Which CPU: AMD Fusion E-450 vs i3 ULV

[gadgetzilla]

Hello All,

I will purchase an ultralight notebook (or netbook) in the next few days. The past few days have been spent researching available CPU's for an 11.6" sized notebook/netbook. I'm not interested in getting a 10.1" Intel Atom based netbooks. Intel Atom is not powerful enough for my needs. This laptop/netbook will be used during my travels, emails, blogs, accessing the net. To store (on its internal drive) photos and high definition video on its internal that I will shoot during my vacation. I may also use to play blu-ray ripped MKV files.

I am considering the following CPUs:

AMD Fusion E-450 or Intel i3 Ultra Low Voltage.

Here's what I have read so far:

AMD Fusion E-450 clocks at 1.65Ghz
i3 ULV is around 1.3Ghz or 1.3 Ghz (not fully clear on that.

the i3 supports DDR3 at 800 Mhz whereas the AMD Fusion E-450 supports DDR3 at 1333 Mhz

AMD Fusion E-450 includes Radeon HD 6320 GPU with 600MHz clock where as the i3 ULV offers intel's HD video.

As a sidebar, battery life is certainly important. It appears the AMD Fusion based notebook/netbook offers longer batterylife. Lightweight is also an important factor.

HP pavilion DM1-4010US is my #1 option so far. In a few days, HP will also offer the same exact machine with i3 CPU - hence the hesitation to go out and buy the AMD Fusion based machine. On paper, from my perspectives, AMD seems to be a superior CPU.

Did I overlook anything in my findings?

Any advice/recommendations/feedback is greatly appreciated.

 

[toyota]

the 1.3 ghz Intel cpu itself is much faster than the 1.65 ghz AMD.

 

[Broheim]

the i3 will dance circles around the E-450 and then kick it in the nuts. Not sure about the power usage though.

 

[dma0991]

The i3 is definitely a much superior CPU in terms of performance but it is a tradeoff if you want some grunt with the GPU side as well. Having used the E-350 myself I could say that the performance is adequate and stay far away from high expectations.

 

[Vesku]

Depends on expected use. The i3 for compute tasks the e-450 for multimedia consuming and light computing.

 

[jacktesterson]

the e-450/6320 combo will be the better overall package, especially with Media playback.

The Intel has more CPU power but lacks in video capability.

 

[Bryf50]

the e-450/6320 combo will be the better overall package, especially with Media playback.

The Intel has more CPU power but lacks in video capability.

Unless you're playing high bitrate 1080p the i3 wouldn't have to bother with dxva anyway.

The i3 is definitely a much superior CPU in terms of performance but it is a tradeoff if you want some grunt with the GPU side as well. Having used the E-350 myself I could say that the performance is adequate and stay far away from high expectations.

The E-350/450 doesn't have grunt on the GPU side compared to the i3. This isn't llano. The GPU in the i3 should be considerably faster then zacate. Remember we're talking about a netbook processor vs a full fledged low voltage notebook processor.

 

[gadgetzilla]

Thank you all for the great feedback. The main purpose will be mostly web surfing, emails, online streaming (hulu, netflix, network channel websites, etc), viewing pictures and hi def video clips taken by my camera (Canon T2i).

In researching, generally speaking, the benchmark numbers seemed higher with E-450/6320 Video combo over i3 ULV with Intel HD video. If there was a combo with an nVidia video with i3 Ultra Low Voltage CPU, availble in a 11.6" netbook/laptop, then, it would be good comparison since ATI graphics appear to be superior to Intel HD graphics. It is my guess that the ultra low power i3 does not offer the same performance as the regular i3, that is found in desktops.

 

[Vesku]

The C and E series from AMD are hard for Intel to compete with in the price/wattage bracket atm although I'd consider the 330um if I was compiling code or using some monster spreadsheets on the go. Intel has apparently discounted their i3-2310M as I've seen those dip at least into entry-level Llano territory.

A sandybridge dual core Celeron will show up soonish apparently to be a solid contender in the wattage bracket for AMD E series.

 

[cantholdanymore]

Thank you all for the great feedback. The main purpose will be mostly web surfing, emails, online streaming (hulu, netflix, network channel websites, etc), viewing pictures and hi def video clips taken by my camera (Canon T2i).

I do all of the above (my camera supports up to 720p) with my HP d1mz, no issues.

 

[jacktesterson]

I'd go with the E-450 setup personally due to the better GPU capabilities.

 

[krumme]

For you need i would prioritize a cheap ssd together with the 450. I dont know i the i3 you are referring to is the old style. If it is, batterylife is not like the new excellent on the sandy bride versions, that is comparable to the AMD solution, but much faster.

But get a cheap ssd anyway - it will be the weakest part of the system.

 

[gadgetzilla]

The i3 I'm referring to is Intel's Ultra Low Voltage version, that is in use with ultralight notebooks and some netbooks in the 11..6" range. On Oct 30th, HP will release a flavor of their Pavilion DM1 machine that will offer i3ULV cpu alongside the the AMD Fusion E-450 CPU. So, hopefully, they would include the latest i3ULV type CPU.

I agree, that HD (next to RAM) is the one of the components to change, when improving performance. Unfortunately, at present, that is not an option due to their prices of 256Gb sizes. I'm planning on using the laptop for photo/video storage. A comparable size SSD would be in a $400+ range, which breaks my budget

For you need i would prioritize a cheap ssd together with the 450. I dont know i the i3 you are referring to is the old style. If it is, batterylife is not like the new excellent on the sandy bride versions, that is comparable to the AMD solution, but much faster.

But get a cheap ssd anyway - it will be the weakest part of the system.

 

[sm625]

"The AMD versions will start at $399 with the Core i3 model fetching $599 and up."

You are talking about a completely different class of machine and a 50% increase in the price. The AMD is a better choice but that can only be an opinion. If you want intel CULV for cheap then I'd go for the Celeron 847. It is a 1.1GHz dual core sandy bridge. At this point afaik it is still a vapor chip. (I smell something fishy with that but that is another topic.) Also you have the Celeron 857 and the Pentium 957 & 967. But afaik they are ALL vapor. Cant find any of them on sale for a decent price.

But there is a B940 which is a bit more power hungry. http://slickdeals.net/permadeal/54914. This is what I would get, and I would just deal with the lesser battery life. I would like to think underclocking is also an option but the tech sites just refuse to talk about this, much to my chagrin.

 

[-Slacker-]

Unless you're playing high bitrate 1080p the i3 wouldn't have to bother with dxva anyway.


The E-350/450 doesn't have grunt on the GPU side compared to the i3. This isn't llano. The GPU in the i3 should be considerably faster then zacate.

Are you sure about that (honest question, not trying to put you on the spot or anything)?

Because we're not talking hd2000 or hd3000 graphics either. This is the gma hd igp. I've seen it being compared with an amd HD4200.

 

[oceanrock]

i recently purchased both an e350 and i3-2310 from ACER (15.6' size), both had 4gb ram (2x2gb, 1333) and 5400rpm HDs. i removed the same bloatware and loaded the same apps. i found both systems (with w7 ultimate) great to use with little casual use difference. AND (though some posters didnt agree) i found the e350 system "smoother" and more pleasant to use, just expect to send some more intensive work (e.g. upgrades will take a while) to the background and get on with your main work.

The i3-2310 his weaker graphics hardware (and/or drivers???), often (once a day at least) not rendering borders/shadows correctly, taking surprisingly long to switch windows sometimes, and rendered 720p (while other tasks were going) with a bit more "jerkyness" even though utilization was rarely above 10-50%. Google earth (with many other apps running, including Gmaps in firefox) was the most frustrating. On the other hand, the e350 was often above 50% utilization, but it didnt matter, it smoothly switched from window to window, and tab to tab.

Here is a quick test i did: rendering large pics (5-15mb) while google earth was running so i could adjust place markers. the i3 hung up (2-3 secs) while switching from window to window and didnt render 100% all the time. the e350 switched immediately but took a bit longer to render the image.

I know my subjective observations may not sit well with others, and i know the i3 is a superior processor(!), but for my use pattern the e350 offered a more pleasing experience. maybe its drivers or just my special case, but i would go for the e450

Also the e350 was quieter after start up and stayed cooler overall.

longer post than i intended, thanks for reading

 

[frozentundra123456]

i recently purchased both an e350 and i3-2310 from ACER (15.6' size), both had 4gb ram (2x2gb, 1333) and 5400rpm HDs. i removed the same bloatware and loaded the same apps. i found both systems (with w7 ultimate) great to use with little casual use difference. AND (though some posters didnt agree) i found the e350 system "smoother" and more pleasant to use, just expect to send some more intensive work (e.g. upgrades will take a while) to the background and get on with your main work.

The i3-2310 his weaker graphics hardware (and/or drivers???), often (once a day at least) not rendering borders/shadows correctly, taking surprisingly long to switch windows sometimes, and rendered 720p (while other tasks were going) with a bit more "jerkyness" even though utilization was rarely above 10-50%. Google earth (with many other apps running, including Gmaps in firefox) was the most frustrating. On the other hand, the e350 was often above 50% utilization, but it didnt matter, it smoothly switched from window to window, and tab to tab.

Here is a quick test i did: rendering large pics (5-15mb) while google earth was running so i could adjust place markers. the i3 hung up (2-3 secs) while switching from window to window and didnt render 100% all the time. the e350 switched immediately but took a bit longer to render the image.

I know my subjective observations may not sit well with others, and i know the i3 is a superior processor(!), but for my use pattern the e350 offered a more pleasing experience. maybe its drivers or just my special case, but i would go for the e450

Also the e350 was quieter after start up and stayed cooler overall.

longer post than i intended, thanks for reading

Interesting. I really wanted the E350 in the HP dm1z when I first saw it at best buy for less than 400.00. I thought it was an ideal processor for a small form factor.

I am surprised that you found it worked so well in a 15.6 inch notebook. I always thought it would be a bit underpowered for the larger chassis, but maybe I was wrong. Glad that you are happy with it.

Personally, I would probably go for Llano in a 15 in or above form factor, and try to find the E350 (E450, whatever) in a small form factor like an upgraded netbook. The HP dm1z seems to have dried up and/or is expensive now.

 

[sm625]

Lag when switching windows, incomplete page loads that require a refresh, and improperly rendered images are 3 of my biggest gripes and I never see even one test or benchmark that attempts to measure these things. Wouldnt it be funny if AMD provided a measurably better performance in these categories, yet you never ever see any attempt made to test these things. All I ever see is "buy a 2500k".

 

[frozentundra123456]

Lag when switching windows, incomplete page loads that require a refresh, and improperly rendered images are 3 of my biggest gripes and I never see even one test or benchmark that attempts to measure these things. Wouldnt it be funny if AMD provided a measurably better performance in these categories, yet you never ever see any attempt made to test these things. All I ever see is "buy a 2500k".

Maybe that is because the 2500K is a vastly superior processor to anything AMD puts out except vs hex core AMD in extremely multhreaded environments.

But to address your point, I have an old E4500 and I dont really see any problems like this. I am sure any modern AMD or Intel mid/high end desktop processer can handle these tasks. So I think it is unfair to the 2500K to say it may have some problem that nobody tests for, and AMD may be better, but nobody has tested that either. It is like saying, I might have won the lottery, but I didnt buy a ticket.

 

[mrcmtl]

I have an E-350 in my media center in my living room. I used it mainly to watch videos and surf the web when I don't feel like going upstairs to my main machine or laptop. For general purpose usage, I'd say the E-350 is good enough. Transitions are smooth, youtube playback is flawless...Sure it won't unzip a 500mb zip file in 10s, but you obviously don't expect it too. If you don't set your expectations too high, I think you'll be very satisfied with an E-450. Remember that it is suppose to compete with Atom and not i3.

If you are looking for something portable, then definitely go for the HP dm1z. I'd expect nothing less than 6h of web surf on it as I can do 4h+ on my Llano laptop. If you don't mind using something around a 15.6", then you can consider many Llano laptops that are retailing at around 400$ as well.

 

[sm625]

Lag when switching windows, incomplete page loads that require a refresh, and improperly rendered images are 3 of my biggest gripes and I never see even one test or benchmark that attempts to measure these things. Wouldnt it be funny if AMD provided a measurably better performance in these categories, yet you never ever see any attempt made to test these things. All I ever see is "buy a 2500k".

Maybe that is because the 2500K is a vastly superior processor to anything AMD puts out except vs hex core AMD in extremely multhreaded environments.

Ha ha nice logic there. That is exactly what I am talking about. Nobody ever tests these specific things, but you just know it is superior. Meanwhile I am waiting for this lab pc to get off its butt and start working. I am wondering why it is so slow when it says the cpu is at 0-5% and it has a 7200rpm hdd and plenty of free memory. I'm sure a 2500k would fix it though!! lolol!!!1 I have no freakin clue what is wrong with it but am damn sure I know what is gonna fix it!

I do at least appreciate the DPC tests. I think that is touching upon what I am getting at.

 

[cantholdanymore]

I think the point is that "better processor equals better experience" is not true all the time

 

[Spikesoldier]

i3 ulv is going to take the performance crown between the two, especially if its the sandy bridge version.

it will come at a completely different price though, compared to the 450.

graphics wise, i would still prefer the amd igp instead of intel's.

 

[Abwx]

the i3 supports DDR3 at 800 Mhz whereas the AMD Fusion E-450 supports DDR3 at 1333 Mhz

Memory frequency being low-ish , dont expect the i3 to be
as performant as a regular desktop part that would be
clocked at the same frequency...

 

[Spikesoldier]

so i guess they lowered the bclk to achieve TDP or power savings?