AMD Fusion APU Llano V Intel SB in a Multi-Tasking Technology Demonstration

[Final8y]

 

[Sampsy]

Umm my knowledge on this is limited, but was that really a fair test? To me it looks like AMD used a standalone GPU whereas the intel system did not and they did not give the frequency of the amd chip.

 

[DragonQ]

Probably AMD's fastest mobile APU vs Intel's slowest Sandy Bridge quad + HT mobile CPU, but it's still pretty impressive.

 

[Final8y]

Umm my knowledge on this is limited, but was that really a fair test? To me it looks like AMD used a standalone GPU whereas the intel system did not and they did not give the frequency of the amd chip.

AMD did not use a stand alone GPU as that totally defeats the purpose of the APU.

 

[Final8y]

Probably AMD's fastest mobile APU vs Intel's slowest Sandy Bridge mobile CPU, but it's still pretty impressive.

The bottle neck on the Intel is the on-die GPU so a high clock would not make up for it.

 

[FrancesoNoir]

Nice demo but nothing that's relevant to 90%+ of the users of this forum as we use discrete graphics cards. Even the background video in the latter part of the test is irrelevant, as that would be CUDA-accelerated in my system.

Nice demo for lower-end user setups though.

 

[jrwagh333]

Nice demo but nothing that's relevant to 90%+ of the users of this forum as we use discrete graphics cards. Even the background video in the latter part of the test is irrelevant, as that would be CUDA-accelerated in my system.

Nice demo for lower-end user setups though.

It's not irrelevant at all

 

[Final8y]

Nice demo but nothing that's relevant to 90%+ of the users of this forum as we use discrete graphics cards. Even the background video in the latter part of the test is irrelevant, as that would be CUDA-accelerated in my system.

Nice demo for lower-end user setups though.

Many people here have more than one PC in there house hold beside there gaming rig.

 

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

Since the IGP is called the HD6620M this probably makes it more powerful than an HD6570M which has 400 stream processors:

http://www.notebookcheck.net/AMD-Radeon-HD-6570M.41479.0.html

It looks like the IGP will probably have 480 stream processors.

This will hopefully mean that the IGP will be faster than an HD4670 GDDR3!!

Edit!!

Towards the end of the video the test system specifications are listed.

 

[FrancesoNoir]

It's not irrelevant at all

Yes it is, to me and to a lot of users. The APU in my SB setup is effectively disabled, I have a discrete graphics card and my P67 MOBO does not allow it to be used for video acceleration of any kind. My gfx card in the meantime would make the examples in the video irrelevant to my system as they would be taken care of.

Again, it's a cool demo and has its place for a lot of users, especially showing what the chip can to do graphics in systems with no discrete GPU, but no benefit to my main system.

 

[Final8y]

Yes it is, to me and to a lot of users. The APU in my SB setup is effectively disabled, I have a discrete graphics card and my P67 MOBO does not allow it to be used for video acceleration of any kind. My gfx card in the meantime would make the examples in the video irrelevant to my system as they would be taken care of.

Again, it's a cool demo and has its place for a lot of users, especially showing what the chip can to do graphics in systems with no discrete GPU, but no benefit to my main system.

Not everything is about you & you don't know what else most users here use either for themselves & the rest of the family.

 

[jrwagh333]

Yes it is, to me and to a lot of users. The APU in my SB setup is effectively disabled, I have a discrete graphics card and my P67 MOBO does not allow it to be used for video acceleration of any kind. My gfx card in the meantime would make the examples in the video irrelevant to my system as they would be taken care of.

Again, it's a cool demo and has its place for a lot of users, especially showing what the chip can to do graphics in systems with no discrete GPU, but no benefit to my main system.

And I am sure the OP posted this just for YOU.
No they took the time to post this to inform all the forum members here. I think you will find more people will find use of AMD's APU than a SandyBridge or even Bulldozer system.

Overclockers & gamers are the minority compared to other desktop users.

 

[FrancesoNoir]

Fine guys, my original point was that it wouldn't be immediately apparent to everyone reading this thread that the benefits shown in the test aren't relevant to those using high end gfx cards. I acknowledged that in lower end setups, there was a benefit. Point made, move on... *shrug*

 

[jrwagh333]

Arrogant ...

 

[Final8y]

Fine guys, my original point was that it wouldn't be immediately apparent to everyone reading this thread that the benefits shown in the test aren't relevant to those using high end gfx cards. I acknowledged that in lower end setups, there was a benefit. Point made, move on... *shrug*

That's why its posted in the CPU section & it will help with OpenCL.

 

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

Both the CPUs tested were mobile ones if anyone bothered to look at the demo fully. As I said before the test system specifications were listed in the video.

The Intel system has a 2GHZ Mobile Core i7 which can run 8 threads and has the HD3000 IGP. The AMD system has a quad core Mobile Llano which can run 4 threads and has the HD6620M IGP.

This means that the high end Mobile Llano quad cores will have an IGP which will be probably faster than a desktop HD4670 or even a desktop HD5570 graphics card.

 

[Gashman]

AMDs Llano is the true mainstream part in their next full on assault, its Zacate of notebooks and HTPC systems, Llano for standard off the shelf style PCs, the sorts you find in the highstreet and Bulldozer for high-end, heavily multi-threaded workloads, like servers and high-end gaming (things like Supreme Commander are gonna see real benefit from Bulldozer) so to sum it up I don't understand how this can't be any more relevant to us on this forum.

 

[Destination]

It's not irrelevant at all

What AMDs builtin rubbish gfx solution is better than intels builtin rubbish gfx solution?

If GFX is what you are after than a discrete gfx is currently the way to go.
If GFX is irrevelant, then other factors are much more pressing, than the GFX abilities of chips designed with other things in mind.

This is my summary of the OP, am I correct or completely in the wrong area?

 

[Destination]

AMDs Llano is the true mainstream part in their next full on assault, its Zacate of notebooks and HTPC systems, Llano for standard off the shelf style PCs, the sorts you find in the highstreet and Bulldozer for high-end, heavily multi-threaded workloads, like servers and high-end gaming (things like Supreme Commander are gonna see real benefit from Bulldozer) so to sum it up I don't understand how this can't be any more relevant to us on this forum.

So the bulldozer chip can use its gfx components when a discrete gfx card is added to the system for increased benefits? Rather than deactivating it and making the discrete gfx card do the work?
Have I understood correctly, as I know the intel sandybridge switches off its GFX when you add a card.

 

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

So the bulldozer chip can use its gfx components when a discrete gfx card is added to the system for increased benefits? Rather than deactivating it and making the discrete gfx card do the work?
Have I understood correctly, as I know the intel sandybridge switches off its GFX when you add a card.

The first generation Bulldozer CPUs do not have an IGP.