AMD Fusion: Brazos Gets Previewed: Part 2, Performance

[nebun]

[citation][nom]egmccann[/nom]No, if the processors were "the same," 9 out of 10 normal people would pick whatever's cheapest, or stuck in the brand (by which I mean HP, Acer, etc., not Intel or AMD) they know.[/citation]
most laptops run on intel cpus

 

[dEAne]

I find this article much impressive than the intel atom.

 

[shadowmaster625]

18W UM Arrandales are like $200. Intel charges an arm and a leg for them. This isnt competing with them, unless intel is willing to see profit margins destroyed. But why would they? Like with apple, people would still buy intel even if they doubled their prices across the board. Sure maybe they'd lose 10%, but who cares about 10% when prices double? Too many dumb morons out there....

 

[Guest]

@nebun

breaking news, intel controls 80% of CPU supplies.....

 

[krash3x]

Hey guys I don't know if you are paying attention but amd wasn't trashing atom all that much. They haven't even released the platform yet and it was still pretty close in bench marks. There is nothing definitive about these tests that is going to make the average person want a bulldozer platform over a intel and ion platform. We are talking about netbooks which are just for people checking facebook and maybe watching content on netflix or hulu. Dx11 means nothing on a netbook. You would be lucky to get unreal tournament 2004 running on this on high settings let alone highest settings and resolutions due to the lack of buffer. Its not really much of an advance at all, most people will be happier with a core i3 or culv and an nvidia gtx 410 or 420 in it for maybe a 100 dollars more on a laptop. Quit trying to fake excitement, if amd wants people to chose their platform maybe they should quit lagging behind intel. They just now released a desktop processor that is comparable to the core i7 920. That is a year and a half. I haven't bought AMD because I'm not setting for less. I really hope they get in gear and make it a benefit to have an AMD processor in your machine again, because intel is a really nasty, dirty company.

 

[Terrance]

This is exciting to me, as it indicates that there will be some actually useful tablet computers soon. I'm tired of my console-like ipad. I want a "real" open-end computer that can accept any real OS, and be able to perform acceptably well.

 

[BulkZerker]

[citation][nom]killerclick[/nom]The masses play Farmville and Mafia Wars. I don't care how good the specs are, you cannot have a quality 3D gaming experience on a laptop screen, not even 17" but especially not 10".[/citation]

I can get a 3d experience on my netbook just fine, it only costs me 1 6pack and everything nice a blurry just like any $3000 setup you might or might not have. ANd it even gives me the headache later like your expensive setup too!

Psssh 3d gaming is crap till they can make work without burring the hell out of the images. And the only product that did that has been discontinued because of Nvidia coming back into the market with their 12 year old shutter glasses.

 

[eddieroolz]

Like I stated on the earlier article, a huge win is in AMD's hands. I hope they take the time to re-educate those hopeless customers that have been brainwashed into thinking that Intel is always better.

 

[WR2]

It will be interesting to see if this can gain any traction in the marketplace.

 

[PcVeteran]

Spectacular!

 

[Guest]

I have been disturbed in reading your reviews, because they are so often misleading because of your charts. The errors always favor Intel. It is like reading modern public financial statements, where everything is made to look good for the company until you read the notes and small type. For example, you compare Intel processors versus AMD processors without noting the megahertz speed of the processors nor the price next to each chart. It is not fair to show a chart comparing an Intel processor selling for $999 that requires a system worth $2000 with an AMD processor selling for $150 in a system that sells for $600. Yet, that is repeatedly shown in your charts. Few notebooks use the Intel processors that you use in comparisons, so you compare widely available AMD processors (available say at $180) versus rare, picked Intel rarely available processors, even if they are supposedly priced the same.

 

[mikat]

I agree mike fas... that is badly misleading.

Some thoughts on the higher end:
"Komodo is the code name for the CPU design that replaces Zambezi in the performance desktop space....Komodo is to be the "enhanced" version of Bulldozer with DirectX 11-class graphics (remember, Zambezi won't include graphics)."

Big Question: Will Komodo's GPU be as powerful as a discrete card or at least close? If not, then you'll be paying for a GPU that you won't use if you get a discrete card anyway... kind of like Sandy Bridge so I guess really no loss. If so, however, I imagine it will cost a ton less than buying a CPU and GPU separately. You'll only need one heat sink, it will use less power and run cooler than having them separate, motherboards will be cheaper. Big savings there! You wouldn't be able to upgrade them individually but who cares if you already saved so much. This will really shake things up. Nvidia???

 

[zaphod113]

Please do a review of AMD's Hudson solution vs Intel's NM10.