Engadget: AMD to demo "Zacate" next week.

[Riek]

But thats not what it will be up against . Just 1 day of IDF so far . day 2 coming at ya.

Also zapata is said the be lowend desktop . That couldn't compete with intels SB . If intel does come with a 1 core SB as rumor sugjest . 18 watts can be done on SB also . Ontario was not shown that the netbook and lower market . 32nm Atom has some surprises coming . Stay tuned to IDF. Its a great show this year.

indeed it won't go up against the i5-M since that one consumes 35watts compared to 18W of zacate.

Also note that every ULV chip from intel, which will include any i-x that will hit 18W has significant lower gpu speed then the other mobile versions with very low frequencies. (the i3 @ 18W runs at 1.2GHz).

Wether SB can run at 18W is not really a concern when the chipsizes are concerned. Zacate low cost (sellprice and manufacturing cost), low power chip. 18W i-series high cost (sellprice and manufacturing cost), low power chip.

 

[IntelUser2000]

A little controversy over the benchmark:

http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showthread.php?p=4551250#post4551250

Psychedelic

HD5850: 1799
i3-530: 1940
HD4850: 1779
GTX460: 1996

This is a 2D benchmark.

 

[Nemesis 1]

indeed it won't go up against the i5-M since that one consumes 35watts compared to 18W of zacate.

Also note that every ULV chip from intel, which will include any i-x that will hit 18W has significant lower gpu speed then the other mobile versions with very low frequencies. (the i3 @ 18W runs at 1.2GHz).

Wether SB can run at 18W is not really a concern when the chipsizes are concerned. Zacate low cost (sellprice and manufacturing cost), low power chip. 18W i-series high cost (sellprice and manufacturing cost), low power chip.

I believe thats culv intel @18 watts. Ya your correct Its not going against SB . But the 9 watt will be up againt OAK TRAIL . good luck on that one.

 

[Nemesis 1]

A little controversy over the benchmark:

http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showthread.php?p=4551250#post4551250

Psychedelic

HD5850: 1799
i3-530: 1940
HD4850: 1779
GTX460: 1996

This is a 2D benchmark.

A little I must say more than a little. As I said anything AMD setup to compare can't be trusted. They can get away with it . If Intel did this. AMD would take them to court for unfair business practices .

 

[Zstream]

A little controversy over the benchmark:

http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showthread.php?p=4551250#post4551250

Psychedelic

HD5850: 1799
i3-530: 1940
HD4850: 1779
GTX460: 1996

This is a 2D benchmark.

What is the controversy? Many laptops have higher 3d rating's than 2d. I am a little confused?

 

[busydude]

What is the controversy? Many laptops have higher 3d rating's than 2d. I am a little confused?

The scores that the presenter got on an Intel i5 laptop does not match the real world scores.

 

[extra]

Shenanigans!

 

[Zstream]

The scores that the presenter got on an Intel i5 laptop does not match the real world scores.

the IE9 psychedelic benchmark?

 

[busydude]

yes

 

[Nemesis 1]

Heres the video. This is shameful by AMD . The Game has been highly optimized for AMD and not intel the other 2 demos are just plain out and out lies . I can't believe AMD would use NV tricks , But we did go threw pre PH I with all the lies they told . and it just continues .

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pw14MgRHYJE

 

[Ovven]

So if a game is not optimized by intel you call it shenanigans? Seeing how intel only optimizes the blockbuster titles (the ones that tend to get benchmarked), that would mean the rest of the gaming market is cheating too?

 

[cbn]

From Anandtech: AMD Benchmarks Zacate APU, 2x GPU Performance than Core i5

This is for the netbook and/or $500 notebook segment. Since this is already quite near the Sandy Bridge GPU performance in the preview article, we can almost certainly be sure that Llano (bigger chip, bigger thermal budget) will offer better GPU performance. This isn't exactly a surprise, but it's still nice to know.

Next year's notebook offerings seem to be headed for greatness. I've been itching to ditch my 1.5 year old MSI Wind, but I guess I'll wait a year more to see how all of these turn out.

I thought the IE9 benchmark was very interesting (more than two times faster than a 35watt 32nm Intel dual core). This makes we wonder if the 9 watt Ontario would be plenty sufficient for most people's needs?

 

[Nemesis 1]

So if a game is not optimized by intel you call it shenanigans? Seeing how intel only optimizes the blockbuster titles (the ones that tend to get benchmarked), that would mean the rest of the gaming market is cheating too?

Nice ya don't get it . The reader scores are wrong and the 3rd test is wrong which automaticly says the game results are also fudged.

 

[Zstream]

Nice ya don't get it . The reader scores are wrong and the 3rd test is wrong which automatically says the game results are also fudged.

Can you explain how? So far, I have seen zero real, substantial evidence that they are wrong numbers.

 

[busydude]

Heres the video. This is shameful by AMD . The Game has been highly optimized for AMD and not intel the other 2 demos are just plain out and out lies . I can't believe AMD would use NV tricks , But we did go threw pre PH I with all the lies they told . and it just continues . http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pw14MgRHYJE

Nice ya don't get it . The reader scores are wrong and the 3rd test is wrong which automaticly says the game results are also fudged.

It is so annoying that you jump on to conclusions. Even if the scores are fudged, as you say they are, the users at xtremesystems got a score of 607 vs 1790 that AMD's Zacate got.

 

[Nemesis 1]

Go look at the video I linked above . The last test look at both screens carefully. Tell me what you see. But But the Video shows intel score of 175. Than we have the reader scores. I don't have I5 set up right now a newer cpu is in there . Other wise I would post HD scores

 

[Idontcare]

Dudes, Dudettes,

It is marketing, right?

If we could count on the benchmarking results produced by marketing departments as being the bastion of unvarnished data then all our favorite review sites would be out of a job.

Think about it.

Are we really gonna dicker over whether or not AMD's benchmarking results on an Intel rig are relevant and unquestionable?

Wait for Anand to snag one and preview it like he did SB.

 

[busydude]

This forum wouldn't be alive and kicking if we were not bickering.

Nemesis, I have looked at the video. I also looked at the scores posted in the above mentioned forum. Also, AMD might have made a mistake in naming the processor. It is possible that the CPU might be infact i5 540UM which is direct competitor to Zacate at 18W.

 

[Nemesis 1]

Ya I already pointed out the I5 was 18watts MAYBE, If amd got intels score so wrong . Why should I except there score as being 1790 . 10x the score they gave intel.

In the XS thread post 32 page 2 . Intel I5 scored 1940. Thats one heck of an error . Than we have the page reader score. Thats as laughable.

 

[extra]

Nah, the results are really, really weird. Who knows. Someone ask JF about it? However I think what happened is fairly obvious: I'm guessing it was something like they somehow had gpu acceleration completely disabled on the Intel box. Which, while it does prove a valid point (that gpu acceleration can help the browsing experience), is really misleading...at best. If they wanted to show that, they should have used two AMD boxes with the same cpu. Shrug.

The game demos were valid as far as I'm concerned though, and do look very very promising!!! This, combined with Sandy Bridge (and llano mid next year)...making sure that every computer that Joe Blow buys at worst buy can play games *decently* will do wonders for PC gaming, mark my words...

Honestly, I see bobcat in some ways as actually helping Intel, vs "competing with Atom". Same with Intel and Atom in cell phones, etc, if it gets there--that helps AMD too in a way. Both companies operate on an "x86 everywhere" type of philosophy. Breaking x86 into new markets is good for both of them, even if it's the other company doing it. I do see Nvidia suffering from this, but some disagree (tegra, etc) but that's for another thread. Whatever happens, 2011 will be a great year for the enthusiast.

 

[Nemesis 1]

Yasasvy . Which post number got the 607 . Once it was posted here I stopped folling the thread . Ya see it wasn't I that brought it up . But I was there reading on the first post . Thats when the alarms went off.

Zacata is not a competor to SB in any form what so ever . Oak trail is its comp.
I would like to tell you a little about Oak but its not permitted . It also has very good gpu . Comparring to I5 is just a show . Oak trail also comes with differant numbers of gpu cores and it scales very well. Thats it all I can say.

 

[Nemesis 1]

Nah, the results are really, really weird. Who knows. Someone ask JF about it? However I think what happened is fairly obvious: I'm guessing it was something like they somehow had gpu acceleration completely disabled on the Intel box. Which, while it does prove a valid point (that gpu acceleration can help the browsing experience), is really misleading...at best. If they wanted to show that, they should have used two AMD boxes with the same cpu. Shrug.

The game demos were valid as far as I'm concerned though, and do look very very promising!!! This, combined with Sandy Bridge (and llano mid next year)...making sure that every computer that Joe Blow buys at worst buy can play games *decently* will do wonders for PC gaming, mark my words...

Honestly, I see bobcat in some ways as actually helping Intel, vs "competing with Atom". Same with Intel and Atom in cell phones, etc, if it gets there--that helps AMD too in a way. Both companies operate on an "x86 everywhere" type of philosophy. Breaking x86 into new markets is good for both of them, even if it's the other company doing it. I do see Nvidia suffering from this, but some disagree (tegra, etc) but that's for another thread. Whatever happens, 2011 will be a great year for the enthusiast.

Is JF the guy thats says Intel turbo mode is trashy compared to AMD. He should know what SB turbo is like now shouldn't he. Iwait with baited breath for AMDs turbo on BD it should blow us all away. After all AMD came up with turbo mode all on its own and intels cheap rip off is no were AMDs turbo .

 

[busydude]

In the XS thread post 32 page 2 . Intel I5 scored 1940. Thats one heck of an error . Than we have the page reader score. Thats as laughable.

I don't want to demean you, but there are two modes for that test. There is a lot of confusion regarding the test. If you look at the scores by the same user a few posts down #35, he got a score of 677 using the same hardware but a different mode.

You cannot come to a definite conclusion. There is no way to estimate the difference in performance based on a single test.

EDIT: Did not see your above post. If you look at page 3 you can see some random scores. There is really a lot of confusion, thanks to AMD.

 

[Nemesis 1]

Your not demeaning me in any way or form . Only one person alive can accomplish that . and he is way past caring about such trivia, But I will go have a look . But how do we know which test zecate was running pray tell.

 

[piesquared]

Heres the video. This is shameful by AMD . The Game has been highly optimized for AMD and not intel the other 2 demos are just plain out and out lies . I can't believe AMD would use NV tricks , But we did go threw pre PH I with all the lies they told . and it just continues .

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pw14MgRHYJE

Oh heavens no! Some software is actually optimized for AMD instead of the notoriously intel optimized software rampant across the industry! Whatever shall we do!