New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

amd vs. intel processor

post #1 of 2
Thread Starter 
I was told that AMD processors run hot for laptops, but fine in desktops. i have always been with intel for my laptops, and they seem to run fine... kinda loud, off and on. then somebody else said intel runs hot, and they take more energy, and they are loud, and go off and on, while AMDs are quiet, and aren't as energy-consuming machines. What is your take on this? Is one processor better for laptops, and the other for desktops? Does AMD really run better, and more efficient? (I know that AMD doesn't have turbo boost 2.0... does that REALLY make a difference?)
post #2 of 2
Quote:
Originally Posted by sniper8752 View Post

I was told that AMD processors run hot for laptops, but fine in desktops. i have always been with intel for my laptops, and they seem to run fine... kinda loud, off and on. then somebody else said intel runs hot, and they take more energy, and they are loud, and go off and on, while AMDs are quiet, and aren't as energy-consuming machines. What is your take on this? Is one processor better for laptops, and the other for desktops? Does AMD really run better, and more efficient? (I know that AMD doesn't have turbo boost 2.0... does that REALLY make a difference?)

Since this argument can vary greatly when talking about different architectures, I'll base my response on current / latest designs - This means Sandy Bridge for Intel and Llano (Fusion) for AMD. Both solutions integrate graphics onto the processor die.

In terms of raw number-crunching ability, Intel's processors are king (and are likely to remain that way for quite some time, given their massive cash pile and fairly quick die shrink schedule). Intel has optimized their processors to automatically increase performance to accomplish tasks quickly and thus have more down time with the processor in an idle state. Intel processors are extremely power-efficient when in an idle state, so the idea of Turbo Boost is to keep them at idle more often. Generally, a notebook with an Intel processor is likely to have better battery life than one with AMD if nothing too intensive is going on, or if there are only periodically intensive tasks being run. Intel's graphics solution is better than their last one, but still not anything worth talking about compared to the other companies.

AMD's processors take a different approach. Whereas Intel optimizes idle power consumption (and works hard to stay there), AMD optimizes multitasking and heavy load power consumption. This can be done because AMD's graphics are significantly better than Intel's (even though their central processing power is worse). So users actively multitasking between several different applications or using more graphics-heavy applications (videos, games, photo/video editing, etc.) will see better battery life with an AMD processor.

Now, you mentioned heat and noise, which is another topic entirely with notebooks because those factors are related to the cooling system in the particular notebook, and vary greatly depending on physical space, BIOS, ACPI, and brand. So you can have 2 computers with the exact same basic specifications that will have completely different cooling systems and thus one of them may get hotter than the other or be louder than the other. This is why it is a good idea to buy a notebook from a reputable brand. Some of the higher-rated brands are (in alphabetical order) Apple, Asus, Lenovo, & Toshiba. A computer from one of these companies is more likely to run cooler and quieter compared to one made by another company.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Notebook Forums - General