Is a "balanced" system any use for a non-gaming laptop?

A gaming laptop will be using a discrete GPU anyway, so it's not as if Puma will be of any benefit.

So the only thing we've got is a slow CPU and a not-so-slow IGP. Yay.

@ #1

I figure just about all laptop users should be well served by "slow" processors. At this point dual-core is a must, but per-core performance equivalent of even a slower Pentium-D should be just fine.

There are exceptions of course.

I'm currently rendering my architecture thesis on a Turion X2 @ 2.0GHz. It's doing admirably well to be honest. Not nearly as fast as the E8500 at work but it's doing the job, and for some strange reason the E8500 machine has been canceling out of renders with an "out of memory" error despite the fact that both the machines have the same amount of RAM.

Other than rendering this machine does every other task with a speed that is completely adequate. I don't need anything faster.

What a lot of people here seem to be overlooking is that the gaming market is more than just the intense action games the require the best GPUs. In fact, that's actually a small fraction of the market. Most gaming, measured by the number of people actually doing it, is "casual gaming" that involves fairly lightweight graphical ops -- WoW or the Sims, for example, or the PopCap kinds of Flash games. A lot of those users are playing on laptops. And while current integrated offerings are generally good enough for those purposes, the developers of those games would always like to see the "floor" raised so they can do new things and sell newer games. See the rumored "graphical upgrade" for WoW, for example. And what will Spore require? There's a lot of opportunity for a notebook system that is significantly better than current integrated offerings while still not getting close to desktop discrete GPU performance. And if it runs cool and quiet (especially when you're not gaming) all the better.

There's a reason why it has PCI-Express 2.0

ATI XGP External Notebook Graphics Platform Announced
http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=11985

Please put this in a 12-13" laptop.

I really do want to be impressed with this, but for my uses, as long as Intel graphics runs Compiz effects okay, I'd go with the faster and more efficient Intel CPU any day. I also just prefer intel chipsets (excluding the IGP portion). It's definatly a good try by AMD and the decent IGP is great though.

AMD should get this technology in desktop AM2+ form to replace the Athlon X2 line with more power efficient CPUs. This tech looks awesome for a laptop but it would also be great for a desktop. A power efficient, Hyper Transport 3.0 dual core would be sweet.

Hmm, I saw a video yesterday of an AMD Turion powered 7" subnotebook at Computex - it looked like it had two cores as well - so are you sure AMD aren't looking at this area? There was an 8.9" device as well.

Still, I think the platform is compelling, especially for the integrated graphics which will whip Intel's efforts into the ground. The video decode should save CPU cycles as well, and extend battery life. If the price is right, of course.

AMD says this new mobile processor has three independent power planes, one for each CPU core and a third for its integrated north bridge (with a HyperTransport link and memory controller). Griffin can scale voltage up and down as needed, in response to demand, for each of these three power planes.

Color me impressed. Combined with the expected comparative performance advantage the 3200 IGP will have over the GMA 4500(?) series, and AMD has quite a compelling package in the laptop market for consumers.

In other words: can't wait for TR to review, or possibly even have a showdown between two laptops!

http://news.yahoo.com/s/pcworld/20080604/tc_pcworld/146679
Check this out!

http://news.yahoo.com/s/pcworld/20080604/tc_pcworld/146679

This will be nice for those of us who want to play an occasional game but need the extra battery life when mobile.

It's for reals this time!