The first iPad was released on April 3, 2010
Currently, it is 2013.
Four years ago was 2009, and 2009 occurred before the iPad was released.
Something is wrong with your logic. Haswell can't possibly be competing with trinity you argue, because haswell was initially designed 4 years ago, before trinity was released. Okay, I understand what you are saying- I may not fully agree, because I feel Intel could see what way AMD was planning to go as soon as AMD bought ATI, but whatever, you can make that argument.
But then you turn around and claim that Haswell was designed to react to tablets. Which, incidentally, did not exist as a viable market until the iPad created that market. Since the iPad was released AFTER Haswell's initial design 4 years ago (according to your logic above) somehow Intel reacted to the iPad a year before it was released?
I'm saying A6800 is a failed product because with 25$ more you can get twice gaming performance, and that's the whole point of the discussion.
You do know the intel hd4600 is as fast as the current amd a10 trinity graphics used in laptops right? Furthermore the intel hd4600 is over 4 times faster than any arm tablet gpu including the ipad 4.Any tablet having a Haswell SoC will probably cost around a 1000$ so to say that the GT3e is going into tablets is foolhardy to say the least, except for surface pro. The rest of HD 4600 based chips will not make it into a tablet as they'll lack the necessary GPU power & the CPU power would be overkill in such situations, lesser battery life as well !
Yeah about that it should've read as "the current gen Intel HD 4xxx graphics is too power hungry for normal tablets" & sorry for the brain freeze D:You do know the intel hd4600 is as fast as the current amd a10 trinity graphics used in laptops right? Furthermore the intel hd4600 is over 4 times faster than any arm tablet gpu including the ipad 4.
You should also be aware that SDP numbers are obtuse & rather opaque as shown in an earlier article on AT.Anand had the benches in his iris graphics article, he didn't just bench iris pro he also bench the intel 4600. Note the desktop 4600 has 1350 max turbo, intel 4600 in laptops have a max turbo of 1150 or 1300 mhz depending on sku with the cheaper models getting 1150 mhz. Still that is a difference up to only 17%
Furthermore we are going to see the same 20 EU parts in all of intel haswell graphics. Some parts are going to be downclocked and called intel hd 4200 or intel hd 4400
Intel HD 4200 (Used in the Intel Y series such as the intel 4200Y which has a tdp of 11.5 watts and a SDP of 6 watts)
20 EU, 200 base clock, 850 max graphics turbo.
Intel HD 4400 (Used in Intel U i3 series, which have a 15 watt tdp)
20 EU, 200 base clock, 1000 max graphics turbo
Intel HD 4600 (Used in Intel normal laptop chips)
The 5000 or 5100 (iris graphics non pro) are going to be used in all of intels i5 and i7 with a 15w or 28w tdp
Intel HD 5000-40 EU, 200 base clock, 1100 max graphics turbo
Intel HD 5100-40 EU, 200 base clock, 1200 max graphics turbo
Did you miss Intel's talk at Computex where they said they changed Haswell's design goals halfway in? Did you also miss the first time I mentioned this in this thread?
So that means two years ago...Right in the middle of the shift to SOCs.
Beginning to wonder why I bother. Maybe the forums should be split, an AMD forum and a forum for everyone else.
Clearly, the desktop haswell CPU are intended to compete with trinity and richland, not tablets.
Actually, Intel doesnt have a product to compete against Richland in the Desktop in the same price, performance.
Cannot blame Intel for not interesting in niche market. What we have with APUs is crappy CPU performance (considering 100W power consumption), "not good enough" GPU performance in AAA game titles and non-existent OpenCL applications market. Core i3 would be more balanced solution since it runs much cooler, has much better performance for daily tasks (such as internet's javascript) and more than adequate for non-demanding and casual gaming.
Yeah about that it should've read as "the current gen Intel HD 4xxx graphics is too power hungry for normal tablets" & sorry for the brain freeze D:You should also be aware that SDP numbers are obtuse & rather opaque as shown in an earlier article on AT.
There is no way reasonable you can compare TDP & SDP so anything else coming out of that SDP bonanza is a lottery & I for one will not trust Intel's marketing team anymore than AMD's
Oh really, so they can change the design goals halfway through. So then why exactly did you say it was designed 4 years ago in your first post? You don't need to answer, I know why people like you change their argument every other post. It's called moving the goalposts. You get caught in a lie and suddenly your previous statement is forgotten.
In case you are not aware, haswell includes a whole line of CPU, it's not just one CPU. I will happily accept that perhaps Intel hopes to put the ultra low voltage versions of haswell into tablets, that is a reasonable theory. But if you are trying to argue that every haswell CPU is designed specifically for tablets, you are full of it. Nobody is putting 84W CPUs into small portable devices such as tablets. Clearly, the desktop haswell CPU are intended to compete with trinity and richland, not tablets.
You not only know more than AMD executives about their products, you now know more than Intel too!
Typical answer of someone looking for a rapid exit
from a pressuring debate.
.[/QUOTE
Please give me hope and tell me English isn't your first language.
With all thoses straw are you sure you re not some kind
of middle west s deep spaces bored farmer..?...
Chiropteran was perfectly clear , whatever the synthax.
Then by your logic every Intel CPU including Haswell are fails because you have 3x or 4x more gaming performance with Phenom II and HD7750.
Plz, stop trolling.
Please give me hope and tell me English isn't your first language.
AMD APUs on the other hand, are targeted on budget gamers, as an all-in-one solution for them. I'm saying it fails, because that target group, can get twice the performance with a Phenom II 965 & 7750 with 25$ more. Who wouldn't do that? Stop burying your head in the sand.
If I'm dishing out 300-350$ for a basic combo, 25$ more for double performance is a no-brainer.
A Phenom II 965 comes with a 125 watt TDP just for the CPU alone, it is also a slower chip than Richland, then you need to throw in the an an additional 55 watts for the GPU. You may find yourself buying a higher wattage PSU as a result, which will come with a higher cost. Also with the CPU having a 125 watt TDP you are forced to buy a more expensive motherboard as the cheaper ones typically only support 95 watt processors, up goes the cost again.
It is no longer $25 more and the cost of running the PC has also gone up.
APU's are always a bit overpriced on release but it'll drop to $130 before long. A 965 BE + 7750 GDDR5 costs $190 on newegg.
You have to understand that there is an entry level and APU's are it. Sure you don't get the best price performance out of it but you do get the best price. It has been this way for years with the entry level graphics cards being half as fast and costing $40 less than the next card up.
I agree with your last point. If your budget is the absolute minimum, and the A6800 moves to the 120-130$ range, It will be a nice choice for a casual gamer with an old monitor who games 4-5 times a month.
I'm just finding that this target group is a very special niche for a product to be successful and that's reflecting on the AMDs market share.
Haswell is a performance/enthusiast CPU.
AMD APUs on the other hand, are targeted on budget gamers, as an all-in-one solution for them.
I'm saying it fails, because that target group, can get twice the performance with a Phenom II 965 & 7750 with 25$ more. Who wouldn't do that? Stop burying your head in the sand.
A Phenom II 965 comes with a 125 watt TDP just for the CPU alone, it is also a slower chip than Richland, then you need to throw in the an an additional 55 watts for the GPU. You may find yourself buying a higher wattage PSU as a result, which will come with a higher cost. Also with the CPU having a 125 watt TDP you are forced to buy a more expensive motherboard as the cheaper ones typically only support 95 watt processors, up goes the cost again.
It is no longer $25 more and the cost of running the PC has also gone up.
So buy the athlon x4 with no igp and add a 7750.
Still not a single chip solution and not something any big OEM's are likely to offer, which is where the bulk of PC sales are. It is where the APU fits in nicely, good enough CPU power, good enough GPU power for most people without a discrete card.