Techreport has their review out. I want to see reviews of production systems. Where are they?
http://techreport.com/articles.x/21099
http://techreport.com/articles.x/21099
Really? How do we know that exactly?
All these subliminal messages really bring into question your impartiality.
Really? How do we know that exactly? All these subliminal messages really bring into question your impartiality.
Techreport has their review out. I want to see reviews of production systems. Where are they?
http://techreport.com/articles.x/21099
No.. it brings you AMD fanboyism into light.
As for hitting below the belt, I call them as I see them and don't get fooled easily anymore. Some things are too obvious.
As for techreport's article, why don't more reviews investigate the abysmal image quality like Scott did? Anandtech's article makes sandy britche's 'graphics' look wayyyyy better than it acually is. Suppose framerates were compared at equal image quality, sandy bridge would be even more laughable than it is today. Of course it's not possible to increase intel's image quality, but could at least reduce AMD's image quality to get it at least closer to the same level. AMD and NV have had to play by those rules for 10+ years, now intel wanders in and get's a pat on the bum even though it's graphics are abysmal? And people wonder why so many have a disdain for anything intel. They don't play by the same rules, they change them to fit their agenda. Vista is just one of the many many examples.
Radeon
HD3000
Image quality was important until intel enters the picture. Pathetic.
As for techreport's article, why don't more reviews investigate the abysmal image quality like Scott did?
I would sure like to know how you even began to think this way. GloFo's 32nm process is excellent, and if you look at what the 3500M is offering for the power budget, performance is fantastic.I'm starting to wonder if this isn't going to be another 90nm->65nm type of transition where the 65nm chips could hardly clock as high as their 90nm older siblings.
Citation needed.We already know Bulldozer was officially delayed because of lackluster clockspeed yields
IQ was not tested for some of the same reasons higher graphics settings and resolutions were not tested, DX11 mode was not tested etc.I agree with you one IQ part.. and frankly I was surprised that Anand did not mention IQ.
I would sure like to know how you even began to think this way. GloFo's 32nm process is excellent, and if you look at what the 3500M is offering for the power budget, performance is fantastic.
Citation needed.
http://techreport.com/articles.x/21099If you got some performance/watt review data to throw my way and help educate me so my opinion becomes aligned with yours then by all means, hook me up.
I don't see any official announcements regarding the reasons for the delay (if there is one) anywhere from AMD in those links, maybe I missed them?
I don't see any official announcements regarding the reasons for the delay (if there is one) anywhere from AMD in those links, maybe I missed them?
GloFo's 32nm process is excellent
On the other hand, the previewed desktop Llano's power consumption is unimpressive, being higher than the 2500K:
http://www.anandtech.com/show/4447/desktop-llano-motherboards-the-asrock-a75-extreme6-preview/3
http://techreport.com/articles.x/21099/13Has anyone conducted a study on how many people attempt to game on just the Intel HD graphics. I'm assuming that the people who own those notebooks are mostly just playing Flash games in the browser. I would think that most people who are interested in playing more demanding titles are purchasing notebooks with discreet graphics.
Llano (and IB depending on performance) may change that to some extent, but the number of people trying to gaming on a SB notebook without a discreet card has to be fairly low. Either that or they're mostly playing older titles like the original Fallout or Civilization II. Is anyone aware of a study examining this in further detail?
There were also power measurements using the integrated graphics and regardless of the video card, the similarly equipped 2500K system used less power under load.That's because Anand tested it with a 5850. Do you think most people buying Llano for desktop systems would also buy a discrete video card as well?
^ that's why I'm replacing this Intel IGP laptop with a Llano laptop as soon as possible
With Intel IGP not only are you rewarded with dodgy graphics drivers that bomb out your games every now and then, but during those lucky timeperiods where you do get to play your slideshow of a game the IQ is crap.
There were also power measurements using the integrated graphics and regardless of the video card, the similarly equipped 2500K system used less power under load.
Do you actually notice the image quality outside of directed tests?
Well, the IGP is supposed to gated off when using discrete video cards. The main point is that Llano is not proof that GloFlo's 32nm process is excellent as when clock speeds are pushed higher, it so far appears to not have better absolute power consumption, let alone performance/watt then Intel's 32nm products.Ok but I don't see the point of you bringing this up. Since the Llano has a faster iGPU we should assume it would consume more power considering the 2500K is rated for 95w, while the Llano is rated for 100w.
Actually When 28nm is released I am going to buy NV gpu . I bought a 580 . First NV gpu in 6,7 years for me. Alot of SB buyers will use NV . Have you seen the differance in performance On highend gpus on SB comparred to all other cpus . SB kicks butt. BY alot comparred to using with a stars like CPU. Your assuming Xfire will work great on APU cross fired. Just a couple of days left than we can talk facts.