AMD Fusion Info Thread

Yeah but most netbooks are still single core, and I am not sure if Flash has support for any of the Atom gpus(maybe the GMA500, but again not sure).

 

Connected to a super slow shared DDR3 interface.

Let's wait until some real benchmarks and real gaming benchmarks? I'll put my SB with 6630M against any Llano notebook and crush them. The 6630M was only $50 extra.

Of course there's the whole reality that very few people need anything more than an Intel IGP in a computer to begin with.

 

It looks like GMA500 has it, but I don't know about any other netbooks since I was never interested in dog slow x86 CPUs.

 

I agree. You were the one who said that the Llano IGP will be 50% slower than the 5650. I was just disputing that comment because the only info we currently have, not enough, says it will perform close to it.

I am also curious as to what notebook you got with a 6630 for only $750?

 

I spent more than that obviously because not only I want a competent CPU and GPU, I wanted a high res, high dpi screen that wasn't junk (still not great but not junk), a decent, backlit keyboard that wasn't junk, and a sturdy chassis that wasn't junk. My last $700 PC left me sorely disappointed with its screen and keyboard, so I just don't think it can be done for so little money. I think the Acer 3820 is also junk despite having a fast cpu/gpu combo so I wouldn't buy that either.

 

I have seen a TimelineX 4820TG and I will definitely agree that it is junk. The keyboard is awful, the whole chassis flexes like crazy and the screen is bad even compared to the mediocre screens that everyone seems to be using.

My point, however, is if everything just listed about two notebooks is equal but one comes with Llano for $700 and the other comes with Arrandale/5650 for $800, I would rather have the Llano.

 

That's based on your preconceptions of how it'll perform. You might change your opinion after they're benched. I don't have much confidence in AMD's ability to make fast and power efficient CPU's and overcome GPU bandwidth issues.

 

Special Report: AMD's plans for 2011 and details the most powerful mobile processor! - Donanimhaber.com

 

So it looks like the most powerful version will have a quad-core CPU at 1.9GHz with 2.6GHz TurboCore. Unless TurboCore means that all 4 cores can boost to that or they've made significant revisions to the architecture, it looks like AMD's quad-cores will be inferior to Intel's dual-cores again even in fully multithreaded tasks. I can't quite understand the part about the GPU, but it looks like the 6620G will have 400 stream processors clocked at 444MHz. This looks like a down-clocked 6530M, but they say it's a Whistler core (kind of strange since most discreet Whistlers have 480 cores and not 400). This is more or less what I expected -- the CPU is pathetic and the GPU is similar to a 5650M which is pretty good. Depending on how TurboCore works, these machines may get into situations where games are actually CPU-bound as is the case with some of AMD's current CPUs.

 

Quad cores + 400SP's would make a pretty big chip. Can't be that cheap to manufacture either.

Given that my 6630M with 480SP's at 480Mhz and 800Mhz dedicated DDR3 can't quite overtake the 5650, I doubt the Llano GPU with less shaders, lower clock frequency and reduced memory bandwidth (shared with the CPU) will do any better.

 

Yeah I agree. The history repeats itself. I don`t think you can compare clock to clock between Fusion and Sandy Bridge either?

 

Not only that, but clock speeds are not the whole picture when it comes to CPUs, they are complex machines capable of many different things.

You're just going to have to accept that while CPUs differ from each other on an individual basis, but also Fusion and Sandy Bridge are just two completely different architectures from 2 different companies.

Mr. Mysterious

 

My this, my that, blah blah blah...
I think we should way and see...

BTW: for me Llano based laptop would be awesome, probably even Zacate would fit my needs. With current T60 (details in signature) only sometimes I wish for GPU with HW acceleration.

 

Right, but we know the architecture -- it's K10.5 (the article even says so). Sandy Bridge utterly crushes it clock-for-clock; in the Sandy Bridge review, the Core i5-2500K beat the Phenom II X6 1100T BE running at the same clock speed in every single test, even when the task was completely multithreaded (you can tell by the fact that the Core i7-980X beats Sandy Bridge in those tests). Note that 2500K lacks hyperthreading and and the 1100T has 6 cores rather than 4.

This is why I said that unless AMD has made significant changes to the architecture, Intel dual-cores will probably continue to beats AMD quad-cores across the board. In fact, depending on how Llano is priced, it may even be cheaper to get a Sandy Bridge dual-core with discreet graphics (though I doubt it; Intel likes to keep much higher margins than AMD so I expect Llano to be cheaper).

 

My point is: For most people that don't need bleeding-edge performance, Llano and other AMD fusion processors will be more than enough for them, and at a good price point too

Competition is good and more is needed.

Mr. Mysterious

 

Here is a cheap laptop with dual sandy bridge and GT 540M. $829.
http://www.xoticpc.com/asus-k53sva1-p-3076.html?wconfigure=yes

Yeah competition is good.

 

I agree, but they are not competing in the sector I care about. Intel is offering great CPUs with mediocre integrated GPUs. AMD is offering mediocre CPUs with good (or at least decent; it depends on how the memory bandwidth issue plays out) integrated GPUs. If you want a good CPU with a good GPU (as I do!), the only option is to buy an Intel system with a discreet card and Llano will not change that.

 

So what is wrong with buying an intel system with a discrete card? Or even a Llano system with a discrete card? It's just a few dollars more and very much worth it...

Mr. Mysterious

 

I don't understand why people don't understand what is very easy to understand.
THE CPU DOESN'T MATTER FOR MOST PEOPLE.

If you want an awesome CPU, don't buy an AMD. Nobody cares. Get your Intel.

Why is it hard to understand that an AMD Phenom with SSD will be much faster than a Core i5 with HDD? Moving up to Core i7 will still be slower. The CPU isn't the bottleneck for most people. And if, in fact, it is the bottleneck for you, your computing needs are not the same as most people. Most people's CPUs sit idle. Anyone else seeking out Intel CPUs are doing so out of habit and ignorance.

EDIT: I meant to say LLano with SSD (not Phenom), but I wouldn't be surpised if a Phenom + SSD was generally faster overall than a Core i5 + HDD.

 

I doubt it'll even be faster than C2D clock per clock, since the Phenom was slightly slower.

 

GPU power beyond video/flash acceleration matters to even fewer people. Once you have an SSD, CPU again becomes the bottleneck in day to day windows and browser usage.

 

Well, I've come across this and thought it would be interesting. MAny were expecting such a thing.
Basically, an ATI Mobility HD 5650 (the lower clocked ones) for the GPU part of the product. I guess "integrated graphics" just got a whole lot better xD.

More mobile Llano specs leaked

Cheers!

 

Yes, once you have an SSD. Then you're comparing a fast system to a very fast system. And there's a huge price premium to getting the very fast system. That's money that I don't need to spend.

And even then, if you are REALLY concerned about speed, you might be better off doing RAID 0 on SSD rather than going from Core i3 to Core i7.

Here's my problem with this entire discussion. There's a complete disconnect between what people think affects speed. Most people still (surprisingly) don't have SSD systems. So they're still shopping between Core i3 i5 and i7. They have no frickin clue that if they just buy the SSD, what they THINK they need (faster CPU) is not going to really affect what they REALLY need (faster drive).

This thing is going to SLAY. Hide your kids and hide your wife because they rapin everybody out here.

 

You don't need to sell me that, I've been using an SSD ever since the X25M-G2 came out. So, unless AMD Fusion comes with a built-in SSD on-die, I don't see the relevance of that to this thread.

SSD's are the biggest impact to performance, but right after that, comes the CPU, not the GPU for most people. And AMD mainstream (not netbook) CPU's are inferior to Intel CPU's, not just in performance, but in performance per watt as well.

Doubt it's going to stand a chance against a $800 laptop with SB and 540M/66xx/67xx.

 

Basically, you repeated everything I said in different words except for the last part. And I won't speak to performance per watt if it's CPU cycles, but as far as performance in battery life terms, The E350 is much more efficient than anything else.

All day power, good enough graphics, good enough CPU. That's what laptops are all about. I wouldn't buy an AMD desktop, but this forum isn't for desktops.

 

If we're comparing weaksauce CPU's, might as well throw the ipad CPU to the mix, which blows away the E-350 in battery life.
Sandy Bridge gets as good of a battery life as the E350, and it's much faster.

 

I have been looking at the HP DM1Z with the E-350 since before it came out since I read it could take on 1080P. But I haven't really been keeping up with changes in CPU/GPU since I got my old laptop.

Currently running Core Duo T2300 with ATi X1400 512MB. I looked on a site that compiled benchmarks and found that the E-350 was very similar to the setup I have now. However, I know that benchmarks don't really tell everything.

So would I be getting an upgrade or getting something similar in power but using less juice and much smaller form factor?

Also read (from this thread) that AMD might refresh the E-350 with Turbo?

 

You'd be getting a much weaker CPU. GPU would probably be more powerful.

 

No, we should not be comparing the ARM processor. There's a threshold for CPU performance and the ARM processor has not crossed it. The E350 barely crosses it into good enough territory for most tasks. The LLano (I expect) will cross it by a large margin. The E350 is many times more powerful than ARM. ARM has its functions as a tablet and long battery, but it is a different class that does different things.

Your second point about Sandy getting good battery compared to the AMD E350 is not correct.



The diminishing importance of CPU power is a fact and has been accepted by the mighty Intel.

 

Hmm...looks like my netbook in the next few months will be one of three choices, in no particular order:

1) HP DM1z
2) Acer 1810T
3) A ULV i3 Laptop to be discussed

It's hard to prioritize but....gun to my head, I'd say...

Battery Life (6+ hours on high performance, brightness all the way down and playing HD videos with the sound down and the wireless off), Ability to play 1080p streaming video online, weight (under 4lbs.)

So far, my 1005PR does all of that nicely...but the processor is getting outdated and very rarely struggles.

Mr. Mysterious

 

Err... that image doesn't list a single Sandy Bridge processor. A similar picture can be found on the bottom of this page. The 2820QM gets 5.86 and while this is not as large as the 7.67 for the dm1z, that was to be expected given that the laptop of the 2820QM has a 17" screen which consumes a lot more power than the much smaller display of the dm1z. Sandy Bridge and Brazos idle power usage (and hence battery life) is of the same order, surprising as it is given that the 2820QM is almost 10 times more powerful.

Nope. Intel's new tri-gate process is a lot more effective at low voltages so they're going to milk it for all it's worth. The diminishing importance of the CPU is just the marketing spin AMD puts on being unable to compete with Intel at making CPUs.

 

You know the difference between 5.86 and 7.67 is actually 31%, right? Those aren't just "tiny" numbers. If Sandy lasts 5 hrs, AMD gets 6.5 hrs. Numbers are quite a bit different when you actually put it into perspective.

We'll find out more definitively when LLano hits and we compare battery life in
systems with larger screens. Scale should be similar to the E350 and we'll find out very, very soon. If not, I won't buy one. There's value to a notebook just being on and idle. That's what notebooks do a lot of the time. They sit there in class, in a meeting, connected to the internet. That instantly available notebook is more important than actual flops.

As far as marketing spin for AMD, I'll grant you that's true. I'll admit it because i'm not a fanboy like you are with Intel. That still doesn't change the fact that ppl don't need CPU power. Yes, AMD is bad at making fast CPUs. When have I not ever admitted that up front. It's also true that most people don't need fast CPUs. If you see any of my previous posts, I mention that time and time again. How many different ways can I say this? I can't. So this is my last effort for anyone so thickheaded to not get the point:

When does your system ever hang and you think to yourself, "Gee, I wish I had a faster CPU." I'll tell you when I think that. It's when I'm rendering in Adobe Premiere. That's it. I never need my CPU to be any faster. What percentage of the population complaining about system speed is really complaining about their CPU? Here's MG Siegler who didn't realize until October 2010 how fast an SSD really is. And he's tech writer at Tech Crunch. If he didn't know, what percent of the general population doesn't know?

Why do you want to keep talking about how good your horseshoes are or how bad AMD is at making horseshoes when we all drive cars now?

 

Correct. However, most of that difference is almost certainly due to the display rather than the chips.

Yes, soon. This is by far the most interesting unanswered question about Llano. If they can get battery life into Sandy Bridge territory and sell it cheap, this will be a good laptop for a lot of people (not for me, but for many).

CPU performance is important to me. A lot of my work is done on clusters of thousands of CPUs, but I also like to do test cases at home on my laptop. Thus, I would much rather have a faster CPU. I buy Intel products simply because if you want a fast CPU in a laptop, there just aren't any alternatives. It annoys me that AMD has chosen to stop competing in this area and has dedicated half the die to something that is even less useful to most people than a fast CPU.

Incidentally, I don't have the same dislike towards Brazos. It was a big improvement relative to Atom in terms of both CPU and GPU and the first time in years that AMD has pushed Intel to compete (Atom was pitiful and it was going to stay that way; they weren't even trying). But Llano is really just more of the same from AMD: worse CPU, better integrated graphics. They've been doing this for years with the only difference being that the integrated graphics are now on the CPU die and they have a much snazzier marketing term than before. It can work for the mass market if it's cheap and has a long battery life, but it's not an exciting product.

 

It's impossible for Llano to be as power efficient as SB, with 400 idling shaders on chip.
They should make an 80SP version if they want to compete on power. That's what most people need and anyway since GPU power beyond video/flash acceleration is a lot less important than CPU power.

I also wouldn't consider E-350 CPU as adequate, I had an ULV C2D and it was dog slow with an SSD.

 

Not quite. If this was just the same old CPU and GPU that they're selling now, but on the same die, then I would completely agree with you. However, Llano is the first 32nm chip that AMD has released (Brazos is 40nm and I think Bulldozer is coming later) so presumably they'll have made improvements to power gating that are not found anywhere else in their lineup. This is why its battery life is such an interesting question.

 

Then why did you selectively ignore the multitude of posts where I say that if you are one of the few people who actually need CPU power to avoid buying an AMD system? You're in the minority and that's all my posts were ever about. AMD's CPU power sucks and it doesn't matter for most people (you are one of the exceptions) for the millionth time.

 

Intel's GPU power sucks and it doesn't matter for most people either. Actually the group of people who need a faster CPU is bigger than the group of people who need a faster GPU.

 

Really? With youtube's, hulu's, netflix's growing popularity? What about the legions of video gamers? Photographers?

Yes, in the majority of these you need a very good GPU more than a good CPU.

Mr. Mysterious

 

LOL yeah video gamers will use Llano. And if you as a gamer, somehow ended up with deciding between IGP and a discrete GPU, you would pick one of the laptops with upper medium discrete GPUs that crush the IGP. They compete with Llano with the price, the GPU laugh at the IGP, the laptop feature Optimus which gives you better battery time and you get a faster CPU.
But of course, you could pick the Llano instead of the Sandy bridge and have an discrete GPU inside the laptop as well. If so, what is the point with the awesome IGP? You will use the discrete GPU anyway, and you pay the price by picking the CPU that is the weakest...

I don`t see why people would pick Llano instead other than being brand (AMD) loyal

 

Umm? I don't think I'm a fanboy Cloudfire...I'm a fan of Intel's processors and AMD's discrete GPU's

edit: Can anyone confirm me if the E-350's iGPU (6630M, if I'm not mistaken) is better than NVIDIA's ION2?

Mr. Mysterious

 

Out there (outside NBR forum) is plenty of people who need laptop for facebook, YouTube and movies who would be more satisfied with Llano/Zacate then Sandy Bridge/Atom.

 

I agree that more people would want/need a powerful GPU than a powerful CPU. Maybe not on these forums, but for most users Llano will offer more than enough CPU power.

I also think that Sandy Bridge offers enough graphics power for most users, though. To me Llano will compete because of price, providing battery life is comparable

 

Intel IGP's have been able to accelerate all that video content for a while now, starting with the 4500MHD. Sandy Bridge, or even Arrandale IGP's have all the features that a non-gamer needs.

They mostly play on consoles, and the small minority that play on the PC still need a more powerful CPU/GPU combo than what Llano can deliver. SB with discrete graphics would suit them better. In any case, this is a small demographic.

You realize the majority of the stuff in Photoshop runs on the CPU?

 

Yeah, but not 1080p, which is what most people want.

This is a laptop (and therefore computer) forum. You really want to alienate everyone here by talking about consoles?

.......yeah you got me there. I couldn't sneak that in, lol...

Mr. Mysterious

 

Wrong. Intel IGP's 4500MHD and onwards play 1080p perfectly smoothly:
YouTube - Flash 10.1 YouTube 1080p HD Video on 11.6" CULV Notebook - Works Great!

Doesn't change the fact that PC gamers are a small minority, and they are better served with a SB CPU and a discrete GPU.

 

Your original point was that there is a bigger market for CPU-hungry users than GPU-hungry users.

I'm sorry, but I must respectfully disagree. In the spirit of peace, let's just agree to disagree. I'm dropping this discussion.

Mr. Mysterious

 

Exactly.

Competing with Intel on price is not going to be good for AMD's profit margins though, especially since the chip's going to be bigger thanks to those 400 SP's that'll stay unused. They'll be forced to sell bigger chips for less money, just like they've been doing with the X6's. They should release a Llano with 80SP's to better compete on price with Intel.

Only people who need GPU power beyond what Intel has are gamers. The people who need CPU power are gamers and power users. So by definition, more people need CPU power.

Ran out of talking points?

 

Lol, no. Just don't want to antagonize the mods. Plus, life is too short to quibble over minor details

Mr. Mysterious

 

Damn, I had a feeling the E-350 might be weaker than my T2300 considering it was being compared against Atoms. I just thought 4 or 5 years worth of technological advancements would have been a lot more.

But I guess it is great for a portable computer. Maybe just not for a replacement. Seems to me the Llanos would drain more batteries, and might not be in a small form factor.

These machines are a rip-off in Canada. All around $500 at Best Buys...

 

That sucks. Notebooks with Llano are supposedly gonna start at $500 here.