AMD - Bulldozer Chitchat

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

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.

Actually,the A6 is running at the higher base clockrate than the A8 used in the review. The laptop I linked to has a faster graphics card than the one in the review. However,according to you it slower even though I have given multiple links to prove this.

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.

The CPU performance is lack luster, if i wanted a gaming laptop I wouldn't want to use the integrated GPU as the performance is poor.

This is someones opinion on overclock.net

BTW,this was after I linked to the laptop which had an HD6750M GDDR5 and and IGP for £500.

[Blackmage]

Actually,the A6 is running at the higher base clockrate than the A8 used in the review. The laptop I linked to has a faster graphics card than the one in the review. However,according to you it slower even though I have given multiple links to prove this.

BTW,this was after I linked to the laptop which had an HD6750M GDDR5 and and IGP for £500.

But if Llano is this all mighty GPU, that you guys are making it out be, why the hell do you need a Discrete GPU? And that's not even an A8 system?

A6 or A8 my opinion doesn't change, Cat to tell you the truth I'm tired of having an opinion. I'll know to leave bulldozer alone, It's a shame as I don't quite remember this passion for AMD when I first joined

[watercooled]

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

I'd say pedantic over defensive, I tire of explaining this whenever I say something positive about company x and essentially get called a fanboy, whether it's gaming platforms, CPUs, OSes, software, etc.

Go for it, the 560 Ti or 570 would be a better upgrade path though.

Edit: It's not an all mighty GPU, it's in the range of a low-mid range discrete GPU. For anything very graphics intensive, of course a discrete chip will help - considering even the highest end cards struggle with some games maxed out, more performance is always welcome.

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

It was the same thing with Zacate. When that launched people were going how Atom and Ion were just as good,had been out for yonks and AMD was doomed to failure with a rubbish product. Why was AMD wasting its money on such a segment?! Then when that didn't happen,it moved over to CULV has a faster CPU and decent enough IGP and Zacate was doomed to failure. When did not happen, silence.

The same thing with Llano. It has a rubbish CPU and Intel IGP is good enough so it is doomed to failure. Why is AMD wasting its money developing such a product?? If the doom does not happen then it will move onto some other thing AMD has done or not done or Intel maybe doing.

When Bulldozer launches even it is brilliant,there will be comments that Ivy Bridge, Sandy Bridge E and Hyper Bridge will launch with quantum transistors,etc in 3.145345 months time and Bulldozer will fail.

[Terbinator]

Hyper-bridge lol. It would be a genuine shame if it wasn't called that.

[Biscuit]

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.

Thats not true at all, the Phenom 1 was garbage and not many people defended them on here. This isnt about blind AMD fanboi-ism, this is about the defending the platform and approach which AMD has taken because a good portion of us believe that it is much better and more effective for its purpose than the equivilent intel system. The reality of the Llano is that is doesn't need more CPU power. Its "lacking" in CPU power because it has enough. If this is so wrong, what is the magical task that the average user will do which he will see genuine benefit from the intel alternative?

[watercooled]

Thats not true at all, the Phenom 1 was garbage and not many people defended them on here.

I've just been thinking the same thing. The original Phenom was AMD's stumble, it ran hot, didn't perform as well as Core2 and (at least initially) suffered with the TLB bug. I didn't buy or recommend it...
On the other hand the IMC was a step forward and the lower-end, phenom-derived products were a different story. But that didn't make up for Phenom's shortcomings.

[Blackmage]

I'd say pedantic over defensive, I tire of explaining this whenever I say something positive about company x and essentially get called a fanboy, whether it's gaming platforms, CPUs, OSes, software, etc.

Go for it, the 560 Ti or 570 would be a better upgrade path though.

Fanboy or not, I don't feel as you've accepted the several times when I said " The Llano Design/engineering is excellent". I haven't once seen you say " Yes, in comparison to the mobile Sandy bridge the numbers aren't there yet". Which is the truth, all I got was a lot of reasons why it was ok; that the CPU numbers aren't there.

We are on an enthusiast forum of course numbers are going to matter?

I questioned the balance of CPU/GPU performance, which is fair, same thing I did with sandy bridge.

It was the same thing with Zacate. When that launched people were going how Atom and Ion were just as good,had been out for yonks and AMD was doomed to failure with a rubbish product. Why was AMD wasting its money on such a segment?! Then when that didn't happen,it moved over to CULV has a faster CPU and decent enough IGP and Zacate was doomed to failure. When did not happen, silence.

The same thing with Llano. It has a rubbish CPU and Intel IGP is good enough so it is doomed to failure. Why is AMD wasting its money developing such a product?? If the doom does not happen then it will move onto some other thing AMD has done or not done or Intel maybe doing.

When Bulldozer launches even it is brilliant,there will be comments that Ivy Bridge, Sandy Bridge E and Hyper Bridge will launch with quantum transistors,etc in 3.145345 months time and Bulldozer will fail.

Everyone knows the Intel IGP is Junk, Ivy bridge won't fix that.

I'll say it again Sandy Bridge, Rubbish GPU excellent CPU. Intel need to work hard on their IGP especially with Llano out now, plus Trinity in the near future.

The thing is I genuinely think that Bulldozer is the real deal, if the performance is there with 4 module and 8 core CPU. I expect it to be a beast in multitasking or multi-thread applications. Then to add more heat to Intels overpriced frying pan trinity will be out next, with an reworked IGP and Bulldozer modules.

You can't compare products that aren't out yet the FX-8130P will be a winner all you can do is compare that to sandy bridge.

Thats not true at all, the Phenom 1 was garbage and not many people defended them on here. This isnt about blind AMD fanboi-ism, this is about the defending the platform and approach which AMD has taken because a good portion of us believe that it is much better and more effective for its purpose than the equivilent intel system. The reality of the Llano is that is doesn't need more CPU power. Its "lacking" in CPU power because it has enough. If this is so wrong, what is the magical task that the average user will do which he will see genuine benefit from the intel alternative?

The reason I'm questioning it is that Lllano is the first real decent GPU/CPU combo, which adds a genuine GPU to the CPU, I don't consider Intels IGP on sandy bridge worth it at all, it seems they just added an oboard GPU to the CPU. An effort in my eyes which isn't good enough, other than Quick sync it's a waste of space.

Llano has the power of a discrete card, but at the cost of 50% of the transistors (Intel's HD3000 GPU 20% which does GPGPU). All I was thinking Llano could of been this amazing 8 core K10 chip or 6 core with a lesser GPU (which could still handle GPGPU tasks) and would it benefit the end user more. I feel a 6 core Llano would of had kick Intel of it's perch as Intel needs, due to their pricing monopoly with their Core i range of CPU's.

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

Hyper-bridge lol. It would be a genuine shame if it wasn't called that.

Hyper Bridge(tm) is a name to be trusted and is so powerful and so reliable with its quantum transistors it will achieve sentience 0.2 picoseconds after activation. However, Tera Bridge(tm) will be released with quantum phase displacement particles(proven to be +/- 0 to 200% better than quantum transistors and 5000% better than non Intel quantum transistors) three months later and will achieve sentience mk2(tm) 0.19995 picoseconds after activation. It is so advanced it developed itself three months before Hyper Bridge(tm) and it took so long to get to market because it was too fast for the Intel chip catchers..sorry...engineers..to catch..sorry...produce them.

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

Everyone knows the Intel IGP is Junk, Ivy bridge won't fix that.

I'll say it again Sandy Bridge, Rubbish GPU excellent CPU. Intel need to work hard on their IGP especially with Llano out now, plus Trinity in the near future.

The thing is I genuinely think that Bulldozer is the real deal, if the performance is there with 4 module and 8 core CPU. I expect it to be a beast in multitasking or multi-thread applications. Then to add more heat to Intels overpriced frying pan trinity will be out next, with an reworked IGP and Bulldozer modules.

You can't compare products that aren't out yet the FX-8130P will be a winner all you can do is compare that to sandy bridge.

Enough forums have the type of comments I parodied earlier(post 372). See all the comments predicting the end of AMD when Intel talked about 22NM finfets. AFAIK,Hexus is not too bad in that respect.

The reason I'm questioning it is that Lllano is the first real decent GPU/CPU combo, which adds a genuine GPU to the CPU, I don't consider Intels IGP on sandy bridge worth it at all, it seems they just added an oboard GPU to the CPU. An effort in my eyes which isn't good enough, other than Quick sync it's a waste of space.

Llano has the power of a discrete card, but at the cost of 50% of the transistors (Intel's HD3000 GPU 20% which does GPGPU). All I was thinking Llano could of been this amazing 8 core K10 chip or 6 core with a lesser GPU (which could still handle GPGPU tasks) and would it benefit the end user more. I feel a 6 core Llano would of had kick Intel of it's perch as Intel needs, due to their pricing monopoly with their Core i range of CPU's.

AFAIK,Trinity is only going to use a pair of Bulldozer modules at most and still have a large percentage of the APU dedicated to graphics.

[watercooled]

I haven't once seen you say " Yes, in comparison to the mobile sandybridge the CPU bridge the numbers aren't there yet".

Why do I need to say what you already know - Intel's cores are currently faster. I've not denied it.

We are on an enthusiast forum of course numbers are going to matter?

To us, yes. But not to most people.

Llano has the power of a discrete card, but at the cost of 50% of the transistors (Intel's HD3000 GPU 20% which does GPGPU). All I was thinking Llano could of been this amazing 8 core K10 chip or 6 core with a lesser GPU (which could still handle GPGPU tasks) and would it benefit the end user more.

The amount of transistors is to be expected - compare Fermi or Northern islands against any CPU. Again, Llano is aimed at mid-range and more CPU power... hang on haven't we been over this?

[Biscuit]

The reason I'm questioning it is that Lllano is the first real decent GPU/CPU combo, which adds a genuine GPU to the CPU, I don't consider Intels IGP on sandy bridge worth it at all, it seems they just added an oboard GPU to the CPU. An effort in my eyes which isn't good enough, other than Quick sync it's a waste of space.

Llano has the power of a discrete card, but at the cost of 50% of the transistors (Intel's HD3000 GPU 20% which does GPGPU). All I was thinking Llano could of been this amazing 8 core K10 chip or 6 core with a lesser GPU (which could still handle GPGPU tasks) and would it benefit the end user more. I feel a 6 core Llano would of had kick Intel of it's perch as Intel needs, due to their pricing monopoly with their Core i range of CPU's.

.... you mention 'the benefit to the user' but im yet to hear what it is

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

The A8-3850 has already turned up on the website of a US retailer for around $144:

http://www.shopblt.com/cgi-bin/s.cgi...=100&s_all=FM1

The Core i3 2120 is around $150:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...3+2120&x=0&y=0

Hopefully,this means the A8-3850 is around £100 to £110. The Core i3 2120 is around this price:

http://www.scan.co.uk/products/intel...33x-65w-retail

http://www.ebuyer.com/product/254978

[DanceswithUnix]

Llano has the power of a discrete card, but at the cost of 50% of the transistors (Intel's HD3000 GPU 20% which does GPGPU). All I was thinking Llano could of been this amazing 8 core K10 chip or 6 core with a lesser GPU (which could still handle GPGPU tasks) and would it benefit the end user more. I feel a 6 core Llano would of had kick Intel of it's perch as Intel needs, due to their pricing monopoly with their Core i range of CPU's.

I thought that too, but Anandtech just did their low end HTPC graphics card comparison and I came away with a simple thought: If a 160 shader dedicated GPU simply can't cut it for video post processing then Llano is the minumum spec for a decent media PC.

Laptops bore me, but I am now starting to see some interesting possibilities in a low power consumption part that can do full effects at 1080p. For that use 4 cores is more than enough.

[Blackmage]

.... you mention 'the benefit to the user' but im yet to hear what it is

Would a lesser GPU be more beneficial, but with a higher CPU core/clock speed count.

The A8-3850 has already turned up on the website of a US retailer for around $144:

http://www.shopblt.com/cgi-bin/s.cgi...=100&s_all=FM1

The Core i3 2120 is around $150:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...3+2120&x=0&y=0

Hopefully,this means the A8-3850 is around £100 to £110. The Core i3 2120 is around this price:

http://www.scan.co.uk/products/intel...33x-65w-retail

http://www.ebuyer.com/product/254978

To me this is the correct pricing, and the fact that they are aiming at the i3. If these prices are true then you'll have an excellent APU CPU/GPU for the money. Hopefully they'll overclock well!

[DanceswithUnix]

Would a lesser GPU be more beneficial, but with a higher CPU core/clock speed count.

Lesser GPU would give you more cores or more cache, but if the GPU is so useless that you might as well turn it off then that is called a Phenom II isn't it

CPU core speed washes out here, if you only use a bit of the GPU then the cores should be able to turbo up to make use of the TDP just the same as if they hadn't included the silicon.