AMD A10-4600M Trinity For Mobile Review: Trying To Cut The Ivy
Performance - Competition, Processor, General Applications
Performance – Competition
Let’s start looking at some performance figures. To provide context, we will be using performance results from other laptop reviews. Here are the systems we’re going to use as competition, along with the processor in each. Click on the links to find out more about them in our review of each system.
- AMD Llano Reference System (AMD A8-3500M)
- ASUS K53T (AMD A6-3400M)
- HP dm4t Beats Edition (Intel Core i5-2540M)
- Alienware M14x (Intel Core i7-2630QM)
- Intel Ivy Bridge Mobile Reference System (Intel Core i7-3720QM)
Performance – Processor
We always start off with SiSoft Sandra. It’s a good approximation of maximum processor performance in a scenario that is highly favorable towards multiple cores and multiple threads and perhaps the best at-a-glance reference for processor performance.
This both is and isn’t a promising start for Trinity. We can obviously see that AMD has made great strides in raw processor performance. Adding the Piledriver cores has significantly improved both SiSoft benchmark results relative to the Llano processor we tested last year. However, the raw potential of the AMD A10-4600M still looks to be hopelessly far behind Intel. Even a dual-core Sandy Bridge processor more than doubles the potential of Trinity’s best. The new Core i7-3720QM is in another league entirely.
Let’s gain some additional perspective with 7-Zip and Peacekeeper.
In 7-Zip we see Trinity perform better. It clearly beats the older Llano processor and is equal to the Core i5-2540M processor, though it still falls substantially behind the Intel quad-cores. This may seem like another serious defeat – after all, AMD is just able to match older Intel processors with half as many cores. But let’s not forget that AMD will be selling these processors in the $700 range, so this performance is competitive. At least until Ivy Bridge dual cores hit the market.
Peacekeeper, however, shows just how far behind AMD is in per-core performance. This benchmark gives Turbo Core the chance to stretch its legs, and its maximum clock is not far behind that of the Core i7-3720QM. Yet the A10-4600M just can’t keep up with Intel’s products.
Performance – General
In these benchmarks we temper the synthetic performance data with some common tasks – batch photo editing and saving/encoding a movie for a 1080p display. We also use common free tools for these tasks. Let’s start with Windows Live Movie Maker.
This free application does a good job of utilizing multiple cores. Even among Intel’s latest processors there is a huge difference between the quickest and slowest. Unfortunately, AMD’s new A10-4600M isn’t up to snuff when compared to the others. It takes a much longer time to complete this task. In fact, the newest Intel Core i7-3720QM is four times quicker in this application.
What about batch processing? Let’s consider it using BatchBlitz, a simple freeware utility.
Once again the new Trinity process falls behind, though the Core i7-3720QM is only almost twice as quick and the mainstream Sandy Bridge Core i5 is only about twenty seconds faster. The AMD A10-4600M is on the same page as the others, but still clearly lacking.