AMD FX and Llano performance leaks

[moshpit]

Fudzilla is always a "take it with a shaker of salt" kinda site, but often is fun to debate over. In this case, they're taking a look at some performance numbers supposedly leaked showing upcoming FX and Llano performance comparisons. Have salt, will travel!

The slides were posted by DonanimHaber and they reveal that the Llano should be able to match Intel’s Sandy Bridge processors in terms of overall performance. However, as expected it is somewhat weaker on the CPU side of things, but it manages to make up the difference in graphics performance.

Here is an example. In combined PCMark and 3DMark Vantage tests the most powerful A8 series Llano outpaces the Core i5 2300 and comes close to the Core i7 2600k. However, in terms of CPU power alone, it is still behind the Core i3 2100. In the graphics department, no Intel part is a match for any Llano core.

Source : Fudzilla

[caveman-jim]

In this case it's just a reposting of DonanimHaber so the usual Fudzilla salt doesn't apply. Hexus' reporting of the same thing says pretty much the same.

http://www.hexus.net/content/item.php?item=30282

[moshpit]

In this case it's just a reposting of DonanimHaber so the usual Fudzilla salt doesn't apply. Hexus' reporting of the same thing says pretty much the same.

http://www.hexus.net/content/item.php?item=30282

Aww, darnit, already had my lime and salt all laid out for a shot of Fudzilla

[caveman-jim]

I suspect the graph isn't accurate as I just don't see AMD PR doing something as obviously bad science as stacking PCMark results on top of 3DMark results, especially when using 3DMark results of SB iGPU performance against a 6870.

I mean, price and power alone prevent that from being a reasonable comparison, let alone the ridiculousness of stacking PCMark and 3DMark points together.

[moshpit]

I suspect the graph isn't accurate as I just don't see AMD PR doing something as obviously bad science as stacking PCMark results on top of 3DMark results, especially when using 3DMark results of SB iGPU performance against a 6870.

I mean, price and power alone prevent that from being a reasonable comparison, let alone the ridiculousness of stacking PCMark and 3DMark points together.

So use salt after all?

[badsykes]

only 25% over 1100T .. I have a 940BE overclocked to 3.6Ghz so buldozer should be 25% more than mine..If i will not use the graphics part of the CPU what's the catch ? Also i have to change mainboard and ram too and add also that all my games are just working.I don't really see the point?8 core ? a joke really ..Even my quad core is not correctly used..I begin to feel that i am stopping pumping in the pc money for some years to come..

Just bought an off road car and i may push some nice off road tires BFGoodrich instead of any CPU...

[caveman-jim]

Llano APU's have GPU, Bulldozer CPU's don't have any GPU.

[moshpit]

Llano APU's have GPU, Bulldozer CPU's don't have any GPU.

Which begs the question, where's Bulldozer then? Is the A8 Llano or Bulldozer? And if Bulldozer doesn't have any GPU, then how is it supposed to outperform Sandy Bridge's iGPU? A few things are REALLY getting confusing about some of the info AMD is releasing. They claim to beat Sandy Bridge on the GPU side, but lose on the CPU side, yet their top end doesn't even HAVE that GPU, so how's it going to compete if it's CPU side is slower???

[badsykes]

Llano APU's have GPU, Bulldozer CPU's don't have any GPU.

Buldozzer don't have a GPU...first time i hear this..This make those slides a big lie ?

[moshpit]

Buldozzer don't have a GPU...first time i hear this..This make those slides a big lie ?

Apparently, those slides don't show ANYTHING about Bulldozer at all. In fact, I'm starting to wonder if it even really exists at this point. I think I'm going to need a long form birth cert with raised seal on it to believe

[Treeckcold57]

Buldozzer don't have a GPU...first time i hear this..This make those slides a big lie ?

That would be Komodo (spell?). But again, it probably would release like 2012 after Bulldozer. Take my best guess.

[Sasquach]

Which begs the question, where's Bulldozer then? Is the A8 Llano or Bulldozer? And if Bulldozer doesn't have any GPU, then how is it supposed to outperform Sandy Bridge's iGPU? A few things are REALLY getting confusing about some of the info AMD is releasing. They claim to beat Sandy Bridge on the GPU side, but lose on the CPU side, yet their top end doesn't even HAVE that GPU, so how's it going to compete if it's CPU side is slower???

Llano = Phenom II cores (its more like Athlon II) + GPU = A series
Bulldozer = Bulldozer cores(modules) = FX series

Any GPU comparison used in that chart is Bulldozer(CPU) + discrete GPU (The radeon 6670 in the slide's case), SB(CPU) + ondie GPU (Intel HD graphics 2000/3000), Llano (Phenom II CPU) + ondie GPU (Radeon 6550).
Bulldozer cores will replace the Phenom II cores in the fusion APU's later on

[moshpit]

Llano = Phenom II cores (its more like Athlon II) + GPU = A series
Bulldozer = Bulldozer cores(modules) = FX series

Any GPU comparison used in that chart is Bulldozer(CPU) + discrete GPU (The radeon 6670 in the slide's case), SB(CPU) + ondie GPU (Intel HD graphics 2000/3000), Llano (Phenom II CPU) + ondie GPU (Radeon 6550).
Bulldozer cores will replace the Phenom II cores in the fusion APU's later on

Then the WHOLE comparison is bunk. AMD has broken a cardinal law of acceptability and is now PROVEN no better then Intel or Nvidia for making misleading comparisons. The cardinal law of LIKE COMPARISON, meaning you compare iGPU against iGPU, never discreet versus integrated and then claim victory for graphics on the discreet, but then saying it means your product is faster when it's CLEARLY not.

In fact, Bulldozer without an iGPU is INFERIOR to Sandy Bridge. A 2600K will happily serve a top end gaming rig OR an HTPC with it's integrated GPU, something the Bulldozer FAILS at. It has to fall back on the old "use an external GPU". Inferior. The more I see, the more I think Bulldozer is a waste of time. Flexibility is a majorly valid feature for broad sales of a chip. Bulldozer is a step back for AMD. The iGPU is totally necessary to make up for AMD's weak ass FPU on Bulldozer. And yes, when it comes to general use opposed to optimized code, Bulldozer looks to have inferior legacy x87 performance and is totally reliant on SIMD/MIMD to offset that.

[moshpit]

SO, lets see if I have this right. To get the "Bulldozer Super-Dooper modules", you have to give up the iGPU, but to get the iGPU, you have to give up any form of decent CPU performance.

Intel tackled this issue by making the one CPU, Sandy Bridge, and then making 2 chipset lines for it to live on. One is high performance without iGPU, the other is standard performance, but with the iGPU. The CPU stays the same across both platforms, meaning NO loss in actual stock CPU power for the choice, only a loss in overclocking. AMD's method is inferior in my eyes and they are drifting further and further away from ever coming back to a rig of mine as a CPU. Very sad.

One thing I'm actually looking forward to on my next major system upgrade, is the fact that I can take my current 2600K, stick it over on a H67 mobo, and it will be the most kickass HTPC I've ever owned.

[caveman-jim]

If PC's were soley bound by CPU performance you'd have a point. The point is, APU's are a new strategy for providing affordable balanced performance of CPU and GPU - giving the combined power, enough of both to do what's needed.

Just because there is no Bulldozer based APU now doesn't mean there will never be. Big picture - right now you need a good CPU and a good GPU to have a good all-round PC experience. That product is not Sandy Bridge. The GPU sucks. Llano APU's have enough GPU to deliver mainstream gaming performance, with a powerful quad core. Is it dominating CPU performance? No, but it's platform price is going to be way better.

Think of the big picture and not single, isolated artificial benchmarks and you'll see why AMD's APU's are very strong products.

[caveman-jim]

Buldozzer don't have a GPU...first time i hear this..This make those slides a big lie ?

Where have you been getting your info? Bulldozer has never had a GPU, from the very beginning.

[moshpit]

Funny thing that, cavey. Your the first one to say Sandy Bridge iGPU sucks after SOOO many have said it's a total step in the right direction for Intel for the first time ever. So which is it? And FACT is, it has one and is flexible in it's usage because of it, BD is not. Sandy Bridge doesn't JUST have to serve the gamer. It serves the iGPU crowd VERY well. AMD's will be better, but it's CPU side sucks. And yes, I used the word SUCKS for the CPU side.

You see, I think the word "SUCKS" is best applied to when there's NO advance, which applies to Llano's CPU side, but not to SnB' GPU side. Intel's iGPU advanced over previous generations, Llano's CPU is another Phenom II loser job, same as it ever was, losing to the Intel solution more often then not.

Edit: We ALL know what happens to AMD when it starts ridding it's laurels. Sorry, but Llano's cores are a symptom of AMD doing that all over again. At least Intel iGPU is better then the previous generation enough to get INDUSTRY WIDE kudos in almost every review thats compared the new iGPU versus older ones. Even you have to admit, the Intel iGPU is MORE of a step up over it's previous then AMD's Llano cores are over Phenom II.

[caveman-jim]

It was nearly impossible for Sandy Bridge graphics not to improve on the previous generation.

As far as your arguments of Llano CPU sucks, doesn't advance, that quite possibly the weakest set of justifications for a hate-on I've ever heard, without any evidence to even remotely back up the claims.

Without independent benchmarks, hardware samples in hand, and pricing, it makes absolutely no sense to say Llano sucks. What if there is a quad core APU with 6600 performance level graphics for $200. Build that from Intel and it costs you much more to get the same platform performance. Sure you can buy a single product for the same money, that will have the ability to output to a display and have better CPU performance in some benchmarks, but put that in someones hand who wants to do everything on a PC and they'll ask for a dGPU. There goes, power, performance and price advantages, as well as form factor. But it does give another sale to AMD.

Intel based PC's don't always have discrete graphics, but when they do, they prefer AMD.

[moshpit]

It was nearly impossible for Sandy Bridge graphics not to improve on the previous generation.

As far as your arguments of Llano CPU sucks, doesn't advance, that quite possibly the weakest set of justifications for a hate-on I've ever heard, without any evidence to even remotely back up the claims.

Without independent benchmarks, hardware samples in hand, and pricing, it makes absolutely no sense to say Llano sucks. What if there is a quad core APU with 6600 performance level graphics for $200. Build that from Intel and it costs you much more to get the same platform performance. Sure you can buy a single product for the same money, that will have the ability to output to a display and have better CPU performance in some benchmarks, but put that in someones hand who wants to do everything on a PC and they'll ask for a dGPU. There goes, power, performance and price advantages, as well as form factor. But it does give another sale to AMD.

Intel based PC's don't always have discrete graphics, but when they do, they prefer AMD.

Sorry you consider REAL reasons to upgrade, weak. I'm sorry, lack of advance doesn't make upgrade cut. That's a simple enough fact for you to have to swallow whether you like it or not. WHY should I upgrade to the same as before? That's a SILLY position of yours, cavey. It's the SAME, not worthy of upgrade for anybody with a 2 year old computer, it won't be any faster at all. I guess things like reasons to "upgrade" are something you've forgotten about? Llano isn't an upgrade. It's more of the same. Sure the GPU will be faster, but the CPU sucks.

Edit: And as I said, "sucks" is better used for "zero advance" then your place of "it advanced, but not enough for me".

[caveman-jim]

If you only consider the CPU architecture inside the APU x86 cores, and neglect form factor, power, heat, and new API support, then yes, you're exactly right, it's more of the same. If the only reason that people upgrade computers is because it has a nice new architecture inside of it, then you are completely correct.

I don't think that's why people upgrade computers. Hence, that's not a REAL reason to upgrade. People upgrade for more performance in the tasks they do everyday. It's completely subjective. They also upgrade to get new features and to save power.

Oh wow, I can get Sandy Bridge new architecture! Awesome, this integrated GPU is twice as good as the previous one in my Core 2 Duo laptop with Intel HD graphics! Imma play me some nice new Rift with my buddies... wait, mine looks like ass compared to theirs! Why can't I turn up the graphics resolution and quality without it turning unplayable?

Case in point - recently, Caveboy Sr's girlfriend wanted to buy a new laptop. She had a Compaq with a Core 2 Duo and Intel HD graphics. She wanted to play Rift on it. It met the minimum requirements, but she hated the way if felt and played - lowest settings, lowest resolution, and she couldn't run it in a window so she could do all the other things she wants to do at the same time. So, I went looking for a laptop for her, her requirements were to play Rift and she wanted a 17" screen. I was thinking, hmm, how about a nice Core i5 and maybe Optimus, or perhaps AMD graphics. For her budget, $700, I could get a nice SB Core i5 at ~2.7Ghz or so. But Intel integrated graphics. Or, I could get her a Phenom II X4 2.3 with Radeon HD 6670M. So, I asked her, what else do you do on your laptop? School work, photography (basic processing of Photo's in Photoshop). So right there I'm thinking, hmm, that SB is better for PS. But the graphics suck. I ask her, do you have any problems with PS now? No, she says, works great. Well, what about battery life? She uses it like a portable desktop, rarely uses battery for more than 15-30mins - most of the time she plugs in and settles down for 4-6hours.

So, which to get? SB Core i5 would have great battery life, better performance in PS. But she'd have to live with poor gaming performance, one of the main reasons for her purchase. With the AMD system, she still gets a great upgrade in CPU performance, plus a massive boost in graphics performance. She loses on battery life, and it's not the latest and greatest technology. Does she care? No. She has a great gaming and productivity laptop.

And that's why Llano is win. Very few people care about 'gotta have the best!'. Most people, 90%+, want good enough to get what I want to do, done simply and easily.

Are you an APU customer? Not this time, perhaps. But in two years, when BD 2 based APU are appearing? We'll see. For me, for the people I work with, advise, buy for, APU's can't come fast enough.

[moshpit]

What new API? And I mean a useful one like DirectX, not something that has ZERO examples of it's use in the wild and doesn't have a good chance at adoption.

[caveman-jim]

How about DirectX 11? Got that on SB?

[moshpit]

How about DirectX 11? Got that on SB?

Ivy Bridge for that, a few months after BD's launch

[moshpit]

How about DirectX 11? Got that on SB?

But now I've gotta ask you, just how much use will Dx11 on iGPU be? I know you don't think you'll be playing Dx11 games in full Dx11 glory on Llano's iGPU. It's going to be lucky to play BFBC2 in Dx9 mode with any kind of decent performance. I honestly cannot think of one Dx11 game title I would even WANT to try on any iGPU, including Llano's leaked specs. That is, unless one's playing games on a 1024 res monitor.

[caveman-jim]

Ivy Bridge for that, a few months after BD's launch

If we're using the definition of the word 'few' to mean '18 to 24' then sure.

[moshpit]

If we're using the definition of the word 'few' to mean '18 to 24' then sure.

Intel will most likely release a mid range IvB well before that. Shortly after the new year I wouldn't be surprised if we saw mid range "i7 3600K" showing up on socket 1155 boards with a new chipset. In fact, I'm sure you'll see something like that.

But again, are you PLANNING on using that Dx11 iGPU? I mean really? Tell me how, please! I would like to know how a lower end Dx11 part will have any hope of actually USING that API for more then an occasional low end tech demo. I'm thinking you may be around that same 18 to 24 months before iGPUs with Dx11 are actually powerful enough to play Dx11 games.

[caveman-jim]

But now I've gotta ask you, just how much use will Dx11 on iGPU be? I know you don't think you'll be playing Dx11 games in full Dx11 glory on Llano's iGPU. It's going to be lucky to play BFBC2 in Dx9 mode with any kind of decent performance. I honestly cannot think of one Dx11 game title I would even WANT to try on any iGPU, including Llano's leaked specs. That is, unless one's playing games on a 1024 res monitor.

You're talking about first-generation DirectX 11 games, and you're right. Currently, the most obvious uses of DX11 are for ultra quality options and high performance cards. That doesn't mean there aren't hidden ones, like the use of Direct Compute for physics in the EGO/EGO 2 engine.

Most of the benefits of DirectX 11 have yet to be realized, especially as driver support for command lists/multi-render target etc. have yet to be implemented (except for NVIDIA with Forceware 270, which is useful for Civ5).

However, BF3 and newer engines are looking beyond just using direct compute for AO and are exploring using the tessellation, HD texture support, multi-render target/command list features.

If your advice for people now is to wait to upgrade their 2-3yr old computer because you don't like the CPU core in Llano, because DirectX 11 isn't used fully yet and anyway by the end of 2012 Intel CPU's will support that API, too, at less performance than you can buy now? Spectacularly bad, completely short sighted and self serving for an agenda only a handful of people even partially care about. You place overwhelming emphasis on CPU, yet consider your computer - how much did you spend on graphics? and how much on CPU? Why is that, which is more important to you?

As someone here so eloquently says, "Don't let great be the enemy of good". I'd love to see Llano feature new x86 architecture cores, but it doesn't. We have to wait until BD+/BD 2 cores hit for that product. Thats the timing. I don't think we need to go off onto why that timing is the way it is, its a combination of events not all of them under AMD's control.

Another API - OpenCL. Intel, NVIDIA, ARM and AMD support it. AMD have 400-500TFLOPS of GPU cores to run it on in an A-series APU. Intel has... hmm. So the questions is, does that matter? Will there be a broad infrastructure of OpenCL accelerated applications? Yes. By the time Ivy Bridge launches, it's going to be very obvious you need horsepower for OpenCL.

[moshpit]

Sorry bro, but by the time those side benefits are realized, Llano will already be long since moved on from and actually decently performing solutions will be available. I just don't see iGPU based Dx11 as a technical advantage point until maybe late next year once there's more powerful solutions to push it, it's much more of a marketing bullet point right now and for the near foreseeable future.

[caveman-jim]

OK, what about for DX10, DX9. Both iGPU's will support that. An AMD Radeon HD 6450 can embarrass a SB iGPU in those settings. For an iGPU three times more powerful than that... it's gonna be a bloodbath.

The only thing SB iGPU is good for is basic flash games and playing movies. You can do that on E-series APU's, for way cheaper. For corporate/business desktops and notebooks, people who cant/don't want to play games, just have basic media consumption, you don't need a SB CPU. If you need the CPU power, then you can get SB, until you realise that apps are being accelerated with OpenCL, DirectCompute to perform better on GPU's. Then you wish you had more GPU, because in the benchmarks where SB CPU beats AMD Llano x86 CPU, AMD has a nitrous button and boom! APU accelerated parallel processing in Photoshop, Office, video editing, etc.

SB is a great CPU, and offers lots of performance. But the world is moving to GPU accelerated applications, and SB iGPU is weaksauce. IB isn't going to magically jump to $75 mainstream graphics performance, it's going to remain sub $30 dGPU competitive. Great generation on generation increment, but objectively, lacking behind the competition.

[moshpit]

OK, what about for DX10, DX9. Both iGPU's will support that. An AMD Radeon HD 6450 can embarrass a SB iGPU in those settings. For an iGPU three times more powerful than that... it's gonna be a bloodbath.

The only thing SB iGPU is good for is basic flash games and playing movies. You can do that on E-series APU's, for way cheaper. For corporate/business desktops and notebooks, people who cant/don't want to play games, just have basic media consumption, you don't need a SB CPU. If you need the CPU power, then you can get SB, until you realise that apps are being accelerated with OpenCL, DirectCompute to perform better on GPU's. Then you wish you had more GPU, because in the benchmarks where SB CPU beats AMD Llano x86 CPU, AMD has a nitrous button and boom! APU accelerated parallel processing in Photoshop, Office, video editing, etc.

SB is a great CPU, and offers lots of performance. But the world is moving to GPU accelerated applications, and SB iGPU is weaksauce. IB isn't going to magically jump to $75 mainstream graphics performance, it's going to remain sub $30 dGPU competitive. Great generation on generation increment, but objectively, lacking behind the competition.

What good is any of that though? Bulldozer doesn't have an iGPU, it won't be able to even enter that market. Llano on the other hand has a CPU well below the competitions output, meaning it will have to compete PURELY on GPU power, which means businesses will snub it. Not too many using even Dx9, to be honest with you. They don't play games.

The machines that DO game at home, will have to then make a sacrifice. Do they game more then anything else? Then go Llano, but what the HELL are you doing buying an iGPU when you primarily game? Just buy a darned discreet card and get some gaming power! Do they need more CPU power? Avoid Llano, get the SnB.

I'm sorry cavey, this whole AMD processing generation is just striking me as terribly "glass is half empty" and I'm having a hard time picking up your "glass is half full" position. Not excited about what is seeming more and more dissapointing the more I learn about it.

[caveman-jim]

The problem is you keep polarizing it. People need good performance from both. you can get great CPU performance from SB, and terrible GPU. Or you can get good performance from Llano, and good GPU. OEM's and business love that. They will lap it up. I'd not be at all surprised if Apple drops SB for Llano for their next generation.

The problem you have is you have determined, without using or seeing independent results, that Llano CPU sucks. It doesn't. Why? Because Phenom II's don't. What the difference is, your definition of the word SUCKS means 'not the fastest in the world', where everybody else uses 'offers good performance and value for money'. If you're uncompromising, SB is your CPU, and you should be complaining you had to buy a waste of transistor budget iGPU when you have perfectly good dGPU's. If you're looking for bang/buck in a budget, which basically means everyone else especially business, then Llano is a no brainer.

Not everybody who games, or even primarily games, is an ultra enthusiast. The market shows that. Buy a dGPU? Why, you get a competent one in the llano, perfect for today's popular screen resolutions like 1366x768, 1680x1050, even 1920x1080. At ultra enthusiast settings? No, of course not. Just because someone doesn't spend $1K on dGPU's doesn't make them any less of a gamer. It makes them less spendy.

[moshpit]

As I said, nice "Glass is half full" position, I salute your positive spin on the state of AMD processing power.

[caveman-jim]

The focus is shifting from cpu to platform capability. The means CPU + GPU. If it means something that Llano isn't faster than SB in CPU specific benchmarks, why doesn't it matter than Llano is faster in GPU specific benchmarks? Why isn't total platform cost a consideration? Because you don't swim in this end of the pool, you don't care about it and it changes what you think is important. Does that mean it's important for everyone? No. That's my opposition to your statements, you don't consider the people on smaller budgets and looking for a different definition of value. The platform as a whole is the argument for APU's.

The essence of the argument is no different from single core at super high clocks vs. multi-cores at lower clocks and using multi-threaded software. We saw how that worked out.

[bittermann]

As I said, nice "Glass is half full" position, I salute your positive spin on the state of AMD processing power.

So how long have you been benching the new Llano's/BD's before everyone else to come too such negative conclusions? Just exactly what games/programs can't Athlon's run according to your high standards?

[moshpit]

So how long have you been benching the new Llano's/BD's before everyone else to come too such negative conclusions? Just exactly what games/programs can't Athlon's run according to your high standards?

It's public knowledge Llano's CPU cores perform on par with today's current, marketed architecture. Zero advance. And AMD is famous for trying to compete in an arena, finding the arena too hot for it's tastes, and then trying to change the rules to better suit it's inability to compete in that arena anymore.

Some call it flexibility. I call it giving up and throwing in the towel.

[moshpit]

The focus is shifting from cpu to platform capability. The means CPU + GPU. If it means something that Llano isn't faster than SB in CPU specific benchmarks, why doesn't it matter than Llano is faster in GPU specific benchmarks? Why isn't total platform cost a consideration? Because you don't swim in this end of the pool, you don't care about it and it changes what you think is important. Does that mean it's important for everyone? No. That's my opposition to your statements, you don't consider the people on smaller budgets and looking for a different definition of value. The platform as a whole is the argument for APU's.

The essence of the argument is no different from single core at super high clocks vs. multi-cores at lower clocks and using multi-threaded software. We saw how that worked out.

I'm not debating from the joe-six pack perspective here, you're absolutely right, but it was never my point. Right now, and for the foreseeable future, AMD is putting too much emphasis on relying on their iGPU, without enough tasks to make that reliance reasonable.

Sorry, I don't see AMD's platform as balanced at all. I see it as a econo-gaming GPU being shoehorned into a CPU to make up for the CPUs lack of horsepower, and a desperate hope AMD can push enough GPGPU development in areas it may find quite difficult to penetrate.

I see too much riding on hope with this APU's future, and not enough riding on real workloads.

[caveman-jim]

It's public knowledge Llano's CPU cores perform on par with today's current, marketed architecture. Zero advance. And AMD is famous for trying to compete in an arena, finding the arena too hot for it's tastes, and then trying to change the rules to better suit it's inability to compete in that arena anymore.

Some call it flexibility. I call it giving up and throwing in the towel.

I'm not debating from the joe-six pack perspective here, you're absolutely right, but it was never my point. Right now, and for the foreseeable future, AMD is putting too much emphasis on relying on their iGPU, without enough tasks to make that reliance reasonable.

Sorry, I don't see AMD's platform as balanced at all. I see it as a econo-gaming GPU being shoehorned into a CPU to make up for the CPUs lack of horsepower, and a desperate hope AMD can push enough GPGPU development in areas it may find quite difficult to penetrate.

I see too much riding on hope with this APU's future, and not enough riding on real workloads.

I think you're missing the big picture of all their products, existing and predicted to launch this year, and lack perspective of what actual workloads and use cases exist.

And that is a battle that AMD have to fight, perception of what is important in PC's. Intel market CPU as being be all, end all. NVIDIA markets to GPU being the savior of computing, and are ditching x86 for ARM as the platform under their GPU's. AMD are promoting balanced approach of both, because they have both technologies.

You can call it throwing in the the towel all you want, but two new CPU architectures, a new APU concept, and the best discrete GPU line-up doesn't sound like quitting to me. If it is, Intel and NVIDIA better be glad AMD are throwing it in, they'd be dead if otherwise.

BTW, it is not public knowledge that AMD's Llano cores perform on par with today's CPU's, it is speculated and all AMD have said is it uses existing x86 technology. Let's not forget that Llano features improved turbo core, too - something that only the Thuban x86 cores have in the current x86 lineup.

[Sasquach]

Then the WHOLE comparison is bunk. AMD has broken a cardinal law of acceptability and is now PROVEN no better then Intel or Nvidia for making misleading comparisons. The cardinal law of LIKE COMPARISON, meaning you compare iGPU against iGPU, never discreet versus integrated and then claim victory for graphics on the discreet, but then saying it means your product is faster when it's CLEARLY not.

In fact, Bulldozer without an iGPU is INFERIOR to Sandy Bridge. A 2600K will happily serve a top end gaming rig OR an HTPC with it's integrated GPU, something the Bulldozer FAILS at. It has to fall back on the old "use an external GPU". Inferior. The more I see, the more I think Bulldozer is a waste of time. Flexibility is a majorly valid feature for broad sales of a chip. Bulldozer is a step back for AMD. The iGPU is totally necessary to make up for AMD's weak ass FPU on Bulldozer. And yes, when it comes to general use opposed to optimized code, Bulldozer looks to have inferior legacy x87 performance and is totally reliant on SIMD/MIMD to offset that.

no one buys an i7 and uses the onchip GPU....
And who the hell buys a high end i7 for HTPC use......?

And when has discrete GPU ever mean a bad thing....?

And its clear where the CPU performance of those chips lie in that graph....cut out the GPU part of the graph on ALL the products and BD compares favorably with SB......

[moshpit]

I think you're missing the big picture of all their products, existing and predicted to launch this year, and lack perspective of what actual workloads and use cases exist.

And that is a battle that AMD have to fight, perception of what is important in PC's. Intel market CPU as being be all, end all. NVIDIA markets to GPU being the savior of computing, and are ditching x86 for ARM as the platform under their GPU's. AMD are promoting balanced approach of both, because they have both technologies.

You can call it throwing in the the towel all you want, but two new CPU architectures, a new APU concept, and the best discrete GPU line-up doesn't sound like quitting to me. If it is, Intel and NVIDIA better be glad AMD are throwing it in, they'd be dead if otherwise.

BTW, it is not public knowledge that AMD's Llano cores perform on par with today's CPU's, it is speculated and all AMD have said is it uses existing x86 technology. Let's not forget that Llano features improved turbo core, too - something that only the Thuban x86 cores have in the current x86 lineup.

I don't see that balance. I see AMD leaning on GPUs to make up for CPU weakness. I see too much focus on the GPU going into it while letting the CPU execution capabilities stagnate. I also see AMD trying yet again to try to change the rules in their favor, but by over-pushing the GPU into places it won't necessarily be well suited.

[Sasquach]

I don't see that balance. I see AMD leaning on GPUs to make up for CPU weakness. I see too much focus on the GPU going into it while letting the CPU execution capabilities stagnate. I also see AMD trying yet again to try to change the rules in their favor, but by over-pushing the GPU into places it won't necessarily be well suited.

that only applies to the APU's since AMD knows it has no chance for its PII CPU cores to compete with intels SB cores.

In the case of Intel you get great CPU performance and crappy GPU performance. AMD you get good CPU performance and good GPu performance, a better balanced scenario. Its not like you're getting celeron levels of crap CPU performance.

Now if BD's CPU performance is on par with SB CPU performance then thats a good sign. Of course they could be late to the game like the PII (The barcelona that should have been) since Ivy Bridge is just around the corner.