Notebook Confusion: Another Bizarre Anandtech Review

I came across an Anandtech Notebook Review by Jarred Walton that claims to objectively compare low end examples powered by AMD and Intel processors. The reality seems to be otherwise.

I use an AMD notebook everyday. Mine is an older HP Pavillion with a 2.0Ghz Mobile Athlon 64 processor. It has a 15.4" display that can do 1280 x 800. I also have a very similar HP Pavillion Centrino system with a 2.0Ghz Pentium M processor. Both run Windows XP. The main difference between them is that the AMD system only has 512 MB's of memory while the Centrino has 1 GB. That actually isn't as simple as it appears because the Radeon 200M graphics in the AMD system have their own 128 MB graphics buffer while the Centrino uses main memory. So, it would be more like 640 MB's versus 1024 MB's. Therefore, we should have similar CPU power with a small advantage in memory for the Centrino.

In daily use, my notebook spends most of its time with the processor running between 800 and 1,000 Mhz so I was more than a little surprised to see Mr. Walton claiming that the AMD notebook in review with a dual core 2.1 Ghz processor doesn't have enough processor power. Whose leg are you trying to pull, Mr. Walton? Mr. Walton indeed suggests with a straight face that the Intel system is snappier. However, unless he is claiming that Vista requires twice as much CPU power to run then this claim is simply plucked out of thin air and cannot be taken seriously.

My two notebooks have very similar performance and utility for most things. Graphics are important though. I have a low end Sempron desktop system with again similar CPU power but the display only goes up to 1024 x 768 and that is quite noticeable. The 1280 x 800 is much easier to work with. If I were limiting the discussion to things like surfing the internet, using a word processor or spreadsheet then in all honesty I can't see much difference between the two systems. Mr. Walton makes the dubious claim that the Intel system is 25% more powerful so the extra cost is still a bargain. This claim is a joke. The reality is that Mr. Walton is scrambling to invent some reason to give the win to Intel and has gotten a death grip on the only advantage he was able to find: the Intel system does have slightly more CPU power. Seriously, I've never spent any time wishing I had 25% more CPU power and the two systems in review with more than double what I have should be plenty.

However, I have done some light game playing on my notebooks. I have played Empire Earth, Empire Earth II, Warcraft 3, Civilization 3 and 4, and Colonization 4. These will all run on my AMD notebook. Warcraft 3 does not run well on the Sempron desktop due to the lower resolution nor can it run Civ 4 at all. The Centrino system can run Warcraft 3 and I have played against someone using the LAN option. However, I do have to reduce my resolution because the Centrino system with native Intel graphics cannot handle the same resolutions that my Radeon graphics can. Worse still is that the Centrino system cannot run Civ 4 at all.

So, with all due respect to Mr. Walton's prejudices, let's stop the baloney. For almost all normal activity both systems have more than enough CPU power. This simple fact tends to negate Mr. Walton's desperate claim of a CPU power advantage. However, it does not negate the fact that the Intel system costs more and that it truly does have worse graphics than the AMD system. I suppose if you use your notebook for running obscure benchmarks then you would agree with Mr. Walton. However, for real people who actually use their computers I would say that either computer would be fine but with better graphics and a lower pricetag for the AMD system it would difficult to find a reason to buy the Intel system.

Still waiting for the day when the sun rises, flowers bloom, and common sense returns to Anandtech.


On another note: the AMD 3.4 Ghz Phenom II 965 Black Edition has finally arrived. It looks like a nice chip but since it is 140 watts I'm still deciding if it is preferable to the 125 watt PII 955 BE. I suppose if the 965 were downclocked to 3.2 Ghz then it might pull the same. But the real question is whether the 965 has an advantage if for example I am not trying for the highest possible clock. Good question.

Looking Forward

I need to say something first. I haven't done a new post for awhile. This was primarily because I was waiting for some spare money. Lately I had a few other reasons. My internet connection kept dropping and would stay down, but a cable technician failed to find anything wrong. So, on Father's Day I didn't get online until later in the evening. However when I finally did get online I sent a Father's Day ecard to my father. The next morning I got a confirmation email that Dad had read my ecard. Then later that evening my brother called from the hospital and told me that Dad had had a heart attack and died. The following Saturday we had visitation. On Sunday we had the funeral and, since he had retired as a Senior Master Sargeant, he was buried with military honors. He had accomplishments, friends and children. He died with three beautiful granddaughters and five handsome grandsons after celebrating his 50th wedding anniversary. I guess that is about as much as anyone could hope for. I'll miss you, Dad.

**********

With the internet still flaky I had to make another call to customer service. They sent another cable technician who replaced the cable modem and now my connection is working much better. I also have some spare money but I'm still trying to figure out a new system. I guess I'm looking at something that would qualify as an AMD Dragon system:

Case: Cooler Master Storm Sniper

This case won't fit in the computer cubby under my desk. The case is too long and too wide. It will fit under the desk on the side without the cubby so I guess it will work. I probably don't need all the cooling but since you can dial the fans down it should be okay.


Power Supply: Antec Signature SG 850

I probably don't need that much power either but this seems like a good PSU.


Motherboard: Asus M4A79T Deluxe

I know this motherboard can handle 125 watts and it uses DDR3.


Harddrives: Western Digital Caviar Black WD7501AALS 750GB

I'm thinking about five of these: one for boot and four in a RAID. But I haven't decided for certain yet if this would be the best configuration.


RAID controller: HighPoint RocketRAID 2300

I've heard that the onboard RAID controller may have issues.


Blu-Ray Drive: LG Black Super Multi Blu-ray Disc Burner & HD DVD-ROM Drive Model GGW-H20L

There is a unit on NewEgg that appears to be a higher model but I can't find anything about it on the LG website and it doesn't say if it supports LighScribe. So, this one will do.


Video card: ASUS EAH4890/HTDI/1GD5 Radeon HD 4890

I kind of liked the double fans on this model but NewEgg seems to be out of stock on these right now. So:

ASUS EAH4890 TOP/HTDI/1GD5 Radeon HD 4890

This one is the same as the above but with slightly higher GPU and memory clocks for another $15.


This leaves processor and memory. I have been thinking about the AMD Phenom II 955 clocked at 3.2Ghz but lately there have been rumors of the 965 clocked at 3.4Ghz so we'll see. Memory is another issue because while the Asus board does support 1600Mz I wouldn't mind having 8GB's. Since two DIMMs per socket won't clock that high I'm still wondering if I should spend the money for faster memory.

The operating system is also confusing. I know I want a 64 bit version of Windows. However, there is Vista Home Basic, Home Premium, Business, and Ultimate. There's both OEM and retail, and then Windows 7 is due out in early November in Premium, Professional, and Ultimate. I don't want to waste money on Vista but I need an OS now. Secondly I wouldn't mind having the Windows XP ability but that is not available on Windows 7 Premium. At the moment I'm looking at: Windows Vista Ultimate SP1 64-bit for System Builders w/ Tech Guarantee - OEM.

I could end up running the RC version of Windows 7.

Example Systems

I've been looking over the example systems at Anandtech. For the most part they do make reasonable choices. However, sometimes they betray definite biases in either choice of processor or their desire for overclocking instead of practicality.

Some things just naturally divide into sections, like oranges for example. But computer systems like most things take a bit more effort. However, there are a few common sense rules that help. First of all, as cost increases it has to increase overall, not just in one area. For example, it would be silly to keep memory, harddrives, and video the same but triple the cost of the CPU. As a very good rule of thumb, the drive cost, memory cost, video and display costs will all increase proportionately. Also, not only will the cost increase but so will the capacities. A more expensive system should have a faster (or higher core) CPU, more (and possibly faster) memory, more harddrive capacity (and perhaps speed), higher resolution video and a larger monitor. We would also have to increase power supply size to match the greater system demands and we would probably make some minor upgrades to case, keyboard, mouse, speakers, and perhaps audio. Secondly, if we are going to compare systems then they must have comparable capacities and attributes, not simply comparable costs. Without this common sense notion we could easily end up comparing one system where we spend $500 on audio/video/display and $200 on CPU/motherboard/memory with another that does just the opposite. Yet, it should be obvious that a system that is heavy on AV and light on CPU would be a completely different animal than one that is heavy on CPU and light on AV even if they happen to have the same pricetag.

Looking over the most recent example systems at Anandtech we see 5 categories: Value, Budget, Midrange Value, Midrange Performance, and i7 Overclocking and Dream. Not only are the names a bit confusing but the cost spread is absurd. The first system starts at about $540 which is fine but the cost to move up to each higher system progresses like this: $300, $600, $570, $140, and $2690; this isn't much of a spread. As you move up in price the cost of everything increases so the price between systems also increases. It makes no sense that the the third increase is smaller than the second and makes even less sense that the fourth increase is only half of the first. A more common sense spread would be something like: $300, $450, $600, and $750. So, if we start at $550 then our target systems would cost: $550, $850, $1300, $1900, and $2650. But then we have to skip $3550 to reach AT's Dream system price at about $4600.

The AMD entry and Intel entry level systems listed by Anandtech aren't too bad. However, I would cut the memory in half to 2GBs and we could easily get a midtower case for $25 and a nice CoolerMaster 460 watt power supply for $35. We would end up with the same $60 pricetag as AT but with a better PSU. Next, we can see that Anandtech tried to pull a fast one by sneaking in the too expensive E5200 Wolfdale for the Intel system. They then tried to cover this up by artificially jacking up the AMD motherboard cost. Tsk, tsk. The nVidia 7100 motherboard for $60 for the Intel system is fine but the actual equivalent AMD motherboard would only cost $55 for a 690/740 board (instead of $80 for a 780G board like AT used). So, we toss out the $80 E5200 Wolfdale and $80 AMD motherboard and see what is around $60. We end up with an AMD 2.7Ghz 7750 dual core Kuma and Intel 2.2Ghz 1500 dual core Celeron for about $63. We end up with a system cost of $489. This is a pretty good price for an entry level system. But, for about $40 more we could upgrade to 4GB of memory and either upgrade the AMD to 780G graphics or the Intel to 9000 series nVidia graphics.

Our target is $850 for the next system. I would probably bump the case up to a $38 Gigabyte mid tower and the power supply to the 550 watt CoolerMaster for $60. And, double the amount of system memory to 4GBs of DDR2 for $45. I would probably go with a $105 790GX board. This would give the AMD system adequate graphics for most uses including sims and mid level gaming. Unfortunately, AT has once again tried to pull a fast one by using a $120 Intel board and then putting in an $85 graphic card to hide Intel's weak onboard graphics. Tsk, tsk. So, we toss out the Intel board with junk graphics and use an nVidia board instead. The equivalent 9000 series board will run just $5 more at $110. The target price for processor is $90. For Intel this means either an $85 2.6Ghz E5300 or $95 2.7Ghz E5400 dual core. With AMD it means either using the older and only slightly faster 3.0Ghz dual core 6000+ Windsor or using the slower clocked triple core 2.3Ghz 8650 Toliman. The Toliman is the better choice since this gives a boost of about 28% albeit at the cost of single threaded performance. Next, rather than increasing the size of the single harddrive (like AT did) I would add a second harddrive as a work drive. This means bumping the harddrive cost from $85 to $120 for two 500 GB drives. Even so, we end up with a system cost of $750. We might drop down to $80 AMD and Intel motherboards without graphics and then add an HD 4650 for $60. This would give us a good balance and still only $780.

For our next system we have a target of $1300. The example systems in this range are not very balanced. In particular the Intel system ends up quite top heavy in audio/video. We can get a good motherboard for $120, upgrade the speakers to $70, $80 for case, and a Blu-Ray drive for $105. $200 for a 21" widescreen monitor seems fine. But the power supply is more of a problem. To make sure we have some flexibility we need something SLI and Crossfire certified. And, this means moving up to $120 for a 650 watt certified CoolerMaster. On the other hand, standard motherboards have pretty good sound so we drop the $50 sound card. We then upgrade the memory to 8GBs. The target for the CPU is $150. The obvious choice for AMD is the triple core Phenom II X3 720 2.8Ghz Black Edition for $150. However, with Intel we face the same problem we did with AMD on the previous system. We could go with the 2.93Ghz E7500 dual core for $140 but a better choice would be to move up to $170 and use the slower clocked 2.33Ghz Q8200 quad core. I would replace the work drive with a 1 TB drive and increase the memory to 6 GBs. I would probably have to go with a $90 4830 video card and we end up with a system cost right at our target of $1300.

The target price for the third system is $1900. We upgrade the mouse, keyboard, and speakers. We upgrade the case to $100 and the power supply to a 750 watt certified CoolerMaster for $130. We upgrade to two 1 TB drives for $200. We upgrade the monitor to a 24" for $290. The target price for the CPU is $235. For $230 for AMD we have the quad core 3.0Ghz Phenom II X4 940 and for Intel we have the quad core 2.66Ghz Q9400 for the same price. We upgrade the memory to 8 GBs. And, we'll use an HD 4870 for $200. We upgrade the HSF and end up at about $1850. Anandtech's Entry Level i7 system should be in this range because by the time you balance the system (with more memory, better monitor, etc.) you end up at about $2100 instead of $1450.

This leaves the final two systems. We have the i7 Overclocking system. Unfortunately, their choices for system components are somewhere between absurd and psychotic. You simply can't build a balanced system for $2140 when the CPU, memory, and motherboard are so expensive and 3GB's of memory on a system over $2000 is a real knee slapper. We need to bump the target price up to $2650. Their choices for mouse, keyboard, speakers, optical drive, case, and monitor are fine. But, they completely blew it in terms of memory, harddrives, video card and power supply. Let's start with a Zalman 1000 watt certified power supply for $290. The target price for the CPU is $330 so the 2.66Ghz i7 920 for $290 is good. We need at least 9GBs of DDR3, not 3 GBs. The harddrive is also a joke. I would bump that to three 1 TB drives. And, although the $190 Blu-Ray burner is fine I would add a second regular Blu-Ray drive for $105. And we need to change the video card to a dual HD 4870 X2 for $440. We find that we are unable to hit the target and end up with a well balanced system price of around $2900. Similarly a good i7 Dream system cannot be built for what they claim. By the time you balance the system the price without SSD is around $5600. To be honest, I'm sceptical of Anandtech's conclusion that i7 was the only choice for a Dream system. The truth is that while none of AMD's desktop processors are in this performance class you could make a good argument that you could build an even more powerful system using dual Opteron 2380's.