Uh 3dmark is biased to Intel glue for some reason. In actual performance in games, the 6550 destroys the Intel tks.
Help me decide between 2 Labtops
- Thread starter DakAttack
- Start date
- Status
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
Originally Posted By: Nick R
Uh 3dmark is biased to Intel glue for some reason. In actual performance in games, the 6550 destroys the Intel tks.
Yeah, I'll take your unbiased opinion on this as fact
Here's a hint: It's the fact the Intel CPU RAPES the AMD CPU in performance that the graphics scores are so close.
Same reason your Crossfire setup didn't do significantly better than my single 5870: I have a LOT more horsepower in my little i5 than your AMD is bringing to the table.
Uh 3dmark is biased to Intel glue for some reason. In actual performance in games, the 6550 destroys the Intel tks.
Yeah, I'll take your unbiased opinion on this as fact
Here's a hint: It's the fact the Intel CPU RAPES the AMD CPU in performance that the graphics scores are so close.
Same reason your Crossfire setup didn't do significantly better than my single 5870: I have a LOT more horsepower in my little i5 than your AMD is bringing to the table.
Fine then lol. The AMD A8 vs Sandy Bridge IGP
Low settings, which should be CPU limited, in theory.
Here in SC 2 you can see where Intels CPU strength helps
[URL]http://images.anandtech.com/graphs/graph4448/38869.png[/URL][/img[
[IMG]http://images.anandtech.com/graphs/graph4448/38872.png
Is the AMD CPU the faster chip? No you wouldn't expect it to be considering it's lower clocked and an older chip design.. But the GPU destroys Sandy Bridge iGPU.
Low settings, which should be CPU limited, in theory.
Here in SC 2 you can see where Intels CPU strength helps
[URL]http://images.anandtech.com/graphs/graph4448/38869.png[/URL][/img[
[IMG]http://images.anandtech.com/graphs/graph4448/38872.png
Is the AMD CPU the faster chip? No you wouldn't expect it to be considering it's lower clocked and an older chip design.. But the GPU destroys Sandy Bridge iGPU.
Last edited:
More examples. Keep in mind the Dedicated 6570 has it's own graphics memory, the Fusion GPU is sharing system RAM between CPU and GPU.
[
That being said, here are the CPU benchmarks, which aren't surprising at all.
That being said, here are the CPU benchmarks, which aren't surprising at all.
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
Originally Posted By: Nick R
Fine then lol. The AMD A8 vs Sandy Bridge IGP
Low settings, which should be CPU limited, in theory.
Is the AMD CPU the faster chip? No you wouldn't expect it to be considering it's lower clocked and an older chip design.. But the GPU destroys Sandy Bridge iGPU.
That's the A8-3850 with the 6550D graphics, hardly the same laptop chip we were discussing earlier, now is it? How did we go from talking about the A6-3400M to this CPU?
Comical how even that gets dominated by a lowly 5570 on an i5 though.
Lower clocked and older chip design? Show me something that AMD makes for a CPU, RIGHT NOW, that will take on anything in Intel's top tier of CPU performance.
You can't. It doesn't exist. AMD capitalizing on their acquisition of ATI does nothing to hide the fact that they are getting further and further behind Intel in the CPU market.
We were discussing two particular CPU's. I cited some examples of those two CPU's performance characteristics and you drag together this garbage? How about keeping it on the topic of the chips in question, where my comments were directed.
I mean if we were comparing your car to a Civic and then somebody brings up the BOSS 302 (yes, I'm being excessive, but the point is to make an example here) as a valid comparison would that make sense? No? Then why drag up the A8-3850 when discussing two particular laptop CPU's? I mean, it makes about as much sense as comparing the Cruze to a BOSS 302.
I see this as a detour. You've just dragged in desktop CPU's into a laptop discussion. Bravo sir. How about we drag in some Apple products too while we are at it!
Fine then lol. The AMD A8 vs Sandy Bridge IGP
Low settings, which should be CPU limited, in theory.
Is the AMD CPU the faster chip? No you wouldn't expect it to be considering it's lower clocked and an older chip design.. But the GPU destroys Sandy Bridge iGPU.
That's the A8-3850 with the 6550D graphics, hardly the same laptop chip we were discussing earlier, now is it? How did we go from talking about the A6-3400M to this CPU?
Comical how even that gets dominated by a lowly 5570 on an i5 though.
Lower clocked and older chip design? Show me something that AMD makes for a CPU, RIGHT NOW, that will take on anything in Intel's top tier of CPU performance.
You can't. It doesn't exist. AMD capitalizing on their acquisition of ATI does nothing to hide the fact that they are getting further and further behind Intel in the CPU market.
We were discussing two particular CPU's. I cited some examples of those two CPU's performance characteristics and you drag together this garbage? How about keeping it on the topic of the chips in question, where my comments were directed.
I mean if we were comparing your car to a Civic and then somebody brings up the BOSS 302 (yes, I'm being excessive, but the point is to make an example here) as a valid comparison would that make sense? No? Then why drag up the A8-3850 when discussing two particular laptop CPU's? I mean, it makes about as much sense as comparing the Cruze to a BOSS 302.
I see this as a detour. You've just dragged in desktop CPU's into a laptop discussion. Bravo sir. How about we drag in some Apple products too while we are at it!
Fine, you want to nitpick and go with those specific models? Here.
Look at this. The A6 with the 6520G completely destroys the i7 with HD3000 graphics. You respond to this how? Also, the laptop A8 thoroughly wins over both.
Here it loses- barely
The A6 loses here, but the A8 takes the crown over both
High quality
Since I know you'll insist, here are the CPU comparos, where we se the Intel CPU generally dominate. Not that this comes as a surprise to ANYONE.
Also worth noting is that AMD Fusion APU supports DX11, Sandy Bridge doesn't- not without a dedicated card.
What is also worth noting is that the CPU side is MORE than sufficient to handle any kind of everyday task with ease and be relatively quick at it. The Fusion GPU brings the ability to game relatively well on a budget. Hopefully, Bulldozer will change that, but who knows? It could be another conroe- in reverse.
Look at this. The A6 with the 6520G completely destroys the i7 with HD3000 graphics. You respond to this how? Also, the laptop A8 thoroughly wins over both.
Here it loses- barely
The A6 loses here, but the A8 takes the crown over both
High quality
Since I know you'll insist, here are the CPU comparos, where we se the Intel CPU generally dominate. Not that this comes as a surprise to ANYONE.
Also worth noting is that AMD Fusion APU supports DX11, Sandy Bridge doesn't- not without a dedicated card.
What is also worth noting is that the CPU side is MORE than sufficient to handle any kind of everyday task with ease and be relatively quick at it. The Fusion GPU brings the ability to game relatively well on a budget. Hopefully, Bulldozer will change that, but who knows? It could be another conroe- in reverse.
Last edited:
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
And just to be a turd, here's why I asked about the detour Nick:
PCMark Vantage:
A6-3400M/A8-3850:
PCMark: 4542.0 7403.0 PCMarks
Memories: 2992.0 6116.0
TV and Movies: 3252.0 4496.0
Gaming: 3570.0 6504.0
Music: 4416.0 6915.0
Communications: 3794.0 6800.0
Productivity: 3622.0 6146.0
HDD: 3359.0 3886.0
I mean you did just drag up a CPU that is almost twice as fast as the one we were talking about......
Now, maybe graphics-wise there isn't a huge difference between this CPU and the one we were originally talking about? I'm sure that could be the case. However, it really isn't relevant because you brought up benchmarks from a CPU that not only isn't one of the ones we were talking about, but isn't even for a laptop! LOL!
PCMark Vantage:
A6-3400M/A8-3850:
PCMark: 4542.0 7403.0 PCMarks
Memories: 2992.0 6116.0
TV and Movies: 3252.0 4496.0
Gaming: 3570.0 6504.0
Music: 4416.0 6915.0
Communications: 3794.0 6800.0
Productivity: 3622.0 6146.0
HDD: 3359.0 3886.0
I mean you did just drag up a CPU that is almost twice as fast as the one we were talking about......
Now, maybe graphics-wise there isn't a huge difference between this CPU and the one we were originally talking about? I'm sure that could be the case. However, it really isn't relevant because you brought up benchmarks from a CPU that not only isn't one of the ones we were talking about, but isn't even for a laptop! LOL!
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
So, going from your beautiful graphs I see the following:
1. 10fps difference in favour of the AMD integrated. Both giving barely playable framerates on low. Win?
2. 8fps difference in favour of the AMD integrated. Both giving barely playable framerates on low.
3. 1fps difference in favour of the Intel integrated. Both giving reasonable framerates on low.
4. 9fps difference in favour of the AMD integrated. Both giving barely playable framerates on low.
5. 11fps difference in favour of the AMD integrated. Same as above.
6. 1fps difference in favour of the Intel integrated. Reasonable framerates on "max". L4D2 isn't too graphics intense. Considering the age of the engine.... I'm not surprised.
7. 2fps difference in favour of the AMD integrated. Borderline reasonable framerates.
8. 7fps difference in favour of the AMD integrated. Reasonable framerates.
9+ All these ones have unplayable framerates.
So, if I'm getting this correctly, you are saying that it "dominates" based on a maximum difference of 11fps? an average difference of 7fps if we forget that the Intel was faster in two of 'em, 5fps if we don't.
At least you've proven that both of them suck for the most part anyway compared to the stand-alone GPU's and that the Intel CPU's are massively faster than the AMD ones. Wait, I already said that one earlier
Bravo sir! Anything else you want to prove?
1. 10fps difference in favour of the AMD integrated. Both giving barely playable framerates on low. Win?
2. 8fps difference in favour of the AMD integrated. Both giving barely playable framerates on low.
3. 1fps difference in favour of the Intel integrated. Both giving reasonable framerates on low.
4. 9fps difference in favour of the AMD integrated. Both giving barely playable framerates on low.
5. 11fps difference in favour of the AMD integrated. Same as above.
6. 1fps difference in favour of the Intel integrated. Reasonable framerates on "max". L4D2 isn't too graphics intense. Considering the age of the engine.... I'm not surprised.
7. 2fps difference in favour of the AMD integrated. Borderline reasonable framerates.
8. 7fps difference in favour of the AMD integrated. Reasonable framerates.
9+ All these ones have unplayable framerates.
So, if I'm getting this correctly, you are saying that it "dominates" based on a maximum difference of 11fps? an average difference of 7fps if we forget that the Intel was faster in two of 'em, 5fps if we don't.
At least you've proven that both of them suck for the most part anyway compared to the stand-alone GPU's and that the Intel CPU's are massively faster than the AMD ones. Wait, I already said that one earlier
Bravo sir! Anything else you want to prove?
- Status
