1. You may have noticed things look a little different around here - we've switched to a new platform (XenForo) and have some new forum styles and features. This how-to guide will help you find your way around. If you find anything that looks strange, post it in this thread.

Toshiba AMD Quad or i3? Which is better?

Discussion in 'What Notebook Should I Buy?' started by ikarah, Jul 23, 2011.

  1. Leoben

    Leoben Cylon

    Messages:
    735
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    30
    Link please?
     
  2. Bill Nye

    Bill Nye Know Nothing

    Messages:
    2,515
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    55
    Ok, assuming an application scales PERFECTLY with threads, the i5-2410m would still outbench the A8-3500m. And we all know perfect parallelization is nigh non-existent. But Cinebench is really nothing but a test of raw computational power, which should synthetically "inflate" the performance of multiple cores, but it still can't match that.

    2x4500 > 4x2050.

    And once again, that's the 2410m and the A8. The A6 would show even a great discrepancy.

    @above: Link is provided in the anandtech c11 multi-bench chart. 2.88 vs 1.8.
     
  3. Altered Phoenix

    Altered Phoenix Notebook Evangelist

    Messages:
    372
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    31
    Well they are the ones I use in all my reviews and recommendations... Is there another site you can give me that displays more accurate charts like that?
     
  4. npaladin2000

    npaladin2000 LOAD "*",8,1

    Messages:
    1,244
    Likes Received:
    10
    Trophy Points:
    56
    The AMD's main advantage is having an actual legitimate 3D GPU. If you need an inexpensive way to play games it's worthy of consideration. The Intel that the OP linked to, on the other hand, has that legendary Intel GPU 3D capability: none to speak of. :)
     
  5. Bill Nye

    Bill Nye Know Nothing

    Messages:
    2,515
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    55
    Dig on NBC like everyone else. Make sure you using the "show x comparisons" thing so you don't end up with a "lemon" benchmark.
     
  6. Leoben

    Leoben Cylon

    Messages:
    735
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    30
    Thank you, having a look now. Hopefully we will be speaking the same language soon.
     
  7. Bill Nye

    Bill Nye Know Nothing

    Messages:
    2,515
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    55
    Got my numbers mixed up, I meant 3530MX/3510MX. Those two seem pretty promising and offer a pretty huge base clock jump, which should make them somewhat competitive with the entry i5s.

    Don't think the A6s, or even the base A8 offers any real competition.

    And I'd take an i3 over the A6 simply because parallelization doesn't scale that perfectly. Higher clocks will come in handy. But ultimately, I wouldn't get an i3 ever either. For $25-50 more, you just get a ton more real world performance.

    EDIT: Also, correct me if I'm wrong, because I haven't bothered looking into this. But one area where having more cores is pretty nice is multi-tasking. However, I think Intel's HT does work well in this regard, because multi-tasking is generally a reference to starting more and more threads for the CPU. So in that sense, Intel's 4 virtual cores are just as good as AMD's 4 actual cores in the area of multi-tasking. What I mean is, if you're dragging music to iTunes, or Winrar-ing something, you won't experience a massive slow down.

    But I'm not clear how AMD manages their stuff.
     
  8. Leoben

    Leoben Cylon

    Messages:
    735
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    30
    Hmm, I don't see an i5-2410m listed. I do see an i5-2520m listed @ ~5100 as compared the A8 at ~2050.

    I agree in this benchmark A8 is getting creamed. (Its a single thread test but the A8 definitely got creamed.)

    Are you suggesting Cinebench does a good or poor job of testing multiple cores?
     
  9. Bill Nye

    Bill Nye Know Nothing

    Messages:
    2,515
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    55
    I think the multi-core tests are... somewhat pointless. It does what it does, but it matters very little for real world performance. I'm pretty sure if you multiply the single-thread benchmarks by the number of cores, you'll end up with a result that's within 10% of their "multi-threaded" tests. It's just raw computation, but I do like it a bit more than SuperPI, which tends to show an Intel bias.

    Yeah, you can extrapolate from the 2520m. There are a ton of 2520m vs 2410m benchmarks. And it's much easier to compare same architectural stuff, usually the discrepancy is pretty much the clock difference. In this case, it's about 10%.

    EDIT: Also, the bump in CPU power was planned for Bulldozer. This was just to introduce the APU chips. This is probably why there's very little improvement over the old Phenoms.
     
  10. Leoben

    Leoben Cylon

    Messages:
    735
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    30
    Hyper threading loads two threads into a single core. When one thread blocks (disk read or something else slow), the core can switch instantly to the other task - as compared to just very, very fast.

    A quad core desktop i5 with four cores and no hyperthreading would out perform a mobile i5 with two cores and no hyperthreading. The desktop chip would be working on four threads all the time. The mobile chip would be working on two things at a time but switching instantly.

    Normally for now. (Bulldozer is going to confuse the hell out these discussions with its essentially "reverse hyperthreading.")

    Correct.
     
  11. Altered Phoenix

    Altered Phoenix Notebook Evangelist

    Messages:
    372
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    31
    Alright I found out a good way to do comparisons and the like. Thanks for pointing that out, I'll stop quoting Passmark as much.
     
  12. Bill Nye

    Bill Nye Know Nothing

    Messages:
    2,515
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    55
    Well yeah, two physical cores is going to beat out two virtual cores, but I mean for general multitasking, I don't think you would notice a difference. When a process takes up two threads, you won't experience the same slow downs as you would a C2D. I know on my old laptop, if I were say... having iTunes decode a few songs, my entire PC would seem unusable.

    Also, stuff like SC2 was optimized for two threads, so if you had it running in the background on a generic dual core, you can't really watch a youtube video or something at the same time.
     
  13. ikarah

    ikarah Notebook Consultant

    Messages:
    150
    Likes Received:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    31
    Alright, so the final verdict on this one is AMD if I wanna game and i3 or i5 if not...?
     
  14. ikarah

    ikarah Notebook Consultant

    Messages:
    150
    Likes Received:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    31
  15. DEagleson

    DEagleson Gamer extraordinaire

    Messages:
    3,092
    Likes Received:
    26
    Trophy Points:
    116
    The Intel Core i3 2310m has 4 cores, 2 of them are hyperthreaded.
    I like to think of them as "fake" cores, because thats easier for me.
    Also lacks turboboosting that changes the clock speed compared to its CPU load because thats restricted to i5 and i7.
    It does not feature a extra dedicated GPU from either AMD or Nvidia, making it a poor notebook if you want to play games.

    The AMD A6-3400m also features 4 cores, but unlike Intel all of them are real cores.
    While it does have slower CPU power compared to the i3, AMDs APU series uses a much more capable integrated graphics card, so gaming will work much better. (On GPU demanding games)

    HP also sells the dv6 quad with AMD APUs, but they also includes a extra GPU so you can combine the power of both graphic cards for better performance.
    This hybrid crossfire tech has yet to be proven by a proper review, so i hope we will see one here at NotebookReview.

    My opinion?
    I would have taken the Intel i3 with a dedicated GPU from AMD or Nvidia (Not Intel HD) but they tend to cost a little more cash.
    The best one on the price point of 550 USD would be the AMD choice if you want to play some 3D games with extra eye candy.

    Edit: Check out the AMD Fusion APU thread @ HP Pavilion subforum
    Seems you can dig out some real info there from actual users.
     
  16. mtneer

    mtneer Notebook Consultant

    Messages:
    146
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    30
    If the discussions have to nitpick down to this level and there is no clear separation after 35+ people churning their brains, I would say there is not much to establish a winner between the two! Either one will do.
     
  17. npaladin2000

    npaladin2000 LOAD "*",8,1

    Messages:
    1,244
    Likes Received:
    10
    Trophy Points:
    56
    Yes there is. if you want to play 3D games, the AMD is the logical choice. The Intel won't be able to handle it as specified.
     
  18. ikarah

    ikarah Notebook Consultant

    Messages:
    150
    Likes Received:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    31
  19. npaladin2000

    npaladin2000 LOAD "*",8,1

    Messages:
    1,244
    Likes Received:
    10
    Trophy Points:
    56
    It's a big leap backwards. It's last gen's AMD processors, which aren't as powerful as last gen Intel products, and don't have good 3D graphics. Avoid at all costs. If you don't see AMD A6, AMD A8, Core i5, or Core i7, don't consider it.
     
  20. ikarah

    ikarah Notebook Consultant

    Messages:
    150
    Likes Received:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    31

Share This Page