Gateway AMD and Intel Laptops, a Platform Analysis
by Jarred Walton on August 12, 2009 2:00 AM EST- Posted in
- Laptops
Gaming Performance - AMD vs. Intel
Before we get to the gaming results - quit looking ahead and pay attention to this paragraph! - we need to put gaming performance in perspective. These integrated graphics solutions might be the best that AMD and Intel currently offer in laptops, but don't get excited. The fact of the matter is that neither of these solutions is particularly fast when it comes to playing 3D games. We loaded a variety of titles onto the laptops, and after a look at performance using medium detail settings we quickly decided that even the Radeon HD 3200 had no business running anything above minimum detail at 800x600. Okay, that's not entirely true; we did get a few titles to break 30 frames per second at the native 1366x768 LCD resolution, but those games where the exception rather than the rule.
While we're making disclaimers, we also need to mention that Intel's GMA 4500MHD failed to run quite a few games until we force DirectX 9 mode. In fact, out of the 18 titles that we tested, the Intel laptop still failed to run four of them. These four titles would crash to the desktop and nothing we tried fixed the situation. That's pretty bad if you're interested in gaming, but we do have to give Intel some credit: the last time I tried to test gaming compatibility with an Intel IGP (GMA 950), only about one third of the titles would even load properly! Okay, are your expectations set sufficiently low yet? Here we go. (I know… most of you have already skipped these two paragraphs and are staring at the chart. Sigh.)
As you probably expected, there's not a single instance where the Intel integrated graphics provide a better gaming experience than the AMD IGP. In fact, the closest Intel gets is in STALKER: Clear Sky where the AMD platform is only 31% faster. Frankly, the fact that Crysis runs at all on Intel (with DX9 mode forced) was a bit surprising, but AMD ended up being a whopping 335% faster so let's not dwell on the achievement. The Chronicles of Riddick: Dark Athena, Fallout 3, Mass Effect, and Race Driver: GRID all failed to run on the Intel IGP. Enemy Territory: Quake Wars is another title that wasn't even close, with AMD's 780G providing 266% better performance than the 4500MHD.
If we add up all the frame rates in all of the titles (counting a zero against Intel for any games that they fail to run properly), the final tally is that the AMD platform ends up providing more than twice the performance of the Intel platform (140% faster) when it comes to gaming. (Incidentally, if we drop the four failed titles along with ETQW and Crysis from the average, AMD's HD 3200 ends up being just 88% faster, so further driver tweaks could still help Intel.) You might not think that's a fair comparison, but if we look at frame rates there are only five titles where Intel managed playable frame rates - and this is at 800x600 with minimum detail settings. Unreal Tournament 3, STALKER: Clear Sky (barely), Company of Heroes, Devil May Cry 4 (again barely), and Empire: Total War manage tolerable performance. Out of all of the games we tested, only Company of Heroes and Unreal Tournament 3 are even remotely playable (20 to 24 FPS) at the native LCD resolution. In fact, the AMD platform provided better performance at the native LCD resolution than Intel manages at 800x600.
Before we get too carried away, we should also mention that there are three games in our test list where neither platform could come anywhere near providing adequate performance: Call of Duty: World at War, Chronicles of Riddick: Dark Athena, and Mass Effect all failed to break 20 FPS at 800x600. Crysis, Assassin's Creed, Fallout 3, and Far Cry 2 aren't much better at less than 25 FPS. So congratulations AMD: your integrated graphics solution manages to walk away with the flyweight boxing title after going up against a sick one-armed man. What happens if we put a real contender in the ring?
First, we need to remember that there are Intel-based laptops that use integrated graphics from NVIDIA - or even ATI HD 3330 for a bit more. That will go a long way towards "leveling" the playing field, considering the ATI HD 3330 is actually faster overall compared to the HD 3200. Most of the people who are concerned with gaming performance also seem to feel battery life is less important, in which case you're far better off getting a laptop with a discrete GPU. How much of a difference does that make? As one example the Acer Aspire AS6920 is $70 more expensive than the Gateway NV58. Battery life will probably be quite a bit worse, but gaming performance should be 3x to 4x faster than the NV52. You can even get an Intel laptop with an ATI HD 4650 that should provide about 5x to 6x the performance of the HD 3200 (though prices for such laptops are noticeably higher, starting at around $800.
Our advice? If you want to play "real" games (i.e. newer 3D titles) on a laptop, spend the money on a laptop that can actually play games. Integrated graphics remains at best a poor solution for 3D games, and that will continue until someone invests a lot more effort in creating a compelling IGP. Honestly, AMD/ATI and NVIDIA are resting on their laurels. It wasn't long ago that Intel IGPs failed to run most games - even many casual games. These days the GMA 4500 is only about half the speed of ATI's HD 3200 solution. Their drivers have come a long way in the compatibility department, and another revision or two to their hardware could see Intel close the gap. We'd really love to see a serious mobile graphics solution that tackles power requirements the same way Intel CPUs do… shutdown inactive "cores" (SPs) to conserve power in 2D tasks, and only power up the SPs when necessary. This is really a question of "when" and not "if", and more notebook manufacturers need to pay attention to this area.
Then again, if all you have is a budget laptop and want to play some games, there are plenty of other alternatives that don't require high-end graphics. Plants vs. Zombies is one option that runs well even on netbooks, and there are countless browser games you can play. If you still want some "high-end" 3D fare, try setting the way back machine for 2003 (or earlier) and check out the classics. One of the joys of PC gaming is that the vast majority of older titles will still run on your modern rig. Diablo/Diablo 2, the earlier Fallouts, Half-Life, WarCraft 3… go relive some gory moments of yesteryear and even your entry-level laptop will feel fast - yes, even the Intel IGP should be fine.
Update
For the gaming tests, this alternate chart will help to provide a better look at where the two IGPs are actually able to provide acceptable performance. Again, this is at 800x600 and minimum detail settings, so this is a best-case scenario in terms of frame rates. Certainly anything in the <15 FPS range isn't playable, and we'd argue that 30 FPS is necessary for an acceptable gaming experience. By that criterion, the GMA 4500MHD can only run Company of Heroes and Unreal Tournament 3 acceptably, while the HD 3200 manages to reach near 30 FPS on half of the titles. Games like the Sims 2/3 and Spore aren't quite as taxing as many of the FPS titles and should run fine on the HD 3200. (We'll try to update later with results of those titles on both systems.)
Update #2
What about casual gaming - you know, The Sims 2/3 and Spore? Maxis has done a great job of providing games that appeal to a much wider audience, though many "serious" gamers aren't as fond of the titles. As a final update to the gaming question, we installed the three latest Maxis titles on these two laptops and used FRAPS to capture frame rates. Unfortunately, there were some difficulties that make these tests a little less useful. Spore for instance appears to force VSYNC, with no way to properly disable the feature. The result is that at 800x600, both laptops ended up reaching 30 FPS on minimum detail settings. The Sims 2/3 also hit apparent frame rate caps, and all three titles were easily playable at 800x600. We settled on testing these games at the native 1366x768 LCD resolution, since we could still play the games without serious difficulty.
In our tests, two of the three titles ran about the same on the AMD and Intel IGPs. The Sims 2 ends up tied at just over 20 FPS (though VSYNC does not appear active) while Spore gives a slight 6.5% advantage to the AMD platform. The Sims 3 still shows AMD with a comfortable margin of victory at 47% higher frame rates. So what's going on here?
The short summary is that the final rendered images are not 100% identical for a couple reasons. First, we are now dealing with games that have quite a bit of LOD (Level of Detail) adjustments going on, and it looks like certain details get dropped in order to improve frame rates. Second, some rendering errors on the Intel side (i.e. water reflections didn't work in either Sims game at Low detail where we tested) artificially boost the score. Of course, AMD wasn't without rendering errors, but the Gateway NV52 ATI drivers are about six months old (and unfortunately there's no good way to get updated drivers). HDD and CPU performance also appear to be more significant factors in these casual games, allowing Intel to close the gap.
AMD is still the better gaming option, but the fact is we were able to play Spore on low to medium details on the Intel platform all the way from the Single Cell stage up through the Space stage without any real complaints. Maxis is clever in that they decouple mouse cursor updates from the main 3D rendering loop, so your mouse still works properly even when frame rates are in the teens (or lower). Performance is also noticeably better at Low details, but we experienced some texture and rendering corruption at the Civilization stage that we fixed by running Medium details. If you want better rendering quality, the HD 3200 still wins easily, but if you just need a casual gaming fix Intel does better than most would expect in the latest Maxis titles.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
67 Comments
View All Comments
RandomUsername3245 - Wednesday, August 12, 2009 - link
Now that would be an interesting technical analysis article -- compare the different idle power states of something like the Studio 16 and the Macbook Pro & see exactly where the differences are.balancedthinking - Wednesday, August 12, 2009 - link
I do not agree with the conclusion.Everything you can do with the Intel system, you can do with the AMD system too and i highly doubt anybody would notice a difference with normal applications.
That subjective "snappier" of yours sounds like marketing bullshit. Browsing and loading apps is limited by the harddrive, not the cpu.
On the other hand, Intel can not do blueray via HDMI and accelerate HD content and encoding. You totally missed that one in the whole article.
WORLD OF WARCFRAFT is playable with the AMD system but it is not with the Intel system.
Why do you recommend spending an extra 80$ to artifically limit the capability to do different tasks?
You are constantly downplaying the advantage of a good igp and overestimate the importance of the cpu.
You will not notice the difference in cpu performance but you will notice the missing capability to play accelerated HD content via HDMI and to play games on the intel system.
Wellsoul2 - Wednesday, August 12, 2009 - link
I feel the same way...the intel graphics aren't good enough.Another test I'd like to see...can it play a 1280x720 video in Itunes? If you like to play music vids this is a big deal.
For what I do better video at a cheaper price beats Intel.
Your conclusion isn't right. If I want super cheap best hardware
I'd go for the AMD with better video.
I'd rather be able to play a Youtube HD video and MMO game.
To me..future internet leans toward better video not cpu.
Seriously..can I play back an episode of NCIS in HD on the Intel?
(I'm pretty sure I can on the AMD..just by the numbers)
JarredWalton - Wednesday, August 12, 2009 - link
See, you people are making assumptions here - assumptions that aren't entirely correct. Besides the fact that Blu-ray support isn't a real concern on a $500 notebook (are you really going to spend $150 more to get that feature on a budget offering?), video playback is a big can of worms.Notice the x264 720p battery life test... I couldn't tell a difference between the two in terms of image quality. x264 1080p on the other hand showed some real problems on the the Intel setup (periodic dropped frames and loss of A/V sync). So AMD wins, right? Well, that's using a 1080p movie on a 768p panel, so I'm not sure it's really that important. However, Hulu (in 480p) was better on the Intel setup than the AMD, typically running 24FPS compared to 18FPS. So chalk up a win for Intel as well.
The real problem is that you people are reading my opinion on the platforms as a 100% statement, and then you're giving your opinion and saying I'm wrong. Read what I wrote and you'll see I'm more than willing to admit there are benefits to the AMD platform.
After personally using both of these laptops for the better part of a month (three weeks of intense testing), given the choice I wouldn't hesitate to take the Intel NV58 over the AMD NV52 (and spend the extra $80). That's because I don't care about WoW or a few specific tests where I can make sure AMD comes out on top. Again, what percentage of laptop users actually play 3D games on a regular basis - or at all?
If you really care about such things, then of course there are far better options than an Intel IGP laptop. There are also FAR BETTER choices than an ATI HD 3200 IGP laptop. I mentioned one in the gaming section, the http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N8...">Acer Aspire AS6920-6898. At $650 it will beat the pants off of either laptop in gaming, probably offer slightly worse battery life than the NV52, and have overall performance that's equal to or slightly better than the NV58 elsewhere - and it will handle all the video stuff at least as well as the NV52.
I figure most people will go into a budget laptop purchase with a set of requirements. Unless gaming and 1080p video playback are in the list of requirements, the Intel platform will offer a better overall experience. If gaming and 1080p video are desired, you can choose between barely adequate gaming performance at $500, or you can more than triple your gaming performance for $650. And frankly, the gaming experience on a GeForce 9500M GS still leaves a lot to be desired.
balancedthinking - Wednesday, August 12, 2009 - link
Did I miss something? Is not the conclusion of a review meant to be neutral and objektive? Instead you are advertising your completely biased opinion which reads like an Intel commercial!These low cost notebooks are often bought by families (mums) or students. Both groups like to play casual games and use their notebooks for entertainment.
On the other hand you have professionals like writers or business guys, (YOU!!!). These guys do not need capable graphics and often do not care about cost so you will find 1000$ subnotebooks in this range. Battery life and mobility are the key factors for this group.
You are really telling us NOBODY plays 3D games at all on their laptop? What a shame you are writing for anand!
So if you do not care about graphics, HDMI and HD content, it is up to you but articles are meant to be neutral and not biased towards a company. This one reads like an Intel commercial. "We have better battery life and the faster cpu, nobody needs graphics"
Also very funny telling your readers: "Intel IGP sucks but HD 3200 still sucks to so it makes no difference" that is a real bad excuse and is in fact untrue. But that is the typical marketing reaction, just downplay where the competition is good.
The HD 3200 is perfect for casual gaming like spore, world of warcraft, the sims 2/3 and a lot of older games that are real fun to play at lan party like warcraft 3, counterstrike, call of duty, battlefield or flatout.
All these games are playable quite well on the AMD system but NOT on the Intel system. "barely adequate" is just marketing bullshit by Intel and a really sad excuse to downplay the huge advantage of ATI and Nvidia IGPs vs. Intel IGPs
Of course 1080p matters. Never thought of pluging your notebook in your big flatscreen via HDMI and playing the latest blockbuster?
tempestor - Thursday, August 13, 2009 - link
Great article Jarred!As opposed to "balancedthinking" i think your conclusion was even too neutral!
It is great for me because i know a lot about computers and know what i want from my notebook but an average Joe would have a problem choosing a notebook.
Average Joe would prefer a straight recommendation at the end and not something like: model A is good, but model B is good too. As if you don`t want to say anything bad about either of them?
But then again: average Joe doesn`t read your website i guess.
Sorry for my bad english, i am a bit rusty, but i wanted to reply because of this "balancedthinking" guy who is completely unbalanced.
Guess you`ll never satisfy everyone :)
Best regards, M.
balancedthinking - Thursday, August 13, 2009 - link
Interesting you said exactly nothing about the stuff i critizised. I also do not get what you want to tell us.Instead you told us "I know a lot about computers". Well, good for you :-)
It is like comparing a SUV with a Prius -> if there is no clear answer the reviewer should not force a clear answer on personal habits and bias.
tempestor - Thursday, August 13, 2009 - link
I disagree with your implication that Jarred is biased.Jarred could as well give us raw numbers only and everyone can make it`s own conclusion. Why bother with whole article then?!
Since i wrote that i think Jarred`s article is great, you can assume my conclusions based on his raw numbers are very similar to his. That is why i didn`t write them down.
Quote: "Intel has much better battery life, but that's only one aspect of the overall equation and there are definitely areas where AMD has the advantage over Intel." - biased? I don`t think so. Clear answer? I don`t think so.
Quote: "When it comes to 3D graphics, however, the AMD solution is clearly superior to Intel's anemic IGP." - biased? Sure! but only because it is cut from the context of the paragraph. Clear answer? Yep! and the one favouring AMD-based solution.
Quote: "... so ultimately YOU need to decide whether YOU want to have better battery life or if YOU would prefer improved graphics." - biased? No. Clear answer? No.
I could quote most of his "the final word" here to show you.
What Jarred did in his conclusion is: he wrote it grey! Not black and white. And now you complain it is black... or white (i.e. favoring one side)??
M.
balancedthinking - Thursday, August 13, 2009 - link
typical case of quoting out of context....If those qoutes would have been everything Jarred wrote, I would not be complaining.
but he also wrote:
"Intel also wins in application performance, with noticeably snappier CPU performance."
snappier? Loading Apps and browsing is limited by the harddrive, not the cpu -> marketing nonsense
"ATI's HD 3200 may be over twice as fast on average compared to Intel's GMA 4500MHD, but that's a lot like beating a Kia Spectra with a Hyundai on the racetrack."
Clearly downplayig the huge advantages of a ATI or Nvidia IGP over an inferior Intel IGP. He is basically saying that the AMD IGP is a lot faster than the Intel IGP but still useless and that is just untrue, period.
"As far as we're concerned, laptops - especially entry-level laptops - need to function as a mobile computer first and foremost. By that criterion, Intel has the clearly better mobile platform. Faster CPUs that draw less power and provide better battery life rate a lot higher in our book than barely adequate gaming performance"
That is his biased opinion as a professional writer that does not play games. 500$ full featured 15.4 notebooks are no mobility tipewriters with a focuss on battery live for professional journalists. They are bought by families and students and often replace desktops.
"That's because I don't care about WoW or a few specific tests where I can make sure AMD comes out on top. Again, what percentage of laptop users actually play 3D games on a regular basis - or at all?"
He does not care about casual gaming, he does not care about 3D games on laptops and he even dares to state that everyone is like him. I call that arrogant.
"If you really care about such things, then of course there are far better options than an Intel IGP laptop. There are also FAR BETTER choices than an ATI HD 3200 IGP laptop."
Again completely downplaying the advantages of ATI and Nvidia IGPs to convince the reader, even though they are a lot better than Intel IGP do not cut it, which is untrue and biased.
He also completely ignores the HD content features AMD can provide and Intel can not. Why is ION such a big thing for Nvidia? HD is important for the average joe and Jarred completely ignores the fact and does not even mention it.
JarredWalton - Thursday, August 13, 2009 - link
Application load times and browsing are NOT limited by the hard drive unless you have extremely fast systems or are loading multiple items at once. I have tested this, and the NV58 boots Vista 25% faster than the NV52, and various other applications also load faster (though 25% when you're talking 10 seconds isn't as noticeable as 55 vs. 69 seconds). SSDs would help here, sure, but you don't put a $200+ SSD in a $500 laptop. You pretend to be unbiased, but you don't know what you're talking about. Have YOU used and tested two essentially identical laptops from AMD and Intel, side by side? NO! But we're supposed to take your word over a published writer that has. Makes me wonder if you're working at an AMD facility... or perhaps working for a competitor. After all, AMD has some facilities in Germany.I am not downplaying ATI's superior IGP, but rather putting it into context. It's much better than something that doesn't even try to play games. However, it's only a "huge advantage" IF YOU PLAY GAMES. If you never load up a 3D game (like my wife, brothers, sisters, parents, friends, etc.) then having the "huge advantage" really means that you're using more power, getting less battery life, and gaining NO BENEFIT WHATSOEVER!
"That is his biased opinion as a professional writer that does not play games."
Way to be a tool. I've played and beaten Fallout 3, Oblivion, Assassin's Creed, all the Half-Life games, Bioshock, The Witcher, Mass Effect, the two Penny Arcade Adventures, and others just in the past year or two. There are tons of other games I have not yet completed but I have spent numerous hours playing them (GRID, FEAR/FEAR2, Riddick: Dark Athena, Far Cry 2, STALKER: Clear Sky, Empire: Total War, Gears of War, Company of Heroes, all of the Call of Duty titles, World of Goo....) I started playing games on a Magnavox when I was six (back in 1980) and moved to a C-64 when I was 10. I've been playing PC games since the 286 era and the original Wing Commander, X-Wing, and Sierra adventures. I've played every Warcraft game, Starcraft, Command and Conquer, Age of Empires, and too many other titles to list. BUT I'm a "writer that does not play games." Way to make an assumption that is not only blatantly false, but it's not even backed up by the article. Do you think someone that doesn't play games would test EIGHTEEN recent titles on two laptops that are clearly not targeted at the gamer?
The fact is that I play enough games that I'm willing to tell the truth and let people know that playing games on a slow, underpowered IGP is a lousy experience. If all you have for gaming is a $500 laptop, I doubt that: A) You're a gamer, and B) You'll like playing games on that laptop. Go buy a Nintendo DS and you'll have more fun, or else read a book and don't worry about gaming - just like millions of people.
The only thing that might be "non-gamer" about me is that I don't play World of Warcraft (or any other MMO). Considering there are hundreds of millions of "gamers" in the world and yet only 15 million (give or take) that play WoW and other MMOs, again I think it's safe to say plenty of people don't play such games. I'm not interested in getting started in the MMO scene either, as I have a life I'm quite happy with. If I could test an MMO performance without an account, I would do so, but I'm not going to spend $15 per month per MMO when I don't enjoy that style of game.
Who are you to say what a $500 laptop is supposed to be? I've given a list of what it CAN be. It can be everything a student or businessman needs, and in that case it would be substantially better without an AMD CPU (right now). It can do everything a family needs as well. Can it do everything a family *wants* though? That depends on the family, and clearly it can't be a one-size-fits-all gaming solution. 25% of games that I tested can't run acceptably on the AMD setup. But that doesn't matter; what matters is that it can run games better than Intel's IGP. You know who really cares about that? AMD marketing, because they can tell people their platform is actually "better" in certain areas.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N8...">Here's a $600 alternative (using ATI graphics)
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N8...">Here's a $500 alternative (using an NVIDIA IGP)
Both should more or less equal the AMD NV52 in gaming while still offering better CPU performance -- and probably battery life. Case closed.