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
CDdude55
Crazy 4 TPU!!!
Steevo said:
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.
Don't see any fanboys besides yourself from what i have seen in the past.(being a huge AMD/ATI guy)

Let just wait till everything is out, i don't care about any company... they don't pay me, so i don't give a shit.

If Intel does come out with something that performs better for a higher cost, well then it's ones decision to jump in on that extra performance if they'd like. We don't have an indication of Sandy Bridges price, but if it is a bit more expensive and the performance is well justified for that price, then that in itself should be something to be happy and proud about. Cause in the end, the consumers win.
Posted on Reply
#2
HillBeast
enaher said:
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:
Well because this isn't released yet I can't confirm it, but I highly doubt that is possible in a chip that uses only 18W. It really doesn't seem possible at all. You have to consider this thing has a CPU, PCI-e bus, memory controller and a GPU on par with a 5570? That seems more like a 50W chip to be honest (if it's 32nm then maybe 30W). The CPU would have to be tiny to let the GPU have that much performance.

CDdude55 said:
Lets just wait for Sandy bridge, and then everyone can fight about that is or isn't powerful.
Yeah, that's what I'm doing. I'm just saying they are comparing their next generation to Intels current generation. Kind of redundant when you consider Intels next generation is coming out too. I still reckon even if the GPU is good, the CPU part of it wouldn't match the i3/i5s they compare it to.

Steevo said:
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.
Fanboi? Look at my system specs. I use an AMD GPU. If I was a fanboi, I'd be using NVIDIA. What they are showing here isn't the full CPU, rather the GPU functions of this APU (that name makes no sense to me). This is more ATIs work here they are showing off. Fanboi? No. I have huge respect for ATI, but have low respect for AMD. They have taken about 5 years now to produce Fusion, and I am expecting from that much work that it would be epic. Let's just hope the desktop chip is.
Posted on Reply
#3
wiak
HillBeast said:
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
AMD has that all ready covered by a Fusion part with HD 5670 level graphics performance
that part is called Llano, inte's sandy brige only has HD 5450 performance

Llano is said to have four Phenom II based cores with Radeon HD 5670 level graphics peformace

Bulldozer is amd's next generation high performance desktop and server chip without any onchip video, its much like Opteron and Phenom II now a days
Posted on Reply
#4
enaher
Well I actually don't care, who builds it all I want is a decent performing gaming netbook light, with 4 hours of heavy use, under 500 dollars and makes me a expresso(vanilla flavored), if VIA can do that then i'm sold for it.:toast:
Posted on Reply
#5
HillBeast
wiak said:
AMD has that all ready covered by a Fusion part with HD 5670 level graphics performance
that part is called Llano, inte's sandy brige only has HD 5450 performance

Llano is said to have four Phenom II based cores with Radeon HD 5670 level graphics peformace

Bulldozer is amd's next generation high performance desktop and server chip without any onchip video, its much like Opteron and Phenom II now a days
The main thing to be acknowledged is that in the high end parts, people won't be needing onboard graphics. They will be wanting a proper graphics card, and Intel are acknowledging that.
Posted on Reply
#6
jamsbong
Generally, mobile devices needs efficient power not absolute power. If bobcat can crunch stuff more efficiently, then it is already a winner. I've been using a trusty core2 Duo for 3 yrs now and newer software does not require more CPU power. so I doubt very much that an inferior CPU from AMD will deny sales.

I really look forward to see this APU as this will bring 3D MMO gaming onto notebooks powered by batteries. At the moment, it is not possible to 3D game with integrated graphics on notebook and dedicated graphics consumes too much power so you can't game on a notebook easily with battery. AMD's APU is gonna change all that!
Posted on Reply
#7
enaher
jamsbong said:
Generally, mobile devices needs efficient power not absolute power. If bobcat can crunch stuff more efficiently, then it is already a winner. I've been using a trusty core2 Duo for 3 yrs now and newer software does not require more CPU power. so I doubt very much that an inferior CPU from AMD will deny sales.

I really look forward to see this APU as this will bring 3D MMO gaming onto notebooks powered by batteries. At the moment, it is not possible to 3D game with integrated graphics on notebook and dedicated graphics consumes too much power so you can't game on a notebook easily with battery. AMD's APU is gonna change all that!
Amen, brother let's hope it does:toast:
Posted on Reply
#8
segalaw19800
well I going to buy some more stock from amd ....
Posted on Reply
#9
Tartaros
HillBeast said:
The main thing to be acknowledged is that in the high end parts, people won't be needing onboard graphics. They will be wanting a proper graphics card, and Intel are acknowledging that.
But in fact, the most profitable part of this business is the low-mid market and we all know it. Almost no one (besides us hardware enthusiasts) would buy a high end gpu nowadays if you compare to all the low end gpus are sold (remember, intel is the manufacturer who lead the gpu market, you can find an intel integrated gpu in almost every low end notebook and low end motherboard)

Maybe us want proper gpus, but from all computer users in the world, we are a minority. Intel doesn't need to make powerful gpus, they would loose money investing money in that.

Intel is also lead in notebook platforms. If amd wants to compete with intel there, they can't go against intel with cpu performance because they will surely loose, so they have to strike in intel's weak point: 3d performance. If amd offers a capable low power cpu with a good integrated gpu, all with affordable price it would be better than only offering cpu muscle and low power consuption because intel would own that quite easily.
Posted on Reply
#10
Kantastic
I've been contemplating buying a Core i3 laptop w/ an HD 5450 for college next year but haven't really made up my mind. This gives me a genuine reason to wait, if they can give me that kind of performance while both costing less and consuming less power, they have an absolute winner for whatever part of the consumer base I represent.
Posted on Reply
#12
mastrdrver
enaher said:
Well I actually don't care, who builds it all I want is a decent performing gaming netbook light, with 4 hours of heavy use, under 500 dollars and makes me a expresso(vanilla flavored), if VIA can do that then i'm sold for it.:toast:
:roll:
Posted on Reply
#13
xtremesv
We are seeing the first big results of ATi adquisition by AMD. Both teams working as one, mixing knowledge and interesting ideas, bringing to real life the fusion philosophy not only in high-end machines but entry-level ones as well. I'm anxious to see what Bulldozer will deliver :rolleyes:
Posted on Reply
#14
Fourstaff
"Fusion beats Intel Core i5 ..." OMG WTF? "... in graphics performance" :shadedshu

Did it get anyone else?

Its actually quite disappointing to compare Fusion against i5, I would prefer it to be compared to a low end graphics card, like the 5570.
Posted on Reply
#15
inferKNOX
TheLaughingMan said:
Just wanted to say GO RED AND GREEN!!!
xtremesv said:
We are seeing the first big results of ATi adquisition by AMD. Both teams working as one, mixing knowledge and interesting ideas, bringing to real life the fusion philosophy not only in high-end machines but entry-level ones as well. I'm anxious to see what Bulldozer will deliver :rolleyes:
Well you know they say (in art), green and red compliment each other, lol.:cool:
Posted on Reply
#16
Frick
Fishfaced Nincompoop
Fourstaff said:
"Fusion beats Intel Core i5 ..." OMG WTF? "... in graphics performance" :shadedshu

Did it get anyone else?

Its actually quite disappointing to compare Fusion against i5, I would prefer it to be compared to a low end graphics card, like the 5570.
I didn't get me as such, but you do have a point. I want real bences soon. :(
Posted on Reply
#17
largon
HillBeast said:
The main thing to be acknowledged is that in the high end parts, people won't be needing onboard graphics. They will be wanting a proper graphics card, and Intel are acknowledging that.
Yet, Intel is the one who has a slow-ass GPU across the board in all their Sandy Bridge chips including high performance desktop parts, whereas AMD only put a slow-ass GPU in ultra portables and notebooks (= Bobcat with 80SP Cedar'ish core) and a mid-end GPU actually capable of 3D in performance laptops and lower-end desktop chips (= Llano with 400SP Redwood'ish core).
Posted on Reply
#18
Paintface
I think this is finally the sweetspot in all my years working with computers that something very cheap, very small, and very low power consuming as this FUSION cpu/gpu combo is all you need for a modern computer/laptop/netbook without feeling underpowered.

When you have a customer that only uses his computer for webbrowsing, word, youtube, email, listening to music i dont see why this FUSION wouldnt be perfect for him.
There was ATOM for a while but i found it not being snappy enough, also not being able to play 720p content was a downer.
Fusion being dual core, higher clocked, having DX11 compatible GPU even when you dont play games even though it could handle WOW, that is a big plus cause of all the GPU accelleration today.

our mainboards with quadcores, crossfire, 8GB ram, SSD arent going anywhere as there will always be gamers/music makers/designers etc that need more.
But i dont see why i would pick a AMD 3.0ghz dualcore on a 785g mainboard while low in power consumption compared to gaming rigs would be needed for most consumers when FUSION is the option, i see many gouvernments and companies buying those FUSION ITX computers in bulk to save money on the purchase and power consumption while it has all the performance needed for its tasks.
Posted on Reply
#19
HillBeast
Tartaros said:
But in fact, the most profitable part of this business is the low-mid market and we all know it. Almost no one (besides us hardware enthusiasts) would buy a high end gpu nowadays if you compare to all the low end gpus are sold (remember, intel is the manufacturer who lead the gpu market, you can find an intel integrated gpu in almost every low end notebook and low end motherboard)

Maybe us want proper gpus, but from all computer users in the world, we are a minority. Intel doesn't need to make powerful gpus, they would loose money investing money in that.

Intel is also lead in notebook platforms. If amd wants to compete with intel there, they can't go against intel with cpu performance because they will surely loose, so they have to strike in intel's weak point: 3d performance. If amd offers a capable low power cpu with a good integrated gpu, all with affordable price it would be better than only offering cpu muscle and low power consuption because intel would own that quite easily.
largon said:
Yet, Intel is the one who has a slow-ass GPU across the board in all their Sandy Bridge chips including high performance desktop parts, whereas AMD only put a slow-ass GPU in ultra portables and notebooks (= Bobcat with 80SP Cedar'ish core) and a mid-end GPU actually capable of 3D in performance laptops and lower-end desktop chips (= Llano with 400SP Redwood'ish core).
Okay, people really aren't understanding what I'm saying are they. I said:

HillBeast said:
The main thing to be acknowledged is that in the high end parts, people won't be needing onboard graphics. They will be wanting a proper graphics card, and Intel are acknowledging that.
What I meant is that in a high end CPU, obviously you won't be buying it if you're short on cash. When is the last time you heard someone say 'Hmm I don't want to spend much on my computer so I'll only get a Core i7 975'? You don't. If you have that much money to throw around, you will have the money to buy a graphics card. I have no idea where you guys have got it in your head that if you have a high end CPU, you need a GPU in it as well. You will be running a discrete solution because that is the best way to go: leave the CPU to do CPU stuff and the GPU to do GPU stuff, not the CPU does CPU and GPU stuff and the GPU does a little bit too.

I wouldn't but a high end Fusion chip based on the size of the GPU because I'll be pairing it with the biggest, best GPU, from Intel or AMD. Having a GPU inside the CPU is just a waste of silicon which could have been used for adding more cores or more cache or a bigger memory controller or something. I don't need that GPU there.

Now sure I'd say they will do some kind of Hybrid Crossfire thing, but what if you have a NVIDIA card? What then? You'll get NVIDIAs drivers up your bum telling you that you have an ATI chip in there and PhysX won't work (without the patch which only works 2% of the time), and as for if you get a Radeon, even with 400SPs on the CPU, I can bet when they go to 32nm or less they will be over 2000SP, more likely 2400SPs. Or what if you are already running Crossfire 2x or 3x or 4x. That's like 4000+ SPs. The extra 400SPs is going to provide a small boost if anything. It certainly won't be as significant as just normal Crossfire.

The Fusion idea is a good idea in theory for low end machines to save power but I can't see it being a brilliant idea for top end machines.
Posted on Reply
#20
entropy13
Tech2 said:
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. :)
You do know that Nvidia has been bashing Intel more often than bashing ATi/AMD?
Posted on Reply
#21
WarEagleAU
Bird of Prey
Agree with newtekie1 all those infomercials and QVC/HSN gaming indy car videos show that intels graphics are good at video and about it. Not too spectacular but at least they are beating Intel in something, lol.
Posted on Reply
#22
mastrdrver
Anyone else thing of the i740 days with all this talk Intel is doing now about graphics?

Fourstaff said:
"Fusion beats Intel Core i5 ..." OMG WTF? "... in graphics performance" :shadedshu

Did it get anyone else?

Its actually quite disappointing to compare Fusion against i5, I would prefer it to be compared to a low end graphics card, like the 5570.
When did Fusion become a processor? Fusion is any AMD cpu + gpu on the same die so it covers everything from Bobcat to Lllano and eventually to Llano 2 (Bulldozer with gpu).

Bobcat is Netbook/Ultra Portable or less than $500 notebook territory. Even though they are comparing it to i5 mobile, this is going to be in the same pricing portfolio as Atom.....yes Atom that cpu from Intel that makes everyone hate their netbook that has ever had one (not really but you get the point). Things Atom can't do without Ion or something else and even then doesn't make you really want it: Anything flash based. While the 99% of buyers are not going to be playing Steam games on these (or any kind of 3D game for that matter) they will do that thing this kind of setup was meant to do, cruise the Internet. How much does flash account for videos, browser games, college free time games, etc?

Like I said in another thread: Bobcat is going to make the Atom look like a P3. Intel is about to get pwn with a capital P. I've got AMD's marketing gold: "Want to play farmville as a game and not a slide show? Got 300-500 bucks? Come play! :rockout:

Llano is what will take on the i5 mainstream your talking about though and your right, 4 cores and 5570 performance is what is expected.
Posted on Reply
#23
Easy Rhino
Linux Advocate
love to see this kind of innovation.
Posted on Reply
#24
TheLaughingMan
jamsbong said:
Generally, mobile devices needs efficient power not absolute power. If bobcat can crunch stuff more efficiently, then it is already a winner. I've been using a trusty core2 Duo for 3 yrs now and newer software does not require more CPU power. so I doubt very much that an inferior CPU from AMD will deny sales.

I really look forward to see this APU as this will bring 3D MMO gaming onto notebooks powered by batteries. At the moment, it is not possible to 3D game with integrated graphics on notebook and dedicated graphics consumes too much power so you can't game on a notebook easily with battery. AMD's APU is gonna change all that!
Actually, I know at least 5 people with AMD laptops from years ago who have and still play MMO's on their laptops. The IGP 3200 made that possible a long time ago (upon its release it was 3 times more power than the most powerful IGP on the market. First IGP to break 4 digit score in 3DMark as well), so you have already been missing out. Then Intel and AMD both 1up'ed each other 2 or 3 more times to produce the current gen of IGP that will play most MMO's will little issue and WOW at medium with shadows on low @ 30 FPS in the worst area. I have seen it for myself.

These chips will save mobo space on laptops, allowing that to be used to increase RAM slots, HDD size, more powerful Wireless chipsets, better ventilation, and all while lower power needed to play those games.
Posted on Reply
#25
LAN_deRf_HA
I don't get it, they can afford to buy the POS mcafree for some business sector bundle scheme but they can't afford to just buy nvidia? Can't be that much more expensive, especially this quarter.
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment