AMD is apparently quietly adding a new SKU to its Llano processor lineup.
New AMD A4-3450 APU Surfaces : Read more
New AMD A4-3450 APU Surfaces : Read more
-
You heard it here first: Black Friday 2024 has arrived!
- Status
AMD Radeon
Judicious
- Dec 23, 2011
- 5,595
- 0
- 36,960
zeratul600
Honorable
- Mar 11, 2012
- 138
- 0
- 10,680
they can sell them very easy in third world countries like mine (venezuela) because people dont have enough to pay for an intel, and even less to buy a dedicated gpu
[citation][nom]greghome[/nom]it's 50 mhz faster...........what to do you expect?[/citation]
Even at the same clock speed the Core i3 is faster. Due to AMD using the Brazos, not really a bad thing because the Brazos isn't competing with Sandybridge/ivybridge in performance. AMD designed Brazos to be power efficient not powerful. A E-450 is designed to run at 9-18 TPD over the standard 45-65 TPD range of a core i3 (Desktop).
Even at the same clock speed the Core i3 is faster. Due to AMD using the Brazos, not really a bad thing because the Brazos isn't competing with Sandybridge/ivybridge in performance. AMD designed Brazos to be power efficient not powerful. A E-450 is designed to run at 9-18 TPD over the standard 45-65 TPD range of a core i3 (Desktop).
blazorthon
Glorious
- Sep 24, 2010
- 14,022
- 21
- 43,265
[citation][nom]greghome[/nom]it's 50 mhz faster...........what to do you expect?[/citation]
MHz is not a measure of performance. MHz is a measure of clock frequency which although it is related to performance, it is not performance. Even at half of the E450's frequency, a Sandy Bridge or Ivy Bridge i3 would still be faster overall than the E450.
MHz is not a measure of performance. MHz is a measure of clock frequency which although it is related to performance, it is not performance. Even at half of the E450's frequency, a Sandy Bridge or Ivy Bridge i3 would still be faster overall than the E450.
master_chen
Honorable
- Jun 20, 2012
- 1,215
- 0
- 11,360
>AMD Processor
>AMD APU
>A4-3450
>unlikely to show up in retail
>Another "bum price-range" garbage
ZZZZZZzzzzzzZZzZZZZzzz...
>AMD APU
>A4-3450
>unlikely to show up in retail
>Another "bum price-range" garbage
ZZZZZZzzzzzzZZzZZZZzzz...
sonofliberty08
Distinguished
- Mar 17, 2009
- 658
- 0
- 18,980
[citation][nom]amd radeon[/nom]yes, even e450 is way too slow compared to i3[/citation]
E-450 r faster if u compare it on graphic program and games
E-450 r faster if u compare it on graphic program and games
uglynerdman
Honorable
- Mar 8, 2012
- 127
- 0
- 10,690
AMD processors have become UNDERPOWERED... way too much. ive always been a amd fan. my first comp was a k6 and i had an old voodoo banshee card.. amd has really made me sad by not releasing one GOOD mobile processor.. their highest end is lesser than an i3. and desktop well... whats the point of trying to care it seems amd doesnt. At least their high-mid end GPUs are worth the money and are a good price.
AMD needs to do more marketing. Every non-computer person I meet never heard of an AMD...
[citation][nom]greghome[/nom]it's 50 mhz faster...........what to do you expect?[/citation]
Mah Pentium 4 is clocked at 3.4 GHz, so it should be faster than an Ivy Bridge clocked at 3.3 GHz!
WRONG
[citation][nom]greghome[/nom]it's 50 mhz faster...........what to do you expect?[/citation]
Mah Pentium 4 is clocked at 3.4 GHz, so it should be faster than an Ivy Bridge clocked at 3.3 GHz!
WRONG
uglynerdman
Honorable
- Mar 8, 2012
- 127
- 0
- 10,690
[citation][nom]greghome[/nom]IMO, AMD is not too slow. Intel is just too fast.If you actually use anything from an E450 to a Core i7QM, I don't think you'll feel any difference between them if they're all paired with SSDs and you were doing what the average jane/joe does....(farmville)[/citation]
i care about playing my games on ultra high, amd always says play battlefield 3 with their stuff etc. theres no mobile offerings of trinity good enough to play anything even with a discreet gpu. the processor itself is the bottleneck. they could at least make a good 45 w processor for mobile gamers. Ive had to switch to the intel crowd because i want performance and to actually see what my games can look like. ive been amd all the way from k6- am3, they just aint cutting it anymore, even their ceo thinks that they should be focusing on farmville. i dont care about winzipping a file or increasing my video coding by 7 seconds. i do care that i can AT least PLAY on 1900x1080, I can see why the GX60 from msi aint coming out. sure trinity wins on low end integrated apu only stuff. add any discreet v card and amd looks like garbage compared to the lowest intel offerings. that makes me cringe. I like amd. i wish theyd at LEAST put one product out there for the enthusiast crowd. but im just saying what amd fanboys been saying for the last 2 years. i guess ill shutup n just stick to intel now.
i care about playing my games on ultra high, amd always says play battlefield 3 with their stuff etc. theres no mobile offerings of trinity good enough to play anything even with a discreet gpu. the processor itself is the bottleneck. they could at least make a good 45 w processor for mobile gamers. Ive had to switch to the intel crowd because i want performance and to actually see what my games can look like. ive been amd all the way from k6- am3, they just aint cutting it anymore, even their ceo thinks that they should be focusing on farmville. i dont care about winzipping a file or increasing my video coding by 7 seconds. i do care that i can AT least PLAY on 1900x1080, I can see why the GX60 from msi aint coming out. sure trinity wins on low end integrated apu only stuff. add any discreet v card and amd looks like garbage compared to the lowest intel offerings. that makes me cringe. I like amd. i wish theyd at LEAST put one product out there for the enthusiast crowd. but im just saying what amd fanboys been saying for the last 2 years. i guess ill shutup n just stick to intel now.
I'm afraid I'd have to agree with 'greghome'. Used to be a big AMD fan but not anymore. The reviews world wide just don't back up AMD's claims. I don't even believe AMD's comparisons against intel when viewed on Youtube any more. They used to be a company going places. I think the people that screwed up are still working for them. AMD have to go back to the drawing board or rework their last successiful CPU, its depressing I know.
[citation][nom]albert 89[/nom]I'm afraid I'd have to agree with 'greghome'. Used to be a big AMD fan but not anymore. The reviews world wide just don't back up AMD's claims. I don't even believe AMD's comparisons against intel when viewed on Youtube any more. They used to be a company going places. I think the people that screwed up are still working for them. AMD have to go back to the drawing board or rework their last successiful CPU, its depressing I know.[/citation]
I have to disagree with this sentiment. AMD knows what they're doing. The desktop Bulldozers were a little too weak, and were therefore a mistake to release to market, but the server Bulldozers are excellent, and the APUs provide an excellent value for the money. An A8-3850 will satisfy the needs of almost anyone in today's market. The graphics can play probably every game on the market -- though you'd have to turn the quality down a little. The processor can do whatever it needs to do, as it is quad core. All of this is for the low price of around $100, and it draws very little power. That's an excellent value, and I've personally built a machine using an A6 processor. It was rather good. Trinity will bring better graphics and overall better processor performance. (there were some edge cases where it was worse, but those were few and far between) With AMD paying developers to make apps that are OpenCL accelerated, it becomes an even better deal. Their Piledriver cores are 10 to 15 percent better than their Bulldozer cores, which is what we needed to see for them to be good and useful.
For people who want the absolute best -- there's no arguing that Intel is the best. However, Intel is several times the price of AMD for just a little bit more performance.
I have to disagree with this sentiment. AMD knows what they're doing. The desktop Bulldozers were a little too weak, and were therefore a mistake to release to market, but the server Bulldozers are excellent, and the APUs provide an excellent value for the money. An A8-3850 will satisfy the needs of almost anyone in today's market. The graphics can play probably every game on the market -- though you'd have to turn the quality down a little. The processor can do whatever it needs to do, as it is quad core. All of this is for the low price of around $100, and it draws very little power. That's an excellent value, and I've personally built a machine using an A6 processor. It was rather good. Trinity will bring better graphics and overall better processor performance. (there were some edge cases where it was worse, but those were few and far between) With AMD paying developers to make apps that are OpenCL accelerated, it becomes an even better deal. Their Piledriver cores are 10 to 15 percent better than their Bulldozer cores, which is what we needed to see for them to be good and useful.
For people who want the absolute best -- there's no arguing that Intel is the best. However, Intel is several times the price of AMD for just a little bit more performance.
[citation][nom]zeratul600[/nom]they can sell them very easy in third world countries like mine (venezuela) because people dont have enough to pay for an intel, and even less to buy a dedicated gpu[/citation]
You can think Simon Bolivar 2.0(sarcasm) for that. I try to help my girlfriend's family there by buying stuff here and sending to them, but they can't get dollars to pay me for the stuff. Good job Chavez!
You can think Simon Bolivar 2.0(sarcasm) for that. I try to help my girlfriend's family there by buying stuff here and sending to them, but they can't get dollars to pay me for the stuff. Good job Chavez!
[citation][nom]Tomfreak[/nom]how about releasing 1 SKU for the low powered Setup to complete against atom? E-350 is faster than Atom, but still quite a bit slower than regular CPUs.[/citation]
I'd love to see an A2 or even an A1, dunno how they'd make the SKU. Maybe really poor chips that can't clock where the normal SKUs are. A 1.0GHz Trinity APU would smoke any of Intel's current Atoms, AND not have the gd Imagination graphics core. The lack of open source drivers with the new N2x00 and D2x00 chips have really turned me off of Intel's mobile offerings. I've told everyone to look for the AMD logo on anything they buy for mobility.
I'd love to see an A2 or even an A1, dunno how they'd make the SKU. Maybe really poor chips that can't clock where the normal SKUs are. A 1.0GHz Trinity APU would smoke any of Intel's current Atoms, AND not have the gd Imagination graphics core. The lack of open source drivers with the new N2x00 and D2x00 chips have really turned me off of Intel's mobile offerings. I've told everyone to look for the AMD logo on anything they buy for mobility.
blazorthon
Glorious
- Sep 24, 2010
- 14,022
- 21
- 43,265
[citation][nom]uglynerdman[/nom]AMD processors have become UNDERPOWERED... way too much. ive always been a amd fan. my first comp was a k6 and i had an old voodoo banshee card.. amd has really made me sad by not releasing one GOOD mobile processor.. their highest end is lesser than an i3. and desktop well... whats the point of trying to care it seems amd doesnt. At least their high-mid end GPUs are worth the money and are a good price.[/citation]
The mobile A10s cut the difference in CPU performance between the best of both AMD and Intel in half and on the desktop, just grab an FX-6100 or an FX-8120, disable one core per module so that the modules don't have to share resources between two cores, overclock them to about 5GHz and no, that's not difficult after the second core of each module is disabled. Guess how fast they are now? About as fast as an i5 at just slightly under 4GHz.
That's per core performance, not only highly threaded performance considering they then only have three or four cores (three for the 6100 and four for the 8120) that are active. How much power do they use? Not so much that their stock coolers can't easily handle the heat. The disabling one core per module mod increase performance per Hz by up to about 25% or so and the overclock is another huge performance gain, but power efficiency goes way up with the disabling one core per module mod. They'll be using at lot of power at 5GHz, but not so much that they need an aftermarket-cooler, granted you can still use one if you want to.
Sure, you shouldn't have to do something like that to get the most out of these CPUs in a consumer environment, but it's still possible and you've denied that. Furthermore, overclocking any Phenom II x3 or x4, Athlon II x3 or x4, or any FX, and you can easily get as much performance as or even more than an i3, granted the above example is a more extreme example of just how far FX can go if you actually know what you're doing.
The mobile A10s cut the difference in CPU performance between the best of both AMD and Intel in half and on the desktop, just grab an FX-6100 or an FX-8120, disable one core per module so that the modules don't have to share resources between two cores, overclock them to about 5GHz and no, that's not difficult after the second core of each module is disabled. Guess how fast they are now? About as fast as an i5 at just slightly under 4GHz.
That's per core performance, not only highly threaded performance considering they then only have three or four cores (three for the 6100 and four for the 8120) that are active. How much power do they use? Not so much that their stock coolers can't easily handle the heat. The disabling one core per module mod increase performance per Hz by up to about 25% or so and the overclock is another huge performance gain, but power efficiency goes way up with the disabling one core per module mod. They'll be using at lot of power at 5GHz, but not so much that they need an aftermarket-cooler, granted you can still use one if you want to.
Sure, you shouldn't have to do something like that to get the most out of these CPUs in a consumer environment, but it's still possible and you've denied that. Furthermore, overclocking any Phenom II x3 or x4, Athlon II x3 or x4, or any FX, and you can easily get as much performance as or even more than an i3, granted the above example is a more extreme example of just how far FX can go if you actually know what you're doing.
blazorthon
Glorious
- Sep 24, 2010
- 14,022
- 21
- 43,265
[citation][nom]uglynerdman[/nom]i care about playing my games on ultra high, amd always says play battlefield 3 with their stuff etc. theres no mobile offerings of trinity good enough to play anything even with a discreet gpu. the processor itself is the bottleneck. they could at least make a good 45 w processor for mobile gamers. Ive had to switch to the intel crowd because i want performance and to actually see what my games can look like. ive been amd all the way from k6- am3, they just aint cutting it anymore, even their ceo thinks that they should be focusing on farmville. i dont care about winzipping a file or increasing my video coding by 7 seconds. i do care that i can AT least PLAY on 1900x1080, I can see why the GX60 from msi aint coming out. sure trinity wins on low end integrated apu only stuff. add any discreet v card and amd looks like garbage compared to the lowest intel offerings. that makes me cringe. I like amd. i wish theyd at LEAST put one product out there for the enthusiast crowd. but im just saying what amd fanboys been saying for the last 2 years. i guess ill shutup n just stick to intel now.[/citation]
Add a low end discrete card and AMD looks far better than a faster Intel CPU, so you're just starting off wrong. Considering that moving games from low texture quality to the maximum texture quality supported actually makes the game more GPU bound than it is CPU bound at the lower texture options, complaining about ultra is ridiculous. Most games aren't CPU bound and among the CPU bound games, BF3 happens to be one that actually works excellently on an AMD six or eight core CPU, so mentioning it against AMD is counter-intuitive, at best, for your point.
Like I said above, disabling one core per module of an FX CPU increases performance per Hz by about 25% (it also decreases power consumption substantially) and increases overclocking headroom similarly well to a point where the eight-core Bulldozer CPUs can fight with the desktop i5s in performance per core. So, yet again, you were wrong because with that in mind, AMD is in one of the best positions against Intel that they've been in since Nehalem came out, maybe even going further back for Core 2.
Playing on higher resolutions also makes the game more GPU-bound than it was with a lower resolution, so that's another example that doesn't support your claims. No offense intended, but most of what you've said either was wrong or didn't support your claims. Shutting up might stop you from spreading such lies, but it would also stop you from learning, so I recommend that you don't bother with something as negative as that. Stick to Intel if you want to. That's your choice and there's nothing wrong with it IMO. However, AMD is still an option if you know how to utilize a processor properly.
Add a low end discrete card and AMD looks far better than a faster Intel CPU, so you're just starting off wrong. Considering that moving games from low texture quality to the maximum texture quality supported actually makes the game more GPU bound than it is CPU bound at the lower texture options, complaining about ultra is ridiculous. Most games aren't CPU bound and among the CPU bound games, BF3 happens to be one that actually works excellently on an AMD six or eight core CPU, so mentioning it against AMD is counter-intuitive, at best, for your point.
Like I said above, disabling one core per module of an FX CPU increases performance per Hz by about 25% (it also decreases power consumption substantially) and increases overclocking headroom similarly well to a point where the eight-core Bulldozer CPUs can fight with the desktop i5s in performance per core. So, yet again, you were wrong because with that in mind, AMD is in one of the best positions against Intel that they've been in since Nehalem came out, maybe even going further back for Core 2.
Playing on higher resolutions also makes the game more GPU-bound than it was with a lower resolution, so that's another example that doesn't support your claims. No offense intended, but most of what you've said either was wrong or didn't support your claims. Shutting up might stop you from spreading such lies, but it would also stop you from learning, so I recommend that you don't bother with something as negative as that. Stick to Intel if you want to. That's your choice and there's nothing wrong with it IMO. However, AMD is still an option if you know how to utilize a processor properly.
blazorthon
Glorious
- Sep 24, 2010
- 14,022
- 21
- 43,265
AMD does know exactly what they're doing. They almost definitely intended Bulldozer CPUs to be as weak at stock as they are. There's not many other explanations that I can think of considering just how incredibly much they've crippled the Bulldozer architecture in the Bulldozer CPUs. It was as if they wanted it to have a poor showing in the enthusiast community.
DRosencraft
Distinguished
- Aug 26, 2011
- 743
- 0
- 19,010
The comparison between AMD has mostly become a comparison between a Chrysler or Lexus, and a Mercedes or BMW. You can find a cheap BMW/Merc that is relatively close to the top priced Chrysler/Lexus, and they will have comparable performance. Or, you can break the bank on a top of the line Merc/BMW that will blow them out of the water in terms of performance. Unfortunately, most people live in the real world where there is traffic, speed limits, and cops, so they probably wouldn't notice the difference in performance between a Benz CLK and a used Toyota. Most people have no idea how much performance they need, so they over-buy more often than they under-buy.
i can't wait for piledriver fx cpus to come out. i have zero interest in these weak gpu/cpu chips. i hope piledriver fx will beat my 1090t thuban hexa cores. if not, then i'll wait for steamroller fx chips in 2013. if haswell obliterates everything in 2013, then it's time to ditch amd altogether. however, their gpu is still top notch. 
[citation][nom]tului[/nom]I'd love to see an A2 or even an A1, dunno how they'd make the SKU. Maybe really poor chips that can't clock where the normal SKUs are. A 1.0GHz Trinity APU would smoke any of Intel's current Atoms, AND not have the gd Imagination graphics core. The lack of open source drivers with the new N2x00 and D2x00 chips have really turned me off of Intel's mobile offerings. I've told everyone to look for the AMD logo on anything they buy for mobility.[/citation]Those mobile Llano are no diff than Desktop ones. Mobile Llano have 35w-45w APU @ 1.9GHz @ 35w, easily beating E-350. E-350 is faster when compared with Atom but it is no fast enough for general use. I am actually feeling the pain of its slow speed now. I am more than welcome a 1.2-1.5GHz low powered Llano system.
[citation][nom]DRosencraft[/nom]The comparison between AMD has mostly become a comparison between a Chrysler or Lexus, and a Mercedes or BMW. You can find a cheap BMW/Merc that is relatively close to the top priced Chrysler/Lexus, and they will have comparable performance. Or, you can break the bank on a top of the line Merc/BMW that will blow them out of the water in terms of performance. Unfortunately, most people live in the real world where there is traffic, speed limits, and cops, so they probably wouldn't notice the difference in performance between a Benz CLK and a used Toyota. Most people have no idea how much performance they need, so they over-buy more often than they under-buy.[/citation]
where does it say that the new generation will be faster by 10-15 % at equal clocks ?
imho the new generation will clock 10-15 % higher and that's the 10-15 % faster that amd is talking about.
where does it say that the new generation will be faster by 10-15 % at equal clocks ?
imho the new generation will clock 10-15 % higher and that's the 10-15 % faster that amd is talking about.
blazorthon
Glorious
- Sep 24, 2010
- 14,022
- 21
- 43,265
[citation][nom]muy[/nom]where does it say that the new generation will be faster by 10-15 % at equal clocks ?imho the new generation will clock 10-15 % higher and that's the 10-15 % faster that amd is talking about.[/citation]
Piledriver is faster than Bulldozer at the same clock frequency... So, pretty much everything says that it's performance advantage over Bulldozer is in it's performance per Hz advantages. The Vishera version (CPU Piledriver) will have L3 if it gets released, so it will almsot defintiely bring that 10-15% up even further considering that Piledriver in Trinity (meaning no L3) is already faster than Bulldozer at the same frequency.
Piledriver is faster than Bulldozer at the same clock frequency... So, pretty much everything says that it's performance advantage over Bulldozer is in it's performance per Hz advantages. The Vishera version (CPU Piledriver) will have L3 if it gets released, so it will almsot defintiely bring that 10-15% up even further considering that Piledriver in Trinity (meaning no L3) is already faster than Bulldozer at the same frequency.
- Status
TRENDING THREADS
-
-
Question New pc is running at 25fps... Don't know what's wrong.
- Started by Darthbane117
- Replies: 41
-
Review AMD Ryzen 7 9800X3D Review: Devastating Gaming Performance- Started by Admin
- Replies: 202
-
Discussion What's your favourite video game you've been playing?- Started by amdfangirl
- Replies: 4K
-
News Taiwan ready to discuss 2nm transfer to U.S. following Trump's comments
- Started by Admin
- Replies: 14
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram