New Details Uncovered on AMD Richland APUs

[m32]

[citation][nom]Shin-san[/nom]So, with 4 cores, do they have 8 integer cores?[/citation]

I doubt it. It probably has the 2C/4T like all of the other APUs. I would love to see 8T on SteamRoller, but since this new APU just improve PD cores without an node change.... don't think about 8T yet on an APU.

 

[tomfreak]

[citation][nom]zooted[/nom]They made a good 10-15% ipc performance from bulldozer core to piledriver, if we are lucky they will achieve the same. I hope they continue this trend, if so they might actually stand a chance in the future. (Fingers crossed)[/citation]Intel also make a 10% on Ivy, 10% on Haswell, so the gap is still pretty much the same after piledriver[citation][nom]otacon72[/nom]APU's are crap, always been crap and always will be. This is a made up category by AMD because they can't compete with intel anymore. Their benchmarks are pathetic.[/citation]It is crap because much of the TDP headroom has been allocated to GPU. Without the GPU, those piledriver cores would have CLOCK much higher now.

 

[pit_1209]

[citation][nom]jdwii[/nom]Agreed, expect less then 10% improvement on the CPU on average maybe even less, As for the GPU well i'm sure we wont see anything to special, Amd is being really quiet and they always do that when their is nothing to see[/citation]

So when bulldozer was coming with that superduper attack of merchandise about beating everything in the cpu market something was coming?

As I see is better to say anything and let the facts speaks themselves and they´re doing exactly that.

 

[madjimms]

[citation][nom]A Bad Day[/nom]When will AMD start including an on-die VRAM (DDR3 or GDDR5)? An APU with an VRAM would eat away at the low end discrete GPU market and threaten the middle end as well.[/citation]
RAM chips are too large to put on a CPU die. Wait 5-10 years & they should be small enough.

 

[A Bad Day]

[citation][nom]Madjimms[/nom]RAM chips are too large to put on a CPU die. Wait 5-10 years & they should be small enough.[/citation]

Could they at least place the VRAM on the same mini-circuit board that the CPU/GPU die is located?

[citation][nom]Tomfreak[/nom]Intel also make a 10% on Ivy, 10% on Haswell, so the gap is still pretty much the same after piledriverIt is crap because much of the TDP headroom has been allocated to GPU. Without the GPU, those piledriver cores would have CLOCK much higher now.[/citation]

AMD know it's a losing game to compete Intel head-on with just a CPU. Even if they clocked the Piledriver higher, it would require a dedicated GPU, and that would put it at a disadvantage against the i3s with their IGP when it comes to balanced yet power effective computing.

AMD has a far superior GPU, and if they can get more developers to jump on the GPU-computing boat, then their APUs would be even more successful outside of budget gaming and HTPCs.

 

[digiex]

Prices please...

 

[demonhorde665]

ask me AMD has been making these apu's inside the baby bubble. meaning they arnt really putting in much effort to awe consumers. enough with the low power budget minded gpu sided to a low power budget minded cpu.

take teh f---ing gloves off already AMD.

i want to see a 8 core apu sporting a gpu side that is at last as powerful as a 7850 if not a 7870 or a 7950. sure i'd expect a price tag around 350 -450 a a wattage around 145 wt, but boy would it stomp on the competiion's offerings in that price range given the competion would cost that price plus a discrerete video card's cost.

don't get me wrong seeing new apu's is interesting , and I'm sure they;'ll rais the performance bar of apu's in general. but damn ... take a real s--- or get off the pot !

 

[Guest]

If you really get 7750-level of performance, then these APUs are something worth looking at.

 

[sirencall]

You can already do mid level 1080p gaming on the 5800k so IM curious to see the performance bump on these. I built one for my gf using the 5800k and she loves it and honestly makes my my rig with only a 6950 feel a little excessive by comparison. I mean talk about a cheap way to upgrade a system. 100 every year or two to have the latest in APU performance vs paying 600 for the latest in GPU performance or more. ANd you get a faster cpu as well as gpu in the swap and if you offset the cost by reselling the old apu its a cheap upgrade path honestly

 

[parkerm35]

I have just found this article, and these guys seem to think the same as me with regards to GPU power. 7750
http://www.expreview.com/23487.html

 

[alextheblue]

[citation][nom]Madjimms[/nom]RAM chips are too large to put on a CPU die. Wait 5-10 years & they should be small enough.[/citation]But in 5-10 years, you'll need so much VRAM that you're back to square one. Some things just don't belong on the die, like a huge pile of VRAM. A small amount of eDRAM to speed up certain bandwidth-hungry tasks would make more sense, they've been doing this on consoles for quite some time.[citation][nom]A Bad Day[/nom]When will AMD start including an on-die VRAM (DDR3 or GDDR5)? An APU with an VRAM would eat away at the low end discrete GPU market and threaten the middle end as well.[/citation]As I said above, a small amount of eDRAM might be a better path. Alternatively, why not add a 128-bit GDDR connection directly to the GPU side and install a pile of GDDR3/5 on the mainboard? It could be a removeable module, so some boards ship empty and you add it, or upgrade it to a larger/faster module later. Even 512MB would make a difference, when you combine it with shared memory (hopefully dual-channel 2133).

 

[deksman]

[citation][nom]tomfreak[/nom]Intel also make a 10% on Ivy, 10% on Haswell, so the gap is still pretty much the same after piledriverIt is crap because much of the TDP headroom has been allocated to GPU. Without the GPU, those piledriver cores would have CLOCK much higher now.[/citation]

Actually, no.
The biggest jump Intel made was from the first i core series to Sandy Bridge.
From then, Ivy bridge had UP TO 5% increase in core for core speed (although it was realistically closer to 3%), whereas Haswell is being projected to gain about 10% (but no one is holding their breadth on that one seeing how Intel's claims are usually exaggerated compared to AMD - of course AMD did the same with Bulldozer, but their 10 to 15% increase has been steady and accurate since then).

Intel is now focusing more on IGP performance and lower power consumption which is why Haswell won't be anything noteworthy from a CPU performance point of view (unless you are using their IGP)- and even GPU-wise, they won't be able to catch up to AMD's Trinity integrated performance.

Think of it like this: AMD is ahead of Intel in integrated gpu performance by (more or less) same amount that Intel is ahead of AMD in CPU performance.

Now, if software was a lot more optimized for multi-threaded performance (most notably games and some pro software), then the results could be a bit better for AMD.
But that aside, AMD would probably have to add 2 extra modules on their APU's to surpass Intel's i5's.

AMD can easily get away with using apu's in mobiles and tablets.
Sure, they would have to reduce their peformance due to lower TDP, but they would still be a lot faster/capable compared to Atom and other similar devices.

that, and manufacturers who made laptops with AMD apu's need to use them in 13" to 14" form factors (maybe 15").
17" is just too stupid, coupled with no good resolutions and poorly executed internal cooling designs, etc.

Asus seems to be breaking the ice on that front though.