AMD - Bulldozer Chitchat

[watercooled]

Jeez mention anything that could even slightly be seen as negative about anything AMD make and people get all defensive.

I'm just pointing out that calling the Llano CPU weak over and over again simply isn't true. I'd say the same if people were calling the C2D weak, or the VIA Nano, it's nothing to do with it being AMD.

[badass]

I'm just pointing out that calling the Llano CPU weak over and over again simply isn't true. I'd say the same if people were calling the C2D weak, or the VIA Nano, it's nothing to do with it being AMD.

My original statement compared it to a Core i5. It is weak compared to a Core i5.
Pricing will determine whether it is competing with a Core i5 or an i3.
All CPU's have a GPU. I pointed out that the GPU absolutely wipes the floor with the i5 but everybody suddenly got fixated with the perfectly valid comparison with the i5 in terms of CPU power. I mentioned nothing about value or real world performance or anything else people may want to bring up - just its relative strengths and weaknesses compared to what i think will end up being its competition. Of course I may be wrong and they sell for less than £110 for the top end one in which case the CPU is trading blows with the i3 depending on workload and the GPU simply embarrases it.
If I was running the show however I'd think I could charge i5 prices for it as I think that's where it's value sits.
I really do wish people would stop getting defensive as soon as anything negative at all is mentioned about any new AMD CPU though.

[watercooled]

If that's all you meant then I apologise for the harsh reply, just I seem to have defaulted to it now after the relatively common unfounded AMD bashing around the interwebs. But as I said, I'm not purely defensive about AMD, I've said similar stuff in reply to people who compare an ARM Cortex to an i7 i.e. people who think absolute performance is all that matters regardless of price/power/heat/size/etc.

[Blackmage]

I'm just pointing out that calling the Llano CPU weak over and over again simply isn't true. I'd say the same if people were calling the C2D weak, or the VIA Nano, it's nothing to do with it being AMD.

A core2duo is weak, ok not enough to stop it from functioning or being consider slow but in comparison it to what's out there it is.

If that's all you meant then I apologise for the harsh reply, just I seem to have defaulted to it now after the relatively common unfounded AMD bashing around the interwebs. But as I said, I'm not purely defensive about AMD, I've said similar stuff in reply to people who compare an ARM Cortex to an i7 i.e. people who think absolute performance is all that matters regardless of price/power/heat/size/etc.

All a person can do it compare the equivalent, even AMD themselves compare the A8 to an i7(mobile processors).



Now seeing that table above how can I not compare the top AMD mobile Llano of to the top Intel mobile Core i? To me that table reads that An AMD A8 Llano competes with a High end Core i5 and Core i7 CPU's.
Both have a GPU AMD A8 having a far greater one and both have a CPU Intel having a far greater one. Correct me if I'm wrong but Llano is AMD's only mobile CPU till Trinity next year; why should the bests of both sides not be compared?

May'be their approaches are different but to me they are still CPU's.

[Biscuit]

That chart does seems a little ambitious, although i suspect it is more referring to a platform overall rather than the individual CPU part of the platform. Personally i would squash the lot down so the top of the a8 is 1/4 into the i7, would fit a lot more accurately then.

[watercooled]

I really don't understand how you can call a C2D weak either? Even Apple use it in a good deal of their products, C2D is a great architecture and once again is more than enough for most peoples' needs.

Of course they are referring to the platform as a whole, there is more Llano die space used for the GPU than the CPU, this isn't a CPU with 5 transistors worth of IGP glued on for free. The approaches are very different, and depending on your workload either could be much better than the other. But for what is considered a normal workload, having a beefy CPU paired up with less than adequate graphics is less than ideal and that's without getting in to GPGPU applications which will only become more commonplace in the near future. But it hasn't escaped my notice that my replies are falling on deaf ears anyhow.

[Blackmage]

I really don't understand how you can call a C2D weak either? Even Apple use it in a good deal of their products, C2D is a great architecture and once again is more than enough for most peoples' needs.

Yes but in my previous post I did say "COMPARED TO WHATS OUT THERE, IT IS".

But for what is considered a normal workload, having a beefy CPU paired up with less than adequate graphics is less than ideal.

Hasn't this been the case for years? Machines have you used SLOW IGP's for ages with Fast CPU's.

and that's without getting in to GPGPU applications which will only become more commonplace in the near future. But it hasn't escaped my notice that my replies are falling on deaf ears anyhow.

You've finally said it yourself "IN THE FUTURE", But I'm talking now, current; present. The Majority of applications don't use GPU acceleration, so wouldn't more CPU performance be more beneficial?

[Biscuit]

You've finally said it yourself "IN THE FUTURE", But I'm talking now, current; present. The Majority of applications don't use GPU acceleration, So wouldn't more CPU performance be more beneficial?

Once again, no not really. For the workload which is put on a CPU for most tasks there is little to no benefit from getting a faster CPU than llano.

[watercooled]

I didn't say it hadn't been the case for years, which is why it's nice to see AMD making this move. Software devs will never develop for non-existent hardware/platforms - the hardware needs to be there and commonplace before it's worth their time.

Again, taking what I said completely out of context to suit your needs. To start with, you quoted my incorrectly. But to clarify, at no point did I say there are no apps now. I meant there are lots of apps now and they will only get more common thanks to GPGPU standards and beefy IGPs becoming more commonplace. As CAT has already explained coutnless times even everyday apps like Flash, Office, HTML5, web browsers, Windows itself all benefit from hardware acceleration.

[Blackmage]

I didn't say it hadn't been the case for years, which is why it's nice to see AMD making this move. Software devs will never develop for non-existent hardware/platforms - the hardware needs to be there and commonplace before it's worth their time.

Again, taking what I said completely out of context to suit your needs. To start with, you quoted my incorrectly. But to clarify, at no point did I say there are no apps now. I meant there are lots of apps now and they will only get more common thanks to GPGPU standards and beefy IGPs becoming more commonplace. As CAT has already explained coutnless times even everyday apps like Flash, Office, HTML5, web browsers, Windows itself all benefit from hardware acceleration.

I'm not saying there is not a need/use for one but a lesser GPU could still do many of task you've stated, cut down the GPU and increase the CPU performance.

[watercooled]

How much by? You'd need to chop a fair bit of the GPU off to make the increase in CPU performance noticeable beyond benchmark numbers (adding 30% clock speed might be good for e-peen but it makes hardly any difference in real-world apps). Stripping the GPU right back means no progress and less of a reason for devs to port their apps to GPU. Again, Llano is referred to as an APU so the intention is to do a fair amount of compute work on the GPU part. Even Nvidia are realising GPGPU potential and a main focus in Fermi is actually GPGPU work - with both of the graphics giants pushing it, it's going to get more and more popular for apps which can make use of it. For those that can't, most of them probably won't see any benefit from throwing more conventional CPU power at them either.

[kalniel]

How much by? You'd need to chop a fair bit of the GPU off to make the increase in CPU performance noticeable beyond benchmark numbers (adding 30% clock speed might be good for e-peen but it makes hardly any difference in real-world apps).

Depends on the real-world task. Take a game like The Witcher 2 and it'll be grateful for any increase in CPU speed. Ditto for many console derived games. But you need a GPU that's not too limiting either (tricky balance to strike, but I think we'll be there quite quickly.)

[Blackmage]

This paragraph from the conclusion of the Llano review on Anandtech sums up Llano for me.

Some people will try to tell you that AMD will sell you more CPU cores than Intel for a lower price, but unlike desktop parts, mobile Llano cores don’t clock high enough to consistently outperform dual-core Intel processors. Even in heavily-threaded benchmarks where quad-core CPUs can shine, dual-core i5 processors are still typically 30% faster than the A8-3500M. Instead of selling you more CPU cores for less money, what AMD is now selling is substantially better graphics for less money. Home theater enthusiasts might find a use for such parts as well, but really the purpose of GPUs is simple: they’re for playing games. Until and unless GPGPU can take off and provide some killer apps, businesses and non-gaming folk alike will be better served by Intel’s processors—unless you want to save $100 to $200

If you’re after a good all-around laptop for $500-$600, Llano should have just what you need; and for gaming, it will likely power some of the best sub-$700 gaming capable laptops you're going to find right now (short of fire-sales and refurbished laptops). For those interested, the only viable gaming notebook (e.g. with at least HD 5650M/6530M or GT420M/520M GPU) we can find for under $700 with an Intel CPU is the MSI CX640 at $650. Hopefully we'll see Llano offerings drop into the sub-$600 range with A8 APU

Only aggressive pricing will work for llano, that $699+ isn't going to work in the long run.

MSI sell a better system for $749 or you could go with the previous Gen i5 and get a decent machine

[watercooled]

That's because you're specifically looking for negatives. They seem to have missed the point that GPGPU computing has already taken off as I've explained again and again. GPUs are useful for far, far more than just games now. To save me the hassle of typing it again, I refer you to my previous posts.

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

That's because you're specifically looking for negatives. They seem to have missed the point that GPGPU computing has already taken off as I've explained again and again. GPUs are useful for far, far more than just games now. To save me the hassle of typing it again, I refer you to my previous posts.

I also like the obsession with the A8 when he already knows that the A6 has the same CPU. The A8 has 400 shaders and the A6 has 320 shaders.



On top of this as I have already stated before many of the A6 and A8 laptops come with an additional discrete card. The HP I linked to has an HD6750M GDDR5 which is found in the more expensive versions of the MacBook Pro. It is much faster than the GT540M(which usually uses DDR3) found in some other laptops for around £500 to £600. It also has an A6-3410MX which has a higher base clockspeed than the A8-3500 Anandtech tested. The laptop also has a 7200RPM drive and even 6GB of DDR3. For around £500 it is great value.

[Blackmage]

That's because you're specifically looking for negatives. They seem to have missed the point that GPGPU computing has already taken off as I've explained again and again. GPUs are useful for far, far more than just games now. To save me the hassle of typing it again, I refer you to my previous posts.

It's not about negatives, Intel have there pricing monopoly and slow IGP. So yes! I can admit faults on Intel's platform.

Like my opinion or not doesn't mean my view is negative, I didn't say Llano is a load of turd... That's negative; simply said that it needs more CPU performance.

I also like the obsession with the A8 when he already knows that the A6 has the same CPU. The A8 has 400 shaders and the A6 has 320 shaders.



On top of this as I have already stated before many of the A6 and A8 laptops come with an additional discrete card. The HP I linked to has an HD6750M GDDR5 which is found in the more expensive versions of the MacBook Pro. It is much faster than the GT540M(which usually uses DDR3) found in some other laptops for around £500 to £600. It also has an A6-3410MX which has a higher base clockspeed than the A8-3500 Anandtech tested. The laptop also has a 7200RPM drive and even 6GB of DDR3. For around £500 it is great value.

Yes the A6, the slower out of the two CPU's(35w); would you rather me compare an even slower CPU/GPU and make my point even more valid? Anyway as mentioned before it's like no wrong can be said about AMD on these forums, it makes everyone defensive.

I may as well throw my 5830 in the bin and buy a 560 as I simply loath AMD

Anyway roll on Bulldozer, even if it a great CPU I can't wait to dig it apart with a spade because I'm a troll