The first benchmarks of AMD's Brazos and Zacate Fusion APUs have started to appear. http://www.bit-tech.net/news/hardware/2011/01/24/amd-brazos-zacate-benchmarked/1
Well, 3DM06 is ridiculously CPU weighted (my OC'd 2500K + HD6850 comfortably beats a friend's OC'd i5 760 and 2x HD4870X2s in Crossfire) - but the platform will surely be targetting the HD video crowd, so I'm not reading too far into it.
What about power consumption? Does the Atom D525 and ion use less or the same power as zacate or does zacate use less?
3D Mark 06, and pairing Atom with Ion isn't really a fair comparison. Remember that Fusion integrates the GPU on-chip, and consumes less power. Yawn. /me walks past
It seems that the Toms Hardware review of the Asrock E350M1 was missed by Bit-tech: http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/asrock-e350m1-amd-brazos-zacate-apu,review-32098.html
BTW,nice to see that Bit-tech also missed the news that 1.3million Zacate chips have been shipped already: http://www.engadget.com/2011/01/22/amd-ships-1-3-million-fusion-apus-35-million-directx-11-gpus-s/
so how long until anything relevant turns up again? Edit: ah, apparently, minus 5 minutes Thx for the link CAT
The dude on the Blogeee website got the info from a 'friend'. he doesn't have any of the hardware, or all of the test info on hand. Some people in the comments asked about the difference between the E-350 and the C-30/50 numbers. C-30 = single core 1.2GHz/280MHz GPU. C-50 = Dual Core 1GHz/280MHz GPU E-350 = DC 1.6GHz/500MHz GPU I'll be waiting for real benchmarks when someone has the stuff in their hands.
bit-tech also missed Hardware Heaven's review of the MSI E350IA-E45 http://www.hardwareheaven.com/revie...d-fusion-motherboard-review-introduction.html
This is a truly terrible source. If bit tech isn't going to post too many news stories (which is fine), at least make sure the ones they do post contain actual facts and not wild google translated speculation. Another cracker from Gareth 'halfarsed' Halfacree.
this. this. and more this. Everything that Gareth writes seems to mis informed or not researched in any capacity at all. Remember the Dual Bios 6950 bit of news that was written the other day then was pulled as they made a complete tit of themselves.
BTW here's Google cache of that dual bios 6950 blunder.... http://webcache.googleusercontent.c...+tech+dual+bios+6950&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk
Guys, please, you are being a bit hard on Gareth. I mean he's obviously just anti-AMD and is trying to start flame wars with terrible posts that involve AMD. He picks virtually the only review which calls out the AMD chips as a crap option.
Oh wtf. Is this joker for real? Or perhaps he's just some geeky kid working after school for some extra pocket money... btw Mr G. - since the AMD APU's are out in the wild why have you not covered the most important data... You know like uhhmm, duhhh system power consumption!! Performance figures are meaningless if your AMD netbook only has 2 hours battery life...
Well, these chips seem great for real world benchmarks. This will take the media benchmarks to decide it.
Im sorry but that is a plain stupid comparison, i bet the AMD chip draws just about half the power compared to the ION/ATOM combo. Completely different playing fields.