Apple ready to embrace AMD?

[jimmysmitty]

It's smaller because there's no L3 cache: I'd call that 'cut down' myself.

Now, not having the L3 cache doesn't seem to harm the Athlon II in many cases so it might not be an issue much of the time, but this chip also has to deal with the bandwidth requirements of an integrated GPU, so if it's dual-channel I'd expect performance to suffer substantially where the GPU is working hard.

Evem if it is triple channel, the GPU will suffer a performance loss due to the fact that CP memory is much slower than GPU memory.

The only way to ensure proper GPU performance is to have its own GDDR but in order to cut its latency down, it would need to be near the CPU and having it on die wont be preferable because that would complicate things as well as push more heat, for now anyways.

 

[pratkal]

How do you work out that Intel no longer try?

The GPU they have in Clarkdale, whilst not being the full equal of AMD's/ATI's, closed the gap considerably.

So even when LLano improves over AMD's current offerings, Intel will be improving with the GPU in Sandy Bridge and will once again be good enough for 90%+ of the market.

in clarkdale they have an apu that thing according to amd should have at least give a decent performance in 1680x1260 while clarkdale end up slightly faster then the IGP solution ATI provide ha these performance gain could be of the cpu it self


there is no possible way that sandy bridge can beat am Lliono in graphics though i can't say the same for performance as phenom 2 core is being used here i guess it will be faster then current gen of cpu but for can it hold against sandy bridge? I dont think so

 

[pratkal]

Evem if it is triple channel, the GPU will suffer a performance loss due to the fact that CP memory is much slower than GPU memory.

The only way to ensure proper GPU performance is to have its own GDDR but in order to cut its latency down, it would need to be near the CPU and having it on die wont be preferable because that would complicate things as well as push more heat, for now anyways.

Very well said to get a performance of like HD 5670 the new CPU should be cabale of providing at least 1GB ram @ DDR 3 1600MHZ i put it very low as the gpu is kinda integrated in the cpu it self though @ max i guess they will end up slower then HD 5670 which will still be quite impressive

 

[jimmysmitty]

Very well said to get a performance of like HD 5670 the new CPU should be cabale of providing at least 1GB ram @ DDR 3 1600MHZ i put it very low as the gpu is kinda integrated in the cpu it self though @ max i guess they will end up slower then HD 5670 which will still be quite impressive

Not too sure. A HD5670 has a memory bandwidth with 1GB of GDDR5 of 64GB/s. DDR3 has a max bandwidth at DDR3 1600 of 12.8GB/s.

In terms of memory bandwidth thats more along the lines of a HD5450 (with GDDR3) or a HD5550. Here is a good review on the HD5450:

http://www.legionhardware.com/articles_pages/ati_radeon_hd_5450,1.html

http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum/hardware-canucks-reviews/28559-sapphire-radeon-hd-5450-512mb-ddr3-review.html

The last one is with the GDDR3 HD5450 which has the same memory bandwidth as a HD5550 but I can't find anything for the HD5550 yet.

From what I can tell, if this is what Llano has to offer it would come in at about a HD4650s performance and offer at least DX11 which the games that use DX11 will be better suited for a discrete GPU. This could be good for a HTPC but there is a lot that has to be seen first such as power usage and heat output.

If this does come in at the performance of a HD5450/5550 then even Intel IGP wont be far behind and then its a matter of power savings for the laptop market and for the desktop market as well as making the chipset friendly with other companies products like nVidia.

I do not see any way for Llano to provide decent performance without having access to GDDR5 somewhere on the mobo or on the CPU package but that, as said, would cause more heat than what Llano is wanting.

In short, Fusions first step is not going to be any more of a game changer than Intels i3/i5 offering was. Maybe the next step will.

 

[FALC0N]

It's smaller because there's no L3 cache: I'd call that 'cut down' myself.

I wouldn't.

Most current AMD mainstream offerings do NOT have L3 cache. As fusion is targeted, at least initially, at the mainstream market. This would not be unexpected.

Besides, when did they say they wouldn't have L3? Or did you just assume?

 

[FALC0N]

.... this chip also has to deal with the bandwidth requirements of an integrated GPU, so if it's dual-channel I'd expect performance to suffer substantially where the GPU is working hard.

This is totally meaningless speculation on your part.

I say it will improve performance by 80%. Silly you say? of course it is. No worse than some wild claim about performance suffering because of "bandwidth".

 

[FALC0N]

in clarkdale they have an apu that thing according to amd should have at least give a decent performance in 1680x1260 while clarkdale end up slightly faster then the IGP solution ATI provide ha these performance gain could be of the cpu it self


there is no possible way that sandy bridge can beat am Lliono in graphics though i can't say the same for performance as phenom 2 core is being used here i guess it will be faster then current gen of cpu but for can it hold against sandy bridge? I dont think so

This thread has turned into the "wild speculation thread". Why couldn't sandy bridge hold its own in graphics? Why couldn't Fusion compete against sandy bridge?

 

[MarkG]

This is totally meaningless speculation on your part.

Uh, yeah, totally, dude.

No worse than some wild claim about performance suffering because of "bandwidth".

Are you seriously claiming that sharing a memory bus between a CPU _WITH NO L3 CACHE_ and a GPU will not reduce the performance of both compared to each having a memory bus of their own?

Because that claim is so retarded that I wouldn't even know where to start in responding to it.

 

[MarkG]

Most current AMD mainstream offerings do NOT have L3 cache.

Nor do they have integrated GPUs sucking up vast amounts of memory bandwidth. There's a reason why GPUs have such wide memory buses, and it's not just to keep electronic engineers in well-paid jobs.

Besides, when did they say they wouldn't have L3? Or did you just assume?

Other than pretty much every article that Google finds about it, you mean?

It's no wonder you think this is 'speculation' if you haven't actually bothered to read anything about the subject we're discussing.

 

[FALC0N]

Are you seriously claiming that sharing a memory bus between a CPU _WITH NO L3 CACHE_ and a GPU will not reduce the performance of both compared to each having a memory bus of their own?

Because that claim is so retarded that I wouldn't even know where to start in responding to it.

I'm impressed by the technical prowess of you rebuttal. Believe me when I tell you that I DO believe that you really don't know where to start!

 

[FALC0N]

Nor do they have integrated GPUs sucking up vast amounts of memory bandwidth. There's a reason why GPUs have such wide memory buses, and it's not just to keep electronic engineers in well-paid jobs.

It's no wonder you think this is 'speculation' if you haven't actually bothered to read anything about the subject we're discussing.

I know quite a bit about the subject. I am not the one talking about "bandwidth" issues am I?

What do you think integrated GPU's do now? The SAME thing they will do with Fusion! Amazing! The difference is with Fusion, the GPU will be on die instead of on the board. That equals reduced latency. I.E. on die memory controllers.

Arguing that on die video will be a "bandwidth" problem would be like arguing that on die memory controllers would be a "bandwidth" problem back in 2003. It wasn't and it won't be.

 

[jennyh]

The cpu part of this actually has double the cache of an Athlon II - the L2 is up from 512kb to 1 mb each. edit - no sorry current Athlon II's have 1 meg L2, I thought it was only 512kb

It will outperform any current Athlon II, but of course it's not going to get near SB.

 

[amdfangirl]

It will be good tho.

I really look forward to not having a hot nothbridge!

Fusion looks great for HTPCs, so do Sandy Bridge.

 

[pratkal]

Not too sure. A HD5670 has a memory bandwidth with 1GB of GDDR5 of 64GB/s. DDR3 has a max bandwidth at DDR3 1600 of 12.8GB/s.

In terms of memory bandwidth thats more along the lines of a HD5450 (with GDDR3) or a HD5550. Here is a good review on the HD5450:

http://www.legionhardware.com/articles_pages/ati_radeon_hd_5450,1.html

http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum/hardware-canucks-reviews/28559-sapphire-radeon-hd-5450-512mb-ddr3-review.html

The last one is with the GDDR3 HD5450 which has the same memory bandwidth as a HD5550 but I can't find anything for the HD5550 yet.

From what I can tell, if this is what Llano has to offer it would come in at about a HD4650s performance and offer at least DX11 which the games that use DX11 will be better suited for a discrete GPU. This could be good for a HTPC but there is a lot that has to be seen first such as power usage and heat output.

If this does come in at the performance of a HD5450/5550 then even Intel IGP wont be far behind and then its a matter of power savings for the laptop market and for the desktop market as well as making the chipset friendly with other companies products like nVidia.

I do not see any way for Llano to provide decent performance without having access to GDDR5 somewhere on the mobo or on the CPU package but that, as said, would cause more heat than what Llano is wanting.

In short, Fusions first step is not going to be any more of a game changer than Intels i3/i5 offering was. Maybe the next step will.

but the ram is not the only part of a gpu isit?

so i still strongly belive it will be close to HD 5670 for fastest APU

 

[TechnologyCoordinator]

I hope this is true. It would be good for Apple and AMD. I don't see why Apple would want all of it's eggs in one basket.

 

[Hellboy]

I hope this is true. It would be good for Apple and AMD. I don't see why Apple would want all of it's eggs in one basket.

or a 939 socket processor

welcome back from the abyss of nappies, poo, breast milk and no sleep.

 

[uncfan_2563]

I hope this is true. It would be good for Apple and AMD. I don't see why Apple would want all of it's eggs in one basket.

Because that basket is fairly safe and will be of better quality 8 times out of 10.

 

[Dekasav]

The cpu part of this actually has double the cache of an Athlon II - the L2 is up from 512kb to 1 mb each. edit - no sorry current Athlon II's have 1 meg L2, I thought it was only 512kb

It will outperform any current Athlon II, but of course it's not going to get near SB.

Only the Athlon II X2 has 1Mb L2 cache per core, the X3 and X4's only have 512Kb.

 

[Dekasav]

I can see AMD putting its knowledge of sideport memory workings (memory on the motherboard for the IGP to use) into use for Llano. Allowing the APU to access System RAM for the CPU portion with some sideport GDDR5 for the GPU portion could allow both parts to have enough bandwidth to operate at suprising speeds.

I do want to mention this, though (because I'm surprised no one said it, yet).

If Apple knew about Core 2, and was right, what if they know more about Llano than we do, and it really is a game-changer? AMD is the perfect company to be doing an APU, they've put a number of things into practice that could be very useful (things like sideport memory, lots of GDDR5 experience, excellent GPU design, and what are very good CPU cores).

 

[jimmysmitty]

but the ram is not the only part of a gpu isit?

so i still strongly belive it will be close to HD 5670 for fastest APU

No but a limit of memory bandwidth means the GPU wont be able to fill the textures and polygons as fast. I doubt it will be near a HD5670 for that reason. Its like back in the day with a Radeon 9700Pro vs a 9500Pro. The cut of the memory bus (256Bit vs 128Bit) cut the GPUs performance greatly. If it does run off of a DDR3 memory system, it will cut its memory bandwidth by more than 1/3.

They could throw 800 SP units in there but if the memory bandwidth is too small, it wont be able to run as fast as a HD4870.

And ood to see ya TC. Thought you got killed by a mountain of diapers.

 

[yannifb]

I wouldn't compare SB to Llano. The GPU on sandy bridge isn't nearly as closely linked to the cpu as Llano, on SB its basically sitting right next to it. However with Fusion, based on info and die shots the gpu and cpu are basically melded together. I think Fusion might make a huge impact on the market if the CPU can schedule its tasks to that 480 (its 480, right?) sp gpu. Imagine how much that would help in video editing, rendering, and other tasks of the ilk.

 

[pratkal]

No but a limit of memory bandwidth means the GPU wont be able to fill the textures and polygons as fast. I doubt it will be near a HD5670 for that reason. Its like back in the day with a Radeon 9700Pro vs a 9500Pro. The cut of the memory bus (256Bit vs 128Bit) cut the GPUs performance greatly. If it does run off of a DDR3 memory system, it will cut its memory bandwidth by more than 1/3.

They could throw 800 SP units in there but if the memory bandwidth is too small, it wont be able to run as fast as a HD4870.

And ood to see ya TC. Thought you got killed by a mountain of diapers.

well amd got 6 month of time between design of evergreen and llino if amd can some how able to utlize the full ram into gaming instead of limited ram they will beat eve HD 5670 and i am quite sure they wont completly copy the design of HD 5670 as the size is also 32nm so i still strongly believe it will beat HD 5670 or come close

 

[FALC0N]

I can see AMD putting its knowledge of sideport memory workings (memory on the motherboard for the IGP to use) into use for Llano. Allowing the APU to access System RAM for the CPU portion with some sideport GDDR5 for the GPU portion could allow both parts to have enough bandwidth to operate at suprising speeds.

Yes, and this is the only way that onboard graphics would get that fast so soon. It would have to have its own onboard video memory.

I think that may be down the line, but the initial offerings are likely to be modest.

 

[jimmysmitty]

I can see AMD putting its knowledge of sideport memory workings (memory on the motherboard for the IGP to use) into use for Llano. Allowing the APU to access System RAM for the CPU portion with some sideport GDDR5 for the GPU portion could allow both parts to have enough bandwidth to operate at suprising speeds.

I do want to mention this, though (because I'm surprised no one said it, yet).

If Apple knew about Core 2, and was right, what if they know more about Llano than we do, and it really is a game-changer? AMD is the perfect company to be doing an APU, they've put a number of things into practice that could be very useful (things like sideport memory, lots of GDDR5 experience, excellent GPU design, and what are very good CPU cores).

It would still not be as fast as whats on a discrete GPU but it would be faster than using system RAM since system RAM is still not nearly as fast as GPU memory.

But still it would be an extra heat source and cannot be added onto the CPU die or packaging which would be the optimal solution. Maybe with the 28nm or smalle process node both Intel and GF has it could be but still memory does run hotter than the CPU does and adding another heat source will come at a price .

We will see with Llano and SB what they can do and beyond. I wonder if Intel will have a Larrabee based GPU ready for SB even though its been pulled from the consumer market.

well amd got 6 month of time between design of evergreen and llino if amd can some how able to utlize the full ram into gaming instead of limited ram they will beat eve HD 5670 and i am quite sure they wont completly copy the design of HD 5670 as the size is also 32nm so i still strongly believe it will beat HD 5670 or come close

What the guy above said is pretty much the only solution, but that would mean that only mobos with the designated chipset (i.e. newer) would give the best performance. They could offer a PCIe option but even PCIe wouldn't be fast enough as the memory bandwidth for the GPU is all internal. Plus a PCIe addon card would add more cost.

So Llano is truly only viable for people who plan on a new build, HTPCs and the such. Anyone with a current AM2+/AM3 would be better suited with a non GPU on die CPU, especially gamers. I didn't see Core i3/i5 for anything more than the HTPC, low end consumer and business market and I do not see Llano or SB for anything but that purpose also.

 

[FALC0N]

I disagree jimmysmitty. AMD could do a high end GPU/CPU. They would just need a high end GPU on die and its own onboard GDDR5 and your set. Heat on the CPU/GPU combo would be an issue, but it would be a great performer and very doable. But I dont think they are going in that direction. Not even sure it would need a new chipset.

It appears AMD is targeting the price/performance mainstream market. It will be the best integraded graphics on the market. Buts its not intended to compete with Gamer cards.

Afterall, they are doing the cpu/gpu integration and a die shrink at the same time. That enough on your plate for now. If stronger integrated offerings are forthcoming, they will come later.