AMD Compares Llano and Sandy Bridge in Video

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Status
Not open for further replies.
[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]
Read your own article.
"We know which side has the better graphics part integrated, but how does that translate into real-world performance? This is what AMD is trying to show everyone, but keep in mind that these are specific conditions."
You are implying that the test is of the combined performance of cpu/apu and integrated graphics by this.
 
LOL a comparison video released by AMD, and fanbois going nuts? Geez.
 
[citation][nom]moricon[/nom]Pointless, AMD need to have product in market already, they are running late and need to execute![/citation]
This ^

A demo means nothing without a presence in the market place. It makes no difference to me what a prototype CPU from amd can do compared to something that has been available from Intel for a few weeks now.
 
i bet they remove the cpu heatsink on intel chip to lag like that, i doubt video lagging on sandy bridge really, pretty much a marketing video to save the compagny from falling appart. we actually see no hardware in the video laptop to laptop comparative that is bad news.
 
As an Intel fan, I must admit that it was impressive, though it is possible that they have given themselves an advantage. Not using the latest drivers, not optimizing, comparing CPUs of unequal price... Lots of ways this could be skewed...
 
Now only if AMD fixes their idling power usage and this could turn out to be a amazing chip
 
I have to say, it's really funny to read all the comments from the fanboys, on both sides. I've always rooted for AMD so that Intel has competition. This video is, quite vividly, upsetting Intel fanboys and all are crying foul due to losing. Wow. It really does make me laugh. EVERYONE should be happy about this. Competition drives advancement. Look at the Auto industry. The big 3 were un-challenged for decades, now they're starting to realize they need to step up their game in order to compete. Same type of thing here. We can only hope that BD comes out strong so, in a year from now, we'll have great choices on BOTH sides of the fence.
 
[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]

1 - Is English your primary language? What PART of "This comparison is between TWO Quad Core Mobile CPUs with their respective built-in GPUs. Both of these CPUs include GPUs. Both include the latest drivers." Did you NOT understand?

2 - None of these notebooks have VIDEO CARDS. The GPU (Graphics Processing Unit) are built INTO the DIE (that is called a CHIP) as the CPU. There IS NO ADD-ON CARD.

3 - Watch the video (there is a thingy called a PLAY button, use it) It goes over the stats and tell you what they are using.

4 - Learn more about computer technology.
 
[citation][nom]f-14[/nom]dude, he just cited valid points. alot more things need to be tested, like the screen size and what is the amd cpu speed? ~~ 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.[/citation]

Marcus52's points are INVALID because he doesn't know what he's talking about. Same as yourself since the system stats are included in the video - watch and pause the last few seconds.

- About MX and CPU speed of AMD: It has nothing to do with intel. M=Mobile, X= Test CPU (whatever)... like the Jetfighter FX-22 vs F-22. The "FX" is a test platform before the production model. The model number is shown, but these are all internal AMD codes, NOT the public model.

- AMD is saying that their Fusion chip is using less power than the intel... that is important. To ADD the Nvidia GPU to the notebook means more power, more costs, more heat.
 
[citation][nom]rhino13[/nom]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.[/citation]

Actually, the demo can be fair... in the regards of user interaction. The demo showed multi-tasking with video, 3D rendering and business applications running at the same time. The Intel i7 was severely studdering. The CPU is being bottlenecked by the crappy GPU that is built in. The AMD... while it would most likely LOSE in a video-endcoding race (without doing other jobs) - in everyday operations, it'll be the better chip to have.

For most people, like doing WHAT we are doing right this moment, blogging, listening to MP3 and/or watching a video. A $50 old dual core AMD is just as fast as a $1000 six-core intel. For a typical notebook user who may do some gaming, multi-media presentations, etc... having the overall performance to the end-user is more important than brute-force.

I for one, would LOVE to see a ThinkPad T-Series with such an AMD Fusion chip. It would be $50 or so cheaper and I'd order that over the intel i7 in the video above in a heart beat. I'm about ready to replace my old ThinkPad dual core intel for a faster unit. I was looking to SandyBridge... but this AMD "Excites Me." (think of that new "S&M" music video)
 
AMD is doing great with this product. The sad thing is that most software is not modified to start using the GPU. And most of the industry will wait until Intel has a similar product as AMD before they start converting their software to use accelerators. For example, the picture editing software would blown our minds away with how fast they could be using opencl(or CUDA). Just like the introduction of x86_64, the sheer momentum of intel market share gives it an advantage over AMD that trumps anything AMD can do in terms of innovation.
 
I have error-ed on a previous post.

I stated that the AMD Llano CPU (APU) is not a Phenom II CPU. I was wrong. It uses an updated STARS core (Phenom II) that runs on much lower power and updated performance... kind of a Phenom III perhaps.

Bulldozer should be/ Will be MUCH faster. AMD's current CPUs compete well against the older intel i3/i5 CPUs and for the price, they do well against Sandy Bridge. So this Fusion chip is using some older tech and is kicking some serious mobile-butt. Whats in this article is AMD's mid-level processors.

Mobile CPUs have been the weakest link in AMD's product line and its great to see them getting on track.

The other AMD Fusions, Brazos: Is aimed at thin notebooks, notepads and netbooks, etc. It totally destroys Intel's ATOM. Why? Same reason we see in this video.
- It uses less power
- Brazos has more CPU performance compared to Atom
- The built-in GPU is equal to the ATOM-Nvidia hybrid setup and uses LESS power, costs less, takes up less space.

So Atom is effectively dead. The GPU is too weak and the drivers suck.

AMD Fusion started in 2006... its 5 years in the making. The results are starting to show... and their reward will be customers. We NEED AMD to be competitive... its a great thing. Otherwise - your top end CPU today would be a 4Ghz Pentium 4 that costs $1000.
 
Back at home now, and I could finally watch the YouTube video. It looks very convincing, although I'd also like to see how well it can handle a single, more demanding game. Belardo may be an obvious AMD fanboy, but it is hard not to agree with him on this one. While I'm glad I didn't get an 880G notebook, I'm more glad now I didn't get an i3 or i5 either.
 
[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]

They're both using the integrated GPUs.... It's not AMD's fault that Intel has such a weak IGP... For web-browsing, e-mail and Office documents Intel's IGP is sufficient.
 
i meant to say marcus had a 'POINT' with out the S in regards to the cpu speed
[citation][nom]Belardo[/nom]Marcus52's points are INVALID because he doesn't know what he's talking about. Same as yourself since the system stats are included in the video - watch and pause the last few seconds..[/citation]
i was not refering to marcus's inability to read the testbed, i was refering to the unlisted speed of the amd apu, merely that if it is 4ghz i'd be impressed with it's power useage as well as if it was 1ghz and it's performance. i understand amd can not reveal it's clock until it becomes retail. the benchies on toms have shown cpu speed/gpu speed does matter. that's about all i was refering to there.
][nom]f-14[/nom]another thing i noticed was the MX moniker of the amd chip, is this a dig at Nvidia's Ti designator?
Click to expand...
About MX and CPU speed of AMD: It has nothing to do with intel. [/citation]
that was me poking fun at NVIDIA, not intel. and i think they should leave the prototype moniker as is to make a point of poking fun at NVIDIA.

as for the power bit that was for marcus to choke on.
as for the icrappy bit, what cpu are macs using now? the shoe seems to fit and look whose wearing it. seems i ruffled an apple fan, luckily they have their iPads for these days.

i must say there's a lot of toms readers playing the 'jump to conclusions' game. a lot of this stuff is clearly spelled out and yet the amount of people playing that popular office space game never cease to impress me.
Click to expand...
 


Did you read my comment? I was stating that you're immature if you need to say things like, "icrappy" instead of just crappy.
It's as stupid as when people go and put $ signs in the replacement of Companies like Microsoft, Steam or Sony. Calling me out as a fan of a product I don't own is rather obnoxious.
(In before, "Did I call you out?" When I was the only one to reply to your opinion on ipads.)
 
for the price criers the amd system will probably be cheaper.
amd won because it was alot of cpu light (except excel) and a ton of graphics.

intel lost this because its cpu is much more powerful, but it sat idle, while its gpu was completely overloaded.

this is not new people. yes im sure the amd was more optimized, but even if it wasnt it is hands down alot more powerful in the graphics.

now lets see the cpu utilization, and the AMD will be maxed out while the Intel will probably be sitting at 30-60%. this is marketing, and it was produced by AMD, so ofcourse it will show AMD in better light. and for watching videos I can tell you first hand cheap intel chip laptops are horrible, and studder like you wont believe this is for simple dvd quality.
 
amd fanboys are so easily swayed with the typical irrelevant b.s. amd hands them. seriously, people have the gumption to say intel got their ass handed to them? i guess in fact intel did get 'pwned' if amd figured out how to stuff a rPGA988B cpu onto an 1155 socket. kudos! ehh..i call b.s. that fundamental flaw right off the bat shows just how irrelevant amd is and the fact amd are morons who lack a clue. personally, i don't design 3d models while gaming and working on my spreadsheets and find myself so bored i need a movie to keep me occupied. much less care to do any of that crap on a laptop. gaming on a laptop is more pointless than trying to get some trim in the backseat of a mini cooper. there are much better options resulting in exponentially higher joy. lol. i don't recall ever attempting gaming (aside from solitaire) on intel integrated graphics. intel knows gamers prefer dedicated gpu solutions, the ability to upgrade their gpu independently from their cpu and that anyone who truly plans to venture into power hungry games won't even bother with integrated toys for their graphics. that said, intel still owns amd. p.s., if i see one of you amd fanboys bust out your laptop, flightstick, gaming mouse, steering wheel and connect a couple of flat panel monitors to your laptop, juggling all this crap on a couple of flimsy portable trays and tables and set up shop on a park bench.. i'm so going to point and lmao. hah.
 
[citation][nom]jtt283[/nom]Back at home now, and I could finally watch the YouTube video. It looks very convincing, although I'd also like to see how well it can handle a single, more demanding game. Belardo may be an obvious AMD fanboy, but it is hard not to agree with him on this one. While I'm glad I didn't get an 880G notebook, I'm more glad now I didn't get an i3 or i5 either.[/citation]

I'll buy what works best in performanceprice. Theres a reason I bought an intel Core2Quad vs. an AMD. Theres a reason I bought a notebook with an intel CPU. In general, AMD provides great value. Their boards are cheaper with more features. Sandybridge *WAS* on my list for my next upgrade... if Bulldozer does very good, then that will be the direction I go.
 
[citation][nom]f-14[/nom]"About MX and CPU speed of AMD: It has nothing to do with intel." that was me poking fun at NVIDIA, not intel. and i think they should leave the prototype moniker as is to make a point of poking fun at NVIDIA.[/citation]

I had a brain fart on that one... I meant to type Nvidia, not intel.
 
[citation][nom]synphul[/nom]amd fanboys are so easily swayed with the typical irrelevant b.s. ~ blah blah blah[/citation]

Its the ability of handling several tasks at once on a notebook, its valid. I may have some working going on in the background when I play games. Granted what they showed was overkill for most people, but it allows people to have a fast response computer when doing multitasking of multimedia.

If intel didn't care at all (and they do.. somewhat) then their GPUs today would be just as bad as they were 5 years ago.

Computer are getting smaller, and in general - the desktop market is shrinking. The need to have some-power in the GPU becomes more important for systems that don't have the ability to handle a standard gaming card.

You're thinking like old bill gates "Who needs more than 640k"? Uh, those who have computers that can do graphics, sound, etc... thats who.

 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom