Btw:
http://images.anandtech.com/graphs/5...3624/21599.png
Means that Zacate gpu perf is something like 790GX-890GX.
Btw:
http://images.anandtech.com/graphs/5...3624/21599.png
Means that Zacate gpu perf is something like 790GX-890GX.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tajoh111
Read the article update at AT.They(AMD) used the drivers via the the manufacturer's website.Newest intel graphics drivers can't be automatically installed due to a known issue.It was just a set of circumstances ,not cheating.
They should have known that from the beginning from the performance and corrected it, as Anand saw it. They just happened to have convenient driver issues and didn't see it until Anand saw it? What the point of running a broken platform?Quote:
Originally Posted by informal
For the guys at AMD setting up this test, its like sending a kids town with a knife in it. They should have caught the error or in this case, they let the error slide to inflate numbers.
They should have seen the problem earlier and fixed it. These guys are not idiots. If they didn't get the problem fixed before hand, they should have used a different platform or laptop.
If Nvidia didn't this, you would be burning them at the stake and not blame driver issues.
And it was a publicly available part. Just highlights the uphill battle intel is going to have with driver issues. That 20 years of developing a high performance, compatable, feature rich and industry standard up to date software stack that ATi and now AMD has shouldn't be taken lightly. Intel's graphics drivers are notoriously woeful.
Intel's graphic drivers for the laste gen gpu are more then OK. I have not experienced any problem with them in my HTPC. Last time I updated gpu drivers was more then half year ago.Quote:
Originally Posted by flippin_waffles
As can be seen,game performance was minimally impacted(practically the same CoH numbers with the new driver).And it's actually intel's fault since it's their platform,their drivers,their responsibility.Users shouldn't have to do manual tricks and acrobatics in order to just get latest graphics drivers running on their laptops.Quote:
Originally Posted by tajoh111
Hopefully not because HD4290 runs at 700mhz and 40 shaders where as the Zacate is suppose to have a 500mhz part with 80 shaders. If a 80 shader @ 500mhz is equal to 40 shader @ 700mhz it points to a lack of optimization , driver issues among others.Quote:
Originally Posted by kl0012
The 5450 is suppose to have 650mhz core clock and 104 GFLOPs theoretical performance. Now that N Body simulation on the Zacate gave 23Gflops can anyone pls test a 5450's N body bench and report the Gflop they get, i dont think it will be close to the 104 mark but most likely be in the lower double digit mark.
We don't even know if this benchmark was planned a month ago when they set up the systems, if it wasn't, there was no issue to detect.Quote:
Originally Posted by tajoh111
And letting Anandtech play around for themselves is a good sign that AMD didn't intended to rig the test.
A 10.1inch display IPS with aluminum chassis...dirrty
I expect it to be 10-25% above 890GX with sideport memory.Quote:
Originally Posted by kl0012
Obviously there will be cases where it can be 2x as fast or 50% slower than 890GX. Still for 18W TDP SoC this is great.
10x7 resolution is impacted more by CPU clocks.Do we know on what platform were these tests done? If it was core2/phenom with ddr3 than these results are not directly comparable.Quote:
Originally Posted by kl0012
I wonder if Catalyst will be available on Zacate also, or just Llano. I doubt AMD would provide overclockability for Zacate, but it would be pretty cool.
Do you really think they knew about it? Isnt it obvious that the 10x difference will make people want to verify it themselves? Why would AMD do that to themselves knowing that they will get caught? I would understand if the difference was 20 - 30 % across the board, but it was an isolated bench with a massive difference due to driversQuote:
Originally Posted by tajoh111
Its an honest mistake and the reason was plausible. Even if Nv did this, it would be understandable if the reason given was the same.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrMojoZ
Haha, I totally called it. I knew someone would be ranting about this. Expect to see more.Quote:
Originally Posted by tajoh111
Regarding your comment on nvidia, when they used a fake card with wooden screws (:ROTF:) they didn't let journalists to check it in person to confirm it's real.Quote:
Originally Posted by tajoh111
AMD let the guys at AT to reinstall the drivers and re-do the tests, to show how open they are. Plenty good for me.
There are other things that has impact on performance like TMU, ROP, memory bandwidth etcQuote:
Originally Posted by ajaidev
There is no more ROP in ATi HD radeon. It's now RBE.
Youre comparing old data, aquired with different platform/drivers and most importantly DIFFERENT CPU.Quote:
Originally Posted by kl0012
So this comparison is invalid, with the exception if the numbers you posted are with some 1.6ghz dual core on single channel memory ;-) (which i highly doubt).
Not to mention, that its not the same walkthrough as in anands preview, diffrent parts of the game can have substantially different performance numbers.We have to wait for some comparable benchmarks.All we know for now that zacate (1.6ghz dual core 80SP) is 40% faster than 2.4ghz clardkale with intels IGP, in that particular instance of a batman run.
Like others have pointed, you are comparing apples to oranges. Let me guess, they used some uber i7 running @3GHz for this bench?Quote:
Originally Posted by kl0012
At lower resolutions, CPU becomes an important factor and the fact that i5 was running at 2.4GHz (50% faster) than Zacate and was still 40% slower speaks volumes.
At lower resolution it is more cpu bound because normally the graphic cards are faster. But as the screenshot indicates, there is a performance drop for each card. This means that the game at that resolution is gpu bound and not cpu bound. (cpu bound would be that the framerates were pretty much even). If we would have the speed of the i5 in that benchmark with those settings we could see how representative it is.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RaV[666]
There's no reason in differentiation between cpu and gpu when looking at zacate because the cpu part is not replaceable. What is the point in fast gpu if cpu can't handle it?Quote:
Originally Posted by SimBy
40% perf advantage over i5-520M is not that great speaking about gpu which is supposed to be in range of HD5450.
AMD just made it so netbooks will have more gaming power than MOST laptops are ever getting, why, because so many people buy a laptop with super low end graphics, and this is higher than any IGP to date?
why get so mad? why try to make it seem weaker than it really is? its 80SPs and i hope it can OC with CCC like any other amd gpu can, and 80SPs is > 40, thats a fact
No one get mad about, but if we can speak about Intel's "unbalanced" cpu/igp configs, why can't we speak about "unblalnced" AMD configs? AMD did not demonstrated perf of the cpu part of zacate which rises some concern. Reading this thread i got impression that some ppl think that the main purpose of small and thin notebooks is to play 3d games.Quote:
Originally Posted by Manicdan
testing of a mobile platform is much less important on max perf, but total perf done with a fixed energy costQuote:
Originally Posted by kl0012
since that system is not a retail product, there will be no way to get an accurate total power consumption number, and then theres no way know what kind of battery life you get with the 1.x ghz they tested. amd is pushing for alot of the heavy stuff to be done by a gpu for a reason. what kind of tasks would you be running that are better with 3ghz vs 2? however you would notice if applications are choppy because there simply isnt enough power to run them.
The id that the cpu would be in range of the 5450 is hokum.Quote:
Originally Posted by kl0012
5450 specs:
Radeon 5450 512MB DDR3
Stream Processors 80
Graphics Core Clock Speed 650MHz
Texture Units 8 8
Texture Fill-rate 5.2 Gigatexels/sec
ROPs 4
Pixel Fill-rate 2.6 Gpixels/sec
Memory Clock Speed 800MHz
Memory Interface 64-bit
Memory Bandwidth 12.8GB/sec
Typical Board Power 19.2W
Lets asume the rumour was true that gpu in zacate ran @ 500MHz, that is 150MHz or 24% less.
Memory Bandwtih 12.8GB/s. What is the bandwidth on Zacate? (and that is shared) + the latency.
Zacate was made to be as low power as possible while still having decent graphics. Like previous poster said, they give 40% higher gaming performance with 50% of the energy consumption (on cpu level) compared to the current notebooks out there without a dedicated card. Just like SB is a revelation in ondie gpu performance for desktops and high-end notebooks, Zacate is that for the low power market.
edit: I believe Zacate is powered towards gpu enhancments for applications (flash, HD, ..) and keep the power consumption as low as possible for those. That was the primary design of the APU, having another type of calculation unit that can be used to handle certain tasks at a much higher speed. Considering their gpu supports dx11, opencl etc developers have the opportunity to optimize their applications for these things. (wether that will happen is a whole different story)