Heh heh.. that's why I kept only "Varun" in my signature..
Originally Posted by mastablasta
By the way, I'd like to mention that my current system, an Asus X54C-SX261D is an Intel i3-2330M based laptop. I purchased a couple of other similar models for the office where I was working then - one Intel B950 based cheap one, another AMD A6 (don't remember the exact model) based one. The AMD one obviously had 'discrete' graphics and was much costlier than the former one (28k against 22k).
I compared them both not for power consumption (I believe they were nearly same in that aspect) but for performance, and I was disappointed to see that despite paying a much higher price, the AMD APU based one couldn't perform any better than the much cheaper Pentium B950 based model (B950 is basically i3-2310 with lesser cache and disabled HT).
That's when I came to conclusion that APUs were not mature enough then, maybe now (after almost two years) they are, I don't know. The tests I performed were :
1) 7-zip compression of a 70MB folder containing hundreds of font files.
2) Decompression of the same 7z file.
3) Video transcoding a 10 min clip (mpg to Xvid avi).
4) FarCry2 game performance (just the intro part and a minute's gaming).
Being an AMD supporter, I was disappointed to see that except for an unnoticeable exception in the game, the much cheaper pentium based model performed better in all other tests. I had run all the tests alternately three-three times on both models. Both had fresh installations on Win7 64 bit, with same set of applications.
The visible technical difference I noticed was that even though the APUs had 4 cores (logical), they were only 50% used even during top loads (with AC power, so throttling down to save power was not the reason). The B950 on the other hand seemed to use its both cores at 100% power when doing transcoding or 7zip compression.
I don't know whether it was a design flaw or inefficiency of window's driver/kernel for not being able to utilize full power of the APU cores (in which case it would have performed doubly better than the B950). But whatever the excuse was, I simply didn't get what I expected from the APU.
So unless the APUs or their supporting drivers have improved significantly in comparison to Intel's i-series, I'd say the AMD APUs lag much behind in performance in mobile chip section, even with higher prices.
For desktop CPUs, AMDs are doubtlessly the winners by a huge margin for the same overall system cost. But for laptops (or shall we say for "APUs"), I was disappointed then, and would love to see current comparisons if got a chance.
If the above test I did still holds true, then probably the preference should be opposite to what a few members posted above -
Go for AMD if looking for Desktops and price is a concern
Go for Intel if looking for Laptops/netbooks. They are cooler, and perform better for similar price range.
Of course this is based on just one test on 2 comparative models, I may be absolutely wrong and would love to know others' practical findings. Opinions may be biased, practical tests, not much if done carefully.
Regarding this -
I read somewhere that the costs of Intels are high despite more production because they simply reject (trash) their defective pieces.
Originally Posted by mastablasta
The AMD on the other hand can't afford that and recycles them to produce cheaper models (with the defective cores being locked).
If this is true (and I believe it is), then the preference should be given to AMDs for being more nature friendly.