Report: AMD Quad-core Llano APUs Coming in Q3

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Status
Not open for further replies.
These are both MOBILE processors, so yes, laptop CPUs. The graphics implementations aren't even, but that's the point of the video. AMD's APU (CPU and GPU within the CPU itself) outperform the Intel Sandy bridge graphics on-die. Both CPUs have the graphics embedded within the chip itself.

This is marketed for laptops and mobile devices but will work its way to the desktop CPU market as well. AMD have planned to have the APU actually work with discrete AMD graphics cards for something like a crossfire setup. So yes, in both a laptop and desktop environment it does indeed matter.
 
I doubt that a quad core APU will be used in laptops but hey who knows for sure. Intel i7 Quad cores are pretty hard on batteries and don't seem to get beyond 2.5 gig.
 
@otacon
"AMD is so far behind now. All they've been releasing is fluff videos for over a year now."

Man what planet are you from?

AMD has executed! Nvidia has a very bleak future if they don't go the way of Blockbuster.

But it's okay if you don't understand. Everybody was a newbie at one time so you can be excused.

The PCI will not be supported after 2015. Intel made this cleear with the $1.5 billion settlemnet agreement with AMD. Sonce the Sound card market is just about shot and Fusion and Sandy Bridge wrecking the mass market for graphics GPU's what eles is there to use a PCI slot? Remember when you bough a motherboard with 5 PCU slots? A modem, Turtle Beach Sound Card, Graphics card, interface card, and what else..........

PCI will be dead.
 
[citation][nom]mateau[/nom]I doubt that a quad core APU will be used in laptops but hey who knows for sure. Intel i7 Quad cores are pretty hard on batteries and don't seem to get beyond 2.5 gig.[/citation]

The test there shows the power consumption at around ~50W, which is about twice the watt consumption of the mini-itx fusion llano's that are now competing with the atom. the atom CPUs chew up a bit more power, particularly at idle (20ish watts? whereas the llano eats up ~10w iirc), and the atoms are known for being relatively good performers when it comes to stretching the battery life. I think the mobile line of the llano's will eat up far less power than you'd think. Part of the advantage of having an APU is that anything graphics related (be it web browsing or gaming or what have you) is more efficient and uses less power when it's handled by the CPU (or APU in this case) rather than an onboard or discrete GPU.
 
I am not sure, but in consumer market I think that Llano is more important to AMD than bulldoser.
CPUGPU seems to be the way the low and middle range computers are going in both Intel And AMD visions, and the GPU part of CPUGPU is an area that AMD really have a fighting chance against Intell in short term at least.
For those who actually play more demanding games the area is more shady. Sandy is very good platform in that area, so bulldoser have to be very near and the prize has to be relatively good. Much harder in that area...
Llano can forse Intell to reduce lover end Sandy's prises a little bit because even Intel will have CPU lead the Llano seems to be better in GPU part. Much like Atom and Bracos in ultra portables...
It will be very hard job to catch Intell CPU lead, but coming near may be enough. Intell has done very good job lately with their very big development funding. But in a gaming rig AMD has been a very good alternative so far. Llano can tilt the balance if the GPU part is as good as it seems to be in paper. You can play Farmwille and even Angry bird with it... so it is more that most people ever need... 🙂

Well I personally need Ivypridge or Bulldoser and 680 or 7870 for my next machine, but I don't belong to big majority, just the same as like many other posters in this forum. Many seems to be very skeptical about Llano and compare it to Sandy... Llano don't have to as powerfull as Sandy if the CPUGPU balance just is better for average consumer!


 
AMD doesn't have to catch Intel to win AMD just needs market share. That's why releasing Bobcat, Zacate and Brazos was a very smart move; it generated excitement in the netbook and low cost laptop market. Fusion has forced Intel to change direction. Intel has to respond and Sandy Bridge has a very poor gpu on die core. The tail is wagging the dog. AMD is looking at very high percentage market share in netbook and laptop market.

Now Intel has to respond to the challenge to it's now-dead ATOM and face Bulldozer in 2 months. Bulldozer goes after the server market the very same market that AMD had a strong grip upon back in 2007 when HP sales forced DELL to buildout AMD servers, that's when Intel pulled $250 million of rebates from DELL. Then Llano shows up for the Christmas market with 8 month old Radeon cores ON DIE. The HD 6550 crushed anything Intel has regardless.

The problem with being on top is it's easy to knock you down. Especially now that Intel is forced to play fair.
 
@hannibal
I think that Bulldozer needs to hit the market soon as it is. Only to mature the brand before the next refresh which will surely have a Radeon core. The word is that Llano will be replaced by Trinity Fusion APU which is a second generation Bulldozer dual and quad core with Radeon gpu. AMD is saying that Trinity will not be high end either! "Desktop Performance market: Zambezi will be replaced by Komodo. The latter is only available in 8-core form."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AMD_Bulldozer
 
[citation][nom]mateau[/nom]Man what planet are you from?AMD has executed! Nvidia has a very bleak future if they don't go the way of Blockbuster.But it's okay if you don't understand. Everybody was a newbie at one time so you can be excused.[/citation]

If you honestly think Nvidia has a bleak future.. You obviously haven't been in the game long enough to call anyone a newbie. It's okay if you don't understand as well. Alot of people here make blind statements. ;P

This will do nothing but further advances in architecture.. Alot of people thought ATI was dead during the days of the 8800 Ultra.. Or the same for AMD when core2 and i7 came out.. And look at where they are now.. Arguably on top.. IF llano/bulldoser is as good as they make it seem. Which is absolutely delicious, btw.

Worst case scenario.. Nvidia will do the same thing that ATI did.. And that, will be a painful day for AMD. Intel has always had difficulty with graphics.. Something Nvidia most certainly doesn't have. And if those two merge.. Well, to say they would have more resources than AMD/ATI would be an incredible understatement.

This is nothing but the continued tick-tock that happens in a competitive market. Both companies have proven their ability to grow, recover, adapt, and overcome.

This will drive innovation and collaboration, nothing more. The status quo, will most assuredly, remain the same.. Or very near to it.. If AMD is *very* lucky.
 
@otacon72

because the sandy bridge chip used in the comparison has been around for a year now.......
 
The consensus in the HPC computing crowd is that Nvidia is goiing to get squeezed with declining sales in the mass market. Without mass market sales Nvidia doesn't subsidize new core designs. In 2 years every laptop and desktop will be either a Fusion core APU or Intel Sandy/Ivy Bridge. The only discrete market will be the high end for Intel cores as it is unlikely that AMD users would buy Nvidia. Apple already tossed Nvidia out on it's ear.

What you are not realisingf that the high end gpu that gets bunged into Sandy Bridge next year has no market the following year. And yes the implications are that faced with declining sales Nvidia is bought cheaply by Intel. Intel needs the design momentum and the Geforce portfolio.

Thats the argument. AMD is using 8 month old Radeon HD 6550 in Llano. If you read my earlier post I asked the question how can Intel compete with a Radeon on die APU that is less than 1 etar old? Intel is not a gpu design house.
 
@scuba dave


If Intel bought Nvidia tomorrow it would be a year or before new silicon would come of it.

It is also not likely that the SEC would allow that sale unless Nvidia collapsed completely. An Nvidia purchase would give Intel a virtual monopoly in the market.
 
the issue with nvidia, at least now, is that they make great GPUs but they use a ton of power, which in a world where mobile electronics are becoming the hot ticket is not a reputation you want to hold.

Nvidia is doing fine. their ARM architecture is working quite well and making strides and their GPUs are great performers. after Intel kicked all other chipset makers to the curb I'd *highly* doubt anything between nvidia/intel would happen.
 
The problem with Tegra II is it is NOT x86. And sells for less than $25.00. Nvidia hasn't even made Tegra II's development costs back yet. And to be honest is not that great. Nvidia is trying to enter a cpu market that is already filled with competition. They are just amother ARM licensee trying to sell someone else's tech. Good luck to them. It's like Intel entering the discrete GPU market against Nvidia and AMD.

ARM architecture just will never make it into laptops and pc's. There is no installed software application base for RISC cpu's.

You are probably right about no deal between Intel and Nvidia but it almost seems to make sense.

But then again nobody expected AT&T to buy T-Mobile but they made an offer today!
 
I can't wait to upgrade my current laptop to a quad core Llano... Of course, the OEMs are going to drag their feet on getting products to market... and make every attempt to screw AMD, like how pretty much every Brazos laptop out there is a big steaming bucket of cack... which is entirely due to the OEMs deliberately gimping the designs vs. every Intel laptop they release... But hey, even if the OEMs deliberately cripple the battery life to 2 hours less than what it could be, it should still be a beast of a mobile platform.
 
What's really the point of calling these 6xxx graphics when none of them even support UVD 3.0 let alone anything else related to the 6xxx series graphics when all they are is 5xxx graphics.
 
id rather have a dedicated video card in my laptop that consume more power to make sure i can play any game over a fusion shit. I mean Lenovo x220 claim 24h bat on 9 cell. I guess on a dedicated graphic card will be like 8-10hrs, thats enought for me.
 
@SteelCity1981
"What's really the point of calling these 6xxx graphics when none of them even support UVD 3.0 let alone anything else related to the 6xxx series graphics when all they are is 5xxx graphics"

UVD 3.0 is supported by Cyberlink for ALL AMD Fusion products. That's the whole POINT: High def decoding.
 
The demo is a joke! It compares a system with an Intel system with no dedicated graphics card vs an AMD system with no dedicated graphics card but it has an HD6600 card embedded on the CPU.
Add any basic graphics card on the Intel system and problem is solved!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom