Would appreciate any thoughts on AMD vs Intel processor for new laptop <$800.
This would mainly be used for photo editing and maintaining music collection.
Casual internet usage. Not concerned about touchscreen. No gaming. Thanks!
New Laptop AMD Vs Intel
Lglitch on 30/12/2015 - 14:15
Comments
Intel, you'd have to be pretty insane to even think about purchasing AMD in this day and age, their CPU division is practically ready to go out of business.
For what you need AMD is more than sufficient.
CPUs do not normally fail - before that happens you will have a new computer so nothing to worry even if AMD exits the CPU business although that is just paulsterio's unsubstantiated opinion at this stage (with which I humbly disagree).
AMD normally is not as energy efficient as Intel but with a laptop and casual use this is not very relevant.Not quite, also what I'm saying isn't an "opinion", it's a fact that AMD's CPU division is about to go out of business (if you follow the news at all) and that's an indicator of the fact that people don't want to buy their CPUs. Why you want to buy something off someone who's about to go out of business is beyond me.
That said, think about what AMD is offering before you say things like "AMD is more than sufficient". AMD currently don't even offer any laptop CPUs, they only offer APUs which are basically CPU and GPU units integrated into one. OP has said they have no interest in gaming, so why you would recommend an APU is beyond me, shoving money into something that's completely unnecessary and won't be used. On top of that, AMD's CPU cores are based on architectures so old that they'll be barely any better than Nehalem and definitely not as good as Sandy Bridge. When was Sandy Bridge released? In 2011. That's where AMD's CPU business is, they're producing CPUs by 2011 standards and that's why they're going out of business.
There's nothing wrong with using CPUs made to 2011 standards (I still use Sandy Bridge myself), but as you before you purchase, do you want a 2015 standard Skylake CPU from Intel, or would you prefer a "blast from the past" 2011 CPU from AMD? Sure, CPUs from 2011 will do what you need, but if you're paying good money for something, why pick something 5 years old when you can have something new?
Whoops, sorry about that - I wasn't nitpicking, I was referring to the fact that AMD only makes APUs, which I find a strange suggestion for someone who has already said they're not interested in graphics performance.
I wouldn't consider myself an enthusiast, I reckon my systems are all pretty reasonable and average, but that said, I think what's most important is purchasing something that is modern and has a modern feature set. I don't think AMD is bad, in fact, about 10 years ago, I would only recommend AMD, however, times have changed and today, Intel is the way to go.
I don't want to get into a fight with you.
Just let me say this:If something that is old fits my requirements and I can get it at a cheaper price than something else that is overkill for my requirements I still but the old thing, especially when it comes to computers as anything you buy today is old in 6 months.
If I only write documents in Word and browse the internet I can buy any laptop on the market now, regardless of the processor as it will do what I want it to do. Sure, I could spend 1k on a really good one but there is no benefit in it for me if all I do is write one Word document at a time.
Also, just because something is reported in the news it need not necessarily be true or be implemented. Remember HP wanted to divest its personal computer division and also got out of tablet production. About 6 months after such announcement was made, turnaround and HP is still in those markets.
Finally, as I said, CPU last longer than they are being used. If you buy a AMD CPU today it will last until the PC it operates in is obsolete, so there really is no concern even if AMD did go out of business. This is different when you buy a car due to warranty, services, and spare parts but is irrelevant for a CPU.
I still run laptop that is 12 years old. Everything still working fine. In fact I have three more old laptops who all still work absolutely fine (both Intel and AMD). Sure, I cannot use them for gaming but that was the case too when I bought them as that was not the task I bought them for.
The laptop I am using now is an Acer with AMD CPU/APU (full size, with HDD) which cost $200 new and it does everything I wanted. The same components with Intel would have cost almost double - that would have been wasted money for me.
I recently got myself a basic quad core AMD AGPU? HP laptop, low power = long battery, for the money good graphics performance.
Unless you need high power CPU AMD gives better bang for buck in my opinion.Cheers
Bang for buck… That really depends on the ticket price of the laptop versus how well it performs, not the type of processor you get with it. If you paid a grand for an AMD machine that didn't do as well as a similarly priced Intel machine, the argument is invalid.
Basically, bang for buck = price performance ratio,as well as taking into account warranty, build quality and other features like form factor, screen quality etc
Yes in the Intel core 2 duo era many AMD options were better value but the same did not apply for mobile processors. Since you buy the laptop as an entire package and not parts individually
Most of the reviews I've read about Bulldozer, Beema and Kaveri points to AMD not of being up to date in terms of IPC and they are fighting an uphill battle against Intel's alternatives. And many vendors have already abandoned the AMD platform because they simply don't sell well.
Sorry not sure I understand 'form factor'.
Thought one of these looked like a good deal. I realise they seem to be old model clearance.
Main difference appears to be the processor, is the Intel worth the extra $150.00?
https://www.ozbargain.com.au/node/226558
https://www.binglee.com.au/hp-15-af131au-notebook-pc