News AMD launches Brazos 2.0 E-Series APUs

AMD has officially launched its first Brazos 2.0 APUs, the E1-1200 and E2-1800.

http://www.bit-tech.net/news/hardware/2012/06/06/brazos-2-apus/1

 

More like Brazos 1.1.

 

Is the CPU actually improved, or is it simply a clock bump? Don't get me wrong, Atom as it stands in the ULV market sucks...but other than graphics being appreciably better, Brazos frankly is a donkey turd as well. I don't need screaming power...but when the most basic ULV full up Intel CPU can manage something like 2-2.5x the computer power, at barely higher clocks something is wrong with Atoms and Brazos.

Maybe next years Atom on 22nm and an out of order ability will finally deliver something super low power AND with resonable compute ability.

 

I'm quite tempted by one of these for an HTPC. It should playback 1080P video with ease, and the low power draw means you can have it on all the time.

 

Not sure what you run but for almost 2 years straight I used a 900MHz Celeron with i945 graphics, and those weren't the bottleneck (although the GPU couldn't handle fullscreen flash videos perfectly). I'd still use the system if I weren't given something that was better.


At this point I forget which was worse - the original Brazos or Zacate. But whichever was the better one was a pretty decent CPU. However, ARM is generally a better choice no matter which company you look at.

 

Better than Celeron worst marketing claim ever?

 

I am a massive fan of the Brazo's chips, I think they tick all the right boxes for it's target market and this new revision will only cement their position for that....... some peopel here appear to of had a bad experience or have taken an oppositie position to me - but my experience in a HTPC has been nothing short of delightful, blu-ray, HD playback even some games and multi tasking, it's always punched above my personal expectations, with low enough, price, noise, heat and power consumption.

With the Piledriver based cores I don't get it - the last time I tried to make sense of AMD's definition of Dual core or quad core what I was actually hearing was they are like highly optimised single or dual cores blended with a co-processor.

So whilst the the core count may in fact be 2 or 4 they are 1 or 2x x86 cores and 1 or 2 hybrid cores....... thats not to say the architecture is not only innovative but also a viable future of core design, but it does make the labelling and comparison against Intel cpu's a little difficult.

I'd like to see a win7 versus win8 performance comparison on any/all piledriver based cores...