http://youtu.be/1YfRh1FBkI4
Nice to see some loose lips:)
Printable View
http://youtu.be/1YfRh1FBkI4
Nice to see some loose lips:)
More like amd hd6620m vs intel hd3000.
Yes,they should use same grafik card for a nice compare!
I think it's more about resource managing ;)
OMG. LOL. NO!Quote:
Originally Posted by JPQY
The comparison is between two cpu+gpu on chip solutions, there is no point using discrete card when showcasing multitasking with systems like that. Its about smoothness of system usage you get with one chip.
why the hell should they do that? cause intel isnt as good as amd when it comes to gpus? i think they should both use the same cpu!!!!!!! :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by JPQY
In other words, the video illustrates Intel's bottlenecks, more so when the i7 leaves the business sector. End-user experience is top notch, no ? More value?
Sorry guys..i see it different.
I see a Sandy Bridge running @3.4Ghz and a Llano @1.8Ghz both @100% right!?
Which system gonne be faster in calculatings..like i'am using Chess.
I can do what i want in my system..single grafik card ,or multi cards..i don't get speed gain..i tested it out!
So this test they have used is more grafik speed depended..
Let them do same test with this Chess test i use..which one gonne be faster you think?!
JP.
The one with the faster GPU, if the software can make use of it.Quote:
Originally Posted by JPQY
+1. That's the problem with the Fusion chips currently software implementation is at the earliest stage.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sherman Tank
@JPQY: nobody is denying that SB has a higher IPC than Llano (= K10.5+) and in this test the SB CPU is even running at much higher clk speeds than the Llano APU. so yes, the SB sys has alot more CPU power than the Llano sys shown here.
but here´s what AMD tries to proof: for most mainstream users, and by that i mean surfing the web, watching videos, listen to music, work on a few pics and do office, the Llano notebook APU does a better job than a SB i7-2600 desktop CPU+GPU combo. just because Llano has enough CPU power for most tasks, while the SB lacks enough GPU power.
and im quiet shure that a quad-core K10.5+ Llano can handel your chess game too.
Without knowing how easy/feasible to do GPU programming for chess and being faster than doing so in CPU, but just give you the benefit of the doubt ... so, do we have it now? If not, by what year you expect/predict this will be there?Quote:
Originally Posted by Sherman Tank
More like a balanced platform vs an unbalanced one.Quote:
Originally Posted by gallag
@w0mbat..i know that and agree with you!
JP.
anyone knows the benchmark software name used in the test? thx
^^ amd is making intel look like a joke in terms of gpu acceleration.
But then again gpu's have never been intel's strong point even when they got help from nvidia to make it "compatible" with stuff lol.
Intel's cpu is still leaps and bounds ahead of amd's though in terms of the load it can handle, mem bandwith.
But amd compete's pretty well clock to clock compared to intel's these days, at least they did comparing i7's with x6's, amd's weren't that far behind in terms of actual cpu performance, but they were a long ways behind in mem performance.
The intel would probably win in that bench if it was written for the fpu, sse or avx.
Reminds me a little bit of the "Kümmel Fractal Benchmark"
Speaking of which, maybe we should do some comparisons with that when the time comes...
is anyone that needs computational power really going to use the on die gpu solutions of either of these chips? i mean, if you need any sort of power like that, wouldnt you build a system designed to have that power?
i guess my point is that the graphics portion of either of these chips is a moot point beyond anything needed to run win7 or flash.... anything else would still require a videocard if you want any type of performance.
wasnt intel all proud and bragging about their cache structure and tweaking? :D
amd seems to handle their cache and bandwidth a lot better, i give them that...
video editing springs to mind.Quote:
Originally Posted by rozzyroz
The more apps that could use OpenCL successfully, the better it is for AMD. If you only need to run flash, win7 and the web, then anything better than an Atom will do. however, people do more than that, even if once in a blue moon.
This is not for ppl like us this is gonna be perfect for my parents/sister and girlfriend :)Quote:
Originally Posted by rozzyroz
Its perfect for me. I dont want to be doing heavy stuff/ gaming on a laptop...:shrug:
Very well said!:up:Quote:
Originally Posted by w0mbat
BUT I will disagree about the AMD system "handling" JP's chess game.
Yes, it will work as would a P1 or AMD equal but at what speed?
Here's how I see it and I'm not trying to be a fanboy:
If you want top end computational power you buy Intel's top end products BUT if you don't need that absolute max cpu power you save yourself a LOT of money and buy AMD.
Read that as probably 85% of the world would do just fine with the AMD and love the system.
I have both here and both wonderfull systems but there are differences in the two companies approach and both serve different segments of the market and each does it well.
Last, think on this:
With the two approaches to "how" to design a processor WE are the lucky ones as we get to choose what is important to us as individuals.
For that we should thank BOTH companies!
I didn't know most people would watch a video, while running a CFD simulation and HyperPi at the same time.Quote:
Originally Posted by w0mbat
In the usage scenario you decribed you probably won't even see a difference between SB an llano (regardless of NB or desktop version), Video acceleration is handeld in both sollution by dedicated logic, that is only a tiny part of the gpu.
And even on flash/html5 sites also get accelarted, so you won't notice it when surfing the web either, or watching videos. When you will see a difference is, when you play games or have software that makes use of the gpu. And that pice of cfd software the used, obviously makes use of it... but most commercial cfd software still don't use gpu accelartion, or if they use it they use vendor specfic language (ansys for example is using cuda and tesla).
After 2 years of hyping what can be done with gpus, and then you look what actually is done, there has nothing really moved for the end consumer, for the professional market the situation is a lot better, but they don't buy fusion, they buy firestream or quadro/tesla to begin with.
This test has nothing to with cache subsystem at all, it just shows that gpu accelerated apps work on a gpu... :p:Quote:
Originally Posted by saaya
Its still impressive to see SB even can output 4fps on the cfd sim with 8 threads of hyperpi running at the same time... while the amd system just crunches 4 threads of hyperpi on the cpu and runs the cfd sim on the gpu.
There is no real supprise that you get bad performance when you run 16 high performance threads at a quadcore at the same time.
But for consumer notebook llano probably will be the better all in one package, since you also get a decent gpu which allowes you to play game at med details @ native resolution.
I don't like this because I wan't AMD to beat Intel, I like this because I wan't AMD to deliver these wonderful products.
AMD's APU is indeed appealing, I am not sure how well Llano will do, I mean.... In my opinion it is too much in between, if having a 80W+ TDP chip it is for a desktop, and you'd likely get a real graphics card anyway....
While Zacata/Brazos is 18W bringing it close to ATOM, and alot less then ATOM+ION - furthermore it beats arse on all the crap nvidia ever dreamed of making..
Then there is the Zambezi / Bulldozer that wont have integrated graphics, and is miles stronger then Llano.... I just dont see the kind of machine that a Llano would fit into... I feel narrow minded here, can you please give me some scenarios?
Llano will be the "bread and butter" chip for amd, so basically thats the cpu you'll find in dell/hp etc. desktops/notebooks.
The large oems love integrated parts, the more the better, since it reduces there costs.
Very artfully said David!:clap:Quote:
Originally Posted by Movieman
Movieman being the "processor related arguments" peacemaker as usual :p:
Llano does not target ppl who need discrete gpu power. BD is for them. Btw, i tought that lowerend of llanos start from 45W some watts for desktop, lower for notebook.Quote:
Originally Posted by M.Beier
An 80W TDP is fine. We're talking about OEM machines here where the customer is going to get integrated graphics or the cheapest discrete the OEM can possibly find. Those customers are going to receive a big boost in capability which is a plus for them and it's a plus for us, since ultimately we're the ones who get conscripted into working on their crap when they inevitably break it by installing Super PC Registry Mechanic Maximum Antivirus 2017 Deluxe Not-A-:banana::banana::banana::banana:-Dialer Edition to make it run faster since they were too cheap to buy a faster unit to begin with. In other words: Par performance for low-end and midrange gear is improving a lot with these products.
The majority of desktops sold don't have graphic cards in them, so I'll disagree with this statement.Quote:
Originally Posted by M.Beier
If things dont change in the software industry and the GPU resource is left underutilized llano will not stand much of a chance against the might of THOR amm scratch that i mean SNB. The thing is that CPU wise Intel has the upper hand and CPU have a long history of computing stuff and running app's but AMD with its new GPU is better than a CPU philosophy cant stand a chance if the GPU does not run all those computing stuff and running app's on its own.
The lack of software support is why i have to return my X120e its the reason why i have to buy a much expensive X220 for the same bit of work that the X120e just could not do. This is no encoding work but the day to day working of a employ who has to present his result in a flashy flash based web presentation.
:rofl:Quote:
Originally Posted by Particle
Well you can try it for free, what's the harm lol :D, except for when you get your phone bill from then on...
:shrug:Quote:
Originally Posted by MrMojoZ
No vga card..., at least it came with a sound card then... beep beep, ah it booted... beep beep.. I'm chatting on facebook.
:)
Latest video on youtube shows Llano dual core @ 0:48 mark vs Zacate E350.
Mobile Llano has model number A4 3300M and IGP has model number 6480. There is roughly 7 watts of difference under full load so my guess is that Llano is 25W mobile part.
Llano has 50% more GPU compute performance than Zacate,meaning it has roughly 80x1.5=120 SPs. CPU cores are also notably faster,even if they run at 1.6Ghz too.Not a bad tradeoff ,7W more power for 50% better GPU and definitely better pure CPU performance.
Yes, I do try to do that but what I said is what I truly feel.Quote:
Originally Posted by h0bbes
Also the title of this thread is a bit misleading as this really isn't about computing power IMO..
More on the video end than cpu..
Any official info about smallest motherboard size for these chips? Just if I can fit one in my Silverstone SG05 (Mini-DTX / Mini-ITX motherboard & SFX PSU compatible) would be a nice small machine for some gaming
ITX should be perfect for theseQuote:
Originally Posted by Mech0z
pair up llano with a 4x pcie slot gpu of about 60$ and you should have a pc thats the size of a console, with better graphics, and runs windows.
full system load should be under 150w for llano + small gpu + all the other parts
Well for my gaming I think the onboard IGP should be plenty, if you want a small gpu you can just get a Ahtlon X4 now?Quote:
Originally Posted by Manicdan
its about pairing up fusion gpu in addition to a dedicated gpu.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mech0z
option A: use llano gpu, games are fun
option B: use llano + dedicated 60$ for 80% more performance, games look great
option C: spend 200$ on a gpu to get speeds 50% faster than hybrid, might aswell be a gaming desktop mid tower.
Why a small GPU? surely Llano's intergrated is already better then any small gpu. The whole platform will fail if it isnt lol.Quote:
Originally Posted by Manicdan
you need to match equal performance for best scalingQuote:
Originally Posted by EvilOne
with ATI cards, if you pair a 6950 with 6970, then its going to scale as if you had 2x 6950s (this is how its been for a while, but i havnt seen any reviews of it recently and not sure how true this still holds)
by small gpu im talking about something with 400 shaders and high clock speeds, so like 5600s
basically the most powerful half height gpu should do perfectly.
I honestly not to sure what the big fuss about Lano is so far.... AMD is really starting to tick me off when they show these demos as they pick as many GPU accelerated apps to show off. Now I realize that they are comparing similar "platforms" and associated costs. for the average home user but the problem is they are not using apps that the home user would use... they are using a wide range of specialty apps that support OpenCL acceleration. a question for everyone on XS....
how many OpenCL apps do you use on a regular basis? I know that I use NONE. in fact I have NEVER used an OpenCL accelerated app for... anything really. And I'm a power user... The chances of an average home user that would be using the type of system demoed, using a single GPU accelerated app (let alone 3) is extremely small. The only apps that I have seen that a home user would use that support GPU based acceleration are based on CUDA.
The part of the picture AMD does not show you however is the CPU based performance. Which I can assure you (unless AMD discovered something magical) is nothing compared to an i7 2600. I think the average home user would notice a much higher performance increase in day to day computing in using a faster CPU system compared to a faster GPU system... the average consumer uses Windows Live Movie maker, IE 9, Windows Live mail and maybe photoshop... none of which support GPU acceleration on AMD based GPU's and all of which will greatly benefit from a faster CPU.
What I do LIKE about fusion however is the gaming potential it provides for cheap people. a 400SP integrated GPU is far better than any integrated GPU form any camp... so that promising. However if you have any type of money you are still be off with even a 5570 1GB card as the RAM bandwidth going into a Lano chips GPU aspect can only be so much... not to mention shared system RAM...
I'm all for AMD making faster integrated GPU's but I think they need to focus more on the CPU performance side first as that was most people are going to notice and want more of...
At the same time, the average home user will hardly see a difference between the speed of any half decent CPU and upward. I'll bet you could replace someone's Athlon X2 with an i7 and they would hardly notice anything since both do a great job at Word and Solitaire :p:
I replaced my parents' old Athlon X2 4400+ with a C2D e8500 which is most certainly faster. My mom totally hasn't noticed a thing lol, and I knew that would happen. But, I knew the e8500 would do much better at WCG than the old X2 4400+ :D
You also bring up a good point. I can tell the difference in day to day tasks (yes I can tell the diff in CPU speed from an AMD system to say an i7 in web browsing) but most people will not... if they fire up Photoshop Elements or Movie maker they sure will though...Quote:
Originally Posted by Sparky
Lol, how much computing power does chess need exactly? and would there be any tangible benefit to upping compute power...Quote:
Originally Posted by ThePointer
How do you tell a difference in web browsing from AMD to Intel? Have you eliminated any other factors in the 2 systems?Quote:
Originally Posted by [XC] hipno650
You can't, once you have a half decent cpu, the only thing that noticeably speeds up day to day computing, such as web browsing etc. is an SSD (or faster HDD).Quote:
Originally Posted by eXa
Im sceptical myself. But if there is something ive missed i would like to know about it.
Well youre right that theres not much in opencl/gpgpu atm.Quote:
Originally Posted by [XC] hipno650
However i think thats outstanding what amd does.Because when theres starts to be large enough user base.It will start being implemented.
Something in the line, "build it ,and they will come" philosophy.And we all are gonna cash in on that, desktop cards are going to get much more use also.
Plus much more demanding UI`s for next gen operating systems etc etc.
And i think photoshop/ movie maker types of apps are going o be one of the first ones to utilize this.
that was sort of my point, the people that will benefit from this are the ones needing an econo solution, and those people will most likely not be crunching numbers. :shrug: i just think that anyone building a system around these parts arent building the system for crunching numbers or gaming... unless they are adding a seperate graphics card.... its like drag racing a prius vs a hybred ford focus... who cares if one is faster then the other when you only really care about gas mileage?Quote:
Originally Posted by OutSider
Well put :up:Quote:
Originally Posted by w0mbat
I suspect if you're into video editing, then OpenCL is a big thing. With Apple especially pushing it, I suspect art packages will succumb to openCL too (Adobe no doubt will be, as can be seen with Flash now happily GPU integrated).Quote:
Originally Posted by [XC] hipno650
It's not what currently uses it, it's what will start to use it.
For example Sony Vegas, now supports OpenCL (firegl, radeon, fusion). ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Motiv
This is starting to remind me of the old x64 and multi-core arguments... "there's nothing that utilizes it, so why are they doing it?" arguments were all over the place, but now who runs a single-core computer? who runs 32 bit OS's (other than benching and people with old computers)? Software developers develop for the hardware (generally speaking)... It probably won't be a big difference to start off, but look at how AMD pioneered 64 bit and multi-core back in the day.
*from the perspective of a chess nerd*Quote:
Originally Posted by Sherman Tank
if you want to get technical chess needs a lot of compute power. there are 10^120 possible games after 80 moves. checkers has been solved by computers but chess will likely never be solved and as of now has only been solved for 6 pieces on the board.
modern chess engines calculate around 15-20 moves ahead for most positions in less than 30 seconds and see almost every tactic which has really changed the game for humans. it's quite complicated to explain why but you can take my word for it. it has revolutionized the chess world in the last 10 years.
^i suck at chess on the PC, rock at it in person.
its touch to read the mind of a machine running at a few jiggahz
^i suck at chess on the PC, rock at it in person.
its touch to read the mind of a machine running at a few jiggahz
But isnt the Zacata plenty for these users anyway?Quote:
Originally Posted by MrMojoZ
I build allot of home systems for customers. So think of it this way. Two systems. They have the same hard drive, the same RAM, one is using Intel CPU, chipset and GPU the other using AMD CPU chipset and GPU, both using windows 7 FRESHLY installed with the same updates and other programs installed. It has been my experience that in these situations the Intel system responds faster and smoother in general in the OS and in say IE or Chrome responsiveness. (of course the speed at which the page is loaded is almost 100% dependent on the ISP coverage)Quote:
Originally Posted by eXa
you know I do have to hand it to AMD for really pushing it but I think it will be at-least one more generation before it is commonly adopted. but i guess someone needs to push or it will never happen... I just think they focused far to much on it compared to trying to close the CPU gap. As for UI or video acceleration. the new Intel integrated GPU's is more than enough...Quote:
Originally Posted by XRL8
I do a fair amount of video editing using lots of Adobe based product and a few others and to be honest they have been saying they will make use of GPGPU for years now and even now it is nothing to write home about. and the big thing is 90% of what I have seen is currently or is being transfered over to CUDA. some of these programs do not recommend using AMD cards because of the heavy CUDA and Nvidia influences that they are starting to incorporate.
good on AMD for pushing GPGPU out but I don't expect to see any reason to switch to them this generation as most apps won't be optimized for it yet. I hope though I'm wrong.
Zacate? No, the overall performance deficit would be noticeable between Llano and Zacate in everyday usage scenarios. Zacate may be enough, but it isn't plenty enough for mid-range on up.Quote:
Originally Posted by M.Beier
Placebo...Quote:
Originally Posted by [XC] hipno650
Heh, "Hey guys this P4/K10 loses in benchmarks but it sure is smooth!!!!!".Quote:
Originally Posted by Sherman Tank
Wasn't AMD the "king of smootheness"? :rolleyes: :p: Now Intel is faster and smoother? AMD is doomed...Quote:
Originally Posted by [XC] hipno650
Anyway, numbers/benches or it didn't happen...
Yep very interesting the difference is very obvious am quite happy that AMD did that much with the 7W TDP. Intel also did a lot with the new 2100 series SNB's same is the case here more for less :DQuote:
Originally Posted by informal
So you are saying you can tell that your browser loads pages faster on your 2600k at 4.5 than an X6 1100T at 4.4?Quote:
Originally Posted by [XC] hipno650
Browser responsiveness is dependent on HDD speed, latency and throughput. Maybe you are seeing the difference between two different HDD's or ICH10 vs SB850, in which we all already know ICH10 beats the :banana::banana::banana::banana: out of.
The majority of people I know are still on P4 and A64...some have Core 2 Duo and only a few people I know have bought PC's in the last year have a stock 920 or similar.
Anyone looked at that video closely in 720p?
SPi finishes Loop 1 on Llano at 2m 00.493s @ 1.8-2.5 Ghz
SPi finishes Loop 1 on Sandy Bridge at 1m 26.287s @ 3.4-3.8 Ghz
...thats slower, but the Llano chip has a 45w TDP and only 4MB L2
Either one of two things are going on -
1. AMD has MUCH faster cache at 32M and or K10.5 cores respond much better without being starved of cache (1MB per core vs 512KB for Deneb/Thuban)
2. i7 is crippled by having 8 HyperPi vs 4 running at once, despite it bouncing off of 100% load every few seconds.
placebo, when intel went away from their old FSB there was no difference at all between amd and intel in terms of resposivenessQuote:
Originally Posted by [XC] hipno650
in everyday usage i noticed no difference at all between my old Xeon W3520 @ 4ghz; the 1055t @ 4ghz and my current stop-gap i7 860 @ 2.8ghz
everything with 2 128gb raid 0 Ultradrive GX SSDs
(i got the 1055T for rendering so it was an upgrade from the W3520 ;) )
i'm sure that my new i7 2600 is going to feel just the same in non-work related usage ;)
Youre probably right again ,about this generation.Thing is, pc`s and laptops are being used 3-5 years on average, so if its going to get pushed 2-3 years down the line, hardware must be here NOW.And i have to tell, that really most people doesnt need MUCH cpu power, they need ENOUGH, especially on laptops/netbooks.Same thing goes for GPU, its just that no integrated gfx up until Llano had something thats enough.Everytime i have to explain friends/family/clients WHY their brand new notebook with newest intel stuff "just aint enough" to play a game i get so frustrated over this.And they dont understand why they "have to" have discret gfx...Quote:
Originally Posted by [XC] hipno650
But it looks this combo is not going to be fast, but enough to do most stuff normal people do.
As for the GPGPU, i believe CUDA will go the way of the glide, theres really no place for it in the desktop segment.Its directcompute and opencl in the future.
As for the UI, i was talking about the future, not vista`s aero.
As for the smoothness, its kinda difficult.Im SURE that XP64 UI is damn much faster than 7`s .Especially when im using NET based software under 7, i literally can see the window be "drawn" .My friends tell me im not well tho :P .
Anyhow, there were tests made, that made clear that in some instances, human eye can "kind of" see up to 500FPS, in short bursts and not whole detail.
You forgt the 3rd option:Quote:
Originally Posted by BeepBeep2
i7 has a additional handicap of running also the cfd simulation at the same time. (probably 8 threads). ;)
About the "smoother" BS... honestly thats always so much bs... I have noticed no difference between any of my systems till the A64 days and thats mostly due to the fact that since that point I started using a raptor...
The only time when I'll start to see a more "smoother feeling" again, is when i switch to a SSD.
Looks to me the cfd simulation is a GPU only load :shrug:Quote:
Originally Posted by Hornet331
Yes for amd, the intel HD3000 doesn't support opencl right now, so it runs on pure cpu mode.
I don't think anyone is talking about endgaming Chess on Llano. Unless your last name is Karpov though I think even the slowest Llano will be more than a match for 99% of people. I hold the #13 position on Facebook chess worldwide [or I did.. I've been gone so long I'm not sure I show up globally anymore] and can attest that my old Core 2 Duo in my laptop is far better than I am (of course, the FB chess ranking system is very broken... I'm really not that good, just good enough to know how much better than me the computer is).Quote:
Originally Posted by Chumbucket843
I was never one to believe the "AMD is smoother stuff" ever since C2D I have always felt that Intel Systems have "seemed" faster. also I'm sure we both know that it's impossible to benchmark "smoothness"Quote:
Originally Posted by Caparroz
thats an extreme comparison. of course a 4.4ghz 1100T system is going to seem as fast as anything because it is has a massive single threaded boost over stock. I was referring to consumer grade stuff as in like core i3/i5 stuff and lower end Phenom and Athlon quads... i'm not saying the difference is massive or anything and as many people have pointed out it might be placebo.... totally possible but I also notice a small diff between my 2600k at stock and OCed to 5GHZ... the differene however is MASSIVE on say something like a netbook compared to say even a normal laptop (CPU usage over 70% opening IE or anything) you might be right about the chipset difference as well though. put it's part of the whole AMD vs Intel package...Quote:
Originally Posted by BeepBeep2
you might be right but I'm talking mostly on lower end and lower clock speed CPU'sQuote:
Originally Posted by generics_user
Quote:
Originally Posted by XRL8
for most of the customers I deal with I will always recommend a faster CPU over a faster GPU every day of the week as they are far more likely to boot up movie maker or photoshop then WoW or any other game for that matter. for any one with ANY inkling of gaming usage I ALWAYS recommend a dedicated GPU. this may change with Lano but the trouble is that most more casual games that people may play on a laptop are going to be more CPU bound as far a simulation time is concerned. For example, two of the most popular games for PC right now, WoW and Starcraft 2 are both fairly CPU bound. in which case the Lano GPU might cut it for say meduim/high settings in StarCraft 2 but once a ton of units get going the CPU will die. In which case they are better off spending the extra $100 to get an i7 lappy with a dedicated GPU. I will agree however in saying that for gaming all of the Intel IGP's are total trash...
I do 100% agree that opencl is the future but I see that future as being much farther off then you may think. while it is a "better" solution than CUDA it is newer to market and has a much smaller current dev base than CUDA. also I have heard it is harder to create an OpenCL app compared to a CUDA one. I think more and more people will develop for CUDA and in a few years decide to switch to OpenCL. Software moves pretty slow. Look how long 64bit OSes and 64bit CPU's have been around for, yet still 90% of apps don't natively support 64bit operations...
Really? I routinely saw >1GB/sec seq reads on SB850 when I was using it, and have seen mention of a 600MB/sec limit on ICH10R plenty of places. I thought they were pretty even overall...no?Quote:
Originally Posted by BeepBeep2
--Matt
Well, there are two things you should consider.Quote:
Originally Posted by [XC] hipno650
Unfortunately, many if not most people, go to somekind of market and get a laptop by themselves or by the recommendation of the clerk (which does not care...) and they end up most often than not with a crap one,IGP one.
And second ,laptops with decent specs plus a intel cpu and a discreet gpu cost sizably more.I know that for USA and western europe thats not a BIG problem.However for the rest of the world, its more often than not hard to justify added cost.
Frankly, i dont get why intel lagged in gfx department so long, they have so much resources to throw at this obvious flaw, sandybridge is a big step up, however its still not enough.
As for the SCII and WOW, well i just dont agree that 4 core improved athlon X4 is too slow to be enough for these games, its not like were talking max details and constant 60fps here.But enough ;-) .
No one here seems not like to see intel GOING DOWN in this tests :ROTF: :rofl:Quote:
Originally Posted by saaya
:up:
:rofl:
This thread is killing me ... :rolleyes:
I think a single 'Stars' cpu core in Llano at 4GHz will do around 12.77 GFLOPS.
I think a single 'SB' cpu core (with HT on) at 4GHz will do around 14.44 GFLOPS.
A single 'SB' cpu core (with HT on and AVX) at 4GHz will do around 29.97 GFLOPS.
I have no idea what a single 'Stars' cpu core with AVX/XOP/FMA4 in Llano at 4GHz will do, and will not venture a guess, but I hope its ....
:shocked: GFLOPS ...
just to shut some of you guys up :D
Maybe you want make the same calcul with the 2600K Mobile version ? cause actually using Lianno it's really nice .. vs the 2600K the biggest desktop 1155 version vs a poor Liano mobile cpu ... Lianno and SB are not really fighting in the same category... it's a little bit like compare a 2600K with Intel ULV .....
@AbortRetryFail?
Llano doesn't have AVX/XOP/FMA4. That is bulldozer.
.....can we close this thread yet lol? or move it at least?
nothing at all? Correct me if I'm wrong but the cache system affects pretty much everything you do on a CPU. Didn't you say sandybridge will see an ipc boost across the board from its improved cache system among other things? ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Hornet331
Let's say this test doesn't depend a lot on the cache system...
You're saying yourself that its impressive to see that many threads run on those cpus. Why impressive? Because there is a limitation of resources that need to be rained and shuffled between those tasks, correct? And that has nothing to do with the cache system? Nothing at all? :lol:
Then please tell me, what is a good cache system test?
I agree that the whimpy gpu is the main thing holding Intel back in this test, but it doesn't explain everything...
I gotta say though I'm not impressed at all by some purely synthetic test.. is that the only scenario AMD does well in? : l
Here's a thread from a year ago ...Quote:
Originally Posted by informal
Can Llano do AVX?
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...d.php?t=250241
with obligatory fancy pic ...
http://www.chip-architect.com/news/A...o-analysis.jpg
You may well be correct but here's hoping the guys from Sunnyvale can find a way to put those 400 or so shaders to work to boost the Llano compute power.
Llano will have pretty same as K10.5. Maybe slightly more because of turbo (if there will be turbo).Quote:
Originally Posted by AbortRetryFail?
But Llano's GPU will have hundreds of GFlOps.
Ok, if you wonder, the software which was used by AMD is FluidCS11.exe from Direct3D11 samples in DirectX 11 SDK.
Tried it on laptop with i5-2410m and got 4 fps on average with 64k particles. Since HD 3000 does not support DX11 it was software emulated with 100% CPU utilization.
Ok once again,Llano does not have AVX or XOP or FMA. What it does have is OpenCL/DX11 supporting discrete class GPU with 400SP. That is plenty of compute power right there.Quote:
Originally Posted by AbortRetryFail?
There is another particle simulation test in DX SDK which simulates smoke and uses DX 10.1 instead of DX 11 (SoftParticles.exe)
Ran it on i5-2410m and got 52 fps using HD 3000 gpu (8% cpu utilization) vs. 2 fps when software emulated (100% cpu utilization).
Any links? So we can check this out?Quote:
Originally Posted by kl0012
Download and install DX SDK (june)Quote:
Originally Posted by Nikolasz
http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/e...2-438a3ba730ba
Search for FluidCS11.exe
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/libr...8VS.85%29.aspx
for me, chess engines are great for improving my game. i need to have an opponent that plays extremely accurately. i'm not talking about the starting position but practicing say, mating with a bishop and knight or rook endings. lots of times i will play out the final positions of master games to checkmate. i guess a llano user would not find it all that important, even if they play chess, but chess engine performance is still very important to the game.Quote:
Originally Posted by Serra
i also use them to analyse games of my own as well as master games. it helps understand what is going on, especially with tactics. this is why more younger people are super-gm's today. they can browse through their 4 million game database, find a game, and explore every move and variation with their engine in 30 minutes.
by far the coolest use is this.
http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=6340
My dualcore sandy beats my buddys x4 in game load times sooo... yeah.
Game load times are more dependent on drive speeds. Why bring this up?Quote:
Originally Posted by Glow9
Because he doesn't know where the bottlenecks are within workloads...Quote:
Originally Posted by MrMojoZ
This is one reason we all should hope for good adoption of AMD Fusion chips. With big userbase, opencl has opportunity to make difference in many applications. Chess, is but one example.Quote:
Originally Posted by Chumbucket843
For online games? Really?Quote:
Originally Posted by MrMojoZ
Why would that make a difference?Quote:
Originally Posted by Glow9
dose online make the games randomly spawn in ram and not get stored?:DQuote:
Originally Posted by Glow9
lolllllllllllllllll
No, I think that it is more likely to be 240SPs@~280mhz vs 80SPs@500mhz for E-350. That would explain the higher power efficiency.Quote:
Originally Posted by informal
I'm not sure if anyone knows yet, but will it be possible for Llano to use "Side Port" memory instead of just system ram?
To be honest, if this chip does what I think it might, it's really looking good to me... ;)
I'm only hoping here, but if it supports sideport and Hybrid Crossfire (or even better, a more powerful VC that could be throttled down when not needed), it would be the ultimate HTPC chip!
Low power when just doing HTPC things, but still have some nads if you wanted to game on the big screen... :yepp:
I really don't think my usage ideas are that rare. Hopefully AMD see's the potential for this type of application.
Zacate seems fine for a low powered HTPC only rig, but Llano's K10.5 cores are plenty strong enough for gaming and most other uses...
If they get Turbo and power throttling right this seems like a killer settup to me! :up:
From what we know now, native dual-core Llano chip is designed to have 160SP. I would expect a ~400MHz iGPU clock.Quote:
Originally Posted by Manabu
Ref:
http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/cpu/dis...arter_AMD.html
Quote:
Originally Posted by Daveburt714
would be really nice to plug a couple chips of gddr into the motherboard (into a pci-e slot???? hmm...) for quick performance upgrade :)