Features - Roy Taylor blog: The importance of AMD APU as a category

[Warsam71]

Just so everyone is aware Roy Taylor is reading all of the comments on this thread so if you've something to say/question to raise feel free to post on the thread and no doubt he will answer!

This is a great post! Lots of insights, thank you for sharing everyone... and as DR has said, Roy is reading and I'm here too

[crossy]

Cheap CPU with onboard graphics is still just a CPU with onboard graphics. The APU category is marketing spiel, nothing more.

With the greatest respect, (of course), have you actually thought that comment through - or is it just knee-jerk "I'm a l33t 0v3rc10cker, so everyone else iz, lulz"?

Look around and you'll see that all the majors (HP, Acer, Lenovo, etc) are shipping APU-based desktops. Why? Because the fact that the AMD APU's are a reasonable cpu with relatively decent integrated graphics mean that they can get a family "jack of all trades" system out to Joe Public at a reasonable cost. Heck, I've even heard some describe APU's as being SOC's (System-On-a-Chip) type devices.

Then there's laptops - excluding the ones with discrete graphics - the reviews I've seen seem to show that the AMD APU's are pretty decent for some portable gaming. Definitely a mile ahead of the alternative - Intel integrated graphics!

Of course, if you've something to back up the accusation of "marketing spiel" then please feel free to share, and I'll be the first to admit I'm wrong. But then again, you're saying that you know more than all those "experts" in HP, Acer, Leonovo, etc...

(PS I don't work for AMD)

[watercooled]

Cheap CPU with onboard graphics is still just a CPU with onboard graphics. The APU category is marketing spiel, nothing more.

I'm not entirely sure what you're getting at there, TBH with no justification it just strikes me as flame baiting?

Is it specifically the APU term you have a problem with? Remember the introduction of the term GPU, why not refer to it as graphics-oriented-coprocessor, or VPU like ATI intended? GPU just stuck as the term used to refer to such ASICs.

AMD have, IIRC, publicly referred to Intel's products as APUs too, they don't claim to be a sole provider of them. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acceler...rocessing_unit
Also, there's more to an APU than just a CPU with a graphics die bolted on via a PCIe bus; features designed to make GPGPU more accessible and usable to developers are added with each iteration, with another major bump coming with Kaveri. And like I said earlier, there are other accelerators besides the GPU present on an APU.

Maybe Intel just don't want to admit they're doing something similarly to AMD, or have their GPU compute performance scrutinised? Monolithic quad cores, IMC, AMD64 - AMD may have set more trends than a lot of people give them credit for.

[aidanjt]

With the greatest respect, (of course), have you actually thought that comment through - or is it just knee-jerk "I'm a l33t 0v3rc10cker, so everyone else iz, lulz"?

Look around and you'll see that all the majors (HP, Acer, Lenovo, etc) are shipping APU-based desktops. Why? Because the fact that the AMD APU's are a reasonable cpu with relatively decent integrated graphics mean that they can get a family "jack of all trades" system out to Joe Public at a reasonable cost. Heck, I've even heard some describe APU's as being SOC's (System-On-a-Chip) type devices.

Then there's laptops - excluding the ones with discrete graphics - the reviews I've seen seem to show that the AMD APU's are pretty decent for some portable gaming. Definitely a mile ahead of the alternative - Intel integrated graphics!

Of course, if you've something to back up the accusation of "marketing spiel" then please feel free to share, and I'll be the first to admit I'm wrong. But then again, you're saying that you know more than all those "experts" in HP, Acer, Leonovo, etc...

(PS I don't work for AMD)

What are you rambling about? I didn't say nobody is interested in AMD 'APU's' as a product, hell, I'm considering them myself for a HTPC for my mother and sister. I said the category itself is marketing bunk. There's nothing about parking the IGP part in the CPU package (or even on die) that makes the CPU less centralised, the contrary is true, and all x86 CPUs sold over the last 10 years has had specialised problem-specific acceleration units, so it's not like they weren't accelerated before. And they're most definitely not SoCs, they don't have primary audio and IOP parts for user input, mass storage, networking, usb and the like, so they're not a system on a chip. Hell, SoC as a category itself could be considered marketing spiel, they're definitely the most central processing unit in systems which use them, and a lot of them simply add multiple chips to the same package, so technically not system on a chip.

[watercooled]

Kabini is a SoC, in the classic sense, unless you disagree with using any remotely ambiguous terms anywhere in the industry? Even ARM mobile SoCs tend not to have main memory on-die, so can they not be called SoCs either? Or are you just arguing for the sake of arguing?

[aidanjt]

Kabini is a SoC, in the classic sense, unless you disagree with using any remotely ambiguous terms anywhere in the industry? Even ARM mobile SoCs tend not to have main memory on-die, so can they not be called SoCs either?

Nope. And I already explained how.

Or are you just arguing for the sake of arguing?

I'm pointing out marketing crap for what it is. Just marketing. It isn't objective taxology. I'm not sure why the two of you are getting your panties in a bunch in defence of marketing buzz.

[wasabi]

I love AMD and wish them success, which is why I hate to see them go down this route. They're fundamentally attached themselves to a very problematic idea in APUs - part concept, part execution, part market sector strategy. Bit like when they first brought Athlon 64 out - all the hardware site junkies shouted 64 bit praises, but the reality was 64 bit wasn't commonly used in desktops till Win7.

Great - put some GPU hardware that runs mind-bogglingly hot, but has a higher temp tolerance, right on top of some hardware (X86) that can't cope with the same temps.

Then add in hybrid crossfire that has repeatedly been shown to not work as advertised (see Tom's hardware analysis).

Offices won't buy them because they don't need high level graphics and are better served by more power efficient and better known Pentiums.

Alienate gamers who can't use hybrid crossfire (since it sucks) so end up having to pay for the onboard GPU as part of APU, then buy a decent graphics card anyway.

Lose focus on temps and efficiency, thus failing in the ever so important mobile sector. Desktop PCs are becoming niche so the only people likely to buy these things are skint gamers or HTPC people who don't mind high TDP solutions that need a lot more cooling than Intel counterparts.

AMD - on the desktop give us the choice of cheap CPUs with minimal or no GPU bolted on.

Get your processes sorted to make yourself relevant in the laptop sector - the e350s, e450s and so on were good - not seeing much new or competitive there?

Sure - offer APUs as an option. But realise most people don't need them in the lifetime of their next PC buy.

[HalloweenJack]

so in your `opinion` aidanjt its marketing


well that's your opinion - others differ so why name call?

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

i love amd and wish them success, which is why i hate to see them go down this route. They're fundamentally attached themselves to a very problematic idea in apus - part concept, part execution, part market sector strategy. Bit like when they first brought athlon 64 out - all the hardware site junkies shouted 64 bit praises, but the reality was 64 bit wasn't commonly used in desktops till win7.

Great - put some gpu hardware that runs mind-bogglingly hot, but has a higher temp tolerance, right on top of some hardware (x86) that can't cope with the same temps.

Then add in hybrid crossfire that has repeatedly been shown to not work as advertised (see tom's hardware analysis).

Offices won't buy them because they don't need high level graphics and are better served by more power efficient and better known pentiums.

Alienate gamers who can't use hybrid crossfire (since it sucks) so end up having to pay for the onboard gpu as part of apu, then buy a decent graphics card anyway.

Lose focus on temps and efficiency, thus failing in the ever so important mobile sector. Desktop pcs are becoming niche so the only people likely to buy these things are skint gamers or htpc people who don't mind high tdp solutions that need a lot more cooling than intel counterparts.

Amd - on the desktop give us the choice of cheap cpus with minimal or no gpu bolted on.

Get your processes sorted to make yourself relevant in the laptop sector - the e350s, e450s and so on were good - not seeing much new or competitive there?

Sure - offer apus as an option. But realise most people don't need them in the lifetime of their next pc buy.

wtflolwtf??

[watercooled]

Nope. And I already explained how.

So no term is allowed the slightest amount of ambiguity? And next to nothing on the AP market called a SoC should be called a SoC in your opinion? Ever thought the term is just allowed some ambiguity by most people for simplicity, like so many other terms in various markets?

I'm pointing out marketing crap for what it is. Just marketing. It isn't objective taxology. I'm not sure why the two of you are getting your panties in a bunch in defence of marketing buzz.

Quite the opposite, I was wondering why you jumped into a thread and posted a trollish one-liner; what were you hoping for exactly? Do you really think no-one else can see what APU refers to/means? And as I said, and you seem to have ignored, AMD don't claim to be the sole provider of what they refer to as APUs, and there really is more to them than a bolted on GPU.

Is the term used for marketing? Sure. Why not refer to everything by its internal technical name and variables e.g. Sandy Bridge 2C (GT1), 3.2GHz, 256KB L2 per core, 3MB L3, LGA 1155, MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, EIST, Intel 64, XD bit, Intel VT-x, HTT, Smart Cache, Intel Insider? Of course that's not exhaustive and there are some marketing terms there that need eradicating still. Core i3-3210 rolls off the tongue better don't you think?

[watercooled]

Great - put some GPU hardware that runs mind-bogglingly hot, but has a higher temp tolerance, right on top of some hardware (X86) that can't cope with the same temps.

Have you seen some catastrophic temperature problems with 'APUs' then? Me neither...

Offices won't buy them because they don't need high level graphics and are better served by more power efficient and better known Pentiums.

Most comparisons I've seen place AMD FM2 platform idle power consumption below that of 1155. Idle power of the CPUs themselves is becoming a non-issue.

Alienate gamers who can't use hybrid crossfire (since it sucks) so end up having to pay for the onboard GPU as part of APU, then buy a decent graphics card anyway.

Last time I checked, all mainstream Intel CPUs have on-die graphics too. And people make the same daft argument about it. For one, fabbing a separate die for a relatively small market may end up less cost efficient than just having people not use the on-die GPU i.e. consumer wouldn't necessarily save anything. And even with a discrete GPU, the on-die logic can still be put to use, especially forward-looking, AMD or Intel.

Lose focus on temps and efficiency, thus failing in the ever so important mobile sector. Desktop PCs are becoming niche so the only people likely to buy these things are skint gamers or HTPC people who don't mind high TDP solutions that need a lot more cooling than Intel counterparts.

Rubbish. Again, is there some catastrophic problem no-one else has heard about plaguing APU laptops? Desktop PCs are far from being niche, I thought that myth was buried. And the fact AMD CPUs are more than competitive in real-world gaming, even before considering price. And what parts need so much more cooling exactly?

[aidanjt]

so in your `opinion` aidanjt its marketing

well that's your opinion - others differ so why name call?

Where did I start calling names? I used an idiom to describe becoming unnecessarily upset over a trivial matter, not an ad hominem. Dismissing me a flame baiter/troll, however...

[watercooled]

That was me, and I merely said that about your comments, not you. As I said, what were you hoping for? I saw it as a deliberate attempt to annoy people (i.e. flame baiting) TBH, so I called it.

And, due largely to that attempt, a thread waiting on genuine questions, with a possibility of answers direct from the MFR, has descended into this. So, tell me again, what was gained by it?

TBH I was going to completely ignore the post; I originally saw it last night, prior to making a small edit to my post previous to it (but completely unrelated to it). In hindsight, I should have done, but I was interested in what exactly you meant by that post - I'd expected more of a follow-on. But now I know it's just your dislike for the marketing, and marketing in general. Fair enough.

Edit: And at the end of the day, we could moan all day about marketing terms from various companies. For example, 'Iris Pro Graphics' or 'Crystalwell' - it's essentially the same thing as the other IGPs with a chunk of L4 on-package. Does the marketing really change anything? The product does what it does regardless. In other words, I just don't see why the branding is such a big deal.

[aidanjt]

I saw it as a deliberate attempt to annoy people (i.e. flame baiting) TBH, so I called it.

Well you were wrong. My objection to the marketing buzz was my sincere opinion. I always express my sincere opinion. If some persons get annoyed by an opinion they disagree with, that's their problem, not mine. They're perfectly entitled to politely express their disagreement and reasoning behind their opinion, but casually dismissing my opinion as a trolling is impolite and not reasonable discussion in the slightest. Even after I explained my thoughts further, you still hand-wave dismissed me as trolling. So you went quite a bit beyond a mere request for clarification.

And, due largely to that attempt, a thread waiting on genuine questions, with a possibility of answers direct from the MFR, has descended into this.

Is there a rule, that we must go into sycophancy mode in the presence of a manufacturer's representatives, that I missed? The thread wasn't just for asking questions, either. Right at the bottom of the article:

Do let us know in the forums if you agree or disagree with his take on events.

I expressed my disagreement. And there's absolutely nothing wrong with that. And had you and crossy not started acting like I shot your dogs, there wouldn't be any of this rambling, there'd just be my little succinctly expressed thought on the category. Nor I wouldn't have had any problem with elaborating on whatever curious minds would be curious about on request. But vitriol like that renders sensible discussion impossible and causes a chilling effect on future expression of thoughts and opinions. Frankly, I expected better from you.

[watercooled]

Is there a rule, that we must go into sycophancy mode in the presence of a manufacturer's representatives, that I missed? The thread wasn't just for asking questions, either.

Not at all, but questions are less likely to get a response if the thread descends into non-constructive ranting. And I didn't say the thread was 'just for question', I said it was now waiting on questions etc. And if you read back I posted a few of my own thoughts, potential areas for improvement IMO, etc.

I dismissed *one* post as such, and I stand by that. The wording didn't exactly come across as a humble opinion. And TBH you've essentially dismissed the stance of two entire industries as wrong, based on your opinion.

Frankly, I expected better from you.

Likewise, hence my request for clarity - I would've ignored it, were it by a one-poster.

[crossy]

Well you were wrong. My objection to the marketing buzz was my sincere opinion. I always express my sincere opinion.

Quite correct, and in a lot of cases I find my opinion aligned with yours.

Even after I explained my thoughts further, you still hand-wave dismissed me as trolling. So you went quite a bit beyond a mere request for clarification.

But that's the problem - you DIDN'T explain.

Is there a rule, that we must go into sycophancy mode in the presence of a manufacturer's representatives, that I missed?

Erm no, if the manufacturer in question has messed up then they should expect to get called out about it. By habit I'm an AMD loyalist, but my next cpu purchase will not be AMD, because they've got nothing that is as suitable for gaming as an i7-4770K. Shame on you AMD!

I expressed my disagreement. And there's absolutely nothing wrong with that. And had you and crossy not started acting like I shot your dogs, there wouldn't be any of this rambling, there'd just be my little succinctly expressed thought on the category.

I asked a simple question - to whit - what is it about "Accelerated Processing Unit" that YOU find so objectionable?
"CPU" = processing unit only, "APU" = CPU+graphics. In which case - I'd argue - the term "APU" is useful to consumers because they know what they're getting, (i.e. they're not going to open up their Pavilion desktop and wonder what shifty so-and-so has whipped the graphics card).
AMD are also (this is my perception) pushing their APU's, sorry CPU+integrated graphics, because although they probably realise the corresponding Intel parts are more powerful on the processing side, the AMD ones have the triple-play advantages of being cheaper, drawing less power, and be able to show "Intel integrated graphics" a clean pair of heels on most game-based benchmarks.

And to back up something watercooled said (a person whom, like yourself, I have respect for) if you just proffer an opinion and don't back it up/justify it and then slag off any naysayers, then my valued acquaintance, that starts to resemble "trolling". Something which I would normally be hesitant to accuse you of.

PS, don't have a dog, you could try dropping a line and hook in my fish tank though... LOL