cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

Processors

Highlighted
Journeyman III
Journeyman III

AMD garbage budget CPUs

I just wanted to vent here on the AMD forums in hopes that AMD will do something to make their budget cpus faster. Recently, I upgraded my cheap-O Toshiba laptop's HDD to an SSD so I needed to reload Windows 7. This laptop has a AMD E-240 CPU powering it...although I don't know if "powering" is the correct term to use here.

In any case, I loaded Windows 7 SP1 and installed the appropriate Toshiba system drivers. The installation went relatively smooth taking about 20 minutes or so plus the install of system drivers. Once the drivers were loaded I connected to my 60mbps internet connection and started the queue for Windows updates. It took 20 hours to calculate the 218 windows updates I needed post SP1. I left my laptop ON the entirety of this calculation, basic screen saver, no sleep or hibernate and left power on to the SSD.

The downloads didn't take all too long maybe an hour or two but once the downloads were done they then had to install. As I write this post it has been 37 hours of 100% cpu usage and it's at 201 of 218 Windows updates. In total it's taken over 3 DAYS to get and install Windows updates. The first SET of Windows updates. God forbid I install Microsoft Office or ANY software for that matter that will require any sort of updates.

I'm sure this post will fall on deaf ears in the AMD community but I know I can't be the only one to experience a Windows re-install on a budget AMD cpu. If anyone has personal experience with these incredibly slow E, E1, E2 processors I'd like to hear your story as well.

0 Kudos
12 Replies
Highlighted
Esteemed Contributor III

Re: AMD garbage budget CPUs

The E series was AMD's answer to the Intel Atom series: Slow, cheap, cool running, targeted at netbooks and tablets, and it outperformed an Atom clock for clock:

AMD E-240 Notebook Processor - NotebookCheck.net Tech

In comparison to the Atom processors, the Bobcat architecture uses an "out-of-order" execution and is therefore faster at the same clock speed... On average the cpu performance of the E-240 should be between a 2 GHz Atom and a Celeron single core with 1.1 GHz.

So in context they are the superior processor, but overall they are as garbage to performance as Atom processors are to performance, which is why Atoms are discontinued.

Highlighted
Journeyman III
Journeyman III

Re: AMD garbage budget CPUs

So in a real world scenario I wonder if AMD or Intel ever attempted to do a Windows reload on their budget processors. I realize that these were meant for tablets and ultrabooks but to see one in an actual laptop is a cruel joke. 3 days to reinstall Windows?! Come on give me a break.

Even on some of the current A4 apus the reload isn't much faster. When the rubber meets the road these budget CPUs are unusable.

0 Kudos
Highlighted
Forerunner
Forerunner

Re: AMD garbage budget CPUs

Your laptop is designed for minimum cost and maximum battery life, not for maximum performance. That was the choice of the laptop maker, not AMD. As noted the AMD processor you are using is faster than the Intel Atom that it competes with in the marketplace for low cost, low power laptops.

If you examined the MASSIVE data included in the Microsoft updates, you'd understand why any low performance CPU by design would take literally days to open and install in your PC. AMD did not design an inferior product, you laptop maker chose a slow, inexpensive, entry level CPU for you model laptop. There are much faster AMD laptop CPUs and APUs that laptop makers could use and some do use these to provide consumers with much faster laptops. It's always wise to do the product research before you spend your money so that you understand what you are actually getting for your money.

Highlighted
Journeyman III
Journeyman III

Re: AMD garbage budget CPUs

The laptop I'm referring to isn't my personal machine. I would never buy a $300 wal mart notebook. I'm not blaming AMD for putting a low budget processor in a low cost laptop. However, I am a little skeptical as to WHY any brand name manufacturers are even allowed to put processors as slow as these in any Windows powered machine. I did not design any of these laptops but if I did I would be sure to adequately power them for when things like Windows updates or Windows re-installs had to take place.

I realize AMD makes incredibly fast APUs and CPUs. But to even allow companies to install a product as inadequate as these to power any Microsoft product blows my mind. If it were me I wouldn't even want to put my name behind processors that I knew were going to function so poorly in a Windows environment. Just my $.02.

0 Kudos
Highlighted

Re: AMD garbage budget CPUs

I'm going to pull a techguy and post exactly the same thing he said.  And for $hits and giggles:

"Your laptop is designed for minimum cost and maximum battery life, not for maximum performance. That was the choice of the laptop maker, not AMD. As noted the AMD processor you are using is faster than the Intel Atom that it competes with in the marketplace for low cost, low power laptops.

If you examined the MASSIVE data included in the Microsoft updates, you'd understand why any low performance CPU by design would take literally days to open and install in your PC. AMD did not design an inferior product, you laptop maker chose a slow, inexpensive, entry level CPU for you model laptop. There are much faster AMD laptop CPUs and APUs that laptop makers could use and some do use these to provide consumers with much faster laptops. It's always wise to do the product research before you spend your money so that you understand what you are actually getting for your money."

Usually he just posts the same thing another user said, but rewording it... which is very annoying and pointless, but since I'm in a good mood, and he summed it up nicely, I'll just quote.

QB

0 Kudos
Highlighted

Re: AMD garbage budget CPUs

halloran wrote:

The laptop I'm referring to isn't my personal machine. I would never buy a $300 wal mart notebook. I'm not blaming AMD for putting a low budget processor in a low cost laptop. However, I am a little skeptical as to WHY any brand name manufacturers are even allowed to put processors as slow as these in any Windows powered machine. I did not design any of these laptops but if I did I would be sure to adequately power them for when things like Windows updates or Windows re-installs had to take place.

I realize AMD makes incredibly fast APUs and CPUs. But to even allow companies to install a product as inadequate as these to power any Microsoft product blows my mind. If it were me I wouldn't even want to put my name behind processors that I knew were going to function so poorly in a Windows environment. Just my $.02.

Well this post just makes no sense.  You understand that it is a PoS notebook.  And as such it will have a PoS CPU...  and Yet it has the best PoS CPU for the cost...  yet you come here and bit¢h at the AMD community.  Please Troll elsewhere!!

QB

Highlighted
Journeyman III
Journeyman III

Re: AMD garbage budget CPUs

I haven't even begun to troll. I came here in an attempt to understand why such a low powered piece of garbage processor was even designed to function in a Windows environment. The engineers had to of done tests in a real world scenario to see how they would perform. It would be like putting 5 tons of dirt in a half ton truck. Yeah you can do it but the thing isn't going to move. My point being AMD should have never developed these E series CPUs to even run a Windows environment. This would restrict PC manufacturers a more usable lineup of CPUs and APUs.

When grandma and grandpa complain their computer is so slow nobody could then point the finger at AMD. Anywhere a manufacturer can cut corners and save a $1 they are going to do so but at the expense of the uninformed consumer which is very unfortunate.

In the end Intel has developed faster and more efficient CPUs than AMD and with the release of the pascal powered nvidia GPUs AMD has a whole lot of catching up to do. Now you can ask me if I'm trolling.

0 Kudos
Highlighted
Adept III
Adept III

Re: AMD garbage budget CPUs

I know AMD's low end APUs are slow. But 3 days does indeed seem an extremely long time.

It usually takes an hour or maybe two on a high end Intel or AMD CPU (which also a very long time, but that's how it is)

The E-240 is a 1.5Ghz, single-core, "small"-core CPU. It's designed for very basic needs, like sending an E-Mail. Windows 7 is too demanding for it already.

It's mostly the OEM's fault. They make the decision on what CPU, OS, etc. to use.

It's partly AMD's fault for selling the 1 core version instead of dumping them in the trash (this is not the full chip, it's a cut down version of E-450)

It's party Microsoft's fault for not offering an OS for low end performance anymore (since they ended XP support)

0 Kudos
Highlighted
Journeyman III
Journeyman III

Re: AMD garbage budget CPUs

I too have been DISMAYED with the lack of performance that the AMD E1 CPU provides (which I beLIEve to be DUAL core processors) ?

Both my BUDDY & my Gal-Pal were stuck with WINDOWS-XP desktop computers

So I advised them both to buy bottom-end NEW computers from OfficeMax / OfficeDepot

Instead of purchasing a NEW version of WINDOWS operating software

Both computers were supplied with WINDOWS-8.1 operating system preinstalled and came with AMD  E1  CPU's

Neither my BUDDY nor my Gal-Pal were pleased with the "performance" of their NEW tower computers --- so ---

We bumped up the RAM memory from the "OEM" 4gb (in two slots)  to the maximum of 16gb of DIMM DDR3 RAM memory

This seems to have had absolutely NO impact on system speed or capacity ... leaving ME to assume the bottleneck is the E1 processor ?

My next step was attempting to ascertain what computer SOCKET these E1 CPU's resided in = to NO avail ?

And trying to figure out HOW to UPGRADE to a a more POWERFUL Computer chip

Any ideas in the AMD community ?

Please advise HERE on in MY post

Thanks

the  WiSeNhEiMeR

0 Kudos