AMD vs. Intel: Battery Life Investigated

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar


Now look at who is lying.

You try to solely attribute battery life to the IGP. Simply wrong.

The IGP is probably a factor, but not in the way you have presented.

In many cases, battery life would be preferred over a stronger IGP. Also, don't forget power saving techniques and the difference in manufacturing processes.
 
anddddddddd preaching to those whom believe is going to improve things how?

its *** like this that gives people the impression of intel dominance, until they do play a game or 1020 HD video on it then they see o ***.
 
I'm just stating that so long as intel continue to use a weak igp in their laptops, they will always have a better battery life. Even if AMD got on parity with lower powered cpu's, they'd still have higher powered igp's right?
 



You claim the article isn't accurate or factual, well guess what, neither are you!

Does AMD have an option with a more energy efficient IGP? If they don't then perhaps they should develop one where graphics, games, and 1080P video aren't needed.
 
"example please? video encode (if they are doing this on these things then wtf? get a desktop ffs)? calculations? "....yeah, and if you want to play games you should go out and get a desktop, too! Why do you apply the logic only one way?
How about audio/video encoding, photo editing, ect. Students and professionals have all sorts of specific programs they need on their laptops that are cpu intensive but require little to no graphics.

"the people they are aiming this to is going to be playing games, listening to music, watching movies (chances are HD if they want to see something new), internet browsing and doing (home)work on their laptops"

Most games people play on their computers will either run fine on both machines (tetris, office games, older 3d games), or not run at all on the intel and barely run on the AMD. (unless you consider 15 -20 fps with the lowest settings gaming nirvana) Other than gaming, the intel will do anything the AMD can do better...and as I have pointed out, most people buying laptops will NEVER game on them. If that is the priority then they know which one to buy.

You people need to stop thinking about what computer is best for you and realize there are a lot of people out there with different needs, and what is right for you is not right for them. Do you want to take away their choices? You have a very narrow minded view of things.


 

I say, go ahead and bash those AMD lappys, cause alot of this can be done plugged in, all of it, or any of it, so battery life just depends.
As to AMD being weal, bash away. Maybe that 30 seconds overall wait to do calculations will be sorely missed, as well as the slide show, if even that of a game using an Intel solution.
So, we have 30 seconds longer vs not capable....hmm I know which one to choose
As to people making choices, having a 20-30% disadvantage in power usage can be planned for, and made up for. But telling people to buy Intel shows that either Anand isnt listening to his own readers, or, hes biased. This "preview" pushes the less informed into the gfx foums on the net with questions I hate to answer, and thats NOT acceptable.
While I agree, buyer beware, the importance of gfx usage is severly undersold in the "preview" and eslewheres, or else, why is Intel going SoC in their Pine Trail? Im tired of this bogus argument that gfx arent wanted here. Thats a lie
 



Does AMD have efficient graphics chips? You know they bought out ATI right? AMD could make any kind of igp, including 0.5w igps that would rival intel's best.

That won't change the damage that has been done by this review though, will it?


RE: Not really apples to apples by zsdersw, 52 minutes ago
That's as close as it's possible to come. Matching prices isn't more important than matching specs.
Click to expand...

Chalk up another sale for intel because unclued people think those laptops are almost identical, except in battery life. What are the uninformed supposed to believe? That is why reviewers *must* get their facts straight and review in an unbiased fashion.

That's the point here and if you can't see it then you need to take a good hard look at yourself and ask why.
 
Ignoring facts may also be constued as lying as well
Facts are, people want more graphics. Theres a solution to battery life, plug it in, but Intel hasnt a gfx solution, period.
Whats worse here is, if this were PCWorld, Id let it go, as sure, they aim for the "business/student" side of things, but last time I looked, it was Anandtech, supposedly one of the preier enthusiast sites.
So, maybe at PCW, they want this tripe, but not on Anands.
Like I said, its low end, not really suited well for business.
Ya know what is? I was told over and over again, when Atom came out, that was their intentional usage. I call BS.
Now Pine Trail is having a gfx upgrade? Why? And in this article, again, we see this "who needs gfx attitude". They dont get it, and dont apologize for them because theyre incapable of gfx that the vast majority of people want, and as proof, I show Pine Trail, and yet it goes on....
 
On top of that, lets not forget the intel costs $80 more. What could you do with that $80? You could buy another battery for the AMD.

Now the AMD has twice the reported battery length, more than double the graphics power and probably around 10% less processing power. What looks like the best deal now?
 



my benchmark is wow, chances are, if ur in college, wow is one of those things that you would have or want to play on in a long bus ride from point a to b even if it is just sitting in the AH or something (with a tether or better yet plug in card that does this).

and gaming on the go has been around for a long time, since the advent of the game boy that made it oh so popular.

now video encoding or photo shopping on a bus ride?
 



LOL, I appreciate the humor, but remember that:

1) I acknowledge that AMD has better IGPs
2) The article and discussion topic is about BATTERY life and POWER consumption, not graphics
 


fixed. 😛
 
LOL...I love the way you guys twist everything.

"Facts are, people want more graphics. Theres a solution to battery life, plug it in, but Intel hasnt a gfx solution, period."

SOME people want more graphics. The article made it clear which one to buy if thats what you want. But what YOU want is not what the majority wants, even though your ego won't let you see that.
So you are telling a student going from class to class to "plug it in"....where? What about the people on jobsites that need to carry the pc from spot to spot. What about if you are in a wifi hotspot that has no available outlets. What abut if you are in your car? What if you are trying to get some work done on the beach?...You assume because it doesn't matter to you it shouldn't matter to anyone.

And the said thing is, if this article had shown the opposite conclusion you guys would be arguing the opposite case. Because its really not about the facts and conclusions, its about your hatred for intel. In your mind nothing positive can be said about intel or its bias. If AMD isn't shown to be the best at everything then its bias. Why can't you just admit, AMD is better for some things, intel is better for other things. Any reasonable person who reads this will draw that conclusion. But you are not reasonable people. You are completely Blinded and bias, paranoid and delusional. No amount of facts or logic can shake you from your egocentric point of view. So please, by all means buy AMD exclusively and make yourself happy. But PLEASE do not give advice on these forums if you are not interested in making sure that advice fits the needs of the question, and not your own agenda. I would have to say if you cannot see the advantages of the intel laptop for SOME people, you cannot give honest advice.
I could care less who makes what...I just want to give people the best solution for their problem.
 
Every few months (to me, anyway) AT pops a 'shill' article like this. Gotta pump the sales of the Intel-based Gateway NV5814u this round, I guess. If Anand gets some advertising revenue and free stuff out of it it's no skin off my back. Gotta pay those bills.

(In salesman voice): "" * Available at Amazon.com! * Available at CompUSA.com! * Available at TigerDirect.com! ""

AMD has always been 'thin' in notebook offerings and does not have the range of product out there like Intel - but AMD does have some interesting stuff. It would be nice to see a 45nm cpu coupled with something like a 40nm mobility Radeon 4300 in the battery life comparisons (but I think most of their 40nm 4xxx stuff has been on the 'gaming' edge).

Here is the Gateway NV Series web page. From the $550-$600 price point they probably had a few better choices for a comparison in spite of the guise of 'apples to apples' (""Oh, look. They have the same case and same size hard drive.""). Price points are so much more critical with notebooks and a difference in price of $50-$80 is huge these days.

And I didn't realize there was all this pent-up demand for Gateway portables 😀
 
So, we have 2 solutuions here.
1 aimed at math, static graphs, or "work"
the other, doesnt do as well at "work" by small margins for critical operations if any, and can produce gfx
Now, running calculations is much more power friendly last time i checked than doing anything visual, as visual requires 2 solutions to work. Tough for an apples to apples, and yea jennyh, I agree. Coming to the conclusion that theyre apples to apples isnt correct, coming to the conclusion that the lowly attitude of lack of gfx wants and in some instances, needs isnt correct either.
Poor article, written to a minute buying segment, aimed in the wrong direction, using the wrong solutions. Way to go Anand, Im impressed
 
Saw an article not too long ago about feature preference for netbooks, and battery life was #1 in importance. Of course, there is a difference between notebooks and netbooks, but I would not be surprised to see battery life rated more important than gaming ability...

As long as we are including unreleased products in the 'comparison', then why not wait a few months and then put the mobile i5 Clarksdale with competitive IGP up against AMD's 45nm?? Oh, wait - Clarksdale is 32nm so now we hafta wait until Q4 of next year or later before AMD's mobile 32nm will be out. But then Intel's mobile Sandy Bridge might be out, so we better wait some more until AMD's mobile Bulldozer comes out. But wait - there's more!! 😀

The reason certain AMD fanbois are so hair-pulling anxiously angry is that there is usually not much but bad news about their religious icon of a company 😀.

For example, Mercury Research just reported that AMD lost all of the CPU marketshare they gained against Intel in Q1, in Q2 - back down to 18.6% or thereabouts. Since the current news is usually bad, they are forced to rely on speculation about future products, tea leaves, belly-button lint & assorted ouija-board seances to divine any hopeful future turnaround 😀.
 
belial, the only thing being twisted is the suggestion that this intel laptop is even remotely as good as the AMD one.

Like I said, why not just buy another battery with the $80 you saved? That would give the AMD system 70% more battery life compared to the intel right?

You are now left with the intel being what, 10% better in apps...non important apps at that because you aren't going to be doing any *serious* work on a laptop with such low specs are you. I mean, really who are you trying to kid here?

What holylancer said was spot on - it's a 'back to school' laptop and even though the intel will sell more because of reviews like this, it will leave it's buyers feeling underwhelmed and disappointed, especially if they see the cheaper AMD in action.

If you truly wanted to give people the best solution, you'd advise them to buy the AMD and another battery, right?
 
Since it seems people dont see reactions on articles about Atom, which epitomizes this whole thing, as far as "business class, gfx need not apply, here:
It sounds interesting but I still sat Nvida FTW!
matchboxmatt 06/10/2009 8:17 PM Hide Insert quote. Report -4+
I don't think extra CPU power is enough to compensate for an actual GPU.
gin Fushicho 06/10/2009 8:20 PM HideInsert quote. Report --4+

matchboxmatt :

I don't think extra CPU power is enough to compensate for an actual GPU.




Thank you. x3 glad you didnt bash my comment. I already got bashed by someone who wont comment. lol.
Honis 06/10/2009 8:32 PM Hide Insert quote. Report -1+
I want to see the more powerful CPU paired with the Ion. If the last benchmark Toms ran was any indication, the CPU is holding the system back. As soon as it can play flash videos at full screen (for me that's 1920x1080, the review used a 720p screen) it will be first in line for the HTPC factor. I say flash is the last big hurdle since most online shows use it.
TheFace 06/10/2009 8:35 PM Hide Insert quote. Report -1+
Always exciting to see what is upcoming for this sector. The fight between intel and nvidia is fantastic. Intel wants everyone to believe that they can do everything on their own, and Nvidia wants everyone to believe that you need them to do anything more than run basic programs. These advancements should make for some excellent netbooks, net tops, and HTPCs.
vettedude 06/10/2009 8:37 PM Hide Insert quote. Report -7+
"AMD To launch ATOM Killer in 2010" was a Tom's article yesterday I believe. Hopefully they are aiming to go after the Pine Trail ATOM.
h0llow 06/10/2009 8:48 PM Hide Insert quote. Report -0+
If the atom reaches to 2ghz with hyper threading without consuming so much power, and combined with the ion, then that would be great! Though that is pushing it for what a netbook is really used for. It would be nice to have a bit of a performance boost for games. 1.6ghz doesn't quite cut it. Having a powerful netbook (CPU & GFX) would awesome when it comes down to portability. I would be interested in the topics if Intel bumps it up a notch. I personally think the CPU may bottleneck the performance of the ION, but thats just me. 2ghz+ is what I would pair the ION with..
ta152h 06/10/2009 8:50 PM HideInsert quote. Report --6+
The big thing holding the Atom back is the chipset. Most people I know will not buy Nvidia, since they are a low quality maker (compared to Intel) and have a lot more problems than Intel does with their products. Nvidia offers interesting things, but also headaches and aggravation.

But, Intel makes a terrible chipset, so you're in a situation where you either buy a crap chipset, or buy a chipset with good features from a crap company. Who wants this choice?

So, I'm personally waiting for a decent all Intel solution. I'd buy an Intel/ATI solution too, but there is nothing like that, but Nvidia is not a company I will buy from. I am not alone in this, most of the people I work with and know won't buy Nvidia. Well, not most, but probably close to half. So, for that reason it's relevant.

Also, the Ion doesn't address the real issues with the Atom platform, which is the processor. I mean, it can help in some situations, but, really, it's up to Intel to increase the performance of the processor to really help make this platform more useful.

So, I think this is much more significant than the Ion. You get better performance in every field, and you don't have to buy Nvidia products and potentially have problems. Even if you don't, you can't compare the support from a company like Intel, to a half-rate company like Nvidia that releases software that regularly gives BSoD (Ntune, anyone)?

Now, before everyone yells at me at how good Nvidia is, you may believe that, and many people do, but there are also many that do not. A buddy of mine bought a Core 2 motherboard with an Nvidia chipset, after me warning him not to even think about it. Of course, he knew better, and I was just being ridiculous. Two days ago, he messages me about problems he's trying to solve, and then does some research and finds all the issues about his 790i chipset, after blowing up with Ntune and finding out that's a common problem. Of course, after I berated him for his insolence for not listening to me (you'd do the same thing, we're all human and love gloating), he was funny and claimed his motherboard was fun, and just needed tweaking here and there to make it stable. Of course, this is after reading page after page of 790i issues people have.

So, buy Nvidia if you want. It's got the additional feature that you'll be able to post on more forums about the problems you have with it, and be able to share with fellow users. That's nice really.
h0llow 06/10/2009 9:01 PM Hide Insert quote. Report -1+
I'm still trying to figure out what Intel is trying to accomplish. I know they are trying to reduce power usage but jeez, my netbook lasts me easily 2 1/2 hours alone. That's plenty enough. If it's only going to make a difference by 30 minutes, it's not worth it. That's why they have larger cell batteries. The performance boost cannot be that great to have a jaw drop. Though like what everyone else says, each company going back and forth to make something better is great. By the way, I love Nvidia and never had a single issue with their video cards. I never tried their chipsets though so i wouldn't know ta152h. I'm a little AMD fanboy. Anyways, maybe I'm missing something big on this whole new release.
grieve 06/10/2009 9:14 PM Hide Insert quote. Report -1+
Competition is good… anyway you look at it.

If the new Atom is superior awesome, if not, ION will do. I could care less whose processor is best, I will buy whoever is in the lead.

Hopefully pinetrail is great....

Hatecrime69 06/10/2009 9:31 PM Hide Insert quote. Report -3+

vettedude :

"AMD To launch ATOM Killer in 2010" was a Tom's article yesterday I believe. Hopefully they are aiming to go after the Pine Trail ATOM.





If they do, at the very least it will sport an actual integrated video rather than the junk intel does
suppliesidejesus 06/10/2009 9:33 PM Hide Insert quote. Report -0+
Sorry, but nVidia makes very good chipsets. So does Intel. Intel chipsets are also designed only Intel processors by Intel, which stands to reason that it is a much simpler affair for them to design a chipset with fewer compatibility issues.

You say that "I am not alone in this, most of the people I work with and know won't buy Nvidia. Well, not most, but probably close to half. So, for that reason it's relevant." Relevant? I don't think so. You could know 3 1/2 people, for all I know. Give me evidence that nVidia chipsets are far more problem prone, not personal witness from "the people you know."

Now, when Intel designs a decent GPU, you be sure to let me know. We'll see if Larabee will make me eat my words or not. Probably not.

Now, about Pine Tree, or whatever, you can color me unimpressed. Yes, it will have more processing power, but unless the on-chip graphics are capable of DXVA, it's just not going to get the following that the ION chipset is getting in the HTPC, nettop and netbook markets.


So, as to your theory that gfx isnt desired, there ya go

http://www.tomshardware.com/news/Intel-Pine-Trail-View-Launch,8046.html
 


LOL, thank you.

Current Products VS. Current Products!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom