for my bad english, i am a bit rusty, but i wanted to reply because of this "balancedthinking" guy who is completely unbalanced.
Guess you`ll never satisfy everyone :)
Best regards, M.
balancedthinking - Thursday, August 13, 2009 - link
Interesting you said exactly nothing about the stuff i critizised. I also do not get what you want to tell us.Instead you told us "I know a lot about computers". Well, good for you :-)
It is like comparing a SUV with a Prius -> if there is no clear answer the reviewer should not force a clear answer on personal habits and bias.
tempestor - Thursday, August 13, 2009 - link
I disagree with your implication that Jarred is biased.Jarred could as well give us raw numbers only and everyone can make it`s own conclusion. Why bother with whole article then?!
Since i wrote that i think Jarred`s article is great, you can assume my conclusions based on his raw numbers are very similar to his. That is why i didn`t write them down.
Quote: "Intel has much better battery life, but that's only one aspect of the overall equation and there are definitely areas where AMD has the advantage over Intel." - biased? I don`t think so. Clear answer? I don`t think so.
Quote: "When it comes to 3D graphics, however, the AMD solution is clearly superior to Intel's anemic IGP." - biased? Sure! but only because it is cut from the context of the paragraph. Clear answer? Yep! and the one favouring AMD-based solution.
Quote: "... so ultimately YOU need to decide whether YOU want to have better battery life or if YOU would prefer improved graphics." - biased? No. Clear answer? No.
I could quote most of his "the final word" here to show you.
What Jarred did in his conclusion is: he wrote it grey! Not black and white. And now you complain it is black... or white (i.e. favoring one side)??
M.
balancedthinking - Thursday, August 13, 2009 - link
typical case of quoting out of context....If those qoutes would have been everything Jarred wrote, I would not be complaining.
but he also wrote:
"Intel also wins in application performance, with noticeably snappier CPU performance."
snappier? Loading Apps and browsing is limited by the harddrive, not the cpu -> marketing nonsense
"ATI's HD 3200 may be over twice as fast on average compared to Intel's GMA 4500MHD, but that's a lot like beating a Kia Spectra with a Hyundai on the racetrack."
Clearly downplayig the huge advantages of a ATI or Nvidia IGP over an inferior Intel IGP. He is basically saying that the AMD IGP is a lot faster than the Intel IGP but still useless and that is just untrue, period.
"As far as we're concerned, laptops - especially entry-level laptops - need to function as a mobile computer first and foremost. By that criterion, Intel has the clearly better mobile platform. Faster CPUs that draw less power and provide better battery life rate a lot higher in our book than barely adequate gaming performance"
That is his biased opinion as a professional writer that does not play games. 500$ full featured 15.4 notebooks are no mobility tipewriters with a focuss on battery live for professional journalists. They are bought by families and students and often replace desktops.
"That's because I don't care about WoW or a few specific tests where I can make sure AMD comes out on top. Again, what percentage of laptop users actually play 3D games on a regular basis - or at all?"
He does not care about casual gaming, he does not care about 3D games on laptops and he even dares to state that everyone is like him. I call that arrogant.
"If you really care about such things, then of course there are far better options than an Intel IGP laptop. There are also FAR BETTER choices than an ATI HD 3200 IGP laptop."
Again completely downplaying the advantages of ATI and Nvidia IGPs to convince the reader, even though they are a lot better than Intel IGP do not cut it, which is untrue and biased.
He also completely ignores the HD content features AMD can provide and Intel can not. Why is ION such a big thing for Nvidia? HD is important for the average joe and Jarred completely ignores the fact and does not even mention it.
JarredWalton - Thursday, August 13, 2009 - link
Application load times and browsing are NOT limited by the hard drive unless you have extremely fast systems or are loading multiple items at once. I have tested this, and the NV58 boots Vista 25% faster than the NV52, and various other applications also load faster (though 25% when you're talking 10 seconds isn't as noticeable as 55 vs. 69 seconds). SSDs would help here, sure, but you don't put a $200+ SSD in a $500 laptop. You pretend to be unbiased, but you don't know what you're talking about. Have YOU used and tested two essentially identical laptops from AMD and Intel, side by side? NO! But we're supposed to take your word over a published writer that has. Makes me wonder if you're working at an AMD facility... or perhaps working for a competitor. After all, AMD has some facilities in Germany.I am not downplaying ATI's superior IGP, but rather putting it into context. It's much better than something that doesn't even try to play games. However, it's only a "huge advantage" IF YOU PLAY GAMES. If you never load up a 3D game (like my wife, brothers, sisters, parents, friends, etc.) then having the "huge advantage" really means that you're using more power, getting less battery life, and gaining NO BENEFIT WHATSOEVER!
"That is his biased opinion as a professional writer that does not play games."
Way to be a tool. I've played and beaten Fallout 3, Oblivion, Assassin's Creed, all the Half-Life games, Bioshock, The Witcher, Mass Effect, the two Penny Arcade Adventures, and others just in the past year or two. There are tons of other games I have not yet completed but I have spent numerous hours playing them (GRID, FEAR/FEAR2, Riddick: Dark Athena, Far Cry 2, STALKER: Clear Sky, Empire: Total War, Gears of War, Company of Heroes, all of the Call of Duty titles, World of Goo....) I started playing games on a Magnavox when I was six (back in 1980) and moved to a C-64 when I was 10. I've been playing PC games since the 286 era and the original Wing Commander, X-Wing, and Sierra adventures. I've played every Warcraft game, Starcraft, Command and Conquer, Age of Empires, and too many other titles to list. BUT I'm a "writer that does not play games." Way to make an assumption that is not only blatantly false, but it's not even backed up by the article. Do you think someone that doesn't play games would test EIGHTEEN recent titles on two laptops that are clearly not targeted at the gamer?
The fact is that I play enough games that I'm willing to tell the truth and let people know that playing games on a slow, underpowered IGP is a lousy experience. If all you have for gaming is a $500 laptop, I doubt that: A) You're a gamer, and B) You'll like playing games on that laptop. Go buy a Nintendo DS and you'll have more fun, or else read a book and don't worry about gaming - just like millions of people.
The only thing that might be "non-gamer" about me is that I don't play World of Warcraft (or any other MMO). Considering there are hundreds of millions of "gamers" in the world and yet only 15 million (give or take) that play WoW and other MMOs, again I think it's safe to say plenty of people don't play such games. I'm not interested in getting started in the MMO scene either, as I have a life I'm quite happy with. If I could test an MMO performance without an account, I would do so, but I'm not going to spend $15 per month per MMO when I don't enjoy that style of game.
Who are you to say what a $500 laptop is supposed to be? I've given a list of what it CAN be. It can be everything a student or businessman needs, and in that case it would be substantially better without an AMD CPU (right now). It can do everything a family needs as well. Can it do everything a family *wants* though? That depends on the family, and clearly it can't be a one-size-fits-all gaming solution. 25% of games that I tested can't run acceptably on the AMD setup. But that doesn't matter; what matters is that it can run games better than Intel's IGP. You know who really cares about that? AMD marketing, because they can tell people their platform is actually "better" in certain areas.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N8...">Here's a $600 alternative (using ATI graphics)
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N8...">Here's a $500 alternative (using an NVIDIA IGP)
Both should more or less equal the AMD NV52 in gaming while still offering better CPU performance -- and probably battery life. Case closed.