backtop


Print 64 comment(s) - last by icanhascpu.. on Sep 18 at 5:04 AM


AMD's 18 W dual-core Zacate packs two Bobcat Cores and a dedicate on-chip GPU die capable of handling gaming and 1080p video.  (Source: Slashgear)

NVIDIA recently announced a dual-core version of its ARM Tegra APU. NVIDIA was the first to release an APU, but the ARM core aboard Tegra is incompatible with Windows 7.  (Source: Reuters)
Look out AMD, you aren't the only incoming SoC solution anymore

 

AMD looks to soon capitalize on its success as the new sales king of the GPU market, by launching in early 2011 its "Fusion" products, which puts a GPU and CPU together on a single die.

At the IFA 2010 trade show in Germany this week, AMD showed off an 18W TDP Fusion system-on-a-chip (SOC) solution.  The chip combines dual 
Bobcat cores with AMD graphics, in what AMD calls an Accelerated Processing Unit (APU).  

The product is codenamed "Zacate" and looks like it could make a splash on the notebook scene thanks to its ability to decode 1080p video and play modern video games (all on a lean power budget).  Such a processor would be particularly desirable to ultra-portable designs.

Unfortunately for AMD it isn't the only one cooking up an APU.  
Bloomberg is reporting that Intel Chief Executive Officer Paul Otellini will show off his own company's take on a GPU+CPU SOC at the Intel Developer Forum in San Francisco next week.

The announcement creates in an interestingly competitive scenario -- AMD arguably has more GPU experience and the better graphics hardware technology.  But Intel has had superior CPU processing per dollar for some time now.  

John Taylor, a spokesman for the Sunnyvale, California-based AMD is quick to note his company's graphics edge, stating, "There are decades of research and design that goes into our discrete graphics.  Intel has yet to deliver a product that has discrete-level performance. Right now, it’s just claims."

Of course those are bold words coming from a company that has experienced plenty of delays of its own in the past.

Intel is reportedly confident that it can outcompete AMD in terms of price.  But its integrated graphics processors thus far have been far from stellar performers, to say the least.  So who will pull off the APU upset?  The CPU champion, or the GPU grandmaster?  The financial stakes are high and the market is wide open; customers can eagerly await a hard fought battle and the release of some exciting new options in 2011.

 



Comments     Threshold


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

AMD for the win... and easily.
By Amiga500 on 9/10/2010 3:02:12 PM , Rating: 3
Their CPU will be good enough to allow the far superior iGPU to trounce the Intel offering.

The current rumour mill would have the Ontario graphics at a level close to Sandy Bridge!

Intel have a long way to go to become competitive per mm^2 on the iGPU front.




RE: AMD for the win... and easily.
By omnicronx on 9/10/2010 3:16:03 PM , Rating: 5
Intel is just trying to take some wind out of the sales of AMD.. Anyone who knows about Intel's previous failed dedicated offerings know they have no idea what it takes to get a good GPU on the market.

Considering it was only a little over a year ago that Intel gave up on X86 GPU technology, I find it hard to believe that this upcomming product is anything but a rushed mishmash product to try and compete with AMD.

Intel has never released a good GPU of any kind, why on earth should we believe that their combined offering would be any different? Especially on such a short timeline?


RE: AMD for the win... and easily.
By Reclaimer77 on 9/10/10, Rating: -1
RE: AMD for the win... and easily.
By omnicronx on 9/10/2010 3:51:17 PM , Rating: 5
Whats your point?

AMD bought ATI and thus absorbed the products and their knowledge of said products.. AMD has successfully been able to bring ATI back to profitability and have release chips that were hardly on the horizon pre acquisition. There is no comparison between the two companies when it comes to dedicated GPU expertise. Please don't try and claim otherwise..

Intel has failed more than once in bringing a dedicated GPU to the market. If they can't get to the dedicated GPU market with baby steps, I just don't believe for a second that the GPU portion of these chips will be comparable to bobcat..

My guess, the GPU portion of these chips will be sub par, and as usual Intel will shine with the CPU portion.


RE: AMD for the win... and easily.
By Reclaimer77 on 9/10/10, Rating: -1
RE: AMD for the win... and easily.
By Amiga500 on 9/10/2010 4:19:42 PM , Rating: 5
He didn't claim anything like that.

You could do with reading what he actually wrote, rather than what you wanted him to write.


RE: AMD for the win... and easily.
By omnicronx on 9/10/2010 4:31:07 PM , Rating: 5
Please explain to me where I ever implied that ATI has nothing to do with AMD's superior GPU's. In fact I was pretty much claiming the exact opposite..

I was going against your stupid claim that AMD does not have said expertise, regardless of how it was gained.

FYI: You are calling out the wrong person. I lived quite near and now work right beside the ATI building (and now the AMD building) in Markham Ontario. I've been an ATI fan before most people knew whom ATI was. As I result I find it funny you are calling me out for not giving ATI credit where it is due..

That said, I'm still not exclusive to any brand. I have Intel and AMD's machines, I also have AMD and Nvidia cards. Its based on my needs not favoritism ;)


RE: AMD for the win... and easily.
By Reclaimer77 on 9/10/10, Rating: -1
RE: AMD for the win... and easily.
By SPOOFE on 9/10/2010 6:13:19 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
I never said that at all.

Yes, you did.
"...they [Intel] have no idea what it takes to get a good GPU on the market."
Neither does AMD either.
You flat out stated AMD does not have the expertise. Don't pretend you didn't just because you butchered proper sentence structure. :D


By icanhascpu on 9/18/2010 5:04:35 AM , Rating: 2
You should probably stop drinking before posting here.

Hello!


RE: AMD for the win... and easily.
By EricMartello on 9/10/2010 7:12:40 PM , Rating: 2
To date, Intel has utterly failed on the GPU front. I don't really understand how a company with the resources of Intel could fail to produce a compelling GPU that is competitive with ATI or NVIDIA, but my guess is corporate politics and maybe a not so bad desire to keep the focus on CPUs.

AMD the company merged with ATI to gain the IP of ATI, thereby enabling them to become competitive in the GPU market. That's what companies do...but reclaimer is not wrong in his statement, he is correct in saying that AMD themselves did not have the expertise to produce a GPU.

It's a fair statement of fact - because if ATI was unwilling to allow AMD to buy them out, AMD would be worse off than Intel is now with GPUs...and as we all know, AMD is not exactly shining in the CPU department either.

The point being that merging with a company to gain IP is a valid business tactic but it's not to be confused with genuine innovation. AMD made a good choice to buy out ATI, but ATI did all the legwork and laid in the technical foundation for powerful GPUs with their Radeon brand...simply because the tech is marketed under AMD's banner does not warrant giving credit to AMD for the technical aspects of the product. AMD made a good business move but there is no props for technical innovation due.


RE: AMD for the win... and easily.
By Solandri on 9/10/2010 7:46:42 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
To date, Intel has utterly failed on the GPU front.

Intel has utterly failed on the dedicated GPU front. In terms of actual video chipset units sold, Intel is the leader. Their integrated graphics solutions ship more units than ATI and nVidia combined. I agree with you that Intel has failed laughably at the mid- and high-end GPU market. But at the low end where low cost, value, and low power draw are priorities, Intel is king.
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2367210,00.as...

I really wish AMD and nVidia would make more than a token effort to compete in this low-end low-power market. I suspect with their expertise they could make a much better-performing integrated video card than Intel with the same power consumption. Which I suppose is what this move by AMD is all about - challenging Intel's dominance of the integrated video chipset market.

quote:
AMD made a good choice to buy out ATI, but ATI did all the legwork and laid in the technical foundation for powerful GPUs with their Radeon brand...simply because the tech is marketed under AMD's banner does not warrant giving credit to AMD for the technical aspects of the product. AMD made a good business move but there is no props for technical innovation due.

ATI and AMD are one and the same now. It's pointless trying to make an artificial distinction between them because they are the same entity now. Intel is not trying to compete with AMD and ATI separately. They are trying to compete with the new AMD which bought ATI.


By EricMartello on 9/11/2010 3:58:34 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Intel has utterly failed on the dedicated GPU front. In terms of actual video chipset units sold, Intel is the leader. Their integrated graphics solutions ship more units than ATI and nVidia combined. I agree with you that Intel has failed laughably at the mid- and high-end GPU market. But at the low end where low cost, value, and low power draw are priorities, Intel is king. http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2367210,00.as...


I don't think Intel even offers a discrete GPU anymore after their "XTREME GRAPHICS 3D" or whatever it was got put to shame by Matrox back in the day. What I mean by failed is not in terms of sales, rather performance and technology. Yes, you'll find Intel's garbage video chipsets in just about every integrated solution out there - it works, but most people are unaware of just how poorly it performs. I'd rather have a low end Radeon or Geforce any day over Intel's integrated graphics.

quote:
I really wish AMD and nVidia would make more than a token effort to compete in this low-end low-power market. I suspect with their expertise they could make a much better-performing integrated video card than Intel with the same power consumption. Which I suppose is what this move by AMD is all about - challenging Intel's dominance of the integrated video chipset market.


There are a handful of motherboards with AMD and NVIDIA graphics chipsets embedded. I have one with an integrated NVIDIA 9400 which is far better than whatever Intel has. Perhaps in a laptop where battery life is an issue, intel may have an advantage, but now there is "optimus" or whatever from Nvidia that lets you use intel for 2D and a discrete Nvidia GPU for gaming.

Quite frankly I don't know why the don't just have the GPU go into a standby state when no 3D is being used, and have 2D processed by a secondary processor. That would eliminate excessive power draw during idle, and for desktops, could reduce case temps and noise.


By FITCamaro on 9/10/2010 8:14:01 PM , Rating: 4
AMD acquired ATI so they had a complete solution. OEMs weren't using them largely because they did not have everything from the CPU to motherboard to GPU. Thats what OEMs want. No worries about compatibility. So with ATI to make their GPUs and help them with their chipsets, they had that.


RE: AMD for the win... and easily.
By Amiga500 on 9/10/2010 4:18:42 PM , Rating: 3
Uhhh - and your point is?!?!

Q: Can AMD utilise the knowledge of the leading GPU designers in their fusion CPU/GPUs?

A: Yes

Q: Can Intel utilise the knowledge of even a competent GPU design team into their fusion CPU/GPUs?

A: No


RE: AMD for the win... and easily.
By wut on 9/10/2010 8:15:01 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Q: Can Intel utilise the knowledge of even a competent GPU design team into their fusion CPU/GPUs?


Oh yes it can. Didn't you read Anand's own Sandy Bridge benchmarks? Its on-die graphics is on par with Radeon HD5450.


RE: AMD for the win... and easily.
By ekv on 9/11/2010 1:45:38 AM , Rating: 2
You know, you're right. I did read that the other day. SB does put a fair amount of pressure on AMD.

Fortunately, Hector RUInZ is no longer at the helm and AMD has been performing consistently, if not above average. I don't think ATI graphics are to worry about. The CPU side of the equation though ... I think the gas main has been turned off and the fire is out, as it were, but now they have some catching up to do.

The competition will be interesting. Keep your eye on the memory bandwidth numbers, and whether AMD can ever get more/larger cache on-chip.


RE: AMD for the win... and easily.
By Amiga500 on 9/11/2010 5:16:09 AM , Rating: 2
But to put that into perspective, Ontario is supposed to have performance around that of a 5450 - and Ontario is far, far, far smaller than Sandy Bridge.

Llano on the other hand, supposedly has performance in the 5670-5750 bracket! Thus, as usual, Intel are about 2 to 3x slower than the market leader.


RE: AMD for the win... and easily.
By theapparition on 9/11/2010 12:32:22 PM , Rating: 1
As enthusiasts, we all know that Intel doesn't have a competitive high end graphics processor.

But in no way try to translate that into an Intel failure.

I have no doubt, that if Intel's business case determined that they needed a high end GPU, they'd either develope a competitve offering or purchase one (nVidia?). But as of now, looking at Intels current market position and revenues, they seem to think there is no need. With good reason.

For most consumer level computers, there is absolutely no need for faster graphics.....or even faster CPU's. Do you really need more than 1997 technology to browse the web, run Word and Excel or play solitare esque games?

Of course power users and enthusiasts like ourselves will absolutely appreciate advances, but the average consumer won't. Demographics have switched and now it's all about mobile computing.

Intel is still the largest provider of GPU's on the planet. Yes, they all suck, but they don't suck just enough for the majority to be content. Not only that, but by offering extreamly low cost and high profit chipsets, Intel has not only fortified it's marketshare, but deprived competitors potential sales.

Does everyone seem to think that the largest and most successful chip manufacturer in history couldn't make a world class GPU if need be? It's ok to play brand favorites, just don't be naive about it.


RE: AMD for the win... and easily.
By inighthawki on 9/11/2010 3:15:37 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Does everyone seem to think that the largest and most successful chip manufacturer in history couldn't make a world class GPU if need be? It's ok to play brand favorites, just don't be naive about it.


I think that is mostly a result of "Larabee" - a disaster of an attempt at a GPU, but this doesnt necessarily mean it will translate to no ability to make a high end gpu, just a failure at making a high end x86-based gpu


By MGSsancho on 9/12/2010 3:01:32 AM , Rating: 2
Intel still has them for development but I do not think they care that much. Intel goes after the most profitable portions of markets. Intel will always have budget, mainstream and enthusiast chipsets. Even in their integrated/budget offerings they still give you enough PCI-E lanes for a discrete add-on card. Maybe they just want to have a platform that even at entry level you can have fully hardware accelerated video/youtube. I remember several years ago you almost needed at least a geforce 2 if you wanted to watched a dvd or a downloaded file. With AMD's upcoming and Intel's upcoming offerings, every system will have full hardware accelerated video. this means even a cheap system can me formatted to me a multimedia machine with out hunting down a mobo and parts to get it all working. All we would need to do is look for the cheapest mobo in the form factor we want.

Intel tried very hard and very long for a dedicated video card, but it wasn't good enough to compete with their green and red rivals to run crysis. Team blue's green's and red's budgets were good enough for baseline/main H264 profile playback and for HD youtube, all of their new products will be good enough for High Profile settings for H264 (bluray.)

I do not see why we are having a pissing war. Only people buying dedicated graphics cards will be gamers, animators, artist (built-in chips dont have many options for color correction. maybe the new ones will,) developers and those who run applications that use cuda/opencl/gnugpu applications.


RE: AMD for the win... and easily.
By Smartless on 9/10/2010 3:34:17 PM , Rating: 2
Have to agree with your wind out of the "sales" analogy.

What's sad is name sells. Unless AMD hits a homerun, Intel will just sell. Only people here who keep track of reviews and benchmarks will know what's actually better. Sales will most likely be driven by Intel's name, the deals chipmakers make with manufacturers, and whoever makes the most noise.


RE: AMD for the win... and easily.
By SPOOFE on 9/10/2010 6:14:52 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Sales will most likely be driven by Intel's name

And businesses that don't give a damn about being able to play games, even current ones. Intel knows where the money is, unfortunately for the rest of us.


RE: AMD for the win... and easily.
By wut on 9/10/2010 8:23:19 PM , Rating: 2
Why? Because Anand said so in his Sandy Bridge preview. Take it up with Anand... Tell him to take down his Sandy Bridge integrated graphics benchmarks.


RE: AMD for the win... and easily.
By Danish1 on 9/12/2010 8:13:52 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
Intel has never released a good GPU of any kind


As an Intel shareholder I have to disagree with you. Good is defined by the bottom line and not serving your specific needs.


By inighthawki on 9/12/2010 2:58:16 PM , Rating: 2
And in his case, he uses good to define the quality vs the competition, in which case he is right.


RE: AMD for the win... and easily.
By Camikazi on 9/13/2010 11:18:18 AM , Rating: 2
Good is defined as whatever the person is basing his comparison on, and in this case it's performance and in that Intel has not been good.


RE: AMD for the win... and easily.
By Nutzo on 9/13/2010 11:37:11 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Intel has never released a good GPU of any kind,


Then I wonder how my year old laptop with an Intel GPU can play 1080p video over the HDMI connection to my TV?
Or how 95% of the people in my office get any work done since they have Intel GPU's.

Unless you are running 3D games, or have very specific 3D modeling requirements, the current Intel GPU's are fine.
The lower power requirements of the GPU on the laptop i5 chips also helps with battery life.


By monkeyman1140 on 9/13/2010 5:59:24 PM , Rating: 3
You could slap a 10 year old Matrox card in those office PC's and nobody would notice a change. Just because intel GPU's do a good Microsoft Word isn't an achievement

2D video doesn't require much horsepower.


I thought amd had best performance for the money?
By DoeBoy on 9/10/2010 2:55:47 PM , Rating: 4
"But Intel has had superior CPU processing per dollar for some time now."

I always thought that Intel consistently had much higher prices for their chips thus lowering the price/performance ratio. While their chips might perform better your paying a lot more for them. Somebody else chime in on this maybe I am wrong?




By inighthawki on 9/10/2010 3:01:46 PM , Rating: 2
Generally I would say that you are right. In certain cases, however, you can get great deals. I for example got a $200 i7 930, $100 less than a 1090T (at leats at the time, not sure of prices now), with much better gaming performance. I think the real deal-breakers in Intel setups are the costs of the motherboards with x58 chipsets, which can easily cost $200+ for a good one. On the other hand, I've seen plenty of great AMD boards for <$100, so coupled with a good cheap cpu, the entire build generally costs less.


By StevoLincolnite on 9/10/2010 4:30:30 PM , Rating: 3
I got my 1090T on special here in Australia, it was about $70 cheaper than the i7 930, I dropped it into my 4 year old Socket AM2+ system and called it a day.

Because I could keep the old motherboard and the old DDR2 memory...
It was an inexpensive upgrade compared to if I moved the machine to a Core i7 platform. (Would have had to buy a new Motherboard and DDR3 ram on top of it.)

AMD haven't been able to compete in IPC-per core for a long time now, which to most enthusiasts is common knowledge.
However they do generally give you more cores at each price point to rectify that which helps in heavily threaded applications.


By foolsgambit11 on 9/10/2010 4:39:23 PM , Rating: 3
I'd say for most complete system builds, in the mid- and low-end system range, AMD and Intel are generally neck and neck on p/p ratio for total system costs. For the processors alone, Intel has an advantage, though. Furthermore, I've heard that Intel has higher margins on their products in this range - i.e., their pricing is based off of AMD's more than vice-versa, so if push came to shove, Intel could improve their p/p ratio in these brackets. As it is, they rely more on brand recognition (now, let's not talk about their sordid allegedly anticompetitive past) to get higher system sales than AMD in the same price/performance bracket.

When it comes to new SOC designs, though, the price to performance questions are different than desktop parts. As the article mentions, the balance of CPU to GPU power will play a role in the p/p balance for these chips. Also, I'm guessing motherboard costs will be pretty similar between platforms (unlike current desktop parts). Intel may be able to deliver better CPU performance at the same price (and in the same power envelope). But if Intel systems need discrete GPUs to perform certain tasks (HD playback, modern gaming, etc.), that will shift the balance as well. Only time will tell how things fall out.


By inighthawki on 9/10/2010 5:03:55 PM , Rating: 3
AMD has some pretty good deals in mid-end cpus, such as <$100 quad core chips that are actually really good. I will say though that the p/p ratio is not always about price of cpu vs performance of cpu, but rather the price of the system vs its performance. Once you buy the cpu, a decent motherboard, and RAM, you can easily achieve a much better p/p ratio on an AMD system. This however varies slightly from deal to deal. Like I mentioned above, when I bought my system, I got an i7 930 for much cheaper than the 1090T, allowing me to save in the total build, it ended up a better deal.


By zpdixon on 9/11/2010 6:32:18 PM , Rating: 2
Your i7-930 $100 cheaper than a 1090T is not representative of the usual prices. As of today both processors sell around $290 +/- $10 on Newegg, Amazon, etc. So AMD has the perf/price advantage in this comparison (6-core 3.2GHz, vs. 4-core 2.8GHz: no contest).

The claim that "Intel has had superior CPU processing per dollar for some time now" in this DailyTech article is incorrect, when considering, strictly speaking, single-socket desktop processors (taking multi-socket processors, or low-voltage mobile processors out of the debate). Intel is generally recognized has having the advantage in absolute processor speed, not price/perf.


By inighthawki on 9/11/2010 10:38:45 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Your i7-930 $100 cheaper than a 1090T is not representative of the usual prices. As of today both processors sell around $290 +/- $10 on Newegg, Amazon, etc. So AMD has the perf/price advantage in this comparison (6-core 3.2GHz, vs. 4-core 2.8GHz: no contest).


Well yes I agree, that is why I specifically stated that in certain cases, the opposite can be true, such as the deal I got which allowed me to get a better deal on an Intel chip than an AMD chip. I in no way support the idea that Intel has the better price/performance ratio here.

But even speaking of what you said, the chip itself is only a fraction of the result. Add in a motherboard and the RAM to the equation and the AMD build can be much much cheaper. Since most newer AMD chips plug into a large market of existing motherboards, it allows for a HUGE performance boost utilizing an existing mb/ram combo.

Intel's offerings, on the other hand, do not have the same advantages. Even if you need a new motherboard for both an AMD and Intel setup, the Intel-based motherboards generally cost more, at least for enthusiast motherboards such as socket 1366 motherboards, whereas a higher end AM3 or AM2+ motherboard can be gotten for half, or even less.


By inighthawki on 9/10/2010 3:01:48 PM , Rating: 2
Generally I would say that you are right. In certain cases, however, you can get great deals. I for example got a $200 i7 930, $100 less than a 1090T (at leats at the time, not sure of prices now), with much better gaming performance. I think the real deal-breakers in Intel setups are the costs of the motherboards with x58 chipsets, which can easily cost $200+ for a good one. On the other hand, I've seen plenty of great AMD boards for <$100, so coupled with a good cheap cpu, the entire build generally costs less.


By omnicronx on 9/10/2010 3:39:57 PM , Rating: 2
This is not the server market, who cares about p/p for consumer chips alone? Its about the system as a hole, and I think AMD still has the slight edge there.. AMD boards are consistently cheaper than Intel based offerings.

Yes Performance is obviously a big variable, but when the price can be swayed as much as 1/3 for your entire system, the performance difference becomes negligeable. Especially when you consider upon release, these chips will not be found in high end system. (i.e performance variance will be a lot smaller than comparing higher end machines, especially for the average user)



By omnicronx on 9/10/2010 4:20:25 PM , Rating: 2
I said if the price was 1/3 of Intel offerings than Intels performance advantage would be negligible.

If AMD's offerings are 1/3 less than Intels, then Intel would have to offer performance than is 1/3 faster in order for their statements to be validated. Otherwise they don't truly have a better PPR..

My statement was trying to conclude they are most likely very equal, never way I trying to imply that Performance does not matter. That being said, if both are equal are you truly trying to say that the average user will splurge for the more expensive but more powerful offerings? Even though the lower end offering offers just as much value for what you are paying for it?

I don't agree with that statement one bit, performance offerings become more and more of a niche market the further you go up the scale. The mid to low end markets are always the cash cows for companies like Intel, AMD and Nvidia.

This also seems to indicate that price and not performance is the most compelling factor. (both certainly matter, but price is usually the tipping point)


By dark matter on 9/12/2010 7:43:58 AM , Rating: 4
It's your attitude that gets you the -1, very hostile and condescending. If your argument is valid your facts carry weight, if you need to color your arguments in a patronising way then you actually detract from what could be otherwise excellent points.

Hope this helps you.


By Reclaimer77 on 9/13/2010 9:24:20 AM , Rating: 2
Text isn't the best tool to convey sarcasm and "condescension". I think you are just reading things in my posts that just aren't there, or that come across poorly in text. I'm not patronizing anyone here. Maybe you should give others the benefit of the doubt given limited medium?

The simple fact is, if I was being "pro AMD" my same exact posting style that you claim is the problem would be getting 5's.

That's whats funny. I have nothing against AMD. I just personally believe you get what you pay for when it comes to electronics, and that Intel has the best platform going right now. Saving money isn't my main goal when building systems. Frankly I don't see what's so controversial and offensive about this opinion. Given Intels sales figures, I doubt I'm in some tiny minority either. So honestly, there is no way you can justify these -1's. It's this silly them vs us mentality.


By hyvonen on 9/12/2010 5:43:34 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
That being said, if both are equal are you truly trying to say that the average user will splurge for the more expensive but more powerful offerings? Even though the lower end offering offers just as much value for what you are paying for it?


I would argue that yes - a lot of times average customers opt for the more powerful/capable/better option. For instance, most people would be perfectly fine commuting in a tiniest Toyota Yaris/Chevy Aveo/whathaveyou, but still people tend to buy larger/faster/cooler/etc. cars.

Or, most people would be perfectly fine with the cheapest possible cell phone, or if smartphone capabilities are really needed, they could buy the cheapest Samsung/LG smart phone available. Yet they buy much more expensive iPhones and various Android phones because they are better/faster/cooler/etc. And these are regular people.


By inighthawki on 9/12/2010 9:33:09 PM , Rating: 2
Also to add to that, if offered two options with the same P/P ratio, then some may also look for more future-proof offerings, and as a result the faster offering is more appropriate despite being more than what they need now, since it could end up saving money in the future. That is an arguable point, though, so I'll leave it at that.


By Nehemoth on 9/10/2010 3:49:04 PM , Rating: 2
"But Intel has had superior CPU processing per dollar for some time now."

Lets hope this change when AMD introduce Bulldozer


Intelol
By spathotan on 9/10/2010 5:14:30 PM , Rating: 2
Awesome. This will probably garner as many supporters as Larabee did.

.....oh, wait.




RE: Intelol
By tastyratz on 9/10/2010 5:58:34 PM , Rating: 2
you said what we have all been thinking. intel is the champion of lackluster lukewarm graphics receptions with poor benchmarks. Being The king of cpu's does not make you any good at gpu's... Larabee should have been a learning experience.


RE: Intelol
By spathotan on 9/10/2010 6:58:59 PM , Rating: 2
I agree. But it isnt just that. When is the last time Intel actually....innovated? Or came up with something truly great? Core 2? Quads? i7/i5/i3 is nothing amazing, the hype and technical explinations it was given far outweighed its real world performance/use. A Q9550/9650 owner to this day still has NO reason to change to an i7 or i5. Intel exploited the socket change and offered an extremely overhyped product along with it. It was an easy way to screw vendors and it was fed by fluff benchmark scores.

The SoC's that are already around today....Snapdragon...OMAP....Hummingbird even, those are true innovation. 1ghz clock speeds, 512mb of RAM and GPUs capable of 22mil-90mil triangles per second. More powerful than a PS2. In a chip thats a few mm in size.


RE: Intelol
By tastyratz on 9/10/2010 8:16:25 PM , Rating: 2
innovation makes nice articles, cost to value makes sales. Intel has continued to make products that benchmark significantly faster than previous ones. The value that doesn't come into play now to upgrade has to do with the primary function of the personal computer.

Why don't you buy an i7 if you have a core2quad? because chances are for the majority of consumers the differences will not be measurable. word still types, web pages still load, and porn still plays. Money is always measurable.


RE: Intelol
By Reclaimer77 on 9/11/10, Rating: 0
RE: Intelol
By dark matter on 9/12/2010 7:53:49 AM , Rating: 4
Here you go again, instantly on the defensive. You're not getting the -1 for defending Intel, you're getting the -1 for attacking other posters. Make your point, don't attack people.

Take a look at your last paragraph as an example. In case you don't understand how people work, let me answer your final question. He is talking about his opinion on the i7. He believes it was hyped up at the time.

Demanding he give you proof of the hype in a patronising way isn't defending Intel. And now you know why you get the -1's. Have your opinion, even have a strong opinion, but never for one moment think it is better than someone else's.


RE: Intelol
By Reclaimer77 on 9/13/2010 9:12:13 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
You're not getting the -1 for defending Intel, you're getting the -1 for attacking other posters


That wasn't an attack.

quote:
Take a look at your last paragraph as an example. In case you don't understand how people work, let me answer your final question. He is talking about his opinion on the i7. He believes it was hyped up at the time.


But it wasn't hyped up. He's wrong. I don't see why I shouldn't point this out just because it's his "opinion". And where in that post did he say "imo" or "my opinion"? Everything he's saying is put forth as if it were absolute fact. I'm just calling him out on it. There's no "attack" here, at all. Stop being so melodramatic.

Saying Intel hasn't innovated anything is FUD, and as a tech community we're SUPPOSED to stand up and take issue with that. If we don't, we've become a mass of fanbois and trolls. Is that what you want?

Everyone has a right to an opinion, and everyone else has a right to say your opinion is wrong.


RE: Intelol
By ekv on 9/13/2010 3:38:34 AM , Rating: 2
Yes, Intel graphics are sub-par.
quote:
When is the last time Intel actually....innovated?
AMD was doing well until Core 2 came out. Intel has not looked back. Yes, a lot of the performance turn-around, IMO, had to do with redesigning the FSB/Northbridge crap to something more like AMD's solution. However, that amounts to a big step for Intel. A step giving competitors something to think about.
quote:
A Q9550/9650 owner to this day still has NO reason to change to an i7 or i5.
The benchies for Q9650 are ok, but the i7 is still better (and getting more so) and the mobo prices are now decent.


Not really an intel fan but..
By djlewt on 9/10/2010 10:14:10 PM , Rating: 2
Thought I'd mention just for the sake of general knowledge, intel actually used to kick ass on the GPU front. srsly.

Man I can't tell you how much pwnage I got out of my old intel G740 vid card.. Mostly because I don't remember which game I was playing at the time, but let me tell you, 13 years ago intel really knew what was up as far as GPUs..

Now I know what you're thinking.. MAN that was forever ago! But think about it, intel was founded in 1968 and most likely till 1997 was quite a heavyweight in the GPU market, so really they've only been making crap GPUs for slightly less than 1/3 their time as a company, maybe they're thinking they'll be back on top soon..

Or maybe they'll just buy nvidia since that's the obvious choice.

Did I mention that in 1997 their main competitors were voodoo and trident?




RE: Not really an intel fan but..
By justjc on 9/11/2010 8:01:43 AM , Rating: 2
History seems to disagree with your memories. If Intel really had a kick ass product, and knew what was up in graphics, they probably wouldn't have had the problems, following the competition, that made them drop out of the race after 18 months. Or perhaps they did know and dropped out for that reason.

After all Intel had millions of dollars invested to make the best graphics card only to see it beaten within months by products such as the 3dFX Voodoo 2 and Nvidia Riva TNT.


RE: Not really an intel fan but..
By Zingam on 9/11/2010 8:21:10 AM , Rating: 2
Wow! Intel never kicked ass in GPU market. G740 was hardly a GPU. GPU is relatively new term from that first was used after year 2000.
Before 2000 there were other magnificent but now defunct video card manufacturers (most of them): Diamond Multimedia, Matrox, 3dfx, 3D Labs, S3 etc.


RE: Not really an intel fan but..
By djlewt on 9/11/2010 12:17:04 PM , Rating: 2
lol Sorry, fergot you've got to add a /s online or the sarcasm goes undetected..

But really.. When your option was a g740 for $35 or a voodoo for $200 and they could BOTH play pretty much any game of the time, that seemed to me they at least had SOMETHING to offer the gpu market, unlike now..

Still.. They're gonna buy nvidia. Do they really have any other option?


Efficiency is key, power and die size
By EE50 on 9/11/2010 8:55:42 AM , Rating: 2
The key will be power efficiency for both the CPU and GPU. AMD can deliver great GPU performance but at the cost of high power consumption, high die temperatures, and large chips. Intel has had a big lead over AMD in CPU performance per watt, and process technology. The best solution for main stream laptops will continue to be Intel, for gaming, switchable discrete will be the winner.




By Kim Leo on 9/17/2010 8:47:29 AM , Rating: 2
That's simply not true, clearly you haven't even researched the slightest about Bobcat vs Atom as an example, I doubt you even looked at the picture because it's pretty clear that the die is really small on bobcat, it's the same size(slightly smaller) than the Pine Trail(atom + gma3150) While being close to the same consumption and most likely twice as fast on both CPU and GPU front.

And yes if you have the money to buy Intel mainstream laptop with onboard and embedded Graphics card of course that would be better, but if you want something cheap that's useable for more than just casual browsing Bobcat should almost certainly deliver and more. And considering how promising the 18W model has been we will see a lot of great laptops at a fantastic price, something Intel don't have, unless you're willing to torture yourself with an Atom netbook, and I know that I am not willing to do that and would rather wait for Ontario to finally deliver cheap excellent netbooks.


?
By sprockkets on 9/10/2010 7:31:44 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
At the IFA 2010 trade show in Germany this week, AMD showed off an 18W TDP Fusion system-on-a-chip (SOC) solution.


Why is the link there going to a Dailytech article about AMD/ATI taking the lead? That isn't anything to do with AMD showing off Fusion.




Intel vs Microsoft
By Zingam on 9/11/2010 8:13:11 AM , Rating: 2
It appears to me that there is striking similarity between Intel and Microsoft. Both companies have a strong, monopolistic core business and because of that monopoly they are doing great. The only reason for them to be monopolists is that they started early and were lucky to be picked up by IBM for their PC revolution. If it wasn't for IBM I doubt that both companies would have had any chance of becoming the monopolistic mastodons of today.
And here comes the interesting part: I have observed them for years and I think that except for their core business each time when they try enter a new big business most of the time they fail with a few exceptions of course but both have never surpassed the success of their original busyness. In 30 years time many companies have completely changed their core business and business models but these two remain the same.

I actually was convinced that Intel would bring a descent GPU last year but I was wrong obviously.




"My sex life is pretty good" -- Steve Jobs' random musings during the 2010 D8 conference














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