Llano vs. Nvidia Graphics

[SickBeast]

OC Guy, you are the eternal AMD pessimist.

Intel and AMD have completely different philosophies. With intel, sure, you get the best performance (most of the time), but you lose out on things like platform longevity, overclocking, and performance in some areas. With intel you also have to pay extra up front.

AMD designs CPUs primarily for the server market. If they do well in desktop machines, fine. They do create some cut down CPUs for the budget market, but really what most enthusiasts care about is their upper tier products, which tend to not only be competitive with Intel, but they cost less as well. You also gain all kinds of options in terms of eeking every last drop of performance out of your CPU.

I can see why so many people go with Intel. I just find it far more interesting going with what AMD has.

To say they are going anywhere is silly at this point.

 

[OCGuy]

OC Guy, you are the eternal AMD pessimist....

....AMD designs CPUs primarily for the server market. If they do well in desktop machines, fine. They do create some cut down CPUs for the budget market, but really what most enthusiasts care about is their upper tier products, which tend to not only be competitive with Intel, but they cost less as well. You also gain all kinds of options in terms of eeking every last drop of performance out of your CPU.

Facts can't be optimistic or pessimistic, they just exist. They are doing even worse in the server market....but this would probably be a discussion for the CPU forum.


"If AMD's server sales were indeed within the company's expectations, it can only mean the company was expecting to be pummeled. According to IDC's figures, Intel finished Q2 with 93.5 percent of the server market, up 3.3 percent, while AMD's share decreased to 6.5 percent, down by the same amount. That's rather depressing news considering AMD's 12-core Magny-Cours...."

http://hothardware.com/News/IDC-Claims-AMDs-Server-Market-Share-Fell-33-Percent-Last-Quarter/

 

[SickBeast]

Is it fun for you to point out AMD's woes right before they are due for a major product launch, OC Guy?

Is it surprising to you that several-years-old technology cannot compete with the cutting edge?

Let me pull out my violin for you.

 

[SickBeast]

Perhaps I should just flame nVidia and we can call it a day. :thumbsup::thumbsup:

 

[Blitzvogel]

Hmmmm this market is getting interesting with all the dedicated and hybrid solutions that are out there. AMD still has the uphill battle of fighting Intel's CPU tech and sooner or later Intel will go to 28 nm (or maybe skip to 22 nm?), and AMD just recently debuted on 32 nm with Ontario and Zacate. Llano is alot of capability in a chip but still is based on modified Stars Architecture which just can't compete clock per clock with Core i- tech at all. Hopefully Bulldozer changes that and makes its way around the entire AMD ecosystem, if it is AMDs real answer that is. At least with Llano we can hopefully just take a step back and say "it's good enough" for the mainstream user because it has the CPU capability most people really need (with GPGPU to boot) + very high graphics performance (for IGP) that will maybe start a new evolution in visual computing.

AMD also needs to start an ad campaign for Fusion that goes beyond Internet ads, and through to TV to really get things moving. Intel does this very well.

 

[OCGuy]

AMD also needs to start an ad campaign for Fusion that goes beyond Internet ads, and through to TV to really get things moving. Intel does this very well.

I think this is the biggest point of all.

 

[n0x1ous]

Is it fun for you to point out AMD's woes right before they are due for a major product launch, OC Guy?

Is it surprising to you that several-years-old technology cannot compete with the cutting edge?

Let me pull out my violin for you.

As far as their CPU's go, they are "always" "just before a major launch" we have been hearing about bulldozer and fusion stuff for what SEEMS (not is) like decades.....what has it been? 5-6 years....right after the ATI acquisition we heard about fusion and that was five years ago and they are just starting to get some products out.

They've been talking about bulldozer for years. by the time it has any market impact, Intel will have another new architecture out with another +20-30% performance clock for clock and further distance themselves in performance.

The only justifiable purchase of an AMD cpu right now is if you need tones of cores on a low end budget for video encoding etc.

That is a minority of the computing market. For everyone else, the better single core performance of intel just makes sense.

I bought an Athlon XP based systems back when they were kicking a**, but for a normal computer user, enthusiast, gamer there is little point to consider their cpu's since Conroe came out.

In fact, I don't think an AMD cpu has ever been used by any GPU review in the last 5-6 years that i can remember.

I hope Bulldozer is good because it will push intel and help with pricing in the market, but based on the last 5 years, im not optimistic

 

[krumme]

I think this is the biggest point of all.

No. AMD non r&d cost is way to high, especially for at future market where cpu/gpu need fades, and the competition gets tougher. They need to cut non r&d cost to the bone, none, and rely on lean product and the OEM to the the work for them. They need to slim the org. for a red ocean market.

I takes years and ressources that AMD does not have to build the competences for a state of the art marketing / selling force. Its not going to happen - and it never have happened. Right now they are doing all kinds of work half way. Cut it and let the pro OEM do the work for them.

When in years if they do earn money - not exactly the prime dicipline - they can expand to new markets, but right now, they have no choice. Trying to compete with Intels selling machine is just good dreaming.

 

[msroadkill612]

Hmm

Some pretty flaky logic here, but some good ideas

We, on these sites, flatter ourselves we r the center of the pc universe - not so

as others have said, its the sub (way sub) $1000 class, and low power sure helps.

Me, I think brazos may be the killer. now 40nm (same as discrete gpuS), 2 slightly sub par x86 cores & very decent grapics. 18W & no fans/heat/noise - not bad even now. 15" laptops are even getting design wins for brazos.

AMD seem about to do a die shrink for discrete GPUs 40nm to 28nm - big shrink. If that works - they can easily tick tock to 28nm for brazos.

Get real - how nvidea/intel conna compete w/amd using a/ separate chipsets or b/ (intel) pathetic graphics on die.

No matter what they come up with, AMD can trump them if the goal posts include ok graphics and all day usage on batteries in something light.

 

[frozentundra123456]

What AMD needs is to stop talking and get a good product out of the door and into the marketplace!!!
They talk a good game, but I have yet to see a superior product out the door. The only fusion product is the E350 platform which is decent, but does not really seem to hit a good spot in the market. And Llano and bulldozer, I will believe their claims when I see it. Just think how well they could have done if they had had the new products out when Intel hit the motherboard problems with Sandy Bridge.
AMD reminds me of the American automakers compared to the Japanese models back in the 80s and 90s. Yes, they are making inprovements, but they constantly seem to be one or two generations behind the competition.
And I am NOT an Intel fanboy. In fact I used to favor AMD. But I am tired of their constant bragging and not backing it up with a product.

 

[iCyborg]

Part of the Llano's delay was GloFo's 32nm process. But, yeah, with SB's problems, Llano in February would've been awesome timing for AMD.
As for E350 not being in a good spot in the market - AMD was sold out on Brazos, and takes some time to ramp up the production...

 

[Blitzvogel]

No. AMD non r&d cost is way to high, especially for at future market where cpu/gpu need fades, and the competition gets tougher. They need to cut non r&d cost to the bone, none, and rely on lean product and the OEM to the the work for them. They need to slim the org. for a red ocean market.

I takes years and ressources that AMD does not have to build the competences for a state of the art marketing / selling force. Its not going to happen - and it never have happened. Right now they are doing all kinds of work half way. Cut it and let the pro OEM do the work for them.

When in years if they do earn money - not exactly the prime dicipline - they can expand to new markets, but right now, they have no choice. Trying to compete with Intels selling machine is just good dreaming.

OEM will only do so much, and they'll advertise based on their own brand more than anything as opposed to whatever CPU may be contained in the final machine. HP for example has always seems to place their systems on price tiers so AMD and Intel systems pretty much don't compete against each other on the same price point.

A campaign pushing Fusion's by far superior multimedia capabilities will appeal to users into video, games, internet. Going after the green computing market will help too.

 

[Dribble]

Me, I think brazos may be the killer. now 40nm (same as discrete gpuS), 2 slightly sub par x86 cores & very decent grapics. 18W & no fans/heat/noise - not bad even now. 15" laptops are even getting design wins for brazos.

AMD seem about to do a die shrink for discrete GPUs 40nm to 28nm - big shrink. If that works - they can easily tick tock to 28nm for brazos.

Get real - how nvidea/intel conna compete w/amd using a/ separate chipsets or b/ (intel) pathetic graphics on die.

No matter what they come up with, AMD can trump them if the goal posts include ok graphics and all day usage on batteries in something light.

Did you see this xbit labs review:
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/core-i3-2100t.html

Admittedly the i3 costs more, but it's cpu is basically 4 times the speed, and it's graphics and idle power usage are similar. When compared to atom brazos looks better, but the moment you stick a real cpu in it really can't keep up - even in games its completely bottlenecked by the cpu and hence much slower.

That doesn't mean brazos doesn't have a place, but it is stuck in the budget end of budget - even a 28nm die shrink isn't going to be able to quadruple cpu performance. It's not going to change the world.

 

[Genx87]

Did you see this xbit labs review:
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/core-i3-2100t.html

Admittedly the i3 costs more, but it's cpu is basically 4 times the speed, and it's graphics and idle power usage are similar. When compared to atom brazos looks better, but the moment you stick a real cpu in it really can't keep up - even in games its completely bottlenecked by the cpu and hence much slower.

That doesn't mean brazos doesn't have a place, but it is stuck in the budget end of budget - even a 28nm die shrink isn't going to be able to quadruple cpu performance. It's not going to change the world.

That is ugly for AMD.

 

[Arkadrel]

That is ugly for AMD.

Xbit is biased ALOT...

E-350 is a cheap little 18watt chip, that goes agains a atom.
Motherboard/CPU/GPU/Cpu cooler = 140$

Total price = ~140$



Intel Core i3-2100T Sandy Bridge 2.5GHz = 35watt chip (cpu price=135$)
Motherboard ZOTAC H67ITX-C-E LGA = 160$
SandyBridge cooler =random no name thingy ~20$

total price = ~315$




Do you see how unfair and biased that test is?
They compaire a 140$ product vs a 315$ product.
They compaire a 18watt product vs a 35+ watt product.

Also the benchmarks are questionable, xbit did something to throw off the watt usage in those benchmarks because no one else gets those results they do.



buttom line? Xbit is probably payed for by Intel for that review, and its extremly biased.

 

[Lepton87]

That is ugly for AMD.

Because this is a POS article, all the power numbers from that article are useless because for AMD they used a very power hungry board (perhaps the most power hungry board for brazos on the market) that skewed the results. With a proper board it would still look ugly for AMD but at least brazos would use less power than SB.

 

[Seero]

http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/video/...formance_than_Core_i_Sandy_Bridge.htmlBesides ...
With Lucid's Virtu software bypassing Nvidia's Optimus lock on Intel, Nvidia is facing a laptop and mass market desktop OEM situation where it has no distinct competitive edge while AMD has a substantial competitive edge.

Don't see how Nvidia doesn't lose substantial OEM sales by this time next year.

The problem is, the entire low end laptop segment is being eaten by tablets and smart phones. Yes, hybrid sounds great, on-die GPU + discrete GPU sounds great, but will it deliver? Nvidia had this type of setup where on-board GPU can play with discrete GPU, guess what happened.

Granted, I believe AMD's solution in comparison is more robust, but I really don't see a future of that. I say, if graphics ain't important, then stick with IGP/on-die GPU, otherwise we can forget about IGP/on-die GPU completely as it can't increase performance better than trying to OC the high end card. Yes, you can buy a low end card and they may scale great, but a single high end card will blow them out of the water single fingered.

BTW, proprietary tech FTW! Yes, good job at making its on-die GPU to work only with its video card. I just hope that it is for all of its card and not just a selected few of its card.

 

[Genx87]

Xbit is biased ALOT...

E-350 is a cheap little 18watt chip, that goes agains a atom.
Motherboard/CPU/GPU/Cpu cooler = 140$

Total price = ~140$



Intel Core i3-2100T Sandy Bridge 2.5GHz = 35watt chip (cpu price=135$)
Motherboard ZOTAC H67ITX-C-E LGA = 160$
SandyBridge cooler =random no name thingy ~20$

total price = ~315$




Do you see how unfair and biased that test is?
They compaire a 140$ product vs a 315$ product.
They compaire a 18watt product vs a 35+ watt product.

Also the benchmarks are questionable, xbit did something to throw off the watt usage in those benchmarks because no one else gets those results they do.



buttom line? Xbit is probably payed for by Intel for that review, and its extremly biased.

It really wasnt impressive vs the Atom either. That said, the i3 is an entry level i series chip that will be used in many lower end models eventually. This chip simply isnt comparable. And this is where imo Fusion is going to live. Nothing terribly worrysome for Nvidia.

 

[Lonbjerg]

Xbit is biased ALOT...

E-350 is a cheap little 18watt chip, that goes agains a atom.
Motherboard/CPU/GPU/Cpu cooler = 140$

Total price = ~140$



Intel Core i3-2100T Sandy Bridge 2.5GHz = 35watt chip (cpu price=135$)
Motherboard ZOTAC H67ITX-C-E LGA = 160$
SandyBridge cooler =random no name thingy ~20$

total price = ~315$




Do you see how unfair and biased that test is?
They compaire a 140$ product vs a 315$ product.
They compaire a 18watt product vs a 35+ watt product.

Also the benchmarks are questionable, xbit did something to throw off the watt usage in those benchmarks because no one else gets those results they do.



buttom line? Xbit is probably payed for by Intel for that review, and its extremly biased.

I know I'll get an infraction for this...but are you paided by AMD?

 

[Arkadrel]

I know I'll get an infraction for this...but are you paided by AMD?

No

At most Im a fanboy, and I think the xbit artical is very very biased.

I feel like they neglect to mention that the price of A vs B is twice over, and that the power measures they mention arnt shown anywhere else. That makes the review very biased.

 

[Dribble]

No

At most Im a fanboy, and I think the xbit artical is very very biased.

I feel like they neglect to mention that the price of A vs B is twice over, and that the power measures they mention arnt shown anywhere else. That makes the review very biased.

Xbit labs is about as reputable as it gets for web review sites.

Even with the mainboard not being perfect for brazos (which as the article mentioned is likely to happen cause it's such a cheap board) power usage for idle and general usage (e.g. hd movie playback) is similar, it's not 35W vs 18W then - i.e. your electricity bill will be about the same.

The price is different, but they do make that clear. It really depends how important price is too you? - if you are building some sort of mini pc does is the i3 worth spending a bit extra on? Really the answer will often be yes, basically because windows isn't that efficient, and an i3 will run it well - you won't have to make any compromises. Brazos will run it, but it will suffer when joe bloggs tries to have 10 web pages open, play some flash game, running some inefficient virus checker, and who knows whatever other rubbish.

 

[Lonbjerg]

No

At most Im a fanboy, and I think the xbit artical is very very biased.

I feel like they neglect to mention that the price of A vs B is twice over, and that the power measures they mention arnt shown anywhere else. That makes the review very biased.

You should read the article, understand what you are reading and then read it it again.

Before acusing Xbitlabs of having a "bias".
In danish we have a saying: "A thief thinks every man steals".

(And look into xBitlabs...they are far from biased...and very good at what they do.)