Llano part numbers and specs including clock speeds and TDPs leaked

[Abwx]

.

 

[Nemesis 1]

Look, I know you're a pretty rabid Intel fanboy, but come on, this was big news.

http://money.cnn.com/2010/07/23/technology/dell_intel/index.htm



Oh, sorry, it was $4.3 billion, but that was just 2003-2006, and there was evidence of Intel paying other companies as well.

The proof was so overwhelming the FTC didn't even fine intel . I can say every Dell commerical I seen all said INTEL INSIDE as did other PC Makers commericials . Intel paid for those adds. How these companies carried it on their books was their problem and Dell was fined 100 million for the accounting practice they used. TV commerical are very expensive, Intel was not fined.

 

[Abwx]

The proof was so overwhelming the FTC didn't even fine intel . I can say every Dell commerical I seen all said INTEL INSIDE as did other PC Makers commericials . Intel paid for those adds. How these companies carried it on their books was their problem and Dell was fined 100 million for the accounting practice they used. TV commerical are very expensive, Intel was not fined.

Still trolling to white wash Intel from its illegal deals ?..

Yet you said in another thread, about the same issue, that

Enough . Stay on track . everthing is here in black and white . Those who count can read very well.

So perhaps you should follow your own advices...

Seriously, you are tiring with your propaganda...:thumbsdown:

 

[Nemesis 1]

I do believe I was repling to Darkswordsman17. and his link that was written by nobody and offered zero proof of intel wrong doing . Dell ya they cheated investors(sec). The FTC didn't fine intel at all .

 

[Nemesis 1]

.

Nice screens . But can it run crysis

 

[Abwx]

Nice screens . But can it run crysis

Not sure about the quality in running this game, but we can confidently
assume that both CPU will run it way better than any SB gfx...

 

[Nemesis 1]

Thats a pretty graph it really makes the E 350 look strong. But is that real world . AT has benchies if ya care to have a look . But those numbers don't match real world test that have been given . Here a few but theres alot more. So if this is off the whole chart is off, Check the far cry II results comparred to the chart. To bad res wasn't given in your chart . But if they were we could check the results . That wouldn't be good would it.

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/core-i3-2100t_9.html#sect0

 

[Abwx]

Thats a pretty graph it really makes the E 350 look strong. But is that real world . AT has benchies if ya care to have a look . But those numbers don't match real world test that have been given . Here a few but theres alot more. So if this is off the whole chart is off, Check the far cry II results comparred to the chart. To bad res wasn't given in your chart . But if they were we could check the results . That wouldn't be good would it.

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/core-i3-2100t_9.html#sect0

XBIt labs use low pixel count , wich make the CPU more important
than the GPU in fps results.( 1024X768)

Besides, AMD seems to use for its bench not only 1366X768 but
also DX11 rather than DX10.1 as is doing XBit, so SB has to rely
on CPU computations to compensate for the absence of this
latter feature in its IGP.
Fair enough from AMD, since they highlight their products capacities.

 

[hans007]

Still trolling to white wash Intel from its illegal deals ?..

Yet you said in another thread, about the same issue, that



So perhaps you should follow your own advices...

Seriously, you are tiring with your propaganda...:thumbsdown:

uh didnt amd win a 1 billion dollar settlement, plus some of their cross license deal was changed to make it more favorable to AMD (i..e being able to divest global foundaries, etc).

that settlement, plus ability to offload global foundaries, basically saved AMD from near bankruptcy after the financial crisis.

 

[ElFenix]

.

4 GHz on 1 volt seems pretty good to me. though, i don't have a sandy so maybe that's not so great. it's a heck of a lot better than my 630 seems to do, which is 2.8ghz on 1 volt.

 

[ElFenix]

I do believe I was repling to Darkswordsman17. and his link that was written by nobody and offered zero proof of intel wrong doing . Dell ya they cheated investors(sec). The FTC didn't fine intel at all .

 

[Abwx]

4 GHz on 1 volt seems pretty good to me. though, i don't have a sandy so maybe that's not so great. it's a heck of a lot better than my 630 seems to do, which is 2.8ghz on 1 volt.

CPUZ voltage reading is surely erroneous, as pointed in other forums.
Probably that it s in fact in the 1.3/1.4V range.

 

[LogOver]

Fair enough from AMD, since they highlight their products capacities.

I wouldn't say that this chart is a good indication about the performance of Llano. First of all AMD chose only 3 games to compare its cpu to SB, while DiRT2 appears 4 times in the chart.
Now a few words about the game selection:
1. DiRT2 - AMD sponsored game. I wouldn't put too much attention on the results.
2. Civilization 5 - it is well known that SB graphics struggles with this game (probably some driver bug). You can see it from many reviews (including xbitlabs and Anand). May be it was already fixed in the latest driver but I don't have this game to test.
3. Black Ops - now this is the most interesting part. While it seems like Llano keeps a good advantage over 2630QM, I wouldn't say that it is something special. After all 40% difference with SB is not something what you would expect from GPU with 400SP (some people predicted 3x-4x perf advantage). And what about mid/low end models with less SP?
Now a few aside notes:
1. AMD used an old driver with SB. Using Intel's 2361 driver I got up to 30% performance gain in some games on my Dell with i5-2410M in comparison to the DELL provided driver.
2. 2630QM is not a good example here. Usually notebooks with this cpu have external graphics. On the other hand my much cheaper i5-2410M has only 2 cores, but higher core clock and higher igp clock which might be more important for many games.

Sorry for my English.

 

[podspi]

2. 2630QM is not a good example here. Usually notebooks with this cpu have external graphics. On the other hand my much cheaper i5-2410M has only 2 cores, but higher core clock and higher igp clock which might be more important for many games.

Sorry for my English.

The point was comparing IGP, not CPU :biggrin:

SB's CPU is going to be faster than Llano hands down.


I am disappointed that the performance difference is so small. I wonder if it is memory bottlenecked? The 400SPs might still come in handy for GPU computation...

OR, IQ could just be significantly higher, but we'd have to see actual product to make that determination... Wouldn't be surprised if Trinity was a MCM with onboard memory (or something more exotic)...

 

[darkswordsman17]

The proof was so overwhelming the FTC didn't even fine intel . I can say every Dell commerical I seen all said INTEL INSIDE as did other PC Makers commericials . Intel paid for those adds. How these companies carried it on their books was their problem and Dell was fined 100 million for the accounting practice they used. TV commerical are very expensive, Intel was not fined.

The only reason the FTC didn't fine Intel is because of the AMD settlement. You're right, the FTC didn't find Intel did anything wrong, they just imposed stipulations for no reason.

Funny, that the EU fined Intel still though. But yeah, again, Intel was never fined.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/14/business/global/14compete.html

And of course you interject a bunch of nonsense to try and "prove" your point.

 

[Nemesis 1]

uh didnt amd win a 1 billion dollar settlement, plus some of their cross license deal was changed to make it more favorable to AMD (i..e being able to divest global foundaries, etc).

that settlement, plus ability to offload global foundaries, basically saved AMD from near bankruptcy after the financial crisis.

NO they didn't win intel did . They settled out of court for a losey 1.25 billion . huge win for Intel and smart business. Kennedy type business but good busines for the corp.

 

[Nemesis 1]

The only reason the FTC didn't fine Intel is because of the AMD settlement. You're right, the FTC didn't find Intel did anything wrong, they just imposed stipulations for no reason.

Funny, that the EU fined Intel still though. But yeah, again, Intel was never fined.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/14/business/global/14compete.html

And of course you interject a bunch of nonsense to try and "prove" your point.

Intel hasn't paid the EU anything yet. The Stifling innovation thing is going to come back and bite the EU in the ass.

 

[Khato]

The only reason the FTC didn't fine Intel is because of the AMD settlement. You're right, the FTC didn't find Intel did anything wrong, they just imposed stipulations for no reason.

Funny, that the EU fined Intel still though. But yeah, again, Intel was never fined.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/14/business/global/14compete.html

And of course you interject a bunch of nonsense to try and "prove" your point.

The EU Court of First Instance (or I guess they renamed to General Court at the end of 2009) really needs to get around to hearing and ruling on the Intel appeal. Why? Because until then the EU commission's allegations and fine are nothing more than politicians doing what they do best.

 

[boran]

seriously guys, can we keep the intel story in another thread ?
I want to read up on Llano and all this bickering makes this a very hard thread to read.

 

[Topweasel]

The EU Court of First Instance (or I guess they renamed to General Court at the end of 2009) really needs to get around to hearing and ruling on the Intel appeal. Why? Because until then the EU commission's allegations and fine are nothing more than politicians doing what they do best.

What about the Japanese one?

 

[Soulkeeper]

My concern, if the wiki info is to be believed, is that the desktop llanos will use considerably more power than the mobile variants (2x as much).
Also i've read that the desktop A series will come out after the mobile versions ...

 

[jimbo75]

My concern, if the wiki info is to be believed, is that the desktop llanos will use considerably more power than the mobile variants (2x as much).
Also i've read that the desktop A series will come out after the mobile versions ...

Yeah sandy bridge uses considerably more power on desktop compared to mobile as well.

 

[drizek]

They don't "use" more power, they have greater thermal headroom.

 

[podspi]

My concern, if the wiki info is to be believed, is that the desktop llanos will use considerably more power than the mobile variants (2x as much).
Also i've read that the desktop A series will come out after the mobile versions ...

Yes, but they should also be faster, which is a good thing. I also expect that idle power usage should be similar since if I am not mistaken, Llano incorporates power gating. I am interested in seeing how quick these CPUs are at 1.9 ghz ...

 

[Joseph F]

While the on-die GPUs are F***ING EPIC, I have serious doubts about the CPU's performance as it has been very sub-par from AMD's mobile offerings in the past. (The architecture still hasn't changed much, right?) Also, I wonder how good the graphics could possibly be due to the bandwidth constraints... Unless there were a dedicated 64-bit GDDR5 bus connected directly to the GPU. :awe: