AMD's Kabini: Jaguar And GCN Come Together In A 15 W APU

[ojas]

[citation][nom]pangolin_user[/nom]as i stated in previous post : Pentium ulv 17 wattintel® Pentium® Processor 2117U (2M Cache, 1.80 GHz) 17 watt IVBhttp://ark.intel.com/products/7146 [...] e-1_80-GHzIntel® Pentium® Processor 987 (2M Cache, 1.50 GHz) 17 watt SBhttp://ark.intel.com/products/6719 [...] e-1_50-GHzCeleron 17 wattintel® Celeron® Processor 1037U (2M Cache, 1.80 GHz) 17 watt IVBhttp://ark.intel.com/products/7199 [...] e-1_80-GHzIntel® Celeron® Processor 1007U (2M Cache, 1.50 GHz) IVB 17 watthttp://ark.intel.com/products/72061/my first laptop intel pentium m then intel core 2 duo and i sold my brazos laptop cause its to slow for my need. I sell a lot of intel powered notebook, because my customer need best suited with it (IT college with casual gaming). so wheres is my fanboism and trolling? i never stated amd kabini is better than i3 or pentium. although i probably buy kabini 2.0 if equiped with turbocore (like trinity to Richland) 11,6 screen with well build quality (thinkpad x201e successor maybe). what i stated is i little disappointed with the review.[/citation]
Weird, i looked for those 17w chips on Intel's site before i made that comment.

I only knew of the Y-series pentium celerons.

It appeared to be trolling, because the text (in general, over a few posts) was slightly difficult to read and it went out of its way to suggest some sort of bias. And it wasn't just post(s), i was talking about others too there.

I was just referring to what i quoted. "35w pentium is invalid because ", "If kabini has no point then others also have no point except atom, according to your logic", which wasn't even my logic.

Anyway, let it rest. We're both random people on the internet. Don's last comment sums it up pretty well.

 

[somebodyspecial]

Wow, unimpressed with AMD here. This is what happens when a company spends all it's money on dying consoles. Haswell will make these nearly useless. I sure hope they get their crap together before broadwell.

My question here is how come these weren't the benchmarks used in the gpu tests? You use rightware crap, freeware junk opencl tests etc instead of directly using Premiere, Photoshop and After Effects for CUDA vs. opencl/opengl. This is the testing that should be used in vid card testing as most people use these in the real world. I can't make money running rightware junk RIGHT? Suddenly for little crapware cpu's you realize what REAL WORLD benchmarks are? I'm confused. You lost your copies of Adobe's CS suite until now?

 

[cleeve]

[citation][nom]somebodyspecial[/nom]My question here is how come these weren't the benchmarks used in the gpu tests? You use rightware crap, freeware junk opencl tests etc instead of directly using Premiere, Photoshop and After Effects for CUDA vs. opencl/opengl. This is the testing that should be used in vid card testing as most people use these in the real world. I can't make money running rightware junk RIGHT? Suddenly for little crapware cpu's you realize what REAL WORLD benchmarks are? I'm confused. You lost your copies of Adobe's CS suite until now?[/citation]

Wou might want to re-check the Photoshop CS6 benchmarks, we *did* include an OpenCL run. Looks like you missed it.

It hurt performance, not helped, probably because these integrated GPUs are too weak. A powerful discrete card would likely do better.

 

[pangolin_user]

[citation][nom]ojas[/nom]Weird, i looked for those 17w chips on Intel's site before i made that comment.I only knew of the Y-series pentium celerons.It appeared to be trolling, because the text (in general, over a few posts) was slightly difficult to read and it went out of its way to suggest some sort of bias. And it wasn't just post(s), i was talking about others too there.I was just referring to what i quoted. "35w pentium is invalid because ", "If kabini has no point then others also have no point except atom, according to your logic", which wasn't even my logic.Anyway, let it rest. We're both random people on the internet. Don's last comment sums it up pretty well.[/citation]
I am sorry, actually my english is not that good. i try to re read my post but thats much I can do. I've read toms since the firs pentium 4 released, but never post a comment because i don't have confident in my english. so no hard feeling

 

[alextheblue]

[citation][nom]cleeve[/nom]We can't test every laptop out there. The Pentium B960 and Core i3-3217U were an ideal best- to worst- case scenario, the whole spectrum of what the A4-5000 is going up against in the $350-$500 laptop market.[/citation]I understand what you were trying to do. But here's the problem... it won't be going head to head against that i3 at the same price, with the same display. Not happening. What display is in the HP unit? I'm guessing it's the same cheap panel I see in all their other lowend stuff.

I just looked at all the 14" i3 laptops on Newegg less than $800. Guess what they all have in common? 1366 x 768, dirt cheap panels. Look around yourself. AMD might be saying "This is a $500 laptop." But what they want people to see is the much nicer display. I've seen people, reviewers even (not you), clamoring for budget laptops with nicer screens, and now that they see one in action... they ignore it and bench the machine and let it burn in the graphs like they're doing a desktop review (where display isn't a consideration).

OEMs might offer SOME premium laptops/convertibles with good displays like this... but they will also be shoving these in machines with cheap 1366 x 768 panels like the 14" i3s I see all over the place. So with that in mind, here's my beef in a nutshell: A 3217U with a panel as nice as the one in the Kabini prototype is going to cost substantially more money. Period. Not the same class of laptop. So unless you plan on benching the panels too... you need to find cheaper Intel chips to throw at it. Again, there are 17W Pentiums and Celerons.

 

[whyso]

[citation][nom]cleeve[/nom]We can't test every laptop out there. The Pentium B960 and Core i3-3217U were an ideal best- to worst- case scenario, the whole spectrum of what the A4-5000 is going up against in the $350-$500 laptop market.[/citation]I understand what you were trying to do. But here's the problem... it won't be going head to head against that i3 at the same price, with the same display. Not happening. What display is in the HP unit? I'm guessing it's the same cheap panel I see in all their other lowend stuff.

I just looked at all the 14" i3 laptops on Newegg less than $800. Guess what they all have in common? 1366 x 768, dirt cheap panels. Look around yourself. AMD might be saying "This is a $500 laptop." But what they want people to see is the much nicer display. I've seen people, reviewers even (not you), clamoring for budget laptops with nicer screens, and now that they see one in action... they ignore it and bench the machine and let it burn in the graphs like they're doing a desktop review (where display isn't a consideration).

OEMs might offer SOME premium laptops/convertibles with good displays like this... but they will also be shoving these in machines with cheap 1366 x 768 panels like the 14" i3s I see all over the place. So with that in mind, here's my beef in a nutshell: A 3217U with a panel as nice as the one in the Kabini prototype is going to cost substantially more money. Period. Not the same class of laptop. So unless you plan on benching the panels too... you need to find cheaper Intel chips to throw at it. Again, there are 17W Pentiums and Celerons.

Again the i3 doesn't have to match or compete on a even footing pricewise. With the same display how much more will a 1080p 14 inch notebook cost with a i3 ULV cpu? If the i3 only costs something like $50 more then it is worth to compare the two given the tremendous power lead the i3 has.

1080p screen really doesn't increase the BOM that much. There are numerous notebooks out there with a low price tag and a 1080p screen (on ebay a 15.6 inch 768p screen costs something like $60, a 1080p screen costs something like $100-130 and the OEM could buy the same display for far cheaper).

http://www.dell.com/us/p/inspiron-15r-se-7520/pd?oc=fncwm04s&model_id=inspiron-15r-se-7520

1080p screen , i5 SV and 7730m. with a i3 ULV and no dgpu this thing is going to cost much less ($600) (on newegg this model is $700 currently).

Here is a new sony (tends to be overpriced) 17.3 inch (rather large) 1080p notebook with SV i3 for $600.

http://store.sony.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/SYCTOProcess?catalogId=10551&storeId=10151&langId=-1&LBomId=8198552921666521968&categoryId=8198552921644784018.

With a little work you could easily see a 13 or 14 inch 1080p notebook with an i3 ULV for around $500.

 

[alextheblue]

Let's see, a 15.6" and a 17.3", still waiting for that 14" low power i3 with a 1080p display. You seem to be under the impression that a smaller machine with the same resolution panel and same fast hardware would be cheaper than a fat-body pedestrian 15.6+". I'm afraid that isn't the case.

A 1080p panel has a higher pixel density at 14" than at larger sizes. So a 14" panel of this resolution is actually a good bit more expensive, and rather rare at this price (currently). So, seeing as how the prototype AMD machine is a 14" with a nice quality AU Optronics 1080p panel, try to answer my call and find me a reasonably priced 14" i3 with a similar panel? Good luck, young padawan. I just went to Dell and Sony... they don't appear to even offer such a thing. They DO both offer >$1000 convertibles with 1080p panels, somewhere in the 11-12.5" sizes. Hey! Maybe Kabini-based systems could knock the price down on convertibles too...

I think that Mr. Woligroski will understand what I'm talking about, even if it makes him squirm a bit . He might not be able to test every laptop, but he'll be hard pressed to even recall a 14" 1080p in this price range.

Personally, I think AMD effed up here as usual. I guess they were trying to set a new standard for a laptop in this class, with the kind of high quality panel you never see at this price (for a 14"). But what they SHOULD have done is sent all the reviewers a cheap 15.6" fat body model with a cheap 1366 x 768 panel and said "Compare this to $350 laptops". The resulting prototype would have been inferior, but it would have benched better!

 

[InvalidError]

A 1080p panel has a higher pixel density at 14" than at larger sizes. So a 14" panel of this resolution is actually a good bit more expensive, and rather rare at this price (currently).

Considering that 1080p displays ship on 7" devices priced under $250, the pixel density is not much of an argument for increased cost on smaller screens.

The only thing keeping prices up on "oddball" size-resolution mixes is (currently) low production of devices featuring that mix which has nothing to do with density and everything to do with its uncommon status. This impacts the engineering costs of the devices integrating the panel just as much as it affects the foundries producing the panels; it isn't a function of the panel alone.

Until you push sizes down where density starts having a significant impact on defect rates, smaller screens of same resolution and production volume should be cheaper since more displays are produced per processed glass sheet and processing costs remain practically unchanged.

 

[palladin9479]

Ahh I see the problem.

The laptop they were using is not a $360 USD laptop, that's just a sale price while they burn off excess inventory to pump up sales numbers.

http://www.walmart.com/ip/Dell-Black-13.3-Inspiron-13z-I13Z-8864SLV-Laptop-PC-with-Intel-Core-i3-3217U-Processor-and-Windows-8/22018086

Amazon has it on a clearance sale for $400 USD (their almost out of stock)

http://www.amazon.com/Dell-Inspiron-i13z-8864sLV-13-Inch-Laptop/dp/B009LTUB14

That is a $600 USD laptop that the retailers are trying to sell cheap to get them off store shelves. Happens all the time, especially at microcenter. Products built with that CPU are in the $450~700 USD MSRP range, depending largely on screen quality.

Now that $600 USD notebook has

6GB DDR3-1600 (not synced memory means very poor iGPU performance)
500GB 5400 HDD (very slow)
1366 x 768 tn display (fairly standard at that price point)

AMD told you the MSRP of $300 ~ $500, which means the "sale" price of $250 or less (I can see $200). I walk into the local PX and see several Atom produced at that price point with similar configurations.

This is what people are angry about. Your comparing products in two different price ranges based on one of them having a sale price that's nearly half off it's MSRP.

We can all agree that the Kabini will be cheaper then the offending i3 in lots of 1000 for OEM's. By definition that means the OEMs will have more cost room to add features or lower the price to be more competitive. The sub $500 segment is incredibly fierce price-wise, every USD saved on a component equals lower overall cost.

 

[palladin9479]

Ok just got done doing some hunting. The "HP Pavillion Sleekbook 15" only comes in APU flavors. I just finished searching the HP website and the results are as follows.

15z-b000 (15 inch AMD based notebook, starting $479 MSRP for base configuration)
14-b010us (14 inch Intel i3-2377M based notebook, starting $589 MSRP for base configuration)

I would love to know the model number that was tested. Chances are it's no longer in production and that's what triggered the deep discount for selling off inventories. Everything I've seen with the Intel CPU in question has been MSRP $500+ for base models. Reasonable models (something you'd actually want to buy) are usually $600+.

 

[sarinaide]

This was reviewed like it was intended to be an enthusiast part when its contrary to what AMD have said prior, Kabini for low powered ultrabooks giving the buyer a good price point with a impressive array of features.

Those thinking the iGPU was supposed to be all conquering, bear in mind that the HD4000 is a far higher level iGPU solution and Kabini's 128 ALU's clocked at 500mhz represents AMD's slowest iGPU for second generation APU's, but its not premised on performance but rather a complimentary role of efficiency and support to the features offered by AMD, this is not a gaming part nor should it be mistaken as one. If you want a iGPU solution with grunt then wait for the Richland Mobile or Intel's GT3 if you can afford it.

Now there is still a lot of debate as to pricing, my stockist say the A4 can be picked up from $250-400 depending on the OEM and the A6 between $350-500 but the A6 is a lot beefier than the A4, all things considered for what AMD is offering as a interactive platform and its impressive efficiency ie: 4 cores halves the i3 and i5's efficiency that is a pretty good offering.

If I was flying long distances and needed a basic multimedia system and one that stayed cooler and lasted longer then this is the product, if I want to play anything demanding this then is not the choice you are looking for.

Overall I think this is a success, bringing PC experience to low powered devices at a really good price.


Tamesh will feature prominantly in handheld and hybrid tablet solutions and that will be interesting to look at outside Richland's desktop and mobile release.

 

[cleeve]

[citation][nom]alextheblue[/nom]Let's see, a 15.6" and a 17.3", still waiting for that 14" low power i3 with a 1080p display. [/citation]

After a 1 min search on newegg:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16834310635

Within $30 of the $500 MSRP AMD has for the ultrathin Kabini test machine with 1080p display. And that's AMD's MSRP, who knows what it'd cost if put to market by a name like Lenovo.


[citation][nom]alextheblue[/nom]You seem to be under the impression that a smaller machine with the same resolution panel and same fast hardware would be cheaper than a fat-body pedestrian 15.6+". [/citation]

You seem to be under the impression that I was comparing laptops and displays, not CPUs.

The HP was used only for it's CPU, because CPU performance doesn't change across models. It's a hardware testbed and you shouldn't read any more into that, the specific model of laptop was merely convenient for testing the platform, not cross-shopped as a suitable competitor. That's why the display and battery were not tested, and the hard disk and RAM were leveraged in all platforms. We used an external display for testing and turned off the built in model on both laptops.

The discussion keeps going, but no matter the objection a Core i3-3217U model can be found around $500 for a slim with nice display and around $350 for a bargain basement version, the same price range that AMD targeted with this high end Kabini. An actual human being with either of those budgets would do well to consider an Intel alternative, instead of pretending they don't exist.

Once again, I'm happy to test Temash (or even a lower end Kabini) vs the Atoms and Brazos platforms out there. But the A4-5000 isn't that CPU. It draws too much power and is too expensive according to AMD, and I think they probably have some idea where their processors belong in the market.

 

[ingtar33]

[citation][nom]alextheblue[/nom]Let's see, a 15.6" and a 17.3", still waiting for that 14" low power i3 with a 1080p display. [/citation]

After a 1 min search on newegg:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16834310635

Within $30 of the $500 MSRP AMD has for the ultrathin Kabini test machine with 1080p display. And that's AMD's MSRP, who knows what it'd cost if put to market by a name like Lenovo.

but that doesn't have a 1080p display. it's far worse at 1366x768

 

[cleeve]

[citation][nom]ingtar33[/nom]but that doesn't have a 1080p display. it's far worse at 1366x768[/citation]

True. my mistake, I looked up the model and a site misreported it as 1080p.

Interesting. So I looked around... I find it near impossible to find a 14" 1080p laptop at all, never mind an ultrathin. A Newegg search under laptops for 1920x1080 resolution comes up with *nothing* between 13.4" and 15".

If you search under ultrabooks, which doesn't allow a specific resolution search, "1080" returns *nothing* between 13.3" and 15"!

That does make it somewhat difficult for an apples-to-apples price comparison. We'll have to wait until the products are on the shelf to find the most valid comparisons, as always. It becomes clearer that just because AMD has suggested that you'll be able to get an A4-5000 with 14" 1080p screen for $500 doesn't mean that any manufacturers will actually make one... it becomes less likely a prospect when you consider that this particular combination of features isn't something that manufacturers seem to favor.

Having said all that, it doesn't mean that we should avoid all comparisons just because there aren't many comparable products. If Brazos and Atom are better comparisons, where are all the $500 14" 1080p ultrathins using those CPUs?

 

[ingtar33]

[citation][nom]ingtar33[/nom]but that doesn't have a 1080p display. it's far worse at 1366x768[/citation]

True. my mistake, I looked up the model and a site misreported it as 1080p.

...Having said all that, it doesn't mean that we should avoid all comparisons just because there aren't many comparable products. If Brazos and Atom are better comparisons, where are all the $500 14" 1080p ultrathins using those CPUs?

is it possible they don't exist because on the igpu isn't able to handle HD resolution? I mean generally speaking an APU's on chip gpu is pretty powerful no matter what price point you look at them.

that or there isn't a market for it.

-edit-

I've been chuckling to myself for the last 3 minutes since typeing "there isn't a market for it"... because that actually makes a great deal of sense. I mean where is the market for a 14" super underpowered $500 laptop with an hd monitor?

who wouldn't rather get an 11" HD tablet at that point? That would be just like AMD. Give a laptop out to reviewers to show off a new cpu only for it to be a product that has no market at all. I mean talk about shooting yourself in the foot.

 

[cleeve]

[citation][nom]ingtar33[/nom]is it possible they don't exist because on the igpu isn't able to handle HD resolution? I mean generally speaking an APU's on chip gpu is pretty powerful no matter what price point you look at them.that or there isn't a market for it.[/citation]

Well, Atom and Brazos can handle a few things, web browsing and HD video playback among them. Both of those are certainly enhanced by higher resolutions, and cause no greater load for those CPUs.

Based on that, I'd surmise that it's not in demand, or it's too expensive a feature combo for manufacturers to consider putting in the market.

 

[ingtar33]

...I'd surmise that it's not in demand, or it's too expensive a feature combo for manufacturers to consider putting in the market.

yeah... just the thought they'd hand out a product that has no actual market demand fits AMD so well its sad. Really someone in their marketing department (do they have one?) should have put the breaks on that one.

 

[cleeve]

[citation][nom]ingtar33[/nom]yeah... just the thought they'd hand out a product that has no actual market demand fits AMD so well its sad. Really someone in their marketing department (do they have one?) should have put the breaks on that one.[/citation]

Well, it's possible that AMD has an 'in' as far as knowing what manufacturers plan to put to market. Maybe 14" slims are about to get a big push.

Impossible to tell until after Computex when new products begin to hit. But realistically, I don't know if this specific form factor is a realistic target.

 

[InvalidError]

is it possible they don't exist because on the igpu isn't able to handle HD resolution?

I mean where is the market for a 14" super underpowered $500 laptop with an hd monitor?

As far as driving 2D displays goes, I think even the 845G (P4 chipset) can do 2048x1536 so being (un)able to output the resolution is a very unlikely reason.

The more likely reason is that high resolutions at in-between screen sizes are uncommon so panel production at that particular size+resolution point is low which leads to inflated prices. With 1080p becoming standard on 5-12" form factors, it should only be a matter of time before people start demanding 1080p or higher resolution on everything above as well.

As for who would want an "super under-powered" $500 laptop, I think $500 on current laptops already buys more processing power than most people (aside from THG-like crowds) actually need so the market for those is likely quite considerable.

 

[ingtar33]

Well, it's possible that AMD has an 'in' as far as knowing what manufacturers plan to put to market. Maybe 14" slims are about to get a big push.

Impossible to tell until after Computex when new products begin to hit. But realistically, I don't know if this specific form factor is a realistic target.

i think the problem they'll have is there is no real compelling reason to get a 14" slim with hd resolution and a crappy cpu.

seriously the x86 architecture is handicapped by windows so badly it can't really compete with the low powered ARM devices out there running Android, though that Kabini might have 2x the processing power of the best ARM out there... none of that comes through in the windows environment in any way that will matter.

If i have $500 burning a hole in my pocket as a consumer i have to ask this question.

Do i want a 10-11 inch tablet ($350-$500), i mean i've been eyeing a nexus 10 for a while. Its pretty snappy and fun to play with. Those are highly portable and have no issue with wifi. Its got 9-11 hours of battery life, pretty cool really.

Do i want a 15"-17" snappy Trinity APU/Core I pc with a 1366x768 monitor, 5-10 hours of battery life and the power to run windows and office; and do general computing tasks as well as play desktop level games?

or do i want a 14" HD sluggish as sin Kabini APU, with not enough processing power to play modern games, nor enough to not seem sluggish while navigating windows, be unable to run all the fun little android aps and be stuck with legacy windows aps i don't really have the power to use and it's 7 hours of battery life?

there isn't a market there at that 500 dollar price point for the Kabini. If i want a laptop there are better options, if i want a portable hd media thing there is an andriod tablet which is both more portable and generally more fun to play with.

The kabini's market is in the $200-$350 ranged 1366x768 monitor chromebook/netbook/thing, something like that. a market that doesn't really exist at the moment but could be created.

 

[alextheblue]

[citation][nom]cleeve[/nom]True. my mistake, I looked up the model and a site misreported it as 1080p.Interesting. So I looked around... I find it near impossible to find a 14" 1080p laptop at all, never mind an ultrathin. A Newegg search under laptops for 1920x1080 resolution comes up with *nothing* between 13.4" and 15". If you search under ultrabooks, which doesn't allow a specific resolution search, "1080" returns *nothing* between 13.3" and 15"!That does make it somewhat difficult for an apples-to-apples price comparison. We'll have to wait until the products are on the shelf to find the most valid comparisons, as always. It becomes clearer that just because AMD has suggested that you'll be able to get an A4-5000 with 14" 1080p screen for $500 doesn't mean that any manufacturers will actually make one... it becomes less likely a prospect when you consider that this particular combination of features isn't something that manufacturers seem to favor.Having said all that, it doesn't mean that we should avoid all comparisons just because there aren't many comparable products. If Brazos and Atom are better comparisons, where are all the $500 14" 1080p ultrathins using those CPUs?[/citation]This is what I've been telling you. This isn't an apples to apples comparison, it's not even fair. I never said it was going to be easy. I already dropped the Atom comparison, because I realized I was ALSO wrong - the higher-watt Atoms are now desktop/server only. I admit I was wrong. How about you? As for Brazos, it's a cheap chip destined for cheap machines, much like A4 and below Kabini is likely to do... no point in slapping one in a machine with a really premium display, IMO.

If I am wrong and a LOT more Ultrathins start shipping with 1080p @ 14", then Kabini is going to have a huge price advantage over equivalently equipped 17W i3s. So designs using Intel chips will only be able to hit the same price points with low-end ~17W Pentiums and Celerons. Conversely, if they continue to mainly sell Ultrathins with cheap 768p screens (as I predict they will), then Kabini will STILL hold a huge price advantage over i3, and thus will be competing with... low-end Pentiums and Celerons! When it gets tossed it into fat body cheap machines (15.6" etc)... or netbook-sized machines... same story.

So basically... bench it against something else please. I'll go to a local shop and pick a laptop up, just give me the company card! I'll probably never buy a Kabini setup, but I feel you've inadvertently made it look worse than it actually is (and you have a big audience), and waiting for shipping devices to have a second look won't change the fact that a lot of people read this and have Kabini = Crap permanently imbedded into their brains. You know how people are. They'll be comparing it to more expensive i3s now for its entire life.

 

[palladin9479]

I just want people to keep in mind the numbers AMD said are MSRP not actual sale price. Their more of a generic guideline and $300~500 seems perfectly reasonable when you realize $300 is the 1366x768 display range with 5400RPM HDD and ~4GB of memory (maybe more if it gets even cheaper). It'll be little 11~13inch netbooks and tablets. The $500 price is given because touchscreens and 1080p displays are significantly more expensive then a tn 1366x768 screens so the same model would be more expensive. After sales and rebates that $300 is now 230~250 and the $500 touchcreen / HD model is now $400.

So comparing a chip targeted at that market to a chip targeted at the $600+ range is kinda insane. It's find if people just want a good baseline for it, horrible to actually expect them to compete against each other. (Do I buy the super I3 or the low end tablet APU???)

 

[amdfangirl]

^

There are two non-negotiables in building a PC these days: the cost of Intel silicon and the cost of the Windows license... What AMD seems to offer is an easier path. AMD will take less of the BoM, allowing OEMs to invest those savings elsewhere - a move Intel will never make... While AMD hasn’t disclosed OEM pricing on Kabini (similarly, Intel doesn’t list OEM pricing on its mobile Pentium SKUs), it’s safe to assume that AMD will sell Kabini for less than Intel will sell its competing SKUs. If Kabini’s die size is indeed around 107mm^2, that puts it in the same range as a dual-core Ivy Bridge. AMD can likely undercut Intel a bit and live off of lower margins, but there’s one more component to think about: Ivy Bridge needs its PCH (Platform Controller Hub), Kabini does not. As a more fully integrated SoC, Kabini’s IO duties are handled by an on-die Fusion Controller Hub. Intel typically charges low double digits for its entry level chipsets, which is money AMD either rolls into the cost of Kabini or uses as a way of delivering a lower total cost to OEMs.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/6981/the-kabini-deal-can-amd-improve-the-quality-of-mainstream-pcs-with-its-latest-apu

So the slide might have Kabini "competing" with Pentiums etc. but more likely, AMD means to undercut them, because as Anand stipulates:

Kabini is still a little core and no match for the bigger Ivy Bridge parts

We can safely assume that AMD will have to undercut them (if AMD doesn't win on value, they don't win against Intel). Pricing them in the same price bracket as Ivy Bridge parts (albiet Pentium or Celeron parts), or their Haswell successors would be insanity. OEMs are smart enough to read benchmarks.

That leaves the ultimate conclusion that AMD Kabini must either target an even lower end of the market than a Pentium or a priced in market where the low power benefits of the APU are appreciated (11.6" laptops etc.), but ultimately it will need to undercut Intel (as Intel loves to sell ultra low-TDP, high performance CPUs at a huge price premium, $999 ultrabooks and the such).

 

[InvalidError]

Intel loves to sell ultra low-TDP, high performance CPUs at a huge price premium, $999 ultrabooks and the such

Good thing Kabini is aimed more towards the low-end non-Intel Ultrabook end of things at less than half what most devices in Intel's Ultrabook campaign retail for.

 

[amdfangirl]

Intel loves to sell ultra low-TDP, high performance CPUs at a huge price premium, $999 ultrabooks and the such

Good thing Kabini is aimed more towards the low-end non-Intel Ultrabook end of things at less than half what most devices in Intel's Ultrabook campaign retail for.

Which is why I don't believe the comparisons made in this article are particularly representative of the market that Kabini faces. Right now the Pentium - Kabini comparison feels like comparing the Samsung ARM Chromebook 11.6" $249 with the HP Pavilion Celeron 847 Chromebook 14" $299.

Sure they share a similar price bracket, but it simply isn't a fair comparison. Its like trying to sell Cadel Evans (pro cyclist) a car to use in his races on the basis that "cars" go faster.