Kabini Rumors

[MightyMalus]

When you cut down your technical marketing to next to zero thats what you get. An cheap Acer product reviewed by Notebookcheck. The absolute worse combination for AMD.

I think the worst part is the acer product itself. led keyboard...really? Small battery...wtf? bad useless features make a bad product.

 

[mikk]

SU7300 scores 0.77-0.80 depending on the test and Temash @1.4 Ghz scores 1.3 or at 1.1 Ghz 1.02. Means 0.093 @100 Mhz. Temash Dualcore @1.3 Ghz would score 0.6. Means C2D has a ~30% better IPC in Cinebench 11.5

 

[LogOver]

SU7300 is 1.3Ghz 45nm Penryn dual core. It scores 0.75pts in MTed portion of C11.5.
QC 1450 Temash scores 1pt @ 1Ghz in MTed portion of the benchmark. Dual core Temash at ~1.3Ghz would score : 1x1.3/1.95=0.67pts (I divided with 1.95 factor since scaling is not perfect). This is ~12% slower than DC Penryn at the same clock. Basically Temash is close per clock to 45nm Penryn here.

Now take a look at Phenom II 920 45nm and its score of 3Pts . It's a Deneb QC 45nm @ 2.8Ghz. Deneb dual core at 1.3Ghz would score : 3x1.3/2.8/1.95=0.71pts. This makes Temash at same core and clock ~6% slower, 2way Vs 3way core and 128bit fp unit vs 128bit fp unit. You can call them practically equal in this benchmark.

So 12% slower than Penryn and 6% slower than Deneb per core and per clock in C11.5. That's amazing performance per core and per watt there.

SU7300 is an old news. You can get Acer V5 with Celeron 1007U (which gets 1.22 pt. in CB11.5) for just ~$400 comparing to $450 for Temash based Acer V5.

 

[krumme]

I think the worst part is the acer product itself. led keyboard...really? Small battery...wtf? bad useless features make a bad product.

Wtf. do we know? lol - led keyboard, ips touchscreen, in a light and cheap notebook. It will just sell. Consumers want visible, tangible benefits.

Imagine how cheap implementing this jaguar is - its arm teritory. Consumers dont care about cinebench ... They dont care that they get fat FP unit. Anyway its crazy how powerfull this little cpu is, and just utterly amazing the kind of fpu power it delivers for the mm2. Its a testament to its strenght its compared to c2d and ib - completely different market.
Try comparing it to Atom - that is the same market.

 

[inf64]

SU7300 is an old news. You can get Acer V5 with Celeron 1007U (which gets 1.22 pt. in CB11.5) for just ~$400 comparing to $450 for Temash based Acer V5.

I was just replying to that post and claims made in it .

BTW that IB is 1.5Ghz chip. Temash 1450 at 1.4Ghz , if that clock was achievable in MTed worklaods, would score ~1.4pts which would be ~15% faster in C11.5. At 1.5Ghz and probably close to 17W TDP in that case, Temash would be ~23% faster!

Also 1450 Temash @ stock is noticeably faster than that 17W IB Celeron 1007U in Passmark CPU test : 1841pts for Temash vs 1598pts for 1007U. That is ~15% better score at half the power draw on the SoC level .

@ krumme

Totally agreed .

 

[AtenRa]

SU7300 is an old news. You can get Acer V5 with Celeron 1007U (which gets 1.22 pt. in CB11.5) for just ~$400 comparing to $450 for Temash based Acer V5.

Temash A6-1450 at 28nm is faster both in CPU(cinebench 11.5 1.3 vs 1.22) and GPU(Vantage 2817 vs 1362) than 22nm 17W TDP Celeron 1007U at half the power.

That's amazing :thumbsup:

http://www.notebookcheck.net/AMD-A-Series-A6-1450-Notebook-Processor.92120.0.html

http://notebook.pconline.com.cn/316/3165772_2.html

 

[LogOver]

BTW that IB is 1.5Ghz chip. Temash 1450 at 1.4Ghz , if that clock was achievable in MTed worklaods, would score ~1.4pts which would be ~15% faster in C11.5. At 1.5Ghz and probably close to 17W TDP in that case, Temash would be ~23% faster!

1007U is almost 2X faster in single-threaded test (assuming that Temash runs CB11.5 single-threaded test at full speed). In the target market single-threaded performance still matters more.

Also 1450 Temash @ stock is noticeably faster than that 17W IB Celeron 1007U in Passmark CPU test : 1841pts for Temash vs 1598pts for 1007U. That is ~15% better score at half the power draw on the SoC level .

Well. Locking at rest of the benchmarks...
3DMark06 (CPU):
1007U: 1609
Temash: 1409
3DMark Vantage:
1007U: 1362
Temash: 1272
3Dmark Vanatge (GPU):
1007U: 1134
Temash: 1075

As for power consumption - I would like to see various battery rundown test for the actual devices before draw some conclusions about the power.

Any way, at least for now it seems that AMD is targeting notebook market with Temash rather than tablets. I'm still not convinced that Temash is good enough for fanless tablets.

 

[inf64]

We have been down this road of 3dmark and HDxxxx. They perform much better in the 3dmark(s) than they do in actual games.
As for ST performance comment, yes it's still important but I doubt users will just run SPI 1m and or encode using lame. The trend is clear and it's MTing, most software is already decently MTed and it's much better to have 4 real cores if you happen to play a light game (on your tablet or netbook ) and have AV in the background while also having open Mozzila with a few tabs .

 

[SammichPG]

We have been down this road of 3dmark and HDxxxx. They perform much better in the 3dmark(s) than they do in actual games.
As for ST performance comment, yes it's still important but I doubt users will just run SPI 1m and or encode using lame. The trend is clear and it's MTing, most software is already decently MTed and it's much better to have 4 real cores if you happen to play a light game (on your tablet or netbook ) and have AV in the background while also having open Mozzila with a few tabs .

Every browser engine does page rendering in single thread, you care about ST even while browsing.

 

[monstercameron]

Every browser engine does page rendering in single thread, you care about ST even while browsing.

page rendering would be on the gpu for the most part, javascript though is ST...

 

[MightyMalus]

Well we have web workers now.

Wtf. do we know? lol - led keyboard, ips touchscreen, in a light and cheap notebook. It will just sell. Consumers want visible, tangible benefits. Imagine how cheap implementing this jaguar is - its arm teritory. Consumers dont care about cinebench ... They dont care that they get fat FP unit. Anyway its crazy how powerfull this little cpu is, and just utterly amazing the kind of fpu power it delivers for the mm2. Its a testament to its strenght its compared to c2d and ib - completely different market. Try comparing it to Atom - that is the same market.

I said bad product, not bad SoC. Here, Tarzan says, Jaguar = good. Battery life = bleh

 

[Enigmoid]

Temash A6-1450 at 28nm is faster both in CPU(cinebench 11.5 1.3 vs 1.22) and GPU(Vantage 2817 vs 1362) than 22nm 17W TDP Celeron 1007U at half the power.

That's amazing :thumbsup:

http://www.notebookcheck.net/AMD-A-Series-A6-1450-Notebook-Processor.92120.0.html

http://notebook.pconline.com.cn/316/3165772_2.html

Well TDP!= power consumption. I have a hard time believing that that 17 watt tdp celeron uses the same amount of power as a 2.0 ghz-3.2ghz 17 watt tdp i7.

Same as the 3770k using significantly more power than the 3570k with the same tdp.

 

[wlee15]

SU7300 is an old news. You can get Acer V5 with Celeron 1007U (which gets 1.22 pt. in CB11.5) for just ~$400 comparing to $450 for Temash based Acer V5.

The Temash based laptop has a IPS screen and is more compact.

 

[mikk]

We have been down this road of 3dmark and HDxxxx. They perform much better in the 3dmark(s) than they do in actual games.

Trinity performs much better in 3dmark11 than they do in games.

 

[AtenRa]

I have a hard time believing that that 17 watt tdp celeron uses the same amount of power as a 2.0 ghz-3.2ghz 17 watt tdp i7.

They may be called Core i7 but they are dual cores + HT. And NO they will not use the same power.

http://ark.intel.com/products/71258/Intel-Core-i7-3687U-Processor-4M-Cache-up-to-3_30-GHz

 

[Exophase]

They may be called Core i7 but they are dual cores + HT. And NO they will not use the same power.

http://ark.intel.com/products/71258/Intel-Core-i7-3687U-Processor-4M-Cache-up-to-3_30-GHz

But I still agree with what Enigmoid said. There's a big difference between the 2C/2T 1.5GHz Celeron and 2C/4T 2.1GHz i7. Also the 600MHz HD4000 vs 350MHz HD2500 (w/o Quicksync). This isn't counting turbo, but the base speeds are the minimum you will get. Binning will cause some variation in power consumption but not this much.

17W is a max TDP and Intel's TDP classes are broken into broad bins with their mainline parts. That doesn't mean they all will actually use up to 17W.

 

[inf64]

Trinity performs much better in 3dmark11 than they do in games.

Versus what exactly?

 

[mikk]

Versus what exactly?

3770k vs 5800k
or
any decent notebook HD4000 vs A10-4600M

 

[Piroko]

3770k vs 5800k
or
any decent notebook HD4000 vs A10-4600M

...unless the games aren't that demanding and the bottleneck switches back to shader performance where the HD4000 seriously tanks in comparison. Which happens quite often in older games or games like Fifa13, Torchlight or anything indie.
One can skew numbers both ways.

 

[inf64]

3770k vs 5800k
or
any decent notebook HD4000 vs A10-4600M

Here you go.
On 3dmark page you have 2 3dmarks, one representing older games which are more CPU bound(3dmark06->43% faster) and one representing newer games which are more GPU bound( 3dmark11->93% faster). Average advantage(from these 2 tests) 7660D has over HD4000, with plain jane 1600Mhz memory, is 1.68x or 68%. 1866Mhz memory causes +10% more fps on 7660D versus what they get with "stock" 1600Mhz results in games on later pages.

Games show similar picture(next pages in review):
Deus Ex - 47% faster than HD4000
Dirt3 - 63% faster than HD4000
Skyrim(DX9) - 84% faster than HD4000
StreetF.4 - 72% faster than HD4000
Torchlight2(DX9) - 333% faster than HD4000

Now put 1866Mhz memory (which does close to nothing on HD4000) and it gets even uglier for HD.

 

[mikk]

Here you go.
On 3dmark page you have 2 3dmarks.

3dmark11 Entry only. Here is a proper comparison:

http://www.legitreviews.com/article/2047/5/

=+102% for the A10-5800k

Average in games depending on test +60-80%. Similar for the A10-4600M. There is a 50% advantage in 3dmark11 if not more and in games it is 25-35%. AMD doing better in 3dmark11 than in games.

 

[Enigmoid]

3dmark11 Entry only. Here is a proper comparison:

http://www.legitreviews.com/article/2047/5/

=+102% for the A10-5800k

Average in games depending on thest +60-80%. Similar for the A10-4600M. There is a 50% advantage in 3dmark11 if not more and in games it is 25-35%. AMD doing better in 3dmark11 than in games.

Yes, the fact that an a10-4600m edges out a 630m in 3dmark gpu score but generally loses by about 10-25% in games supports this.

(Though sadly it looks like intel may be doing this next generation).

 

[mikk]

Dedicated GPUs have a huge advantage with their dedicated memory. 3dmark11 isn't that bandwidth limited maybe.

 

[Idontcare]

Dedicated GPUs have a huge advantage with their dedicated memory. 3dmark11 isn't that bandwidth limited maybe.

It is probably rather easy to optimize the driver profile for maximizing 3DMark11 scores (or any canned demo for that matter).

 

[inf64]

3dmark11 Entry only. Here is a proper comparison:

http://www.legitreviews.com/article/2047/5/

=+102% for the A10-5800k

Average in games depending on test +60-80%. Similar for the A10-4600M. There is a 50% advantage in 3dmark11 if not more and in games it is 25-35%. AMD doing better in 3dmark11 than in games.

For 4600M is so because of the lower GPU clock and memory BW bottleneck. It's a moot point since Richland is what will be competing against HD4600 and not Trinity. Also price will play major role so if you are to have more fps in games and less in 3dmark(with Richland) with noticeably lower price for laptop, what will you choose?