How Good are these Pentium Quads?

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

sm625

Diamond Member
May 6, 2011
8,172
137
106
You can get used i5-3360M notebooks from dellfinancialservices for under $300 with a promo code.
 

dahorns

Senior member
Sep 13, 2013
550
83
91
Yeap, you are going to spend more for almost the same performance as a 2GHz Quad Core Beema. :rolleyes:

http://www.notebookcheck.net/HP-15-g005ng-Notebook-Review.126027.0.html

http://www.notebookcheck.net/Intel-Core-i3-4030U-Notebook-Processor.115078.0.html

Octane V2
16,593 v 6,074

CB11.5 Single
.86 v .6

CB11.5 Multi
2.07 v 2.06

GeekBench3 Single
1792 v 1333

GeekBench3 Multi
3779 v 3803

Super Pi 1.5 XS 32M
890.77 seconds v 1432 seconds

Laptop prices seem to be around the same (~$500 median), but the single thread performance is much better in the I3.

Anyway, back to the topic.

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.
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.

As for gaming, here is the same processor running Torchlight II:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b1PZATMU6ok

running minecraft:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OHKqC7BUxFA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tSeLraJ-F7s

Trine:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dsgQQOqpn7A

I've also been able to run StarCraft 2 (very playable), but only for about 30 minutes before the tablet throttles down.

I assume the Pentium version will perform better and not have the throttling issue when in a larger form factor.
 

AtenRa

Lifer
Feb 2, 2009
14,000
3,357
136
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:
 

VirtualLarry

No Lifer
Aug 25, 2001
56,226
9,990
126
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.

Well, in this particular thread, I was primarily speaking of my E1-2500 19.5" AIO (1.4Ghz dual-core Kabini), and my Asus laptops with N2830 CPUs (1.86 / 2.41.Ghz dual-core Bay Trail-M). Both are noticably "laggy" (browsing with Waterfox, opening new pages, scrolling mostly), but the Kabini moreso than the Bay Trail-M.

I also recently picked up two Win8.1 tablet models, one HP Stream 7, and one Winbook TW700, both based on Intel's 7" Atom / Win8.1 reference platform. They both have quad-core Atom Z3735G(F?) CPUs, which run at 1.33 / 1.86Ghz.

My subjective experience, is that the quad-core tablet Atoms are more responsive, and Firefox scrolls smoother, with a finger-drag, on the tablet, than it does, with a mouse-wheel or middle-click / auto-scroll, on the laptop. This seems counter-intuitive, objectively, since the Bay Trail-M dual-core is running at a higher clock speed.

So I don't know if the difference is in the Intel GPU drivers, or simply that it is slinging less pixels around on the smaller 1280x800 screen. (Laptop is 1366x768 native, but I have it connected to a 1920x1080 24" HDTV via HDMI.)

When my USB hub and micro-HDMI cables come in, I'll be able to say more about performance of the Atom quad-core hooked up to a 1080P flatscreen and a regular keyboard.

Some of the perceived performance advantage of the tablet may be the eMMC, which is akin to a poor-man's SSD, versus the 5400RPM HDD in the laptop and the AIO.

So I have yet to try an Athlon 5830 Kabini 2.05Ghz quad-core with an SSD. Perhaps that also has a faster subjective perception.
 

Cerb

Elite Member
Aug 26, 2000
17,484
33
86
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.

At $400, I'd look into used business notebooks. many with small SSDs included, running Sandy Bridge Core i3 and i5 CPUs, have sold out within the last few days, but I'm sure more will become available for <$400, including some with HDDs, or even cheaper with the HDD removed (eBay caddy + SSD of choice = win, as long as it came with Windows 7). One I was going to recommend, that was in stock this morning, had 4GB, a SB mobile i5, a discrete Radeon of some ilk, and a 128GB SSD, for barely over $400.
 

Cerb

Elite Member
Aug 26, 2000
17,484
33
86
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)
*shrug*

Even with the links fixed, there's a huge difference: cheap consumer HP v. cheap consumer Acer. CPU notwithstanding, I'll side with Acer as the lesser evil every time.
 

Abwx

Lifer
Apr 2, 2011
10,847
3,297
136
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.

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.

Did you actualy test a Kabini 1.6.?.

Edit : This thread is now the one of "the slower is the faster"..
 
Last edited:

tential

Diamond Member
May 13, 2008
7,355
642
121
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:

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).
 

Essence_of_War

Platinum Member
Feb 21, 2013
2,650
4
81
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

I don't see how any of this is relevant. Even spinners are pretty fast at sequential transfers.
 

Abwx

Lifer
Apr 2, 2011
10,847
3,297
136
Batterylife...
Single threaded performance
Two things that matter.

And GPU perf doesnt matter, of course, yet the OP talked of some gamings it seems...

When AMD can get an APU that provides the same batterylife and single threaded then people will be happy.

Lol...

Someone not biaised would had noticed that the Beema has a 41wh battery while the Haswell has a 56wh battery, so much for trashing AMD s APU s, yet another urban legend, or rather ignorance this time, used as "argument", and so much for Intel s battery life capability, thanks to huge batteries...

Btw, and what about weight, it doesnt matter also.?.

I don't see how any of this is relevant. Even spinners are pretty fast at sequential transfers.

This just support even more the SATA interface bandwith as being instrumental in the perf.
 
Last edited:

Sweepr

Diamond Member
May 12, 2006
5,148
1,142
131
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

* NotebookCheck numbers.

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.
 
Last edited:

Abwx

Lifer
Apr 2, 2011
10,847
3,297
136
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)

And almost 48°C case temp...

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

The 7100 run at base frequency on ST, their laptop cooling system was surely faulty looking at the APU temps.


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.

Well, the comparison wasnt a defectuous Kaveri laptop but a Beema, anyway even the latter has better GPU overall than a HD 4400, according to the same Notebookcheck you re quoting it s between said 4400 and a 4600...

As for AMD s alleged inferior CPU performance, Beema has better CPU perfs overall than the recently released Core M, for Kaveri its segment is rather at 35W TDP, at 19W it s not adequate but if gaming matters then it s the better chip overall AT 19W, no other chip provide this level of performance whatever the CPU part.

At some point one has to look at usability of an item, what does this laptop allow you to do, is there a limitation in the tasks you re performing usualy.?

I dont think that you could find something that either Kaveri or Beema wouldnt do well within the general usages.

Edit : Sweepr, how is it that Bay trail obvious inferior CPU perfs compared to its AMD s alter ego doesnt seems to matter for you.?.
I never did read that you re advising people to get the better CPU wise chip in this segment...
 
Last edited:

Cerb

Elite Member
Aug 26, 2000
17,484
33
86
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.

Meanwhile, fast eMMC is very slow, compared to even channel-limited Phison SATA SSDs. It really needs tailored software systems, like our phones have, to not be a bottleneck.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/ssd-upgrade-sata-3gbps,3469.html

The performance per clock of Bay Trail isn't generally that far behind Kabini, but more high speed Bay Trail models are out there (is AMD offering them cheaper than cheap Atoms?). ST performance dominates perceived responsiveness, once you have a decent SSD and enough RAM, and 2GHz Kabinis seem rare out in the wild (but easy to find for order, which is why I wonder if it's a cost thing). 1-1.5GHz ones are common. If you really think Kabini can make up for a 33% clock speed deficit, especially on models with chopped down shaders, I've got a bridge to sell you...

Also, isn't a 5350 a 2.0GHz Kabini, with a full-speed GPU? If you're actually planning to buy one, there would be little point in not buying at least an A6-5200 (mobile), or Athlon 5350 (desktop), much like not bothering with less than the E-350/450 from the prior gen (or E2-1800+).

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.
 
Last edited:

Abwx

Lifer
Apr 2, 2011
10,847
3,297
136
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.


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..

http://www.hardware.fr/articles/906-12/debits-sequentiels.html

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...

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.

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.
 

Cerb

Elite Member
Aug 26, 2000
17,484
33
86
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..
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).

3Gbps is enough for tens of thousands of IOPS at millisecond or better latency. 6Gbps is better to have, but it's not a big deal. I'm sure some Intel marketing weenie igured being able to advertise 6Gbps SATA ould net them a bit more fat core and chipset sales, but it's not a practical limitation.

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...
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...).

And, given that this was started by my responding in favor of the AMD's, by my experience, you baiting there about advantages doesn't make a lot of sense.

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.
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.
 
Last edited:

Abwx

Lifer
Apr 2, 2011
10,847
3,297
136
I wont go at legnth with walls of text, what is sure is that my Athlon 5350 is more snappy than my Core 2 laptop 2.2, it s just night and day, and the SATA interface has a lot to do with it.
 

Cerb

Elite Member
Aug 26, 2000
17,484
33
86
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.

Also, I didn't think of this when initially posting, but many Core 2 era machines lacked NCQ support, which is a huge boon for responsiveness.
 
Last edited:

Abwx

Lifer
Apr 2, 2011
10,847
3,297
136
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

Dont know for AM3 but since we re talking of Beema it should provide at least thoses perfs.
 

Cerb

Elite Member
Aug 26, 2000
17,484
33
86
Dont know for AM3 but since we re talking of Beema it should provide at least thoses perfs.
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).
 
Last edited:

Abwx

Lifer
Apr 2, 2011
10,847
3,297
136
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).

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

samsung_840_evo_ssd_im_test_6.jpg




Athlon 5350 with the same evo 840 :

asrock_am1h-itx_u._athlon_5350_12.jpg



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
 
Last edited:

AtenRa

Lifer
Feb 2, 2009
14,000
3,357
136
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).

Price doesnt matter ?? how about weight ?? no ?? higher iGPU performance ?? not even that ??? :p

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. :rolleyes:

ps: I believe you have seen that Core i3 has bigger buttery (56wh vs 41wh) than the Beema laptop. :whiste:
 

Cerb

Elite Member
Aug 26, 2000
17,484
33
86
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

samsung_840_evo_ssd_im_test_6.jpg




Athlon 5350 with the same evo 840 :

asrock_am1h-itx_u._athlon_5350_12.jpg



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
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.

Not ideal by a mile, but, FI, compare these results from Iometer, with different drives:
http://techreport.com/review/21207/llano-motherboards-from-asus-gigabyte-and-msi/8
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/storage-controller-performance-ssd,3540-5.html
I do not doubt that TH's test setup got those results, but I'm sure they would have been different with other drives tested. Your results match even those old tests above, as well, for other drives. My boards with ICHs are now all dead, else I'd go do some current tests with whatever drive is most handy. But, the 840 Pro is an exceptionally common drive to be reviewed with, making generally useful 3rd party results harder to find than they already would be.
 
Last edited:

dahorns

Senior member
Sep 13, 2013
550
83
91
Price doesnt matter ?? how about weight ?? no ?? higher iGPU performance ?? not even that ??? :p

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. :rolleyes:

ps: I believe you have seen that Core i3 has bigger buttery (56wh vs 41wh) than the Beema laptop. :whiste:

I'm not sure why anyone is harping on iGPU performance right now. All the systems y'all have linked basically have identical scores.
 

ninaholic37

Golden Member
Apr 13, 2012
1,883
31
91
And im sure you would rather use a 2GHz Quad Core Beema with SSD than 1GHz 3-5W TDP Broadwell as well.
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.