AMD Launches APU for Embeded Systems

Status
Not open for further replies.

burnley14

Distinguished
Apr 1, 2009
682
0
18,990
3
This is really exciting. With such a low TDP I'd imagine that lots of devices are going to get a lot more powerful now, instead of the traditional escalation of desktop CPU power while everything moves at a snail's pace.
 

CoryInJapan

Distinguished
Aug 14, 2008
276
0
18,780
0
[citation][nom]otacon72[/nom]AMD is so far behind now they will never catch up. Llano won't be out until Q3 from everything I've read and the only release date for Bulldozer is 2011. Several articles claim Bulldozer is already a generation behind SandyBridge. AMD was left in the dust when Core 2 came out. Thumb me down all you want...lol[/citation]
You may be true to an extent...but this sounds more like an intel fan boy who is biased and exaggerates the truth.
 

stingstang

Distinguished
May 11, 2009
1,160
0
19,310
19
Score one for AMD. The smartest move for them now is to whore the living hell out of that, and sell it to every company with the hint of a pulse. Do that, and BEFORE Intel starts their own line of processors, and they may have a chance.
 
G

Guest

Guest
It's not meant to "beat" Sandy Bridge - this is targeted at an entirely different market. AMD currently can't compete in the $150+ CPU price range, so why shouldn't they press their advantage in low-cost, low-power parts?

This embedded board could be useful for HTPC/streamers, firewalls, and NAS devices.
 

Simple11

Distinguished
Jan 31, 2009
248
0
18,680
0
Thank you Josh G. He's right, as I looked for a HTPC, all systems I looked at were Atom+ION/2 combos. VIA had a good combo but lacked in conservative values. Even for a carPC the Atom+ION was the best choice, but all this here looks good on paper. Looking forward to see it put to the test.
 

gto127

Distinguished
Jan 8, 2008
158
0
18,680
0
"AMD is so far behind now they will never catch up. Llano won't be out until Q3 from everything I've read and the only release date for Bulldozer is 2011. Several articles claim Bulldozer is already a generation behind SandyBridge. AMD was left in the dust when Core 2 came out. Thumb me down all you want...lol"
I'm not sure how credible this is but Xbit has info that this may not be the case. Supposedly someone is claiming that bulldozer beats everything by a good margin. Here is link.
http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/cpu/display/20110114134306_AMD_s_Bulldozer_Microprocessors_Expected_to_Offer_50_Higher_Performance_than_Core_i7_Phenom_II_Chips.html
 

helldog3105

Distinguished
Apr 2, 2009
70
0
18,630
0
I don't about that link to xbitlabs but I somehow doubt looking at the architecture for the Bulldozer that it will be faster than Sandy Bridge. It may be as fast or close to as fast, but I highly doubt it will be faster.
 

zaho0006

Distinguished
Jun 27, 2010
50
0
18,640
1
As simple and josh pointed out this is not meant to compete with Sandy bridge. Based on the benchmarks that I have seen this should double the graphics performance of atom/ion combos while gaining battery life and getting away from optimus graphics switching.

This would be outstanding for HTPC's, and may even give netbooks some gaming potential, especially given their lower resolutions.
 
G

Guest

Guest
As much as I'd like to root for AMD, I don't think they will retake the performance lead anytime soon. Intel would have to make mistakes, and so far they haven't. (Though the lower end Sandybridge should have come with the better GPU since the higher end ones would likely be used in systems with discrete graphic cards)
 

xrodney

Distinguished
Jul 14, 2006
588
0
19,010
10
[citation][nom]mayankleoboy1[/nom]in embedded systems you really dont need parallel processing. almost all of the work is done in a serial processing. i dunno whats the market segment they want to capture.regarding bulldozer, it will have a tough time competing with intel. its late to the scene and wont be able to compete with the intel die shrink.but i love competition.[/citation]
In most of systems embedded or not parallel processing is big plus. You don't need quad or octa core, but dual should be minimum with exception of single task devices but those wont need apu anyway, will get better with arm.
 

rhino13

Distinguished
Apr 17, 2009
590
0
18,980
0
I can compliment a fusion procesor with a nicer graphics card, but somehow I'm still stuck with an AMD CPU.
If AMD's CPUs could keep up with their GPUs we'd really have something here.
 

jabliese

Distinguished
Apr 25, 2006
310
1
18,795
1
[citation][nom]mayankleoboy1[/nom]in embedded systems you really dont need parallel processing.[/citation]

"hardware decode support for H.264, VC-1, MPEG2, WMV, DivX and Adobe Flash"

Most embedded systems want video processing. No better reason for parallel processing.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS