To say that we've been waiting for AMD's Fusion CPU / GPU combo
for a long time would be
an understatement. In fact, while AMD was busy
talking about it, Intel swept in with its own
Arrandale and
Clarkdale chips that pack graphical and computing processing into the same chip. Lest we were discouraged, then, AMD is making a return to form with news that its first Fusion APU (Accelerated Processing Unit) is about to start sampling to manufacturers, with a
now definite 2011 launch window. Codenamed Llano, this will be a quad-core beastie with intended operating speeds of more than 3Ghz and graphics parts borrowed from ATI's successful line of
Evergreen GPUs. That means DirectX 11, a feature Intel is unlikely to match, whereas AMD will have everything Intel currently does and more, with a 32nm production process, on-die integration (rather than just the same chip packaging), and
power gating allowing for dynamic per-core overclocking a la
Turbo Boost. It's been lonely without you AMD, now just fulfill this promise and all that absenteeism will be forgiven.
posted February 9th 2010 5:03AM
Never write off AMD. The thing is, AMD gives you a 4 core CPU for under $100. I can Build an entire 4 core computer for $300. Isn't that nuts? Admittedly the Athlon in a workstation it's useless (no L3 cache), but 10 of these $300 bad boys in a render farm is as Shanks & Bigfoot would say 'sweet like chocolate!'
@BUNT2
Is having no L3 cache that big of a deal? I looked at the reviews comparing a Phenom II x4 downclocked to the same speed as the Athlon II x4 620 and it performed just ask good in everything except gaming which was only about a 5% decrease in performance.
@CJisohsocool
as* lol sorry :x
@CJisohsocool
Well you're exactly right, but you're point is wrong. The reason you wont see the Athlon at higher clocked speeds is because that's when there is a need for L3 cache.
And for the record, I'm not interested in games. I'm talking about vfx work. Besides, last I heard there was no reason to go quad for games?
@BUNT2
So if someone wanted to overclock the athlon to like... 3.5ghz for example, it would perform worse than stock?
@CJisohsocool
First of all, I don't think you can.
Second of all, At 2.2GHz the Athlon may be on par with the Phenom, however if both were running at 3.5GHz the Athlon would be a useless little bitch much like a cache-less Celeron.
@BUNT2
Err are we talking about the same thing lol? the Athlon II x4 620 is 2.6ghz (the 630 and 635 are 2.8 and 2.9ghz respectively), In the reviews for it on newegg everyone says how awesome it overclocks, What I wanna know is that if you meant
1. That making the L3 less Athlons a higher clockrate it makes it perform worse
or
2. That a higher clockrate'd athlon would suck compared to the same speed phenom with the L3 cache.
@CJisohsocool
We are, and number 2.
You talk to the BUNT? The BUNT talks down to you!
@BUNT2
I have an AMD AthlonII 620 and I OC'ed it to nearly 3.3 Ghz on stock cooling with no voltage mods. I imagine if I started messing with the voltage and used a better motherboard, I could get over 3.5 easily.
Btw, AMD's L3 cache scheme is different than intel's. AMD's L3 (in their Phenom II CPUs at least) have 48-way set-associative. In contrast, intel's i7 L3 is set-associative. Neither approach is necessarily better- it's a tradeoff between maximizing useful cache space (higher associativity) vs. lower penalties for missed cache access (lower associativity).
Hence, AMD's CPUs have less performance impact with L3 removed. I believe Intel's chips would see a larger delta if L3 was disabled.
@BUNT2
u can still get a quad core with l3 cache and a large amount of it the phenom II x2 dual core has actually 4 cores but 2 are locked u can unlock them actually pretty easy with the right motherboard and they only cost under $90, and have unlocked multipliers
@corneliusm
goddam ur both idiots the phenom 2 has much more of oc ability than the athlon, and the athalon has less cache than the phenom and it price doesnt matter because u can get a phenom quad core for only $90 wich is cheaper than the athalon and still better because its is so easilly oc'able to 3.8ghz on stock, 4.15ghz with an even better one so the phenom 2 is better and techniaclly it does not perform 5% better it performs like 60% becuase of the oc and the more advanced socket
Neat, i might finally go back to AMD. but all i can really think about is getting a free breakfast at a particular food chain :)
@NeatOman Yes, this Intel dominance needs some dwindling or else the whole NVIDIA fiasco will just get worse and expand onto other things.
A 32 nm 4-core CPU/GPU system on a chip will do wonders in a portable. I hope they can keep the power and thermal suckage down.
I buy Intel but I want AMD to succeed. Not nice when there is no competitor!
@sibyy
The fact that they are saying OEM's in 2011 I would think would be Q4 2011. Typical AMD slippage I think 2012 is more likley.
@Jimbob
1H2011, so 1st Half of 2011. I will expect it around Q4 of 2011.
@Jimbob that's what I hate. They've been really slipping with their manufacturing process. Hopefully ATI's success and the recent payout from Intel would be used for investment to keep up.
This our friend, is the FUTURE. Multi-core APUs.This will change everything, bring it on intel and nvidia.
Ugh. I don't want integrated graphics. I didn't want it when Intel did it, and I don't want it when AMD does it.
At the very least, the video port takes up a position on the motherboard that could be used by more useful ports. Why have an extra onboard video port I won't use when I could have extra USB or ESATA ports?
@jgp
+1
@jgp derp... this processor is aimed heavily at laptops and for computers for people who dont game. This will have huge market appeal, and its gpu will put intels gpu to shame
@jgp
AMD/ATI's integrated graphics are usually pretty decent. Certainly WAY better than Intel's offering.
Hell, I have integrated graphics on my HTPC, and I can use it to watch 1080p video on my TV, while simultaneously using a secondary 1680x1050 montior for whatever. You can't do that on Intel's graphics.
I say keep this whole "Integrated graphics" for just laptops. The only real use for them in desktop form is for HTPC's and thats a really small niche.
@CJisohsocool. GPU performance nearing its peak. If the integrated GPU would be able to perform on par with e.g. radeon 5770 that would be more than sufficient for almost everything on 1080p resolutions.
But considering that it is slated for 2011 and 2010 just stared... No point speculating: two years is time long enough for specs to be rewritten many times.
Remember, these will have graphics by AMD/ATI. Whatever integrated graphics will be in these chips should be miles ahead in capability than what Intel has to offer. Hopefully to the point where they match the power of at least low to mid-range dedicated graphics.
@hang
Integrated graphics are still integrated graphics. Because integrated graphics lack their own memory, they take over system RAM. I multitask like crazy and run entirely without swap or paging. I need as much available RAM as I can get. Hell, even the 4GB I have on my desktop feels cramped, and I have a discrete video card.
@jgp
If you need "as much as you can get", why are you sticking with a rather modest 4GB?
@n3rrd
Because I built my last desktop in 2007, back when 4GB was pretty high-end for desktops. My next desktop will likely have 12 GB--I'll probably start speccing it out when Gulftown comes out.
@jgp
I don't know what brands all have it, but my ASUS motherboard has what they call "SidePort" memory. It's DDR3 RAM soldered to the board that you can use for the ATI integrated graphics.
I doubt I'll be interested in this but hopefully, this is the start of a sweet comeback.
So in one year, they're going to have the exact same features and 32nm production process Intel has now?
What's Intel going to have in a year's time from now? Won't they be moving on to the 28nm production process? Won't Sandy Bridge be out by then?
AMD is great for those developing computers on a budget, but ever since the Athlon days ended they have never been able to compete with Intel.
@Prevacator
People always overestimate the amount of R&D capital AMD has. Intel has significantly more resources at their disposal to make advancements.
Sure AMD is partnering up with IBM among others to get to a 22nm process, but that's not ready for mass production yet.
Also, this is a quad-core with on-die graphics rather than a dual-core with on-chip graphics. I'd imagine it'd still get pretty warm, but hopefully the 32nm process will help to compensate there. Depending on the microarchitecture used on paper, I'd say this sounds better than Arrandale.
@Brother Unit No 4
It does, especially the graphics unit. But it won't be out for nearly a year if not longer. By the time that comes out Intel will have Sandy Bridge ready, which will annihilate anything AMD has to offer, if this is the best they got a year from now.
@n3rrd
I imagine that's all his motherboard will handle.
@jgp
You really have to be running a lot of software to use 4 gigabytes of ram, I have 3 gigs in my laptop and have never used it all unless running a virtual machine. Must be OO and firefox running at the same time lol.
AMD, I'm pulling for you. Don't listen to all these player haters. They were probably the same people who said the Saints would lose on Sunday.
@Torpedo Vegas
At least you said "player" hater, if you would have said "playa" I would have had to take you around back and off you.
I agree go AMD....go Saints too.
I had done a report on AMD only last semester and one of the things I looked into most was this APU. People seem to be ignoring or I was misinformed about some of the benefits.
The combination of the CPU and GPU gets rid of the longest bottleneck in processing graphics - the CPU and GPU communicating with one another (Since they are one unit, duh).
This benefit would translate not just to graphic processing but also the space it would save within a system - one chip is smaller than two - the money it would save for various reasons and therefore probably retail for a lower price which we know is AMD's strategy for the most part.
So the way I read it was that this chip would be just all around better than anything else (faster, smaller, cheaper). The technology could be applied to games, lower frame-rates, but also to smartphones because of its space saving.
I know I feel like i described a fairy tale device but it is two years down the road so I didn't think it had to be wrong. Someone hold me?