Report: Ultrabook Sales are on the Rise

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Status
Not open for further replies.
[citation][nom]ohim[/nom]too bad they all have to cope with that crap video card from intel[/citation] Well the ivy brudge ones come with an hd 4000 which is pretty decent for most things.

I was thinking of getting an ultraboook but i got a dell xps 15z w/ i-7 and gt 525m for about the same price.
 
[citation][nom]ohim[/nom]too bad they all have to cope with that crap video card from intel[/citation]

Nobody buys these for gaming.
At least current Intel graphics are decent enough to play most games. High graphics settings don't matter when playing on a 13" display.
 
[citation][nom]DroKing[/nom]is amd verison out yet? Im not interested in intel at all.[/citation]

Ultrabook = Intel brand, you'll never see an Intel ultrabook.

Sleekbook is the term HP uses for an AMD ultrabook. Not sure if others use it.

"Im not interested in intel at all." you should be for many workloads. gaming for one. For notebooks I use E450 (too slow) and mobile i5-2400 (work system). Agree trinity based notebook better choice for me than intel parts. But the i5 system with discrete nvidia card is really nice.

 
[citation][nom]DroKing[/nom]is amd verison out yet? Im not interested in intel at all.[/citation]
"Ultrabook" is a term coined by Intel (and trademarked, I believe). I don't think AMD is going to have many options since their partnerships are quite...slim...
 
I know Ultrabooks are only Intel's. I am simply asking for AMD verison aka Ultrathins or whatever the name it was. btw tsnor, I will never be interested in Intel period. I am a PURE AMD fanboy. I dont care if their processors are 5-10 percent faster for 20-40 percent more expensive plus I hate intel because of their dirty business back in 90's aka athlon supremacy era.
 
DroKing, last I saw, those CS5 benchmarks run on this site showed like a 6x difference... not 10% buddy. No offense, bt the CPU difference is vast. Anand testing the GPUs head to head and Trinity was only about 5-10% faster in GPU benchmarks so while Intel's GPUs are crap, AMD's top of the line was hardly a homerun in the mobile lineup. Going to 17W probably doesn't help matters either for AMD so I actuall expect them to have very similar GPU performance in the ultrabook/ultrathin market. Where AMD will win is with price which is good for the entire market. It brings the bottom line up.

What I like most about these numbers is that Microsoft claims tablets will outsell notebooks next year, but it certainly isn't looking like that will be the case. People seem OK with paying a little more for a much better product. Windows RT will be a failure and ultrabook convertibles are likely to be what the consumer puts more stock into.
 
[citation][nom]DroKing[/nom]I know Ultrabooks are only Intel's. I am simply asking for AMD verison aka Ultrathins or whatever the name it was. btw tsnor, I will never be interested in Intel period. I am a PURE AMD fanboy. I dont care if their processors are 5-10 percent faster for 20-40 percent more expensive plus I hate intel because of their dirty business back in 90's aka athlon supremacy era.[/citation]

why not interested in Intel? they do perform better. i have used AMD when they were much better than intel, but those days are long gone
 
[citation][nom]DroKing[/nom]I know Ultrabooks are only Intel's. I am simply asking for AMD verison aka Ultrathins or whatever the name it was. btw tsnor, I will never be interested in Intel period. I am a PURE AMD fanboy. I dont care if their processors are 5-10 percent faster for 20-40 percent more expensive plus I hate intel because of their dirty business back in 90's aka athlon supremacy era.[/citation]
Besides those benchmark that shows Intel Ultrabooks ahead of AMD Sleekbooks, most users won't see any differences in real life scenarios. If you look at HP lineup, you wouldn't be able to see the differences between the two, unless you are a Tom's reader. :)
AMD Sleekbooks are around $100 less expensive.
The only advantage Ultrabooks have is the Intel Rapid technology when using a disk drive.
I just called them all notebooks.
 


Excellent. I still have an athlon 1.3ghx kicking in the basement and a 5000+ and 5200+ doing video capture duty daily. Next to me is a 3700+ that wouldn't go into raid with the pair of IDE (lol) maxtors i tried to stuff in so is headed back to the basement. I understand your thinking ... even though ford has great products, my local dealer is so bad I won't be buying one, so won't dispute it.

Aside: "dont care if their processors are 5-10 percent faster for 20-40 percent more expensive" unfortunately for AMD the intel products are cheaper for better performance... at least for gaming.
 
The Fanboy Troll Bunch is out in force, today.

$600 Trinity Thin 17w
http://shopping.hp.com/en_US/home-office/-/products/Laptops/HP-ENVY/B2S72AV?HP-ENVY-Sleekbook-6z-1000

Bumping up to the 25w quad A10-4655M will cost you $100.

I haven't modded that specific model, but I'm typing away on an HP e350 laptop with an OCZ SSD boot drive and it's sweet. The closest HP ultrabook will cost you nearly $250 more than one of those modded Trinity Thins ...


edit: .... I apologize if the truth clinches all your sphincters ...


 
DroKing, last I saw, those CS5 benchmarks run on this site showed like a 6x difference... not 10% buddy. No offense, bt the CPU difference is vast. Anand testing the GPUs head to head and Trinity was only about 5-10% faster in GPU benchmarks so while Intel's GPUs are crap, AMD's top of the line was hardly a homerun in the mobile lineup. Going to 17W probably doesn't help matters either for AMD so I actuall expect them to have very similar GPU performance in the ultrabook/ultrathin market. Where AMD will win is with price which is good for the entire market. It brings the bottom line up.
Click to expand...

Under Normal conditions and testing Trinity is 30% faster then the 4000HD graphics from Intel now Llano and Ivy are about even but Llano still has a 5-10% edge not to mention Superior drivers.

Now under normal CPU use No one in their right mind can tell a difference between a Ivy I3 or I5 vs a Trinity A10. Not to mention OpenCL is really taking off and this is making Trinity a better option when compared to a I5 or I3 ivy on price wise. Not to mention it should be priced in the 650$ market or below. Of course for 800$ a A10 is crap but for 650$ its a pretty good deal.

What do people even do on their laptops facebook, browsing the web? Liston to music or watch 1080P Netflix videos or play a nice games of the sims or some WoW. Or do people run CS5 benchmarks?

I would personally never buy a I7+Graphics card(Power Consumption) on a Laptop and i would never buy a I7 laptop with Intel graphics(Always less then the competition per dollar plus worse driver support).

I would of never gotten a laptop 3 years ago because of bad graphics performance or high priced gaming laptops now i can game on a 500$ A8 Llano and play everything fine with Great power consumption(4 hours of sims 3 on the battery or 5-6 hours web).

Anyways if you want to max games out use a desktop if you want to play a game for fun on the go get a APU.
 
people is so stupid buying those slow things, those thin pc are like the stupid blonde girl stereoptype, beautiful on the outside hollow on the inside, there is no way that those pc can compete in powe against a regular sized laptop, so why buy something that look like mac product? just because of it looks? that sounds stupid to me![citation][nom]john_4[/nom]Wouldn't mind having one to put Ubuntu on it. Wipe off the MS infection is always the first thing I do with a new laptop if it isn't an Apple.[/citation] that is funny!!! apple its a worst infection than MS... check the size of the company to see which infection it more spread
 
I don't understand fanboys of ANY type who buy products based on the name behind it. Every PC I've owned since 1995 was an AMD because of the price/performance advantage, up until the one I drive now which is an i5-2500k beast. But if Intel had been in the dominant price/performance category back in the older days, that's what I would have owned.
What, do you own stock in these particular companies? If you do, I can at least partially understand, though I still can't see why even if I owned stock in AMD I would buy a slower computer on purpose. I would buy the faster Intel and sell my AMD stock. Do you LIKE being inefficient?
Same as with vehicles, like somebody touched on. I've owned all big three brands, my guiding principal being "what's the best vehicle for me". It's never mattered to me to be in the "Ford" club or the "Chevy" club or whatever just because granddad was. For Pete's sake, granddad made mistakes too! Think for yourselves! Stop being so insecure that you have to belong to some group to be recognized.
I'm just waiting for the Yellow Dog political folks to chime in. Idiots led around by the nose.
Now...does anybody want to talk about computers?
 
QUOTE: "Under Normal conditions and testing Trinity is 30% faster then the 4000HD graphics from Intel now Llano and Ivy are about even but Llano still has a 5-10% edge not to mention Superior drivers.

Now under normal CPU use No one in their right mind can tell a difference between a Ivy I3 or I5 vs a Trinity A10. Not to mention OpenCL is really taking off and this is making Trinity a better option when compared to a I5 or I3 ivy on price wise. Not to mention it should be priced in the 650$ market or below. Of course for 800$ a A10 is crap but for 650$ its a pretty good deal.

What do people even do on their laptops facebook, browsing the web? Liston to music or watch 1080P Netflix videos or play a nice games of the sims or some WoW. Or do people run CS5 benchmarks?

I would personally never buy a I7+Graphics card(Power Consumption) on a Laptop and i would never buy a I7 laptop with Intel graphics(Always less then the competition per dollar plus worse driver support).

I would of never gotten a laptop 3 years ago because of bad graphics performance or high priced gaming laptops now i can game on a 500$ A8 Llano and play everything fine with Great power consumption(4 hours of sims 3 on the battery or 5-6 hours web).

Anyways if you want to max games out use a desktop if you want to play a game for fun on the go get a APU. "
-----------------------------------------------

It wasn't just the CS5 benchmarks unfortunately. Most all other benchmarks showed an enormous gap between Trinity and Ivy Bridge. I personally run Visual Studio 10 and there is a huge gap in performance between the two. I don't know what most people do with their PCs as you have stated, but I do know about value. I know if 1 is a great deal faster than the other, then I'm buying the one that is a great deal faster unless it is abnormally expensive. As for the graphics, I have seen the Anand benchmarks so I am going with Anand rather than your posted numbers for the sake of actual results. Superior drivers doesn't mean jack if it is slower.

As for OpenCL, both companies do OpenCL. OpenCL is not really taking off like you said. In fact, I have no OpenCL accelerated programs yet you act like they are as common place as a browser. Very few applications (less than two hand fulls) are OpenCL accelerated. It is no different, really, than Intel's own video acceleration technology which is supported by Expresso amongst the other few apps. Both have very little support but look good in "custom" benchmarks (something you complained about). So in no way, shape, or form does OpenCL make Trinity a better value when both have it and it is not supported... certainly not by ANY OF THE APPS YOU MENTIONED AS APPS MOST PEOPLE USE.

Basically, you are in the minority jwii which is why people are buying the Intel solution by the bucket load. Benchmarks show that on the mobile side, HD4000 is very competitive with Trinity and at 17W might actually be the better solution. Personally, I don't play Diablo so CPU performance is my main goal. The CPU is going to make the most difference in the programs that I use and hard drive second. If you look at the apps that are the most popular around the internet (most often downloaded), that is the case with MOST people. Buying an Intel solution with an SSD is going to get you further than an AMD system right now. That is an unmitigated fact except for those hanging on to a legacy much like people driving old cars.


 
I'll have to say you made some good points but i must say OpenCL will work on HandBrake and the performance benefit is huge, again i must say most people don't do what you do i guessing its basic things and when their not doing basic things such as web browsing their Watching a Video or playing a game, Both of which will get you more performance on a Trinity vs a I5 or I7 with Intel graphics.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/a10-4600m-trinity-piledriver,3202-16.html

OpenCL programs and YES people do use VLC player and Photoshop! Also HandBrake is like the most popular encoding software. So yes Opencl is taking off.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/5835/testing-opencl-accelerated-handbrakex264-with-amds-trinity-apu

Of course a 650$ laptop is not going to beat a 900$ I7 Laptop on these tasks but Opencl helps. Not to mention Intel 4000 HD graphics are not going to be on every laptop they will probably put something worse. So lets say their equal on graphics performance (even though the more you push the settings Ivy lags more and more) they sure wont be equal on price.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/5831/amd-trinity-review-a10-4600m-a-new-hope/6

On average its about 20% faster and at times its over 50%! That is a HUGE difference.
 
Intel's new driver fixes some issues on some of those games. Again, we'll see them rebenched with Intel's updated drivers soon enough. Also, you do know that you will NOT get more performance web browsing or watching a video on an AMD system right? If you don't know that, then you misinterpreted the benchmarks.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/5831/amd-trinity-review-a10-4600m-a-new-hope/5

Cinebench 1.49 vs. .77 for Trinity - That is DOUBLE performance for Intel in single threaded.
Cinebench MT - 6.84 vs. 2.05 - Tha is OVER 3x the performance
PCMarks - 6695 vs. 2776 - That is almost 3x as much performance
x.264 2nd pass - 36.23 vs. 13 - Again, Intel almost 3x faster.
AMD wins DirectX 11 by a but loses in DirectX 9. So yes, AMD drivers are better... for now. I'm curious to see if the new drivers will make an improvement in DX11.

Anyway, Intel is over 2X faster on the CPU side while losing by 20% on gaming titles that no one is going to play with an integrated GPU. Somehow you justify this as a decision to buy AMD???????????????????

There is zero evidence to show that OpenCL makes AMD faster than Intel solutions although it helps on a few titles like HandBrake. In fact, even in HandBrake though, the Intel solution STILL BEATS THE AMD solution according to your own link. 19 to 15. While AMD got more performance from OpenCL (due to their drivers), Intel still wins by 30%!

So... unfortunately, you didn't show me anything in those links that makes the AMD solution better except for a situation that people just don't do (play games on a laptop with iGPU). Even then, a few titles were better on Intel and the new Intel drivers fix situations in some of the other games.

Also, H4000 is going in all laptops including low power ones. HD4000 was made for the mobile platform. It really is useless on the desktop. Haswell will take care of the desktop graphics issue. HD4000 competes with AMD's latest on the mobile side which is what it was supposed to do. AMD's strength is in its price. I like AMD at a very low price, but there is no way I'm going to buy something at HALF the CPU performance just to get a slightly better iGPU at full wattage. At 17W, I actually think Intel's solution will be slightly faster than AMD because they can't solve their power issues. This is why Ultrabooks will not be a very good market for AMD until the next generation of AMD processors which will have GCN and an updated CPU architecture.
 
[citation][nom]boiler1990[/nom]"Ultrabook" is a term coined by Intel (and trademarked, I believe). I don't think AMD is going to have many options since their partnerships are quite...slim...[/citation]
AMD does have another name for their lightweight solutions.

I like AMD because their integrated GPU is somewhat decent for gaming.
 
[citation][nom]TinKicker[/nom]I don't understand fanboys of ANY type who buy products based on the name behind it. Every PC I've owned since 1995 was an AMD because of the price/performance advantage, up until the one I drive now which is an i5-2500k beast. But if Intel had been in the dominant price/performance category back in the older days, that's what I would have owned.What, do you own stock in these particular companies? If you do, I can at least partially understand, though I still can't see why even if I owned stock in AMD I would buy a slower computer on purpose. I would buy the faster Intel and sell my AMD stock. Do you LIKE being inefficient?[/citation]

That is just going to far. AMD is no where close to being inefficient. You must be a moron to even believe that. I still run Athlon II X3 Rana 455 3.3 ghz It still run everything I want quickly just fine which I bought for 80 bucks like back in march. Im sick and tired of you intel fanboys who keep stating that Intel are like 100x faster when they arent. Sure they are faster but not like how you stated it. Have a good day/night.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom