PDA

View Full Version : AMD or Intel processors for laptops



racie
July 18th, 2011, 04:42 AM
So which is best in your opinion?

I might get a new laptop next year and I'm wondering which one I should go with. I'm mostly concerned with heat... as my old laptop had MAJOR overheating issues and it had an AMD processor. (Although it may just be because I had a Compaq.) From what I've heard, AMD tends to run hotter than Intel, but I haven't really found any data online to support this.

I have a friend with a Mac Book Pro (I want one, but they are WAY out of my price range) and I was surprised at how little the heat it gives off. You could fry an egg on my laptop after watching a single YouTube video. Anyway, it appears that Apple uses Intel processors, which might have something to do with it. Also, System76 uses Intel processors and I've heard great things about their laptops.

Right now I'm leaning towards an Intel processor, but I don't know too much about hardware.

Oh.... and I have two more questions...

1. How do you know how many cores an Intel processor has? Laptops with Intel processors never seem to want to tell you online. I was looking at some laptops with i7 processors, but they wouldn't say whether or not they were dual core or quad core.

2. What are some laptop brands that I should definitely AVOID? Rather than fighting over which brand is the best, I want to know what I should stay away from.

Thanks if you made it this far. :D

heobeo1210
July 18th, 2011, 05:01 AM
You should chose Intel.

LowSky
July 18th, 2011, 06:25 AM
dont buy the bargain basement sub $500 laptops.

my own opinion is that my laptop should be light and still have at least 4 hours of battery power. heat is subjective and all about design. my netbook never gets hot except for the wifi card under the palm rest. look into a model's processor the smaller the architecture and lower that wattage the cooler it usually runs.

these days I dont worry about speed or chips, the lowest crap models are fast enough. all i want is battery power & decent keyboard.

ScionicSpectre
July 18th, 2011, 06:39 AM
I've always had a much more stable and powerful experience with Intel, and their new line of core processors (i3/i5/i7) are just amazing. Hands down, awesome- and pretty cheap for the most part. Also, Intel's GPUs are very well supported under Linux. Intel HD cards provide some of the most issue-free graphics experience I've ever had on Linux, and they're good for gaming, too.

So I'd say getting a light laptop with an i5 and Intel graphics would be a good idea. Also, AMD doesn't really do as well with video encoding and 3D rendering on Linux for me as does Intel's processors. Intel just puts a lot more effort into Linux development, honestly.

life in color
July 18th, 2011, 06:53 AM
Well if no one else is gonna vouch for AMD I guess I could.... AMD isn't bad I've dealt with AMD and Intel I'd say it depends more on your RAM and GHz(or in my case MHz) it's probably more because you bought a compaq, they're just cheap HP's, HP is a great brand just not very Linux friendly at first (mine had some major config time XP). But System76 or Zareason would both be good options as they're optimized to run Linux without any trouble, also try going for Nvidia GPU if you can ATI sucks bad from my experience.

Drenriza
July 18th, 2011, 07:03 AM
You should chose Intel.

If you go and talk bad about something, give a legitimate reason for doing so.

Intel
Intel is the number one CPU manufacture in the world, when it comes to laptop / Desktop computers. Sure they make some good processors like the Core I X series. But they take overprice for their work, compared to performance.

AMD
A lot of people looks upon AMD as being a second rate product. Because people "once upon a time tried Intel as their first CPU, and has never tried anything else." Its like "i ate a burger once upon a time on MacDonals. So now i NEVER EVER eat another place". Its pathetic, annoying and childish. I go where i get most for the buck. And here AMD 85% of the times, gives more UMF for less $.

Unless you need a state of the art gaming machine, with the top 3 CPU,s on the benchmark tests. Go with AMD. They make good products, and use the leftover $ to give your gf something pretty =) or w/e. I myself will go AMD next time i change hardware.

#5

also try going for Nvidia GPU if you can ATI sucks bad from my experience.

But word has come out today that AMD is going to kill off the ATI brand name in favor of using the AMD name. According to Anandtech.com, the company cites internal research (although they didn’t dish out all the details) for the reasoning, but basically surmises that the AMD brand name is stronger and better recognized than its ATI counterpart. Also, the subcategory brands of Radeon and Fire Pro have solid consumer awareness without the ATI name being attached to them.
Did you once upon a time, eat a burger somewhere and never changed again? Or is this recent (within two years or so)

life in color
July 18th, 2011, 07:06 AM
If you go and talk bad about something, give a legitimate reason for doing so.

Intel
Intel is the number one CPU manufacture in the world, when it comes to laptop / Desktop computers. Sure they make some good processors like the Core I X series. But they take overprice for their work, compared to performance.

AMD
A lot of people looks upon AMD as being a second rate product. Because people "once upon a time tried Intel as their first CPU, and has never tried anything else." Its like "i ate a burger once upon a time on MacDonals. So now i NEVER EVER eat another place". Its pathetic, annoying and childish. I go where i get most for the buck. And here AMD 85% of the times, gives more UMF for less $.

Unless you need a state of the art gaming machine, with the top 3 CPU,s on the benchmark tests. Go with AMD. They make good products, and use the leftover $ to give your gf something pretty =) or w/e. I myself will go AMD next time i change hardware.

Well said! There's also SPARC processors if you're using Sun but from what I've recently looked into they now only make servers :'( otherwise I would buy one.

NightwishFan
July 18th, 2011, 07:46 AM
I regret I did not browse for an AMD cpu when I bought my current laptop. I think almost all AMD cpus support virtualization extensions, and that is almost all I do.

I say AMD.

blueturtl
July 18th, 2011, 11:17 AM
I am yet to see a decent portable computer based on AMD chips. Hot and underpowered seem to be traits most commonly associated with those things.

For desktops one might argue the AMD case, but I wouldn't do so for notebooks. The best AMD notebook I've seen was a business series model from HP that had the Turion64 chip. It ran hot, but it never once powered down even under extreme stress. Performance was mediocre, but at least it was a stable machine.

This might not have anything to do with the chips themselves but rather the fact that since AMD is seen as the budget solution it is often used on those crappy 500$ machines.

Noz3001
July 18th, 2011, 11:58 AM
I've never had an Intel laptop, but here's my AMD laptop right now:

http://i.imgur.com/Dn0Nb.png

johnnybgoode83
July 18th, 2011, 12:11 PM
I am a fan of both Intel and AMD processors as I have never had any issues with either.

nerdy_kid
July 18th, 2011, 12:43 PM
I've always gone with Intel, I have heard that AMD runs hotter, but also that one can buy a faster AMD for the same price as a slower Intel. I use mainly laptops, so I feel safer with Intel -- I hate having an overheating laptop. I just bought a system76 laptop with an Intel i7 (can't wait for it to come!!!) quad core CPU (The i7s are all either quad core or 6 core from what I understand) with hyperthreading, which means the OS sees twice as many cores are there are actual cores (among more complicated things that I don't really understand...). Intel shows lots of info about the CPUs as well, here is mine: http://ark.intel.com/products/52219/Intel-Core-i7-2630QM-Processor-(6M-Cache-2_00-GHz)

smellyman
July 18th, 2011, 12:49 PM
AMD doesn't get as much hype, but there have been times AMD was better than Intel. They have gone back in forth in who is ahead. Right now Intel has the edge again.

That being said I just but an AMD. I am not a gamer and even if I was the difference isn't that big and you save a a lot buying AMD.

babakott
July 18th, 2011, 01:08 PM
I like both processors just fine. My current laptop has an Intel, but I have used AMD as well. As far as the overheating is concerned, buy a well designed machine and you won't have to worry about it. Any proc will over heat in a poorly designed laptop.

Just do your research before you buy.

walt.smith1960
July 18th, 2011, 01:10 PM
AMD hasn't done much in the notebook-netbook market until very recently. Check reviews of Thinkpad X100e and X120e. They are both AMD powered, the X120e using a newer generation AMD processor. X120e battery life is quite a bit better and it runs cooler.

el_koraco
July 18th, 2011, 01:21 PM
New Intel processors have the added benefit of the new HD GPU's, which are a thing of beauty on Linux. I'm saving up to get me one.

andras artois
July 18th, 2011, 01:24 PM
The new AMD Bulldozer laptop CPU's are looking pretty hench. Their graphics, M6990 in particular, are looking pretty impressive as well.

forrestcupp
July 18th, 2011, 03:01 PM
1. How do you know how many cores an Intel processor has? Laptops with Intel processors never seem to want to tell you online. I was looking at some laptops with i7 processors, but they wouldn't say whether or not they were dual core or quad core.

When you are talking about laptops, all i3's and i5's are dual core processors with 2 threads per core, which makes it look like 4 cores to your OS. It works pretty well. All laptop i7's are true quad cores with 2 threads per core, which makes it look like 8 cores to your OS. The only difference between a laptop i3 and i5 is that i5 has the turbo boost feature, which slightly overclocks the processor when needed by the apps you're running. That's the only difference. You be the judge whether it's worth the price difference or not. Intel Core i processors run very cool, from what I've seen, cooler than current AMD offerings.

Here are my suggestions when looking at AMD vs Intel for a laptop. The raw power of a true quad core AMD Phenom II X4 processor probably slightly beats a first gen Core i3 or i5 processor, which are dual core simulated to be quad core. But a 2nd gen i3 or i5 probably beats any AMD because their new Intel HD Graphics 3000 is much more advanced than their previous integrated graphics, and I think they beat out AMD's low-end onboard graphics that are usually included in laptops. No matter what, no AMD is going to beat any i7, no matter if it's first or second gen.

My advice is to get an Intel Core i, and make sure it's 2nd generation.

Dry Lips
July 18th, 2011, 04:28 PM
No matter what, no AMD is going to beat any i7, no matter if it's first or second gen.

We had a whole thread about this AMD vs INTEL thing a little while ago.
http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=1772285
One of the points made in it is that there certainly are AMD prosessors
that match some of the i7's... See this post for an excellent graphical depiction of this:
http://ubuntuforums.org/showpost.php?p=10906930&postcount=59

forrestcupp
July 18th, 2011, 04:59 PM
We had a whole thread about this AMD vs INTEL thing a little while ago.
http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=1772285
One of the points made in it is that there certainly are AMD prosessors
that match some of the i7's... See this post for an excellent graphical depiction of this:
http://ubuntuforums.org/showpost.php?p=10906930&postcount=59

Do they have X6's in laptops? If so, how do they compare in price to laptop i7's?

Dry Lips
July 18th, 2011, 05:12 PM
Do they have X6's in laptops? If so, how do they compare in price to laptop i7's?

I don't know if they have X6's in laptops, but there certainly are AMD Phenoms for laptops. From the graph in the post I quoted, Athlon II X2, Athlon II X4, Phenom II X4 can be compared to low end i7's...

3Miro
July 18th, 2011, 05:16 PM
I haven't seen Phenom X6 on a Laptop. I think AMD has rather weak presence on the Laptop market at the moment, it is almost hard to get a good AMD laptop. I am not sure about the new Llano chips, but I think for a Laptop Intel is a "safer" bet (although more expensive).

Between myself and my immediate family, we have 3 Intel laptops and 4 Intel Desktops and we are all happy with those.

forrestcupp
July 18th, 2011, 05:21 PM
I don't know if they have X6's in laptops, but there certainly are AMD Phenoms for laptops. From the graph in the post I quoted, Athlon II X2, Athlon II X4, Phenom II X4 can be compared to low end i7's...

Well, we're talking about laptops, so X6's only apply if they are available for laptops. About your graph, when I was researching laptop processors recently when I was in the market, I saw plenty of graphs that showed that Phenom II X4 doesn't best any i7. Like I said, the raw processing power of the X4, which is a true quad core, would best a laptop i3 or i5. But then there are other things to take into consideration, like 2nd gen Core i's come with Intel HD Graphics 3000, which outperforms AMD's entry level graphics. If you're going to buy a laptop with a truly discrete, mid to upper level dedicated GPU, then the X4 would always be a better choice than the i3 or i5. But just because AMD calls their entry level crap "discrete graphics" doesn't mean they truly are. No matter what, from what I've seen, the Core i's run cooler than AMD chips, and that was one of the concerns of the OP.

This is just what I found when I was recently researching things for myself. I wasn't being biased at all; in fact, I almost bought an X4.

akand074
July 18th, 2011, 05:41 PM
Intel definitely. Though if you find a nice machine with good specs at a cheaper price with AMD, then go with that. But Intel chips are generally superior overall. It's a bit more difficult to see this for laptops, but AMD is generally better performance per value.

Dry Lips
July 18th, 2011, 05:57 PM
Well, we're talking about laptops, so X6's only apply if they are available for laptops. About your graph, when I was researching laptop processors recently when I was in the market, I saw plenty of graphs that showed that Phenom II X4 doesn't best any i7. Like I said, the raw processing power of the X4, which is a true quad core, would best a laptop i3 or i5.

I don't know how accurate the graph is, as I haven't looked into this matter myself.
But if you have done research about this, you are welcome to share your findings.
(Links and references would be appreciated!) I have AMD on all my computers, but
I'm not biased either. We're talking silicone chips, not religion. ;)

Sylslay
July 18th, 2011, 06:20 PM
Any laptop with Intel P7450 or i3-i5 CPU and 2-4GB ram
...

....
one year old Nvidia GPU

http://www.notebookcheck.net/NVIDIA-GeForce-GT-330M.22437.0.html

If You don't play recent windows games ..

I can bay it in my country from 400-600 euro.

Any lenovo 15.6 " screen or thosiba 16" screen.

Best spec for money IMHO , at the moment.

Next Year .. Who knows.....

forrestcupp
July 18th, 2011, 06:42 PM
I don't know how accurate the graph is, as I haven't looked into this matter myself.
But if you have done research about this, you are welcome to share your findings.
(Links and references would be appreciated!) I have AMD on all my computers, but Since I really don't care that much, it's not worth it to me to go through all of those hours of re-researching. :)

I was just giving my educated opinion. I don't have a problem with people being happy with AMD products. I actually believe it won't be that long before AMD is the better choice once again for laptops and desktops, especially since the rumor is that Intel is going to start putting more focus on mobile stuff. I just think that right now, we're in a time slot where Intel is the better choice for laptops (but maybe not desktops).


I'm not biased either. We're talking silicone chips, not religion. ;)
Lol. Exactly.

racie
July 18th, 2011, 09:21 PM
Wow! I left this thread for overnight and it got a lot of posts! Thanks for all the responses, guys. It looks like most people in this thread like Intel processors better.

I've read all of the responses, but I don't want to make my post super long, so I'll just quote one thing here...


dont buy the bargain basement sub $500 laptops.

my own opinion is that my laptop should be light and still have at least 4 hours of battery power. heat is subjective and all about design. my netbook never gets hot except for the wifi card under the palm rest. look into a model's processor the smaller the architecture and lower that wattage the cooler it usually runs.

Hehe... oops. I seem to have left out one key detail.

I was getting some printer paper in Staples the other day when I noticed how cheap some of the laptops are compared to the price of my Compaq a few years ago.

The laptop I plan to buy will be a pretty CHEAP one.

There are a lot of cheap Acer laptops. Are they any good? I hadn't heard about them until recently but apparently they're pretty big in Europe. The price is enticing, but I don't want to have another Compaq incident. :P

If anything, I'd like to get that System76 netbook, but that's only a maybe.

Drenriza
July 19th, 2011, 07:13 AM
I haven't seen Phenom X6 on a Laptop. I think AMD has rather weak presence on the Laptop market at the moment, it is almost hard to get a good AMD laptop. I am not sure about the new Llano chips, but I think for a Laptop Intel is a "safer" bet (although more expensive).

Between myself and my immediate family, we have 3 Intel laptops and 4 Intel Desktops and we are all happy with those.

Ever used a AMD CPU before? Or even from the past two years or less?

Drenriza
July 19th, 2011, 07:14 AM
I don't know how accurate the graph is, as I haven't looked into this matter myself.
But if you have done research about this, you are welcome to share your findings.
(Links and references would be appreciated!) I have AMD on all my computers, but
I'm not biased either. We're talking silicone chips, not religion. ;)

This is a good site for laptop CPU benchmark tests
http://www.notebookcheck.net/Mobile-Processors-Benchmarklist.2436.0.html

NightwishFan
July 19th, 2011, 08:31 AM
Saw some 4 core AMD laptops at the store today. I wish I had one, though I am thinking of moving to ARM on the next portable computer I buy. So I will have to pick up an AMD Desktop instead. :)

Dustin2128
July 19th, 2011, 08:41 AM
Hm, slight threadjacking here but it's somewhat on topic. Could a 35W TPD processor be run fanless with a big enough heatsink? I noticed some of the new sandy bridge processors were putting out about that much heat and a home theater PC with no moving parts would be quite awesome.

forrestcupp
July 19th, 2011, 01:48 PM
The laptop I plan to buy will be a pretty CHEAP one.

There are a lot of cheap Acer laptops. Are they any good? I hadn't heard about them until recently but apparently they're pretty big in Europe. The price is enticing, but I don't want to have another Compaq incident. :P

I've had a lot of luck with Acers. I like them. You should be able to get a laptop with a 2nd gen Intel Core i3-2310M for cheap that will do you just fine. I wouldn't get anything less than an i3, though. And make sure to get 2nd generation if you can, because the built in graphics are so much better this time around.

I have a laptop with the above processor. I'm using Sony Vegas to produce a song right now that has 20 tracks with a lot of VST effects on each track. It doesn't have any problem playing all of that in real time without bogging down at all. Also, for what it's worth, my new laptop has a much higher Windows Experience Index rating than my old Core2duo that had a dedicated Geforce 8600 GPU in it. I got my computer on sale for around $460, and I'm more than happy with it.

Dry Lips
July 19th, 2011, 03:18 PM
This is a good site for laptop CPU benchmark tests
http://www.notebookcheck.net/Mobile-Processors-Benchmarklist.2436.0.html

Cheers! There's much information on that site, though ;)

blueturtl
July 19th, 2011, 06:42 PM
Hm, slight threadjacking here but it's somewhat on topic. Could a 35W TPD processor be run fanless with a big enough heatsink? I noticed some of the new sandy bridge processors were putting out about that much heat and a home theater PC with no moving parts would be quite awesome.

My PentiumIII 1 GHz is rated at about 30W TPD, and runs with a huge heatsink alone. In your case, maybe if you had a case design where the PSU fan would pull the air off your CPU cooler, it could be possible.

You have to keep the case cool with passive components. If your video card or any other part causes the internal case temp to rise, you will have a problem.

racie
July 19th, 2011, 07:59 PM
I've had a lot of luck with Acers. I like them. You should be able to get a laptop with a 2nd gen Intel Core i3-2310M for cheap that will do you just fine. I wouldn't get anything less than an i3, though. And make sure to get 2nd generation if you can, because the built in graphics are so much better this time around.

I have a laptop with the above processor. I'm using Sony Vegas to produce a song right now that has 20 tracks with a lot of VST effects on each track. It doesn't have any problem playing all of that in real time without bogging down at all. Also, for what it's worth, my new laptop has a much higher Windows Experience Index rating than my old Core2duo that had a dedicated Geforce 8600 GPU in it. I got my computer on sale for around $460, and I'm more than happy with it.

Well it's certainly great to hear that! I'm glad a somewhat low-end computer can handle that.

Oh and yeah... I wasn't planning on getting less than an i3 processor. I'd prefer an i5 if the laptop was cheap enough. Well who knows anyway... I may end up getting a more expensive laptop, but I'm aiming for a cheaper one.

How is it on heat though?

My Compaq computer actually used to run terrific, but I think overheating has damaged it.

Oh and thanks to Drenriza for posting that processor benchmark chart!

forrestcupp
July 19th, 2011, 08:06 PM
Well it's certainly great to hear that! I'm glad a somewhat low-end computer can handle that.Keep in mind that i3's are not the new Celerons. i3's are still pretty good processors.


Oh and yeah... I wasn't planning on getting less than an i3 processor. I'd prefer an i5 if the laptop was cheap enough. Well who knows anyway... I may end up getting a more expensive laptop, but I'm aiming for a cheaper one.Like I said earlier, the only difference between an i3 and an i5 for laptops is that i5's have the turbo boost feature that will automatically overclock the processor by a small amount when your apps need more power. Other than that, i3's are exactly the same as i5's (for laptops not desktops). It was my personal opinion that that one feature wasn't enough to justify the big price difference. An i7 would definitely be worth it if you decided to spend more money on your laptop.


How is it on heat though?Better than any other laptop I've ever had. Even in processor or GPU intensive moments, I've never felt this laptop heat up at all. And I don't even think I've ever heard a fan run on this thing.

Dustin2128
July 19th, 2011, 11:32 PM
My PentiumIII 1 GHz is rated at about 30W TPD, and runs with a huge heatsink alone. In your case, maybe if you had a case design where the PSU fan would pull the air off your CPU cooler, it could be possible.

You have to keep the case cool with passive components. If your video card or any other part causes the internal case temp to rise, you will have a problem.
Say the case was either quite large or kept with the side permanently open. Possible then, you think? Assuming room temperature of about 20C/70F.

andrewabc
July 20th, 2011, 01:19 AM
If talking about fanless, I'd still suggest a fan if there is room. You can buy silent fans. Unless you are specifically talking about cpu fans. I dunno, I'd probably want some air blowing.

I bought a 1gb low end vid card, fanless, and I needed to add fan because it got really hot.

As for AMD laptop processors, the new ones look really nice
Llano mobile processors (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_AMD_mobile_microprocessors#Sabine_.28Fusio n.29_platform_.282011.29)

Even the e-350 amd processor for cheap laptops/netbooks are good enough for basic use (web browsing etc). You can get $400 CAD before taxes e-350 15.6" 6gb ram 640gb hdd. Example (http://www.futureshop.ca/en-CA/product/gateway-gateway-15-6-amd-e-350-processor-laptop-nv51b02h-black-nv51b02h/10171793.aspx?path=1fa44fbac5913e19ea914458cd93c89 een02)

Is it best possible laptop? Nope. But for $400, compare it to $400 (or even $800) 2 years ago and we've come a long way. Especially for finally good vid cards (1080p and much better multitasking), hdmi, and 6gb ddr3 ram. I think SATAIII becoming more common, so SATAIII SSD can go in laptops and make them crazy fast compared to slow 5400rpm hdd.

The quad core Llano laptops should be good for some light work. Their vid cards are supposed to be faster than my onboard desktop vid card that is only 1 year old (ati HD4250).

I don't know anything about AMD vs Intel as I've only researched AMD (researching both takes too much time). I have 6 core 2.8ghz amd in desktop and works fine. You can get it now for $150 freeship, and I paid $200 last November.

1clue
July 20th, 2011, 02:02 AM
Do not buy a bargain basement laptop. At one point I found a while-they-last sale on 64-bit Windows 7 laptops with a webcam for USD$250. Bought one because that was how many they had when I got to the desk, would have bought another too, thinking it would be cool to put Linux on it. It was junk, so I literally gave it to a buddy whose laptop had just gone bonkers.

Recent AMD products I think are probably supported as well as Intel products. I think AMD runs hotter and costs less. Hotter means shorter battery life on a laptop. Pick your poison. I personally don't buy laptops because I can't pick my hardware, although that gets harder every time, I think the next time I'm going to have to break down and do a laptop.

My current desktop is a pretty much maxed out i7, and somebody at my company just made an AMD 6-core bare bones system for $800. I spent around $3500. Hard to say how much all the cards and peripherals cost, haven't really thought about it but I know I put twice that $800 into the basic box at least, and speed wise it's about the same as the AMD.

forrestcupp
July 20th, 2011, 02:26 AM
My current desktop is a pretty much maxed out i7, and somebody at my company just made an AMD 6-core bare bones system for $800. I spent around $3500. Hard to say how much all the cards and peripherals cost, haven't really thought about it but I know I put twice that $800 into the basic box at least, and speed wise it's about the same as the AMD.

Dang, Dude! I guess some people buy cars and houses, and some people buy computers. :)

1clue
July 20th, 2011, 02:29 AM
Dang, Dude! I guess some people buy cars and houses, and some people buy computers. :)

Yeah.

I have two computers which each cost at least 3 times what I paid for my only car.

You might be a nerd....

blueturtl
July 20th, 2011, 09:09 AM
Say the case was either quite large or kept with the side permanently open. Possible then, you think? Assuming room temperature of about 20C/70F.

Sent you a PM. Don't want to threadjack either. :)

Lucradia
July 20th, 2011, 02:45 PM
It's a good idea to watch out for AMD late this year and next year. They're pushing out their APU / 4-core 2.1+ GHz processors starting as of this month or so.

The Fusion line is also something that will likely get stuck into laptops more and more, as Intel has yet to release their own. (GPU + CPU on-die.) Also watch for the 6-core CPUs to drop in price next year or late winter as 8-core FX CPU Line comes out into the wild (AM3+) So in time to come, AMD is setting it self up to be the heavy lifter of gaming CPUs for laptops in the long run.

Remember: Threads aren't cores; and Turbo tech from Intel isn't good enough for most games. (I mean, really, 1.6 GHz to overclock to 2.1 GHz isn't good enough, sadly. You also need Windows to even run the turbo tech from Intel.)

forrestcupp
July 20th, 2011, 05:58 PM
The Fusion line is also something that will likely get stuck into laptops more and more, as Intel has yet to release their own. (GPU + CPU on-die.)
The 2nd generation Core i processors are GPU + CPU on one die. So were the first gen, but the GPU was 45nm while the CPU was 32nm. Now it's all one 32nm die.

Also, I was under the impression that the Fusion line was going to be netbook quality processors. Is that not right?

PCaddicted
July 20th, 2011, 06:03 PM
Intel

andrewabc
July 20th, 2011, 10:51 PM
Also, I was under the impression that the Fusion line was going to be netbook quality processors. Is that not right?

Partly correct. Fusion covers a wide range of processors. From single core netbook cpu to quad core laptop cpu, to quad core desktop cpu.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amd_fusion

Simple breakdown:
Brazos brand: netbook, cheap laptop

Lynx and sabine are similar (both Llano), just one is for laptop the other for desktop.
Lynx: desktop dual and quad core
Sabine: laptop dual and quad core

It will be interesting if the low end mobile A6-3400M quad core 1.4ghz ends up in cheap laptops in 6 months (currently $600 laptops). It will also be interesting if it makes it into small nettops instead of the dual core 1.6ghz e-350 that are already out.

They cover the low end to mid range. I think late this year or so they are coming out with high end 4/6/8 core desktop processors.

I think we can all rejoice that early intel atom with crappy vid cards are now way outdated with proper replacements that can play 1080p (and hdmi usb3, 8gb ram etc). I got a 1.6ghz single core atom with GMA950 nettop and it is barely good enough for just light web browsing. The e-350 processor/graphics blow it away (for similar price of nettops 2.5 years ago).

forrestcupp
July 21st, 2011, 01:56 AM
Partly correct. Fusion covers a wide range of processors. From single core netbook cpu to quad core laptop cpu, to quad core desktop cpu.
Nice.

cprofitt
July 21st, 2011, 03:15 AM
saw a post a while back that I feel I should correct.

not all i7 processors are quad core.
http://www.intel.com/consumer/products/processors/compare-processors.htm

forrestcupp
July 21st, 2011, 01:26 PM
saw a post a while back that I feel I should correct.

not all i7 processors are quad core.
http://www.intel.com/consumer/products/processors/compare-processors.htm

Wow. It looks like some of them are dual core. I did not know that. Thanks for pointing that out.

Lucradia
July 21st, 2011, 04:22 PM
Wow. It looks like some of them are dual core. I did not know that. Thanks for pointing that out.

And Intel Core 2 does have a single-core, if you didn't know:

http://www.google.com/#hl=en&q=Intel+Core+2+Solo

Or the actual page: http://www.intel.com/products/processor/core2solo/specifications.htm

1clue
July 21st, 2011, 07:55 PM
Wow. It looks like some of them are dual core. I did not know that. Thanks for pointing that out.

I suspected that some of them were, since there are laptops with i7s and inordinately high battery life claims.

What I didn't expect is that there are 6-core i7s, that really makes me a bit green.

forrestcupp
July 21st, 2011, 10:55 PM
And Intel Core 2 does have a single-core, if you didn't know:Yeah, I always thought that was intentionally confusing for marketing. But that's kind of obsolete, now.


I suspected that some of them were, since there are laptops with i7s and inordinately high battery life claims.

What I didn't expect is that there are 6-core i7s, that really makes me a bit green.I'm probably wrong, but I don't think there are any 6 core i7s for laptops yet, are there?

GSF1200S
July 21st, 2011, 11:27 PM
I tend to prefer AMD in that they are the smaller company/underdog, but at the moment I have to lean Intel. AMD is, however, definitely what I suggest if you are on a budget- if you can find a well-built laptop, they will definitely give you more performance per dollar (or other unit of currency).

I just want to know if I can use one of those snazzy new 6 core desktop i7's on my rampage 2 motherboard; same chipset, but ive heard the die process is different.

Next time I build a desktop, I will prolly go AMD even though Ive been very pleased with my i7- I spent a fortune on this rig 2 years ago..

1clue
July 22nd, 2011, 04:17 AM
Yeah, I always thought that was intentionally confusing for marketing. But that's kind of obsolete, now.

I'm probably wrong, but I don't think there are any 6 core i7s for laptops yet, are there?

Sorry, I browsed over to the desktop section. I'm a little bent that I don't have a 6-core on my system.

Don't mind my being a little green.

racie
July 22nd, 2011, 04:55 AM
@forrestcupp - Wow... very little heat, huh? That's amazing for a budget laptop.

I'm actually looking into netbooks atm. Sure, they aren't really good for gaming, but they're functional for school. Eee PC's look nice.


You also need Windows to even run the turbo tech from Intel.)
What??? This can't possibly be right... especially because MacBooks use Intel processors...


saw a post a while back that I feel I should correct.

not all i7 processors are quad core.
http://www.intel.com/consumer/products/processors/compare-processors.htm

Well... in desktops they have 4-6 cores (possibly 8?), but in desktops they have 2-4 cores.

*edit* Whoops, didn't notice your link there. There are no 8-core i7's. Strange because I could have sworn I've heard of this. Guess not.

Lucradia
July 22nd, 2011, 04:40 PM
What??? This can't possibly be right... especially because MacBooks use Intel processors...

See this: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/linux/+bug/429036

The processor would never turbo, under any circumstance, unless you installed Windows and used the core i# desktop widget. (The widget actually is a driver.)


*edit* Whoops, didn't notice your link there. There are no 8-core i7's. Strange because I could have sworn I've heard of this. Guess not.

That's correct. Intel only has 6-cores, and makes an excuse to charge more for threads. Also, no 8-cores next year. (also possibly removing hex-cores for a short time.)

racie
July 23rd, 2011, 06:54 PM
See this: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/linux/+bug/429036

The processor would never turbo, under any circumstance, unless you installed Windows and used the core i# desktop widget. (The widget actually is a driver.)

But surely the turbo would work under OS X...

Lucradia
July 23rd, 2011, 06:57 PM
But surely the turbo would work under OS X...

That intel processor may only be geared for MacOS' kernel, and thus Intel makes no drivers / etc. for it on Windows / Linux. Since MacOS is BSD Based, you won't see it on Linux / Windows anytime soon.

life in color
July 23rd, 2011, 11:33 PM
That intel processor may only be geared for MacOS' kernel, and thus Intel makes no drivers / etc. for it on Windows / Linux. Since MacOS is BSD Based, you won't see it on Linux / Windows anytime soon.

But Linux is UNIX based as well. Is there a type of UNIX that isn't BSD?

1clue
July 24th, 2011, 07:11 PM
Linux is a complete rewrite based on System V UNIX. Since it's a complete rewrite there is no proprietary code. Since UNIX is a trademark, we say UN*X.