AMD Ultrabooks?

[poofyhairguy]

Does anyone know of any Ultrabooks coming down the pipeline that are AMD-based?

I really want the form-factor, but I will never buy another system that uses an Intel GPU only and Nvidia seems locked out of the Intel models unless I get an old MBA.

Thank you in advance.

 

[podspi]

In name, I doubt it (since it is an Intel trademark irrc). But in essence, I am sure they will if Trinity is where they claim it'll be. My dm1z is pretty slim as it is. I am sure for a little more $$$ dumped into design they could essentially get an ultrabook where it counts.


All the software bits probably won't be included though (off-line updates, etc).

 

[86waterpumper]

amd is a long way off from being able to make a ultrabook. The very fact that you cannot buy llanos in a 13.3 form factor proves this. Ultrabooks are super thin. They are going to have to get something out that runs cooler and uses less power

 

[DaveSimmons]

I really want the form-factor, but I will never buy another system that uses an Intel GPU only and Nvidia seems locked out of the Intel models unless I get an old MBA.

Have you looked at the benchmarks for HD2000 and 3000? They're a big improvement over past intel graphics.

I have an i3-2100 with HD2000 as a media server at home, and used the HD2000 to play Half-Life 2 and Torchlight while the GTX 560 in my gaming PC was being replaced. I played at least 40 hours of Torchlight without any problems.

HD3000 isn't good enough for real gaming like Skyrim, but for work 3D it's more than good enough.

 

[Bateluer]

In name, I doubt it (since it is an Intel trademark irrc). But in essence, I am sure they will if Trinity is where they claim it'll be. My dm1z is pretty slim as it is. I am sure for a little more $$$ dumped into design they could essentially get an ultrabook where it counts.


All the software bits probably won't be included though (off-line updates, etc).

I had a DM1z and currently have an MBA. The MBA is about half as thick as the HP. Honestly, its about as think as my Thunderbolt phone. They're not even in the same league. Ironically, the HP, despite having the much slower CPU, can actually play more games than the MBA can because its IGP is head and shoulders above the HD3000 in the MBA.

Have you looked at the benchmarks for HD2000 and 3000? They're a big improvement over past intel graphics.

I have an i3-2100 with HD2000 as a media server at home, and used the HD2000 to play Half-Life 2 and Torchlight while the GTX 560 in my gaming PC was being replaced. I played at least 40 hours of Torchlight without any problems.

HD3000 isn't good enough for real gaming like Skyrim, but for work 3D it's more than good enough.

The HD3000 actually struggles with HL2. Its not capable of playing Rome:Total War or Starcraft 2 satisfactorily either. They may be improved over previous Intel graphics, but when a 30 dollar discrete card mops the floor with it, its not enough.

Personally, I would love to see an AMD ultrabook. The extra GPU oomph would be a godsend. But, they're current models run too hot and use too much power. Its a trolley they should get on with the next revision of Fusion though, if they last long enough.

 

[Dman8777]

Yeah it would be nice to see a Llano chip designed for low power and gaming. As it stands, the higher end Llano's get the better GPU's but suffer from massive power draw. I want the low power dual core 3300 with the high end GPU from the 3850.

 

[Broheim]

I had a DM1z and currently have an MBA. The MBA is about half as thick as the HP. Honestly, its about as think as my Thunderbolt phone. They're not even in the same league. Ironically, the HP, despite having the much slower CPU, can actually play more games than the MBA can because its IGP is head and shoulders above the HD3000 in the MBA.



The HD3000 actually struggles with HL2. Its not capable of playing Rome:Total War or Starcraft 2 satisfactorily either. They may be improved over previous Intel graphics, but when a 30 dollar discrete card mops the floor with it, its not enough.

Personally, I would love to see an AMD ultrabook. The extra GPU oomph would be a godsend. But, they're current models run too hot and use too much power. Its a trolley they should get on with the next revision of Fusion though, if they last long enough.

the HD6310 is not as powerful as the HD3000, and it is definately not head and shoulders above it.

 

[Bateluer]

the HD6310 is not as powerful as the HD3000, and it is definately not head and shoulders above it.

Bullspit. The 6310 easily hammers the HD3000. Its just paired with the much weaker E-350 APU whereas the HD3000 is paired with Sandy Bridge i5s and i7s. Its easy to get confused.

And for an ultrabook, they wouldn't be using an E-350/6310, which is an Atom&Ion competitor.

 

[Fox5]

Ultrabooks are expensive. They use Intel's pricey ULV chips (with lower power consumption than the standard Atom chips) and high end design.

AMD's C-50, C-30, and Z-01 bobcat based chips are in the right area of heat and power consumption to be used in an ultrabook like device, but that's neglecting the second part of the ultra book...high end design. When you get into Macbook Air quality materials, you might as well spend the extra $200-$300 it costs for an Intel processor over an AMD at that point and get 5x the cpu performance (and the hd3000 is roughly equivalent to the E-350's gpu, so it should destroy the Z-01's).

This represents probably about the thinnest design out there using AMD, it's using their lowest power processor, the Z-01 tablet chip.
http://www.amazon.com/MSI-WindPad-11.../dp/B0056EXUBQ

Or double the price, and get the better designed Samsung Series 7 slate, representing the thinnest in Intel's ULV chip designs.
http://www.amazon.com/Samsung-XE700T...1215769&sr=1-2

However, once Ivy Bridge comes out, I expect Intel to focus much more heavily on its LV and ULV chips, and Windows tablets will be much more common at the high end. I also expect AMD's Z-01 (Desna) successor will go into a lot of cheaper Windows tablets.

Llano's power consumption is wayyy too high for an ultrabook. Ivy bridge ULV chips will best it in cpu performance, be decent in GPU performance, and use far less power.

(http://www.techspot.com/review/441-msi-windpad-110w-windows-8/ devices like this will be very common in 6 months, imo)


Ultrabooks = high performance netbooks.
AMD doesn't have high performance low power chips.
Ergo, AMD ultrabooks are things like:
http://www.laptopmag.com/review/laptop/lenovo-ideapad-s205.aspx

 

[Broheim]

Bullspit. The 6310 easily hammers the HD3000. Its just paired with the much weaker E-350 APU whereas the HD3000 is paired with Sandy Bridge i5s and i7s. Its easy to get confused.

And for an ultrabook, they wouldn't be using an E-350/6310, which is an Atom&Ion competitor.

didn't see this until now, but damn your post makes no sense.


http://www.notebookcheck.net/AMD-Radeon-HD-6310.40952.0.html
vs.
http://www.notebookcheck.net/Intel-HD-Graphics-3000.37948.0.html

exactly where does the 6310 beat the HD3000? I'm not the one who's confused.

and what the hell does atom/ion have anything to do with this discussion, you claimed the 6310 was faster than the HD3000 when clearly it's not.