It didn't seem worth starting a new thread and people were already talking about llano in here. Anyway with nothing new released about bulldozer this thread would die without llano
Not at all people would find something to argue about.
-
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!
- Thread starter AceTK
- Start date
Not at all people would find something to argue about.
Is Llano coming out on AM3+? I thought it had a new socket.
Nope, the new socket is called FM1
Soldato
- Joined
- 22 Mar 2009
- Posts
- 7,754
- Location
- Cornwall
ok my bad, i just assumed as everyone was cpmpairing it to BD it was the same technology.
Soldato
- Joined
- 22 Mar 2009
- Posts
- 7,754
- Location
- Cornwall
so why are people banging on about BD being rubbish based on something that is completly different? im proper confused now
As am I, and as are most people who know they are different.
Only a couple of months left to wait now anyway
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Sep 2009
- Posts
- 30,294
- Location
- Dormanstown.
If AMD were able to bring out chips with performance, you'd figure Llano would also be able to.
Llano isn't much special, just buy a 5570 and athlon II X4 for the same price?
Caporegime
- Joined
- 9 Nov 2009
- Posts
- 25,352
- Location
- Planet Earth
Llano isn't much special, just buy a 5570 and athlon II X4 for the same price?
It would cost more and consume more power??
Even a cheaper and slower HD4650 DDR2 and an Athlon II X4 640 would cost around £110. An HD5570 GDDR3 and an Athlon II X4 640 would cost around £120.
Last edited:
Caporegime
- Joined
- 9 Nov 2009
- Posts
- 25,352
- Location
- Planet Earth
HardOCP is going to preview Bulldozer on the 16th of July:
http://hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1612784
http://hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1612784
Associate
- Joined
- 4 Dec 2008
- Posts
- 1,812
If this is true, I sure won't be upgrading lol.
Finally some real results and I hope people are going to put it under l2n to give us a idea how well it clocks.
Soldato
- Joined
- 22 Mar 2009
- Posts
- 7,754
- Location
- Cornwall
If AMD were able to bring out chips with performance, you'd figure Llano would also be able to.
Llano isn't much special, just buy a 5570 and athlon II X4 for the same price?
but why?
im pretty sure the Llano was all about power consumption and offering something for non gaming needs. so why release a silly powered chip that goes against all of this?
it would cost more to by equivilant parts seperatly, and they would generate more heat and more power consumption, which kind of defeats the purpose of having a low powered pc surely?? so if AMD can release the Llano chip that actually meet these requirements, then whats to say bulldozer wont meet its requirements, being their power/performance chip?
would it not of been the same as assuming that sandybridge, or the skt 1156/1366 chips were going to be rubbish based on the intel atom benchmarks?
Last edited:
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Sep 2009
- Posts
- 30,294
- Location
- Dormanstown.
Llano's TDP is 100W for the higher model, the 2500k's only 95W...
Is Llano still 45nm?
Is Llano still 45nm?
Last edited:
Llano's 32nm. I wonder what causes the high TDP of the top two models, the "lesser" options have 45W and 65W and it's still quad-cores, still the same 6550 GPU.
The GPU frequency on the low-end model is taken down quite a bit though, guessing it's the same for the CPU.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Sep 2009
- Posts
- 30,294
- Location
- Dormanstown.
Like the new BD chips, one octo is 125W, the other octo is 95W :S
Llano's 32nm. I wonder what causes the high TDP of the top two models, the "lesser" options have 45W and 65W and it's still quad-cores, still the same 6550 GPU.
The GPU in the LLano is vastly more capable than the one in Sandy Bridge ... it was frequently acheiving 50-200% higher frame rates in tests. Hence the difference. Also, Intel's TDP vis a vis AMD's is misleading. Intel's tends to be best possible case, AMD's worst case. Hence why in battery life tests (particularly under heavy load) the mobile LLanos actually outperformed significantly or matched similar Sandy Bridge stuff. Judging by LLano, AMD's 32nm process is pretty damned good.
I'm not comparing Llano to SB, I'm just wondering if there's something other than a difference in clock causing the rather large gap in TDP between low-end Llano and the higher-end models as they're all running the same silicon as far as I can tell.