AMD Rumored to Phase Out Vision Branding

Status
Not open for further replies.

kawininjazx

Distinguished
May 22, 2008
1,372
0
19,460
91
AMD has a big problem right now with their mobile processors. The junk they sell now like the E-1400 and the "AMD Dual-Core" processors give such horrible performance. The only decent running CPUs they have are the A6,8,10 series APUs. It seems like their CPUs get slower every year, I don't know how that's possible.
 

Fulgurant

Distinguished
Nov 29, 2012
584
0
19,065
31
[citation][nom]kawininjazx[/nom]AMD has a big problem right now with their mobile processors. The junk they sell now like the E-1400 and the "AMD Dual-Core" processors give such horrible performance. The only decent running CPUs they have are the A6,8,10 series APUs. It seems like their CPUs get slower every year, I don't know how that's possible.[/citation]

Unless you're trying to be sarcastic, your comment is hopelessly self-contradictory. AMD sucks at mobile processors, except for their Llano/Trinity line of APUs, which promise to revolutionize laptop graphics' performance? Granted, there's still work to be done, but it seems clear to me that AMD's doing the most exciting thing in recent memory for prospective laptop consumers.

On the CPU side, yeah, AMD's behind. That's more a desktop than a mobile problem though, going forward. Whatever AMD loses on the (x86) CPU side in the mobile space is more than made up by its gains in the integrated graphics' space. Now they just have to keep improving performance and power efficiency.
 

azraa

Honorable
Jul 3, 2012
323
0
10,790
3
[citation][nom]digiex[/nom]AMD simply lacks vision.[/citation]
Please tell me how APUs and modular cpu architectures are not great developments, and, in the future, probably going be even better?
The major problem AMD faces is that software nowadays is not written to be efficient with modules, which, again, may very well be solved in a few years. If you look at them right now, I guess they do lack vision, but in the short term, 'vision' loses its significance.
 

Shin-san

Distinguished
Nov 11, 2006
618
0
18,980
0
Most people I know that buy AMD either knew enough about hardware to not be affected by the Vision branding, or was just buying a very low-end system for price purposes. However, the logo itself made it easier to spot an AMD system, which guarantees that the graphics chip would at least be decent
 

back_by_demand

Splendid
BANNED
Jul 16, 2009
4,822
0
22,780
0
I understand from a leak that in 2013 there will be a new AMD architecture of all-in-one CPU/GPU based on a new "Simpson" range, it will be code named "APU Nahasapeemapetilon"
 

unionoob

Distinguished
Feb 18, 2011
63
0
18,630
0
[citation][nom]back_by_demand[/nom]I understand from a leak that in 2013 there will be a new AMD architecture of all-in-one CPU/GPU based on a new "Simpson" range, it will be code named "APU Nahasapeemapetilon"[/citation]

Well, i guess we will see new APU line each year when we will see new GPU line.
 

sacre

Distinguished
Jul 13, 2006
379
0
18,780
0
Back when AMD and ATI merged, I thought "Big things are coming!!"

I'm very disappointed.

I'm happy ATI is beating and keeping up with nVidia, that means both companies have to compete for us consumers, but AMD and Intel? No real competition anymore, Intel can do what they want with their prices really and us hardcore folk will end up paying regardless.

 
[citation][nom]kawininjazx[/nom]AMD has a big problem right now with their mobile processors. The junk they sell now like the E-1400 and the "AMD Dual-Core" processors give such horrible performance. The only decent running CPUs they have are the A6,8,10 series APUs. It seems like their CPUs get slower every year, I don't know how that's possible.[/citation]

Their CPUs have been getting faster, at least in the laptops, with pretty much every generation. Desktop models have been a little all over, but have been improving if you look at things from an overall point of view.

Saying that AMD's competitors for Intel's Atom have bad performance seems kinda *pointing out the obvious* to me. At least they put Atom in its place.
 
[citation][nom]azraa[/nom]Please tell me how APUs and modular cpu architectures are not great developments, and, in the future, probably going be even better?The major problem AMD faces is that software nowadays is not written to be efficient with modules, which, again, may very well be solved in a few years. If you look at them right now, I guess they do lack vision, but in the short term, 'vision' loses its significance.[/citation]

Great developments, yes. However, AMD screwed them up in many ways. They could have done much better and they most certianly were capable of much better and still are. Their management seems to have gotten too greedy and most certainly does seem to lack vision IMO. There are great ideas, but they don't seem to have a clue about what to do with them.

For example, all the improvement in the world for their CPUs won't do enough good until they fix their garbage cache. Improvements in their memory controllers in performance without needing ridiculous memory frequencies (Intel Ivy Bridge has something like 40% more bandwidth and considerably lower latency than Trinity with the same memory configuration and since Trinity needs it more, that's even worse than the number looks) should also be considered.
 

jojesa

Illustrious
[citation][nom]kawininjazx[/nom]AMD has a big problem right now with their mobile processors. The junk they sell now like the E-1400 and the "AMD Dual-Core" processors give such horrible performance. The only decent running CPUs they have are the A6,8,10 series APUs. It seems like their CPUs get slower every year, I don't know how that's possible.[/citation]
I don't know about your computer usage, but most users do not need more power than AMD A6 CPUs.
I have used a Lenovo Ideapad S405 ($349.95/ 4 lbs) with an AMD A6 and for most users is more than enough and you can't beat the price. You could add a SDD and make it fly.
 

dalethepcman

Distinguished
Jul 1, 2010
1,636
0
19,860
27
AMD really missed the boat with Windows 8. I would say their vision has been lacking, or at least looking in the wrong direction. They should have done everything within their power to get into the tablet market with a new C/Z series chip, instead we still have underpowered atom devices ruling this field.

Their fusion chips while a step in the right direction, are only being installed in the dwindling laptop market. If they don't get some drastic power savings in their APU's, or do a die shrink / clock increase on an updated C/Z series chip soon, then they will be in serious trouble.

A $500 tablet (even with weaker hardware) is a better buy than a $400 laptop for almost all home users.

I have to agree with the posters getting mass down voted. AMD has lost its Vision.
 

waethorn

Distinguished
Sep 29, 2009
300
0
18,780
0
A bit late on the takeup aren't we?

AMD already announced that VISION would be deprecated towards the end of Llano days and would be no longer used with Trinity and Brazos 2.0. It's only held on because there are still a lot of Brazos E-450 systems that are alive and kicking. They haven't completely killed it off because they still say that the E-350 and E-450 will still be used by ODM's for a while, which is a bit maddening, because aside from laptops, not a lot of designs are getting the Brazos 2.0 chips which feature Radeon 7000 series GPU's (not hat they are much faster, but they will benefit from longer support lifecycles via Catalyst drivers), AND probably more importantly, only Brazos 2.0 designs are built from the ground up to support UEFI 2.3.1 with Secure Boot for Windows 8. Most E-350 and 450 designs only support UEFI up to 2.1 or not at all.
 

azraa

Honorable
Jul 3, 2012
323
0
10,790
3
[citation][nom]blazorthon[/nom]Great developments, yes. However, AMD screwed them up in many ways. They could have done much better and they most certianly were capable of much better and still are. Their management seems to have gotten too greedy and most certainly does seem to lack vision IMO. There are great ideas, but they don't seem to have a clue about what to do with them.For example, all the improvement in the world for their CPUs won't do enough good until they fix their garbage cache. Improvements in their memory controllers in performance without needing ridiculous memory frequencies (Intel Ivy Bridge has something like 40% more bandwidth and considerably lower latency than Trinity with the same memory configuration and since Trinity needs it more, that's even worse than the number looks) should also be considered.[/citation]

No arguing about that, man.
As an AMD guy, I have to recognize when they screw up. What you mention is so true, specially with the cache issue. But again, it is good to recognize that kind of things. Im no IT professional, but those problems are evident when you start reading through the testing data in this kind of sites.

Are you in IT? Have you ever tried to get into a giant as technician? Dude, everytime I read your comments I really enjoy them, you do know what you talk about, unlike the majority here. AMD sure needs guys with your kind of criticism.
 

SteelCity1981

Distinguished
Sep 16, 2010
1,129
0
19,310
12
speaking of which intel needs to do some serious cpu lineup cleaning i mean they have the core i7 core i5 core i3 pentuim celeron and atom. there is no need for a pentuim and celeron branding on their cpu's instead they should get rid of them altogether and replace them with lower model core-i3's.
 

memadmax

Distinguished
Mar 25, 2011
2,492
0
19,960
95
AMD Needs to do alot more advertising and simplifying the naming of the tiers of their CPU and video cards.

I see Intel churning out commercials all the time, but AMD is no where to be seen....
 

iam2thecrowe

Glorious
Moderator
the problem is the general public are still unsure about AMD. I dont think i have ever seen an AMD TV advert, not here in australia anyway. And the stupid salespeople selling prebuild HP, Acer, Dell etc have no idea how to explain cpu performance to the customer.
 
[citation][nom]azraa[/nom]No arguing about that, man. As an AMD guy, I have to recognize when they screw up. What you mention is so true, specially with the cache issue. But again, it is good to recognize that kind of things. Im no IT professional, but those problems are evident when you start reading through the testing data in this kind of sites.Are you in IT? Have you ever tried to get into a giant as technician? Dude, everytime I read your comments I really enjoy them, you do know what you talk about, unlike the majority here. AMD sure needs guys with your kind of criticism.[/citation]

I've been working on GPUs lately, but I'd like to get into CPU design work sometime. Thanks for the words of praise and confidence!
 

demonhorde665

Distinguished
Jul 13, 2008
1,492
0
19,280
0
[citation][nom]memadmax[/nom]AMD Needs to do alot more advertising and simplifying the naming of the tiers of their CPU and video cards.I see Intel churning out commercials all the time, but AMD is no where to be seen....[/citation]


that because AMD has no where near the resources to throw money at advertising that intel does.

to put it in perspective , AMD is a multi million dollar company , while intel is a multi billion dollar company

to sum up the enormity of this difference , consider this fact .. 1000 million = 1 billion

example (not accurate just an example)
while amd has say 1 milion to spend on advertising with out cuting into profits , Intel has several hundred million to throw at advertising with out cutting into theirs. differences in ammounts of money is enormous . the fact AMD has beaten intel to the punch twice in teh past is a freaking miracle ( AMD beat intel to 1 ghz barrier back in 2000, and then beat them again by having the first 64 bit chip that was also much faster than any intel opffering at the time in about 2004-5)
 

Murray B

Honorable
Jan 6, 2013
40
0
10,530
0
Most machines that sell near the price of those with AMD APUs either do not have GPUs or use hardware to emulate a GPU using the CPU(s). Performance of these virtual GPUs decline dramatically when running things like games.
 
[citation][nom]Murray B[/nom]Most machines that sell near the price of those with AMD APUs either do not have GPUs or use hardware to emulate a GPU using the CPU(s). Performance of these virtual GPUs decline dramatically when running things like games.[/citation]

What complete and utter lies you tell. All APU systems have real GPUs buit into their CPU; there are no emulated crap. You can't emulate a modern GPU with a lower end CPU such as found in the APUs well enough to play even ten years old games adequately. The GPUs in the APUs are low end, but they are still much better than what Intel offers and can run any game in the market, unlike how some games simply don't work at all on Intel's graphics solutions. Sure, some games don't run with very good settings, but for the money, the graphics and CPU performance of AMD's APUs is generally unbeatable.
 

Murray B

Honorable
Jan 6, 2013
40
0
10,530
0
Only a fanboy would attack someone personally for expressing a technical opinion about a computer part.

My knowledge comes from reading publshed technical data but since that is often written in 'computerese' it is hard for many lay people to comprehend.

There is no doubt, however, that some integrated CPU/GPU solutions will load the CPU more than others when it comes to performing graphics oriented tasks.

This is made abundantly clear in a non-technical way from the review posted at http://mymediaexperience.com/intel-hd-3000-vs-discrete-graphics/ Note that the CPU loading for playing a High Definition video is about 7% for the Nvidia solution but rises to 25% on the same machine while using the HD 3000. This is in complete agreement with my interpretation of the technical literature.
There is nothing wrong with using the CPU to drive the GPU but to avoid costly mistakes it is important to understand that real world performance will generally be be less than some graphics benchmark results indicate.

By the way, online debates like this often remind me of the old saying, "A little learning is a dangerous thing".
 
[citation][nom]Murray B[/nom]Only a fanboy would attack someone personally for expressing a technical opinion about a computer part. My knowledge comes from reading publshed technical data but since that is often written in 'computerese' it is hard for many lay people to comprehend. There is no doubt, however, that some integrated CPU/GPU solutions will load the CPU more than others when it comes to performing graphics oriented tasks.This is made abundantly clear in a non-technical way from the review posted at http://mymediaexperience.com/intel [...] -graphics/ Note that the CPU loading for playing a High Definition video is about 7% for the Nvidia solution but rises to 25% on the same machine while using the HD 3000. This is in complete agreement with my interpretation of the technical literature.There is nothing wrong with using the CPU to drive the GPU but to avoid costly mistakes it is important to understand that real world performance will generally be be less than some graphics benchmark results indicate.By the way, online debates like this often remind me of the old saying, "A little learning is a dangerous thing".[/citation]

You are making an incorrect assumption based on a completely different product having an issue with a single benchmark which is most likely simply a driver issue.

I didn't attack you for a differing opinion, I accused you of making false claims because that is what you did. You claimed that these integrated graphics processors are emulated despite the fact that modern CPUs simply do not have enough performance to emulate even low end modern GPUs. There in fact is something wrong with using the CPU to drive the GPU because the CPU can not do this. Furthermore, that benchmark was not even a gaming benchmark, so not only is it of a completely different product, but it's not even of a situation relevant to your assumption. Basically, your assumption is made on a collection of data that is all completely unrelated and does not work together.

Also, I'm not speaking as someone ignorant of it, I speak as a professional in the GPU field. The integrated GPUs do not perform well because they are very small compared to high end discrete GPUs and they use the CPU's memory instead of having their own much higher speed memory connection. There isn't any CPU to GPU emulation going on, at least not with AMD's APUs. I can not speak with certainty about Intel's IGPs, but I can say that chances are that their HD 3000 GPU simply didn't have proper support for that task. Again, Intel's HD 3000 GPU is an extremely different piece of hardware from AMD's GPUs and it has very different drivers with inferior instruction set support and inferior support for many other features.

I was not attacking you; I was attacking your incorrect claims. I am not a fanboy of any of the companies and even if I was, any bias would have no impact on what I said. Integrated GPUs (at last from AMD) are quite literally smaller versions of some of their discrete GPUs. For example, Llano has a GPU based off of the Redwood core from some low end Radeon 5000 cards and is almost identical to that of the Radeon 5550 except with a die shrink IIRC. Trinity has a GPU that is basically one fourth of a Cayman XT from the Radeon 6900 series, yet again with a die shrink. Again, they don't perform well because they are very small GPUs with very limited memory performance.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS