You should report this to AMD and then authorities then. Because if it was true action would be taken. So I look forward to your documentation. Else I think we can easily rule out that "AMD is the better product".
Contra revenue is not bribery well OK you're entitled to your own opinion. Intel was sued in the past for bribing OEMs and anti competitive practices they paid a 1,5 bilion dollar fine. A fraction for the dominance they gained from these briberies because with AMD cash bound they gained over a decade of almost full market dominance.
Intel made almost 100x what the settlement cost was.
Crime pays at least it did for Intel.
:awe:
1. If AMD had a better solution it would be used, surely by smaller OEMs or by Apple, who would jump away as soon as possible (who considered it with llano).
2. Most users will not be using 4 threads in a celeron or Beema notebook. Singlethread performance is key.
3. Its nowhere near 5x, maybe 2x but not 5x.
http://www.notebookcheck.net/Intel-HD-Graphics-Haswell.93341.0.html
http://www.notebookcheck.net/AMD-Radeon-R4-Beema.115399.0.html
HD Haswell - 355 FS graphics
Beema - 492 FS graphics
Intel's drivers suck but neither GPU is really capable of anything more than browser or old games.
4. The GPU in core m is really performing well. Lets not forget that graphics performance is primarily power limited and HD 5300 is matching HD 4400 to within 10% at 4-6W vs. 15W.
http://www.notebookcheck.net/HP-Envy-x2-j001ng-Convertible-Review.130223.0.html
40 fps TR low, matches HD 4400
Intel seriously played up Core M. However, performance is really good for what you are getting. 14nm is roughly twice as efficient as 22nm but the TDP is only about 30-40% and so performance is a little less than regular U series. I never was taken in by intel's marketing (just like maxwell is not 100% more efficient) so i'm not really disappointed.
Carrizio may be a nice update but it has tall orders to fill. Beema pretty much abolishes low end Kaveri (same CPU perf, worse GPU perf, much lower power and smaller die). HBM won't magically raise GPU performance as the low end is mainly power limited not BW limited and more BW means better utilization and higher power draw as well as higher performance.
Mullins is better than Baytrail obviously...
Yes singlethreaded performance is key celeron ain't much better than Beema.
http://www.notebookcheck.net/Intel-Celeron-2955U-Notebook-Processor.98845.0.html
Actually Beema does 0.6 in CB 11.5 and Celeron does 0.61. Beema is better in graphics and multithreaded performance there is no denying that. performance per clock however is a different story. But considering tdp of those solutions is equal or in favour of Beema we know which is better.
Also are you kidding yourself with that Notebookcheck review their low in games is 800*600. Core M sucks Intel over promised and under delivered. 4,5W no really not pure lies. I was in the market for core M until I read the reviews. It is consuming more than the competition and performs less.
Actually to prove their bias I'm going to compare the bench layout with a different review:
http://www.notebookcheck.net/Lenovo-IdeaPad-Z50-75-Notebook-Review-Update.127031.0.html
http://www.ultrabookreview.com/5486-lenovo-yoga-3-pro-review/
http://www.ultrabookreview.com/5648-asus-transformer-book-t300fa-review/
Notebookcheck is certianly biased read their conclusion it says "solid results" if those are solid results then why did they bash AMD products for their low performance while those had better battery life and way way better performance. Even better power consumption under load. BIASED!
I can't wait for someone here to say this is lighter than those notebooks well think again because this thing has a mass of 1,8 kg does 200g make the difference?
"The Envy x2 is to be in no way inferior to a conventional laptop"
if you mean by conventional laptop the worst we could find then indeed it is no worse.
They gave a 89% for a 33Wh battery. That is 3 weak cells bolted together how is that worth that high a rating :thumbsdown:
They gave 66% for games performance while it can really play not even play a single game in the test at a normal resolution. The Kaveri notebook I posted which has much higher frames and can actually play most games at reduced settings gets a 68%.
Do you think 2% for over 2x the performance is fair? It is a rhetorical question if your answer is yes then you are biased yourself.
In that same review they have load numbers that never actually occur I stressed my laptop and it is a FX-7500 with a R7 M255 (320SPs) for dual graphics and it doesn't surpass 25W on battery power. But hey let notebookcheck people be biased that is what they get paid for afterall.
Oh and if you think doing good compared to a previous Intel gpu is the same as doing good then you couldn't be more wrong. AMD and Nvidia are stomping Intel in efficiency and performance and driver quality. That won't change any time soon even Intel's 128MB L4 cache couldn't solve it primarily because it was too small to do anything at higher resolutions.
19W parts are heavily bottlenecked by DDR3 so HBM would be a huge help but unless you believe in miracles I don't think we will see it.
This forum needs a spoiler option because we are clogging up a thread that should be about Carrizo and it's advances.