AMD discrete 8770m is less powerful than 7770m in a lot of cases, saying AMD is innocent of this is disgenuous,
All of the above Intel CPUs state they have HD4000. That means that the iGPU in everyone of them must have exactly the same performance. We both know very well that this is not the case, 45W HD4000 doesn’t perform the same as 17W HD4000.
Have a look at AMDs iGPU naming
A10-5750M – 35W – 384 Radeon Cores at 720MHz /533MHz - GPU name = HD 8650G
A10-4600M – 35W – 384 Radeon Cores at 685MHz/496MHz – GPU name = HD 7660G
A10-4655M – 25W – 384 Radeon Cores at 496MHz/360MHz – GPU name = HD 7620G
A8-4555M – 19W – 384 Radeon Cores at 424MHz/320MHz – GPU name = HD 7600G
All of the above AMD iGPUs have the same number of Radeon Cores, would you like AMD to name them all as HD 8000 and be done with it ??? Would you or would you not have a problem with that ?? I would and I believe everyone should have a problem because it would be misleading to the uneducated consumer.
Intel’s iGPU naming is misleading and they should change it.
Nope, that's not the point, what I'm saying is that these days "its good enough" is more than adequate for 80~90% of the PC industry & more people are upgrading out of necessity cause the costs for incremental performance upgrades are becoming prohibitively expensive !
What this means is that we're moving towards the mobile industry model of "chip" as a commodity & IGP is playing the most important role in that single component. AMD with its historic lead in this dept, especially after acquiring ATI, is in a better position to leverage this sea change however the traditional x86 market is gonna shrink further whether one likes it or not !
The number of users(including corporates) actively upgrading their systems is barely 10~20% of the total install base of x86, the number of users having dGPU is less than half of that & this number is further going down because people are replacing their desktops with notebooks, see the various sub forums for instance, therefore the role of IGP is not diminishing & in fact its actually the reverse !
Not many of them would know how an HD4000 on an i7 SKU would perform wrt an i3 based HD4000 part, now would they ?
For years I wanted an AMD fusion-based laptop to replace my existing (then) Intel-based laptop. Folks may remember how much I talked about looking forward to it because of how much I loathed my Intel laptop with its buggy-as-crap IGP (low performing is one thing, low performing and buggy is a whole other level of end-user hell).
But when I finally was forced to buy a new lappy I could not find anything from AMD with an APU-style CPU/iGPU that was remotely price-competitive in the same form factor to an Intel-based laptop equipped with Nvidia discrete mobile graphics (Optimus).
So that is what I have now, a SB based laptop, 17" form-factor, with an Nvidia discreet graphics card. And it works remarkably well, I had no idea Optimus worked so seamlessly until I had one in hand.
The price gap really caught me by surprise, it was about $200 more to get the AMD lappy with comparable gaming performance to the Nvidia mobile stuff.
Now that's been about a year now, so hopefully AMD has found a way to not just make their APU's price-competitive, they need to convince the OEMs to make the final products themselves price-competitive too.
Well yes it is but that isn't the only reason why A10-4600M aren't selling like hotcakes, its the OEM's that are at fault here as someone said they bundle it with something like Radeon 7670M !Actually you are making the point that HD4000 is "good enough". The fact that the majority of enterprise and educational institutions use intel processors with the IGP only, and the fact that upgrades are coming at increasingly rare intervals means that the HD4000 or even the HD2500 from SB is "good enough". Obviously if there was a compelling need for the igp performance of an AMD apu, more people would be upgrading to it or buying that instead of intel in the initial purchase.
Well yes it is but that isn't the only reason why A10-4600M aren't selling like hotcakes, its the OEM's that are at fault here as someone said they bundle it with something like Radeon 7670M !
What I obviously meant was that going forward graphics will dominate the computing landscape even more than it does now & more general purpose apps will use the GPU/IGP especially with OpenCL & HSA hence advantage AMD.
If one cannot spot current/popular trends then its not my obligation to change their "world is flat" view but I'll still say what I feel right & being opinionated should not be a reason to target someone !
I was talking about my last post on the previous page but if everyone on this forum is ultra sensitive about anything Intel related then its best for me to not get involved in such worthless squabbles, as if religious nutbags weren't enough !Are you claiming I was "targeting" you in some way? Not sure if you intended to imply that, but I was only stating my opinion. If you want to talk about "targeting" someone I think stating a differing opinion than yours is like believing the earth is flat, would come much closer to a personal insult than anything I said in my earlier replys to you.
But when I finally was forced to buy a new lappy I could not find anything from AMD with an APU-style CPU/iGPU that was remotely price-competitive in the same form factor to an Intel-based laptop equipped with Nvidia discrete mobile graphics (Optimus).
Take SiSoft Sandra. I could not care less whether it has been compiler optimized for Intel, AMD, Via, my socks, your kitchen hutch, etc...it is a worthless benchmark suite from the outset, biased or not by the specific compiler employed.
Yes, right after listing iTunes and Cinebench as examples of programs compiled with ICC, therefore strongly implying that he's listing them as examples of synthetic benchmarks...
Still waiting for a cogent argument as to why I should give a rip why Intel is faster than AMD. I couldn't care less about compilers or all the other whining. I only care about value. And the same is true for everyone else buying a computer.
To me, these excuses sound like this: "Well, of course John is a better basketball player than Peter. It's not a fair comparison, because John is 6'10" and Peter is only 6'1". If you remove that 'unfair advantage', they're about equal."
No. It would be an unfair comparison if John and Peter were bound by different rules favouring one of them. Officials/referees have the responsibility to enforce the same basketball rules for both players.
I find interesting how you reply to arguments considering the "average people" and the computer market in general with your collection of "I care..." "I can..." "I can't...", "I'm...", "I did...", "I just...", "I'm...", "I don't...", "I don't...", "I don't...", "I buy...", "I will...", "I give...", "I can..."
Do you see the pattern... true?
Actually, personal insults are the indication that someone is short on arguments. Like, say, calling someone "retarded".
preferably from the market leader. Sorry.
Its kinda easy.
in general i7>=i5>=i3
What agenda are you talking about ?
More people watch bluray movies & youtube videos, play flash based games, browse the web on their notebooks as compared to folks playing crysis 3 or using AutoCAD !
Now if you're saying that the IGP doesn't matter in any of these cases then that's the end of debate right there !
Also if you're not aware of GPU acceleration on apps such as media players, browsers then its better to inform yourself than calling someone a shill & I don't need to prove those numbers to you because if you're a mod(well informed one) here on AT you should be well aware what the rest of the world does & not limit your myopic view to the western world !
I didn't know that. I thought they were the same. I never investigated it though, but it shows that at least the name is not intuitive.All of the above Intel CPUs state they have HD4000. That means that the iGPU in everyone of them must have exactly the same performance. We both know very well that this is not the case, 45W HD4000 doesnt perform the same as 17W HD4000.
This is not valid in general but only when comparing one given generation and family. In general you don't know if an i3 will be faster or slower than an i5 or i7.
I didn't know that. I thought they were the same. I never investigated it though, but it shows that at least the name is not intuitive.
Core i7 is a brand name, so no problem with that. Then comes the name of the actual product in that series like 3xxxK. If HD 4000 is only an indication that some HD xxxx element is present in the product, this should be indicated by something like "HD 4000 series graphics" or simply "Intel HD graphics", leaving the number out. Otherwise, why not just have core i7 CPUs without any further numbers to seperate them. Just using HD 4000 everywhere is indeed misleading.
This is bollocks. The only "rules" are what customers want. And they don't give a damn about your apparently unlimited desire to prop up a failing chip company. All they care about is what provides good value, preferably from the market leader. Sorry.
On the bolded, what? D: Why does value have to come from the market leader? Best value is best value. And what customers ultimately "want" is competition because it drives down prices and brings innovation.This is bollocks. The only "rules" are what customers want. And they don't give a damn about your apparently unlimited desire to prop up a failing chip company. All they care about is what provides good value, preferably from the market leader. Sorry.
On the bolded, what? D: Why does value have to come from the market leader? Best value is best value. And what customers ultimately "want" is competition because it drives down prices and brings innovation.
Do you want to see Intel with no competition in x86? Because if AMD is a "failing chip company" I take you expect them to soon be no longer in business, so this is exactly what will happen.
The market leader generally has more money and more push on developing new innovations and these innovations are more likely to be embraced by the industry (having a greater marketshare).
Isn't this why so many are saying that amd gcn is going to have an advantage? AMD will be the market leader in console gpus and will be able to push gcn and their apus further (not to mention things such as HSA which would be tremendously harder to get the market to adopt had they not been able to get their apus in consoles).
Given two equal chips with features A,B,C on chip 1 and D,E,F on chip two with the company making chip one having and 80% marketshare and the company making chip two having a 20% and all other things being equal chip one will likely be a slightly better buy in terms of perf/$ over time simply because more things on the market will support A,B,C due to a greater marketshare (and the fact that company 1 can afford to throw more money to develop features A,B,C).
Developers tend to design something that will work the best for the greatest number of people. They are more likely to support features (being equally important features) that are present on the greatest number of chips, rather than bothering with something that isn't very common.
(i'm not anti-competition but this is ultimately what happens).
That may be true, but the consoles are not even computers in the conventional sense of the word. They are specialized gaming devices. First, we dont even know how efficiently HSA will be used in the consoles. Secondly, AMD still has a small portion of the server, enterprise, educational, and research markets. It remains to be seen how much the console wins will hasten adoption of AMD paradigms in those markets. In fact, one could argue that Intel's new instructions sets will be more likely to be utilized for this very reason.