Read more.Quote:
'It's easy to hide behind graphics when their (AMD's) mobile processors are rubbish'
Printable View
Read more.Quote:
'It's easy to hide behind graphics when their (AMD's) mobile processors are rubbish'
Having suffered the 945GM Express Chipset in my laptop for the bast 9 months or so while running an external 24" monitor I greatly welcome better low power graphics.
If AMD can do to laptops what they did to HTPCs with the 780GM then it's all good.
Theres no point having a decent CPU if the rest of the chipset isnt there to support it.Quote:
They responded with 'it's easy to hide behind graphics when their (AMD's) mobile processors are rubbish in comparison to ours'.
Imagine if you would a Ferrari engine in a Mini....
Hmm, what is today? :P
Imagine having Mini Engine in a FerrariQuote:
Originally Posted by [GSV]Trig
works both ways (Bottleneck...) :rolleyes:
But it has to be in perspective.
If we are using engines in a Ferrari, how about saying a 5L vs a 5.2L? I think that would be more accurate.
(a mini engine being an old 486 chip which obviously wouldn't work)
Sure the Intel platform may beat the AMD in benchmarks, but if Aero and HD playback runs smooth and well because of decent acceleration (and not beating the battery because of high processor usage) then that, to me is probably more important.
Well the same can be said to Intel..
' Its easy to hide behind that Core 2 Duo willey when their GMA 4500 plays and accelerates like poo... oh, they're basically bollocks '
90% of the time, you will not even feel the difference of a faster CPU during mobility stages as they are always on battery mode..
But what a potent IGP can do for portable gaming is by far more substantial (well.. substantial if 3D acceleration is important on the mobile applications you use)
Don't know, Intel's attitude this time round infuriates me a little..
Were on about CPU's tho, so in a car it'd be the engine ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Paulm@scan
In your :rolleyes: statement it'd be more like having a 486 CPU in a decent chipset so kidna not the same thing ;)
Its not the size of the engine thats important tho, its the fact that all the bits around it dont work in harmony, yes Intel have the C2D/Q and yes its one hell of a good CPU but if the rest of the chipset is left wanting then whats the point in putting such a good CPU in there?Quote:
Originally Posted by Funkstar
Imagine again in a car, you have a nice ferrari engine but a crap fuel pump, theres enough fuel being supplied to get the job done but not enough to really let the CPU shine and do what it does to the best of its ability...
Sorry to keep using the car analogies but I'm trying to make it easier for less techsavvy people to understand.
I know all that, I was using the size of engine because the AMD CPU is "slower" than the Intel CPU
It's like when TopGear argue about the latest Ferrari vs the latest Astin Martin. They are both incredibly fast and a normal person wouldn't be able to tell the difference.
When you compare the systems as a whole it is completely different.
Agreed, I dont think theres any argument to which is the best CPU but if the rest of the system doesnt compliment that CPU then faster isnt always better (unless you shop at PCW and think higher means better:lol: ).
Go back a few years and look at the Amiga, the hardware was so tightly knitted together that the fact it was slower than PC's (CPU Clockwise) of the time it didnt matter as they had the appearance of being faster due to things all working perfectly together.
Same thing seems to be the case here, yes AMD's CPU isnt as fast but it seems so far to have a better feature set and coupled with the rest of the system its faster than the Intel kit.
The main thing with demo's like this is its putting next gen vs current gen, both AMD and Intel do it all the time, the real test will be when Intel release there Centrino2 and both are on the shelf for all to test and mess about with, chances are one or other will delay when the other's get there hard launch out, make a few tweaks and then release a bit later than the other....
I just thought of another comparison.
The AMD system is a high end sports car (doesn't matter which one), the Intel system is the same car, but the stripped down GT version. Sure the Intel is faster round the TopGear track, but there is a lot less comfort and usability. And really, are you going to notice the 0.4 of a second (or whatever)?
:)
:lol: shall we get this moved to the Cars & Bikes forum now?
What's a fuel pump? :juggle:Quote:
Originally Posted by [GSV]Trig
i have always been an amd man. Starting to reconsider now though. Im realising now that its not all about clock speed and how much difference the cache size makes performance wise.
It never was about clock speed, that's what intel finally learnt not so long back :)
Push higher clock rates and not doing anything smart with it just lead them to a dead end