Mobile Haswell Impressions

[WhoBeDaPlaya]

Was playing around with a bunch of FX 8320s this weekend, and got to benching the various systems around the house (all running the exact same setup of Windows), including a Clevo w230ss with i7 4810MQ.
I was impressed at how much power it has!

Cinebench R15 [multi, single]

i5 2450P @ 3.6GHz (3.9GHz single-thread)		486	137
i5 2500K @ 4.5GHz (no turbo)				603	156
i7 4770K @ 4.55GHz (no turbo)				902	182
FX 8320	(stock)						561	88
i7 4810MQ (stock)					636	140
Phenom II X6 1045t (stock)				414	87

x264 Stress Test v2

i5 2450P @ 3.6GHz (3.9GHz single-thread)		2.12 fps
i5 2500K @ 4.5GHz (no turbo)				2.58 fps
i7 4770K @ 4.55GHz (no turbo)				3.64 fps
FX 8320	(stock)						2.75 fps
i7 4810MQ (stock)					2.66 fps
Phenom II X6 1045t (stock)				1.72 fps

 

[RussianSensation]

What's impressive is the performance / watt actually. Otherwise 4810HQ's beating 8320 is not that impressive. 8320 costs just $120 at MC but 4810HQ costs $378! Not really a valid comparison then.

Also, 4810 turbos to 3.8Ghz which is why it would annihilate the 8320 in single threaded apps. Finally, considering 4810 is on 22nm and is a new architecture to boot, it should easily beat the 8320. It's become pointless to compare AMD to Intel CPUs since they are on different nodes. Imagine if Nv launched GM200 on 20nm but AMD made 390X on 28nm? Would be a pointless comparison too. The fact that AMD is even in the discussion at all is remarkable given how far behind they are in node manufacturing process.

 

[frozentundra123456]

It is the performance that counts. AMD being on an inferior node is no excuse. The bottom line is the performance of the final product. What is irrelevant is excusing AMD's performance and speculating what it would be if they were on a better process. Its like saying a Prius would be as fast as a corvette if it had a bigger engine. Point is, it doesn't, the actual performance is what matters.

 

[WhoBeDaPlaya]

What's impressive is the performance / watt actually.

That's what I meant
Amazed at the power in that tiny package (the Clevo w230ss is a 13.3" gaming laptop) and it can and does run at full tilt without throttling.

Also, it wasn't so much of a Intel vs AMD comparison as a stock taking of the performance of my various systems "as is" (so to speak).
The FX 8320 and PII X6 will not be overclocked in the slightest as they will be used in systems for the folks and my fileservers.
Cost (coupled with "decent" performance) is more the priority in those cases, which is why they were all purchased from Microcenter for $120 and $80 respectively

 

[Enigmoid]

What's impressive is the performance / watt actually. Otherwise 4810HQ's beating 8320 is not that impressive. 8320 costs just $120 at MC but 4810HQ costs $378! Not really a valid comparison then.

Also, 4810 turbos to 3.8Ghz which is why it would annihilate the 8320 in single threaded apps. Finally, considering 4810 is on 22nm and is a new architecture to boot, it should easily beat the 8320. It's become pointless to compare AMD to Intel CPUs since they are on different nodes. Imagine if Nv launched GM200 on 20nm but AMD made 390X on 28nm? Would be a pointless comparison too. The fact that AMD is even in the discussion at all is remarkable given how far behind they are in node manufacturing process.

The fact that intel can sell more for less if good for them (the company). The fact that a desktop (near) flagship loses to a mobile (near) flagship is embarassing.

 

[inf64]

The fact that intel can sell more for less if good for them (the company). The fact that a desktop (near) flagship loses to a mobile (near) flagship is embarassing.

8320 is far far from flagship... It's basically the slowest FX8xxx part out there and it manages to keep up in a number of modern workloads Vs 2.5x more expensive part you are comparing it to

 

[Sweepr]

It's also a 125W chip, and one of the most popular Vishera parts.
The fact that a mobile Core i7 (not the fastest) delivers similar MT performance (destroying the other chip in ST tasks) + processor graphics in a 47W package is rather impressive. Also, while that Core i7 is more expensive I doubt OEMs actually pay Intel ARK's price.

 

[Enigmoid]

8320 is far far from flagship... It's basically the slowest FX8xxx part out there and it manages to keep up in a number of modern workloads Vs 2.5x more expensive part you are comparing it to

There are 3 8xxx SKUs and its the middle one. Again, ark intel is not accurate. Its a mobile not desktop part. Nevertheless it shows just how good intel's mobile quads are.