Intel might have a lead with manufacturing process, but no one can touch AMD's Powerpoint prowess.
I'm pointing out that blind faith in marketing slides is ridiculous.Could you say what sort of value you are adding to discussion with that trolling attempt?
Goes both ways.I'm pointing out that blind faith in marketing slides is ridiculous.
I'm pointing out that blind faith in marketing slides is ridiculous.
It's a little bit hard to follow this discussion. But those who claim that Carrizo does not perform as AMD has indicated, do you have some actual benchmarks or official performance numbers to prove that?
ST improvement is very poor, hovever I am starting to watch that MT performance are near Haswell... maybe AMD has a chance with Zen at least on Mobile.What about blind faith in Intel superiority, because after all that is what is motivating all your posts, of course without any argument, we are talking of blindness after all...
Perhaps did you miss the footnotes, why didnt Intel react to AMD publishing Broadell power comsumption numbers..?.
You think that they have the right to make up such datas and publish them...?
We have two cinebench tests that are denied as being accurate by some usual trolls, most probably those who deserted the schools classrooms at an early age, and hence cant even cope with physics and graphs taught to 13-14 years old teens...
Although these are not the same version of CB we can easily compute the ratio CB11.5/CBR15 for Kaveri, apply the IPC improvement below and get all the numbers we want for CB R15 at any power or any frequency.
They are up like 39% in CB 11.5ST improvement is very poor, hovever I am starting to watch that MT performance are near Haswell... maybe AMD has a chance with Zen at least on Mobile.
hovever I am starting to watch that MT performance are near Haswell...
Seems that Intel guessed right:
The Dual Core Era is about to end. Quad Core Era will start with Windows 10.
And despite Dual Core will be useful some more time, their relevance will start to dimish.
Even HT is not helping much... is just making a Dual Core a Tri Core after all.
Intel must start to move their U tier to low powered Quad Cores since Dual won't last enough time.
This is not an Intel thread, so post your off topic elsewhere.
Believe or not, I saw way more Bay Trail and Cherry Trail solutions than Core M, U tier and even the Intel H solution. And that affect AMD somehow.So its there already.. ! may be there is not enough stock
or the manufacturers are neglecting the AMD carrizos maybe
Thanks for the aggregated numbers. The tested notebook has dual graphics btw, which invalidates any cTDP setting estimations based on 3DMark.http://www.notebookcheck.net/AMD-A-...r-Specifications-and-Benchmarks.144218.0.html
Code:15w 35w ? in % 100 233 3d mark 11 (P) 1764 2359 2181 in % 100 133 (123,6) cpu slightly above kaveri a10-7400p
200% would be double the power, i.e. Carrizo requires more than double the power (233%) to reach far less than the half the performance (33%) more. This is absolutely remarkable.
And makes it clear immediately why AMD claims Carrizo to be (relatively) more efficient at 15 watts. It means the currency of "electricity" is increasingly loosing value above of 15 watts. Such a thing is otherwise called runaway hyper-inflation.
It is not explicitly specified which thermal design power budget of the cpu was used to perform the test. Since these tests always want to determine the maximum performance it is plausible, if it is assumed that the tests were conducted under conditions, under which the CPU can deliver their maximum performance (regardless of the efficiency) namely at 35W TDP. A lower configured TDP should be explicitly declared. Otherwise, the whole test basically is worthless.
On the other hand there are three results to 3D Mark 11 at various TDP figures, two results with specified TDP details (see above) and a test result with unknown TDP (see below). If we assume a performance increase linear to the TDP and vice versa, we can calculate the unknown TDP simply as follows:
35 - 15 = 20
2359 - 1764 = 595
595 / 20 = 29.75 Points per tdp-watt
2181 - 1764 = 417
417 / 29.75 = 14.02
15 + 14.02 = 29.02 Watt
Therefore, the test was performed with a TDP configured at approximately 30 watts. Taking into account the ratio of the increases of TDP and performance, so the thing is as follows:
100 / 233 = 100 / 133
233 / 133 = 1.75
100 / 1764 * 2181 = 216.5%
15 Watt / 100% * 216.5% = 32.475 Watt
Therefore, the test was performed with a configured TDP of between 29 Watts and 32 watts.
Multi-threaded disabled by user? Odd.
In the 3DMark API Overhead test, Carrizo (not sure which APU) provides:
DX11 ST: 454,863 draw calls
DX12: 2,798,551 draw calls
Below are from AT's preview of several high end and low end desktop CPU/IGP (much more wattage)
http://www.anandtech.com/show/9112/exploring-dx12-3dmark-api-overhead-feature-test/4
The A10-7700K scores
DX11 ST: 655,000 draw calls
DX12: 4,470,000 draw calls
The i7-4790K scores
DX11 ST: 625,000 draw calls
DX12: 2,033,000 draw calls
The A6-7400K scores
DX11 ST: 455,000 draw calls
DX12: 4,101,000 draw calls
The G3258 scores
DX11 ST: 515,000 draw calls
DX12: 1,415,000 draw calls
What? How? Why? I didn't know that. I haven't owned an AMD CPU for about 7 years.amd doesnt support dx11 multithreading.
What? How? Why? I didn't know that.
Let's wait... maybe AMD is preparing their driver with miltithread support with Windows 10.yea, I guess amd thought the gains weren't worth it for the added complexity. Also is one of the negative talking points about amd and the driver overhead.