14 DAY TRIAL // The question of “good enough” performance has been on Intel and AMD’s mind for quite a while. Testing Intel’s reference UltraBook against AMD’s Trinity A10-4600M notebook shows that Intel’s solution is simply not good enough.
Everybody was surprised by Rory Read’s statement that today we have enough CPU power and that companies should start working on improving their GPU performance in their products.
The thing is that Intel is actually doing the same.
Sure, the company has the x86 compute performance superiority, but they’re obviously not concentrating on offering their most powerful CPUs in UltraBooks.
Intel’s priorities in UltraBooks are low power consumption, good system reaction times (and SSDs are responsible for that), low weight and a slim body.
Even future plans don’t relate to CPU processing power at all, as Intel is talking about slimmer HDDs, high-resolution screens and longer battery life.
So, while not stating it openly, Intel acknowledges that CPU power is quite satisfactory nowadays and AMD definitely has to agree, as they have trouble in competing on the x86 side.
Once that’s clarified, hardware experts at vr-zone.com, thinking at casual gamers or at gamers that can’t stay away from their favorite titles even when they are on the road, have decided to do a quick session of Counter-Strike: Global Offensive benchmarking session.
Valve’s new title is going to hit the stores next month and we just had to know whether Intel’s popular UltraBook is up to the challenge.
While we don’t have some clear average FPS results on hand, we can clearly see that while AMD’s Trinity only dips well below 60 FPS once, Intel’s UltraBook experiences six or seven times FPS levels lower than 40.
On the upper side of the graph we can see that AMD’s Trinity is able to reach more than 200 FPS in five instances, while Intel’s UltraBook can only reach 150 FPS twice.
So, both platforms can definitely play the game, but AMD’s APU is simply the better choice for Valve’s Counter-Strike: Global Offensive.
