AMD Launches the Second-Generation A-Series APUs

[Elder III]

Trinity would have looked really good going up against the HD 3000 Sandybridge from Intel. The recently arrive HD 4000 Ivybridge on the other hand takes allot of the "thunder" away from Trinity imo. It think it really comes down to 2 things:

1. Price - the majority of people can easily and happily do everything they want with an E-350 based laptop, so if they can get a Trinity APU for a decent savings over a Sandybridge, then they are going to do it... and never even know the difference in performance or even care for that matter.

2. Budget Gamer on the Go - essentially that near broke college student that needs a laptop, but wants to play some video games too. Trinity may not have as much of a lead over Ivy and Llano did over Sandy, but if it's both cheaper and 20% better in games on avg... then that casual/budget gamer is going to buy it.

*my 2 cents*

[Aura89]

Originally Posted by Mikedogg

And yet it still won't compete with Intel. Amd hasn't released a decent processor since the "K6."

By K6, you mean K8...as when the K8 was released, the Pentium 4 was being released aswell, and the Pentium 4 had nothing on the K8

[Mikedogg]

They were both good CPU'S. IIRC, when AMD and INTEL brought out their DUO'S, that's when AMD started to flop in the high-end department, given AMD was about .4GHZ behind INTEL.

[IPlayNaked]

Originally Posted by Mikedogg

They were both good CPU'S. IIRC, when AMD and INTEL brought out their DUO'S, that's when AMD started to flop in the high-end department, given AMD was about .4GHZ behind INTEL.

Not sure when you mean. If you mean when the Athlon X2 came out, not at all, Athlon's were far and away an awesome choice.

If you mean when the core duos came out...yes, a little. Although Athlon's were still a decent alternative, even so.

AMD didn't "start to flop" until Phenom, really. The first one. The first phenom was pretty abysmal, even though I did own one, for simplicity of the upgrade path.

[Mikedogg]

That's what I meant. I was just to lazy to word it properly.

I have the "AMD Athlon 64 X2 Dual Core 6000+ - rated @3.0GHZ" in my desktop, cant compete with the Intel equivalent "Intel Core2 Duo E6700 - rated @2.66Ghz."

Look here

But of cause, the AMD'S were cheaper. So you get what you pay for I guess.

[The Chubu]

I'd like to see what AMD pulls off to compete against Atom. Intel has been lacking a lot with that one...

[Cadoam]

seems IGP is on par with HD 6630m - 384 VLIW4 @686 core for 7660g and 480 VLIW5 @ 485mhz core 800mhz ddr3 for 6630m.. not bad really, people will play games on these - just crazy that for CPU on a83500m is 1.4ghz for 4 cores, a104600m is 2.3/3.2 and 2 bulldozer modules, arguably 4 cores. I know you can get the llano mobile cpu's up quite a bit, I have mine at 2.267 concurrently for all cores, I'd be very interested to see how they compare at at that point. nice power consumption too

[Elder III]

yeah, the A6 (llano) can be clocked to 2.35 ghz on all 4 cores with less voltage than it uses in default "turbo" mode. That brings it up to close to the level of an i5 2410M, although battery life does go out the window. Stays nice and cool though, so it's a no brainer if you can keep it plugged in. I'd like to see if Trinity Overclocks as well too.

[sykozis]

Originally Posted by Mikedogg

And yet it still won't compete with Intel. Amd hasn't released a decent processor since the "K6."

Except the K7.....K8..... Both of which managed to beat out Intel...

[Aura89]

Originally Posted by Mikedogg

They were both good CPU'S. IIRC, when AMD and INTEL brought out their DUO'S, that's when AMD started to flop in the high-end department, given AMD was about .4GHZ behind INTEL.

Huh?

Pentium 4, good?

Netburst, good?

since when?

the first dual-core intel CPU's were a flop aswell, it wasn't until Core2duo (i believe) that Intel regained the reign, pentium 4 and pentium D (aka Pentium 4 dual core) had nothing on AMD, ever, and Pentium D came out before Core2Duo (Pentium D released in 2005, Core2Duo released in 2006, AMD 64 X2 released released 2005)

Originally Posted by Mikedogg

I have the "AMD Athlon 64 X2 Dual Core 6000+ - rated @3.0GHZ" in my desktop, cant compete with the Intel equivalent "Intel Core2 Duo E6700 - rated @2.66Ghz."

You're comparing a 2003 architecture to a 2006 architecture...

though i understand that they were competing when released, that's not the point, you're still comparing a 2003 architecture to a 2006 architecture, and yet expecting AMD to have equal Mhz to Mhz at least performance

[Mikedogg]

Obviously I stuffed up somewhere. So what I'm trying to say, is that my old "AMD Athlon 64 X2 Dual Core 6000+ - rated @3.0GHZ" was meant to compete with the "INTEL 3.0GHZ" (can't remember which series of duel core it was for INTEL) but AMD fell short.

[thatguy91]

Intel lived off their brand name for many years when the P4 was out, especially with the original socket 478 versions. Even worse were the original Celerons, with no cache they stumbled at the simplest of tasks (it was almost criminal selling them), but yet they still sold heaps despite the AMD having considerable advantages at that price point (and all price points for that matter).

Its unfortunate though that the FX processors suck. I'm only guessing here - but when AMD replace the socket for the fourth gen Bulldozer (or more probable, the next architecture on from Bulldozer) that the FX processors will be high end APU parts, and make use of DDR4 memory. Apparently next year (probably around this time) the APU line will get the 3rd gen Bulldozer cores before the FX line.

[ibitato]

you ppl keep forgeting that target market for this APUs is going to be ppl that don't even bother reading specs.
It's just ab price, economy of scale and sales.
If the make good profit per unit sold, even if they sell sh1t loads less than intel, they'll be fine.

doing a very throughtput and in deep investigation , comparison and reading for making a purchase desition aint gonna happen for 99% of the clients.
they'll just buy it becasue it's cheaper and it's almost the same as intel's or whatever.

taht is, the ppl buying this (99%) could not care less on architecture, cores and mombo jombo

[Chillin]

Originally Posted by ibitato

you ppl keep forgeting that target market for this APUs is going to be ppl that don't even bother reading specs.
It's just ab price, economy of scale and sales.
If the make good profit per unit sold, even if they sell sh1t loads less than intel, they'll be fine.

doing a very throughtput and in deep investigation , comparison and reading for making a purchase desition aint gonna happen for 99% of the clients.
they'll just buy it becasue it's cheaper and it's almost the same as intel's or whatever.

taht is, the ppl buying this (99%) could not care less on architecture, cores and mombo jombo

You are actually just reinforcing Intel's position here.

A Joe Schmoe that has no idea about computers will be looking at a list of laptops and have two choices:

Intel CPU with an equal or higher GHz
AMD APU with an equal or lower GHz

Now the average consumer recognizes the name Intel, they may not recognize AMD as much. The average consumer recognizes the word "CPU", they will not recognize or understand what an "APU" is. The average consumer thinks higher [GHz] must be better, they will not understand differences between architectures.

[ibitato]

Originally Posted by Chillin

You are actually just reinforcing Intel's position here.

A Joe Schmoe that has no idea about computers will be looking at a list of laptops and have two choices:

Intel CPU with an equal or higher GHz
AMD APU with an equal or lower GHz

Now the average consumer recognizes the name Intel, they may not recognize AMD as much. The average consumer recognizes the word "CPU", they will not recognize or understand what an "APU" is. The average consumer thinks higher [GHz] must be better, they will not understand differences between architectures.

price it's the first option, not Ghz
if the gap bt the 2 it's not high (Ghz) Joe will buy AMD bc he's not willing to put down the extra money for the few more Ghz
Intel is a well know brand, but if you price products well, you can counter the
brand issue

/edit
well, this is too much of simplifing things, but oh well....