AMD vs Intel - What's comparable to what?

[Kelemvor]

So I'm in the market for a new laptop if I can find a great deal. I know that don't want an i3 but woudl be fine with an i5 or i7 since they're both upgrades from my C2D.

Anyway, I'd mainly use it for standard internet and doing some video ripping and converting. No gaming, no mega photoshop things, etc.

I see a lot of laptops with AMD processors but I don't know what AMD chip is comparable to what Intel chip. Is there a chart that breaks that down or some general guidelines of certain AMD chips to stay away from or anything like that?

I'm sure either one would be fine for me and I don't want to pass on a great deal just because it's an AMD chip.

Thanks!

 

[Piroko]

For standard internet pretty much everything is fast enough. Video encoding is a lot faster on Intel CPUs if you can use quicksync.
Definitely stay away from older processors, current quad core Trinity chips are okay (A8 4xxx and 5xxx, A10), but you'll be better off with Core i5s or i7s if they're in your budget (i5 3xxx, i7 3xxx).

 

[superccs]

For standard internet pretty much everything is fast enough. Video encoding is a lot faster on Intel CPUs if you can use quicksync.
Definitely stay away from older processors, current quad core Trinity chips are okay (A8 4xxx and 5xxx, A10), but you'll be better off with Core i5s or i7s if they're in your budget (i5 3xxx, i7 3xxx).

What he meant to say is that the AMD Trinity A8 and A10 APU's (GPU + CPU) have good processing power but better graphics and the Intel i5's (CPU + GPU) have better processing power but weaker graphics.

 

[Azuma Hazuki]

So I'm in the market for a new laptop if I can find a great deal. I know that don't want an i3 but woudl be fine with an i5 or i7 since they're both upgrades from my C2D.

Anyway, I'd mainly use it for standard internet and doing some video ripping and converting. No gaming, no mega photoshop things, etc.

I see a lot of laptops with AMD processors but I don't know what AMD chip is comparable to what Intel chip. Is there a chart that breaks that down or some general guidelines of certain AMD chips to stay away from or anything like that?

I'm sure either one would be fine for me and I don't want to pass on a great deal just because it's an AMD chip.

Thanks!

Based on my experience, CPU strength for Desktop CPUs:
- i7>i5>A10>i3>Pentium>A8>Celeron>A6>A4>E2>Atom
For Mobile CPUs:
- i7>i5>i3>A10>Pentium>A8>Celeron>A6>A4>E2>Atom

Graphics strength for Desktop CPUs:
- A10>A8>A6>i7>i5>A4>i3>Pentium>Celeron>E2>Atom
For Mobile CPUs:
- A10>A8>A6>i7>i5>A4>i3>Pentium>Celeron>E2>Atom

Mobile HD4000 is no weakling but AMD still holds a lead in IGP. Although it's a small difference between low-end Trinity and high-end Core, AMD's IGPs seem to have more features than Intel's UMA...

Also, while I've listed Ivybridge Pentiums as being faster CPU-wise than Trinity A8s, bear in mind the A8 is quad-core (well, dual-module) and the Pentium is a straight dual-core, so for multithreaded loads the A8 will probably outperform it. The A10 desktop chip (5700/5800K) is only barely faster than an i3 CPU-wise though, and in mobile terms Ivybridge i3s eat the A10-4600M for supper.

 

[Enigmoid]

Based on my experience, CPU strength for Desktop CPUs:
- i7>i5>A10>i3>Pentium>A8>Celeron>A6>A4>E2>Atom
For Mobile CPUs:
- i7>i5>i3>A10>Pentium>A8>Celeron>A6>A4>E2>Atom

Graphics strength for Desktop CPUs:
- A10>A8>A6>i7>i5>A4>i3>Pentium>Celeron>E2>Atom
For Mobile CPUs:
- A10>A8>A6>i7>i5>A4>i3>Pentium>Celeron>E2>Atom

Mobile HD4000 is no weakling but AMD still holds a lead in IGP. Although it's a small difference between low-end Trinity and high-end Core, AMD's IGPs seem to have more features than Intel's UMA...

Also, while I've listed Ivybridge Pentiums as being faster CPU-wise than Trinity A8s, bear in mind the A8 is quad-core (well, dual-module) and the Pentium is a straight dual-core, so for multithreaded loads the A8 will probably outperform it. The A10 desktop chip (5700/5800K) is only barely faster than an i3 CPU-wise though, and in mobile terms Ivybridge i3s eat the A10-4600M for supper.

Really its different in mobile. Hd 4000 is the same across the board for mobile and desktop (with the exception of ULV) to within 10-15%. The a10 mobile chip is about 2/3 the desktop chip cpu and gpu power (when done separately otherwise throttles pretty bad).

For Mobile CPUs:
- A10>A8=i7>i5>A6>i3>A4>Pentium>Celeron>E2>Atom

The a8-4500m gets around 730 pts in 3d mark 11 (remember its 256 shaders in the a8 vs 384 in the a10). i7 hd4000 is around 700. In general amd apus seem very well optimized for 3d mark 11.

hd 4000 matches 6620g from mobile llano.

 

[Dark Shroud]

The AMD FX-6300 is a great mid range CPU.

Depending on the game its just under a Core i5 in performance to trading blow with them on heavily multi-threaded games.

 

[Yuriman]

I'd argue that the HD4000 trades blows with the desktop A6 and shouldn't be ranked below it, and is coupled with a faster CPU. There aren't too many benchmarks that have the A6 on them so it's hard to compare directly.

Also, the i3 has the same iGPU as the i5 and i7, so for gaming it looks more like this:

A10 > A8 > i7/i5/i3 > A6 > A4

I'm not sure what the GPU performance is on the Pentiums and Celerons, it's hard to find the number of cores active on them. They might also have HD4k (minus quicksync) or might be HD2500 (minus quicksync).

EDIT: Enigmoid beat me to it

 

[NTMBK]

Stay away from any laptop with an AMD E-series chip in it. (E-350,E-450,E2-XXXX). These are based on Bobcat, a chip designed for netbooks and small and light laptops (and which is very good in this role). Unfortunately laptop makers seem to have decided en masse that it was a good idea to put this netbook chip in 15" laptops. D:

To be honest, for your usage Intel would probably be the better option. Just get anything with an i3 or i5 in it, but look to try and get an SSD if you can- it'll make more difference than any CPU choice you make.

 

[frozentundra123456]

The AMD FX-6300 is a great mid range CPU.

Depending on the game its just under a Core i5 in performance to trading blow with them on heavily multi-threaded games.

Insert mandatory commercial for fx6300. The op was asking about laptop chips.

 

[Piroko]

Really its different in mobile. Hd 4000 is the same across the board for mobile and desktop (with the exception of ULV) to within 10-15%.

No, it's not. Not by a long shot. Desktop HD4000 should run at a constant 1150 Mhz no matter the game or background workload and is typically matched to 1600Mhz DDR3 or faster.
Notebook HD4000 will vary a lot dependant on game and background workload and may be matched to 1333Mhz DDR3(L). You could see even more performance with the higher clocked variants, but it's much more realistic to expect performance varying between desktop HD3000 and desktop HD4000.

 

[Enigmoid]

No, it's not. Not by a long shot. Desktop HD4000 should run at a constant 1150 Mhz no matter the game or background workload and is typically matched to 1600Mhz DDR3 or faster.
Notebook HD4000 will vary a lot dependant on game and background workload and may be matched to 1333Mhz DDR3(L). You could see even more performance with the higher clocked variants, but it's much more realistic to expect performance varying between desktop HD3000 and desktop HD4000.

No, i7 quad can keep the clocks at 1.25 ghz constant.

ex

Its the same for 35 watt dual cores. Only ULV has trouble keeping clocks

 

[Piroko]

Problem is, there are plenty Notebooks in the wild with cooling troubles or other handicaps:
http://www.notebookcheck.net/Intel-HD-Graphics-4000.69168.0.html
In theory all Notebooks with HD4000 should be for example within 200 points in 3D Mark Vantage. Even if you exclude the 17W TDP chips they still vary wildly from 3500 points down to below 2500 points.

 

[Enigmoid]

Problem is, there are plenty Notebooks in the wild with cooling troubles or other handicaps:
http://www.notebookcheck.net/Intel-HD-Graphics-4000.69168.0.html
In theory all Notebooks with HD4000 should be for example within 200 points in 3D Mark Vantage. Even if you exclude the 17W TDP chips they still vary wildly from 3500 points down to below 2500 points.

So, amd a10-4600m has throttling issues and it needs good ram to really excel (same for a8), more affected by memory because amd's memory controller is poor. Excluding the piece of crap laptops with poor cooling the hd 4000 for i7 quads is the same as for desktop. Mobile i5 is a little lower.

Looking at the 3d mark gpu score everything seems to mostly be between 500 and 600 excluding ULV and single channel RAM configurations. I7 quads seem to be between 600 and 680. The desktop 3770k gets 674, very similar to the other i7 qm scores.

And aren't we looking at quad core i7 hd 4000? Those are all between 3100 and 3500 vantage for gpu only. The desktop i7 3770k has a score of 3377. There are three quad cores mobile processors above it and three below it. Its the same score.

The regular i5's appear to be about 10-20% slower.

It also looks like some of the scores are improperly typed. the hp probook 4540 shows a score of 467, clicking on the link and looking at the article shows a score of 542, in line with expectations.

And when comparing to amd apu's 3d mark is not the way to go. 7660g gets 18% better 3d mark 11 scores vs hd 4000 (on average) but gets only 4.5 fps on unigine heaven vs average of 9.9 for hd 4000. Something is clearly wrong here.

 

[Piroko]

So, amd a10-4600m has throttling issues and it needs good ram to really excel (same for a8), more affected by memory because amd's memory controller is poor.
And when comparing to amd apu's 3d mark is not the way to go. 7660g gets 18% better 3d mark 11 scores vs hd 4000 (on average) but gets only 4.5 fps on unigine heaven vs average of 9.9 for hd 4000. Something is clearly wrong here.

Imho you really need to step back with that constant AMD bashing. It's not even related to our discussion or the op (asking about cpu power only, so I'm also ot, sorry) and you waste a third of your post with pointless comparisons.

Looking at the 3d mark gpu score everything seems to mostly be between 500 and 600 excluding ULV and single channel RAM configurations. I7 quads seem to be between 600 and 680. The desktop 3770k gets 674, very similar to the other i7 qm scores.

And aren't we looking at quad core i7 hd 4000? Those are all between 3100 and 3500 vantage for gpu only. The desktop i7 3770k has a score of 3377. There are three quad cores mobile processors above it and three below it. Its the same score.

The regular i5's appear to be about 10-20% slower.
It also looks like some of the scores are improperly typed. the hp probook 4540 shows a score of 467, clicking on the link and looking at the article shows a score of 542, in line with expectations.

Your original statement was that all HD4000s (except ulvs) are within 10-15%. Even if you exclude outliers (which are still notebooks on shelves all over the world and represent the performance that people may get) the variations are quite a bit larger, as proven.

 

[Enigmoid]

Imho you really need to step back with that constant AMD bashing. It's not even related to our discussion or the op (asking about cpu power only, so I'm also ot, sorry) and you waste a third of your post with pointless comparisons.

Your original statement was that all HD4000s (except ulvs) are within 10-15%. Even if you exclude outliers (which are still notebooks on shelves all over the world and represent the performance that people may get) the variations are quite a bit larger, as proven.

I'm not AMD bashing. What I say is true. Ands igp is very good on the desktop but in mobile the difference is much smaller. People don't realize this. A10 is much better than hd4000, but a8 is virtually a tie.

Sorry I should have mentioned I meant plus/ minus 10 -15%. With obviously the I7 3770k on the highest end. ( the 3570k will have a slightly slower UFO as will all other desktop FOIA.