AMD's "Puma" Mauls Intel

[Redline]

I just saw the review for the x200, and I find it funny that someone comopared the battery life of it to the DV5z.

X200 is a 12.1" 1280x800 200 nit screen said to not be bright enough to use outside notebook with 9 cell battery and x4500 graphics that would get 7 hours of battery life when actually using it. And you compared battery life to a 15.4" with an awesome 1680x1050 screen and 6 cell battery with graphics twice as good.

Not to mention that it probably costs 3 times as much when it comes out.

$1199, and most of what you will be paying for is the quality, reliability and durability of a ThinkPad.

There is so much else wrong with the rest of that post, I don't even know where to start, but I'll try. You concentrate far too much on the screen - the tx2500 has a similar screen to the X200 and struggles to break 3 hours on a 6 cell. The X200 nearly breaks 10 hours on a 9 cell. Yes, the graphics are roughly 1.5 times more powerful, even twice as powerful, but the battery life is less than half of the X200.

As for an "awesome 15.4" screen", uhh, have you actually looked it? Its above average, at best - there are far better screens out there, from Sony, Apple, and Dell (the LED backlit option on the M1530). Awesome implies standout, which the HP is not. Solid, for sure, but not all that extraordinary.

[TommyB0y]

Where is it $1199? I cant even find it on Lenovos website and the older X61s still cost that much and an X300 is $2500.

The TX2500z has a touch screen, so its not really the same except they are both 12.1". And battery life was at 3 hours 40 minutes with 6% left with low brightness levels and light work, with the 6 cell it comes with, and there is an 8 cell option.

The X200 achieved 10 hours because it was idling for more than 8 hours of it in the review, no work being done on it, so was the screen even active? What kind of stupid review is that. thankfully they went on to mention that it would last about 5 hours under load and light duty probably 7-8 hours. And that is with a 9-cell battery, which if you look at some examples a high capacity 9-cell can get almost twice as much as a cheap 6 cell in the same notebook.

[TommyB0y]

I just love this article, one guy actually gets it, compared to the Intel biased writers.

This is Opteron related though.

http://computerworld.co.nz/news.nsf/...257458007A61C9

[Redline]

Where is it $1199? I cant even find it on Lenovos website and the older X61s still cost that much and an X300 is $2500.

The TX2500z has a touch screen, so its not really the same except they are both 12.1". And battery life was at 3 hours 40 minutes with 6% left with low brightness levels and light work, with the 6 cell it comes with, and there is an 8 cell option.

The X200 achieved 10 hours because it was idling for more than 8 hours of it in the review, no work being done on it, so was the screen even active? What kind of stupid review is that. thankfully they went on to mention that it would last about 5 hours under load and light duty probably 7-8 hours. And that is with a 9-cell battery, which if you look at some examples a high capacity 9-cell can get almost twice as much as a cheap 6 cell in the same notebook.

You're incorrectly presuming a lot, BSing a lot of numbers, refuse to see the whole picture, and to be completely honest, its getting quite tiresome. You want to think you're right, and AMD is in fact better than Intel, and while I want to tell you that you are sadly mistaken, neither of us will actually change our positions on this matter, so continuing the conversation is pointless.

For the record though, it said multiple times in the X200 review discussion thread that the base price would be $1199. Before you mention it, the 9 cell battery upgrade should only cost around $50 based on the pricing of the extended battery option in the X60/X61. Order your X200 on August 5th

[there148]

You're incorrectly presuming a lot, BSing a lot of numbers, refuse to see the whole picture, and to be completely honest, its getting quite tiresome. You want to think you're right, and AMD is in fact better than Intel, and while I want to tell you that you are sadly mistaken, neither of us will actually change our positions on this matter, so continuing the conversation is pointless.

For the record though, it said multiple times in the X200 review discussion thread that the base price would be $1199. Before you mention it, the 9 cell battery upgrade should only cost around $50 based on the pricing of the extended battery option in the X60/X61. Order your X200 on August 5th

as someone who recently placed a purchased on the hp tx2500z,i sincerely hope you're wrong about the battery life of that unit. having owned previous amd laptops before, and getting 3 hours worth of battery with them, i dont know where you got your low numbers from. considering the new puma platform should improve power management substantially over the previous generations.

as far as cpu power is concerned, anything able to a) multitask without noticeable slowdown b) play wc3, wow , hl2, emulators c) not too much heat is okay with me. so therefore anything over 2 ghz is overkill for laptops in my opinion.

one reason i went for the tx2500 is because its the only laptop thats cheap enough and meet the requirements above. honestly what good is a 2.4ghz intel cpu going to do you with crappy intel igp? you arent going to see that speed in games, you arent going to see much speed difference in web usage or general usage. maybe if you do alot of video encoding or photoshop, but honestly not many people care for those things.

i own a e7200 desktop at 3.6ghz and a e4300 @ 3ghz. the e7200 has a gf7900 while the e4300 has an integrated gf7150m. let me tell you from personal experience the extra speed on the e4300 is totally wasted. cant play games, not much application needing more than a 1.8ghz c2d. so i turn on speedstep on the e4300 to actually lower its speed when its in idle. pure waste of cpu power without a graphics chip worthy. now the new puma platform is a godsend in my opinion. 2ghz cpu combine with hd3200 is more than enough to destroy any intel chips with integrated graphics for my usage. and thats why i choose puma platform.

will have to wait until the 24th form my unit to come and then ill find out which is better. but overall i have no regret with puma, although i cant say the same had i gone with intel/x3100.

[TommyB0y]

Your problem is, that I have never claimed that AMD was better than Intel, just that AMD is as good as and can be a better value in some cases. Value is more than price, its price for performance.

You are the one that came to this thread blasting AMD, throwing out numbers you thought were good, stretching the truth, making terrible comparisons, and if youre tired then stop typing.

I dont even know what it is I incorrectly presumed, when it was all from reviews.

[Redline]

Quote from the battery part of the NBR review of the tx2500:

When the battery was set in High Performance mode I got around 1.5 hours of usage with full screen brightness and Wi-Fi on. The number increases to about 3 hours in Balanced mode with Wi-Fi on. I didn't try out the Power Saver mode because the screen gets very dull and you don't get much performance, but I am sure it improves battery life slightly as well. If you want more battery life, I recommend getting the 8-cell battery for longer computing times.

Thats where my numbers came from. *shrug* If you choose not to believe it, thats not my problem, but having been a member of this site for over two years, I feel inclined to believe the figures they quote. I will attest to the fact that most notebooks are almost unusable in the Power Saver mode, whether they be Core 2 Duo, Pentium M or Turion X2 based systems.

@TommyB0y: I am merely trying to say that AMD is not as good, and their price/performance is not as good as you would like to say, since you're definition of performance is not necessarily anyone else's definition of performance, and regardless of that, is an inherently fallacious notion of performance, since it does not incorporate all areas of performance, and not even some of the more important ones.

What you are presuming to be wrong? You are presuming conditions of reviews that were not explicitly stated, in one occasion on this page. You are presuming the specs of the batteries without knowing for sure about them while trying to state conclusions based on that presumption as fact. There are multiple other examples in previous posts that I don't feel compelled to dig up, but I'm sure you get the idea anyways.

These "terrible comparisons" you speak of are comparisons that would make sense if you bothered to think about them in the slightest. My numbers are good, and are all backed by evidence given by reputable tech sources on the web. I dare you to challenge them. I don't stretch truths, thats AMD's job.

However, as this is getting quite personal, I feel that it might be advisable to discontinue this line of conversation.

[TommyB0y]

yes you should discontinue redline, because you are way too motivated to insult AMD.

there are other reviews on this very site where all of my information came from, and as you have found out not all of the reviews for your Intel benchmarks were true.

[Redline]

there are other reviews on this very site where all of my information came from, and as you have found out not all of the reviews for your Intel benchmarks were true.

If you bothered to read the link, Anand said that it was an excel error as to why the graphs came out wrong, however, the Nehalem benchmarks and the conclusions of 20-50% performance increase still stand. However, you obviously didn't catch that part, since you still feel compelled to call them falsified. Really? False benchmarks from one of the most reputable hardware review sites on the internet? I don't think so.

[sr.agent.riot]

yes you should discontinue redline, because you are way too motivated to insult AMD.

there are other reviews on this very site where all of my information came from, and as you have found out not all of the reviews for your Intel benchmarks were true.

Actually, you both should stop. TommyB0y, you are just as guilty to throw insults. It is not going to lead either of you to anywhere good. Each will still think his stink smells the best and the other will still deny the other's good points.

So, best to put this argument (for 'tis no longer a debate) to rest.