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. Altered Phoenix

    Altered Phoenix Notebook Evangelist

    Reputations:
    209
    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2011
    Messages:
    372
    When you say i5 wouldn't be on the same wavelength, do you mean it is waaay better or are you saying it is waaaay worse?
     
  2. Altered Phoenix

    Altered Phoenix Notebook Evangelist

    Reputations:
    209
    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2011
    Messages:
    372
  3. Leoben

    Leoben Cylon

    Reputations:
    164
    Joined:
    May 11, 2011
    Messages:
    735
    Thank you Altered Phoenix. (I'd +rep you but apparently I can't at the moment.)

    So by passmark, the AMD A6-3400M quad core is considerably better than the i3 dual core and slightly better than the i5 dual core.

    I doubt the AMD A6-3400M would stand up against an i7, but we aren't comparing it to one.
     
  4. Altered Phoenix

    Altered Phoenix Notebook Evangelist

    Reputations:
    209
    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2011
    Messages:
    372
    Nope but for the price of this laptop, that is a really nice cpu!
     
  5. Bill Nye

    Bill Nye Know Nothing

    Reputations:
    226
    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2008
    Messages:
    2,515
    AMD is cited to be similar to Core 2s/quads. This can't be news to you.

    SB is like 50% faster (more efficient?) than Core 2s per clock.

    Stop citing Passmark. They're terrible. Don't they have the 6770m listed as being twice as fast as the GTX 460m?

    EDIT:

    2.5 ghz i5 vs C2D

    http://www.notebookcheck.net/Intel-Core-i5-2540M-Notebook-Processor.40106.0.html
    http://www.notebookcheck.net/Intel-Core-2-Duo-T9500-Notebook-Processor.25704.0.html

    Cinebench R10: Rendering Multiple CPUs 32Bit

    T9500 - 5441

    2540M - 9127.8

    64-bit 2540M - 11010.3

    50% more efficient, 25% turbo, sounds about right.

    EDIT2: The Llano thing:

    http://www.notebookcheck.net/AMD-A8-3850-The-fastest-Llano-desktop-in-review.57650.0.html

    Keep in mind this is a desktop processor, yet it's only really comparable to notebooks.

    And that's an A8 in question. We're talking about an A6. Yeah, but no. I think the entry level i5-2410m "might" be comparable to the top of the line A8-3850MX, but that's about it. That's what I mean by not on the same wavelength.

    EDIT3: http://www.anandtech.com/show/4444/amd-llano-notebook-review-a-series-fusion-apu-a8-3500m/9

    A8-3500m:

    Single - 2037

    i5-2410m:

    Single - 4495

    C2D T8100:

    Single - 2310 (32-bit, so score is lower than 64-bit tests from the previous)
     
  6. npaladin2000

    npaladin2000 LOAD "*",8,1

    Reputations:
    350
    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2005
    Messages:
    1,244
    If you want to play games, buy the AMD. If you absolutely will never ever need to play any 3D games on it...buy the AMD anyway. The Core i3 doesn't stand a chance since it has no TurboBoost. An i5 on the other hand...
     
  7. Altered Phoenix

    Altered Phoenix Notebook Evangelist

    Reputations:
    209
    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2011
    Messages:
    372
    No..... 6770 Ranked as 1454, 460m Ranked as 1208....

    Edit: That is place 73 vs place 58.
    Anyway you look at it, it is not twice as fast...
     
  8. Leoben

    Leoben Cylon

    Reputations:
    164
    Joined:
    May 11, 2011
    Messages:
    735
    Benchmarks and additional features. I don't do arbitrary comparisons.

    Then provide something you claim is better.

    Your missing something very, very important - a benchmark for the AMD A6. Without that any comparison is useless.
     
  9. Bill Nye

    Bill Nye Know Nothing

    Reputations:
    226
    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2008
    Messages:
    2,515
    Edited with comparison to an A8. The AMD's "advantage" is in the two extra cores, but even in multi-threaded benchmarks, it's 50% slower than the 2520m.

    If we step down from the A8 to an A6, that would only increase. But then again, the comparison is with an 2410m, which should bring us back to square one - A6 and the i5-2410m are not on the same wavelength.

    @altered phoenix: That's terrible still. The 460m is 30-35% faster than the 6770m. They have it listed at a 15% skew the other way. That's over a 50% discrepancy from real world tests... that's HORRIBLE for a synthetic benchmark.
     
  10. Leoben

    Leoben Cylon

    Reputations:
    164
    Joined:
    May 11, 2011
    Messages:
    735
    OK, step in the right direction.

    One benchmark is actual mentioned in the article. In this one benchmark the desktop A8 is found to be worse than a mobile i3 at a single threaded task. It wouldn't be far fetched to suggest that the laptop A6 would also be worse in this one single threaded benchmark than the same mobile i3.

    This is only one single threaded benchmark however. Judging a quad core by single core performance seems rather unfair, that's not what the chip was designed for.

    There should be more benchmarks listed here (Mobile Processors - Benchmarklist - Notebookcheck.net Tech) but apparently notebookcheck is too lazy...
     

Share This Page