Yeap, you are going to spend more for almost the same performance as a 2GHz Quad Core Beema.
http://www.notebookcheck.net/HP-15-g005ng-Notebook-Review.126027.0.html
I run the Dell Venue 8 Pro as a mini-laptop at times (Atom z3770). Netflix and youtube are going to be no problem. I can't say I've ever run 10+ tabs browsing using it, but have no problem with 3 or 4. Sometimes it'll slog down a bit when I have multiple heavy pages open. But that is atypical I think.And if so, how well do they handle things like:
Tabbed browsing with 10+ tabs
Netflix, Youtube etc.
Lighter games like Minecraft, Trine, Torchlight etc. Not really a huge gamer and can't remember the last time I played them but would like the option to.
Light video editing for Youtube. Nothing heavy. Just short 5-10 minute videos shot in 1080p.
Pardon me if I'm wrong, but isn't your experience limited to using only dual core Kabini @ 1.4Ghz and dual core Bay Trail? My info is based on this thread, you may have had other opportunities since then.
As I stated in your own thread, I own and use a 4c Kabini HTPC and it works just fine. It boots fast and does a good job at browsing, office work, playing high definition content. All one needs to do is add a decent SSD.
Is it a good platform for light gaming? Definitely not, at least not in my opinion. But when it comes to office work, home file storage & backup, multimedia content consumption... it's perfectly capable of doing these tasks all at once.
*shrug*So let me get this straight,
Intel 22nm Haswell Core i3 4030U 15W TDP with HD4400 (Acer Extensa 2510-34Z4)
vs
AMD 28nm Beema Quad Core A6-6410 15W TDP R5 iGPU (HP 15-g005ng)
With regular notebook storage (5400 RPM HDDs, or slower SSDs) and 720p-768p, my experience has been the opposite, at similar speeds (a 2.4GHz new Bay Trail will definitely be better than a 1.6GHz Kabini). But, neither are as good to have as a Haswell or Kaveri, even the chopped down cheap mobile models.
So let me get this straight,
Intel 22nm Haswell Core i3 4030U 15W TDP with HD4400 (Acer Extensa 2510-34Z4)
vs
AMD 28nm Beema Quad Core A6-6410 15W TDP R5 iGPU (HP 15-g005ng)
Cinebench 11.5 Single core
0.79 vs 0.60
Cinebench 11.5 Multi
2.01 vs 2.01
PC Mark 8 Creative
2097 vs 2087
3D MARK Ice Storm
33875 vs 32088
Weight
Core i3 = 2.5kgr
Beema = 2.2kgr
Battery
Core i3 = 56wh
Beema = 41wh
Battery Life WiFi
Core i3 = 391mins
Beema = 291mins
Price
Core i3 = 439 euro
Beema = 399 euro
I really dont even have to say anything here, numbers speak for themselves.
A small, cheap AMD APU is neck and neck with Intel latest 22nm FF Core i3 at the same TDP.
And people say Beema suck, well if that is true then Intel Haswell and 22nm suck big time as well. :whiste:
a BT has a 3 gbit/s SATA while a Kabini has a 6 gbit/s SATA that was measured at 500MB/S transfert rate, that s 4 gbit/s, with a SSD
Batterylife...
Single threaded performance
Two things that matter.
When AMD can get an APU that provides the same batterylife and single threaded then people will be happy.
I don't see how any of this is relevant. Even spinners are pretty fast at sequential transfers.
Here's another interesting comparison.
Core i5 4210 15W TDP inside $399-419 Acer Aspire E5-571-588M:
CB 15 ST: 102 pts
CB 15 MT: 236 pts
X264 HD Benchmark 4.0 - Pass 2: 15.3
X264 HD Benchmark 4.0 - Pass 1: 81
3DMark Ice Storm: ~33.700 (using 4GB single-channel)
A-Series A8-7100 19W TDP inside $459 Acer E5-551-89TN:
CB 15 ST: 44 pts
CB 15 MT: 133 pts
X264 HD Benchmark 4.0 - Pass 2: 11.1
X264 HD Benchmark 4.0 - Pass 1: 56
3DMark Ice Storm: ~36.500
Massive CPU performance difference and both integrated graphics chips would run the games mentioned by the OP perfectly. It's amazing that you can find a $281 chip (Intel ARK price) inside such a cheap yet capable laptop. That's what a lot of cheap APUs are competing against, not some obscure low-end Pentium and Core i3 ULT chips picked to make AMD's inferior CPU performance look better.
3Gbps v. 6Gbps SATA little to no difference, unless you are copying big files from one large SSD to another large SSD. If you have 6Gbps, you should use it, for those occasional high-bandwidth transfers, and high-QD work like installing and uninstalling, but 3Gbps is not a problem in the least.I wonder where you got your experience from, a BT has a 3 gbit/s SATA while a Kabini has a 6 gbit/s SATA that was measured at 500MB/S transfert rate, that s 4 gbit/s, with a SSD it should be a no contest, yet you point the slower device as being faster in this matter, for the record my 5350, wich is the same as a 1.6 Kabini in this respect, boot W8.1 in 8 seconds with a 128GB SSD.
3Gbps v. 6Gbps SATA little to no difference, unless you are copying big files from one large SSD to another large SSD. If you have 6Gbps, you should use it, for those occasional high-bandwidth transfers, and high-QD work like installing and uninstalling, but 3Gbps is not a problem in the least.
I also do not understand the strange fetish of boot times. Modern platforms from both AMD and Intel can get multiple weeks in standby. AMD's I have to guess, but a few days taking ~10% of a 6-cell, with a Kaveri; but Haswell I can attest to by accidentally leaving a laptop unplugged for over 3 weeks, and it came back up with 60% battery. Also, a fast CPU might net you a couple seconds on a cold regular boot, which, even with MBR, will typically be no more than 10-15s, faster with UEFI only, and even faster than that with Fast Startup. Not a big deal, compared to say, waiting on the WAN to finish restoring a browser session.
First, 3Gbps is 300MBps, and in practice, more like 270MBps, considering data. Second, sequential speed is basically pointless. How fast your OS and programs run mean everything, and 3Gbps allows decent SSDs to remain ahead of the humans using them. Go to the next page in your link to start seeing the scores that might matter. But, more importantly, take a look at the application and Iometer benches on that Tom's article. Most of the time, the differences are small. When they aren't small, only the one odd WMP test shows the fastest desktop HDD out there as anything but laughable (the HDD inclusion is one reason I particularly like that one article about the subject--context and perspective matter).3 gbit/s is 375 MB/s, if 3gbit/s is not a problem i invite you to check the SSDs speed in this page, it s easy, just look at the right of the graphs, for the record the reviewer is stating that the differents brands speeds are equalised by the 6 gbit/s interface that limit the performances..
The interfaces aren't slow enough to matter, on low-end devices (and usually not enough on higher-end, really, you just don't want to pay $1k and only get 150MBps file copies, instead of 300Mbps ). Slow RAM is much more a problem, IMO, but both AMD and Intel equally cripple themselves, there, with mobile chips (does running the RAM or RAM controller high enough for 800MHz really use that much more power? Maybe...).Anyway curious that any advantage AMD has is branded as non significant, not a problem for the least, that is, we allegedly need faster CPUs but slow interfaces are not a problem...
And I'm saying it doesn't make a bit of difference. 8 seconds isn't too much less than typical non-tweaked non-UEFI boot time, which is already fast enough. If you have to wait for your PC to come up often, changing your usage habits will make more of a difference than anything else (use sleep, instead, and top off the battery opportunistically, and you can drop that 8s down to 1-2s). If you don't, then it shouldn't matter at all.I m talking when i m powering on the PC, not of wake up from sleep, as said it takes 8 secondes for W8 to be functional.
SATA may very well have a lot to do with it, but not 6Gbps. An ICH10 or older is going to be a slower SATA controller than any newer PCH, or anything newer than AM3 chipsets from AMD, on 3Gbps ports or 6Gbps ports. AT had a page or two in article about it awhile back, but I can't find it right now. That Tom's article I linked to is only changing the port being used.
http://www.anandtech.com/show/2973/6gbps-sata-performance-amd-890gx-vs-intel-x58-p55/6
AMD's got a lot better, since then, but notice how 3Gbps v. 6Gbps really doesn't make all that much difference, but the controller family can make a big one. I can find a newer article on Tom's, comparing some older controllers, but with only the 840 Pro tested, which is known to benchmark really well with Intel's Iastor driver, more-so than other SSDs, I would take it with plenty of salt.
Also, if said notebook has Intel IGP from its era, that could hurt, too, especially if it's not at least X3100. Any discrete graphics for Intel platforms was a must have, back then, unless you ran Linux.
A quick run of CrystalDiskMark v3.0.3 showed the sequential read speed at 428.8 MB/s and the write speed at 384.2 MB/s! The Random 4K read speed was 16.65MB/s and the 4K random write speed was 44.35MB/s. These are most certainly SATA III speeds and it looks like this budget friendly platform works great with SSDs.
Taking a look at another storage benchmark called ATTO, we find that the SSD reaching speeds of up to 541MB/s read and 435 MB/s write.
Read more at http://www.legitreviews.com/amd-athlon-5350-apu-am1-platform-review_139224/4#tGGclxg6EglXzrtK.99
Should be quite a bit better, relative to any Core 2, in random, where it matters, I just can't find either of the two articles, on one AT, that I recall doing a pretty fair job comparing a few generations back of controllers. The one I could find would probably have been pretty good, if it weren't for the Iastor driver basically being a turbo button for the 840 Pros, while typically offering much more meager gains for others (as if Samsung optimized for Intel drivers, over AMD's, which would actually make a lot of sense, TBH, since they are high-end drives, and the high-end platforms of the last few years have been Intel's).Dont know for AM3 but since we re talking of Beema it should provide at least thoses perfs.
The one I could find would probably have been pretty good, if it weren't for the Iastor driver basically being a turbo button for the 840 Pros, while typically offering much more meager gains for others (as if Samsung optimized for Intel drivers, over AMD's, which would actually make a lot of sense, TBH, since they are high-end drives, and the high-end platforms of the last few years have been Intel's).
Batterylife...
Single threaded performance
Two things that matter.
When AMD can get an APU that provides the same batterylife and single threaded then people will be happy. AMD doesn't get the design wins necessary for it to shine so no matter how great you want to say Beema is, between those two I choose the i3 because of 100 minutes extra battery life, and better single threaded performance (when apps are more multithreaded AMD can be happy).
I mean benchmarks where, FI, the A75/A85 (6Gbps, newer) benches worse than old ICH10 or ICH7 (3Gbs, older), with the 840 Pros, using Iastor, where that hasn't jived with other fast drives. In my own personal testing w/ the 840 Pro 512GB, though limited to Intel chipsets (I don't personally own an AMD PCs, ATM), the 840 Pro doesn't feel one bit faster with any driver change, but gets a good deal of benchmark improvements just going from MSAHCI to Iastor, and this matches review sites and other users tests I've seen. Other drives perform faster on the newer chipsets more-so, regardless of driver (with a Toshiba Q, FI, Bay Trail and B85 got noticeably better scores than ICH10, even on 3Gbps ports, and felt faster, rather than just being a smidgen faster, though I don't have numbers handy, ATM). Review sites not using the 840 Pro tend to show the Intel and AMD SATAs performing much closer to each other, with current systems. It seems limited specifically to the 840 Pro, and has been a thing since it was a new drive.That s all FUD, sorry, i dont see why Samsung would neglect AMD s optimization, that is, they have a very good controler but all SSDs are not well optimised for this controler..
What else are we going to read in this decidely urban legends dedicated thread..?.
I see that the 5350 has no problem running PCMark with a 840 while the Intel J1900 is just, well, not running this hard drive dependent bench, is that how Samsung is better optimising for Intel.?
http://www.kitguru.net/components/cpu/leo-waldock/gigabyte-j1900n-d3v-review/all/1/
Edit : technikaffe.de Intel test system and evo 840
Athlon 5350 with the same evo 840 :
http://www.technikaffe.de/anleitung-101-samsung_840_evo_ssd_mit_120_250_und_500gb_im_test
http://www.technikaffe.de/anleitung...mit_athlon_5350_und_externem_netzteil_im_test
Price doesnt matter ?? how about weight ?? no ?? higher iGPU performance ?? not even that ???
Give it a few more years and Intel will be left only with the higher single thread performance. And then we will return to 1999 and everyone will be touting that single thread performance is all that matters.
ps: I believe you have seen that Core i3 has bigger buttery (56wh vs 41wh) than the Beema laptop. :whiste:
I think a 1GHz 3-5W TDP Broadwell (Core-M?) would do fine, and fit in a smaller chassis with better battery life and less heat, and single-threaded performance would be good compared to Beema and Bay Trail. So I guess the only issue then, for me, is the price.And im sure you would rather use a 2GHz Quad Core Beema with SSD than 1GHz 3-5W TDP Broadwell as well.