backtop


Print 65 comment(s) - last by rburnham.. on Apr 28 at 5:09 PM


Fusion processors are cheap, power efficient, and pack a powerful GPU -- a winning combination for budget designs.  (Source: Computer Shopper)

The chip has helped AMD finally turn the corner and return to profitability.  (Source: Maximum PC)

  (Source: Comic Vine)
Once troubled chipmaker appears to be turning the corner thanks to GPUs and CPU/GPU "Fusion" combos

Advanced Micro Devices, Inc.'s (AMD2006 purchase of ATI Technologies for $5.4B USD was widely criticized and scrutinized at the time.  But it now appears that it may have saved the company.

After a couple years of losses, AMD finally appears to be turning the corner this year.  The company reported [press release] an impressive net income of $510M USD on revenue of $1.61B USD.  Its operating income was $54M USD and its non-GAAP income was $54M USD.

The strong earnings were largely driven by AMD's continued dominance in GPU sales.  They also were driven by AMD's new Fusion system on a chip that packs power-savvy Bobcat CPU cores on a die with a full Evergreen (found in the 6000 series) GPU.

OEMs appear to be embracing the chip.  Acer, Asus, Dell, Fujitsu, HP, Lenovo, MSI, Sony and Toshiba have all launched Fusion designs.  And the chips are also becoming popular in the embedded sector for devices like casino machines, which need a more power GPU to drive a large screen.  Fujitsu, Kontron, Quixant and Congatec are all pushing embedded applications of Fusion chips.

Thomas Seifert, CFO and interim CEO, elates, "First quarter operating results were highlighted by strong demand for our first generation of AMD Fusion Accelerated Processing Units (APUs).  APU unit shipments greatly exceeded our expectations, and we are excited to build on that momentum now that we are shipping our 'Llano' APU."

The Fusion chips are proving so popular for several regions.  First, AMD has priced them very competitively, so they're winding up in very affordable laptop designs.  Secondly, the chips are very power efficient.  And finally they offer a nice performance blend, offering sufficient CPU performance and relatively powerful GPU performance.

By contrast Intel Corp.'s (INTC) latest design Sandy Bridge, also packs an on-die CPU/GPU pairing.  But the onboard GPU is significantly weaker, the power consumption is higher, and the chip is more expensive.  Thus while it is solution of choice for high-power enthusiast desktops and laptops, it's less than optimal for the much larger budget laptop/desktop market.  

Sandy Bridge was also hurt by early defects in its SATA connections, which have since been fixed.

A common criticism leveled against Fusion is that having a discrete GPU in a budget design is superfluous.  However, for Blu-ray playback or playing popular older video games like World of Warcraft, customers definitely come to appreciate the benefits of the design.

It appears that AMD is, at the moment, out-competing Intel much in the same way it outcompeted graphics chipmaker NVIDIA Corp. (NVDA) -- by attacking the low end.  Of course, AMD's growing Fusion sales likely would not have been possible were it not for new scrutiny from U.S. and European antitrust regulators that forced Intel to stop paying off OEMs to ignore AMD designs.

It's worth noting that Intel still leads AMD significantly in market share.  AMD is also experiencing leadership troubles of late, with a number of executives departing.

But at the end of the day, though, even in the face of these issues and bigger questions loom about the future of x86 processors as a whole, AMD looks much better positioned to be competitive with Intel.  And all of that comes back to the increasing returns from its strong GPU division.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Glad to see it
By Manch on 4/22/2011 10:00:13 AM , Rating: 5
I'm glad to see AMD finally making a turn fo the better. I just hope they'll become competitive on the highend again. There's no competition at the top, and the prices reflects that.




RE: Glad to see it
By Pirks on 4/22/11, Rating: -1
RE: Glad to see it
By bug77 on 4/22/2011 10:16:17 AM , Rating: 3
AMD was into high-end with their Athlon64(X2) line. They did it before, they may be able to do it again. It's tough, but it can be done. Where AMD really huts is production capability. They can't take 70-80% of the market share because they can't produce that many chips.


RE: Glad to see it
By Pirks on 4/22/11, Rating: -1
RE: Glad to see it
By Amiga500 on 4/22/2011 12:03:20 PM , Rating: 2
CMT could be the reason.

Much better than SMT.

:-)


RE: Glad to see it
By brybir on 4/22/2011 12:18:27 PM , Rating: 5
Your statement is not logical. To say that a company will never make a large scale mistake again similar to the one Intel bade with Netburst is at best wishful thinking. History has shown over and over that companies can and do repeatedly make major mistakes that cost them significantly or even drive them out of business.


RE: Glad to see it
By Da W on 4/22/2011 12:20:19 PM , Rating: 5
On the contrary they did.
You just have to watch all this tablet vs PC debate to at least understand that the most powerful CPU in the world is not necessary anymore. Even in x86, the market is moving toward the GPU. And Intel refused to see it, didn't buy out Nvidia, decided to prevent them from building chipset for their Corei7 designs and chosed to develop their own integrated graphics in house, which are of course a piece of crap compared to what ATi or Nvidia can pull off in the same power enveloppe.
By only going CPU CPU CPU, Intel is screwing it again. AMD has a fighting chance. My old phenom X3 is powerful enough to run everything i want when paired with a good graphic card. So i can only imagine all the OEMs going crasy on a 200$ Phenom X4@ 3.5Ghz with an integrated 800 stream processor which is just what the radeon 4870 had 2 years ago.
And fusion isn't only about graphics, it's eventually about GPU computing, where a powerful GPU can be much more potent.
Anyway if you wanna bet on a stock, i'd say AMD has more potential upside than Intel right now.


RE: Glad to see it
By Reclaimer77 on 4/22/11, Rating: 0
RE: Glad to see it
By semiconshawn on 4/24/2011 4:49:09 AM , Rating: 2
80% of a dying market. If you dont think the pc box as we know it is going away you live in cave. Intel is screwing up all over. You talk about Microsoft being late to the phone/tablet market wtf? Intel is as odd as it may seem at risk of being consumer obsolete. My teenage kids are into tablets and cell phones samsung, apple, htc, google even MS look to be in ok shape by my in house survey intel is nowhere to be found. My money stops in a few short years and my kids begins I would rather be Apple than Microsoft, Samsung than Sony, Microsoft than Sony, Google than anybody, and anybody but intel. Weird because I am a semiconductor equipment engineer and intel is the undisputed king of semiconductor fabrication. Im a bit of an intel fanboy in some ways...


RE: Glad to see it
By Reclaimer77 on 4/24/2011 8:41:33 AM , Rating: 2
You're funny.

Sorry but most of us like to get stuff done, not play around on a crappy touch screen all day. If you think the "pc box" is just going away, you're insane. Oh and please show me how the business sector is going to abandon the "pc box" and get productivity out of touch tablets and smart phones!

You are just all over the map with your post. Your kids, google, intel, MS...dude come on. Yup sorry Intel, it's over for you, this guys kids don't use your stuff!


RE: Glad to see it
By kaosstar on 4/25/2011 12:40:34 PM , Rating: 2
There are plenty of people "getting stuff done" on tablets, netbooks, and even smart phones. Traditional PCs are currently necessary for graphics, video, and other media work, and programming, to some extent. The desktop PC is almost a niche market already, and with the rapidly increasing power of more mobile devices, not to mention the trend toward harnessing the untapped potential of GPUs (and there are some very powerful GPUs even in phones now), it is clearly on the road to become an even smaller niche.


RE: Glad to see it
By Reclaimer77 on 4/25/2011 8:21:41 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The desktop PC is almost a niche market already


That is an ABSURD statement. Do you know how many PC's are still out there.

Plus you proceed from a false premise that they are mutually exclusive. Tablets, ebook readers, and smart phones COMPLIMENT the PC, not replace it. I don't know anyone who has a mobile device that doesn't also have a PC, and uses it to enhance their experience.


RE: Glad to see it
By wordsworm on 4/27/2011 9:38:32 AM , Rating: 2
Complement, Reclaimer. A compliment is what you give your wife when she asks you how she looks.

Most PCs/laptops have sh*t for graphics because they're powered by Intel. I agree with several other posters here that Intel has made a grave error that might only be rectified by the purchase of nVidia, or perhaps by partnering with them (fat chance!)

So, if AMD can produce enough of these Fusion chips, they're going to cream Intel. However, as I said awhile back, I fully expect them to be constrained... again... by their ability to manufacture (or have manufactured for them) sufficient quantities to really compete. I still have yet to see one in the wild out here in Korea. Though, I have a plan to go to Seoul next month, which has an enormous electronics district. Surely I will find them there. I see them online: Fusion nettops that would cream all but the nVidia enhanced nettops, for the same price as a low end Atom.

That said, I think there may always be room for a high end CPU with discrete graphics. However, that remains to be seen... stay tuned!


RE: Glad to see it
By Gondor on 4/23/2011 2:22:25 PM , Rating: 2
It would appear that the top end APUs due for release are going to be more along the lines of Athlon II x4 @ ~3 GHz + 4650/5550 level graphics combined.

Your Phenom x4 @ 3.5 GHz + 4870/5770 level graphics combination sounds terrific, it's just not going to happen anytime soon I'm afraid :(


RE: Glad to see it
By jarman on 4/22/2011 1:33:10 PM , Rating: 3
Once? Forgetting about Thunderbird vs. PIII?


RE: Glad to see it
By CyborgTMT on 4/23/2011 3:17:22 AM , Rating: 3
K6 >= PII - both in performance and price
k7 > PIII - Athlons killed the slower and late Pent 2
K8 > PIV - 64 bit and first to dual core beats netburst

So from 1998 till 2006 AMD either had the best processor or was equal but cheaper than Intel. Had Intel not stacked the deck against AMD with bribes to OEMs K9 (canceled) and K10 might have been another win for them.


RE: Glad to see it
By Samus on 4/22/11, Rating: 0
RE: Glad to see it
By acsa77 on 4/22/2011 6:39:05 PM , Rating: 2
RISC vs. CISC (x86) is not as simple, as decades ago. This is a much more complex question. Just read the expert debates. RISC took a lot over from CISC and vice versa. And the nowadays ARM architectures take over a lot from x86 capabilities. Desperately. And nowadays x86 has maybe 10-20% from the original architecture. (Both instruction set and implementation.) x86 has the advantage of extraordinary flexibility in intelligent computing. And Intel is still improving. It is the only platform in the commercial segment to handle AI overhead. The crunchers based on GPU are very inflexible, and confined to relatively primitive tasks. Maybe in 5-6 years this will improve, and then you don't have to build a blade cluster with a lot of inert mass to have multi-node intelligence. Intel had this premature idea with Larrabee but failed.

But I also agree, that Intel also failed with providing the philosophy of Fusion for consumers. And AMD is generally more friendly in terms of platform-services, in all areas. But of course if you want highest x86 performance actually, then you have to choose Intel.


RE: Glad to see it
By Crank the Planet on 4/22/2011 5:18:46 PM , Rating: 4
I think you are forgetting the whole Itanium fiasco, The Itanium II fiasco, and the recent Sandy Bridge Fiasco. Intel makes a lot of mistakes. Other than speed bumps and improving the pipeline, Intel has had no major innovation since "netburst." They finally copied AMD by putting the M/C on die.

AMD on the other hand has had several innovations, M/C on die, 32/64 bit capability on the same chip, Hyper transport. Fusion is the next level. AMD's purchase of ATI was wise. It cost them a lot, but is now going to be their boon- not just graphics sales (which are kicking butt). The fusion of a powerful GPU on die is incredible. This will eventually lead to GPU computing.

The main reason Intel has enjoyed such a lead for so long is it's strong-arming of companies for world-wide sales. If Intel hadn't done that AMD would have turned the corner a lot sooner. Now that it has watch out. I hear all the time from Intel employees- they are scared of what AMD can do. That's why there is a company policy not to even mention their name- lol

I give it 5 years. In 5 years AMD will come out with a GPU/GPU/CPU combo that will put them on top. They will pay the price for their lack of Vision- LOL


RE: Glad to see it
By acsa77 on 4/22/2011 6:48:41 PM , Rating: 2
Itanium was not a fiasco as big as one believes. It is simply too much specialized. And in hardware cost and performance the x86 could keep up. Anyway, services of mainframes are a much more important issue. And don't forget, that the flexibility of virtualization became very appealing and is very strong with x86 together. The x86 platform was managed from the beginning as an industry platform with open and cheap base infrastructure etc., hence its success. Despite many excellent special platforms.


RE: Glad to see it
By IlllI on 4/22/2011 10:51:27 PM , Rating: 2
more money to soften the blow so to speak.

amd does not have that luxury, so they are under presumably more pressure


RE: Glad to see it
By dubyadubya on 4/24/2011 12:15:43 AM , Rating: 1
Did you vote him down out of spite? I'd say he is right. AMD peaked at the same time Intel stumbled. I'm no Intel fan boy and buy which ever platform has the most bang for the buck in the price range allowed. Could AMD pull a rabbit out of their hat again some day? Sure but will it, we need to wait and see.


RE: Glad to see it
By semiconshawn on 4/24/2011 5:28:18 AM , Rating: 1
Doesn't matter until code catches silicon. Right now everyones top chip will run everything fast.


RE: Glad to see it
By Cubexco on 4/24/2011 5:42:27 PM , Rating: 1
where exactly does Itanium as a 64bit platform stand?
I'm pretty sure AMD64 is nowhere to be found.


RE: Glad to see it
By MarcLeFou on 4/22/2011 10:32:46 AM , Rating: 2
I disagree.

While it certainly isn't an easy task to take on, the split of AMD and GlobalFoundries is exactly what was needed for the GF part to invest heavily in new manufacturing processes. ATIC (GF's owners with AMD) isn't exactly short on funds so they have the money to throw around to try and play catch up to Intel (and maybe even one day surpass them on processes).

And as for architecture, while Intel certainly has some nice artchitecture currently, AMD has proven in the past that they can pull some nice designs that can outcompete intel's. The last decade, they've been mostly held up by their process and some bad execution so if GF can get them on the same ground as Intel process-wise, it'd be interesting to see who can come up with the better designs. I'd be expecting an NVIDIA/ATI situation where one company has the lead for a few generation of products with market disruptions every few years that see a change in leadership. The next few years should be interesting.


RE: Glad to see it
By Manch on 4/22/2011 10:44:41 AM , Rating: 3
Now thAT AMD has spun off it's foundries(ThE Foundry Company?) and in turn they now produce chips for other companies, I dont see why they can't close in on the process part since that's all they do. Now that AMD is soley a chip designer, they should eventually be able to catch up on the architectural side. Plus you need to remember murphys law(almost as important as moores law ha!) as it's tripped up both Intel, AMD, and Nvidia. AMD doesnt need to match Intel clock for clock to be competitive but they do need to eventually produce a chip thats within spitting distance, and with that they can compete on price. If nothing else, a threat to Intels highend will force them to drop prices which is good for us the consumer.


RE: Glad to see it
By acsa77 on 4/22/2011 7:00:37 PM , Rating: 2
Once there was a long, deep insight article about the long-term strategy of ATI already working inside AMD. It was professional and we see the success results. But then I don't understand, why didn't see AMD that Banias, a mobile platform was the right base for all other platforms? They practically lost the notebook blossoming in the last decade and a lot of ground in the server market. Athlon64's pure performance alone was simply not enough. OK, I didn't see it in 2003, but hey, AMD paid professionals to see it in 2001 :)


RE: Glad to see it
By Jeffk464 on 4/22/2011 10:49:23 AM , Rating: 2
Its kind of a toss up really, Intel has had far superior cpu design for a few years but AMD got superior integrated graphics by purchasing ATI. So unless you buy discreet graphics AMD will probably outperform intel in many tasks. This will become more obvious with the pending release of amd's next fusion chips which are basically phenom chips with midrange radeon graphics. These new chips will be very appealing in the $400-$600 dollar range. It seems to me intel is going so fast that they are outpacing nvida and AMD's ability to keep up graphically.


RE: Glad to see it
By Jeffk464 on 4/22/2011 11:40:46 AM , Rating: 2
Forgot to mention even people that only by intel desperately need a healthy AMD to keep intel's prices in check.


RE: Glad to see it
By SPOOFE on 4/24/2011 9:45:01 PM , Rating: 2
Same old "we need AMD" myth. Sorry, but if anything, ARM's newfound market strength indicates the exact opposite: That "Intel vs. AMD" was a false dichotomy, and that if the latter didn't exist, another player would rise up.

At worst, there'd be a couple years of minor stagnation (remember, Intel would still need to compete with itself, otherwise nobody would buy anything and their revenue would dry up) before other processes made a start-up more realistic.


RE: Glad to see it
By Amiga500 on 4/22/2011 11:55:33 AM , Rating: 1
Watch Bulldozer.

Its gonna cream Intel in the server and HPC market.

What AMD may lose out on is the high end desktop and single-thread sensitive server/HPC market (where license costs are per thread).


RE: Glad to see it
By Pirks on 4/22/11, Rating: -1
RE: Glad to see it
By yomamafor1 on 4/23/2011 3:10:05 AM , Rating: 2
I hate to be the devil's advocate, but similar remarks have been made just before K10 hit. Remember how people claimed Barcelona was going to be 40% faster than Intel's offering across the board?

It is probably a good idea to take a wait and see approach. Of course, I don't doubt Dirk Meyer's brilliance in executing the Bulldozer, but I'm not sure it is time to make confident remarks just yet.


RE: Glad to see it
By rburnham on 4/28/2011 5:09:50 PM , Rating: 2
True, Intel dominates at the top, but I have yet to see a reason to spend the extra money on Intel hardware. The performance increase, at least for me, does not justify the cost.


AMD Has the Edge Going Forward Due To Market Shifts
By Arsynic on 4/22/2011 10:57:23 AM , Rating: 2
The PC used to be the most accessible and affordable computing device for most people and with that market Intel has mindshare. However, today, the smartphone and tablet are emerging as the most accessible computing devices. With these devices, Intel has no mindshare. Atom was a flop on netbooks and ARM, Qualcomm and Nvidia are where it's at in these markets. None of them are particularly strong and I can easily see AMD becoming the 800 lb gorilla in the mobile market.

I think an Intel purchase of Nvidia is imminent. It's almost a given.




By bupkus on 4/22/2011 11:27:22 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
I think an Intel purchase of Nvidia is imminent. It's almost a given.
Perhaps, but if so why not earlier-- before Fermi?


By Iketh on 4/22/2011 4:22:43 PM , Rating: 2
Because Intel's ego got in the way. They thought they could do it themselves. Remember Larrabee?

Granted, I'm sure they can, but they thought they could imediately compete with the big boys starting from scratch.

http://www.techradar.com/news/computing-components...


Dominance?
By MrTeal on 4/22/2011 12:51:12 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The strong earnings were largely driven by AMD's continued dominance in GPU sales.

Strange, if you follow the link to the other GPU article, you see...

quote:
AMD had 24.4% of the GPU market for the quarter, Intel held 54.9%, and NVIDIA has 19.7% of the market.


Even if you look at AMD's claims in the discrete market, it's hardly a dominant position.
quote:
AMD claims that in the discrete graphics market it holds 51.1% of the market with NVIDIA having 44.5% of the market.




RE: Dominance?
By silverblue on 4/22/2011 8:16:06 PM , Rating: 2
Yes, but whereas NVIDIA is a graphics company first and foremost, AMD is a CPU company, and is still beating a graphics company for market share, if you believe the figures.

The relative parity in market share is very good for consumers and long may it continue. I really cannot wait for both companies to reveal their next architectures.


RE: Dominance?
By SPOOFE on 4/24/2011 9:48:23 PM , Rating: 2
"Sales" and "market share" aren't the same. The former eventually leads to the other, but market share includes devices that were sold years ago, whereas sales are, well, recent sales.

AMD's recent graphics card sales are, indeed, dominating. This dominating presence has given it slightly better market share than nVidia. If AMD's dominating sales continue, it will eventually have a dominating market share compared to nVidia.

Further, "sales" can also imply or indicate "revenue from sales", in which case Intel's higher market share (of much cheaper chips) need not necessarily involve "greater revenue from sales".


AMD board....
By Amiga500 on 4/22/2011 11:56:31 AM , Rating: 3
Why did the gormless idiots sack Dirk Meyer?

From the outside, it is incredibly hard to see an semblance of a logical reason.




RE: AMD board....
By ekv on 4/22/2011 3:26:49 PM , Rating: 2
What I've been talking about! They finally get someone who knows what they're doing, he turns things around -- these numbers totally, overwhelmingly vindicate him -- AMD is hitting on all cylinders, and they accept his resignation?! Perhaps there is overlap tween AMD's board of directors and, say, Boeing? Stupid.


Impressive Net Income? Hardly
By Khato on 4/22/2011 2:16:32 PM , Rating: 2
It really should have been noted that the 'impressive' 510M net income was due purely to their changing from the equity method of accounting to the cost method of accounting for their remaining investment in global foundries. Remaining investment because they were only able to change the accounting practice because they went from 30% ownership to 14%.

Soon as you remove that one-time accounting ploy from their numbers, you're left with yet another quarter of barely positive operating income of 54M. The far more interesting numbers are the actual breakdown of operating income between graphics and CPU - graphics was down to a measly 19M (compared to 68M last quarter and 47M a year ago), while CPU was at 100M (compared to 91M last quarter and 146M a year ago.)

So yeah, the strong earnings were not at all "largely driven by AMD's continued dominance in GPU sales." An argument could be made that the CPU income was up thanks to fusion, but that's questionable seeing as how Intel's PC client group showed roughly the same percent increase compared to Q4.




Fantastic News
By PassionForGod on 4/23/2011 4:02:05 AM , Rating: 2
I'm glad to see AMD finally bringing in profits after consecutive quarters of financial loses. It might not be much compare to Intel but it's better than none.

Live your life for God.. and God will lead your life to a world full of LOVE and true HAPPINESS.




amd competitive??
By frozentundra123456 on 4/25/2011 7:55:39 AM , Rating: 2
This is good news, but one quarter does not a profitable company make. Lets see if they can keep making profits now since Sandy Bridge is shipping, and if they can continue to compete with nVidia in the GPU market. Also, it seems that if the GPU on fusion is too good, they might cut into the sales of low end discrete cards.

Dont get me wrong, I would like to see AMD be profitable, but one quarter is not enough to say they have turned the corner, especially with more competition from Intel and if the economic recovery should take a turn for the worse due to high oil prices, debt, etc.




By phazers on 4/25/2011 12:16:38 PM , Rating: 2
According to the quarterly report anyway..

In the conference call, Seifert also admitted that AMD was down to 6.6% in server marketshare. What happened with Magny Cours??




Wow, AMD Fluff article
By BSMonitor on 4/25/2011 2:59:04 PM , Rating: 2
AMD isn't posed to do anything.

quote:
It appears that AMD is, at the moment, out-competing Intel much in the same way it outcompeted graphics chipmaker NVIDIA Corp. (NVDA) -- by attacking the low end. Of course, AMD's growing Fusion sales likely would not have been possible were it not for new scrutiny from U.S. and European antitrust regulators that forced Intel to stop paying off OEMs to ignore AMD designs.


B.S.

quote:
By contrast Intel Corp.'s (INTC) latest design Sandy Bridge, also packs an on-die CPU/GPU pairing. But the onboard GPU is significantly weaker, the power consumption is higher, and the chip is more expensive. Thus while it is solution of choice for high-power enthusiast desktops and laptops, it's less than optimal for the much larger budget laptop/desktop market.


The unreleased desktop Fusions with no credible benchmarks to be seen? Where are you getting this from?

B.S.

quote:
The Fusion chips are proving so popular for several regions. First, AMD has priced them very competitively, so they're winding up in very affordable laptop designs. Secondly, the chips are very power efficient. And finally they offer a nice performance blend, offering sufficient CPU performance and relatively powerful GPU performance.


The only Fusions available are in the form of netbook chips. And sales wise are 3 years behind Atom processors.

======

Let's Sum Up.

Intel profit, $3.3 Billion.

AMD revenue, $1.6 Billion.

Intel is making 2 times more profit than AMD is turning in revenue.

And 61 times more profit than AMD profit. (operating, not gifts from the EU and Intel Settlement)

Are you the Kool-Aide man?

Ohhh, that's right, you didn't post the the highest ever revenue for Intel and its record processor sales. Because you are an AMD fanboy trying to stir up warm and fuzzy AMD feeling from the 1990s.

Also, you fail to mention that the spun off Global Foundries is probably losing money hand over fist to keep AMD profitable.




NO SHlT!
By Pirks on 4/22/2011 10:03:02 AM , Rating: 1
modern AMD GPUs pwn everyone violently in RC5-72, you generate like TWO BILLION keys a SECOND on a 5870 this is insane no high end Intel chips can get any close to that and won't be able to in years woohoo!!!

GO GO GO AMD!!!

not even mentioning ma cheapo AMD machines I assembled for all ma relatives keep rockin hard and fast, woohoo

still won't get rid of my Wolfdale gaming rig though, this one is nice for high end gaming and Sandy Bridge overclocks totally insanely compared to poor AMD which will bring me even higher in the OGR-NG ranks

woohoo!!! :P

P.S. btw wake me up when there is a fusion equipped 14" laptop that can beat my Asus Intel CULV equipped one with 14 hours of battery life (I know Tony is jealous about it but come on Tony, what did you expect when you were buying all your Apple gear man? :PPP hehee)




HD3000 vs Fusion
By wharblgarbl on 4/22/11, Rating: -1
RE: HD3000 vs Fusion
By Manch on 4/22/2011 11:00:09 AM , Rating: 1
I think the framerate advantage on the BF:BC graph is more because of the CPU than the GPU.


RE: HD3000 vs Fusion
By JasonMick (blog) on 4/22/2011 11:16:50 AM , Rating: 5
quote:
I think the framerate advantage on the BF:BC graph is more because of the CPU than the GPU.


EXACTLY.

The original op needs to stop spreading FUD.

The quote Anandtech:

quote:
In all cases the HD 6310 acquits itself fairly well compared to the other integrated parts, but CPU performance takes its pound of flesh. Bumping settings down can improve the situation (usually these lower-powered parts will hit bandwidth limitations at 720p and can come into their own at around 800x600) and at that point you're liable to see a substantial improvement over the Nile platform's Mobility Radeon HD 4225, but at the end of the day we're still pretty heavily processor limited.


If they had even read the article you offered a benchmark from, they would see that the AMD beats the Sandy Bridge chip in framerates in 4/6 games.

Their comment is utterly ridiculous. As I said Sandy Bridge has a much more powerful CPU core, no one is arguing that. But the only way Brazos chips can beat it in framerates is because they enjoy a BIG advantage over Sandy Bridge's GPU.

To the original op -- PLEASE inform yourself better in the future.

Honestly AMD deserves a lot of credit here. They've created a chip that's much cheaper than Sandy Bridge, but delivers slightly SUPERIOR performance in most graphics heavy apps and sufficient performance in most CPU intensive apps for the average user (who doesn't generally care about their FutureMark scores...).


RE: HD3000 vs Fusion
By Aikouka on 4/22/2011 11:33:39 AM , Rating: 3
Jason, if you read the Brazos review, the E-350 is bested in 10/13 games compared to the Radeon 5450, which as we know is last generation's weakest card:

http://www.anandtech.com/show/4134/the-brazos-revi...

Now, check out this article:

http://www.anandtech.com/show/4083/the-sandy-bridg...

This article shows that the Radeon 5450, when compared to Intel's HD3000 in the same motherboard, fails to surpass Intel's latest graphics. The perfect test would involve as much similar hardware as possible, but that's simply not going to happen. So, following simple logic of A > B; B > C therefore A > C... Intel's HD3000 > Radeon 6310 (Fusion GPU).

There's a "but" though! The HD3000 is only in the i5 and i7. Looking at the same URL, the HD2000 (featured in the much cheaper i3 - ~$130) cannot beat the Radeon HD5450, which means that chances are the Fusion GPU would either be close in performance or quite likely beat it.

You can also compare price. The E-350 provided in the Anandtech review costs about as much for the CPU + Motherboard as Intel's i3 processor costs alone. Although, the i3 processor is most likely significantly faster.


RE: HD3000 vs Fusion
By wharblgarbl on 4/22/2011 11:39:53 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
Honestly AMD deserves a lot of credit here. They've created a chip that's much cheaper than Sandy Bridge, but delivers slightly SUPERIOR performance in most graphics heavy apps and sufficient performance in most CPU intensive apps for the average user (who doesn't generally care about their FutureMark scores...).


The fact is this isn't true though. Your argument seems to be that if you took the AMD GPU and paired it with a capable CPU, that it would be faster than Sandy Bridge's GPU. That could be true, but it's irrelevant. You're buying a system, not a CPU or a GPU. Sandy Bridge systems are faster than Fusion systems in both CPU and graphics workloads.

quote:
If they had even read the article you offered a benchmark from, they would see that the AMD beats the Sandy Bridge chip in framerates in 4/6 games.


I'm not sure which article you're referring to, the chart I posted was from this article: http://www.anandtech.com/show/4262/asus-k53e-testi...
You'll notice a pattern, the E-350 is at the bottom of every single chart. Jarred even says this:
quote:
What about the AMD E-350 comparison? As we just finished discussing, 3DMark shows the K53E coming in 125% faster than the E-350, though as we’ve noted in the past 3DMark can either skew things too much or too little towards CPU performance. Move over to our suite of games and the K53E still posts much higher scores than the E-350, but now the margin of victory is 88% .


quote:
To the original op -- PLEASE inform yourself better in the future.


I suggest you take your own advice.


RE: HD3000 vs Fusion
By Da W on 4/22/2011 12:06:03 PM , Rating: 3
E-350 is a 18watt piece, an atom-class CPU/GPU, and if it beats HD 3000 or not is irrelevant, Sandy Bridge is a 75-95watt piece! Wait for the equivalent AMD APU Llano. Then you can go into a dick contest if you wish.


RE: HD3000 vs Fusion
By Khato on 4/22/2011 1:55:39 PM , Rating: 2
Except for the fact that... dual core sandy bridge systems without discrete graphics nearly match E-350 power consumption.

The HP dm1z is currently the best of the E-350 platforms as far as power consumption is concerned, many of the other models have 1.5x to 2x the idle power consumption. But according to notebookcheck, http://www.notebookcheck.net/Review-HP-Pavilion-dm... it still draws 5.5W idle, and then a maximum of 21W. An amusing fact is that a C-50 based design they also reviewed barely did any better, http://www.notebookcheck.net/Review-Toshiba-NB550D... 5.4W minimum idle and 19.8W max. Meanwhile an underpowered atom beats 'em out at 4.3W idle and 14.4W max - http://www.notebookcheck.net/Review-Acer-Aspire-On...

Of course the important point for this discussion are dual core sandy bridge systems. The best example that they test is the T420 at 6.8W idle and 28.6W max - http://www.notebookcheck.net/Review-Lenovo-Thinkpa... aka, barely higher power consumption than the E-350 based laptop for -far- higher performance. The only reason to buy an E-350 is price, and there's no question that you get what you pay for with regard to performance.


RE: HD3000 vs Fusion
By JasonMick (blog) on 4/22/2011 1:01:40 PM , Rating: 4
You're still confused.

quote:
I'm not sure which article you're referring to, the chart I posted was from this article: http://www.anandtech.com/show/4262/asus-k53e-testi...
You'll notice a pattern, the E-350 is at the bottom of every single chart. Jarred even says this:


Just to clarify I'm referring to the HP dm1z piece:
http://www.anandtech.com/show/4187/hp-dm1z-taking-...

To spell out the results of benchmarks.

Battlefield: BC2
1. HP dm1z (Brazos: E-350) 15.9 FPS
2. Dell Latitude 6410 (Sandy Bridge: i5-520M) 14.9 FPS
3. Asus 1215N (D525 + Ion) 14.1 FPS
4. Toshiba T235D (Turion II K625 "Nile") 6.8 FPS

DiRT2
1. Dell Latitude 6410 (Sandy Bridge: i5-520M) 24.1 FPS
2. HP dm1z (Brazos: E-350) 23.5 FPS
3. Toshiba T235D (Turion II K625 "Nile") 16.0 FPS
4. Asus 1215N (D525 + Ion) 15.8 FPS

Left 4 Dead 2
1. HP dm1z (Brazos: E-350) 23.7 FPS
2. Asus 1215N (D525 + Ion) 20.2 FPS
3. Dell Latitude 6410 (Sandy Bridge: i5-520M) 19.7 FPS
4. Toshiba T235D (Turion II K625 "Nile") 16.3 FPS

Mass Effect 2
1. Asus 1215N (D525 + Ion) 19.8 FPS
2. HP dm1z (Brazos: E-350) 15.6 FPS
3. Dell Latitude 6410 (Sandy Bridge: i5-520M) 14.8 FPS
4. Toshiba T235D (Turion II K625 "Nile") 9.9 FPS

Stalker: Call of Pripyat
1. Asus 1215N (D525 + Ion) 45.3 FPS
2. HP dm1z (Brazos: E-350) 23.7 FPS
3. Dell Latitude 6410 (Sandy Bridge: i5-520M) 16.4 FPS
4. Toshiba T235D (Turion II K625 "Nile") 14.9 FPS

StarCraft II: Wings of Liberty
1. Toshiba T235D (Turion II K625 "Nile") 35.8 FPS
2. Dell Latitude 6410 (Sandy Bridge: i5-520M) 31.5 FPS
3. HP dm1z (Brazos: E-350) 27.6 FPS
4. Asus 1215N (D525 + Ion) 17.9 FPS

Again AMD is ahead of Intel's i5 Sandy Bridge laptop in 4/6 tests. It is the leader in 3/6 tests. An NVIDIA ION based platform is the leader in 2/6 tests. And a "Nile" platform (Turion II+IGP) is strangely able to lead in Starcraft II WOL... a rather strange result.

But my above statements were accurate.

You're referring to a comparison with a much more expensive i7 CPU. But as the i5 test shows, the GPU in Sandy Bridge is less powerful than the on-die Evergreen design in Brazos, even though CPU core is more powerful (or MUCH MORE powerful in the i7's case...).

My original statement was correct, yours was not.


RE: HD3000 vs Fusion
By MrTeal on 4/22/2011 1:24:01 PM , Rating: 3
Jason, the i5-520M isn't a SNB chip. The SNB chip would be labeled something like i5-2510M. The i5-520M is a 2.4GHz Arrandale chip.


RE: HD3000 vs Fusion
By JasonMick (blog) on 4/22/2011 1:48:30 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Jason, the i5-520M isn't a SNB chip. The SNB chip would be labeled something like i5-2510M. The i5-520M is a 2.4GHz Arrandale chip.


Whoops, thanks for the catch... you're right.

However, I believe my point still stands and here's why.

The Sandy Bridge chip's GPU (HD 2000) has half the EU's of the Ironlake IGP in the Arrandale chip, though they're clocked higher.

So I doubt it will perform better from a GPU standpoint, though it will likely be disguised by superior CPU core performance when going from Arrandale.

At the end of the day, I believe my statement that the on-die Evergreen GPU in Fusion is faster than its closest competitor the HD 2000 found in Sandy Bridge, is 100 percent accurate.


RE: HD3000 vs Fusion
By wharblgarbl on 4/22/2011 2:39:29 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
At the end of the day, I believe my statement that the on-die Evergreen GPU in Fusion is faster than its closest competitor the HD 2000 found in Sandy Bridge, is 100 percent accurate.


So the closest competitor is Intel's lowest performance Sandy Bridge mobile chip? Then it's the HD 3000. Intel doesn't ship the HD 2000 in a mobile chip, not even the lowly i3.

You really just need to admit that you were wrong. You claimed that AMD's Brazos graphics were significantly faster than Sandy Bridge graphics, and your supporting evidence was that it was about equal to Arrandale. You didn't change your mind when it was pointed out that you were using the wrong data. Even with the right data, showing that Sandy Bridge is 88% faster than Brazos, you didn't change your mind.

You said that the discrepancy was due to Sandy Bridge's superior CPU performance, but Aikouka debunked this by comparing both against the Radeon 5450. This didn't change your mind, or even get a response.

Now you change your statement that the Brazos GPU is faster than Sandy Bridge's slower iGPU, seemingly conceding that it's much slower than the HD 3000. But the closest competitor to Brazos is the HD 3000, since the HD 2000 isn't available in Sandy Bridge laptops.

You were wrong. It's okay to admit it.


RE: HD3000 vs Fusion
By wharblgarbl on 4/22/2011 1:37:43 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
You're referring to a comparison with a much more expensive i7 CPU. But as the i5 test shows, the GPU in Sandy Bridge is less powerful than the on-die Evergreen design in Brazos, even though CPU core is more powerful (or MUCH MORE powerful in the i7's case...).


I'm referring to a comparison of the dual-core i5, not the i7. The i5 is 88% faster, on average, than the E-350.

quote:
Sandy Bridge: i5-520M


As MrTeal notes, this is an Arrandale chip, not Sandy Bridge. If the E-350 is about equal to Arrandale, and Sandy Bridge is twice as fast as Arrandale, then Sandy Bridge is twice as fast as E-350.

You're still confused.

My original statement was correct, yours was not.


RE: HD3000 vs Fusion
By Reclaimer77 on 4/23/2011 10:38:50 AM , Rating: 2
I think you are taking a pretty silly position. Sandy Bridge is a single unit. You are trying to differentiate between it's GPU and CPU performance, and that's just silly. It's a combo deal. If the "weak" GPU is being made up by it's faster CPU, so what? Who cares? Total system performance is the goal here people. In case you haven't noticed, gaming isn't all about the GPU, they are very CPU intensive also, as well as system memory.

quote:
Honestly AMD deserves a lot of credit here. They've created a chip that's much cheaper than Sandy Bridge, but delivers slightly SUPERIOR performance in most graphics heavy apps and sufficient performance in most CPU intensive apps for the average user (who doesn't generally care about their FutureMark scores...).


Wait what? So you flame Intel for having a "weaker" GPU made up for it by a superior GPU. But you give AMD a free pass for putting a superior GPU with a weak CPU. Oh, it's "sufficient"? Well isn't that special Jason. So why aren't you just saying Intel's graphic solution for Sandy Bridge is "sufficient" too? Your fanboi is showing...

At the end of the day, using your numbers, Sandy Bridge losses by a whopping 1 or 2 FPS in most benchmarks, and beats AMD in a few. Again, you're trying way too hard. At the end of the day we're splitting hairs here.


RE: HD3000 vs Fusion
By raddude9 on 4/22/2011 12:00:18 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The HD3000 in Sandy Bridge is about twice as fast as fusion's built-in GPU. Please correct this.


Your comment makes even less sense than the original article! Fusion is a brand, not a model. How do you know the HD3000 will beat the new Fusion Llano chips?


RE: HD3000 vs Fusion
By MrTeal on 4/22/2011 12:56:43 PM , Rating: 2
It might be a little confusing as the AMD guy was talking about Llano and the linked article about power efficiency was talking about Zacate; but the GPU in Llano will be quite a bit more powerful than the HD3000. Fusion itself doesn't refer to any specific GPU or CPU.


RE: HD3000 vs Fusion
By wharblgarbl on 4/22/2011 2:53:20 PM , Rating: 2
You're right. I'm saying fusion, but I mean Zacate/Brazos, which is what's being credited for AMD's quarterly results. My mistake.


RE: HD3000 vs Fusion
By Jeffk464 on 4/22/2011 5:51:55 PM , Rating: 2
Llano comes in many different forms, but the underlying theme is that its phenom based and wont be able to touch intel's sandy bridge performance. The only thing that makes them competitive is the integrated radeon. It will be more interesting to see how bulldozer competes with ivy bridge, I think this one is still up in the air.


"Spreading the rumors, it's very easy because the people who write about Apple want that story, and you can claim its credible because you spoke to someone at Apple." -- Investment guru Jim Cramer














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki