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
balancedthinking - Thursday, August 13, 2009 - link
What has this discussion to do with me beeing located in germany? Nice work looking up my IP btw. Am I not allowed to critisize you because I am not american? What kind of excuse ist that?Am I not allowed to critisize you because the EU fined Intel for ripping of european customers? Am I not allowed to critisize you because AMDs foundry spin of is located in germany at the moment, while building a new fab in new york? Is that your excuse?
After all, AMD is an american company and the funny thing is, I am neither on the payroll of AMD and also do not write for a competitor.
Still I like underdogs and I do not like underdogs beeing treated unfairly. I also own an AMD Laptop with HD 3200 and I have too much fun playing with it to let you deceive other customers into spending MORE money to get a crippled IGP, a few percent battery life and cpu performance.
How many students do you know? I know plenty and the MAJORITY only has a laptop and no desktop. There are also A LOT of students who can not afford a 1000$ gaming laptop but they definitely have fun to play counter strike with their mates.
You know who cares about a few percent battery life and cpu performance? Intel marketing, because they can tell people their plattform is actually "better" in certain areas.
Sound familiar huh?
regarding your "alternatives".
The 500$ one only has a T4200, your review is about a T6500. You can not tell if the T4200 has an advantage over the AMD system regarding battery life and performance! It definitely will be slower than the T6500 and the Nvidia IGP will not help the battery life, neither will the T4200.
It also has no HDMI, only VGA. So no fun with family and friends showing them your latest vacation pictures on the big flatscreen.
The 8200M G is also a very old IGP that is a lot slower than the HD 3200 (3dmark 06 1000 vs. 1600 points) and has no HD content features.
The 600$ alternative also has the slower and more power hungry T4200. The HD 4330 is faster than the HD 3200 but not that much (2600 vs. 1600 points 3dmark 06). On the other hand, it is a dedicated graphics solution so I highly doubt that the battery life with the T4200 will be any better than the gateway AMD system. HDMI is also missing!
So you pay an extra 100$ to loose the HDMI port and get the same battery life and cpu performance the AMD system has for 500$. The gpu is better but it will cost you 20% extra.
strikeback03 - Friday, August 14, 2009 - link
I just had to point this one out:You state that the 8200M is a "lot slower than the HD 3200". 1000/1600=0.625, or in words the 8200M gives 62.5% the score of the HD 3200.
You then state that "the HD 4330 is faster than the HD 3200 but not that much". 1600/2600=0.615, or in words the HD 3200 gives 61.5% the score of the HD 4330, or in other words a larger gap than between the HD 3200 and the "lot slower" 8200M.
scientia - Thursday, August 13, 2009 - link
I have to agree. The "review" bears no connection to reality. I use an HP Pavillion with a 2.0 Ghz AMD mobile Athlon 64 and Radeon 200 M grapics everyday. The notion that a notebook with a bit more than twice as much CPU doesn't have enough is ludicrous.I also have an HP Pavillion Centrino system with a 2.0 Ghz Pentium M. The two systems have very similar CPU power but the Centrino definitely has worse graphics. For example, I have to reduce the resolution on my AMD system with playing against it on Warcraft 3 with LAN and the Centrino is unable to run Civ 4 which runs fine even on my older AMD notebook.
The CPU in my notebook spends the great majority of its time running at 800 - 1000 Mhz so the extra CPU power on the Intel system will not be noticeable except in benchmarks. Whose leg are you trying to pull, Mr. Walton, when you claim that Intel system feels snappier?
JarredWalton - Thursday, August 13, 2009 - link
A 2.0GHz Pentium M with GMA 900 graphics is a different era, I'm sorry to inform you, just as a Radeon 200M is a different beast than the HD 3200. Do not make the mistake of thinking nothing has changed during the past four years, because it has.As I pointed out, the last time I tested an Intel IGP in a large selection of games (GMA 950), it failed to load 2/3 of the titles. The GMA 4500 now loads over 3/4 of titles. Even two years ago, Intel's IGP was about 1/4 the performance of the ATI and NVIDIA IGPs. Now (in games where drivers are working), the advantage is less than 100%.
Discussing notebooks from the past is a true disconnect from "reality". Please look at current offerings - as I have done in this review - if you want to talk about the advantages and disadvantages of the various platforms.
tempestor - Thursday, August 13, 2009 - link
This is fun! :)I have no idea from what hat you pulled Germany. OK, you are from Germany, cool, i am from Europe too - Slovenia, but i don`t think Jarred with his remark (fabs in Germany) meant anything "racist".
Anyway - my quotes were carefully picked - so you can see i wrote some favoring AMD too! Not what you did. You only listed quotes favoring Intel. Bad boy! And i did write that one of my quotes was out of context... you really don`t have to repeat that.
Some time ago a friend of mine had to choose between two notebooks very similar to the ones compared in this article. Yes, i did recommend him Intel version, but he wanted to save 30 EUR (cca 50 USD) and picked AMD version. Is he happy with his choice? Yes. But he NEVER uses his computer on battery and he doesn`t care about how fast some page in web browser loads. Oh... and he doesn`t play games either or watch HD movies. So i guess AMD option is ok for him. And Intel would be ok too!
About "snappier" - you will know the meaning of this word when it hits you. And i can tell you - i have a WD 3200BJKT drive now in my notebook and the performance is up by 20% at least (according to original WD 1600BEVS or something HDD (a shitty 160 gb 5400 rpm drive)). So yes, HDD has impact on how fast things load (OS, webpages, games,...) - note that Jarred.
About games - if you KNOW you can`t play some game on a notebook is sometimes better than to KNOW you can`t play it good. Meaning: playing some game on a slow computer gives you wrong impression of the game thus not liking it. So it is better to not play it at all.
I don`t think graphics is HUGE advantage for AMD. It is like bread - it feeds you, but the taste is plain!!!
HD playback: average Blue-Ray movie in Slovenia costs around 40-50 EUR. Do you really think a person that spends 500 USD (cca 320 EUR) would regularly watch HD movies on that notebook? I don`t think so.
Don`t get me wrong about underdogs. I really like AMD`s graphics division. I think they are way better than nVidia. But glory days of their CPU division are loooooooong gone. And computers are still mostly about CPU, not GPU.
M.
JarredWalton - Thursday, August 13, 2009 - link
Your being in Germany (where AMD has facilities) is suspect. I make a point of checking IP addresses for people that apparently have blinders on, considering guerrilla marketing tactics have been employed by many. "Am I not allowed to critisize you because the EU fined Intel for ripping of european customers?" What does the EU and Intel have to do with criticizing me? Whether or not you work for AMD is still unknown, as obviously you wouldn't admit it.You blame me for bias but say you like to root for the underdog. "Rooting" for someone is the definition of bias. I went into this expecting nothing but curious as to the results. I did not expect 25% better battery life, though the general performance and GPU results were pretty much a given. Concrete numbers are always good, even if they hurt your feelings since you own an HD 3200 laptop.
I love how 28% more battery life has become "a few percent". Nice blinders. I like how 25% faster performance on average (outside of games) is also meaningless. The Pentium T4200 shouldn't be much slower than the T6500, http://www.anandtech.com/bench/default.aspx?p=67&a...">as these desktop results show. The loss of 5% clock speed and 1MB L2 results in a drop of 5-10%. Power requirements should not change appreciably, as it's still a 45nm chip and Intel doesn't have the advanced C-states on the T6500 or T4200.
I have already stated (repeatedly) that the NV52 at $500 is the better solution for entry-level mobile gaming. It is not without compromises, but if basic gaming is that important and you can't spend a dollar more it's the way to go. I feel strongly that people who are so concerned with gaming performance will be better served by reassessing their needs and wants; do they really need the extra features or are they buying in because of marketing? Do they really need a laptop at all, considering a gaming desktop for $500 (including OS and LCD) can easily outperform laptops costing twice as much?
I'm done with this conversation. You repeatedly exaggerate areas that benefit your pro-AMD stance and downplay everything else. Enjoy your AMD HD 3200 laptop, but just because you think it's great doesn't mean it is the best solution for everyone. It's one possible option out of dozens of competing notebooks and platforms.
tempestor - Thursday, August 13, 2009 - link
btw: article not working from page 8 on.M.
JarredWalton - Thursday, August 13, 2009 - link
Not sure what happened, but somehow when I tried to add some charts last night the "gaming" page got blown away. I have corrected the error now.JarredWalton - Wednesday, August 12, 2009 - link
News flash: any article written is going to be opinion. Intel's opinion and AMD's opinion doesn't count for squat with me; I gave you a rundown of the market as I see it, after using a variety of laptops. Objective and neutral doesn't mean I have to be nice to a company offering an overall inferior solution. Unbiased certainly does not mean I have to root for the underdog.You think gaming is far more important in a budget laptop than I do, and then you keep trying to put in me a corner that I'm not in. I don't think "NOBODY plays 3D games on laptops"; I think there are plenty of people that do so, but that there are even more people that don't. Is it "marketing BS" (to use your phrase) to promote gaming as something everyone should look for in a laptop, especially when it reduces battery life by 25%? Your "balancedthinking" reads more like anti-Intel marketing, while my article has no problems pointing out the shortcomings of both AMD and Intel. Which is actually the "balanced" opinion?
Is Spore playable on the HD 3200? Yes. Is it a great experience? Not at the level of other laptops that have better GPUs and only cost slightly more. Does it also run on the Intel IGP? Yes, at roughly half the performance of the HD 3200, but still providing playability at 800x600. You're saying twice the performance at 800x600 is a great thing (ATI HD 3200), but six times the level of performance is meaningless?
"Barely adequate" is not an Intel marketing statement, that's my opinion backed by cold, hard numbers. There are plenty of games that do not run acceptably on any current IGP (Mass Effect, Riddick: Dark Athena, and Call of Duty World at War all fall into that category, and Assassin's Creed might as well be there considering it looks like crap at minimum detail settings). Many others hover around 20 FPS on the HD 3200. Mouse cursor movement at 20FPS is sluggish and choppy, making for a less than enjoyable experience. I played and tested quite a few games on these laptops, and at best performance (and quality) was acceptable (Company of Heroes, UT3, and similar games that aren't too taxing).
Considering I can find laptops that handle gaming at native LCD resolution with roughly twice the performance of the HD 3200 (or only slightly higher performance but with increased detail) and it only increases price by 30% (that's 30% more cost for 300% more gaming performance), it's very limiting to suggest that people should only consider entry-level IGP solutions.
Here's an unbiased conclusion for you:
Intel has the better mobile solution at pretty much all price points - i.e. better battery life with acceptable performance (Atom) or better battery life and performance (Core 2).
AMD has the better mobile gaming solution for less than ~$600, but it will still struggle with many 3D games and there are titles that it simply can't run. Casual gamers should be fine.
Intel + NVIDIA or ATI GPU is the better mobile gaming solution for anyone spending more than $650, and in fact will win in every category except battery life tests (where it's bested by Intel-based laptops with IGPs).
Amazingly enough, that's the condensed version of what I said in the conclusion.
FWIW, QuickTime 1080p movie trailers run better on the Intel NV58, and so do YouTube and Google videos. ATI's drivers are better with resolution support, but ATI also doesn't provide generic reference drivers for laptops so the NV58 currently runs with drivers that are six months old. GMA 4500 should handle Blu-ray playback, but you'd need an appropriate application (i.e. PowerDVD Ultra) and a Blu-ray drive, which is not something most people add to a $500 laptop.
balancedthinking - Thursday, August 13, 2009 - link
Funny:"You think gaming is far more important in a budget laptop than I do, and then you keep trying to put in me a corner that I'm not in. I don't think "NOBODY plays 3D games on laptops"; I think there are plenty of people that do so, but that there are even more people that don't."
look at your previous post
"Again, what percentage of laptop users actually play 3D games on a regular basis - or at all?"
You do not even remeber what you wrote only hours ago...
I am not talking about playing the latest blockbusters like "cod world at war" on a laptop with IGP. I am talking about those 2-5 year old classics that still shine and are very playable on the amd system and just not on the Intel system like Age of Empires 3, Anno, Warcraft 3, Flatout, Tomb Raider, Dungeon Siege, gothic, counter strike, half life 2, flatout and many more.
Also very funny you bring up Spore as a game where the Intel IGP is supposed to do quiet well.
"Does it also run on the Intel IGP? Yes, at roughly half the performance of the HD 3200, but still providing playability at 800x600."
Intel is only able to reach half the performance because they leave out a lot of effects and it just looks horrible on an Intel IGP.
http://blogs.amd.com/patmoorhead/2009/01/23/why-sp...">http://blogs.amd.com/patmoorhead/2009/0...may-look...