1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

News AMD Carrizo next-generation APU details leak

Discussion in 'Article Discussion' started by Gareth Halfacree, 29 Jul 2013.

  1. Gareth Halfacree

    Gareth Halfacree WIIGII! Staff Administrator Super Moderator Moderator

    Joined:
    4 Dec 2007
    Posts:
    13,091
    Likes Received:
    2,178
  2. jrs77

    jrs77 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    17 Feb 2006
    Posts:
    3,487
    Likes Received:
    103
    As sad as it is, but I don't really expect anything from AMD anymore in the CPU-area.

    intel will be releasing their first 14nm Broadwell-chips by the end of 2014, with an improved iGPU and even less TDP than the current 22nm Haswell.

    And don't even start talking about CPU-perfomance...

    AMD should concentrate all their efforts on GPUs or platforms like the new consoles, but in the desktop-CPU-market they've shown nothing of interest for the last 5 years, allthough their iGPU is better than intels offerings. The iGPU doesn't matter for a desktop tho, as you can buy a cheap PCIe GPU anytime.
     
  3. Panos

    Panos Member

    Joined:
    18 Oct 2006
    Posts:
    288
    Likes Received:
    6
    @jrs77.
    ????
    AMD's APU are miles ahead than the Intel ones. Until Intel comes with an integrated GPU as fast as the AMD one, there is no comparison to discuss between the two.

    As for generic use, AMD CPU is as good as Intel ones, except someone is "encoding video" whole day, or is bothered with 1-2 fps difference on games, paying a hefty price for them. A good old T1090 can cut anything today as good as any new Intel product.

    Is it shame that the mainstream gaming industry is still stuck on single core process and DX9 still. Mainly because of Intel and the consoles.
     
  4. jrs77

    jrs77 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    17 Feb 2006
    Posts:
    3,487
    Likes Received:
    103
    I'm not a gamer. I'm using my machine for work most of the time and intel is the only choice here currently from a performance POV.

    And about the iGPU.... nobody cares about them, aslong as they're capable of HD-video playback. Software doesn't make any noticable use of GPU-acceleration to this date, and where it's needed people simply use a cheap dedicated GPU like the HD7750, which is way more powerful than the HD8760D used in the A10 APU.

    The only thing of interest is CPU-performance vs. CPU-powerdraw, and intel beats AMD here by a mile.

    Oh, and the GT3e iGPU found in Crytsal Well chips is as powerful as the HD8670D, and an intel i7-4xxxHQ uses only half the power of an AMD A10-6800k.... just saying.
     
  5. Harlequin

    Harlequin Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    4 Jun 2004
    Posts:
    7,071
    Likes Received:
    179
    not really - Intel are so far behind AMD and ARM they`tr not even in the same market - intel iGP`s are a joke , they STILL have the hardware bug (for 4 genereations now) which effects video playback.

    and the GT3e? you actually seen one yet? nope - its vapourware - it has a bigegr powerdraw than a GTX 460
     
  6. jrs77

    jrs77 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    17 Feb 2006
    Posts:
    3,487
    Likes Received:
    103
    http://www.mysn.de/detail.asp?bestellnr=SCHENKER-S413

    First reviews are available aswell and show that the GT3e is on par with the HD8670D.
     
  7. Harlequin

    Harlequin Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    4 Jun 2004
    Posts:
    7,071
    Likes Received:
    179
  8. MrJay

    MrJay You are always where you want to be

    Joined:
    20 Sep 2008
    Posts:
    1,290
    Likes Received:
    36
    Keep up the good work AMD!

    Intel, even though they are market leaders, seem to be the lumbering giant of the industry. They are akin to Microsoft in the software world, they have bought their cards to the table too late in the game. Allot of the underdogs are innovating and chipping away at their dominance.

    Complacency costs you dearly in the long run, some of Intel's products lately have been shocking for the price they command.
     
  9. azazel1024

    azazel1024 New Member

    Joined:
    3 Jun 2010
    Posts:
    487
    Likes Received:
    10
    Just one thing to point out though, Intel is significantly ahead in CPU performance and power draw. AMD is moderately ahead in GPU performance at some levels. Intel is closing the gap in GPU performance pretty significantly from generation to generation. AMD is if anything losing ground from generation to generation in CPU and power consumption, or holding their losing position.

    In the sub 20w range Intel dominates AMD in CPU, GPU and power consumption, but a VERY long shot. AMD's only real "ULV" processor on the market brings to bear roughly 1/3-1/2 an i3-3117u CPU performance, about 60% of the GPU performance and still generally tends to use more power. Even AMDs 25w processor can't hit the same CPU performance and is only roughly similar levels of GPU performance, in a package that consumes a lot more power.

    It is only in the 35-45w range that AMD has processors with GPUs that actually manage better performance than Intel, and especially now with Haswell, a lot of AMD's GPU line up is not significantly further ahead, but again with much higher power consumptions in general work loads and also much lower CPU performance.

    Ignoring the workloads I do on my desktop (because I do a lot of video transcoding, plus some rendering, a lot of photo editing and some light gaming), with my laptop, there is no way I could live with an AMD chip. I do light gaming and browsing on it, but I also do a lot of on the go photo editing using lightroom and Photoshop CS6. I need a realtively thin and light laptop and at least 5-6hrs of light use battery life and 3+hrs of pretty heavy use battery life in roughly a 4lb or less package. The 14" laptop I have fits that perfectly with the i5-3217u in there. The compromise in CPU and GPU performance to get a similar size/weight laptop (and battery run time) from AMD would make the machine unusable for what I needed.

    I don't just sit there all day running video transcodes on it (rarely. I bring the big boys to bear with my OC'd i5-3570 desktop for that sort of thing).
     
  10. azazel1024

    azazel1024 New Member

    Joined:
    3 Jun 2010
    Posts:
    487
    Likes Received:
    10
    Ignoring my dig on AMD, hopefully AMD is managing some big improvements. I am tired of seeing Intel dominate the processor market. Some healthy competition would be really nice. Haswell seems great both for GPU improvements and general battery life/power consumption, but it is a complete dissappointment on CPU performance. I know you can't have your cake and eat it too a lot of times, but I am really hoping now that battery life is VERY impressive for mobile with Haswell, that Intel will focus at least equally on CPU and GPU improvements with Broadwell and future successors. A healthy 15-20% bump in CPU performance would be very welcome.
     
  11. Harlequin

    Harlequin Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    4 Jun 2004
    Posts:
    7,071
    Likes Received:
    179
    sub 20w? intel like to play the numbers game - 8.5w suddenly doubles when you start to use that cpu....


    and arm are at 1w where intel is championing 5w with there latest and greatest

    AMD APU`s are far far ahead of intel - everyone knows this , no matter how much you want to polish a turd - and intel`s gpu drivers are truly that bad (yes you can polish a turd , I do watch mythbustes)

    intel`s drivers , even the latest are aweful for anything other than desktop display.

    gpgpu is another area intel are playing catchup - when an A10 kills an i7 with gpgpu in encoding it shows how far behind intel are.
     
  12. schmidtbag

    schmidtbag New Member

    Joined:
    30 Jul 2010
    Posts:
    1,082
    Likes Received:
    10
    AMD is weak in non-gaming laptops and high-end desktops, and pretty much non-existent in tablets. Intel is weak in netbooks, tablets, gaming laptops, and mainstream desktops. While their products are good for mainstream desktops, their price point is not. AMD products are perfectly reasonable for the average user and would make fine laptop products if they were more power efficient. If AMD can just fix their TDP, I'm sure they'll do a lot better in the mobile market. This is probably why they're investing time in ARM.
     
  13. SchizoFrog

    SchizoFrog New Member

    Joined:
    5 May 2009
    Posts:
    1,574
    Likes Received:
    8
    Here is my issue with these APUs and indeed the same for the last few generations of Intel's CPU as well. I personally have zero interest in on-die graphics. Even in a HTPC I would still choose a case large enough to house a decent dedicated GPU. Therefore I can not help but feel that I, and many others are being ripped off by having to pay for something that we will never ever use. Yes, there is a market for APUs (at what point are we going to start calling Intel CPUs an APU as they now include on-die GPUs?) but there is also a large market that doesn't want the extra GPU. I know you can get a very limited range of Intel CPUs without the GPU but they are just non-activated pieces and the cost saving is minimal to a full blooded version.
     
  14. jrs77

    jrs77 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    17 Feb 2006
    Posts:
    3,487
    Likes Received:
    103
    Allthough you wanted an english site, which I can't show you unfortunately, just look at the slides and pictures in this review of the Schenker s413 then to see how big/small the gap is between an AMD A10-6800k (HD8760D) and an intel i7-4750HQ (GT3e).

    And I might add, that the intel i7-4xxxHQ is a 47W-package, while the AMD A10-6800k is 100W.

    http://www.computerbase.de/artikel/grafikkarten/2013/intel-iris-pro-5200-grafik-im-test/

    For a workstation, the intel-package is definately the way to go, and it smokes the AMD-package in allmost every compute-benchmark.
     
    Last edited: 29 Jul 2013
  15. schmidtbag

    schmidtbag New Member

    Joined:
    30 Jul 2010
    Posts:
    1,082
    Likes Received:
    10
    I know exactly what you mean and would definitely have to agree. However, with GPGPU software being more common, you can often use an IGP for things like that. But, intel's IGPs aren't really good enough for that, so I would rather pay say 10% less and not have the IGP. With AMD anyway, their FX-4000 series are really the only mid-range processors that don't include an IGP. On the other hand, they're probably the worst valued AMD processors.
     
  16. Harlequin

    Harlequin Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    4 Jun 2004
    Posts:
    7,071
    Likes Received:
    179
    given intel has its own method for reporting TDP - I take anything they say with a bucket of salt - look at the issue with IB byt don't worry , thermally that chip was fine!


    intel are not catching up with the game - everyone is moving on to gpgpu - look at the encoding results to show that.
     
  17. rollo

    rollo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    16 May 2008
    Posts:
    7,700
    Likes Received:
    99
    Did not no Arm had made a CPU in a while thought they just designed and licenced the tech.With the likes of Qualcomm, Samsung, apple customising it to there own needs.

    If you mean the default arm architecture they have no 1 watt CPU on there books all the low power designs are highly customised socs from Samsung, apple and Qualcomm.

    Apple have even got a duel core CPU performing faster than most of the quads out there.

    AMD don't make a mobile CPU of any note that is used in any product, mostly due to power and heat concerns.

    Intels list of mobile related products is not a great amount better but they do sell there chips to laptop manufactures with there low power atom CPUs been the bulk of that.

    Medfield or whatever its called is in very few actual products which is there lowest wattage product.
     
  18. edzieba

    edzieba Virtual Realist

    Joined:
    14 Jan 2009
    Posts:
    3,447
    Likes Received:
    349
    For their top-of-the-range iGPU, intel are quite a bit ahead of AMD in performance. Performance/£ might still be in AMD's favour though; the Iris is only included in Intel's more expensive chips, and regular old GT3 is pretty much on-par, and GT2 is soundly trounced at the same price point.
     
  19. Gareth Halfacree

    Gareth Halfacree WIIGII! Staff Administrator Super Moderator Moderator

    Joined:
    4 Dec 2007
    Posts:
    13,091
    Likes Received:
    2,178
    This is the part people seem to forget when jumping on AMD, and I'm most glad you brought it up.

    Is the Intel Iris-equipped Core chip faster than AMD's top-end APU? Absolutely. It's also only available in trays of 10,000 to Intel's OEM partners, and comes in a BGA package requiring a wave-soldering machine to attach it to the (also only available to OEMs) motherboard. So, if you're an enthusiast, you ain't going to buying one - thus it can be discounted from the comparison.

    Are the GT3-equipped Core chips significantly faster in CPU performance and roughly the same in GPU performance as AMD's top-end APU? Absolutely. They're also significantly more expensive, bumping the cost of your build up considerably and meaning you're going to have to either spend more or make sacrifices elsewhere - like forgoing a decent SSD in favour of a mechanical, which for everyday tasks will likely make your Intel-powered computer feel slower than the AMD-powered version regardless of the difference in CPU horsepower.

    Are the similarly-priced Core chips somewhat faster in CPU performance on single-threaded tasks than AMD's top-end APU? Absolutely. They're also significantly slower in GPU performance, and typically have fewer cores - meaning that, for properly multithreaded or asynchronous multiprocess work, they're going to be completely outmatched by AMD's offering. Add in the extra GPU oomph, and AMD has itself a winning proposition for certain market segments.

    We've seen plenty of people above pointing out how an AMD APU wouldn't be suitable for their workloads; that's fine. There's no such thing as a one-size-fits-all solution: if you need the absolute maximum compute performance from your system, spend a couple of grand and get a top-end Intel chip and two or three graphics cards; if you need to minimise your power use, an ARM chip is the way to go; but if, like me, you need reasonable general-purpose performance, decently low power draw, a bit of gaming and four cores on a tight budget, then you're going to be looking AMD-wards.
     
  20. rollo

    rollo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    16 May 2008
    Posts:
    7,700
    Likes Received:
    99
    AMD are great in budget builds that is there market, problem for AMD that market has disapeared in recent years as people who do budget builds are not upgrading anymore.

    The max performance segment all ran to Intel a long time ago.

    Htpc depends totally on your usage as any onboard Gpu from sandy onwards can do hd video playback. The only dif is gaming performance if that matters AMD would be a contender here also.

    Problem is there both small segments in a retracting market hence AMDs problems.

    AMD need a server chip that can fight Intel on performance / watt at the moment they are so far behind its crazy. There's a reason Intel are above 80% server market pen.

    Would also help they made a quick low power laptop chip to go in ultrabooks another segment that is high in profits.

    Desktop chips AMD is only a player if your on a budget or a major fan. Intels top end chips are better for every work load you care to list.

    Gamers the one segment where AMDs chips have caught up have stopped upgrading there CPU and are now focused on Gpu upgrades.
     

Share This Page