AMD Fusion Info Thread

I am an AMD fan but come on. Their is no way Llano is that much better. I notice that it specifically says 2.0GHz for the 2630qm, which makes me believe they disabled Turbo Boost for the test. Still, looks like the integrated graphics blow the Intel HD 3000 out of the water

 

So, not a bad update then, ha?

 

Oh, don't get me wrong. If the graphics performance is that much better and the processor and battery life are comparable then I think it is great, especially if the AMD is cheaper. Even at the same price it would still be a huge leap forward for AMD.

 

Comparisons done by a manufacturer always have to be taken with a massive grain of salt. That said, with the exception of the Excel (which was not enough stress on the CPU to tell the difference), everything they showed in that demo is GPU dependent so it's not surprising that Llano fares better. I suspect the only trickery here is disabling Turbo Boost and maybe picking a task which AMD's GPU drivers support, but Intel's do not (in which case you'll see a dramatic difference because software rendering is a lot slower).

 

I'm also betting that that was one of their high-end APUs pitted against the mainstream 2630QM.

 

Isnt AMD's mainstream a 4 core since an 8 core is coming?

 

Not for laptops.

 

Bulldozer is for desktop and server platforms, it won't be coming to notebooks until later (perhaps with Enhanced Bulldozer, in a Fusion APU form). Although, considering how cheap Phenom II quad cores are for notebooks, it is probably a safe bet that you'll see lots of quad core A-series APU out there too.

To everyone questioning the test: The important part isn't the CPU performance (which I don't think anyone expects to be near Sandy Bridge) but the GPU performance. It is mainstream performance, on die! The CPU performance is adequate. If AMD can get the battery life right, and this demo shows that it should, they have a good design. It was using less power than an i7-2630QM (which must be turbo-clocking, otherwise the power draw is crazy) for the same tasks. If AMD can nail the price point (make it as cheap as or cheaper than SB) then they have a winner. I know a lot of people will accept less CPU performance for a laptop, as they're likely to be GPU limited for most games anyway... as long as it retains decent battery life.

 

I would not say that the demo shows that it will have good battery life. Battery life is mostly about idle power draw -- it has little to do with what happens at load. The idle power draw of the desktop Phenom II architecture is much, much worse than Sandy Bridge (see the chart at the bottom of this page). Llano will be 32nm and they've probably improved the power-gating somewhat, but they have a long way to go to catch up.

 

Yes, I agree. However, when they are both siting near idle at desktop you'll notice the AMD unit is yet again consuming less power (33.8W for Intel system and 28.9W for AMD). This can be seen around 0:39...

 

I saw it, but I find it very hard to believe that this is due to the processor (the desktop one only uses 5W at idle). To be honest, the power draw is the fishiest part of that video -- it doesn't make much sense at idle or at load.

 

Or maybe LLano is really that good...

 

It must be the measured power draw of the entire system, not just the processor.

 

I think so, but it still makes no sense. Forget Llano for a moment and focus on Sandy Bridge because that is a known quantity with independent reviews. AMD's demo claims that at idle, the Sandy Bridge system is consuming 33.8W. From various reviews of the reference Compal laptop and from the claims being made by manufacturers, we know that given a 77Wh battery, a quad-core Sandy Bridge system (both CPU and GPU are Intel's) lasts 6-7 hours browsing the web. How is that possible if the system is drawing 33.8W at idle?

My guess is that AMD is playing games with the power management settings. That is, disable EIST, force all 4 cores to run at 2GHz all the time and you'll probably get the 34W -- but that has nothing to do with how it works in real life.

 

the thing is they likely tested the systems plugged in and on many system iddle plugged and idle unpluged is diferent mine consume 71 plugged and drop to 41 unplugged

 

Well I looked up the MSI model and google said it was 11.6in, or is that wrong?

It appears MSI is making both 11.6" and 12.1" versions:

MSI Global ? Notebook - U270

http://www.msi.com/product/nb/U270.html#/?div=Specification

 

From Specification tab:

 

Some new videos up of Llano vs Sandy Bridge:
<width='560' height="349"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/m7xVOWR-Y0c?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/m7xVOWR-Y0c?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width='560' height="349"></embed></object>

Another
Another

 

Seems like the same videos with different people talking. Still impressive. If they can get this out before SB becomes widely available, who knows when that will be at this point, Llano can definitely close the gap.

 

Well there are some SB devices out now(I think). I personally wouldn't mind seeing the dual core variant of this in a 12-13in business machine with a min 5.5 hour battery life(if possible).

 

I really hope Llano really pulls through; I'd like to see real competition that leads to some breakthroughs.

Thing is, I've heard Llano comes out Q3-2011. The Llanao is made to compete against Sandy Bridge. BUT! Ivy Bridge comes out Q1-2012. Doesn't leave much time for Llano to play catch up before the next fleet of Intels are released.

Again it sounds like AMD is a step-behind Intel. CMON AMD!

 

They're not really competing though. Intel makes high-end CPUs with low-end integrated GPUs while AMD makes low-end CPUs with mid-range GPUs (well, it will once Llano is out). They just sit in different sectors.

 

They're both aimed at the mainstream market.

 

But I prefer AMD concept, coz alot of games set bottleneck is at GPU, not CPU.

 

I thought someone posted in this thread that Llano was moved up to late Q1/early Q2?

 

Late Q1 is basically now (Q1 ends in 3.5 weeks) so unless AMD wants to spring a surprise on everyone, I don't think that's true. Late Q2 is quite possible though (maybe at Computex?).

 

Must have been Q2 then. I heard somewhere that they moved the release up to April or May.

 

That's even better!!

If AMD can release a APU that is within reach of Intel, Intel's days of surcharges are over.

 

'Surcharges'?

Better equipment deserves a corresponding price tag. (That's; 'period', btw).

I would love to get Intel quality and performance at AMD prices (and a couple of times that I've tried AMD, I thought I had achieved that) but that would come with its own compromises.

If AMD could magically match Intel right now in all the important aspects worth considering, Intel would simply release 2012 technology this summer and take back the lead (and once again enjoy the higher prices they can charge).

A 'surcharge' would be something like an 'Apple Tax'; get the same thing for more money.

Intel is definitely giving something more than AMD can.

 

Except that what can happen in AMD's case is that the gpu will be bottlenecked by the underpowered cpu.
In Intel's case, they are bottlenecked by the gpu, while the cpu is more than enough.

So for example, even if you get a high end AMD system, with high-end cpu and gpu (both from AMD), there's a chance your gpu won't really perform to it's maximum due to the cpu limiting it.

 

Don't count on it. If you watch that video and listen past the marketing speak, they are clearly saying "Do not expect Llano's CPU performance to be anywhere close to Sandy Bridge". The GPU will be a lot better, of course, but AMD's integrated GPUs have almost always been better than Intel's (Sandy Bridge is an exception; it only happened because Llano got delayed by such a long time).

I expect the best laptops to continue to be ones with an Intel CPU/GPU and a discreet GPU from AMD or Nvidia with dynamic switching between the integrated and discreet GPUs. Thus, Intel will continue to charge a premium for their products.

 

Well that is kind of true with in the netbook/netbook-ish market seeing how Fusion E-350 cpu, is offer a better gpu than even what the 4500hd igp is offering while cpu speeds that blow even dual core out the water. Plus, the price is fairly competitive(except for the fully optioned Lenovo X120 and Sony YB).

 

I think it will be close to the non-quad SB processors, at least. Probably get destroyed by the quad cores, though, like AMDs current processors.

 

This says that Bulldozer is 'early summer', which AMD says is still Q2 (John Fruehe of AMD). The important part from this article is that Llano is scheduled for Q2 as well...

 

Sure this thing won't smoke the most expensive SB processors in cpu power, but that is beside the point, even if combine power is on par with sb at a cheaper price, im all for it. I am glad to have another competitor, if they aren't on the cutting edge it anything that's better for me and my wallet.

Saying that intel can charge for a better product but apple charging more for macs is, while i agree with the statement, contradictory. Apples may be the same in hardware but it is the software rights that cost you.

 

Looks like Llano will make an appearance in Computex. At least one motherboard according this: AMD Confirms Sempron Death, Replaced By E-Series Zacate

Commentary on AMD's LLano/SB demo: AMD Demos Llano Behind Closed Doors : AMD Demos Mobile Llano

Details on the LLano chipset features: AMD Llano Hudson chipsets details

 

So even if Turbo Boost is disabled, they make it sound like it isn't, this is only a 1.8GHz quad-core and I am sure AMD will have them up to 2.4GHz like they currently do. Look at the Furmark performance differences as well. Llano almost at least doubles the HD3000.

 

Why are you sure? They are trying to cram a quad-core CPU and a a mid-range GPU into roughly the same thermal budget as their current quad-core CPUs. The die shrink will give them some headroom, but I don't think it is enough. Something else has to give and it may very well be CPU clock speed.

Another interesting thing: they've meticulously avoided answering what I believe to be the most serious question about Llano: what happens when you stress the memory bandwidth? Their benchmarks are all at low resolutions -- it's nice to know that it can handle Furmark at 1024x768 with 4xAA better than Sandy Bridge, but nobody sane would play an actual game with those settings. It would have been far more interesting to see how Llano handles gaming at 1600x900 or something of the sort.

 

The die size of a Llano is in the 228 mm^2 range, the same as Phenom II size. It doesn't have L3 cache, and with lower clocks than the current Phenom II notebooks parts, they'll be able to achieve the same power draw at full load, while smaller process and power-gating should achieve improved idle and near idle power efficiency. Overall performance will probably, due to core improvements and Turbo-Clocking, be the same or better even at lower "stock" clock rates. At higher clock rates, which should be achievable due to the new process, it should be a marked improvement over current Athlon II and Phenom II mobile parts.

 

I think Abaddon meant that eventually they'll release refreshes that add 100 to 200 MHz like the current Phenom IIs. But does the APU have to be limited to the same thermal budget as their current CPU as opposed to a CPU and integrated GPU, or even a discrete GPU if the graphics can come close to the performance?

Also, maybe they've not be avoiding the question - I haven't seen the question asked. AFAIK, these are the first times they've demo'd Llano to the media and it seems their initial goal is just to compare it to Sandy Bridge. Eventually they might allow sites like Anandtech to test Llano like they did for Bobcat.

I still think it'll have Turbo Core so it should lessen the performance gap and give it a boost to single threaded applications.

 

True enough, but the shrink should give them enough to at least stay close to their current mobile clockspeeds. I don't think 1.8GHz is going to be the fastest quad they have.

 

I think you guys are right on. AMD never says its clock for clock faster then sandy bridge at general computing. The video shows AMD leveraging their GPU over intels.

At the end of the day my CPU is RARELY the bottleneck, for my needs its almost always the GPU. I dont need a quad core to surf the web or check my email, but i do need a beefy GPU to play world of warcraft.

I really dont expect the new llano to out perform my current AMD based gateway ( 45w 2.3ghz quad core with 18w ati 5650) performance wise.

I do however expect to get much better battery life, and come in some nifty new small form configurations. For the record I think my AMD performs right on par with a core i7-720qm in multithreaded apps.

 

Llano commercial shipment on July 4 and Bulldozer on June 20.

AMD Finalizes Shipment Dates for Next-Gen Chips - X-bit labs

 

Excellent news, hope the rumors are and remain true.

 

Well about time AMD stepped up their game and gave us a concrete date! I can smell another AMD build coming up during the summer..

 

Concrete date is useless without concrete performance. Although, I suspect it will do enough.

 

New Llano Slides





AMD to Refresh E-Series APUs Lineup in the Third Quarter. 1.3GHz E-300 and 1.65GHz E-450.

 

The E-450 is pretty much what I was hoping for. Now some needs to slap that in a pen based conv. tablet(again X1t20t please?) and I'm sold.

I wonder if the gpu will see any gains from the turbo core tech.

 

AMD's Llano Could Heat up Chip War With Intel

 

LLano is Shipping

EDIT: Didn't see the other thread on it.