- Thursday, 8 January 2009
- INQ Mobile
- RSS Feed
The truth will out. But will it be out in time? - Mike Magee
Intel Penryn Montevina vs AMD Puma Griffin
BOTH Intel's Montevina and AMD's Puma mobile platforms have been a bit late to come out, but their features quickly changed the shape of the notebooks shipping during the summer break. Both got updated memory (and FSB for Intel), an integrated 3D graphics boost, smooth HD video handling in all formats, 802.n wireless and more.
Intel's camp is still decisively faster on the CPU front, with 25 per cent clock advantage on the dual core front as Core 2 mobile Penryn exceeds 3GHz right now, not to mention the 2.5GHz quad-core parts coming out real soon now.
They also support DDR3-1066 memory, however its real benefit here is more power saving than performance, as these aren't really low latency parts - Kingston has, for instance, mobile DDR2-800 CL4 (in SPD!) DIMMs that bring speed benefits to both Intel and AMD notebook CPUs. These might end up faster overall than most DDR3-1066 CL7 modules at lower price.
Keep in mind, though, that even if the FSB can't use it, the dual channel fast memory is useful if having integrated graphics to share it with.
I had a quick look at two competing entries here for some old fashioned low level benchmark fun - both being Acer Aspire offering, fortunately or not (those using the Aspires will know why I say that). The Intel flavour ran on a 2.53 GHz Core 2 Duo, while the AMD one used 2 GHz Turion64 Ultra. The AMD machine ran Nvidia mobile GeForce 9100 graphics instead of the AMD 790G chipset, so I didn't focus on comparing the graphics here. Both systems had 4 GB RAM in two DIMMs - 3 GB only visible for Vista32. Here are the comparative benchmark results:
Sandra 2009
AMD
CPU int 11418 MIPS
CPU fp 12008 MFLOPS
Multimedia int 23.82 MPixel/s
Multimedia fp 13.79 MPixel/s
Inter-Core Bandwidth 1.77 GB/s
Inter-Core Latency 176 ns
ALU Power Performance at 25 fps 2529 MIPS
Int Buff'd iSSE2 Memory Bandwidth 5.96 GB/s
Float Buff'd iSSE2 Memory Bandwidth 6.12 GB/s
Memory (Random Access) Latency 151 ns
Intel
CPU int 12491 MIPS
CPU fp 11758 MFLOPS
Multimedia int 28.68 MPixel/s
Multimedia fp 16.50 MPixel/s
Inter-Core Bandwidth 4.98 GB/s
Inter-Core Latency 85 ns
ALU Power Performance at 25 fps 4910 MIPS
Int Buff'd iSSE2 Memory Bandwidth 5.50 GB/s
Float Buff'd iSSE2 Memory Bandwidth 5.49 GB/s
Memory (Random Access) Latency 96 ns
PCmark Vantage - Montevina Score 3131
PCmark Vantage - Puma Score 2154
As you can see, the Intel machine still pulls ahead somewhat in the performance
race on the CPU side. The difference is not that much to outclass the competitor
though: probably it will be the quad-core Montevina with low-latency DDR3 memory
to do that deed. Both are pretty zippy systems with nearly instant response even
in Vista - not for 3-D games though.
Graphics wise, whether using the AMD or Nvidia chipsets, Turion64 Ultra systems lead against the GM45 chipset. Just like AMD has to fix its CPUs, so Intel has to improve the integrated graphics - the only problem is that latter is supposedly far easier and less painful for the corporate pocket.
Feature-wise, the systems are very similar, even the chipset capabilities are quite on a par. Yeah, Intel's WiFi solution is its own while AMD has opened that part of the market - but overall, pretty similar stuff.
In summary, neither platform is a wrong choice - the performance differences are there, but your own fanboy club or vendor preferences might decide the buy, at the end. µ
Share this:
Business Intelligence Software
Customer Relationship Management (CRM)
Enterprise Accounting Software
Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP)
Enterprise Systems Management
I think especially important with mobile platform is power/performance ratio or simply battery power. Is there any data on that?
The products can be differentiated on the basis of GPU vs CPU. For MS Office or Open Office or web browsing it really makes no difference. My hangup is FPS in Quake 4 and Half Life 2 and Crysis... does the platform choice independent of video card make any difference? So many variables!
but remember that the intel is clocked 25% faster. what would an AMD chip clocked at the same compare?
I have to doublecheck if I am really reading this on The Inquirer
I picked up a new Asus F8Va-C1 from NewEgg on the cheap. Came with a C2D @2.53Ghz and HD3650 w/1GB and 4GB of DDR2-800. I swapped out the 320GB 5400rpm hdd with Vista on it for a 160GB 7200rpm drive and installed XP 64bit. Managed to hunt down all the drivers, and it performs very well. Crysis gets playable frame rates (probably in the 20-30 range on High, 1440x900, DX9), and it has HDMI and eSATA connections! :) Cheers! John
Most people buy a PC on price not performance. Yes PC enthusiasts may buy top of the line hardware, but few other consumers do this. When it comes to PCs I build my own with exactly the hardware I want, to suit my needs. When it comes to laptops I custom configure a built-to-order laptop with the hardware I desire. I understand that most consumers pick what ever is on sale or what they view is the best value. That being said most consumers couldn't care less if the PC or laptop has an AMD or Intel CPU. Therefore I'd suggest if CPU brand, speed, or integrated graphics performance is a priority, then pick your laptop carefully or have it custom built-to-order with exactly the hardware you require to meet your objectives.
"The AMD machine ran Nvidia mobile GeForce 9100 graphics instead of the AMD 790G chipset, so I didn't focus on comparing the graphics here." About par for you, Intel shill-boy. Try getting into the 21st century - it's not about CPU power any more - it's about battery, media performance and bang for the buck. With Intel integrated graphics a joke and Nvidia parts disintegrating* you sidestep AMD graphics superiority by conveniently not reviewing an AMD graphics equipped machine. Great move. * I suggest you check with Charlie - he'll be happy to tutor you in Nvidia Disintegrated Graphics 101.
OK, admittedly I haven't checked this out, and some details of the Puma platform may have faded since reading about it, but I would have assumed that an AMD/ATI GPU would have been part of the Puma platform (thus allowing for hybrid SLI and such). Would this not mean that if this laptop uses nVidia graphics it is therefore NOT a Puma platform notebook at all. Of course I could be wrong, seems a bit strange though...
This is obviously not a Puma comparision. Even though your not benching graphics the 780 chipset is going to affect alot more of the peformance and power features then the nvidia chipset. And comparing a completely different clocked intel core. Without the chipset its NOT A PUMA. If you going to bother comparing them do it properly.
Take the PUMA from the title or You'll be sued for clouding the market with false information in favour to not forget overprised Intel! Be quick or deal with it!:)