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.
But yeah, I guess this is somewhat offtopic. ;
AMD current gen mobile platform:
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.
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
Of course it is, but it is way faster than atom those.
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.
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.
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.
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
nice move from amd, hah :D
18W sounds perfect... thats CULV tdp...
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.
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) :)
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.
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:
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
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)
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 ...
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.
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.
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.
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:
Lol did you miss last month? :ROTF:
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.
amd gave it to anand to play with, how is that not good enough?