llano offers great laptop performance which is really the only market it needs to do well in. also the A8 is actually plenty powerful for casual gamers who just want to play some older/non stressing games like sim3, sc2, wow, LoL and just about any mmo. Oh look I pretty much listed 90% of games people play on pc. Games like bf3 and metro 2033 are pretty niche in comparison. Games that are on consoles have most people playing on consoles as well.
Sorry but WoW may run on a low end GPU but it can easily kill it. Had a customer who killed two HD6450s playing WoW. And I mean killed as in no 3D app would launch at all.
And you are wrong on the amount of games played. CS:S is the number 1 FPS in the world, SC2 is getting up there and then you have TF2, DoD:S and tons of other games.
As for consoles, the only ones who play on consoles are people who have no real knowledge of what a game is. I don't have any consoles, apart from the Dreamcast which was the last good console. I wont play a FPS on a console, just not the same.
the thing with AMD taking is approach is semi enthusiast are just going to always recommend Intel and the intel brand name would shut AMD out of the market like its been doing until the APUs launched. Even now intel laptops sell much more than the llano even tho llano will generally offer better general performance for a less price.
Intel also can manufacture more CPUs with a higher ratio of good to bad CPUs than AMD can. Intel has 12 FABs around the world, 7 here in the US. AMD has GF and thats it besides relying on TSMC which also has had process issues.
Price is very subjective. We have a list of builds for Intel and AMD at my work and they are generally within $50 bucks of each other, not including LGA1366. For almost the same price people can get a i5 2500K with the same GPU, HDD and amount of RAM.
If amd is to be believe about piledriver in trinity, they will be getting amazing performance per watt compared to bulldozer. 35w chip with 400 gpu cores + 2 modules compared to the 125w chip with only 4 modules. I mean trinity is suppose to get a 100% increase in performance per watt compared to llano from what amd says, maybe just the gpu part but the cpu part would still need to draw less power too. The 17w chips are suppose to be comparable to the 35w llano chips.
Effectively I'd guess piledriver to drive down the power usage a lot, probably not to intel level but at least better than phenom II. Bulldozer's high power usage are mostly due to the crappy 32nm process anyways.
The last time AMD was believable was with Athlon 64. The last two major processor releases were fudged performance wise.
BDs high power usage is not only the crappy process but also the amount of pointless extra transistors the CPU has. Unless gF has gotten their 32nm in check, which Trinity will use, and AMD has cut the fat A LOT from Trinity it too may suffer high power usage.
#1 that has nothing to do with this thread
#2 that article is complete bullshit, nvidia can't physically launch the real 680 any time soon, they are going to launch the 660 and brand it as a 680 to get something on the market
#3 All the info on the article are fake leaks thats been floating around the internet for months
1. Watch the language. We don't appreciate that around here.
2. Glad to know you have all the insider information.
3. All the articles about BD that showed poor performance were called fake. Then it was released. And it turned out true.
Generally the trickle down effect of information will make intel sell even to people who would be better off with AMD products. A person might be told intel is best for gaming, he goes to tell everyone he knows to get intel laptops with integrated graphics. People on this forum often recommend intel to just about any cpu thread because it is the best, people are going to see the name intel and buy it.
People will recommend the i3 over the trinity APU simply because it has better gaming performance with the 7970 put in without looking at the need or use of the system. Many people buy i7s just because they are the "best" when i7s are complete waste of money except for people who do rendering/video transcoding ect. With the money saved from the i7 people can buy an ssd for much better general performance. Theres the marketing at work because realistically people will do what they thing is good whether they know what they are doing or not.
Intel is greedy which is what is keeping AMD alive in the desktop market at all. If intel launched their products better, they could drive AMD out of the market because they just have the technology. If intel just launched a 3 core unlocked cpu at about $150 and a 2 core unlocked cpu at $100 AMD would not be able to survive in the desktop market. It would just mean intel doesn't make as much money since they will sell a lot more low end CPUs and intel doesn't want that.
The purpose of a business is to take your money. That includes AMD, nVidia, Intel any company. Even the company I work for, being locally owned, is meant to take consumers money. Its the only way they survive.
I reccomend Intel in laptops for two reasons. 1. they have better power usage and CPU performance and 2. with a dedicated GPU, they are the better choice. Llano is only good against Intel with HD3000 only. Plus a lot of the Intel laptops with nVidia use the Optimus system which uses the integrated graphics for 2D and the nVidia for 3D which helps to save a ton of power as well.
I recommend Intel but if the customer is low budget, I tend to sell our AMD basic systems to them, albiet without the FX which is going to suck when we can't get Phenom/Athlon IIs anymore. Llano is a bit more expensive, especially since you want to use 1866 RAM for the best performance, using 1333 RAM tends to make it perform the same as a HD3K.
And no company wants to make less money. You need to realize they have a responsability to the investors, as does AMD. And to give a great example, of AMD doing the exact same thing, as I said before many a time, look at the HD7970. It gives the best performance for a single GPU yet comes at a premium, one we haven't seen on ATI GPUs for a few generations. $550+. Not quite the people friendly label thats given to AMD ever so often.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram