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

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


"So, I think the same thing of the music industry. They can't say that they're losing money, you know what I'm saying. They just probably don't have the same surplus that they had." -- Wu-Tang Clan founder RZA




Latest Headlines
4/21/2014 Hardware Reviews
April 21, 2014, 12:46 PM
4/16/2014 Hardware Reviews
April 16, 2014, 9:01 AM
4/15/2014 Hardware Reviews
April 15, 2014, 11:30 AM
4/11/2014 Hardware Reviews
April 11, 2014, 11:03 AM










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