AMD Unleashes 2nd-Gen A-Series APUs for Laptops, Desktops

Status
Not open for further replies.

Microgoliath

Distinguished
Dec 13, 2011
113
0
18,680
0
otacon72 these are much cheaper than intels i3 and pack a much stronger GPU compared to what intel usually offers, so i would take these over intels stuff for laptops and low end desktops any day!.
 
Oe!!!! I see a new quad core laptop on the rise. Just gonna wait for the reviews of the A8-3550MX laptops to start popping up. Cant handle the horrible battery life and heat issues of compact gaming laptops.

Otacon72, in the mobile space this is waaaayyyy ahead of Intel, I agree AMD is way behind in desktop processing strength, but for a mobile, low cost, long battery-life, compact product AMD Llano is great.

 

dragonsqrrl

Distinguished
Nov 19, 2009
1,280
0
19,290
3
[citation][nom]MicroGoliath[/nom]otacon72 these are much cheaper than intels i3[/citation]
The A8-3850, the processor the 3870K's replacing, is $140. So I would expect a similar price for the A8-3870K. This isn't "cheaper than intels i3", it's about $15 more.
 

rex86

Distinguished
Aug 23, 2011
70
0
18,630
0
Their apu's are the best thing that has happened after bottled beer. :)

Still, I expected to see their new bulldozer based apu with updated gpu. And the codename of their 2013 platform is "Steamroller". That says something ;)
 

pat

Expert
Jan 2, 2001
6,399
0
25,810
19
[citation][nom]otacon72[/nom]...show me the benchmarks! All I want to see... cheaper but at what cost? I'll spend a few extra dollars for an exponential jump in power. Just don;t understand why AMD can't compete with intel anymore. I don't care about APUs it's made up market from AMD.[/citation]


AMD don't care about you. Seriously, they don't make CPU for you only. You're not going to bring them lots of money ....
For normal computer usage that 99% of people does, they are perfect CPU. The GPU will decently play casual game and video, while the CPU, even if it is not to par with Intel, will probably run at 800MHz 90% of the time thank to cool 'n quiet.

I've once been deceived about a laptop that had great Intel CPU and crappy graphic. Now, I don't care about CPU as they are perfectly powerfull enough for normal task, but rather take AMD graphic over Intel anyday. Sure, gaming or professionnal stuff is an other story... But I'M sure that AMD did not have this market in mind when they release their APU.
 

joebakb

Distinguished
Aug 30, 2010
39
0
18,540
3
[citation][nom]srgess[/nom]Amd is the shit, i mean by shit , really shit. Dedicated video card is a lot better , sure consume less but give you more. So depend on what you need you cant compare apu vs dedicated.[/citation]

Obvious comment is obvious...and by obvious I mean John Madden. Of course dedicated will be better. These are made to reduce power consumption while still having decent graphical smack and to make it easier to move heat out of the machine.

I'd love one of these just for work (and a little play).
 

pat

Expert
Jan 2, 2001
6,399
0
25,810
19
[citation][nom]MicroGoliath[/nom]otacon72 these are much cheaper than intels i3 and pack a much stronger GPU compared to what intel usually offers, so i would take these over intels stuff for laptops and low end desktops any day!.[/citation]

Like: " my I3 rendered my HD home movie fast.. now, let's move to my AMD equipped machine to watch it without choppiness.."
 

BSMonitor

Distinguished
Nov 19, 2007
167
0
18,680
0
[citation][nom]de5_roy[/nom]finally! a 3 ghz llano, and an unlocked one at that! don't mistake it for a sandy bridge e core i7!amd keeps offering quad core mobile cpus at levels intel cannot match.[/citation]
Except that those 4 cores barely reach the performance of 2 SNB mobile cores.
 

jezzarisky

Distinguished
Nov 27, 2008
84
0
18,640
2
[citation][nom]Novuake[/nom]Oe!!!! I see a new quad core laptop on the rise. Just gonna wait for the reviews of the A8-3550MX laptops to start popping up. Cant handle the horrible battery life and heat issues of compact gaming laptops.Otacon72, in the mobile space this is waaaayyyy ahead of Intel, I agree AMD is way behind in desktop processing strength, but for a mobile, low cost, long battery-life, compact product AMD Llano is great.[/citation]

In terms of SoC, and efficiency yes, but if you're still wanting CPU performance, Intel still holds the crown, especially if you're looking at a gaming laptop, you'd want a discrete GPU and then Intel would be the way to go. I'm curious to see how Ivy Bridge in the mobile space plays out, lower power draw plus 3x(ish) GPU performance over their last gen, could put it on equal terms as the Llano line for SoC.
 

dragonsqrrl

Distinguished
Nov 19, 2009
1,280
0
19,290
3
[citation][nom]RonXY[/nom]Is this 2-gen Trinity or new Llano? What is the cpu core?[/citation]
It's Llano.
[citation][nom]Yuka[/nom]Is this a new stepping or just the same stepping with a lil' more Hz?Cheers![/citation]
Same stepping as far as I can tell.
 

popatim

Titan
Moderator
[citation][nom]de5_roy[/nom]finally! a 3 ghz llano, and an unlocked one at that! don't mistake it for a sandy bridge e core i7!amd keeps offering quad core mobile cpus at levels intel cannot match.[/citation]


You are so right... for Intel to match the power of these cores they'd need to go and develope a Pentium 4 Quad core...

For the casual user these are fine but so is the intel HD3000 integrated GPU's. For the serious game though, theyre still stuck spending a thousand bucks for a system with a dedicated GPU.
 

alidan

Splendid
Aug 5, 2009
5,303
0
25,780
0
[citation][nom]de5_roy[/nom]finally! a 3 ghz llano, and an unlocked one at that! don't mistake it for a sandy bridge e core i7!amd keeps offering quad core mobile cpus at levels intel cannot match.[/citation]

the fact that even the old cpus, the core 2 and core quad are still viable options today, mean that single core is fast enough.

multi core, intel has an advantage, for now, at least till bulldozer gets a revision 2 and properly implemented.

people dont like hearing that though... dont know why.

[citation][nom]otacon72[/nom]Of course no benchmarks even against intel low end i3 line. Can't believe how far AMD has fallen in such a short time frame.[/citation]

an amd quad core beats out an i3 hands down. but thats not all. the amd also has a gpu on it correct, which beats the crap out of intel too...

[citation][nom]otacon72[/nom]...show me the benchmarks! All I want to see... cheaper but at what cost? I'll spend a few extra dollars for an exponential jump in power. Just don;t understand why AMD can't compete with intel anymore. I don't care about APUs it's made up market from AMD.[/citation]

um... amd easily beats intel in graphics, and a per core, the i3 line is only slightly ahead of amds offerings at same price, but lets put it this way, better gpu beats out 5 seconds off a one time task.

[citation][nom]srgess[/nom]Amd is the shit, i mean by shit , really shit. Dedicated video card is a lot better , sure consume less but give you more. So depend on what you need you cant compare apu vs dedicated.[/citation]

most people get a laptop for... i dont know... NOT PLAYING VIDEOGAMES...

a mobile gameing laptop is out there, and reguardless of who/what you get, they cost several thousand$

these are for the sub 1000$ markets, and most likely sub 600$ and extend battery life too, for a comparable cpu/gou combo.

[citation][nom]pat[/nom]AMD don't care about you. Seriously, they don't make CPU for you only. You're not going to bring them lots of money .... For normal computer usage that 99% of people does, they are perfect CPU. The GPU will decently play casual game and video, while the CPU, even if it is not to par with Intel, will probably run at 800MHz 90% of the time thank to cool 'n quiet.I've once been deceived about a laptop that had great Intel CPU and crappy graphic. Now, I don't care about CPU as they are perfectly powerfull enough for normal task, but rather take AMD graphic over Intel anyday. Sure, gaming or professionnal stuff is an other story... But I'M sure that AMD did not have this market in mind when they release their APU.[/citation]

actually the gpu, i believe it was demoed running final fantasy 14 at one point, and smoothly, game asside, its graphics are a few steps above most casual games.

and to be honest, for most, if not nearly all applications, even bulldozers current preformance is good enough. here let me explain

the p4, once it hit 3ghz, that was the mark... that was where everything runs just fine at. and today, most if not all cpus even at half clock run at least as good as that... that is the mark you want to hit minimum.
 

dragonsqrrl

Distinguished
Nov 19, 2009
1,280
0
19,290
3
[citation][nom]jezzarisky[/nom]In terms of SoC, and efficiency yes, but if you're still wanting CPU performance, Intel still holds the crown, especially if you're looking at a gaming laptop, you'd want a discrete GPU and then Intel would be the way to go. I'm curious to see how Ivy Bridge in the mobile space plays out, lower power draw plus 3x(ish) GPU performance over their last gen, could put it on equal terms as the Llano line for SoC.[/citation]
Llano and Ivy Bridge are not SOC's. The first x86 SOC's in this market segment will be the mobile versions of Haswell in 2013.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Fail title, the next generation apu is trinity. Not a slight llano refresh.
 

gallidorn

Distinguished
Jan 23, 2009
104
0
18,680
0
[citation][nom]otacon72[/nom]...show me the benchmarks! All I want to see... cheaper but at what cost? I'll spend a few extra dollars for an exponential jump in power. Just don;t understand why AMD can't compete with intel anymore. I don't care about APUs it's made up market from AMD.[/citation]

Obviously you haven't tried any of AMD's APU lineup or you might be singing a different tune.

Typical idiot that professes to know everything, without knowing anything!
 
G

Guest

Guest
Uh... GPUs do very little work. Most graphics are 2D and both Intel and AMD do 2D about as well as one another. It isn't until you do 3D gaming that there is a difference which few people do on laptops except Toms Hardware readers. If you are going to do something time consuming, it will almost surely be CPU bound which means you will get a great deal more bang for you buck with an Intel CPU (e.g. i3 or i5). If you really want more bang, get an SSD. An SSD and a fast CPU will give you more bang than an GPU add on anyday for most tasks.
 
G

Guest

Guest
afaik amd has the best processor design. too bad this doesn't show in performance right now...i'd like to see what happens if software gets optimized for buldozer. intels HT is basically one core with 2 pipelines, but has the advantage that the software is optimized for it now.

AMD is close to have the possibility of asynchronous crossfire..meaning any graphic core will work together with any other amd graphics core...so you have an apu with say 6550 graphics and you crossfire it with a pci-e 6970 card...

amd will be back...the better technology will pay off. Compare to car industry...american way (intel) just put in a bigger engine and the car will go faster in a straight line...european way (amd) our roads have bends so we have to make our cars go fast round corners...better handling will make cars faster eventually.
 
[citation][nom]otacon72[/nom]...show me the benchmarks! All I want to see... cheaper but at what cost? I'll spend a few extra dollars for an exponential jump in power. Just don;t understand why AMD can't compete with intel anymore. I don't care about APUs it's made up market from AMD.[/citation]

The people that frequent these forums are vastly in the minority. Most people do not know what they are buying and other just want value for money.

So AMD coudn't care less that you don't care for their "made up market" as you put it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS