AMD Jaguar Temash Official: Ipad Smoothness and X86 Muscle

[vardirox]

"AMD wants to knock Intel and ARM off their mobility perch in 2013, and the new Temash APU is how it expects to do it. Targeting media and performance tablets, as well as keyboard-dockable hybrids and 10- to 13-inch touchscreen ultraportable notebooks, the new A-series of Temash APUs feature Jaguar cores ? boasting a 20-percent performance jump over Bobcat ? for consumer Windows machines with the perky performance usually associated with an iPad."

"Perhaps most impressive, AMD says the sub-5W versions of Temash can be used in fanless systems. We had a chance to play with a Temash-based Windows 8 tablet, and the experience was impressively good: it was a Quanta reference design, the BZ1T, but the Radeon HD 8180 GPU and A4-1200 1GHz CPU were certainly strong enough to keep Full HD video playing smoothly on the 11.6-inch 1920 x 1080 touchscreen."

http://www.slashgear.com/amd-temash-...rids-22283195/

[Kallenator]

I don't understand why they point out that it does 1080p video playback flawlessly. Why not throw some 4k at it and try and show that it is really up to date; or even a game? I am sure they are limited in the ways the product is presented to them though.
Rant because Intel, AMD and ARM have been able to do 1080p at low performance cost for quite a few years now in mobile devices, it's not an interesting fact anymore.

[Sushi Warrior]

I don't understand why they point out that it does 1080p video playback flawlessly. Why not throw some 4k at it and try and show that it is really up to date; or even a game? I am sure they are limited in the ways the product is presented to them though.
Rant because Intel, AMD and ARM have been able to do 1080p at low performance cost for quite a few years now in mobile devices, it's not an interesting fact anymore.

AMD pointed out they do dual 2560x1600 (doesn't mention video or not), it was only the site that pointed out 1080p? I don't see AMD bragging about 1080p, I see them bragging about 25x16 which is kind of impressive if it's encoded video :P

[PatRaceTin]

which tablet/laptop will use this chip?

[MBomberZ1]

How will this compare to what is in the Surface Pro? Especially in 3d rendering performance? I am wondering what the next step up will be from that for true windows 8 tablet with even better graphics capability.

[kl0012]

Much slower than i5-3317U (Surface Pro).

[KiSUAN]

Much slower than i5-3317U (Surface Pro).

And much much much much cheaper...

[kl0012]

And much much much much cheaper...

What tablet are you referring to?

I don't know what is the price of AMD tablet SKUs but the only windows 8 AMD tablet available for purchase I can find is Stylistic Q572 (based on z-60 apu). Starting price is $879 for unit with 1366 x 768 screen resolution.

[Sushi Warrior]

What tablet are you referring to?

I don't know what is the price of AMD tablet SKUs but the only windows 8 AMD tablet available for purchase I can find is Stylistic Q572 (based on z-60 apu). Starting price is $879 for unit with 1366 x 768 screen resolution.

The APU can't dictate the price of the tablet. It's cheap to buy the APU, as in $50 maybe (at most) for the entire SoC, compared to $100 or more for a competing solution (or something like that). The chip doesn't always dictate the price of the tablet.

[kl0012]

Customers don't care to much about the price of SKU's, rather they want to know tablet prices. I don't know what will be the price of Temash based tablets (afaik no one announced such yet) but at least we have already seen benchmarks.

[EniGmA1987]

The Exynos 5 dual (1.7GHz A15 core and Mali T-604 GPU) can draw 8 watts when both systems are loaded and software throttles it does in one area or the other to maintain 4w max draw. I would love to see a performance comparison between the Exynos 5 dual and this processor with its 5w TDP. Things like AnTuTu, 3DMark, Epic Citadel, and Quadrant. And if this x86 processor cant even run Android or iOS stuff then it has no purpose be labelled as "for tablets and mobile devices"

[Mechanical Man]

The Exynos 5 dual (1.7GHz A15 core and Mali T-604 GPU) can draw 8 watts when both systems are loaded and software throttles it does in one area or the other to maintain 4w max draw. I would love to see a performance comparison between the Exynos 5 dual and this processor with its 5w TDP. Things like AnTuTu, 3DMark, Epic Citadel, and Quadrant. And if this x86 processor cant even run Android or iOS stuff then it has no purpose be labelled as "for tablets and mobile devices"

I doubt there is x86-64 version of android, its not processors fault, its ones fault who build android or ios. But, rly. I have seen x86-64 tablets. So how can it not be labelled "for tablets and mobile devices"?

[Kallenator]

AMD pointed out they do dual 2560x1600 (doesn't mention video or not), it was only the site that pointed out 1080p? I don't see AMD bragging about 1080p, I see them bragging about 25x16 which is kind of impressive if it's encoded video :P

My rant is directed towards the rather uninformed journalists, not the company that delivers the internal components

[dairyFarmer]

12 hours idle...uh wha? is idle current a problem? Other tablets can 'idle' for a week plus?
1.6 seconds resume....too slow. Other tablets wake in a split second.

Im not a fan of AMD's TDP>5W 'pc' jaguar. Only 2CU for GPGPU, 128 cores is too few in 2013. Wake me up when we get to 796 or 1152. I want to see the ps4 benchmarked. (otherwise I quite like Temash, but wish it had 4CU 256 cores at least after-all graphics are AMDs strength)

[KiSUAN]

12 hours idle...uh wha? is idle current a problem? Other tablets can 'idle' for a week plus?
1.6 seconds resume....too slow. Other tablets wake in a split second.

Im not a fan of AMD's TDP>5W 'pc' jaguar. Only 2CU for GPGPU, 128 cores is too few in 2013. Wake me up when we get to 796 or 1152. I want to see the ps4 benchmarked. (otherwise I quite like Temash, but wish it had 4CU 256 cores at least after-all graphics are AMDs strength)

Last time I checked not even Surface RT (http://www.microsoft.com/surface/en-...-right-for-you) is rated for more than 8 hours. Surface Pro even less.

How important are weight, size and battery life to you? Very important. I want an ultra-thin and light tablet with long battery life (up to 8 hours). I want a tablet that is always connected and always up to date.

And wake up, the RT indeed has almost instant wake up, the Pro in the other hand, 2 to 3 seconds, and being the AMD x86 the Pro is the more suitable to comparison.

[Sushi Warrior]

12 hours idle...uh wha? is idle current a problem? Other tablets can 'idle' for a week plus?
1.6 seconds resume....too slow. Other tablets wake in a split second.

Im not a fan of AMD's TDP>5W 'pc' jaguar. Only 2CU for GPGPU, 128 cores is too few in 2013. Wake me up when we get to 796 or 1152. I want to see the ps4 benchmarked. (otherwise I quite like Temash, but wish it had 4CU 256 cores at least after-all graphics are AMDs strength)

Dat troll. "Idle" is when the tablet is on, but not doing anything. "A week plus" is sleep mode, when the tablet isn't powered on but is rather waiting to resume. The resume time depends on the OS and storage medium (SSD or HDD or flash memory), not the processor.

128 cores is too few? HD 4000 has 16 pipelines, does that mean it should perform worse? Get your head out of the sand. I'm sure they CAN use more cores, but that drives power up. And the entire point of these chips is low power consumption.

[dairyFarmer]

Yeah Im kind of confused between idle and sleep. I wonder if they mean 12 hours of idle "on screen" time? I.e Best case battery usage scenario
Other tablets still do 'idle tasks' (collect email) without being truly asleep, and last for weeks.

And I agree that at 5W they cant really have any more resources (cores), but it would have been so nice for it to have 256+, and beat the hd4000.
But at 15-20 watts it should (I wish) have had more cores.

[mattkosem]

I doubt there is x86-64 version of android, its not processors fault, its ones fault who build android or ios. But, rly. I have seen x86-64 tablets. So how can it not be labelled "for tablets and mobile devices"?

You wouldn't need >4GB of ram on an Android device these days, so 64-bit support isn't really important. Android runs pretty well on x86 hardware. You can buy atom-based Tablets today, and possibly phones now too by this point.

--Matt

[tbone8ty]

Very impressive chip!

Hope to see it in many tablets!

[Mechanical Man]

You wouldn't need >4GB of ram on an Android device these days, so 64-bit support isn't really important. Android runs pretty well on x86 hardware. You can buy atom-based Tablets today, and possibly phones now too by this point.

--Matt

I but wonder why you pick my post that does not even mention anything about needing >4GB address space and answer to it like u answered. Do you know what context is? Do you? Read the post i quoted.

[mattkosem]

I but wonder why you pick my post that does not even mention anything about needing >4GB address space and answer to it like u answered. Do you know what context is? Do you? Read the post i quoted.

Sure did. You specifically mentioned lack of x86_64 support, which is moot since Android doesn't need the ability to access more than 4GB of ram at this point. You responded to EniGmA1987, so I responded to your response.

--Matt

[Mechanical Man]

Sure did. You specifically mentioned lack of x86_64 support, which is moot since Android doesn't need the ability to access more than 4GB of ram at this point. You responded to EniGmA1987, so I responded to your response.

--Matt

Please read again. Read enigmas post and mine. Enigma said lack of support from processor for android makes it not "tablet worthy". I merely said, its not architechtures fault, its their fault who do the OS. It has nothing to do with what are this or that archs features. No where anyone mentioned 4gb or need for more until u came and started talking about entirely different thing that was in discussion.

[mattkosem]

Please read again. Read enigmas post and mine. Enigma said lack of support from processor for android makes it not "tablet worthy". I merely said, its not architechtures fault, its their fault who do the OS. It has nothing to do with what are this or that archs features. No where anyone mentioned 4gb or need for more until u came and started talking about entirely different thing that was in discussion.

You've either not read or are not understanding the point of my post. You stated that there was likely no Android support for x86_64, and my response was absolutely intended for you.

While Android may or may not support x86_64, it does absolutely run on x86 devices (ie. Android can run on this architecture). Since the biggest benefit of x86_64 over x86 is the ability to easily address >4GB of ram, I was merely pointing out the fact that x86_64 support in Android isn't really critical. So, just in case you're still missing my point - there's no blame to hand to Google for lack of mobile capabilities with respect to this architecture. While Android may not take advantage of the 64-bit portion of this CPU's instruction set, it can and likely will run on it since x86_64 is a superset of x86.

--Matt

[Mechanical Man]

You've either not read or are not understanding the point of my post. You stated that there was likely no Android support for x86_64, and my response was absolutely intended for you.

While Android may or may not support x86_64, it does absolutely run on x86 devices (ie. Android can run on this architecture). Since the biggest benefit of x86_64 over x86 is the ability to easily address >4GB of ram, I was merely pointing out the fact that x86_64 support in Android isn't really critical. So, just in case you're still missing my point - there's no blame to hand to Google for lack of mobile capabilities with respect to this architecture. While Android may not take advantage of the 64-bit portion of this CPU's instruction set, it can and likely will run on it since x86_64 is a superset of x86.

--Matt

Last time. I said: It is not hw manufacturers job to offer sw support.

You twist it into something i did not say, try to get it already. I did not say anything about if its needed or anything else.

[mattkosem]

Last time. I said: It is not hw manufacturers job to offer sw support.

You twist it into something i did not say, try to get it already. I did not say anything about if its needed or anything else.

I'm not sure who peed in your cheerios this morning, or why you've become so inflamed here, but no twisting has taken place here. Neither you nor I indicated that the it's the HW manufacturer's job to offer support for a given OS on their hardware. I'm not sure where you're getting that from, since I never mentioned it, but I agree with you on it. They're only really on the hook for drivers, and aren't even really necessarily obligated to offer them (not free of charge at any rate - dev resources DO cost money after all).

You said:

I doubt there is x86-64 version of android, its not processors fault, its ones fault who build android or ios.

To which I replied, indicating that x86 support is currently available and in use and that 64-bit x86 support isn't needed.:

You wouldn't need >4GB of ram on an Android device these days, so 64-bit support isn't really important. Android runs pretty well on x86 hardware.

I then very thoroughly explained the reasoning behind my mentioning 4GB of ram when you suddenly became hostile. I even mentioned that there's no need to blame Google for not supporting it (since they already do). If Google and/or Apple prevent their products from running on a given architecture, sure. Blame them. I agree, and never mentioned anything to the contrary.

There's nothing to "try to get" here. Regardless of AMD's support, or lack thereof should that be the case, Android can and does run on x86 hardware today. Driver and licensing limitations set aside, there's nothing stopping a manufacturer from creating tablet or smartphone products with these chips. I hope they do. You've clearly drawn some hidden conclusion from what began as me simply indicating (contrary to your post) that Android support for this architecture is already available. If you've taken some unintended offense somehow from this, I apologize.

--Matt