Mobile Platform Wars: AMD vs. Intel
by Jarred Walton on October 5, 2007 9:10 AM EST
Closing Thoughts
At least in the mobile sector, we've got good news and bad news for AMD. We'll start with the bad news first.
While battery life and power requirements look to be reasonably competitive with Intel's offerings, in terms of raw performance AMD gets beat pretty easily. This occurs even when comparing AMD's latest $400 Turion X2 TL-66 to a system using Intel's $250 Core 2 Duo T7300. If you are concerned with mobile CPU performance, AMD is essentially unable to compete at all with Intel's current Core 2 Duo laptops. While you can typically find AMD-based solutions for less money than Intel-based notebooks, features often end up being cut in order to reach a lower price point, and similarly equipped notebooks usually end up favoring AMD by a mere $50. With potentially 25% more performance on tap, we would recommend most spend the extra money to get a Core 2 Duo notebook.
So what's the good news? First, AMD's 65nm process does show improvements over the 90nm process, even if the improvements are relatively minor. The TL-66 does manage to use a bit less power than the TL-60 when both are idle and running at the same 800 MHz clock speed. Given the maturity of the 90nm process and the relative newness of AMD's 65nm process, we expect that AMD can make further improvements that will both increase clock speeds as well as further reduce power requirements. However, it's unlikely that the current Turion X2 will ever be competitive with Core 2 Duo, at least when CPU performance is the criterion used to judge.
Perhaps the more important good news is that AMD's integrated graphics still come out as being superior to Intel's latest offering. The margin has narrowed considerably since the GMA 950 era, and even the past several months have helped Intel a lot in terms of improving performance on the GMA X3100. That being said, the Intel drivers since the launch of the G965/GM965 chipsets (and Q33/Q35/G33) have been more than just a little painful when it comes to running 3D applications. Users have been promised numerous updates, and while compatibility and performance has certainly improved, there's still a lot of work to be done. Let's not even talk about the delays with releasing G35... though perhaps the drivers will finally be ready when those motherboards hit the market. (We can hope, at any rate.)
There's another fringe benefit for AMD when it comes to notebook graphics, of course. As we've shown, both the Radeon X1250 and the GMA X3100 are painfully slow at running 3D graphics when compared to even a relatively inexpensive Radeon Mobility HD 2300. Anyone that needs more GPU performance in their notebook than the current IGPs offer will need to pick up a discrete graphics chip, and that means AMD has a chance at selling one of their mobile GPUs even if they don't provide the CPU or chipset. They'll have to compete with NVIDIA here, but ATI has always had a pretty strong presence in the mobile graphics market.
Looking to the future, we're still waiting to finally see how Phenom actually performs on the desktop, and after that launch we will probably have to wait a few more months before we see the new Griffin mobile architecture. Griffin is based off of K8, so it may not be all that different from current Turion X2 offerings, but we'll have to wait and see. Long-term, we would expect more of the Barcelona technology to make its way into a mobile CPU (assuming Barcelona ends up competing well against Intel), when that might occur is not yet known. Let's not get ahead of ourselves, though. Early indications are that Phenom will be more competitive with Intel's Core 2 Duo/Quad, but we're skeptical that they will actually be able to lead in any benchmarks. Unless Griffin sports some significant changes, we also don't expect it to close the gap in the mobile sector. As usual, time will tell.
While we would definitely prefer a Core 2 Duo notebook over a Turion X2 notebook at this point in time, one of the bigger factors is going to be price and features. The truth is that even though the HP 6515b is clearly slower than the HP dv6500t in our benchmarks, in typical use it would be very difficult for most people to tell the difference. A moderately fast dual-core processor with 2GB of RAM packs more than enough performance for most home and business users. Far more important than the raw performance numbers will be the design and features of the notebook. Laptop bargains come and go, so if you happen to find a good sale on any Core 2 Duo or Turion X2 notebook, outside of gaming performance such a notebook will be more than sufficient.
At least in the mobile sector, we've got good news and bad news for AMD. We'll start with the bad news first.
While battery life and power requirements look to be reasonably competitive with Intel's offerings, in terms of raw performance AMD gets beat pretty easily. This occurs even when comparing AMD's latest $400 Turion X2 TL-66 to a system using Intel's $250 Core 2 Duo T7300. If you are concerned with mobile CPU performance, AMD is essentially unable to compete at all with Intel's current Core 2 Duo laptops. While you can typically find AMD-based solutions for less money than Intel-based notebooks, features often end up being cut in order to reach a lower price point, and similarly equipped notebooks usually end up favoring AMD by a mere $50. With potentially 25% more performance on tap, we would recommend most spend the extra money to get a Core 2 Duo notebook.
So what's the good news? First, AMD's 65nm process does show improvements over the 90nm process, even if the improvements are relatively minor. The TL-66 does manage to use a bit less power than the TL-60 when both are idle and running at the same 800 MHz clock speed. Given the maturity of the 90nm process and the relative newness of AMD's 65nm process, we expect that AMD can make further improvements that will both increase clock speeds as well as further reduce power requirements. However, it's unlikely that the current Turion X2 will ever be competitive with Core 2 Duo, at least when CPU performance is the criterion used to judge.
Perhaps the more important good news is that AMD's integrated graphics still come out as being superior to Intel's latest offering. The margin has narrowed considerably since the GMA 950 era, and even the past several months have helped Intel a lot in terms of improving performance on the GMA X3100. That being said, the Intel drivers since the launch of the G965/GM965 chipsets (and Q33/Q35/G33) have been more than just a little painful when it comes to running 3D applications. Users have been promised numerous updates, and while compatibility and performance has certainly improved, there's still a lot of work to be done. Let's not even talk about the delays with releasing G35... though perhaps the drivers will finally be ready when those motherboards hit the market. (We can hope, at any rate.)
There's another fringe benefit for AMD when it comes to notebook graphics, of course. As we've shown, both the Radeon X1250 and the GMA X3100 are painfully slow at running 3D graphics when compared to even a relatively inexpensive Radeon Mobility HD 2300. Anyone that needs more GPU performance in their notebook than the current IGPs offer will need to pick up a discrete graphics chip, and that means AMD has a chance at selling one of their mobile GPUs even if they don't provide the CPU or chipset. They'll have to compete with NVIDIA here, but ATI has always had a pretty strong presence in the mobile graphics market.
Looking to the future, we're still waiting to finally see how Phenom actually performs on the desktop, and after that launch we will probably have to wait a few more months before we see the new Griffin mobile architecture. Griffin is based off of K8, so it may not be all that different from current Turion X2 offerings, but we'll have to wait and see. Long-term, we would expect more of the Barcelona technology to make its way into a mobile CPU (assuming Barcelona ends up competing well against Intel), when that might occur is not yet known. Let's not get ahead of ourselves, though. Early indications are that Phenom will be more competitive with Intel's Core 2 Duo/Quad, but we're skeptical that they will actually be able to lead in any benchmarks. Unless Griffin sports some significant changes, we also don't expect it to close the gap in the mobile sector. As usual, time will tell.
While we would definitely prefer a Core 2 Duo notebook over a Turion X2 notebook at this point in time, one of the bigger factors is going to be price and features. The truth is that even though the HP 6515b is clearly slower than the HP dv6500t in our benchmarks, in typical use it would be very difficult for most people to tell the difference. A moderately fast dual-core processor with 2GB of RAM packs more than enough performance for most home and business users. Far more important than the raw performance numbers will be the design and features of the notebook. Laptop bargains come and go, so if you happen to find a good sale on any Core 2 Duo or Turion X2 notebook, outside of gaming performance such a notebook will be more than sufficient.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
33 Comments
View All Comments
zsdersw - Monday, October 8, 2007 - link
I'm not going to call you anything, nor am I interested in doing so. I just find it curious that the only thing you think is important just happens to be the one bright spot for AMD in the article. That's all. Read into it what you want.yyrkoon - Tuesday, October 9, 2007 - link
It would be important, because unlike all the Core2 vs AMD Fanfare, it has not been covered 5 million times already.
zsdersw - Thursday, October 11, 2007 - link
The number of times something is covered or reported has no relevance to how important it is or is not. Just because you don't want to hear the same thing "5 million times" doesn't make something else you want to hear more important.JumpingJack - Thursday, October 11, 2007 - link
You are losing this argument.JumpingJack - Sunday, October 7, 2007 - link
That tends to be the ticket, and, oh yeah, don't forget -- performance doesn't really matter, it is how it feels and the user experience.... :) It cracks me up.JarredWalton - Sunday, October 7, 2007 - link
I'm not sure what the complaint is - that I actually talked about all aspects of the platform (well, not *all*, but most), or that I wrote an article that shows that AMD's CPUs on notebooks are still slow, but their IGP tends to be better. Quite a few people have complained to Gary/Anand that we haven't looked at Intel IGP performance with X3100 (G965), so this article addresses that to a large extent. The result is a LOT better now than it was three months back, incidentally - when I first looked at an X3100 laptop, it couldn't run the vast majority of games (at least under Vista).For what it's worth, X3100 on XP may diminish AMD's "bright spot" even further. But of course, any discrete mobile GPU is still an order of magnitude faster. Results so far with X3100 XP drivers have it besting AMD's X1250 in most games. It even manages to run Bioshock (which requires SM3.0) - sure, it's only moderately playable at 800x600 minimum detail settings, but it runs. Now if Intel can just get the Vista drivers up to that level.... We're also waiting for some IGP updates, as X1250 isn't really all that new anymore.
yyrkoon - Sunday, October 7, 2007 - link
That was not a complaint Jarred, that was a suggestion, and one that was not meant as a personal attack on you. I know I am not the only one getting bored of reading the same old things time, and time again.Now, as far as the how-to suggestion, you guys are of coure going to do whatever you think you need to do. However, I find it kind of strange, that anandtech would give all kinds of details as to how you did things, without actually saying anything that leaves your readers feeling like they have learned something. I can honestly say that I haave never learned a thing here, other than when something new came out, and how it performed, etc. For instance, if I only read your site for various things, such as overclocking, I would not have the first idea of how to go about doing so myself. To me that is sort of like saying; 'look what we can do that you cannot'. Now, my main point with this example would be that not everyone out there feels comfortable reading through forum posts on various web sites for insight on how to do these certain things, and would rather look to you, the anandtech technical writters for guidance on these matters. Is that really too much for your readers, and in this case me, to ask of you ? Give us DETAILS !
There are plenty of things I like about your web articles, but as far as actually learning anything technical . . . this has not happend for me here in quite some time, if ever.
And once again please fix your comment section timeout error . . . gets really annoying.
JarredWalton - Sunday, October 7, 2007 - link
I should also point out, if you weren't aware, that most of us focus on specific areas. Right now, I'm primarily looking at laptops and displays, with an occasional buyer's guide or system review. SAS might interest some of you, but that's not even remotely interesting to me and hence it's not in my area of expertise. SATA port multipliers also don't concern me, as I rarely use more than two HDDs in a system. Personally, I think a look at how the mobile platforms from AMD and Intel compare to each other is going to be far more interesting to a larger audience than a look at something like SAN, SAS, or what have you - not that someone from AT might not cover the other areas, but I can pretty much guarantee it won't be me.Overclocking is something we've also covered in the past, and pretty much every motherboard article provides a reasonable amount of information on the subject. given that OC'ing is pretty BIOS/platform specific, it belongs there more than in a separate article. I think there will be some additional information on the topic in some upcoming reviews, but I don't know that anyone is planning on a separate "How To" article. (We haven't done many of those.)
--Jarred
yyrkoon - Sunday, October 7, 2007 - link
Also, I think it would be good, if while covering different products, that it would be good if anandtech would list the pro's and con's of each aspect of a subject. If anyone is like myself, 'we' do not bothing reading most of he article, because it is either boring, obvious, or is just otherwise not nessisary to read. This last aspect has nothing really to do with anandtechs ability to write an exiciting article(except perhaps that I personally find some to be long, and drawn out), and has more to do with the different aspects of the subjects mentioned.ltcommanderdata - Saturday, October 6, 2007 - link
Well, I guess as you point out the Vista drivers for the GMA X3100 are still immature. I'm not even sure the 15.6/15.6.1 Vista drivers even enable hardware DX9.0c support like the XP drivers does since the Vista release notes have never mentioned it being added. Anyways, I'm definitely looking forward to those XP results with the GMA X3100. I hope you will use the 14.31.1 drivers since it fixed the hardware/software acceleration toggle problem with the 14.31 drivers.