Toshiba AMD Quad or i3? Which is better?

[Altered Phoenix]

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?

[Altered Phoenix]

And if you ask me, the AMD looks better according to these benchmarks...

PassMark - AMD A6-3400M APU with Radeon HD Graphics - Price performance comparison
PassMark - Intel Core i3-2310M @ 2.10GHz - Price performance comparison

Edit:
And here is where the i5 lands you:
PassMark - Intel Core i5-2410M @ 2.10GHz - Price performance comparison

So as you can see, lightnica was in fact correct, the A6-3400 beats all.

[Leoben]

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.

[Altered Phoenix]

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

Nope but for the price of this laptop, that is a really nice cpu!

[Bill Nye]

Benchmarks please. (Preferably done by someone other than Intel.)

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-C...r.40106.0.html
http://www.notebookcheck.net/Intel-C...r.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-...w.57650.0.html

The cores of the processor called 'Stars' have a maximum clock speed of 2.9 GHz, and have only been improved marginally since the desktop Athlon II and Phenom II. Due to this the performance per MHz and core is still comparable to the Core 2 Quad processors. Current Sandy Bridge quad-core CPUs are able to excel ahead significantly with the same clock speed, and thus the performance of a 2.5 GHz clocked Core i3-2100T is more or less on the same level as the A8-3850.

Weaknesses become apparent during our benchmarks with the A8-3850, especially when it comes to the single-core benchmarks. The Cinebench R10 single-core test for example is only comparable to a Core i3-370M dual-core mobile processor with 2.4 GHz. SuperPi is known for not being an AMD favorite, and also the A8-3850 doesn't exactly show itself from its best side. Even the Core i5-520UM ULV mobile processor with 1.06-1.866 GHz is marginally faster.

When all 4 cores are used the performance already looks significantly better. The results we determined with our benchmarks put the A8-3850 on a comparable level with the Core 2 Quad Q9550 with 2.83 GHz, or the Core i7-840QM with 1.86-3.2 GHz.

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/a...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)

[npaladin2000]

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...

[Altered Phoenix]

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

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...

[Leoben]

Per clock, 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.

Benchmarks and additional features. I don't do arbitrary comparisons.

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

Then provide something you claim is better.

EDIT:

2.5 ghz i5 vs C2D

Intel Core i5 2540M Notebook Processor - Notebookcheck.net Tech
Intel Core 2 Duo T9500 Notebook Processor - Notebookcheck.net Tech

Cinebench R10: Rendering Multiple CPUs 32Bit

T9500 - 5441

2540M - 9127.8

64-bit 2540M - 11010.3

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

[Bill Nye]

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.

[Leoben]

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.

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...