Why I bought an AMD platform-based laptop

[VirtualLarry]

First of all, I wanted support for hardware virtualization, which is something that Intel doesn't give you, unless you pay for their high-end CPUs, which are usually only available in high-end (over $1000) laptop configurations.

AMD gives you virtualization support, nearly top-to-bottom in their CPU lineup, regardless of what tier CPU it is, pretty-much since they introduced virtualization support in their CPUs.

Second, I wanted support for hardware acceleration of flash videos online, so that full-screen Hulu and High-def YouTube played smoothly. This is something that lower-end Intel-based platforms don't give you, although that's slowly changing.

AMD gives you Radeon 3200, or 4250, or 4290 onboard graphics, which are good enough for playing some games on low detail settings, and they accelerate Flash video online with Flash 10.1 and appropriate drivers for the graphics chipset, which should be included on new laptops.

The end result, to me at least, is that AMD platforms give you more for your money, sometimes much more.

For example, my Emachines E627 laptop that I purchased at WalMart on Black Friday last year for $200, supports virtualization, and HW Flash 10.1 video acceleration, so I can play full-screen high-def Hulu, even though the CPU only has a 1.6 Ghz single-core CPU.

I decided that I wanted a more powerful CPU, but still wanted an AMD platform, so I recently purchased a Toshiba Satellite C655D-S5048, which has a dual-core AMD Athlon II P320 2.1Ghz CPU, that also supports virtualization, so I can install Win7 Pro x64, and use the "XP Mode" virtual-machine emulation software. It also supports HW accelerated flash 10.1 video with the onboard Radeon 4250 graphics chipset. (I have yet to try any games on it, but on my old XP laptop with Radeon 200M graphics, it could play UT2004 at a decent framerate, so I'm sure that this five-year-newer chipset is much better.)

The cost of this dual-core laptop was roughly the same as a comparable laptop with a single-core Celeron 900 CPU (2.2Ghz). So again, AMD gives you more value for money.

The only things missing from this laptop, are a built-in webcam, mic, and HDMI.

I did also previously purchase a dual-core Intel Celeron 3100 laptop (1.9Ghz?), with HDMI output and a webcam, for more money. But then I found out about the need for hardware virtualization to run "XP Mode", so I decided to sell that laptop and go AMD.

All of this post is my own personal opinion and experience, and is not compensated in any way by AMD.

 

[IlllI]

those are all good reasons. i just wish they could compete better in terms of battery life.

 

[thescreensavers]

Yep, The On board 4200 really was the selling point for me, when I tried to push AMD when I worked at bestbuy. most of them still wanted intel lol.

 

[Bateluer]

Yep, The On board 4200 really was the selling point for me, when I tried to push AMD when I worked at bestbuy. most of them still wanted intel lol.

Intel does have the better battery life, there's no debate there. AMD has made great strides with their newer platforms, but Intel still has them beat. AMD wins on performance though. I'm looking at a Nile based laptop, just haven't found a B&M place near by that sells the model I'm looking at so I can put hands on it in person.

 

[CurseTheSky]

On low end machines (under $500), I'd take AMD just for the better integrated graphics any day. Intel GMAs are horrid.

 

[beginner99]

The IGP on Arrandale (ix) is pretty much the same as the radeon 4200. So I don't see any advantage here except price. The higher intel prices gives you longer battery life (or lighter laptop) and higher cpu performance while IGP is about the same including flash acceleration.

 

[jihe]

First of all, I wanted support for hardware virtualization, which is something that Intel doesn't give you, unless you pay for their high-end CPUs, which are usually only available in high-end (over $1000) laptop configurations.

AMD gives you virtualization support, nearly top-to-bottom in their CPU lineup, regardless of what tier CPU it is, pretty-much since they introduced virtualization support in their CPUs.

Second, I wanted support for hardware acceleration of flash videos online, so that full-screen Hulu and High-def YouTube played smoothly. This is something that lower-end Intel-based platforms don't give you, although that's slowly changing.

AMD gives you Radeon 3200, or 4250, or 4290 onboard graphics, which are good enough for playing some games on low detail settings, and they accelerate Flash video online with Flash 10.1 and appropriate drivers for the graphics chipset, which should be included on new laptops.

The end result, to me at least, is that AMD platforms give you more for your money, sometimes much more.

For example, my Emachines E627 laptop that I purchased at WalMart on Black Friday last year for $200, supports virtualization, and HW Flash 10.1 video acceleration, so I can play full-screen high-def Hulu, even though the CPU only has a 1.6 Ghz single-core CPU.

I decided that I wanted a more powerful CPU, but still wanted an AMD platform, so I recently purchased a Toshiba Satellite C655D-S5048, which has a dual-core AMD Athlon II P320 2.1Ghz CPU, that also supports virtualization, so I can install Win7 Pro x64, and use the "XP Mode" virtual-machine emulation software. It also supports HW accelerated flash 10.1 video with the onboard Radeon 4250 graphics chipset. (I have yet to try any games on it, but on my old XP laptop with Radeon 200M graphics, it could play UT2004 at a decent framerate, so I'm sure that this five-year-newer chipset is much better.)

The cost of this dual-core laptop was roughly the same as a comparable laptop with a single-core Celeron 900 CPU (2.2Ghz). So again, AMD gives you more value for money.

The only things missing from this laptop, are a built-in webcam, mic, and HDMI.

I did also previously purchase a dual-core Intel Celeron 3100 laptop (1.9Ghz?), with HDMI output and a webcam, for more money. But then I found out about the need for hardware virtualization to run "XP Mode", so I decided to sell that laptop and go AMD.

All of this post is my own personal opinion and experience, and is not compensated in any way by AMD.

The only thing is that AMD platforms are power hogs. For a lot of people battery life is the number 1 priority for a laptop.

 

[VirtualLarry]

The only thing is that AMD platforms are power hogs. For a lot of people battery life is the number 1 priority for a laptop.

I haven't found that to be true. My WM BF special laptop with AMD TF-20 1.6Ghz single-core gets 3.5hours battery life, and my new AMD P320 Athlon II dual-core laptop gets even more than that (rated at 3.8hours).

I don't see significantly longer battery life advertised for Celeron or Pentium Intel laptops. I've mostly been interested in under-$500 laptops, so that's where I've been making my comparisons. Perhaps i5 laptops have better battery life, or bigger batteries, I don't know.

 

[xSauronx]

I haven't found that to be true. My WM BF special laptop with AMD TF-20 1.6Ghz single-core gets 3.5hours battery life, and my new AMD P320 Athlon II dual-core laptop gets even more than that (rated at 3.8hours).

I don't see significantly longer battery life advertised for Celeron or Pentium Intel laptops. I've mostly been interested in under-$500 laptops, so that's where I've been making my comparisons. Perhaps i5 laptops have better battery life, or bigger batteries, I don't know.

a *lot* of culv/i3 laptops are claiming 8+, user reviews give them 6+ with some moderate web browsing. from looking around those are generally over $500...but i dont really pay attention to anything less than that.

I have a phenom 2 at home for my desktop...but for a laptop, i really want battery life, and most of the AMD stuff seems short on that. Im looking at a 11.6" laptop and while amd has some offerings about that size....its not many, and the battery life isnt what i want.

hardware virtualization is a non-issue to me, if i want to run a vm, it gets run on my desktop. worst-case i leave it open at home and remote in.

and, iirc, hardware vt is only useful if youre using software that takes advantage of it....is this not still pretty much just left to bare metal hypervisors?

 

[Winterpool]

AMD's near-universal offering of virtualisation tech in their affordable cpus is why I buy AMD chips for nearly all my homebrew servers. It's ridiculous that Intel doesn't offer VT in all their (well, non-Atom) cpus -- it's the second decade of the 21st century!

On the other hand, this is probably less of an issue in notebooks, though I see tech presenters are always running VMs for their lectures. I like to be able to run Windows VMs on my Apple kit, but at this point all the Apple Intel chips are VT capable.

I haven't looked too closely at Arrandale graphics, but I presume Intel has to be able to accelerate H264 decently now. Has anyone seen real-world results for Flash Player 10.1 performance on a lower-speed Core i3?

Now that the cheaper dualcore CLV subnotebooks (eg Celeron SU2300) have disappeared, I've been looking very closely at comparable AMD subnotebooks, but the battery life seems disappointing, esp with the dualcores. Helas.

 

[IntelUser2000]

AMD's near-universal offering of virtualisation tech in their affordable cpus is why I buy AMD chips for nearly all my homebrew servers. It's ridiculous that Intel doesn't offer VT in all their (well, non-Atom) cpus -- it's the second decade of the 21st century!

Actually, all the Core 2010(Arrandale/Clarkdale etc) supports VT, but not all Core 2 based products do. Lots of the chips we are talking about in this thread aren't the latest chips. Of course for mobile, Core 2's are still a big amount of Intel's sales.

I haven't looked too closely at Arrandale graphics, but I presume Intel has to be able to accelerate H264 decently now. Has anyone seen real-world results for Flash Player 10.1 performance on a lower-speed Core i3?

Can't find any decent benchmarks, but it should run it. If you get the latest drivers, even the GMA 4500 can do it somewhat. Then again, the CPUs at this range is too powerful to really matter.

 

[MagickMan]

Seems like a good place to ask. If you had a choice, which would you buy?

Both are quite similar, but the Compaq is $50 cheaper.

http://www.staples.com/Compaq-Presar...product_885796
http://www.officedepot.com/a/product...uters-_-543273

 

[tcsenter]

Now that AMD public drivers support mobile products (except the few opt-outs), I would consider an AMD notebook again, but not when you had to depend on the OEM or mod your own driver just to get something newer than the (typically dated) drivers offered by the OEM. Good move.

 

[Zap]

those are all good reasons. i just wish they could compete better in terms of battery life.

The only thing is that AMD platforms are power hogs. For a lot of people battery life is the number 1 priority for a laptop.

You guys read Anandtech's recent review of the AMD Nile platform? Sure, battery life is not the best, but it is good enough with 5+ hours of web browsing. The 11.6" Acer mentioned in the conclusion (which my wife owns) is all that... and lighter than my MSI Wind netbook! I've played L4D on the Radeon 4225 IGP (not the best experience, but it works) and WoW plays great. My Hannspree (Pentium SU4100) can barely play WoW better than my overclocked netbook.

 

[maniac5999]

Hey Zap, have you tried to OC either the 4225 or the CPU on that thing? The 4225 runs at 390mhz IIRC, but other than that is the same exact part as the 4250 (500mhz) and 4270 (700mhz) That could give you quite a boost in gaming when you're plugged in.

 

[ModestGamer]

A great deal of battery goes to the HDD and screen backlight. CPU is a big power whore but putting a SSD in a laptop can grealy increase batery life. The next generation of laptops comming I bet we will see SSD's, LED back lights and the newer bobcat stuff from AMD whopping ass on intel stuff.I swapped out the stand HDD in my toughbook to a SSD and got a additional hour of battery life on average.

 

[VirtualLarry]

Seems like a good place to ask. If you had a choice, which would you buy?

Both are quite similar, but the Compaq is $50 cheaper.

http://www.staples.com/Compaq-Presar...product_885796
http://www.officedepot.com/a/product...uters-_-543273

I ended up purchasing both of those laptops, and then I returned the Compaq to Staples. Primarily because it lacked a numeric keypad, and the touchpad was not indented like a normal touchpad, but instead was hidden underneath a continous textured surface that runs all along the bottom of the laptop. Some kind of fashion statement or something to hide the touchpad. Hardware-wise, they are basically identical, although the compaq had a 7200RPM HD, an unadvertised upgrade bonus. The Toshiba has a SD card reader built-in too.

I didn't check the compaq, but on the toshiba, the back of the screen is just plastic, no metal, so it flexes in when the laptop is closed, if you push on it. So treat it gently.

Beware that OD's return policy is draconian, if you open it, you can only exchange it for the same item if defective, no returns allowed.

 

[pukemon]

If you look at it from another perspective, i.e. you use the notebook as a desktop replacement and it just sits there plugged in most of the day, the battery life isn't quite as important, and so these low-end dual-core AMD platform notebooks do look pretty good for what you get.

 

[tcsenter]

FWIW, Toshiba is one of the few opt-outs that AMD's mobile reference drivers will not support.

 

[MagickMan]

I ended up going with an Inspiron M501R from the Dell Outlet with a 2.1GHz dual core Athlon II, 4250 IGP, 4GB RAM, 340GB HD for $350 +tax. They were having a 20% off all 15" Inspirons and it was just too good to pass up. I'll pull the HD and put in a spare G1 Intel 80GB SDD that I have laying around, it should be pretty quick.

 

[Zap]

Hey Zap, have you tried to OC either the 4225 or the CPU on that thing? The 4225 runs at 390mhz IIRC, but other than that is the same exact part as the 4250 (500mhz) and 4270 (700mhz) That could give you quite a boost in gaming when you're plugged in.

I thought about that, but I'm concerned with heat. This thing weighs only 3.08 pounds and is really thin, so it probably doesn't have much in the way of a heatsink. I might try it though, if I can find an active laptop cooler that I like and that fits.