Heh. Llano? The picture includes the iMac and Mac Pro. Or perhaps he just included it because Apple uses AMD/ATI video cards.
Last edited:
Heh. Llano? The picture includes the iMac and Mac Pro. Or perhaps he just included it because Apple uses AMD/ATI video cards.Guess you're getting your wish.
http://www.fudzilla.com/processors/item/20817-apple-to-embrace-amd-fusion
Why is this clear? I don't think it's clear at all that in the segment they compete, a CULV SB will wipe the floor with Zacate on CPU performance.
A desktop SB will wipe the floor with Zacate on CPU performance, sure, that much is definitely clear. It should. SB was designed for that space. How much will Intel have to cut from their features to meet the TDP requirement on the CULV cores though? Nobody knows at this point, and reviews comparing it to the CULV i5 are favoring Zacate on all fronts. SB will improve upon Arrandale, but how much?
Do we really know that (CULV) SB CPU will wipe the floor with Zacate CPU? I think likely to be more competitive than you're making it out to be.
Complete Zacate benchmarks will be available soon, and then we'll know a lot more. I just hope that next year it's a lot easier to purchase an 18W TDP non-notebook than it is today ($400 ITX boards + $200 CPUs, lol)
Even more considering that Cinebench R10 is Intel Compiler Optimized tm.
http://www.anandtech.com/show/4023/the-brazos-performance-preview-amd-e350-benchmarked/3
Anandtech Cinnebench R10 Single threaded scores:
Zacate: 1171
Atom D510 (1.66 Ghz dual core with SMT): 709
Anandtech Cinnebench R10 Mutithreaded scores:
Zacate: 2250
Atom D510: 2024
Basically 1.6 Ghz Bobcat core is much faster than 1.66 Ghz atom core in the single thread test, but in the multi-threaded benchmark Intel's SMT closes the gap.
Amazing single threaded performance (IMHO) considering the size of the Bobcat cores.
Given the hype for Bobcat, and also considering Bobcat is out-of-order while Atom is in-order, personally I don't find the performance all that amazing.
Compared to a 1.8Ghz Atom D525, the gap would have been even smaller.
In the single-thread Cinebench test, Zacate E-350 beats an Atom D510 by 65%. However that is a very specific benchmark, and not all results will mirror that.
In the multi-threaded Cinebench test, Zacate is only 11% faster than an Atom D510.
Yes per-clock Bobcat easily performs better than Atom, and this was expected. However when looking at multi-threaded performance, and looking at overall performance, the gap is not quite so big. Atom's HT helps quite a bit, and although it was not tested here, the top Atom (D525) runs at a higher clock than the top Bobcat. We should see dual-core Atoms hitting over 2Ghz next year as well.
Further to that, the conclusion there is vastly different vs. the Anandtech review.http://www.pcper.com/article.php?aid=1039&type=expert&pid=8
How do you feel about these power consumption figures?
Let's tackle the issue of performance from a component stand point. The dual-core Bobcat processor in the Zacate APU from AMD is much faster than the dual-core HyperThreaded Atom D510 processors and is about on par with the performance of the Penryn-based dual-core Celeron SU2300 CULV part. Obviously the in-order architecture of the Atom CPU family is starting to show its age and I have to wonder if Intel doesn't have something else up their sleeve to compete with the obviously fundamentally better design of the Bobcat core.
The 80 stream processors / 2 SIMDs found in the AMD E-350 blow away any graphics performance you might get with the integrated solution on the D510 and the best the Atom designs have to offer today. The Radeon HD 6310 is also faster than the graphics solution found in the NVIDIA ION chipset, sometimes by a notable margin, making the CULV+ION combination that much less impressive in the light of the power efficiency that the AMD Brazos platform provides.
The performance of the E-350 is impressive but even more so is how much better the power efficiency looks with the Brazos platform compared to these Intel offerings. Intel's CULV+ION platform not only uses more than twice as much power at idle than AMD's offering but also requires 30% or so more power at peak performance while still falling behind in many benchmarks. The Intel Atom D510 platform with its integrated graphics does have a good showing in terms of power consumption but at the levels of performance it provides, that is all it can gather credit for.
The idle power consumption is great. At load though, Zacate's consumption is nothing special.
AMD E-350 1.6 GHz APU Brazos Platform Preview - Zacate APU Benchmarked said:Under a complete load of the CPU cores only, the D510 Atom and the E-350 AMD APU used very similar amounts of power. However, the performance of the AMD part was definitely higher, making it an easy win for performance/watt competitions. And even though the CULV Celeron CPU is a bit faster than the AMD E-350, its power consumption numbers are about 50% higher which is a huge difference in the world of mobile computing.
How much of a difference does that make?
Why did they skew results on this page. Look at resolutions. Skewed results.
http://hothardware.com/Reviews/AMD-Zacate-E350-Processor-Performance-Preview/?page=6
Wow. The Brazos platform performs much better than I thought it would for the size and power consumption.
Wow. The Brazos platform performs much better than I thought it would for the size and power consumption. I wouldn't think that Atom was such a dog, but I guess it is. Intel must have made some pretty poor design decisions if Brazos was able to have ~ the same power consumption but far greater performance in nearly all areas. I really am surprised, to say the least. I am really wondering if Intels decision to go in order really saved them much power after seeing the benchmarks.