no live streaming?
Printable View
no live streaming?
I tried Gnash, and it seemed that for example speedtest.net isn't working. Same with youtube videos, just a blank black screen with no controls. Gnash 0.8.8 with Firefox 3.6.8 and 32-bit up to date ArchLinux. I tried restarting Firefox after the installation with no success.Quote:
Originally Posted by nn_step
But yeah, I guess this is somewhat offtopic. ;
It isn't supposed to beat SB. It's targeted at the same segment as Atom.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mech0z
With 18W TDP? Actually this is the area of ULV Clarckdales & upcoming ULV SB. I wonder why ppl think bobcat can run fanfree having 9-18W TDP.Quote:
Originally Posted by -Boris-
I think AMD will compete with price in SB ULV market and compete with performance in Atom market.Quote:
Originally Posted by kl0012
But I got impression that AMD wont complete with performance in SB ULV market and yet to be seen how AMD will complete with Atom in netbook market (with such TDP).Quote:
Originally Posted by qcmadness
AMD current gen mobile platform:Quote:
Originally Posted by kl0012
x2 L625 (18W), 780G + SB710 (11.5W+4.5W)
AMD next gen mobile platform:
Ontario (9W), Hudson M1 / D1 (~6W)
Zacate (18W), Hudson M1 / D1 (~6W)
Intel Atom mobile platform:
Atom D51x - Pineview (13W), NM10 (2W)
Intel Core ULV platform:
i3-330UM - Clarsdale (18W), Ibex Peak (3.5W)
It's pretty simple really. 9W for netbook, 18W for notebook.Quote:
Originally Posted by kl0012
It's quite extraordanary that they can get that kind of performance out of such a puny package. lol
http://img10.imageshack.us/img10/9717/hand2n.jpg
Atom is really losing the edge it really had. This is Intel's weakest space because they have really stopped innovating in it.
The TDP(which relates to power but not is actual power consumption) of these atoms is really getting up there and the SU9600 is really what type of performance and wattage envelope they should be at this point. 1.6ghz dual core that consumes 10watts. On 32nm, it would be smaller than Ontario, likely perform just as good if not better.
"Llano will arrive at the end of Q2 2011"
http://www.anandtech.com/show/3920/a...e-than-core-i5
I am using Lenovo x301 with SU9400 as CPU.Quote:
Originally Posted by tajoh111
The CPU is slow compared with mainstream CPUs.
Of course it is, but it is way faster than atom those.Quote:
Originally Posted by qcmadness
http://www.anandtech.com/show/2932/i...-needs-atom-/6
Twice as fast in most cases.
Ontario isn't going to be crazy fast either.
I don't have much faith in AMD mobile performance.
http://www.anandtech.com/show/3883/t...enom-ii-p920/9
This is one of the most recent reviews of one of their most powerful mobile parts, the quad Phenom II 920.
The performance was super lackluster to say the least.
"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."
I can understand why atom has to be slow. Intel doesn't want to cannibalize their sales anymore than they have already done with the atom.
Luckily AMD doesn't have to worry about such because they don't have that much sales to begin with.
Bolded is nettop platform. N550 has 8.5W TDP. Also Ontario 9W will have lower freq (for cpu and possible for gpu) so lets wait and see how it compares to Atom.Quote:
Originally Posted by qcmadness
?Quote:
Originally Posted by kl0012
Did you not read.? Out of order execution bro.. with amd GPU. Atom is pointless now.
Phenom always had the lack of IPC against intel, this is clearly shown in the mobile parts exactly the reason for AMD to bring a new platform.Quote:
Originally Posted by tajoh111
Oh and regarding performance, if you want to base yourself on some synthetic performance, sure an i3 will do fine, but actually working multithreaded on a laptop I am sure you will ditch that i3 very fast,it also totally knocks down ANY i3 when running games...
http://www.anandtech.com/show/3883/t...enom-ii-p920/5
But it's matched by i3s in multi-core Cinebench and x264 encoding, applications that scale well to 4 or more threads.Quote:
Originally Posted by duploxxx
That's only because low-end i3s are paired with low-end video cards.Quote:
it also totally knocks down ANY i3 when running games...
http://www.anandtech.com/show/3883/t...enom-ii-p920/5
And what you think that integrated gpu is?Quote:
Originally Posted by accord99
I don't recall the HD 5650 being an integrated GPU.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mechanical Man
Integrated in upcoming intel low-end laptop cpus..Quote:
Originally Posted by accord99
U seem a tad lost..Quote:
Originally Posted by accord99
So what if it has OoO? What is this - a new AMD mantra or what? There are many other factors have influence on performance (freq, mem/cache speed, number of threads e.t.c).Quote:
Originally Posted by Xoulz
i3s go in cheaper laptops or smaller laptops that aren't usually suitable for better discrete video cards. On the other hand the i5-430m with the HD 5650 does give a glimpse of what the i3 could do, if somebody paired it with a better video card.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mechanical Man
nice move from amd, hah :D
18W sounds perfect... thats CULV tdp...
cinebench and x264 are known to work very well with HTQuote:
Originally Posted by accord99
And thats bad? :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by duploxxx
Yes it could do, my point was entirely that amd offering is more balanced than intel one.Quote:
Originally Posted by accord99
Nice to see the details emerging, i would like to point out that the 3mm^2 space allotted to video recoding engine as one of the highlights of the architecture. The amount of flexibility Sandy Bridge offers to mix and match is bound less. Ivy Bridge will improve on this and as i had stated earlier Q4 2011 is when u'll see the Ivy's.
Another thing that i wanted to put into perspective is that the llano video recoding capability maybe more flexible "Using the GPU cluster" but it would not be much faster than SNB that is even if it can match SNB's performance level.
Nvidia should open up CUDA for all that is the only way Nvidia can fight this war or else Intel will add specific function hardware for specific things and this is what flexibility is all about.
http://images.anandtech.com/reviews/...ewheatsink.jpg
That looks minuscule lol the SNB i was given had a water cooler then again that was a 8c and 4-5 months ago.
Which is ironically the oposite of what intels future vision of x86 is.. :p:Quote:
Originally Posted by ajaidev
SB-EN is still 12months away, enough time to get the power down. :p:Quote:
Originally Posted by ajaidev
SB is pretty impressive indeed.
nice photos
Those cores are so friggin huge compared to anything else. The equivalent of the muscle car. :)
or for me to Bulldozer chip (like more AMD) :)
Error.Quote:
Originally Posted by qcmadness
Turion II X2 Neo K665 1.7Ghz 15w 45nm (based in Athlon II) + 880G / HD4225 DX10.1
L625 is an ancient cpu based in k8 brisbane 65nm. Need an update in cpu's history.
huge compared to anything else except the chips that are hugerQuote:
Originally Posted by savantu
Someone asked for the presentation vids:
Overview:
http://intelstudios.edgesuite.net/id..._SPCS001/f.htm
Details (SB itself, GPU, QPI)
http://intelstudios.edgesuite.net/id..._ARCS001/f.htm
http://intelstudios.edgesuite.net/id..._ARCS002/f.htm
http://intelstudios.edgesuite.net/id..._ARCS003/f.htm
AVX presentation is also somewhere tehre but can't find it right now... :p
Makes me wonder, are we really going to see 8-cores with chips that big?
Unless.. MCM.
/speculates
OT: Could anyone tell me what that other chip on Westmere is? Anyone that cares enough to do a die-size estimate of SB?
Sandy Bridge is still smaller than Nehalem.
That Westmere chip is a Clarkdale. The GPU and memory controller are one chip, the cores and cache are the other chip.Quote:
Originally Posted by blindbox
Well, the SB die size was rumored to be 225 mm2 while each core is about 20 mm2. So looking at SB die shoot we my assume IGP & 8Mb L3 are ~50mm2 each (even without exact measurement). So 8xCore SB shoulde be roughly:Quote:
Originally Posted by blindbox
4xCore SB - IGP + 12M L3 + 4 cores = 225-50+75+80 = 320 mm2.
6 core westmere is 248 mm2, 4 core linnfield is 296 mm2
I was thinking of photoshop when I said an estimate. :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by kl0012
We need jaredpace here.
I can't see that cooler being too terribly effective, even at stock clocks (assuming that the heatsink on the right is the same size as an e8400 stock heatsink)Quote:
Originally Posted by ajaidev
Found it on amdzone.com:
http://www.amdzone.com/phpbb3/viewto...189875#p189877Quote:
I've just played some Batman AA on the Mobility 5470 for a while (same 1024x768, high as Anand) I found it ran at a solid 30fps, dropping only to 23fps and sometimes hitting 38fps.
This was with the 5470 512MB GDDR3 and Phenom II X3 1.8GHz
Do these results say anything about the number of SP's in Zacate?
Obviously, this system has an advantage with the mobile Phenom II X3 and dedicated GPU memory (GDDR3 1600MHz effective), so taking that into account does it look like Zacate is 80SP?
Off topic, it's nice to see that this low end 5470 can do some damage! 30fps avg on high, not bad!
EDIT:
I just ran Batman AA with the same settings on the ATI 4250. The results this time we more like Zacate, hovering around 16fps dropping to 12fps. I'm sure you know, but ATI 4250 is 40SP
I know that zacate has less mem BW and lower clock but wasn't it worth to reduce number of SPs (save die area) and increase clock speed and mem BW (which would help to CPU as well)? After all (if i remember correctly) 790GX has 15W TDP and adding two "sub 1W" cores would bring it to ~18W.
80 low clocked SPs is more efficient than 40 high clocked SPs
also 790gx is based on 55nm, so why even compare tdp
you cannot compare a discrete GPU with dedicated memory to an on-die gpu which uses the system ram. also probably the frequency of the gpu from Zacate is lower than the freq of the retail 5470.
So the results probably are comparable with an underclocked 5470, with low freq DDR2 , but such a card probably does not exist.
You're wrong. The power consumption delta between let say 700Mhz and 500 MHz (assuming the same voltage) is much less then power consumption of additional 40SP (here you should add a leakage into equation)Quote:
Originally Posted by Manicdan
Dosn't it contradicts your statement? Potentially 40nm 790GX would have even lower TDP.Quote:
also 790gx is based on 55nm, so why even compare tdp
/off topic
A new hero is born in france :
http://www.lalsace.fr/fr/region/mulh.....-a-velo.html
Just awesome !!!.
//
For moment this idf is really boring ...
IDF is already over... way to spam a thread.. .:rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by madcho
if you look a FPS/Watt your wrong, which is what efficiency is. why do all laptop gpus run at lower clocks (and lower voltages)? cause its more efficient.Quote:
Originally Posted by kl0012
contradict what statement i said? i never made any statements about tdp. your comparing a desktop part based on a 3 year old process, vs something thats coming out shortly on a new process. you saw what AMD did with Deneb to Thuban on per core efficiency, i imagine they got better at making 40nm chips too, especially with idle power draw.Quote:
Originally Posted by kl0012
if your argument is then trying to figure out how much of the TDP is used by the gpu vs the cpu, then good luck, cause theres no way to even know what the actual power draw is right now since u only have a tdp, and keep in mind that ati cards are known for insane heat pulls in furmark and occt, and they might have taken that into consideration instead of going with ideal gaming power draw.
i really suggest just waiting for benchmarks where hopefully you can tell the power cost for the cores vs gpu with a much better guess.
Sry i didn't notice was over, but all info that gave intel was boring, zacate was a more interesting stuff. :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Hornet331
Yeah one partially failed PR event with 2 benchmarks is more interesting then all the background information we got on SB (ľarch improvments, infrastructure improvments etc.), first upcoming P67 boards, Lightpeak, display over USB 3.0, date on SB release, Tunnel Creek ... :rolleyes: :ROTF:Quote:
Originally Posted by madcho
Did someone like Anad get to play with some SB chips? Where are the benchmarks?Quote:
Originally Posted by Hornet331
But no numbers. Seems like you're more susceptible to hype than all of us.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hornet331
Lol did you miss last month? :ROTF:Quote:
Originally Posted by MrMojoZ
We already knew befor IDF how it performs (more or less) but not what or how they did it.
No I saw those, I was referring to the events. The Zacate info was interesting because it is the first time we had real numbers. The Intel stuff was nice to know info, but numbers off new stuff is going to win. Just like if Intel had released hands on benches of a new product during a AMD PR/General info event, guess which would be more interesting there? Look beyond the brand names.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hornet331
Mabye if the would have shown more then 2 gpus tests, thats not even a preview more like a sneak peak. Now if amd would have done the same as intel (hand on by a independent reviewer) we weould have a story.Quote:
Originally Posted by MrMojoZ
amd gave it to anand to play with, how is that not good enough?
Those were not sanctioned by Intel, NDA is NDA mine has not expired and i am quite sure that neither has Anand's. Its more likely he nicked/borrowed the processor off someone.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hornet331
Also the whole i dont know the Sandy Bridge Architecture details is a fact of this.
Oh please, Anand independent? He may be unbiased but he's very much dependent. Having a hands on review of Intels every upcoming, still embargoed CPU is now independence?Quote:
Originally Posted by Hornet331