• Competitor rules

    Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.

AMD Bulldozer Finally!

most people don't play games so an external gpu isn't needed. As for the cooling its better to have a single heatsink than 2 and a tiny really noisy fan, obviously some cards are passive.

Yeah i'd presume amd's gpu would be turned off when a 3rd party gpu is used. AMD's will probably support stream so hardware accelerated encoding or videos etc which intel's can't do many processing tasks such as gpu accelerated password cracking. Intel's quick sync can be used for video encoding which is alright i guess but amd is still better overall.

I wonder what amd's stock heatsink will be like on llano.

The netbook market will be very successful and the lower end laptops too, some mid end laptops too. Hard to see too many selling for the highend as intel will probably be quite a bit quicker. Unless its for gamers who want a long battery life without having to have a 3rd party gpu.

Llano will give intel some long overdue competition :)
 
Mr Krugga said:
http://www.overclock.net/pc-games/861216-bfbc2-cpu-scaling.html

That's regarding BC2, we've yet to see what Frostbite 2.0 offers but the game is bound to be GPU-dependent and will probably not require a very powerful CPU to play smoothly.
Click to expand...

i dont understand why anyone can think otherwise, but maybe they never take notice of what task manager is showing when they game and just blindly assume all this stuff, i have never saw a game that anywhere near maxes out a modern cpu and i cant believe bf3 will come anywhere near close.
 
Last edited:
CAT-THE-FIFTH said:
Look at the previous page where this has been posted. They are all B0 engineering samples. One of them had repeated BSODs.

Those benchmarks are absolutely pointless as they are early B0 engineering samples. The current CPUs are B1 and B2 steppings.
Click to expand...

Man, you've got to hope the later steppings really ramp up the performance.
 
It's not really about the steppings, it's about the whole system interacting and working together smoothly to get best overall performance. There is a lot of work to be done between and engineering sample and a released product, on both the programming for OS's, and the hardware that it's linked to (Not to mention the actual chip itself!)
 
Plus they could be intentionally Gimped to prevent leaks and such. Although maybe this will persuade AMD to release abit more performance info now, if people are actually starting to think these are actually representative of BD performance, and by the sounds of it some people actually are, which surprises me to be honest as why the hell would they design a whole new architecture and it only be just over half the performance of their older arch.

Is there any significance in the TDP being at 186 all the time too, theres a theory going around by someone that makes sense, but cant find the damn link at the second.

Ah found it, its only one persons theory, but seems to make sense even if his performance estimations may be miles off.
http://crazyworldofchips.blogspot.com/2011/06/zambezi-es-performance-weirdness.html
 
Last edited:
CAT-THE-FIFTH said:
It seems Llano is launching soon:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LkbdyNO95hA&feature=player_embedded#at=17

The battery life tests compare an i3-2310M with an A8-3500M. The A8 CPU has a 400 shader IGP.

Both are 35W CPUs:

http://ark.intel.com/Product.aspx?id=52220

http://www.cpu-world.com/CPUs/K10/AMD-A8-Series A8-3500M.html
Click to expand...

Lasts longer at Idle, last longer under load, though they did do a gpu load(but with a bigger gpu thats still impressive), is faster in several things, is smoother in several things. Intel still has some 24fps bug though I can't remember the specifics and not sure how important it is in reality, they have a lot of playback quirks though as shown.

Thing is, will AMD market it right, will they make a good enough profit on it, will people buy AMD when their marketing is often pap?

The trouble with being a process behind is die size and cost/profit at any given die size which generally dictates performance. Intel have been selling smaller chips for higher prices with WAY higher margins for a long time now.

Llano certainly looks good though and if Bulldozer turns out to be a beast, the next gen Llano is already in the works with Bulldozer cores rather than older cores, which should bring performance up all around.

Its still worth noting that Intel/AMD actually rate TDP differently, as do ARM, and Nvidia, and anyone else :p

I'm trying to remember what the comparison was, was it a 18W ontario using less power most of the time than a 9W Atom. largely because in say video playback the Atom is burning its entire power usage to get something done while the AMD chip is using hardware decoding and a fraction of the power, they were surprisingly close in many other area's aswell. In reality AMD's TDP's seem to be worst case scenario while Intel's are generally average. I would actually think both 35W chips are actually very different in reality, with the Intel chip having better power saving tech and being a higher power chip, but AMD being the better APU and therefore faster while also using less power.
 
Last edited:
i read about them using coreboot but it says UEFI for the am3+ boards so it looks as though bulldozer won't be using coreboot by default?
 
Yup llano will give intel something to think about, well they probably already have ;) but its good that there will be competition there to incorporate decent gpu's into lower end machines/devices, also meaning it will reduce power consumption and longer battery life for said devices :)
As for the bulldozer results... saw one side by side on the net v a 2500k, both at 4ghz, will say that BD wasnt impressive but will still compete as it was an engineering chip.
 
davieg said:
Plus they could be intentionally Gimped to prevent leaks and such. Although maybe this will persuade AMD to release abit more performance info now, if people are actually starting to think these are actually representative of BD performance, and by the sounds of it some people actually are, which surprises me to be honest as why the hell would they design a whole new architecture and it only be just over half the performance of their older arch.

Is there any significance in the TDP being at 186 all the time too, theres a theory going around by someone that makes sense, but cant find the damn link at the second.

Ah found it, its only one persons theory, but seems to make sense even if his performance estimations may be miles off.
http://crazyworldofchips.blogspot.com/2011/06/zambezi-es-performance-weirdness.html
Click to expand...


Engineering samples have nothing disabled. But we target lower frequencies because that improves the yield. Having more chips to work with is infinitely better than having fewer faster chips - it is how the business works.

Anyone trying to make assumptions from engineering sample results will be wrong. I don't understand why everyone is still trying to read the tea leaves on ES results, especially if they are probably not even real.
 
JF-AMD said:
Engineering samples have nothing disabled. But we target lower frequencies because that improves the yield. Having more chips to work with is infinitely better than having fewer faster chips - it is how the business works.

Anyone trying to make assumptions from engineering sample results will be wrong. I don't understand why everyone is still trying to read the tea leaves on ES results, especially if they are probably not even real.
Click to expand...

We need to do something to gauge performance we've been waiting for, for 6 years.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom