AMD: Llano Is An Intel Shocker

[Khimera2000]

Cool. at least it will keep amd CPUs around on the desktop side, as for the notebook side of things. I can see this being really bad for intel if it takes off right.

As fast as intel CPUs are they still have no compatition on the graphic side. My point of view on this is that alot of people are moving into the mobile way of life. notebooks, tablets, smartpones etc.

We all know that AMD is based on a bigger fab to. while Intel have shrunk there dies down alot.

AMD looks like there in a better position to make fast performing mobile systems that intel will not be able to compete against without bringing in outside hardware (Nvidia).

Yes intel has CPU crown on the desktops, but will that matter in the future? Web Browsers are now graphic card accelerated, so are movies, and some other softwear. If more of what your good at is moving to other parts of the computer for processing, and if what your fast at and traditionaly coverd is moving to other architectures (hello ARM) how large will this market remain?

I see good things on the server side of life for intel (as long as GPU power dosent become a facter) but how popular that market stays will be another question entirely.

 

[FullBurstMode]

I think anyone who's been following the hardware scene for any amount of time will know to take these things with a grain of salt. The article pretty clearly points out that despite the big talk and show AMD's making, there's really nothing else to go off. AMD decided that a screenshot showing Lano vs Intel with Lano winning was neat but with only that knowledge you can't really draw any decent conclusion from that.

I am hoping that Lano does show good results. It'd be nice if AMD and Intel could keep each other on their toes and striving to give consumers the best possible products (maybe I'm dreaming but it's a nice dream).

As an aside... if it's the whole package that matters then I think looking simply at a cpu is kinda pointless. The examples provided (smart phones and tablets) are complete systems. A single cpu isn't.

 

[geekapproved]

It's so funny listening to you fanboys say "AMD can't beat Sandy Bridge". They don't have to. They are plenty happy being number two.

The desktop is nearly dead. AMD has moved all their R&D to emerging markets, deskto cpu's is the last priority on their list, hence the delays with BD.

They have moved on to other product lines that they can outsell Intel in.

Smart move AMD.

 

[kartu]

I'd surely upgrade my core i5, if AMD delivers. What they've promised.

 

[WR2]

[citation][nom]sykozis[/nom]The high-end market isn't what AMD is aiming for. They NEED to increase their profits, which means improving their mainstream and entry-level products. The high-end market provides little to no ROI due to low sales figures.[/citation]This is exactly right IMO.
And since the desktop market is shrinking fast the battlefield that matters most is going to be the portable devices.
http://techcrunch.com/2010/06/17/forrester-tablets-outsell-netbooks/

 

[nebun]

i don't care about power usage...give me power i can use....i want speed, who cares if the cpu is power efficient when batteries are a joke

 

[verbalizer]

i don't care about power usage...give me power i can use....i want speed, who cares if the cpu is power efficient when batteries are a joke

I have a question for you...
Your avatar made me look at you config....
How's your rig running when folding 24/7 and sometimes gaming at the same time;
no slow downs, hittin' hard and can it still do more and not have issues.?
What is the max you have pushed you CPU and have you came close to max'n those SLI 480's.?
I'm actually not being sarcastic and givin' your rig 'props', I like it a lot..
Especially usage and multi-tasking... (very well played indeed.)
I take it that it is a first gen i7 SB and not the SB2 K series, correct.?

malmental..

 

[ProDigit10]

It's very similar to an Atom CPU with decent graphics.
The cpu might be equal to an Atom N550 or 570, but with fewer threads, and the graphics unit will be faster than intel's corei's 3000 series graphics processors.

The video shows a comparison between the lowest of lowest of intel corei7 processors for mobile (the ULV version), running at between 1.67Ghz and 1.80Ghz (if I'm correct), and the AMD platform. Both the Intel and AMD version consume much battery, but AMD's processor is more in the likes of an Atom with 4 threads running at 1Ghz per thread. The Corei7 is more like a 4thread processor running at almost twice the frequency, is computing more than twice as fast, but it's graphics processor is the limiting factor.
While the graphics unit is built on 45nm technology, AMD actually has fully integrated the GPU in the CPU die, and all working on a 40nm process.
The GPU consumes about as much as intel's 3000HD graphics, but more than quadruples the performance.
On the CPU front, it's only operating at half the performance of the core i.

At least, that's what I got out of it!

 

[iamtheking123]

I doubt AMD has any capabilities that would surprise Intel. "Oh the high end doesn't matter". Yeah when you get an A at Calculus (the high end), do you really think you wouldn't get an A in Algebra (the low end)?

There's good reason why Intel's stock is worth 3x as much as AMD's.

 

[bison88]

I'm not a huge AMD fan myself, but for the sake of competition they can't come out with a competitive product soon enough. I'm sick and tired of Intel releasing some kick ass chips and then just sitting on them because they have the market and the capital to do so and force people who want their shit to pay premium prices. It got old 10 years ago Intel. Cut the BS already. Although now with there record quarters that gave investors a massive hard-on I doubt they'll give a crap about affordable products at lower profit for the consumers who are suffering the most in the economic times.

 

[amk-aka-Phantom]

Intel sitting on their asses? Can't say I agree... I was just considering a recent (at that time) Core i7-950, and then Sandy Bridge pops up, even better and cheaper, and Ivy Bridge is on the horizon... while AMD is still chewing its AM3+ socket (one of the reasons for their processors being worse - old socket? Don't know).

Yes, compatibility is nice, but that's a different market. If AMD would be only trying to conquer the market Intel doesn't have anything in or has very little (ARM, low-power netbook solutions, GPUs), it would be a healthy and respectable competition. But as long as AMD tries to prove that something is an "Intel Shocker", I'll just keep rolling my eyes...

By the way, who else feels that integrated graphics in SB Core i5/i7 such as i7-2600/2600K and i5-2500K is absolutely useless, since most of the people who get these CPUs use it on P67 chipset with dedicated graphics? Keep the IGPU for low-end!!

 

[Guest]

Prodigit10: Are you smoking crack? I take it you've never seen how slow an Atom system is to be comparing Llano to it... There are Pentium III rigs out there that eat Atom for breakfast.

 

[parasite advanced]

"1. Testing conducted by AMD performance labs using a 2011 Sabine Reference Design “Torpedo” showed 663 minutes using (11:03 min) Windows Idle as a “Resting” metric. “Active” battery life using FutureMark® 3DMark™06 as workload test showed 168 minutes (2:48 min). Intel system showed 527 minutes (8:47 min) using Windows Idle as a “Resting” metric. “Active” battery life using FutureMark® 3DMark™06 as workload test showed 106 minutes (1:46 min). All battery life calculations are based on using a 6 cell Li-Ion 62.16Whr battery pack at 98% utilization for Win Idle and Mobilemark07 workload and 96% utilization for 3DMark06 workload. AMD defines “all-day” battery life as a score of 8+ hours. Press Sample – AMD – A8-3500M Quad –Core API with Radeon HD 6690G2 Dual Graphics Switchable Graphics with Discrete off, Chipset AMD A70 FCH, 4GB 1333 MHz System Memory, Window 7 64 Bit, 62 Whr Battery. Intel Retail System – Intel Core I3-2310M with Intel HD 300 Graphics, Chipset Intel 6 Series/C200 Series Chipset family, 4GB/1333MHz System Memory, Windows 7 64 Bit, 62 Whr Battery"

 

[neblix]

[citation][nom]amk-aka-phantom[/nom]By the way, who else feels that integrated graphics in SB Core i5/i7 such as i7-2600/2600K and i5-2500K is absolutely useless, since most of the people who get these CPUs use it on P67 chipset with dedicated graphics? Keep the IGPU for low-end!![/citation]
I think that's what all the hype is, though.

No one is concerned with desktop computing performance, they're just excited that their netbooks are gonna game better.

 

[leon2006]

This product is late to the market

 

[Cash091]

ANGRY ANONYMOUS FORUM COMPLAINT!!!

 

[ProDigit10]

[citation][nom]OCd_P3[/nom]Prodigit10: Are you smoking crack? I take it you've never seen how slow an Atom system is to be comparing Llano to it... There are Pentium III rigs out there that eat Atom for breakfast.[/citation]
Not really! Have you seen how much AMD had to compromise to cut power levels on their new chip?
And I think you have the first atoms in mind. Believe me, the N550 is a pretty fast processor, fast enough to do just anything the AMD E series chip can do, plus it has hyperthreading for 30% more performance, while AMD has OOO technology for 30% more performance!
I'd say for multi threading apps they're about on par with each other!

I'm still running the older processors in one of my netbooks, but you'd think my netbook has a core2 processor in there, just because I have added an SSD. With an SSD as boot drive, it truly brings out the best of the Atom series!
Don't mistake them for the first generation Atoms that got released with slow 4.4k rpm drives!

 

[Guest]

Prodigit10: Atom hasn't gotten much faster since it's inception(except going single to dual core). I think you need to go down to your local Bestbuy and actually try out some of these things out. Llano will be probably about 10x as fast on the CPU part, and about 30x as fast on the GPU part, vs. any Atom of any generation.

 

[Friis]

when I look at laptops and see that it got intel HD 3000 as best, I go to next laptop, because I know Intel graphics are bad. So I'm looking for a powerfull Intel CPU with a powerfull Nvidia GPU.
Intel cannot make a good GPU yet, so why compare how well your APU is against intels, take a intel/nvidia setup and test against it

atom/nvidia setups gives more performance per watt (but they are still very low end, sadly). Intel is going to focus more on their atoms, just hope nvidia does the same with their ions

 

[ganteng3005]

If people are just using office and even watching Blu-Ray HD movies, then Intel HD graphics will, in fact, suffice.
http://www.anandtech.com/show/4083/the-sandy-bridge-review-intel-core-i7-2600k-i5-2500k-core-i3-2100-tested/7
Dolby TrueHD Bitstreaming? Works.
DTS HD-MA bitstreaming? Yep.
Blu-ray 3D? Make that three.

Also, there are some things AMD is missing to-date...
PCMark results -- how far does Llano CPU go against Sandy Bridge?
Price -- Does Llano cost more than a Core i5-2410m and an HD 6630M / GT525M? (6670M is 6630M with higher clocks)
Idle Battery Life compared to same-performing core - if Llano CPU performs only as fast as Core i5 2410m, then comparing it with a Core i7 2630QM is irrelevant. Just by having 4 cores does not mean that performance/battery life is equal to other 4-core processors. 4-cored ARM will definitely have a better battery life than Llano A8.
Intel HD Graphics will suffice office needs (even up to watching videos) and it also enables longer battery life for dedicated cards - not sure if Llano GPU requires less power than Intel HD. I believe that the CPU core is the one that gives a longer battery life compared to the Core i7.

So two things to do:
Compare Llano CPU VS Core i7 2630QM (with PCMark) - see how the performance/battery life works.
Compare the battery life of the Intel equivalent of AMD Llano with Intel HD Graphics - and also the price/performance of the laptops.

 

[ganteng3005]

If people are just using office and even watching Blu-Ray HD movies, then Intel HD graphics will, in fact, suffice.
http://www.anandtech.com/show/4083/the-sandy-bridge-review-intel-core-i7-2600k-i5-2500k-core-i3-2100-tested/7
Dolby TrueHD Bitstreaming? Works.
DTS HD-MA bitstreaming? Yep.
Blu-ray 3D? Make that three.

Also, there are some things AMD is missing to-date...
PCMark results -- how far does Llano CPU go against Sandy Bridge?
Price -- Does Llano cost more than a Core i5-2410m and an HD 6630M / GT525M? (6670M is 6630M with higher clocks)
Idle Battery Life compared to same-performing core - if Llano CPU performs only as fast as Core i5 2410m, then comparing it with a Core i7 2630QM is irrelevant. Just by having 4 cores does not mean that performance/battery life is equal to other 4-core processors. 4-cored ARM will definitely have a better battery life than Llano A8.
Intel HD Graphics will suffice office needs (even up to watching videos) and it also enables longer battery life for dedicated cards - not sure if Llano GPU requires less power than Intel HD. I believe that the CPU core is the one that gives a longer battery life compared to the Core i7.

So two things to do:
Compare Llano CPU VS Core i7 2630QM (with PCMark) - see how the performance/battery life works.
Compare the battery life of the Intel equivalent of AMD Llano with Intel HD Graphics - and also the price/performance of the laptops.

 

[whatisupthere]

[citation][nom]Friis[/nom]when I look at laptops and see that it got intel HD 3000 as best, I go to next laptop, because I know Intel graphics are bad. So I'm looking for a powerfull Intel CPU with a powerfull Nvidia GPU. Intel cannot make a good GPU yet, so why compare how well your APU is against intels, take a intel/nvidia setup and test against it[/citation]

If you are interested in the fastest most powerful gaming laptop intel/nvidia is a good choice. I think most people want a lower cost computer that still provides good balanced performance. The intel cpu and nvidia gpu will likely cost more, have a shorter battery life, be thicker and run hotter.

A good comparison would be intel/nvidia vs llano at the same price with an external ati GPU. The llano may also benefit from xfire in this case.

 

[David 617]

looking forward to this!

 

[eddieroolz]

I'm excited to see this shocking performance.

 

[BSMonitor]

Nothing like water cooler talk of the demise of Intel from a press release saying "Ours is faster than theirs" ... With NO data to back it up. AMD has played this game before. Cough cough Phenom TRUE quad core... "Oh, sorry everyone, you are just testing it wrong.. Come to our special labs where you can only run our software.. It's all really fast then..."