Also, very few people have ultrabooks, because the majority that can afford them who want gaming go with a desktop/high end laptop, and the rest of them would rather get a $600 laptop and spend their money else ware.
Also, what ultrabook do you have?
Few people have them because its Intel marketing crap and are very restrictive with the specs.
Cheapest Ultrabook on newegg
700$
Operating System Windows 7 Home Premium 64-Bit
CPU Type Intel Core i3-2367M 1.4GHz
Screen 13.3"
Memory Size 4GB DDR3
Hard Disk 520GB
Graphics Card Intel HD Graphics 3000
Lowend I3 and crap Intel IGP.
HP said A8 products will release at 700$ with the follow specs.
the Pavilion dv6-7010 will arrive with the quad-core AMD A8-4500M APU, teamed with a Radeon 7640G graphics card, six gigs of RAM and 750GB of storage. The outer specs remain unchanged, but there is one other difference worth mentioning; it's priced at $700
Other companies will be releasing A10 in the 700$ range and the A10 kicks the **** out of Intel in terms of performance for gaming and with twice as many cores the A10 can trade blows with the I3.
For cheap gaming laptops AMD is top dog and that's why I will own a Trinity Laptop here soon.
I don't have an ultrabook but I am getting myself a laptop (just because my mother wants me to have a laptop when we go on a vacation for some weird reason, so she gave me 1000$).
I just chose a very basic laptop that can run games on low/medium decently, so I chose the Asus K53 (note that prices for electronics are way different then in the US, so no complaining that it's overpriced). Nvidia GT630M, I5 2450, etc.
Thats true, and IIRC, intel is waay overpricing its chips. The lowest end ivybridge chip was either in the $200 or $300 range, and intel complains that they can't get a $600 ultrabook! Well you don't say, personally, I really don't like the CPU being 1/2 or even 1/3 of the price.
Even If Intel priced better they still need to work with Nvidia to provide cheap chips because Intels GPU department sucks goat tits.
Then they get crappy battery life compared to AMD who is already doing very well with its APU.
IMO, ultrabooks are useless. The cost can be cut down a lot in a notebook. Only advantage is that their lighter and more portable. However, only gaming laptops are really heavy, and even those are fine to carry around
Even If Intel priced better they still need to work with Nvidia to provide cheap chips because Intels GPU department sucks goat tits.
Then they get crappy battery life compared to AMD who is already doing very well with its APU.
The intel ULV (ultra low voltage) ivy bridge chips actually consume very little power (17 watts at full load) and they're what's going into ultrabooks. For AMD to compete in the low power segment, they would have to make incredibly weak components (although, the ULV parts are pretty weak already). Comparing the TDPs of the Intel desktop parts (77W) and AMD (100W) and it's clear that AMD has to sacrifice more to get the same power.
The point of ultrabooks isn't to be high-specced or to give good performance in gaming, they're supposed to be portable. Yes, they're overpriced for the hardware. They're not supposed to be a good deal for a budget, they're supposed to cram what they can into a tiny box, while making as much money for intel as possible.
Edit: I failed to take into account that it'd be easier to fit a larger battery into a laptop that doesn't have to be tiny, so non-ultrabooks could easily have higher battery life.
“Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe.” — Albert Einstein
"Never try to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and it annoys the pig." — Robert Heinlein
The intel ULV (ultra low voltage) ivy bridge chips actually consume very little power (17 watts at full load) and they're what's going into ultrabooks. For AMD to compete in the low power segment, they would have to make incredibly weak components (although, the ULV parts are pretty weak already). Comparing the TDPs of the Intel desktop parts (77W) and AMD (100W) and it's clear that AMD has to sacrifice more to get the same power.
But these are laptop parts AMD ULV A10 thats a quadcore is 25W AMD has a dualcore A6 is 17W.
Even if you want battery life AMD can deliver that and gaming performance when you need it.
AMDs 35w parts are just as good as Intels 35W battery wise in battery and a lot better in gaming.
The price of mine is 1100 dollars, what about yours?
If you are trying to show off how expensive your computer is, then you will have to do much better than that bro.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
The Commies count their quarters and the ArtSci wish they could, the Engs have the longest pole and slam it home for good, so big, so hard, so tall, it reaches all the way to heaven, so shut your hole, we climbed the pole, we're sci 1 ing 7!!!
I believe Intel's ULV proccessors are fairly heavilly binned, and you have to remember that Intel dominiates the mobile market (especially for the high end). I'm pretty sure binning it like this just isn't viable for AMD due to their lower production numbers.
Also, were both of those processors sent by the respective companies? Because usually companies send the best of the bunch to get more favorable overclocking/power consumption numbers.
AMD has CPUs in that power range of 17W its not something I'm speculating, they exist and AMD is releasing them.
Well neither are overclocked and power consumption is not something that changes on a chip to chip basis they all have the same voltage better binning would not help. It does with Ocing but like I said the battery life does not touch on ocing.
But these are laptop parts AMD ULV A10 thats a quadcore is 25W AMD has a dualcore A6 is 17W.
Even if you want battery life AMD can deliver that and gaming performance when you need it.
AMDs 35w parts are just as good as Intels 35W battery wise in battery and a lot better in gaming.
That proves my point. At 17 watts, AMD parts are significantly less powerful than Intel (compared to desktop version). The A6 4455 is much less powerful than other 35 watt parts. It delivers less than half of the graphics performance (2/3 the cores and less than 2/3 the clock speed). Meanwhile, intel ULV processors have similar CPU scaling from regular laptop to ULV, and the graphics actually manages to keep up, with almost the entire max clock speed. However, they can't quite maintain the maximum power, but they hover close to it when stressed.
So, my point was that AMD's 17W cpu is significantly weaker, and I'm not sure its iGPU could even match HD 4000.
As shown here, HD 4000 is close to 35W APUs
The 17W version has less cpu power (which would not do much for the benchmark) and less than half the GPU compared to the 35W version. That would put it lower than 4000, although I'm not sure it'd scale completely like that (despite having slightly lower clocks and 2/3 the GPU cores, the A8 gets more than 2/3 the fps).
So, I think that in low voltage cpus, AMD cannot compete.
I'm saying that AMD is going to have to release a legitimate 17W, whereas Intel's may be heavily binned 25W or whatever. Also, on a day-to-day basis, the A6 is going to suck; imagine trying to web browse on an old Dell Adamo, it sucked, and so will the A6. Gaming performance isn't everything, especially on ultrabooks.
Uh how is that Trinity chip not a "legtimate" 17W.
How will it suck on the A10 and A8 and A6.
CPU wise they beat the **** out of my Athlon.
So why is the AMD CPU going to suck at web browsing even though most web browsing is GPU accelerated with any modern browser.
This is a gaming forum I am going to care about gaming performance even then AMD ties with Battery life at the same TDP with Intel.
Also better binned I5 2500 for example will not do any better then any other I5 why because they all run at the same voltage same clocks ect.
I said it is a legit chip, as in pretty much every chip has to fit inside the 17W envelope, whereas with Intel, because they make so many, they can problably increase the clockspeeds and voltage and call it a 25W chip (just realized they aren't in production anymore)
Anyway: clock for clock, Trinity will still be behind, so even though the clock-for-clock performance of trinity is up 20% from bulldozer, bulldozer was effectively a re-invented Pentium 4. Remember, a quad core 4.6 GHz CPU from bulldozer is equivalent to a 3.3 dual core i3 2120, and that isn't even on IB.
Even though it is clocked at 2.1 GHz, the clock-for-clock is so terrible that doing basic tasks will suck.
But web browsing still eats up CPU usage; on my 2.2 GHz Celeron 900 in my laptop, when I am running with multiple tabs open, that CPU is still running near max.
Trying to judge a sleekbook/ultrabook/ULV part on gaming is like trying to judge a fish on its ability to climb a tree; it isn't meant to be.
No you said they need to meaning they haven't and Trinity is released to the OEMs.
Its not a reinvented Pentium 4 that comparison is stupid the only logic is the low IPC.
Who cares clock for clock that its slower then Intel thats not how you compare PC.
If the 8350 is the same price as the 3450 who cares that the 8350 is not clock for clock as fast if its faster over all due to it shipping with high clocks.
That's a shitty celeron not a Trinity.
Why can't they game because Intel says so?
AMDs Ultrathins can game and have the same power envelope.
It's a pretty kickass laptop. c(:
2 or 3 months.A long-ass time.Oh boy, visual basic. I can barely contain my excitement. Not.
Few people have them because its Intel marketing crap and are very restrictive with the specs.
Cheapest Ultrabook on newegg
700$
Operating System Windows 7 Home Premium 64-Bit
CPU Type Intel Core i3-2367M 1.4GHz
Screen 13.3"
Memory Size 4GB DDR3
Hard Disk 520GB
Graphics Card Intel HD Graphics 3000
Lowend I3 and crap Intel IGP.
HP said A8 products will release at 700$ with the follow specs.
the Pavilion dv6-7010 will arrive with the quad-core AMD A8-4500M APU, teamed with a Radeon 7640G graphics card, six gigs of RAM and 750GB of storage. The outer specs remain unchanged, but there is one other difference worth mentioning; it's priced at $700
Other companies will be releasing A10 in the 700$ range and the A10 kicks the **** out of Intel in terms of performance for gaming and with twice as many cores the A10 can trade blows with the I3.
For cheap gaming laptops AMD is top dog and that's why I will own a Trinity Laptop here soon.
I just chose a very basic laptop that can run games on low/medium decently, so I chose the Asus K53 (note that prices for electronics are way different then in the US, so no complaining that it's overpriced). Nvidia GT630M, I5 2450, etc.
Even If Intel priced better they still need to work with Nvidia to provide cheap chips because Intels GPU department sucks goat tits.
Then they get crappy battery life compared to AMD who is already doing very well with its APU.
The intel ULV (ultra low voltage) ivy bridge chips actually consume very little power (17 watts at full load) and they're what's going into ultrabooks. For AMD to compete in the low power segment, they would have to make incredibly weak components (although, the ULV parts are pretty weak already). Comparing the TDPs of the Intel desktop parts (77W) and AMD (100W) and it's clear that AMD has to sacrifice more to get the same power.
The point of ultrabooks isn't to be high-specced or to give good performance in gaming, they're supposed to be portable. Yes, they're overpriced for the hardware. They're not supposed to be a good deal for a budget, they're supposed to cram what they can into a tiny box, while making as much money for intel as possible.
Edit: I failed to take into account that it'd be easier to fit a larger battery into a laptop that doesn't have to be tiny, so non-ultrabooks could easily have higher battery life.
"Never try to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and it annoys the pig." — Robert Heinlein
But these are laptop parts AMD ULV A10 thats a quadcore is 25W AMD has a dualcore A6 is 17W.
Even if you want battery life AMD can deliver that and gaming performance when you need it.
AMDs 35w parts are just as good as Intels 35W battery wise in battery and a lot better in gaming.
If you are trying to show off how expensive your computer is, then you will have to do much better than that bro.
AMD has CPUs in that power range of 17W its not something I'm speculating, they exist and AMD is releasing them.
Well neither are overclocked and power consumption is not something that changes on a chip to chip basis they all have the same voltage better binning would not help. It does with Ocing but like I said the battery life does not touch on ocing.
That proves my point. At 17 watts, AMD parts are significantly less powerful than Intel (compared to desktop version). The A6 4455 is much less powerful than other 35 watt parts. It delivers less than half of the graphics performance (2/3 the cores and less than 2/3 the clock speed). Meanwhile, intel ULV processors have similar CPU scaling from regular laptop to ULV, and the graphics actually manages to keep up, with almost the entire max clock speed. However, they can't quite maintain the maximum power, but they hover close to it when stressed.
So, my point was that AMD's 17W cpu is significantly weaker, and I'm not sure its iGPU could even match HD 4000.
As shown here, HD 4000 is close to 35W APUs
The 17W version has less cpu power (which would not do much for the benchmark) and less than half the GPU compared to the 35W version. That would put it lower than 4000, although I'm not sure it'd scale completely like that (despite having slightly lower clocks and 2/3 the GPU cores, the A8 gets more than 2/3 the fps).
So, I think that in low voltage cpus, AMD cannot compete.
Close my ass AMD Trinity is pulling almost double the fps neither are playable at medium anyway but on low AMD can at least push more then 30fps.
If you would read my post you would notice the ULV have the same about of cores as the non ULV and GPU clocks only a bit lower.
Uh how is that Trinity chip not a "legtimate" 17W.
How will it suck on the A10 and A8 and A6.
CPU wise they beat the **** out of my Athlon.
So why is the AMD CPU going to suck at web browsing even though most web browsing is GPU accelerated with any modern browser.
This is a gaming forum I am going to care about gaming performance even then AMD ties with Battery life at the same TDP with Intel.
Also better binned I5 2500 for example will not do any better then any other I5 why because they all run at the same voltage same clocks ect.
No you said they need to meaning they haven't and Trinity is released to the OEMs.
Its not a reinvented Pentium 4 that comparison is stupid the only logic is the low IPC.
Who cares clock for clock that its slower then Intel thats not how you compare PC.
If the 8350 is the same price as the 3450 who cares that the 8350 is not clock for clock as fast if its faster over all due to it shipping with high clocks.
That's a shitty celeron not a Trinity.
Why can't they game because Intel says so?
AMDs Ultrathins can game and have the same power envelope.