Hmmmm... I can't help but think that these improvements could (largely at least) be explained by GPU acceleration. If the AMD chipsets are using ATI based integrated video chips and its being compared to Intel's chipsets using GMA type video chips then that would certainly explain the "Games" benchmarks and might also explain the encoding "Entertainment" benchmarks if they're using encoders that use GPU acceleration.
Forgot to add that if this is the case then a more interesting (and in some ways fair) comparison would be against an nVidia based Intel chipset that utilise things such as 9400m integrated graphics chips.
1.6Ghz AMD gaming laptop vs an 1.2Ghz Intel middle-range laptop.
Just the CPU frequency mean around 10-14% more for AMD.
And the video card mean probably the difference in gaming.
And they don't talk about power comsumption.
This comparasion mean nothing!!!
More topic: AMD Q2 Loss Worse Than Expected; Stock Slumps in After-Hours Trading [CPU & Components]
Looking at the specs they use there are also a few of discrepancies.
AMD: 1.6GHz vs Intel's 1.2GHz
AMD: 2.5" 5400 rpm hard drive vs Intel's 1.8" rpm drive
AMD: 2x1GB 800MHz RAM vs Intel's 1x2GB 667MHz RAM (Dual channel? Note the Intel CPU supports 800MHz RAM too)
There's also the fact that the AMD machine is a .1" screen based laptop vs Intel's 12.1".
In the mainstream system comparison they don't even mention the CPU clockspeeds tested specifically although looking up the product parts, the Core 2 Duo P9600 is a 2.66GHz part (capable of 1066MHz DDR3 memory instead of the 800MHz DDR2 memory used) and the AMD part is 2.6GHz too so that's close enough, however the benchmarks could still easily be explained by the differing integrated GPUs used.
This is too crappy. AGAIN they are calculating and comparing with Intel based GPU notebooks. They always do it. Nothing new there. They need to realise that Intel would be like then only if they merged with Nvidia or something. Since AMD isw so strong on the GPU department. And what sucks for them is that they are both so behind in GPUs and CPUs that if Intel merged with Nvidia or anything similar AMD would be screwed up more than they already are, yet on the other hand so would we.
Anyhow, they should stop showing those charts till they include more fair cimbos from Intel's side too for the consumer that isnt aware of the reasons for such difference.
Unless something is slipping my mind, the reality is that Intel is dominant in all market categories. AMD can spin the numbers any way they like, but that is the reality of it. In an apples to apples comparison, Intel holds the cards. Their marketing folks are in a bad position... and well, this is the best they could do. Intel would have done the same thing had the shoe been on the other foot.
The AMD CPU in mainstream laptop is Turion II, 45nm K10.5 cores similar to Athlon II 2xx desktop CPUs. It is not that lagged behind Core 2 Duo, and should be on par with more affordable T6xxx, T7xxx series.
AMD Tigris solution is more attractive than Intel Centrino 2 solution in most cases. However, AMD's CPU line is no comparison to up coming Intel mobile Core i7 line. What AMD could do is to push DX11 integrated graphics as fast as possible, to push for OpenCL calculation.
chaosianchen: The Core i7 laptops look to be battery hogs that don't clock nearly as high as the Core2s, so badly that the performance may not even be as good. The way it's going, they may have to wait until 32nm to release a laptop version, so I would say that Core i7 is only better when it essentially has an unlimited thermal envelope, like in a 130w 8-phase+ desktop.
[citation][nom]x2wolf[/nom]Hm, two things: one, AMD used a 1.6 Ghz processor versus a 1.2 Ghz Intel (not exactly a fair comparison). Two, this says nothing about price, which is just as an important consideration as performance (not saying AMD can give those numbers, just saying that these numbers are not important without a price)[/citation]
Comparisons between processors cannot be made clock per clock. You have to look at performance for the price point. If AMD competitively prices their 1.6 Ghz Turion Neo X2 against the 1.2 Ghz CULV Core 2 Duo, it's more than a fair comparison.