http://www.engadget.com/2010/02/09/amd-fusion-sampling-soon-arriving-in-2011-with-llano-apu/ Engadget Comments for AMD Fusion sampling soon, arriving in 2011 with Llano APU http://www.engadget.com/media/feedlogo.gif http://www.engadget.com en-us Copyright 2012 Weblogs, Inc. The contents of this feed are available for non-commercial use only. Blogsmith http://www.blogsmith.com/http://www.engadget.com/2010/02/09/amd-fusion-sampling-soon-arriving-in-2011-with-llano-apu/http://www.engadget.com/2010/02/09/amd-fusion-sampling-soon-arriving-in-2011-with-llano-apu/Feb 9th 2010 5:20AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/02/09/amd-fusion-sampling-soon-arriving-in-2011-with-llano-apu/http://www.engadget.com/2010/02/09/amd-fusion-sampling-soon-arriving-in-2011-with-llano-apu/
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.]]>Feb 9th 2010 5:29AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/02/09/amd-fusion-sampling-soon-arriving-in-2011-with-llano-apu/http://www.engadget.com/2010/02/09/amd-fusion-sampling-soon-arriving-in-2011-with-llano-apu/
as* lol sorry :x]]>Feb 9th 2010 5:30AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/02/09/amd-fusion-sampling-soon-arriving-in-2011-with-llano-apu/http://www.engadget.com/2010/02/09/amd-fusion-sampling-soon-arriving-in-2011-with-llano-apu/
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?]]>Feb 9th 2010 5:39AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/02/09/amd-fusion-sampling-soon-arriving-in-2011-with-llano-apu/http://www.engadget.com/2010/02/09/amd-fusion-sampling-soon-arriving-in-2011-with-llano-apu/
So if someone wanted to overclock the athlon to like... 3.5ghz for example, it would perform worse than stock?]]>Feb 9th 2010 6:02AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/02/09/amd-fusion-sampling-soon-arriving-in-2011-with-llano-apu/http://www.engadget.com/2010/02/09/amd-fusion-sampling-soon-arriving-in-2011-with-llano-apu/
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.]]>Feb 9th 2010 6:28AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/02/09/amd-fusion-sampling-soon-arriving-in-2011-with-llano-apu/http://www.engadget.com/2010/02/09/amd-fusion-sampling-soon-arriving-in-2011-with-llano-apu/
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.]]>Feb 9th 2010 6:34AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/02/09/amd-fusion-sampling-soon-arriving-in-2011-with-llano-apu/http://www.engadget.com/2010/02/09/amd-fusion-sampling-soon-arriving-in-2011-with-llano-apu/
We are, and number 2.

You talk to the BUNT? The BUNT talks down to you!

]]>Feb 9th 2010 6:35AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/02/09/amd-fusion-sampling-soon-arriving-in-2011-with-llano-apu/http://www.engadget.com/2010/02/09/amd-fusion-sampling-soon-arriving-in-2011-with-llano-apu/
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.]]>Feb 9th 2010 10:17AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/02/09/amd-fusion-sampling-soon-arriving-in-2011-with-llano-apu/http://www.engadget.com/2010/02/09/amd-fusion-sampling-soon-arriving-in-2011-with-llano-apu/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]]>Feb 11th 2010 9:08PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/02/09/amd-fusion-sampling-soon-arriving-in-2011-with-llano-apu/http://www.engadget.com/2010/02/09/amd-fusion-sampling-soon-arriving-in-2011-with-llano-apu/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 ]]>Feb 11th 2010 9:14PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/02/09/amd-fusion-sampling-soon-arriving-in-2011-with-llano-apu/http://www.engadget.com/2010/02/09/amd-fusion-sampling-soon-arriving-in-2011-with-llano-apu/Feb 9th 2010 5:22AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/02/09/amd-fusion-sampling-soon-arriving-in-2011-with-llano-apu/http://www.engadget.com/2010/02/09/amd-fusion-sampling-soon-arriving-in-2011-with-llano-apu/
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. ]]>Feb 9th 2010 10:51AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/02/09/amd-fusion-sampling-soon-arriving-in-2011-with-llano-apu/http://www.engadget.com/2010/02/09/amd-fusion-sampling-soon-arriving-in-2011-with-llano-apu/Feb 9th 2010 5:28AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/02/09/amd-fusion-sampling-soon-arriving-in-2011-with-llano-apu/http://www.engadget.com/2010/02/09/amd-fusion-sampling-soon-arriving-in-2011-with-llano-apu/
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.]]>Feb 9th 2010 5:36AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/02/09/amd-fusion-sampling-soon-arriving-in-2011-with-llano-apu/http://www.engadget.com/2010/02/09/amd-fusion-sampling-soon-arriving-in-2011-with-llano-apu/
1H2011, so 1st Half of 2011. I will expect it around Q4 of 2011.]]>Feb 9th 2010 5:38AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/02/09/amd-fusion-sampling-soon-arriving-in-2011-with-llano-apu/http://www.engadget.com/2010/02/09/amd-fusion-sampling-soon-arriving-in-2011-with-llano-apu/Feb 9th 2010 5:40AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/02/09/amd-fusion-sampling-soon-arriving-in-2011-with-llano-apu/http://www.engadget.com/2010/02/09/amd-fusion-sampling-soon-arriving-in-2011-with-llano-apu/Feb 9th 2010 5:34AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/02/09/amd-fusion-sampling-soon-arriving-in-2011-with-llano-apu/http://www.engadget.com/2010/02/09/amd-fusion-sampling-soon-arriving-in-2011-with-llano-apu/
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?]]>Feb 9th 2010 5:57AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/02/09/amd-fusion-sampling-soon-arriving-in-2011-with-llano-apu/http://www.engadget.com/2010/02/09/amd-fusion-sampling-soon-arriving-in-2011-with-llano-apu/
+1]]>Feb 9th 2010 6:04AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/02/09/amd-fusion-sampling-soon-arriving-in-2011-with-llano-apu/http://www.engadget.com/2010/02/09/amd-fusion-sampling-soon-arriving-in-2011-with-llano-apu/Feb 9th 2010 7:09AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/02/09/amd-fusion-sampling-soon-arriving-in-2011-with-llano-apu/http://www.engadget.com/2010/02/09/amd-fusion-sampling-soon-arriving-in-2011-with-llano-apu/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.]]>Feb 9th 2010 9:56AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/02/09/amd-fusion-sampling-soon-arriving-in-2011-with-llano-apu/http://www.engadget.com/2010/02/09/amd-fusion-sampling-soon-arriving-in-2011-with-llano-apu/Feb 9th 2010 6:07AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/02/09/amd-fusion-sampling-soon-arriving-in-2011-with-llano-apu/http://www.engadget.com/2010/02/09/amd-fusion-sampling-soon-arriving-in-2011-with-llano-apu/
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.]]>Feb 9th 2010 7:30AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/02/09/amd-fusion-sampling-soon-arriving-in-2011-with-llano-apu/http://www.engadget.com/2010/02/09/amd-fusion-sampling-soon-arriving-in-2011-with-llano-apu/Feb 9th 2010 6:20AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/02/09/amd-fusion-sampling-soon-arriving-in-2011-with-llano-apu/http://www.engadget.com/2010/02/09/amd-fusion-sampling-soon-arriving-in-2011-with-llano-apu/
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.]]>Feb 9th 2010 6:34AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/02/09/amd-fusion-sampling-soon-arriving-in-2011-with-llano-apu/http://www.engadget.com/2010/02/09/amd-fusion-sampling-soon-arriving-in-2011-with-llano-apu/If you need "as much as you can get", why are you sticking with a rather modest 4GB?]]>Feb 9th 2010 7:46AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/02/09/amd-fusion-sampling-soon-arriving-in-2011-with-llano-apu/http://www.engadget.com/2010/02/09/amd-fusion-sampling-soon-arriving-in-2011-with-llano-apu/
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.]]>Feb 9th 2010 9:22AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/02/09/amd-fusion-sampling-soon-arriving-in-2011-with-llano-apu/http://www.engadget.com/2010/02/09/amd-fusion-sampling-soon-arriving-in-2011-with-llano-apu/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.]]>Feb 9th 2010 9:59AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/02/09/amd-fusion-sampling-soon-arriving-in-2011-with-llano-apu/http://www.engadget.com/2010/02/09/amd-fusion-sampling-soon-arriving-in-2011-with-llano-apu/Feb 9th 2010 6:29AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/02/09/amd-fusion-sampling-soon-arriving-in-2011-with-llano-apu/http://www.engadget.com/2010/02/09/amd-fusion-sampling-soon-arriving-in-2011-with-llano-apu/
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.]]>Feb 9th 2010 7:38AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/02/09/amd-fusion-sampling-soon-arriving-in-2011-with-llano-apu/http://www.engadget.com/2010/02/09/amd-fusion-sampling-soon-arriving-in-2011-with-llano-apu/
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. ]]>Feb 9th 2010 9:20AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/02/09/amd-fusion-sampling-soon-arriving-in-2011-with-llano-apu/http://www.engadget.com/2010/02/09/amd-fusion-sampling-soon-arriving-in-2011-with-llano-apu/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.]]>Feb 9th 2010 9:29AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/02/09/amd-fusion-sampling-soon-arriving-in-2011-with-llano-apu/http://www.engadget.com/2010/02/09/amd-fusion-sampling-soon-arriving-in-2011-with-llano-apu/
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. ]]>Feb 9th 2010 8:54AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/02/09/amd-fusion-sampling-soon-arriving-in-2011-with-llano-apu/http://www.engadget.com/2010/02/09/amd-fusion-sampling-soon-arriving-in-2011-with-llano-apu/Feb 9th 2010 8:54AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/02/09/amd-fusion-sampling-soon-arriving-in-2011-with-llano-apu/http://www.engadget.com/2010/02/09/amd-fusion-sampling-soon-arriving-in-2011-with-llano-apu/
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.]]>Feb 9th 2010 8:58AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/02/09/amd-fusion-sampling-soon-arriving-in-2011-with-llano-apu/http://www.engadget.com/2010/02/09/amd-fusion-sampling-soon-arriving-in-2011-with-llano-apu/
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?]]>Feb 9th 2010 11:08PM