AMD Fusion Info Thread

[Cloudfire]

That`s gonna be one sucky sucky laptop and CPU. 40% of the amount of Radeon cores that the Quads have + lower clocked
But then again, it is only 400 bucks lol

[abaddon4180]

That`s gonna be one sucky sucky laptop and CPU. 40% of the amount of Radeon cores that the Quads have + lower clocked
But then again, it is only 400 bucks lol

Exactly. The IGP should still be around that of SB and the processor is enough for most That is what AMD is trying to do.

[soguxu]

Why will Llano have to ramp up its speed much more often?

Because it's a lot slower than a Sandy Bridge clock per clock, and SB gives more FLOPS per watt consumed. K10 will have to burn more power to do the same computation as the SB. If both are left idling with nothing else, the results would be around the same.

It does say resting battery life in the slides and AMD defines that as idle battery life, or MobileMark2007. They may have done some stacking, like giving the Intel notebook a discrete GPU or raising its brightness, but it is doubtful because the people who saw this presentation more than likely had access to the footnotes the slides mention.

You have zero evidence of this and the word mobilemark 2007 does not come up even once. However, every company spins the truth to their favor in their marketing. I know I'll be right when Llano comes out and benchmarks are released though.

For one, the E-350 would be more than enough for the average consumer. That is not what we are talking about here, though. We are talking about Llano, which is way faster than Zacate.

If the E-350 is more than enough for the average consumer, why does AMD bother with Llano in the first place? Maybe you'd like to admit that CPU power matters more than you think.

Llano offers enough power that you would be hard pressed to notice the difference in day-to-day tasks with SB. The only time there will be a major difference is when doing CPU intensive tasks, such as video encoding.

I notice the difference from C2D to SB i5 every day, it's a big difference. Llano is going to be C2D level.

[Cloudfire]

Exactly. The IGP should still be around that of SB

Now you are just guessing.

[abaddon4180]

Because it's a lot slower than a Sandy Bridge clock per clock, and SB gives more FLOPS per watt consumed. K10 will have to burn more power to do the same computation as the SB. If both are left idling with nothing else, the results would be around the same.

Under light use the difference in power consumption is going to be negligible, however. Especially if Llano can completely shut off parts of the APU that aren't in use. Under heavy usage I am sure that SB will beat Llano in battery life. With normal web-surfing, I think they will be close.

You have zero evidence of this and the word mobilemark 2007 does not come up even once. However, every company spins the truth to their favor in their marketing. I know I'll be right when Llano comes out and benchmarks are released though.

A couple of years ago AMD was all over the place trying to get manufacturers to advertise active time battery life as well as MobileMark2007 figures, which they called resting time. There are a lot of places you can read about this

Why Your Laptop's Batteries Die So Fast - Newsweek

Mobile Mark 2007 | Home Blog

And, like I said, we don't have the footnotes that the slides refer to because these slides were leaked early. When the footnotes are made available I know I'll be right and that they did use MobileMark 2007.

If the E-350 is more than enough for the average consumer, why does AMD bother with Llano in the first place? Maybe you'd like to admit that CPU power matters more than you think.

I think it matters less than you think. That is why the netbook and tablet markets have grown so much recently. At this moment, I stand by the statement that the E-350 is enough for most people. In the future that may not be true, which is why companies continue to try and advance their technology. There is also the competition side of things. If Intel moves their technology forward, AMD has to do the same or they will go under.

I notice the difference from C2D to SB i5 every day, it's a big difference. Llano is going to be C2D level.

Really? Because when doing light-to-moderate web-surfing I can't even notice a difference between my E-350 and my previous i5. When I get to heavy flash pages or start running a lot of applications at once, I start to notice a difference but I didn't between my N970 and an i5.

Now you are just guessing.

Based on the fact that it has twice as many SPs as the E-350, which is about half as good as the HD 3000, yes.

[granyte]

Don't know how the C-50 will handle Starcraft 2 but you might find your answers in one of these threads:

AMD C-50 CPU and 6250 GPU performance(Acer 522 review)

Acer Aspire One 522 Owners Lounge [AMD Fusion Netbook]



AMD Trinity will be Bulldozer based mobile APU and it's due out in 1H 2012. They may also use the new 4-way GPU arch on the IGP.

i'll be waiting for the E-350 the c-50 fropping to 6-7 fps in the third mission is a llittle to far for me

thanks for the links and info

[soguxu]

Under light use the difference in power consumption is going to be negligible, however. Especially if Llano can completely shut off parts of the APU that aren't in use. Under heavy usage I am sure that SB will beat Llano in battery life. With normal web-surfing, I think they will be close.

A lot of ifs and buts in that statement. People have more applications and more tabs in their browser open at one time than you realize. In those cases AMD mobile CPU's fall short.

And, like I said, we don't have the footnotes that the slides refer to because these slides were leaked early. When the footnotes are made available I know I'll be right and that they did use MobileMark 2007.

I guarantee they stacked the deck in AMD's favor just like that other demo a few months ago where they were watching a movie, doing 3D modeling and playing a game at the same time 3D acceleration beyond what SB (or even E-350) offers is a tiny niche in PC computing.

I think it matters less than you think. That is why the netbook and tablet markets have grown so much recently. At this moment, I stand by the statement that the E-350 is enough for most people.

Actually, people who bought netbooks the first round are realizing its inadequacies and moving to CULV's, which are faster than the Atom or the E-350.

Really? Because when doing light-to-moderate web-surfing I can't even notice a difference between my E-350 and my previous i5. When I get to heavy flash pages or start running a lot of applications at once, I start to notice a difference but I didn't between my N970 and an i5.

I have an SSD so the slow speed of a traditional hard drive doesn't mask the actual responsiveness of the system and it becomes CPU bound. I also run a Virtual Machine as just another application window on my system along with office apps and firefox. The speed improvement from C2D to i5 was very noticable. That said, if I had a mechanical HDD, I'm sure it wouldn't be very noticable since everything would be waiting for it.

[tilleroftheearth]

...
That said, if I had a mechanical HDD, I'm sure it wouldn't be very noticable since everything would be waiting for it.

Actually, it would be more noticeable. A faster cpu makes every component faster too (like a HDD or an SSD).

[soguxu]

Actually, it would be more noticeable. A faster cpu makes every component faster too (like a HDD or an SSD).

How does a faster CPU make a faster HDD? It doesn't increase the spindle speed or the data density. Since I replaced my DVD with a second HDD, I tried installing a second win7 partition to it. It was so painfully slow that I gave up and deleted the partition and created it on my SSD Similarly, my C2D came with a mechanical HDD and it was also dog slow until I replaced it with my SSD.

[abaddon4180]

A lot of ifs and buts in that statement. People have more applications and more tabs in their browser open at one time than you realize. In those cases AMD mobile CPU's fall short.

One 'if' and no 'buts', to be honest. Even if Llano can't completely shut down parts of the APU not being used, under light use the difference in consumption between it and SB will be almost nothing.

I guarantee they stacked the deck in AMD's favor just like that other demo a few months ago where they were watching a movie, doing 3D modeling and playing a game at the same time 3D acceleration beyond what SB (or even E-350) offers is a tiny niche in PC computing.

All I can say is that we will see. It would be pretty pointless of them to stack the deck like you think but then but the system details where the people they gave the presentation to had access to them

Actually, people who bought netbooks the first round are realizing its inadequacies and moving to CULV's, which are faster than the Atom or the E-350.

I disagree. There are very few notebooks that feature SB CULV processors and there weren't that many with Arrandale CULV, either. C2D, specifically the SU7300, saw the most sales among Intel CULV but the sales have just gone down since then. If anything I think more people are moving to Atom and Zacate because they realize that is all they need and it is cheaper.

I have an SSD so the slow speed of a traditional hard drive doesn't mask the actual responsiveness of the system and it becomes CPU bound. I also run a Virtual Machine as just another application window on my system along with office apps and firefox. The speed improvement from C2D to i5 was very noticable. That said, if I had a mechanical HDD, I'm sure it wouldn't be very noticable since everything would be waiting for it.

For one, most people aren't running VM's. Second of all, I guess you are different from me. then. I have used a notebook with an i5 and the Seagate Momentus XT and used the same drive is an SU7300 machine, and I did not feel any difference in day-to-day operations.