AMD Fusion Info Thread

[invisible]

That makes perfect sense then why the Lenovo x120e has an estimated ship date of "more than 4 weeks"!

[Mr_Mysterious]

It seems like my best bet is the HP DM1z, but I'm looking for a notebook with those specs but a smaller chassis (smaller screen too) and a lighter weight.

Any suggestions?

Mr. Mysterious

[Phinagle]

that's great news
now i just need a tablet with a fusion processor and i'll do my effort to suport AMD

If it's available where you live, there's the Acer Iconia Tab W500 that uses the C-50 APU.

[Cloudfire]

Once again, you are assuming that the AMD's only power gating occurs when completely idle.

It does. Well, the CPU can shut down cores when they are not in use when using the computer. The same principle as Intel used ever since Nehalem. The very reason why you get more thermal room to turbo boost two cores more than 4 cores.

You people speak like Llano is some Messiah to the hardware world when infact they come draging behind after Intel have already been there.

[abaddon4180]

Except for the idling figure, those aren't really impressive. Youtube HD is GPU accelerated so that's really not a valid comparison. I'm also sure you're quite exaggerating all of this, since you're very biased towards AMD, because face it, no one cared about the mobile Athlons, and bought them, but it seems you did, and now you're defending them. I on the other hand, use a laptop with both Intel and AMD chips in it, as well as having AMD processors in my desktops before I got rid of them for notebooks.

I bought the dv6z because it only cost me $700 with an AMD 5650, backlit keyboard, bluetooth and an N930 (later upgraded to an N970). An i5-460m version with the same specs would have cost $800-850.

The figures aren't exaggerated at all, either. That is the battery life I got. I admit I may be slightly bias towards AMD but I have owned Intel as well. My AMD notebooks have just been better for me, leading to me liking them better.

Yet no explanation on the rest of the system. Maybe the Intel system had a hot power hungry NVidia GPU idling or had its brightness all the way up.

More than likely it didn't, however, because 6.5 hours with MobileMark2007 is average for a SB system.

It does. Well, the CPU can shut down cores when they are not in use when using the computer. The same principle as Intel used ever since Nehalem. The very reason why you get more thermal room to turbo boost two cores more than 4 cores.

I know how Turbo Boost works. And what I meant is that some of you make it seem like AMD's power gating only occurs when the entire APU is completely idle, not just two cores shut off so the other can run faster. If their power gating technology can shut down cores that aren't in use plus the IGP then I see no reason to believe that Llano can't get the same battery life as SB.

You people speak like Llano is some Messiah to the hardware world when infact they come draging after Intel have already been there.

No one is acting like that but Llano is the perfect platform for a lot of people, as long as AMD comes even close to the claims they are making. Some of you are acting like Llano is crap and shouldn't even bother trying to compete with Intel. Llano wins in price, graphics performance and should be similar or better in battery life. Intel has better processor performance.

Look at it this way. Intel graphics are more than enough for the average consumer and Llano processor power is more than enough for the average consumer, battery life is the same and Llano is cheaper. Why would the average consumer buy Intel? If Llano processor performance is not enough for you then buy Intel.

[soguxu]

I bought the dv6z because it only cost me $700 with an AMD 5650, backlit keyboard, bluetooth and an N930 (later upgraded to an N970). An i5-460m version with the same specs would have cost $800-850.

And it'd have been a much faster and more efficient system. Quote from Anand:

Looking at the AMD processor side of the equation, we again have concerns. The Phenom II P920 packs a quad-core 25W processor into a notebook, which is a first for AMD, but this is counteracted by a slow 1.6GHz clock speed. Intel's i7-720QM has the same base clock speed, but clock-for-clock Intel cores look to be around 33% faster, and Turbo Boost kicks performance up substantially. Sure, Clarksfield also uses more power, but if we look at Intel's mainstream Arrandale parts, Hyper-Threading allows them to perform quite well, to the point where even the slowest non-ULV Arrandale (i3-330M) manages to match multi-threaded performance of the P920, with single-threaded performance clearly besting AMD. And they manage that with similar power draw. What you're looking at then is a quad-core AMD P920 being approximately the equal of Arrandale i3-330M at best; at worst, even Arrandale ULV outperforms the P920 in single-threaded workloads.

Llano is nothing more than that chip plus clock gating and turbo + IGP at 32nm, and it won't be competitive in performance or power, only at idling at desktop.

More than likely it didn't, however, because 6.5 hours with MobileMark2007 is average for a SB system.

You keep saying "but...but..MobileMark2007", but there isn't a single place on any of those slides where they state it's MobileMark 2007 or anything like that. Maybe they're comparing Intel's MobileMark score with their "idling" score. These are marketing slides, so the truth has no business being on there.

Look at it this way. Intel graphics are more than enough for the average consumer and Llano processor power is more than enough for the average consumer, battery life is the same and Llano is cheaper. Why would the average consumer buy Intel? If Llano processor performance is not enough for you then buy Intel.

I can bet you anything that battery life will not be the same for anything except idling. Intel will be better. Why would the average consumer buy a 400 shader Llano? I'm sure an i3 or an i5 with the Intel IGP is better for the average consumer in terms of Windows responsiveness and heavy scripted/flash web page rendering, and battery life.

[abaddon4180]

And it'd have been a much faster and more efficient system. Quote from Anand:

I am not denying the performance difference, but I did not need the speed so why pay extra for it, which is the whole point here. The P920 is also significantly slower than the N930/970 and the i5 dv6 was known for overheating while by AMD version never went over 76C.

Llano is nothing more than that chip plus clock gating and turbo + IGP at 32nm, and it won't be competitive in performance or power, only at idling at desktop.

And improved power gating features. No one is saying it will be close to SB in performance, I don't see why you keep bringing it up. But we have no reason to believe it won't be close in battery life.

You keep saying "but...but..MobileMark2007", but there isn't a single place on any of those slides where they state it's MobileMark 2007 or anything like that. Maybe they're comparing Intel's MobileMark score with their "idling" score. These are marketing slides, so the truth has no business being on there.

AMD defines resting battery life, which they said in the slides, as the use of MobileMark2007. Don't you remember a couple of years ago when they tried to get manufacturers to have battery life estimates for active time as well (link). You can even go look up older posts on AMD's blog in which they argue for more accurate battery life estimates. At least they are honest in the slides and say resting battery life. The slides also say to see the footnotes, which I am sure the journalists they were given to had access to. These are leaked slides, remember? AMD did not want these available yet.

I can bet you anything that battery life will not be the same for anything except idling. Intel will be better. Why would the average consumer buy a 400 shader Llano? I'm sure an i3 or an i5 with the Intel IGP is better for the average consumer in terms of Windows responsiveness and heavy scripted/flash web page rendering, and battery life.

We will see about the battery life, but the average consumer wants to save money. If Llano will do everything that the average consumer wants for cheaper than Intel the question would be why wouldn't they buy Llano.

[granyte]

If it's available where you live, there's the Acer Iconia Tab W500 that uses the C-50 APU.

will the c50 play starcraft 2 on low? at about 30-34 fps that's my only question and i'll be making a purchace in 3 weeks

other wise i'll just wait for the msi windpad 110w wich is rumored to run a 350

[art vandalay]

"If Llano will do everything that the average consumer wants for cheaper than Intel the question would be why wouldn't they buy Llano."

Pretty much why I'm an AMD fan; It gives me what I want for less. I went from a Pentium one to a K6-III+ way back when and have never looked back. Mind you right now Intel no doubt puts out a faster product, as you have said yourself over and over. But I can get what I want for less, so why pay more?

Plus it's always fun rooting for the underdog.

[Cloudfire]

I know how Turbo Boost works. And what I meant is that some of you make it seem like AMD's power gating only occurs when the entire APU is completely idle, not just two cores shut off so the other can run faster. If their power gating technology can shut down cores that aren't in use plus the IGP then I see no reason to believe that Llano can't get the same battery life as SB.

No one is acting like that but Llano is the perfect platform for a lot of people, as long as AMD comes even close to the claims they are making. Some of you are acting like Llano is crap and shouldn't even bother trying to compete with Intel. Llano wins in price, graphics performance and should be similar or better in battery life. Intel has better processor performance.

Look at it this way. Intel graphics are more than enough for the average consumer and Llano processor power is more than enough for the average consumer, battery life is the same and Llano is cheaper. Why would the average consumer buy Intel? If Llano processor performance is not enough for you then buy Intel.

The problem is that Llano can`t shut down the IGP cores. If you use the IGP by doing low demanding stuff like surfing the internet, the cores of the IGP will run at the lowest frequency to use the least power.
And where did you get that a Llano computer is cheaper? You can find crappy Asus/HP/etc. laptops like this one for $679. Newegg.com - ASUS A53 Series A53E-XE2 Notebook Intel Core i5 2410M(2.30GHz) 15.6" 6GB Memory DDR3 1333 640GB HDD 5400rpm DVD Super Multi Intel HD Graphics 3000
You can find laptops with discrete graphics that beat the IGP of Llano hands down for $800, which also have Optimus so you get almost the same battery life. I am not saying that Llano will have worse battery life than Sandy Bridge though. I just pointed out with my earlier post that what Intel already have accomplished, 7 W draw increase from the CPU idle to active, with the second fastest Quad core when watching a movie, is very hard to beat unless you have some serious revolutionary architecture. We don`t know about how good Llano will be in terms of battery life. Guess we will have to wait and see.