how are the amd phenom 2 mobile cpu laptops?

I rarely see amd cpus in any high end laptops. Are they that bad on the mobile front?

 

Not bad, just better suited to the lower/mid range. They don't make anything that compares to a decent i7.

 

Pretty much, in terms of performance, AMD is getting crushed by Intel on the mobile front, a lot more than on desktops and AMD already has catching up to do on that front. Their APUs have better graphics performance than Intel's HD4000 though, but if you need to crunch numbers, AMD is a no go.

 

I wouldn't say AMD is a no-go, but i7's sourly outperform AMD anything in you need to do serious number crunching. AMD's current platform is appealing to budget friendly gamers and just general use computers.

 

Some people may have noticed that AMD's mobile quad cores might not be 'true cores' in the same sense like Intel has them.
AMD's APU's such as A104600m (which are supposedly quad core) have 2 modules.
Its' as if their 2 modules basically equal Intel 2 core i series (in terms of cpu capabilities).
Granted their IPC is still lower compared to intel, but regardless, the A10 4600m seems to be about 25% slower compared to intel's mobile i5 ivy bridge - which really isn't all that bad.

I wonder what would happen if AMD released a 4 module APU (I'm thinking its quite possible that it might be comparable to Intel's i7 if not a bit 25% slower).

Granted, AMD may have cores in the same sense like Intel does, but the instruction set and the way they are being handled is different compared to Intel.

 

Depends on how you define a quad-core, dual-core, etc. The APUs have two integer units and one floating-point unit per module, so if you're counting integer units as a "core", then it's a "quad-core" (which is what the OS would call it), whereas if you're only considering floating-point units or a 1:1 ratio of INT/FLT, then you could consider the A10-4600M a "dual-core". Whereas Intel has an integer unit and floating-point unit paired up 1:1 in their processors. But anyway, there's no set definition that I can find that defines a hard limit on what can be called a X-core processor.

But yes, AMD did trade off raw CPU power for a mix of enough CPU power to satisfy most buyers (at least those who aren't in the "numbers game" as I call it) and iGPU performance (which is no contest).

 

I still like what AMD did with their APUs given that they do offer a good amount of CPU and GPU performance in a relatively heap package and for the average Joe, they are more than enough and can even offer decent gaming capabilities. Still, for my uses, an APU won't cut it unless it were to replace my N50 which I now use to watch movies and such in bed when I'm feeling lazy during the week-ends. The real work gets done on my M6700 where I even found a good use for hyperthreading.

 

I would call AMD laptop a decent end user computer but not for Hardcore gaming-intensive apps. I would kinda avoid it I got a M1730(T7600) and P6860FX(T9300) and P7811FX(P8400-maybe to T9600) that I use for gaming but all have Intel processors that would best suite my gaming need when I hit the games or burning or watching movies. IMO

 

I think it's fair to say, you'll be fine with an AMD chip if your activities aren't CPU limited (e.g. the CPU isn't the weakest link). If you are CPU limited, decide whether spending the extra money for an Intel CPU is worth it ("is it worth spending an extra $100 to cut my processing time from 60 to 48 seconds?").

Activities that would be CPU limited - heavy photo/video editing, rendering, audio compression, MATLAB, physics calculations, statistics packages.

Barring the above, I think it makes more sense to spend money on a faster storage drive (a Solid State Drive [SSD]) than extra CPU power in most scenarios; the storage subsystem is a bottleneck for nearly everyone at some point during the day (opening programs, booting up). Check out our SSD upgrade guide for more detailed explanations:
http://www.notebookreview.com/default.asp?newsID=6678&feature=upgrade+HDD+SSD