ProDigit10
Distinguished
- Nov 19, 2010
- 585
- 1
- 18,980
I thought they where AMD's offer for the netbook market with a slightly overpowered GPU, but when they mentioned 100W TDP, I knew I was wrong!
AMD may make an interesting chip, but it never was capable of optimizing the work load, the buffers, and make their product so, that when the GPU part in a game is running on it's max, the CPU will too!
Intel has a very good way of balancing out CPU's max transfer speeds to North/south bridge, by choosing a good FSB setting.
AMD just uses 'any', preferably the faster the better, without looking at CPU bottle necks.
What they've done for years on the graphics cards, seems to not yet have been done on the CPU part!
Sometimes it's better to use a lower frequency setting, when a higher one would not really make an increased performance possible (but only increased heat).
AMD may make an interesting chip, but it never was capable of optimizing the work load, the buffers, and make their product so, that when the GPU part in a game is running on it's max, the CPU will too!
Intel has a very good way of balancing out CPU's max transfer speeds to North/south bridge, by choosing a good FSB setting.
AMD just uses 'any', preferably the faster the better, without looking at CPU bottle necks.
What they've done for years on the graphics cards, seems to not yet have been done on the CPU part!
Sometimes it's better to use a lower frequency setting, when a higher one would not really make an increased performance possible (but only increased heat).
Everyone seems to agree Fusion and SB improve graphics quality over current IGP solutions, but how does it affect power consumption? Imagine pushing your laptop to 3+ hours at full load just on battery power 
. I would really like that.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram