AMD Compares Llano and Sandy Bridge in Video

[Marcus52]

[citation][nom]Belardo[/nom]You are VASTLY incorrect. None of those that you describe is a "video card". Both CPUs have built-in GPUs. As long as both systems are setup properly... intel just got kicked in the nuts.AMD Fusion has been in the works for about 4 years. Intel has always sucked in graphics, even thou they are FAR better today than previous.[/citation]

Read the systems tested, my friend. The video cards matter, and if they didn't why did they put them in at all? Both these chips have built in graphics processing, and if that's what they wanted to compare then they should have tested systems WITHOUT any discreet cards. They did not, so the setup must have been rigged. Also, I notice they don't even tell us what speed their processor is running at, which can make a huge difference. Lying by omission of information is still lying.

 

[blackened144]

Was this big news that AMDs graphics are better than Intels? Intels graphics were never designed to be the best.. Only to be good enough.. If AMDs on-die graphics was WORSE than Intels, that would be news worthy..

 

[daship]

To bad people use their computers for more then gaming. Oh snap.

 

[Guest]

Marcus52 03/03/2011 2:48 PM
Hide
-0+

Belardo :
You are VASTLY incorrect. None of those that you describe is a "video card". Both CPUs have built-in GPUs. As long as both systems are setup properly... intel just got kicked in the nuts.AMD Fusion has been in the works for about 4 years. Intel has always sucked in graphics, even thou they are FAR better today than previous.



Read the systems tested, my friend. The video cards matter, and if they didn't why did they put them in at all? Both these chips have built in graphics processing, and if that's what they wanted to compare then they should have tested systems WITHOUT any discreet cards. They did not, so the setup must have been rigged. Also, I notice they don't even tell us what speed their processor is running at, which can make a huge difference. Lying by omission of information is still lying.

If you actually understand the info you are reading, you will realize it was a fair test. Neither system had a 'discreet' card. Both had built in. Intel's is their latest and greatest chip with built in card. Same for AMD except AMD's is not yet released. If you are asking which built in graphics each are using, that is the information provided. Otherwise someone will complain that the Intel was using older graphics. You have to know what you are talking about before you can talk about it.

 

[noblerabbit]

Take note Intel & AMD, my next PC overhaul is this late fall 2011, when good PC games come to surface. Whichever has the best platform for the money, will be my purchase. As of now, Sandy Bridge is tempting, but I am patient for AMD Bulldozer real world tests, as well as Intels' Z68 offering.

 

[pelov]

Marcus, there are no discrete graphics card in that test.

The 6620M IS the built-in graphics for the AMD llano chip. The HD3000 IS the built-graphics for the Intel Sandy bridge mobile chip.

This tech is fantastic for the mobile segment. Generally speaking, people don't do many heavy CPU intensive tasks on a laptop. On a daily basis the most a lappy will come across that really tests its hardware are videos and maybe some light gaming, which is exactly what AMD recognized and addressed.

How does it fair for bulldozer? well... who knows =P this video doesn't address BD at all.

 

[dalta centauri]

Read the systems tested, my friend. The video cards matter, and if they didn't why did they put them in at all? Both these chips have built in graphics processing, and if that's what they wanted to compare then they should have tested systems WITHOUT any discreet cards. They did not, so the setup must have been rigged. Also, I notice they don't even tell us what speed their processor is running at, which can make a huge difference. Lying by omission of information is still lying.

The integrated GPU is very important, and AMD has been known to look into this. Comparing video performance is a great way to show that their CPU is better then Intels in the mobile market. Their not falsifying any information, but simply that AMD "performs better" which it should considering that where the i7 being as powerful as it is, won't be able to play games on it's own integrated gpu where AMD's llano can (Or I should say, "Should"). They may not tell us what the speed of their processor is because it's not released on the market for most consumers.

They could have had the AMD rig setup with 2gb of RAM and without an SSD and still say it performs better in games, since it would. They didn't, they had equal rigs competing with one another...although another factor will easily be the price.

 

[foxalopex]

[citation][nom]Marcus52[/nom]Both these chips have built in graphics processing, and if that's what they wanted to compare then they should have tested systems WITHOUT any discreet cards. They did not, so the setup must have been rigged. Also, I notice they don't even tell us what speed their processor is running at, which can make a huge difference. Lying by omission of information is still lying.[/citation]

Whoah Marcus, I don't think you know what you're talking about. I own a Sony laptop with a hybrid graphics system. It is an Intel i7 core with a built in Intel GMA graphics card in the CPU. There is also a discrete Nvidia graphics accelerator onboard. There is a magic "switch" that let's you toggle between the two. The problem with using discrete graphics card in Laptops is that it uses a LOT more power and discrete graphics parts costs a LOT more money. If you integrate both into the CPU, the system runs cooler, uses less power and is cheaper. Intel's problem is despite being a very powerful CPU, their graphics accelerators are barely usable. AMD however has a decent graphics accelerator. Why's this matter? Most consumers will buy the cheapest laptop on the market and that usually means integrated graphics card, not discrete so AMD wins because overall they will give customers better bang for the buck with the benefit of a cooler and longer running mobile system. Especially for folks who do occasional gaming. Besides, read Tom's Sandy Bridge review. In it, Intel is criticized for putting a built in graphics chip in their fastest sandy bridge cpu that no sane gamer would ever use due to it's poor performance. Why put something in that no one will use?

 

[James296]

hmmm, interesting.

 

[bv90andy]

My GPU still gets down-clocked (memory and GPU)when watching a hardware accelerated video, so I can't do anything else 3D when watching a video.... AMD rather sucks for me right now.

 

[geekapproved]

Better late, than broken.

 

[Guest]

the most interesting thing about this is Llano uses the stars core, this is not even bulldozer, makes you wonder about bulldozer...

 

[Onus]

VERY interesting. Any marketing will always cast the subject product in a favorable light. I don't doubt that Intel could produce an ad with these exact same systems, with theirs blowing the AMD out of the water; nevermind that it would likely be something CPU-intensive that average users wouldn't see. For these average users, this looks great for AMD; especially those power numbers. So yeah, Intel took a boot to the scrotum on this one.

 

[pacioli]

[citation][nom]Marcus52[/nom]Read the systems tested, my friend. The video cards matter, and if they didn't why did they put them in at all? Both these chips have built in graphics processing, and if that's what they wanted to compare then they should have tested systems WITHOUT any discreet cards. They did not, so the setup must have been rigged. Also, I notice they don't even tell us what speed their processor is running at, which can make a huge difference. Lying by omission of information is still lying.[/citation]
Marcus you are wrong. The HD 3000 is the integrated GPU inside the K series and mobile sandy bridge processors. The 6620M is the integrated graphics processor inside the AMD Llano mobile processor. They are comparing 2 integrated GPUs.

 

[pacioli]

[citation][nom]alan0n[/nom]So we are comparing an AMD CPU with a built in graphics co-processor with an Intel CPU w/o a graphic co-processor. Thats like comparing a 1970 gremlin and a 2005 viper on a 1/4 mile track because they are both cars. Silly comparison with obvious results.[/citation]
No you are comparing to CPUs that both have integrated graphics on the die.

 

[f-14]

when amd makes this retail crisis 1&2 bench test please! because if this can play crisis in a notebook i will not need a desktop any more and sony's psp, nintendo's gameboy, the icrap, all of it can just head straight for the garbage dump, i do not care if it is brand new in the box, it's just become 1980's obsolete garbage!

 

[zerapio]

Now where's that spoon of salt??

 

[f-14]

[citation][nom]foxalopex[/nom]Whoah Marcus, I don't think you know what you're talking about. In it, Intel is criticized for putting a built in graphics chip in their fastest sandy bridge cpu that no sane gamer would ever use due to it's poor performance. Why put something in that no one will use?[/citation]
dude, he just cited valid points. alot more things need to be tested, like the screen size and what is the amd cpu speed? that was the first question that sprang into mind when i saw the intel chip was 2ghz.
i also noticed the huge power jump when the 3-d cad app was run where intels power was an average 78.4 watts max(onstart up) vs. the amd went to 54.4watts max
another thing i noticed was the MX moniker of the amd chip, is this a dig at Nvidia's Ti designator? hmmm another benchie of an intel sandy with a Nvidia mobile gpu would be interesting to see also.
my other question is for how long is the 6xxx series gpu on die going to be the gpu? will it change with faster cpu's or is this going to be the same old boring intel gpu for 5-10 years like intel typically does?
a lot of intel fanbois feathers seem ruffled, don't worry intel always markets for business, hence their always icrappy gpu's. i doubt most businesses will ever actually allow employees to watch movies and play video games while they work.
amd is marketing for gamers with these, mobile gaming at that. the dual core i-gpu version of this will probably rock every mobile device's world.
ican see ipads going into the toilet pretty fast if you could get a 14" tablet running win7 with this demo'd..... sorry i'll mop up my drool now. didn't mean to dash every hope of soon to be icrapple pad3 users.

 

[pocketdrummer]

Who here actually uses an integrated chip anyway?

 

[f-14]

can you imagine your ps3/xbox on a 14" tablet screen? YOU CAN NOW!

 

[Guest]

@pocketdrummer

i dare say alot more if the claims we seeing here are validated

 

[rhino13]

I thought we might have been looking at a fair demo till he said "we also have great x86 performance."
Then I was like rigged.
No doubt AMD can beat the life out of Sandy Bridge graphically but never on the x86 front.

I'm waiting for unbiased reviews. You'll have to release for those to commence AMD.

 

[sonofliberty08]

[citation][nom]NeBuN[/nom]this is not a fair test...intel HD 3000 is a crappy video card, AMD HD 6620 is a whole different video card....so how is this fair? try again[/citation]
and how u think the intel 6 million to dell is fair huh ?

[citation][nom]Marcus52[/nom]Read the systems tested, my friend. The video cards matter, and if they didn't why did they put them in at all? Both these chips have built in graphics processing, and if that's what they wanted to compare then they should have tested systems WITHOUT any discreet cards. They did not, so the setup must have been rigged. Also, I notice they don't even tell us what speed their processor is running at, which can make a huge difference. Lying by omission of information is still lying.[/citation]
just take that intel lose this time intel fanboi

[citation][nom]blackened144[/nom]Was this big news that AMDs graphics are better than Intels? Intels graphics were never designed to be the best.. Only to be good enough.. If AMDs on-die graphics was WORSE than Intels, that would be news worthy..[/citation]
intel graphic was designed to be crap , and is for retarded intel fanboi only XD

 

[dalta centauri]

a lot of intel fanbois feathers seem ruffled, don't worry intel always markets for business, hence their always icrappy gpu's. i doubt most businesses will ever actually allow employees to watch movies and play video games while they work.
amd is marketing for gamers with these, mobile gaming at that. the dual core i-gpu version of this will probably rock every mobile device's world.
ican see ipads going into the toilet pretty fast if you could get a 14" tablet running win7 with this demo'd..... sorry i'll mop up my drool now. didn't mean to dash every hope of soon to be icrapple pad3 users.

My head started to hurt with all the "I(words)." It's annoying to see people come up with, "ican see ipads icrappy gpu's..."
It's not as if I'm an Apple fan, but it seems rather childish.

With the info you want, you'd get more info from a reviewer. It simply happens that AMD likes to release Ads and commercials to be "friendly" with consumers.

 

[m0j0j0j0]

if im not mistaken didnt intel just give nvidia a ton of cash for licensing fee's on future technology's.. also settled all disputes they had against eachother in one swoop!

I can only imagine what the future will bring for intels onboard graphics. Hopefully they will start producing some real cutting edge graphics integrated into the cpu. I for one love intel to the core, i used to love amd for their lower prices, but intel does have a bit more quality over amd you cant really go wrong with either for a desktop cpu i cant really dog on amd too badly.

Intel is more cutting edge if you ask me..