AMD Finally outs new CPUs!!

Have you seen the Dragon Platform adds?
They are very good and give you a clear sense that Dragon is the same as i7 when gaming, and A LOT cheaper. I really like them...

Indeed on of the problems with AMD is marketing, they are not as good in that as Intel. Either they cant afford it, or they are not interested, but the market is flooded with Intel+NVIDIA marketing, and those who dont know go "I want something with NVIDIA" and they dont even know why.

Here I have seen tons of those threads, and after proving that ATI is better or AMD is more bang-for-the-buck for their usages they realize, but it takes A LOT of work and information, and proofs and whatnot.

The problem is marketing and people who made AMD=heat issues, when I would say that mostly it was HP the problem, since an HP carrying an Intel gets TOASTY, but nobody says so, but if it carries AMD then everyone is all over it. Sorry, but that makes me mad...

 

Well Dragon is a gaming specific platform with good potential (and it did help AMD alot), but the mainstream is where the very large money is.

As for AMD based HPs, yeah they get smoking hot, but AMD should be thankful HP has stuck by them, producing so many AMD based notebooks. Plus HP can use their relationship with AMD to leverage the price they pay for AMD chips.

I must note that I did have an HP notebook at one time. Pretty little machine, had a Turion X2 TL-56. Was my first notebook/computer with a dual core, first with DDR2 RAM, first with 2 GB of RAM. Had dedicated graphics too for light gaming and my first foray into overclocking (which helped to kill it only a year and a half into it's life). Yeah it was a hot running thing, and the wifi adapter went dead a few months before the computer itself did, but I did like it. Lots of memories playing CoD, CoD2, HL2, CS:S, BF2, etc on it lol. Hell I even got CoD4 to run on it's Geforce Go 7200 quite fluently. Makes me really miss 16:10 laptop screens.

 

They are trying to push this, but at the moment this is more false than true so they're not getting very far with it. AMD has the better integrated graphics -- there is no doubt about that. But here's the thing: for video, music, DVDs, etc., this is completely irrelevant. The one and only mainstream application bottlenecked by the GPU is gaming and the number of casual games which are playable on AMD's IGPs and not Intel's is not that large.

 

Your argument is half right, but also consider this: for video, music, DVDs or such, a stronger Intel CPU really isn't needed either. All of these things ran fine back in the day where we had single core CPUs(at least I never noticed a particular bottleneck concerning these things on my Athlon 3700+). The only "mainstream" thing which would require a more powerful CPU is gaming, rendering/workstation/simulation softwares, and media encoding/decoding; gaming and workstation applications aren't even really "mainstream" in a sense since they're niche markets and not everyone decodes or encodes media hardcore enough to benefit from a T9300 or higher. So at best I'd say Photoshop is the biggest CPU hog a person would have and honestly, you need heavy heavy duty Photoshop to hog a dual core that much. I used to do Photoshop with my Athlon and ZOMG I didn't die and it ran fine.

Point of the matter is, power-wise, AMD provides more than enough for the casual user. The problem doesn't lie in the power of the technology they offer; it lies within other factors such as marketing, efficiency(which is yet to be tested on the new platform IIRC) and other such things.

 

This is true.

This is not entirely true. Windows itself makes heavy use of the CPU at times (presumably while updating) and there are a few other common tasks which are task the CPU (zipping and unzipping files, installation of applications, etc.). However, I agree with your overall point -- Intel's processors are overkill for most people.

I think it's mainly that there are very few laptops that offer AMDs processors and most of these tend to be badly designed (I don't care what the processor is if a 15" laptop only has 768 pixels of vertical resolution -- I'm not buying that garbage).

 

The thing about AMD is that it has been so hard for them to come up after what on the other thread was discussed about Intel monopolizing the market.

In fact, the AMD mobile technology was lacking and not efficient. The Athlon series were much better than Pentium, but since then, well, it was hard.

On the desktop market and the server, AMD proves to be a better solution if you ask me. The Athlon II series and Phenom II series are highly overclockable (for those who like it) and they are quite non-expensive (cheap sounds very diminishing), and for the value/performance ratio they are the best solution if you ask me. Heck, a quad-core for under 100?

For the mobile market they were stuck behind, and these new II series shouldve came out A LOT earlier, when C2D was on the top.

What intrigues me is how come AMD was left behind, while ATI is so advanced...I mean, ATI is on the 40nm already, while AMD just did the 45nm jump.

 

Athlon II? Hell yes.

Phenom II? The i5 750 is faster and remains cheaper than the PII X4 965 BE. It runs cooler and uses less power too, so it's hard to argue for that the Phenom II provides good value at the moment. Besides, don't PII's have overclocking issues with 64-bit Windows?

 

The i5 is on the Athlon II bracket, whole the Phenom II (with the Dragon Platform) competes with i7...from that point of view, PII is better value-for-money.

Although a PII vs an i5 is kinda different, since 'supposedly' they are not meant to compete. I am not so sure about this though. And the Opterons are the ones that dont fit in my logic...hahahaha Opterons AFAIK compete with Xeon...right?

 

You're missing an obvious point - HiDef video, e.g. BluRay and other such, in H264 still requires at lot of compute power to decode, and ATI GPUs are still better for this purpose. So yes, even for casual consumers who just watch a few videos, if they're trying to watch HD, then AMD/ATI is still the better choice.

But I agree, a 15" laptop with only 768 pixel vertical resolution is a stupid joke, and I'm not touching any of this crap. I dunno why the OEMs are building such feature-poor AMD models, unless Intel is still manipulating them and preventing them from doing better. I am sick to death of Intel's monopolistic practices...

 

Yeah, it is a shame that OEM are using AMD only at their most basic budget laptops, with poor configs and low-spec hardware (small HDD and slow, low res, few RAM, ABG WiFi instead of ABGN, etc)

Still it is a chance for DAAMIT to shine with good performance and decent battery life

 

Well the dv2z seemed to make quite a splash with reviews. I'm not too sure how well it sold (though it seemed to be a critical and commercial success). The dm3z seems to be a solid successor and AMD really needs to get their 45 nm Turion Neos out the door. People like such nice small laptops, and it's a good market to push.

 

The thing about the DV2 was battery life which was lacking, but performance wise it was good. And size-wise it was quite larger than a regular laptop in its size, to the point it was a 13 incher with a 12 inch display.

The DM3 looks like an amazing solution, with better IGP and IGP+GPU combo.

 

Yeah I hear max battery life was about 4 hours at best. But it was an inbetween for netbooks and fullsize laptops. My only problem was the lack of an internal DVD drive.

 

...What? Umm, the i5 750 smokes any Athlon II and most Phenom II's. Saying the Athlon II line is in the i5 bracket is like saying the Pentium Dual Core is in the Phenom II bracket. You realize that the only i5 available right now, the 750, is essentially an i7 without hyperthreading, right?

How are the i5 and PII 'supposedly' not meant to compete? It's clear that they're direct competitors. And yes, Opterons compete with Xeons, but what does that have to do with the i5 or the PII?

Sorry, I'm afraid I don't understand your points.

 

Why are we discussing desktop parts? AMD is arguably more competitive there than in the mobile segment, that's all there is. No use starting to argue Intel is also competitive. Idk about everywhere else, but even an i5 costs more than a Phenom II platform over here. When you factor in the mobo, the DDR3 RAM and everything, an i5 Intel platform is probably still 200$+ more expensive than the AMD equivalent(with the 965 PII).

Anyhow...

I'm hoping to see other companies except HP offer AMDs so we can see more competition from them.

 

It seems from my experience that AMD in the notebook market has been plagued with sub par battery life and less than exceptional amounts of heat. That's why intel usually wins in my book.

 

Well I agree the older AMDs heated up more than Intels, but only AMD based Hp laptops were reported with widespread heating issues. And of course, this same HP notebook is said to get hot even with Intel lol Other AMD laptops did get warm, but it wasn't problematic.

Let's hope this newer platform performs better efficiency wise ^_^

 

From what I've seen in these forums, the current crop of HPs ran hot regardless of Intel or AMD. HP has simply been skimping on the heatsinks.

As for battery life, it's also clear that Windows didn't support the power saving features of the AMD CPU (C1e idle state) until you installed the hotfix that was only released recently. Can't blame AMD for Microsoft's inadequacies.

http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showthread.php?p=4057481

 

MSI CR610 Review

 

I do think AMD is doing the smart thing by focusing on the desktop market. Really they only do the mainstream and low end in the laptop world, as well as the desktop world, which accounts for 90% of the market anyways. Us enthusiasts really are not a large portion of the market. Most of my friends who dont game or do CPU intensive tasks, all have mainstream AMD processors, save one who has a low-end Intel.

Same game plan for their GPU's, dont exactly have the most powerful cards(well maybe not the 5870), but they have competitive pricing all around.

I do think they are coming back in the market, they just dont have the i7-like power houses, but why do they need it? Seems like they have the right idea to me.

 

Thanks for that link Jayayess1190 at least one review of new Turion Caspian.

 

Considering the lack of benchmarks so far i am thinking AMD is having trouble producing Turion II's. Or maybe they are delayed on purpose to get rid of old Turion stock.

 

They delayed the release till November.

 

Nope some people on this forum already got their hands on Turion II laptops.

 

There are a lot of Turions in stores, Acer, HP's at least.

One question. I have read somewhere that socket S1G3 of this new K10 Turions might get 3 or 4 core CPU's in future, any confirmation of this?

 

This is probably what you are looking for ... no promises though...

 

Yep that was it, hmm Nov 2008. Lots of things might have changed.

 

Thats exactly what I thought

 

I just came from the airport, and I say a MSI with an Athlon II x2 on sale. so they are for sale.

 

If AMD could get OEMs to sell a Turion II / ATI Dx11 combo i would be so happy.
I dont want a Intel mobile Nehalem with a 4500mhd integrated.

 

http://www.fudzilla.com/content/view/16215/1/

"According to our sources, the graphics cores integrated in new Intel CPUs will be capable of coping with dual HDCP encrypted 1080p output and you can count on some impressive performance, too. Performance levels are expected to match or exceed AMD's HD 4200 IGP. The HD 4200, used on 785G boards, is the second fastest IGP on the market, trailing behind the HD 3300 found on 790GX boards."

 

??? Nehalem uses 5000 series integrated gpu's.

 

That link is for the the desktop mainboard for Intels desktop Nehalem based cpus.

Edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_graphics_media_accelerator
Just checked out Wikipedia and while the official specs for the "Intel GMA 5000" something has not yet been released (well, i cant confirm that 100%) it looks like it will have 12 unified shaders, support for Dx10 and shader model 4.0.
Just looks like a upgraded Intel GMA 4500 with higher clocks and 2 more shader units integrated in the cpu.

 

Contradictory...

 

What is your point weinter?

 

Anyone has any pictures of S1G3 socket?

 

Point is the quad core laptop must be using S1G4...
Look closely the new roadmap I found stated that Quad Core AMD Mobile will be using S1G4.

 

Well, those roadmaps are quite old...nov 08 to march 09 is quite some difference. Some changes on plans perhaps?

 

Could be.
Information from the horse mouth.

However I still feel like putting in a Caspian CPU into a S1G2 socket...

 

My problem is not Puma vs Caspian which is already known but Caspian vs Champlain.

Thanks Weiner seems my hopes are dashed if there will be no compatibility between s1g3 and s1g4 and if that so, i might just get an Intel.

 

It's not the only thing. There are architectural improvements that were revealed at IDF to reduce the weaknesses of the architecture. Also the close working of CPU and GPU in current Intel IGPs will greatly improve when they become next to each other in Arrandale/Clarkdale.

->2x Vertex Processing performance
-Significantly better z-clear algorithm
-More threads/EU, larger registers and cache
-1.4x more pixel and texture throughput

Mobile versions will have graphics Turbo Mode to make up for the clock speed differences from desktop versions.

 

New AMD Roadmap



So in 2011 Llano will be in all notebooks from HP DV2/Acer Ferrari One like machines up to 18"ers?

 

Thanks Jayayess as usual great info.

 

So Tigris platform came out not too long ago right? If we assume 1 year product lifecycle per platform we can expect Danube by same time next year and Sabine by late Q3 2011. Possibly though, they'll shorten Danube's lifecycle to maintain competitiveness and Sabine might arrive 6 months after Danube, putting launch date at April/May 2011.

 

I'm guessing Tigris will be shortened to get Danube out earlier. Like within the next 6 months. If they have a mobile quadcore ready to release, they should get it out ASAP.

 

AMD reading new desktop platform with 5000HD

 

Wanna hear interesting news??

http://www.electronista.com/articles/09/11/04/nvidia.blames.intel.for.delaying.usb.3/

http://www.electronista.com/articles/09/11/04/ny.claims.intel.threatened.pc.builders/

 

Awesome news?
Yes it is. xD

Cant wait for AMD to release the ATI Mobility HD 5000 series, as they already dominate the desktop market.

 

It's about time. It's obvious that AMD's progress in the notebook market has been held back by more than just their chip performance. Performance/$$ is still a good deal, but the OEMs still aren't offering a lot of them. Seems like even with all the anti-trust investigations over the past year or so Intel still hasn't changed its practices.

 

There are very few in store options for the Turion II Ultras, hell even Newegg only has one computer with a Turion II Ultra in it. Though I will note that HPs refresh of the dv6z is available with up to the M640 (2.6 GHz). Haven't seen a mobile AMD chip come in that kind of clock speed since the Gateway I bought in January 2006 with a 2.6 GHz Mobile Athlon 64 4000+