The Ultra-thin Platform Battle: AMD Congo vs. Intel CULV

Where Note Meets Book

Ever wondered how a similarly configured AMD and Intel platform based notebook would fare? While this topic has been touched upon every once in a while, it's time to pit them together to see how both these platform providers stack up and that's the main talking point in this article. Before we jump in, we backtrack a bit to highlight the progression of the notebook scene and our segment of comparison today.

Two years ago, netbooks got consumers all hot and bothered with their ultra affordability and mobility. Mainstream notebooks weren't neglected either as consumers still lapped them up to overtake worldwide desktop PC shipments. However brisk sales of the cheaper and less functional netbooks did make OEMs and platform manufacturers to take note of new forms of consumer needs. In a bid to capture a relatively new segment of thin and light notebooks with the full performance functionality of traditional mainstream notebooks, Intel leapt in with its introduction of Consumer Ultra Low Voltage (CULV) processor based notebooks early last year.

Essentially, the CULV processors were the same Core 2 Duo processors but were thoroughly tested for much lower voltage operation, thus enabling notebook designs to cater to the lower TDP of the platform running within. This meant, thinner, lighter and swankier designs for the relatively newer CULV platform based notebooks, which also performed far better than netbooks and were almost as capable as traditional notebooks. While manufacturers have had previously offered similar ultraportable notebooks, these were extremely expensive and mostly aimed at the business segment. The CULV based notebooks were however targeted at mainstream consumers and offered much of the portability as high-end business notebooks, but at a much lower price point.

Now an interesting point here is that Intel wanted to anxiously compete in this special 'new' segment mostly because their competitor, AMD made their move first in this range of notebooks. While AMD didn't have an answer to the popular netbook segment because it wasn't concentrating its efforts to produce a chip specific to this segment, they did however improvise with their existing mobile processor line-up, tweaked them for even lower power consumption and got in to the whole marketing of providing a better experience with their thin and light notebooks than a limited netbook could offer.

When we evaluated the solution last year, the Yukon platform with its Neo single-core processor didn't seem impressive, but it did score better than an Intel based netbook by a good degree. The Congo platform with its dual-core processor however, seemed more in line as a modern ultra-thin laptop platform. Having had the opportunity to test some Congo-based AMD ultra-thin notebooks (such as the ), we did find some performance improvements but still not quite in the same playing field as Intel's CULV platform equivalents. However, AMD notebooks do have the advantage of featuring better integrated graphics thanks to them owning ATI and using an ATI integrated graphics processor (IGP).

Thus far, Intel based notebooks have managed better performance numbers for crunching productivity and content creation tasks while managing better power consumption figures. AMD's platform has an interesting proposition with better multimedia performance thanks to its integrated graphics engine, but Intel has improved theirs by a fair bit since the Montevina update came along; so is AMD still leading in this aspect? And which notebook platform has the upper hand when factoring all of these aspects including value?

So far, we've tested various notebook models running on Intel CULV and AMD Congo platforms, but for this article we managed to obtain two almost identical notebooks for both platforms using the HP Pavilion dm3 series. that boasts of a Core 2 Duo SU7300 (1.3GHz) dual-core processor and the Intel GS45 chipset which has Intel's GMA 4500MHD integrated graphics engine (the first to fully handle 1080p Blu-ray video playback properly on an Intel mobile chipset) and is priced at about S$1599. We'll pit this against the more recently acquired AMD M780G platform based HP Pavilion dm3 notebook running a Turion Neo X2 L625 (1.6GHz) dual-core processor. Priced cheaper at S$1499, it even boasts of an ATI Mobility Radeon HD 4330 discrete graphics chip. So for a lower price point, we can tell you'll be getting better graphics capabilities, but what about better overall performance? Let's find out.

Note the Performance

We put both versions of the HP Pavilion dm3 to the test using our usual slew of benchmarks: PCMark05, PCMark Vantage and 3DMark06. With the HP Pavilion dm3 (Intel) sporting an Intel Core 2 Duo SU7300 (1.3GHz) processor, while the HP Pavilion dm3 (AMD) sports a AMD Turion Neo X2 Dual-Core L625 (1.6GHz) processor. From the looks of it, the faster clock speed should mean a faster processor right? Well, not exactly since it depends on the architecture of the CPU and the cache sizes, of which, the Intel processor has a larger cache.

In the memory department, the Intel dm3 gets a leg up with faster DDR3 RAM while the AMD platform is still utilizing DDR2 technology for now. Both units do have 4GB of RAM, which is a fair enough playing field as we've long established that DDR3 memory isn't necessarily faster than DDR2. However, you'll soon see the performance breakdown to derive your own conclusion. Lastly, graphics performance will be a key factor, and we'll be testing the HP Pavilion dm3 (AMD) machine using switch-able graphics functionality with its IGP and the discrete graphics engines respectively to see how it fares.

Futuremark PCMark05

Though this benchamark is getting dated, it's still a very functional benchmark that revealed interesting results. With the discrete graphics enabled, the AMD platform based HP Pavilion dm3 scored higher than the Intel unit in the overall System Test suite. Even with just the IGP engine working, the AMD platform held up well, scoring just slightly behind the Intel platform. Specifically focussing on the CPU scores, while both platforms returned close results, the processor still leads AMD despite a slower clockspeed; this is quite likely due to the large difference in cache size that affects simple productivity related tasks which this benchmark concentrates.

Futuremark PCMark Vantage

On PCMark Vantage, we start seeing the Intel machine taking the lead over both test runs (IGP-based and discrete graphics) on the AMD platform. Of course, the lead isn't by a large degree, but this more updated and taxing PCMark benchmark shows that overall platform capabilities like speedier DDR3 memory and having more L2 cache in the processor plays a difference. As such, the Intel machine is the winner of this round. Of course the gaming aspect still goes to the AMD platform running the discrete graphics option, but in more multimedia centric tasks like transcoding media content and playback as represented by the TV and Movies suite, the Intel platform with just its integrated graphics pulls out ahead.

Futuremark 3DMark06

The results in this synthetic gaming benchmark is pretty much as expected with the AMD platform with the discrete graphics option taking the leader board position here. The difference between the IGP results of the AMD and Intel platforms however are pretty close - in fact it's close enough that we are inclined to say there might not be much real-world difference even for low-end 3D gaming. Having said that the 300-odd points difference doesn't seem significant, it still shows the weakness of the Intel IGP solution. So while the AMD based HP Pavilion dm3 machine is clearly the cheaper alternative, it also offers much better graphics performance. In this case with the unit's discrete graphics option, it allows you to get up to three times higher frame rates for a far smoother gaming experience or notching up the graphics quality options than if you only relied on an integrated graphics solution from Intel at a similar price point.

Power Performance

Moving on to the power efficiency of the notebooks, the thermal design power (TDP) of the respective platforms would be a good indicator for starters. While we don't know the entire platform's TDP, we do know that the Intel Core 2 Duo SU7300 processor's TDP rating is just 10W, while the AMD Turion Neo X2 L625 requires much more juice at 18W. This discrepancy is mostly in due to the 45nm and 65nm engineering process used to manufacture the Intel and AMD mobile processors respectively. This does mean on paper alone, the AMD solution would be faced with higher power consumption and thus a lower battery life. This is because both platforms are using the same HP Pavilion dm3 design components of which the 6-cell battery pack is identically rated for 57Wh capacity. But how much of a discrepancy in operating time are we talking about?

To find out, we used our usual video looping test which loops a 720p trailer until the battery goes flat. On battery life alone, the Intel machine managed more than 70% longer battery life than the AMD machine; and the advantage widened when testing in discrete mode. For those thinking if ATI's Hybrid CrossFire was actively sapping more power - the answer is no. The chipset supports this form of CrossFire, but only with much older generation discrete mobile GPUs of the HD 3450 and 3470 range. As such the discrete graphics performance is solely that of the Radeon HD 4330. Instead, ATI's PowerXpress technology allows users to manually switch between their preferred GPU usage mode depending the task at hand; take note that this is a manual option. Therefore, there's no mixing up other possibilities of the less than desired battery life outcome other than the more power hungry nature of the AMD platform or a poor optimization of the notebook by HP.

Drilling the numbers down to calculate the power consumption figures, we can see in the chart below that Intel is still leading the way, and as such we don't expect it to change even for the Portability Index calculation that's coming up shortly. With Intel platform's 10.21 watts power consumption, it handily beats the AMD platform which had power consumption figures of 17.92 watts and 25.11 watts when using the IGP and discrete graphics mode respectively.

Lastly on our Portability Index which is a measure of, well, how portable a notebook is conisdering its physical attributes and battery uptime. We derive this using a simple formula by using the notebooks's battery uptime and dividing it by the product of the unit's weight and volume; the higher the ratio, the more portable the unit is - applicable for direct comparison only within the same category of notebooks. The outcome? Intel's platform came out tops of course. This HP Pavilion dm3 garnered a higher ratio of 1.402 that's far more favourable than the AMD based unit that managed 0.799 (IGP) and 0.57 (discrete graphics).

As for the ratio obtained by the Intel platform based HP Pavilion dm3 compared with others of its class, it was actually among the highest like the Acer Aspire Timeline 3810T, LG T380 and few others. All isn't lost for the AMD platform based dm3 as the Dell Inspiron 13z using the Intel CULV processor platform is actually looking quite bad for its specs and capabilities. In fact, the AMD platform still has a decent portability ratio considering how much better it can handle entry-level gaming needs, even when considering the discrete graphics option.

To the Victor the Spoils

Based on the benchmark results on the last two pages, it seems like the Intel CULV platform has a leg up compared to the AMD platform. AMD's once mighty IGP is no longer enough to trounce Intel's solution as its graphics performance is hardly much better. In fact, if you take into account the whole platform's performance, Intel's stronger processing and memory performance figures give it the overall advantage.

AMD's value proposition however is still very strong as can be seen here with the HP Pavilion dm3 retailing for only S$1499 with a Radeon HD 4330 discrete graphics module. This gives the AMD platform quite a bit of advantage in pricing and gaming capabilities over the Intel equivalent that we tested in this article for S$1599 (with no discrete graphics solution).

Not to forget is Intel's Switchable Graphics feature that's supported on the mobile Intel 4 series chipset, which allows some of the newer Intel CULV processor based notebooks to seamlessly transition between the IGP and discrete graphics options. So it seems like AMD may have lost its advantage there. However given that these Intel notebooks are priced much higher than the AMD platform, the latter still has the price/value advantage.

That said, while the AMD ultra-thin notebook may be cheaper, the Intel equivalent in this comparison does come across as the better model for everyday usage as well as a better performer for more compute/multimedia intensive applications. With over five hours of battery life thanks to the low 10.21 watts power consumption compared to AMD's 17.92 watts that's running off just the IGP, Intel's CULV platform is probably what you would want to opt for if you want all-day computing. Considering that those power stats are based on the semi-intensive continuous video playback, you're bound to get a lot more if you're just performing standard productivity tasks (sans the highly variable impact from wireless internet surfing).

If you're on a budget and are looking for an ultraportable computer though, AMD still offers a decent deal with a platform that works fine. In fact if the HP Pavilion dm3 based on the AMD platform didn't come equipped with discrete graphics, it would be cheaper yet. Also, its overall portability ratio isn't too bad given that we've encountered equally less impressive ratios on the Intel platform from manufacturers who haven't put much effort in optimizing their products.

At the end of the day, both platforms are equally capable in our eyes, though we are picking Intel as our winner for this one. Until when AMD hits back with a more power efficient platform, Intel's options are currently the better (though slightly more expensive) choice for users who are looking to squeeze every last drop of battery juice from their notebooks while on the road. We'll see how AMD will fare with the Nile platform that's due for launch later this year, and we're read reports that the new AMD Neo X2 Geneva processors for this platform will boast a TDP of 15 watts - definitely an improvement!

Intel however will be pushing for 32nm CULV class processors this year that's based on the Arrandale core (the current mobile variant of the Core i3, i5 and i7 processors) while running on the existing Calpella platform. It is indicated that this updated platform will maintain a TDP of 18 watts, but bear in mind that the Calpella platform features an integrated chipset, so the 18W TDP refers to how much energy the entire platform will use (and not just the processor).

If you haven't yet bought a notebook and can afford to wait, the later half of this year looks to be shaping up for an ultra thin and light notebook battle of renewed proportions. So do keep a patient hand on the wallet, and an ever watchful eye for that right model. If you're in the market for an ultra-thin and light notebook right now, our verdict is clear:- the Intel platform easily earns our recommendation if you can fork out more for better performance and battery life, but go with the AMD platform if you're on a budget or in need of a competent entry-level mobile gaming machine. So get your priorities right!

Our articles may contain affiliate links. If you buy through these links, we may earn a small commission.