AMD Preps Fusion-based Quad-core A8-3530MX

[waethorn]

What AMD brings is better value for the mainstream and more well-balanced platforms. Intel has fast x86 cores, and not much more. AMD has better chipsets (more SATA 6Gbps ports) with better stability, and has chipset and CPU integrated graphics technology that is far and away better than anything Intel will ever produce.

Intel would be better off going back to PowerVR-based graphics tech for their CPU graphics in ALL of their CPU's, not just Atom's. PowerVR DX10 tech was also used in the GMA 500 chipset for Z-series Atom's, but it was total shyte - not even powerful enough for Aero, even on Windows 7. PowerVR can hardly compare to GPU makers AMD and NVIDIA, but it's still better than what Intel themselves can provide, and if they already have a license with them, they should take advantage of it. Intel themselves can't build good graphics tech worth a wet fart.

 

[pelov]

[citation][nom]Waethorn[/nom]What AMD brings is better value for the mainstream and more well-balanced platforms. Intel has fast x86 cores, and not much more. AMD has better chipsets (more SATA 6Gbps ports) with better stability, and has chipset and CPU integrated graphics technology that is far and away better than anything Intel will ever produce.Intel would be better off going back to PowerVR-based graphics tech for their CPU graphics in ALL of their CPU's, not just Atom's. PowerVR DX10 tech was also used in the GMA 500 chipset for Z-series Atom's, but it was total shyte - not even powerful enough for Aero, even on Windows 7. PowerVR can hardly compare to GPU makers AMD and NVIDIA, but it's still better than what Intel themselves can provide, and if they already have a license with them, they should take advantage of it. Intel themselves can't build good graphics tech worth a wet fart.[/citation]

when using the PC my CPU sits nearly at idle and only goes up to 30% when gaming. It's that same scenario that AMD saw and sought to address with fusion. What's the point of a blazingly fast CPU if it's not coupled with what, at least for most users, is the primary system hog: video.

Bulldozer may be all the rave and talk for everyone but fusion really is by a mile the bigger idea and story here.

 

[fir_ser]

[citation][nom]coupe[/nom]June 21st[/citation]
Next month will be an exciting month for AMD.

 

[i_am_aronman]

Fusion is great... its aiming at developers though not consumers. If i was a developer of a laptop i would use Fusion before Intel based on the fact that it would bring my OVERALL stats of the laptop, like the battery would last longer, the graphics would be better, it would be lighter. Intel doesn't have anything to compete with this yet. BUT...... for the love of god AMD, Bulldozer.... don't forget this market please. We have been waiting forever.

 

[tdenton1138]

B[citation][nom]wishmaster12[/nom]Its almost as if Bulldozer is a myth.[/citation]

Bull Dozer Forever?

 

[crisan_tiberiu]

i guess Bulldozer is going to replace my Core 2 Duo E 6750 ...i hope

 

[belardo]

LOL.... Bulldozer is not so much a Myth... its pretty much on AMD's schedule.

Its just that the CHIP is actually quite good and people WANT TO BUY IT!

The POS Phenom1 CPUs... were like... oh.... who cares, your late and your slow.

 

[kiniku]

[citation][nom]srgess[/nom]Lol where is your source that say it will be faster then i7-2600k and priced that low. If bulldozer was really faster then i7-2600k amd would had cry so loud like they did with fusion.[/citation]

http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/cpu/display/20110520130335_AMD_FX_Series_Top_of_the_Range_Microprocessor_to_Cost_320_Report.html

 

[silverblue]

[citation][nom]Waethorn[/nom]PowerVR can hardly compare to GPU makers AMD and NVIDIA[/citation]

That's just it though... what really is stopping ImgTec creating a prototype discrete card? A card with specs equal to the 6310 would perform much faster thanks to tile-based deferred rendering, but I guess until they give it a go, we won't really know how fast.

 

[crisan_tiberiu]

[citation][nom]c1o5ry1991[/nom]Bulldozer is going to be so irrelevant when it comes. It missed its due date way too long ago if you ask me. As soon as AMD comes out with bulldozer Intel is just going to be like "Lolk, we can top that" in a short period of time. At this point it has to be something so ridiculously innovative it's not even funny. If it was a short while after the sandy bridge mess ups they could have made bank on it so easily and then proceeded to go from there instead of a big release that will just be topped again by Intel.[/citation]
ill still get Bulldozer over SB because i hate intel with theese high prices ^^

 

[Prey]

[citation][nom]GeekApproved[/nom]AMD is happy with the value segment. They don't need to be number one to be successful. They have been number 2 for 15yrs.[/citation]
They were number 1 when 64 XPs were the processor to have. As soon as intel learned to count past 4, AMD lost a lot ground.

 

[pelov]

don't forget the bartons as well as the T-birds. For a good number of years AMD was whoopin' butt. It wasn't really until core2duo came out that AMD lagged behind.

 

[bak0n]

Just bought an E350. /cry.

 

[crisan_tiberiu]

[citation][nom]c1o5ry1991[/nom]You do realize putting together an intel system is cheaper than dozer unless you're wanting SLI and the like at the moment. It's extremely clear that the 2500k blasts the x4 965 apart. You wouldn't pay $60 for that performance increase? You don't have to suit up to tri-channel memory anymore (lets be serious, it was a waste of money, and one of the big reasons intel was so much more expensive). As far as boards go, top of the line is probably the Asus CH IV Formula. Sabertooth is pretty much just as good, again unless you're looking at 3+ graphics cards which is generally a waste of money for most if not everyone. As for dozer, you have no idea what the price is going to be like, and you have no idea what intel will do about it once dozer is out.[/citation]
i was takin about Bulldozer, not the current Phenoms IF u say that BD is not going to blast SB u r probably right. BUT if BD is competing with SB level then ill get BD

 

[IndignantSkeptic]

it's time for me to learn something new again. can someone explain to me what is the point of having a cpu with parallel processors when you have a gpu with parallel processors? i mean why not have the parallelizable code run on a gpu while the non-parallelizable code runs on a cpu?

 

[jdwii]

it's time for me to learn something new again. can someone explain to me what is the point of having a cpu with parallel processors when you have a gpu with parallel processors? i mean why not have the parallelizable code run on a gpu while the non-parallelizable code runs on a cpu?


souns great if ALL software supported it

 

[bliq00]

I'm beginning to agree that sheer numbers don't matter as much anymore for most users since CPUs are "fast enough". that's an engineering concept. What I'd like now is for manufacturers of both software and hardware to start working on solutions to interface hiccups, faster boot times, etc. Things that make a computer FEEL faster. If booting was near instantaneous and we didn't have to wait more than a second for programs to load, that would make a computer feel REALLY fast. You don't necessarily need a super fast CPU to do this.

 

[livebriand]

How long will this take though? The original AMD Fusion platform had been announced 5 years ago but only released recently. I suppose this isn't for netbooks though eh? At least the Zacate E350 does well there.

 

[eddieroolz]

Integrated Radeon 6620? That's amazing.

 

[crisan_tiberiu]

[citation][nom]bliq00[/nom]I'm beginning to agree that sheer numbers don't matter as much anymore for most users since CPUs are "fast enough". that's an engineering concept. What I'd like now is for manufacturers of both software and hardware to start working on solutions to interface hiccups, faster boot times, etc. Things that make a computer FEEL faster. If booting was near instantaneous and we didn't have to wait more than a second for programs to load, that would make a computer feel REALLY fast. You don't necessarily need a super fast CPU to do this.[/citation]
Upgrade to SSD ^^ and ull feel that, go for SATA 6 GBs

 

[Guest]

If Bulldozer was faster than Sandy Bridge they would have had engineering versions all over the internet by now being benchmarked. They haven't so they're not gonna be faster in my opinion. Just another alternative priced below Intel.