AMD Fusion APU Llano Multi-Tasking Demo

ianken said:
Translation: Intel integrated graphics still suck.
Click to expand...

yeah for real. Fusion still looks sweet to me. Maybe a APU in my wife's new computer...but not all that interesting to a real gamer.
 
Put an Nvidia graphics card in the Intel machine, and lets see if it's the same results?
 
Ashbringer said:
Put an Nvidia graphics card in the Intel machine, and lets see if it's the same results?
Click to expand...

..with nearly twice the power draw? No thanks.

This looks like a nice integrated platform for basic systems. It should translate well for mobile units.

If this is the kind of efficiency AMD is able to put out now for low-cost units, I wonder what we're looking at for BD?
 
Ashbringer said:
Put an Nvidia graphics card in the Intel machine, and lets see if it's the same results?
Click to expand...

Intel: Now only good if you get somebody else's product to go with it?

Pretty neat stuff, thought it was funny when they switched to excel and the Intel's power draw dropped straight down. I guess sandy bridge is really boss at spreadsheets.
 
If this is any indication of what Bulldozer will bring I think AMD will finally be back int he races. I'm awaiting an upgrade right now, and I want to see some benchmarks from sites liek this one, Tomshardware, Anandtech and Xtremesystems.
 
Llano is still months away from any retail availability right? Last I remember reading was maybe late summer.
 
quicksilver98 said:
If this is any indication of what Bulldozer will bring I think AMD will finally be back int he races. I'm awaiting an upgrade right now, and I want to see some benchmarks from sites liek this one, Tomshardware, Anandtech and Xtremesystems.
Click to expand...

The only problem is that Bulldozer seems on track to arrive just in time for LGA 2011.

Also, for anyone to post benchmarks AMD has to provide hardware (after you sign a LOT of NDA paperwork) and give permission (per previously mentioned paperwork) to release said benchmarks. I could have a Bulldozer platform sitting right next to me and I wouldn't be able to tell you anything about it unless AMD says so, unless I was in the mood for some nice legal action...
 
I'm thinking this would be an awesome replacement for my aging AMD64 x2 5000+ HTPC with it's pitifully slow Geforce 210.

I was considering the Core i3, but I'm constantly hesitating because some people report annoying issues with it's refresh rate or something.
 
AMD seriously needs a shot in the arm, I loved them as the CPU underdog and Fell in love with my first sweet Athlon K7V system however the Core family of processors is just... the bee's knees.
 
it sucks you can't have the best of both.

amd sucks in cpu power. intel sucks in graphics power.
 
Why did the AMD 3d car model not have any texture on the outside and the intel one seemed to have at leas flames?
 
I absolutely love that they believe you are doing those tasks all at the same time. Watching a video, playing an MMO, rendering 3D models and working in a heavy loaded excell sheet. And all on a non-producton-like machine. I know, lets find something AMD doesnt do that someone else does (say VIA) and trumpet that AMD are fails.
 
AtkinS said:
Translation: lets add 40 watts to the system!
Click to expand...

And exactly when was the last time anyone in here bought a system with power efficiency in mind? :p

The [H]ard way is to maximize the performance regardless of power and noise. :p

AMD's low power units will be great for laptops and the like, but for us power users in here, whatever performs the best - not with integrated graphics, but with a dedicated standalone video card will win. :p
 
Llian said:
I absolutely love that they believe you are doing those tasks all at the same time. Watching a video, playing an MMO, rendering 3D models and working in a heavy loaded excell sheet. And all on a non-producton-like machine. I know, lets find something AMD doesnt do that someone else does (say VIA) and trumpet that AMD are fails.
Click to expand...

They're just examples. You don't necessarily HAVE to execute multiple non-productive apps at the same time.
 
Zarathustra[H];1036914753 said:
And exactly when was the last time anyone in here bought a system with power efficiency in mind? :p

The [H]ard way is to maximize the performance regardless of power and noise. :p

AMD's low power units will be great for laptops and the like, but for us power users in here, whatever performs the best - not with integrated graphics, but with a dedicated standalone video card will win. :p
Click to expand...

Then why do all [H] reviews show both power use and noise levels and rate the products at least partially based on that?
 
Mr. Bluntman said:
FTFY.

No GPU from NVDA worth a salt from the past two years is only going to use 40 watts.
Click to expand...

laptop gpu's...
50W in a laptop is alot! lliano targets laptops, not [H] Systems, thats what we have ivy and bulldozer for.
alltho, would be cool to see if this can even compete with sandy on the cpu side!, doubt it tho.
 
Zarathustra[H];1036914753 said:
And exactly when was the last time anyone in here bought a system with power efficiency in mind? :p

The [H]ard way is to maximize the performance regardless of power and noise. :p

AMD's low power units will be great for laptops and the like, but for us power users in here, whatever performs the best - not with integrated graphics, but with a dedicated standalone video card will win. :p
Click to expand...

I have six PCs at my house and my summer utility bill hits $500 easy. Yeah power efficiency is decently important to me. :p
 
That is why when I went to look for a laptop for my wife it had to have at least an ATI/AMD graphics card in it. I wanted an AMD processor too but I settle on the Intel core I5. Yes Intel graphics suck in laptops.
 
dr.kevin said:
it sucks you can't have the best of both.

amd sucks in cpu power. intel sucks in graphics power.
Click to expand...

this.

still I don't need speed in spread sheets as much as I do other things. All the same I would not rule Intel out here, they are going to be doing some serous work on their chips. they know that combining cpu and gpu put them at a real disadvantage (they suck at the part most people see). I don't see them staying in that position.
 
Bottom line, it's not an apples to apples comparison. Of course the system with dedicated graphics does better in graphics tests, or am I the only one who noticed this?
 
jarhead said:
Bottom line, it's not an apples to apples comparison. Of course the system with dedicated graphics does better in graphics tests, or am I the only one who noticed this?
Click to expand...

I suggest you read up on what Fusion actually is.:rolleyes: You also didn't read the spec sheets of the 2 laptops used that was at the end of the video. No dedicated cards listed.

Dedicated graphics = a separate graphics card inserted into an expansion slot.

Integrated graphics = graphics integrated into another piece of the system, already onboard. Always less performance than a dedicated graphics card.

BOTH of these systems use integrated graphics. Both of the integrated graphics are integrated on the CPU die itself (Intel Core i7QM versus AMD Llano Fusion).
 
Benchmark an x264 Blu-Ray encode from a lossless 1080p source, and tell me which one takes less time. Then I'll be impressed.
 
Integrated graphics might as well be called " We spend a lot on our CPU's, but we prefer overall shitty performance, so we'll use this wicked cool onboard graphics"

Systems with C2Q's with graphics that should be on a 486 system, I cry everytime I see it :(
 
Llian said:
I absolutely love that they believe you are doing those tasks all at the same time. Watching a video, playing an MMO, rendering 3D models and working in a heavy loaded excell sheet. And all on a non-producton-like machine. I know, lets find something AMD doesnt do that someone else does (say VIA) and trumpet that AMD are fails.
Click to expand...

The point is they can do it. IE: their integrated GPU won't chug when you load the CPU.

This system would make a good Media Center rig, at least I think it would. AMD doesn't have a great track record with actual video.They love to slather on the avivo "enhancment" whenever they can. Why they thing fuxoreing your video is a selling point is beyond me, but someone must buy it.
 
InorganicMatter said:
Benchmark an x264 Blu-Ray encode from a lossless 1080p source, and tell me which one takes less time. Then I'll be impressed.
Click to expand...

:rolleyes: Yeah. Because that's what everyone does.

The point here is that their cheap, low power integrated solution can crunch every day numbers, do decent GPU duties as well as video and not fall over like a wal-mart hambeast running for the last electric scooter at the door.
 
bigstusexy said:
Why did the AMD 3d car model not have any texture on the outside and the intel one seemed to have at leas flames?
Click to expand...

YA KNOW??!!! Whats up with that?

The intel car's flames did change after about ten seconds to no flames, but that sure does seem pretty shady. (no pun intended)
 
CaptNumbNutz said:
I suggest you read up on what Fusion actually is.:rolleyes: You also didn't read the spec sheets of the 2 laptops used that was at the end of the video. No dedicated cards listed.

Dedicated graphics = a separate graphics card inserted into an expansion slot.

Integrated graphics = graphics integrated into another piece of the system, already onboard. Always less performance than a dedicated graphics card.

BOTH of these systems use integrated graphics. Both of the integrated graphics are integrated on the CPU die itself (Intel Core i7QM versus AMD Llano Fusion).
Click to expand...

You're right, I am not entirely sure that the Radeon 6620m is on a separate board. I guess Intel should just buy Nvidia then? Either way, the test is retarded, if you think any test released by a manufacturer is worth shit, then you're beyond help anyway. :rolleyes:
 
I can't see a reason to choose anything else but the fusion for a carputer or HTPC.

Low power draw + hardware that does what you need makes for a great great combination.

Yes, the people who are willing to lug around batteries that weigh 20+ pounds will probably want some high-end super performance laptop, but for normal people on the go (or people who just need an inexpensive, simple machine powering their HTPC), this is more than enough.
 
ianken said:
:rolleyes: Yeah. Because that's what everyone does.

The point here is that their cheap, low power integrated solution can crunch every day numbers, do decent GPU duties as well as video and not fall over like a wal-mart hambeast running for the last electric scooter at the door.
Click to expand...

You missed the point.

Video encoding is the single best way to isolate and test a CPU's performance. If it can do that well, everything else will follow.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top