Tuesday, September 14th 2010

18W AMD Fusion Beats Intel Core i5 at Graphics Performance

As with every IDF event, AMD camped nearby at hotel suites, showing off its latest. Even as Intel is busy selling Sandy Bridge to the press, AMD has some goods of its own. The green team displayed a notebook development platform built around the Fusion "Zacate" APU, which a dual-core APU based on the Bobcat architecture, with a DirectX 11 compliant GPU embedded into it. A more interesting specification is its TDP, just at 18W, with a more energy-efficient die suited for netbooks, at just 9W (codenamed "Ontario". The test platform was pitted against an Intel Core i5 processor-driven notebook, and the two were tested on casual gaming a run of City of Heroes, and HTML5 web-rendering performance using Microsoft Internet Explorer 9 test suite.

The Intel HD graphics embedded intro the Intel Core i5 managed just 6~7 fps @ 1024 x 768, while the Fusion "Zacate" managed close to 5 times that, around 30 fps, which made the game playable. Next up, the two setups were compared with MSIE9 HTML5 demos. In one such graphics-intensive demo that shows a virtual bookshelf from which you can pick up books, read a teaser, and then buy it off Amazon.com, the Fusion "Zacate" was able to deliver smooth animations, while that from the Core i5 looked choppy. Lastly, a close look at the demo board reveals that Fusion is indeed a 2-chip solution (APU + chipset). Compared to current AMD mobile platforms, it will significantly cut down board area, letting manufacturers build faster, and smaller ultraportables and netbooks. A video of the demo can be watched here.

Sources: TechReport, Netbooknews
Add your own comment

52 Comments on 18W AMD Fusion Beats Intel Core i5 at Graphics Performance

#1
AthlonX2
HyperVtXâ„¢
Good for people that wanna game on integrated graphics, I didnt realize people still did that :)
Posted on Reply
#2
Disruptor4
Well this is definitely good news for the AMD camp! :D Can't wait to see their offering for the high end Desktop segment!
Posted on Reply
#3
Techtu
It's reason's like this what make me think in some year's down the line... (maybe 10 - 15 year's) AMD & Intel will not be competing in the same market, sure AMD will carry on making desktop processor's as Intel will with the more mobile market, which to me is the road AMD are going down, maybe I'm just seeing thing's wrongly but this is what I have come to.

I see AMD as aiming for a very powerful small/mobile type of market where as I see Intel being a full blown desktop powerhouse system, which mostly has always known to have been.
Posted on Reply
#4
entropy13
by: Tech2
It's reason's like this what make me think in some year's down the line... (maybe 10 - 15 year's) AMD & Intel will not be competing in the same market, sure AMD will carry on making desktop processor's as Intel will with the more mobile market, which to me is the road AMD are going down, maybe I'm just seeing thing's wrongly but this is what I have come to.

I see AMD as aiming for a very powerful small/mobile type of market where as I see Intel being a full blown desktop powerhouse system, which mostly has always known to have been.
How can Intel be a full blown desktop powerhouse system in the future without a CAPABLE GPU of its own?
Posted on Reply
#5
Techtu
by: entropy13
How can Intel be a full blown desktop powerhouse system in the future without a CAPABLE GPU of its own?
Maybe that could be something for nVidia to consider filling in, I don't think we'll ever loose the "add in" graphic's card for a long time yet, alot of this may be down to popular demand. Even if AMD are able to pull something really special of in the desktop department I personally still can not see it competing with a high end Intel system with a high end graphics card.

As I said before maybe I'm wrong, but it is just how I see thing's for now. :)
Posted on Reply
#6
RejZoR
by: AthlonX2
Good for people that wanna game on integrated graphics, I didnt realize people still did that :)
You'd be surprised how many ppl still do that. Or using very low end graphic cards like GeForce 9400 or Radeon HD4650 etc...
Posted on Reply
#7
naram-sin
Hm, I am much more interested to see comparison of CPU cores' performance. I'm not interested much in APU part since, let's be honest, no one expected Intel to shine here (a lot?). Graphics are, after all nvidia's and ATI/AMD's domain...
Posted on Reply
#8
miloshs
Now it only remains to see how that AMD thing will fit in a notebook chasis... Then well talk about performance...
Posted on Reply
#9
RejZoR
Intel has the X4500 cores that are DX10 compatible (not top of the line DX11 but for budget stuff DX10 will do). Now pump up the X4500 core and you could get a pretty reasonably performing GPU.
Posted on Reply
#10
aj28
by: naram-sin
Hm, I am much more interested to see comparison of CPU cores' performance. I'm not interested much in APU part since, let's be honest, no one expected Intel to shine here (a lot?). Graphics are, after all nvidia's and ATI/AMD's domain...
I believe the point they were trying to make in the HTML5 demo is that even if you don't play games, the animations built into operating systems and websites are becoming more and more graphically intensive, so even basic computer users will begin to see a benefit from a more powerful graphics engine.
Posted on Reply
#11
IINexusII
im on the lookout for a small laptop for uni this year... ill be waiting to see this in the market :D
Posted on Reply
#12
Steevo
Part of the AMD/Intel settlement was ATI tech given to Intel, I forsee a dark time for Nvidia unless they get a segment of market cornered with new devices. I'm not saying they will go out of business, but they aren't looking good with AMD about to launch a new series of dedicated GPU, AMD making a APU chip that outperforms Intel and Nvidia offerings, Intel making a chip based on ATI tech, and none of them needing a real chipset.


Nvidia has already been farming out to AMD for large orders in the past.
Posted on Reply
#13
pjladyfox
by: AthlonX2
Good for people that wanna game on integrated graphics, I didn't realize people still did that :)
Hopefully with both Intel and AMD giving some serious thought towards this that is a trend we can reverse. Sure, these GPU's will never really be able to achieve the same performance as a discrete one but if either or both company can produce a GPU that does not cost a small fortune and achieve playable performance at a resolution of 800x600 they'll have a winner on their hands.

I've said this for years in that the low-end segment, no matter how maligned many make them, is a group that should be catered to since it will only help grow PC use.
Posted on Reply
#14
Frick
Fishfaced Nincompoop
by: pjladyfox

I've said this for years in that the low-end segment, no matter how maligned many make them, is a group that should be catered to since it will only help grow PC use.
Absolutely, and they are catered to. Not just much so when it comes to IGP (yet). :)
Posted on Reply
#15
CDdude55
Crazy 4 TPU!!!
Great for the low end side of things.

Can't wait to see what Intel brings out to match or exceed it, should be a great thing for the consumer in the end.:)
Posted on Reply
#16
Atom_Anti
by: naram-sin
Hm, I am much more interested to see comparison of CPU cores' performance. I'm not interested much in APU part since, let's be honest, no one expected Intel to shine here (a lot?). Graphics are, after all nvidia's and ATI/AMD's domain...
Nowadays all the CPUs gives plenty of power for average users, but the integrated graphics are always suffered from lack of performance. Therefore I am not willing to buy small and light laptop, even if that is my dream! If I pay few thousand $ for a laptop, I do not want feel the overall performance is week, because I have only CPU core power.
To seeing the 18W Fusion beats 5 times the lot more power hungry Core i5 in 3D applications, that means in the near future I can have a pretty awesome little laptop:respect:.
Posted on Reply
#17
Imsochobo
by: Atom_Anti
Nowadays all the CPUs gives plenty of power for average users, but the integrated graphics are always suffered from lack of performance. Therefore I am not willing to buy small and light laptop, even if that is my dream! If I pay few thousand $ for a laptop, I do not want feel the overall performance is week, because I have only CPU core power.
To seeing the 18W Fusion beats 5 times the lot more power hungry Core i5 in 3D applications, that means in the near future I can have a pretty awesome little laptop:respect:.
hell, Give a laptop a 7200 rpm drive and off it flies.

My girlfriend has a T42 with 2gigs of ram 7200 rpm 250 gb IDE drive and 1.8 ghz centrino (intel P M based.

And it really suprises me....

if they do 2 ghz with apu at 25 W i'm SOLD!
And so would you, to get a good laptop with acceptable performance.
Posted on Reply
#18
theonedub
habe fidem
by: AthlonX2
Good for people that wanna game on integrated graphics, I didnt realize people still did that :)
I think this is portable tech for laptops and netbooks, in which case a lot of people have integrated GPUs (mainly the GMA HD series). So to be able to get 30fps without a dedicated GPU like in the expensive notebooks is a great thing.
Posted on Reply
#19
Tartaros
by: AthlonX2
Good for people that wanna game on integrated graphics, I didnt realize people still did that :)
Most people who buys a pc. 95% or more in my own experience.
Posted on Reply
#20
HillBeast
Dear AMD,

No kidding Intels current generation GPUs are rubbish. Whoop de doo you beat it. Have you not realised Sandy Bridge is around the corner? Have you not realised the GPU in that is powerful enough to beat the Radeon HD5450?

Show us you beating that in performance and them come bragging.

Regards,


Someone Who Thinks
Posted on Reply
#21
newtekie1
Semi-Retired Folder
AMD's integrated graphics are better than Intels...news flash!

Intel's integrated graphics are shit, and likely always will be.
Posted on Reply
#22
enaher
by: HillBeast
Dear AMD,

No kidding Intels current generation GPUs are rubbish. Whoop de doo you beat it. Have you not realised Sandy Bridge is around the corner? Have you not realised the GPU in that is powerful enough to beat the Radeon HD5450?

Show us you beating that in performance and them come bragging.

Regards,


Someone Who Thinks
well sandy bridge graphics beats the 5450, but zacates performance is supposed to be on par with a hd 5570 400sp, some sources say hd 5470 80sp, so either way it should actually beat Sandy Bridge take into account also it consumes 18 watts the sandy bridge previewed part is probably a mid to high end and at least 3 times more power hungry, in my books i'd love a netbook that can game Dragon age at 30 frames per second on native resolution:rockout:
Posted on Reply
#23
CDdude55
Crazy 4 TPU!!!
Lets just wait for Sandy bridge, and then everyone can fight about that is or isn't powerful.
Posted on Reply
#24
Steevo
Look at the Intel fanbois cry.


Does it hurt that AMD provided IP tech to your precious leader so they didn't suck so bad? Intel talked about it, AMD did it.



Really this is just the tides turning like they always do. AMD will have it out, then Intel will flex its muscle, make something that performs 20% better for 50% more and people will jump at it.
Posted on Reply
#25
wiak
by: RejZoR
Intel has the X4500 cores that are DX10 compatible (not top of the line DX11 but for budget stuff DX10 will do). Now pump up the X4500 core and you could get a pretty reasonably performing GPU.
the funny thing is, the driver dont support the game you wanna play, no matter how you "can" overclock it hehe
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment