AMD vs. Intel Laptops, a Platform Analysis

Gaming Performance – AMD vs. Intel

Before we get to the gaming results – quit looking ahead and pay attention to this paragraph! – we need to put gaming performance in perspective. These integrated graphics solutions might be the best that AMD and Intel currently offer in laptops, but don’t get excited. The fact of the matter is that neither of these solutions is particularly fast when it comes to playing 3D games. We loaded a variety of titles onto the laptops, and after a look at performance using medium detail settings we quickly decided that even the Radeon HD 3200 had no business running anything above minimum detail at 800×600. Okay, that’s not entirely true; we did get a few titles to break 30 frames per second at the native 1366×768 LCD resolution, but those games were the exception rather than the rule.

While we’re making disclaimers, we also need to mention that Intel’s GMA 4500MHD failed to run quite a few games until we forced DirectX 9 mode. In fact, out of the 18 titles that we tested, the Intel laptops still failed to run four of them. These four titles would crash to the desktop and nothing we tried fixed the situation. That’s pretty bad if you’re interested in gaming, but we do have to give Intel some credit: the last time I tried to test gaming compatibility with an Intel laptop IGP, only about one third of the titles worked! Okay, are your expectations set sufficiently low yet? Here we go. (I know… most of you have already skipped these two paragraphs and are staring at the chart. Sigh.)

As you probably expected, there’s not a single instance where the Intel integrated graphics provide a better gaming experience than the AMD IGP. In fact, the closest Intel gets is in STALKER: Clear Sky where the AMD platform is only 31% faster. Frankly, the fact that Crysis runs at all (DX9 mode forced) on Intel was a bit surprising, but AMD ended up being a whopping 335% faster so let’s not dwell on the achievement. The Chronicles of Riddick: Dark Athena, Fallout 3, Mass Effect, and Race Driver: GRID all failed to run on the Intel IGP. Enemy Territory: Quake Wars is another title that wasn’t even close, with AMD’s 780G providing 266% better performance than the 4500MHD.

If we add up all the frame rates in all of the titles (counting a zero against Intel for any games that they fail to run properly), the final tally is that the AMD platform ends up providing more than twice the performance of the Intel platform when it comes to gaming. You might not think that’s a fair comparison, but if we look at frame rates there are only five titles where Intel managed playable performance – and again, this is at 800×600 with minimum detail settings. Unreal Tournament 3, STALKER: Clear Sky (barely), Company of Heroes, Devil May Cry 4 (again barely), and Empire: Total War manage tolerable performance. Out of all of the games we tested, only Company of Heroes and Unreal Tournament 3 are even remotely playable (20 to 24 FPS) at the native LCD resolution. In fact, the AMD platform provided better performance at the native LCD resolution than Intel manages at 800×600.

Before we get too carried away, we should also mention that there are three games in our list where neither platform could come anywhere near providing adequate performance: Call of Duty: World at War, Chronicles of Riddick: Dark Athena, and Mass Effect all failed to break 20 FPS at 800×600. Crysis, Assassin’s Creed, Fallout 3, and Far Cry 2 aren’t much better at less than 25 FPS. Notice how the more recent titles frequently have lower performance? Yeah, these IGPs won’t have any longevity as gaming options if you want to play new titles. So congratulations AMD: your integrated graphics solution manages to walk away with the flyweight boxing title after going up against a sick one-armed man. What happens if we put a real contender in the ring?

First, we need to remember that there are Intel-based laptops that use integrated graphics from NVIDIA. That will go a long way towards “leveling” the playing field, considering the NVIDIA GeForce 9300M GS is actually faster overall compared to the Radeon HD 3200. Most of the people who are concerned with gaming performance also seem to feel battery life is less important, in which case you’re far better off getting a laptop with a discrete GPU. How much of a difference does that make? As one example the Acer Aspire AS6920 is $70 more expensive than the Gateway NV58. Battery life will probably be quite a bit worse, but gaming performance should be 3x to 4x faster than the NV52’s HD 3200. In an ironic twist, you can even get an Intel laptop with an ATI HD 4650 that should provide about 5x to 6x the performance of the HD 3200 (though prices for such laptops are noticeably higher, starting at around $800).

Our advice? If you want to play “real” games on a laptop, spend the money on a laptop that can actually play games. Integrated graphics is at best a poor solution for 3D games, and it will remain so until someone invests a lot more effort in creating a compelling IGP. Honestly, AMD/ATI and NVIDIA are resting on their laurels. It wasn’t long ago that Intel IGPs failed to run most games – even casual games – and performance was one forth what NVIDIA and AMD could offer. These days the GMA 4500 is only about half the speed of ATI’s HD 3200 solution. Their drivers have come a long way in the compatibility department, and another revision or two to their hardware could see Intel close the gap. We’d really love to see a serious mobile graphics solution that tackles power requirements the same way Intel CPUs do… shut down inactive “cores” (SPs) to conserve power in 2D tasks, and only power up the SPs when necessary. This is really a question of “when” and not “if”, and more notebook manufacturers need to pay attention to this area.

Then again, if all you have is a budget laptop and want to play some games, there are plenty of other alternatives that don’t require high-end graphics. Plants vs. Zombies is one option that runs well even on netbooks, and there are countless browser games you could play. If you still want some “high-end” 3D fare, try setting the way back machine for 2003 (or earlier) and check out the classics. One of the joys of PC gaming is that the vast majority of older titles will still run on your modern rig. Diablo/Diablo 2, the earlier Fallouts, Half-Life, WarCraft 3… go relive some gory moments of yesteryear and even your entry-level laptop will feel extremely fast.