NBR at AMD Partner Event in San Francisco

<!-- Generated by XStandard version 1.7.1.0 on 2007-05-03T10:07:54 -->

by Kevin Giberson

Anybody who has spent a little time looking at notebook forums or reviews (a good idea when considering a notebook purchase) knows the Big Questions:

1. AMD or Intel processor?
2. Graphics by NVIDIA, ATI or Intel?

These big questions, unlike some of those others life presents, may not make a huge difference in the grand scheme of things, but they do want answers if a notebook is being purchased for purposes other than writing email, reading Internet news and crafting the occasional Microsoft Word document. Even these tasks can benefit from the right hardware choices, especially since the advent of Windows Vista. And for that not-so-rare purchaser planning to watch some serious video, play non-vintage computer games, or fly cross-country on a single battery charge, chipsets and discrete components matter.

(view large image)

With these thoughts in mind, I recently attended an AMD Partner Event in San Francisco, which dealt specifically with issues related to mobile computing. The partners were NVIDIA, Broadcom and, implicitly, ATI, though this is something of a domestic partnership now that AMD has acquired ATI. The event may have been a sort of a priori response to Intel’s upcoming release of the Santa Rosa notebook platform. Presentation topics included the need to match GPU performance with that of other components in order to quench the ravenous hunger of Windows Vista; overall performance; the ever-increasing need for fast and effective wireless communications; and the reduction of power consumption that will allow mobile users to stay connected longer.

AMD CPU Talk

Starting with mobile CPU possibilities, AMD unveiled some new options in its Turion 64 X2 line: the high-performance 65nm TL-66, which runs at a speed of 2.3 GHz, is rated at 35W TPD and carries 1MB L2 cache; and the TL-58, clocked at 1.9 GHz, again with 1MB L2 cache, and with a power rating of 31W. I found the TL-66 especially intriguing and wished I could get my hands on one. There was also discussion of the AMD M690 mobile chipset and its ability to greatly enhance battery life over prior generations.

Slide comparing Vista performance on AMD versus Intel platforms (view large image)

Though not, strictly speaking, related to notebook computing, there was an interesting series of slides that compared the performance of AMD X2 and Intel Core 2 Duo CPUs. The AMD machines featured the RS690 chipset and ATI X1200 series graphics, while the Intel configurations used the Intel 965 chipset and GMA X3000 graphics. One specific comparison, in the slides presented, was between the AMD Athlon 64 X2 5600+ and the Intel Core 2 Duo E6600, with chipsets and graphics as above. In this particular scenario, the Intel combo performed at something like 60% of the AMD computer during “CD Ripping to Apple iTunes digital format,” while a gaming comparison, using Far Cry, resulted in AMD besting Intel by a factor of 2.5 or so.

Some AMD powered notebooks on display (view large image)

As indicated above, these test machines were not really comparable to any notebooks currently on the market (though the HP 6515b, recently reviewed on this website, includes an X1200 series graphics processor, the X1270, and the M690 mobile chipset), but they may provide some hint of the value of X1200 series GPUs in an age when stronger graphics processing is increasingly desired and necessary.

One interesting statistic presented at the event was that for the three-month period following Vista’s launch at the end of January, 93.7% of mobile PCs sold contained some sort of integrated graphics solution. Either this number will go down substantially in the near future, or integrated graphics will become much better. There also seems a likelihood that there will be further blurring of that line between motherboard-based graphics and discrete graphics cards.

NVIDIA Talk

The presentation by NVIDIA was interesting from this dedicated-versus-integrated perspective, and also because NVIDIA would seem now to be in direct competition with ATI. In any case, NVIDIA, always at the forefront of graphics processing, remains an AMD partner and, according to NVIDIA representatives, receives everything required to continue developing for the AMD platform. NVIDIA stressed the importance of a “branded” graphics solution, given the ever-increasing demands of Windows and today’s ubiquitous 3D, gaming and film content. I enjoyed talking to some NVIDIA representatives over lunch, and it was clear that they believe in their products and their company’s ability to meet the needs of a wide range of consumers, from those who want to enjoy an everyday computing experience to those who crave maximum frames-per-second in their game playing.

HP dv9000z AMD and Nvidia Powered notebook (view large image)

Broadcom Talk

The Broadcom presentation focused on the company’s size, leadership and innovation, along with its partnership with AMD and various OEMs. There were ample statistics and demonstrations to illustrate the advantages of 802.11n over prior wireless generations. According to one slide, certain 802.11n file transfers are some 13 times quicker than 802.11g and over 50 times faster than 802.11b. An impressive demo by Broadcom showed 802.11n at work, with multiple video streams all managed by the same 802.11n router, without any hitch or delay.

Conclusion

There was certainly a lot of information at the AMD Partner Event, an abundance of slides and demos designed to show the technological edge enjoyed by the participants. My only real conclusion is that there is stiff competition in the world of notebook hardware, and all involved parties are determined to innovate and prosper, which can only be good for consumers. AMD is doing what it must to counter Intel’s imminent release of the Santa Rosa notebook platform, as are the other event participants.

 

Thanks for covering this Kevin, this definitely sounds a bit like an attempt from AMD to wave for attention while facing the oncoming Intel marketing blitz that will come with Santa Rosa. I think their time will come more in a year or two when they've better integrated with ATI and can present some very intriguing integrated platform options. Very interesting to see that NVIDIA was a big part of this too though.

 

Really very neat, thank you!

 

Andrew is definately right. I always loved ATI, but now they are with AMD I am not sure. I have nothing against AMD, but come on they did not even brought out a driver that supports the X1700!

I think that my new notebook is going to be Intel + nVidia.

 

I would really like to see AMD get back into the market share. I would also like to see linux support ATI cards better!

 

Agreed. AMD needs to launch these new Turion X2s at the Santa Rosa release date, not later in time. Even more potential market share will be lost if they wait.

 

Ive been looking at notebooks for months now, and have not noticed any AMD's apart from those in Acer.

Whilst Intel have the imminent Santa Rosa platform debut any time now, they have constantly been releasing products. ATI on the other hand, either don't like press (contrary to this article) or are simply extremely slow at developing products.

Nobody even considering a notebook at this point in time even mentions AMD. Its all Core2Duo, which is a catchy name, compared to Turion X2.

They really need something great to match Intel, like they did when the first joined the industry.

Perhaps their ATi merger is draining their resources?

 

Maybe. Could be that the success of their original Athlon64 architecture made them too overconfident and now complacent.

 

I have to call out the accuracy (or maybe inaccuracy) of those benchmarks...
Take a read

With the graphics comparison with ATI/AMD outperforming Intel, I believe it. But integrated cards are not for gaming...but anyone would appreciate a more powerful integrated solution so go ATI/AMD.

But their CPU benches are all wrong...if the E6600 was only running at about 60% efficiency compared to the X2 5600+ then I question their setup, drivers, installs, and benchmark methods. Did you get a chance to examine those set ups yourself?

According to that Anandtech article:
PCMark05 (Overall Score) - E6600: 6337 marks / 5600+: 5963 marks
PCMark05 (CPU Score) ---- E6600: 5849 marks / 5600+: 5688 marks
DixV Encoding ------------ E6600: 8.88 fps / 5600+: 7.34 fps
WM Encoding ------------- E6600: 55.8 fps/ 5600+: 51.1 fps
Movie Maker Creation Time - E6600: 90.7 sec / 5600+: 97.2 sec
Quicktime H.264 Encoding --E6600: 20.9 fps / 5600+: 21.6 fps
iTunes Encoding ---------- E6600: 8.22 MB/sec / 5600+: 7.07 MB/sec
3DS Max Rendering ------- E6600: 5.59 fps / 5600+: 5.04 fps
Lightwave Rendering ------ E6600: 228.8 sec / 228.7 sec

There are a few more benches listed there, and I'm tired of copying them all. Needless to say, the 6600 beats the 5600+ sometimes, and sometimes the 5600+ beats the 6600. But as far as iTunes is concerned, when Anandtech has the E6600 performing faster than the 5600+...it seems like to me that AMD set up things to be a little bias. Those two processors should be performing about the same regardless of the task...

Now, if they were comparing a 5600+ to a E6300, or a 6000+ to the E6600, then these results might be a little more believable. But despite Intel's 2.4GHz E6600 processor and AMD's 2.8GHz 5600+, and AMD's 400MHz advantage, the Core 2 architecture runs more efficiently.

Not that Intel doesn't do the marketing stretch as well, but I wanted to at least point out one independent test showing that AMD's benches are not 100% truthful...

Of course, I could be wrong and my information wrong. Not trying to start a flame war, but I'm trying to point out the facts as I can find them. AMD advertising...

 

I dont know if u follow the financial press but AMD is in a significantly severe financial position. It has issued 2.2B in senior notes recently to fulfill its financial gaps and to possibly keep the price war going. There are rumours about the company going private. They really need to leap ahead with Barcelona otherwise it will be a disaster for them. Regardless, I will never betray AMD in favor of intel .

 

You aren't the only one hoping AMD/ATI survives. If it were not for them, Core 2 would never have happened, the X2 wouldn't have been around to save us from the Pentium 4.

Right now, AMD is matching Intel on price/performance (not leader in performance mind you) only by doing this sustained price war that is only hurting AMD. Between the financial threats, and Core 2 that currently kicks their butt, AMD has a VERY strong motivation to win with K10 (Barcelona?). If their drive to stay in business is evident in their next-gen lineup of products, I'm SURE it will outperform Core 2. AMD needs to survive.

BUT, my view is slightly different than yours, but that isn't a bad thing. I need the most power I can get in a computer, and right now I've got the 2nd most powerful mobile processor in existence. I'm always going to support who has the most power for the best price possible, and right now that is Intel. AMD had my vote in desktops until recently, but if/when AMD manages to become a performance leader again they will have my vote again.

Yay for competition, because it brings us better stuff.

 

yeah....i am pretty skeptical of that data. never trust data created by people who would benefit from the data being skewed.

 

Huh, AMD partnered with Broadcom, been this way for a while now it seems.

Gotta wonder why I can't get x64 drivers for a wireless Broadcom card that's routinely only paired with the premiere 64-bit branded processors.

 

Finally I have a chance to comment a little on the above. The benchmarks were definitely interesting to me too, and I did look at the configurations, which were available, and everything seemed pretty straightforward there. I guesss the main differences between the AMD benchmark systems and those used by AnandTech are: the RS690 chipset instead of the 590, 2GB RAM rather than 4GB, and somewhat modest graphics instead of 8800GTXs.

Anyway, I don't think there's anything wrong with pointing out some inconsistency because those AnandTech results are consistent with what's been out there for a year or whatever it's been. I guess for me it's always kind of simple (but not very illuminating): I want to be able to run a lot of apps and not have to wait very long for things to load or run, but the only fairly recent systems I have any real experience with are a couple of budget E6300 desktops with mid-range graphics, the Yonah notebook in my sig, and the 10 or so notebooks I've reviewed. Aside from one ultraportable and a dual-core that came with integrated graphics and 512MB RAM, they've all performed really well, both Intel and AMD, NVIDIA and ATI. For me, it's all about good (but not necessarily great) performance at sort of a low- to mid-range price. When I look at some of the PCMark Hall of Fame scores, I think, "Yeah, I'd like that, but I'm not willing to shell out $4000 for a desktop." Twenty percent of that maybe, possibly even thirty, but that's it.

No question, though, AMD has taken some hits lately. I just hope they bounce back because it's good all the way around.