You re right at some degree, but just think about it :
the datas that must be computed by the GPU are first in the
main memory, then transfered to the gfx wich compute and
drive the display.
The gpu memory (gdr5+) is in fact just the GPU cache
memory that help hide the latencies that would otherwise
completely bottleneck the full logic.
I m not a specialist, but one can figure easily that
there s constant communication between the RAM and
the GFX, otherwise, why would games need a lot of main memory ?...
It's not - a full stand alone gpu stores all the textures and does most of it's work using the very fast gpu memory, it doesn't use any main memory at all. This can be orders of magnitude faster and blows away anything llano can hope for.
Where llano does better is vs an old integrated gpu (i.e. on motherboard) that didn't have enough discrete memory and used to *share* main memory with the cpu - ie. the real budget end of budget notebooks. In that case they could only share main memory via the 7GB/s link PCI gave, now it has access to the full speed. On the downside llano has no gpu memory at all as far as I know.
Hence when llano is compared too is an old integrated graphics on the motherboard solution.
It used to have: Some, but not enough very fast memory of it's own and some slow access to main memory.
It now has: No very fast memory of it's own but better access to main memory.
Net effect is llano should be about the same speed, it's just cheaper to make as you don't need a separate chip for the motherboard graphics. As I understand it gpu + cpu are both old tech too, so really it's nothing new. You can buy llano performance today with an equivalent AMD cpu + motherboard integrated graphics. Llano will just save a few $$$ as it does away with the need for a separate gpu chip, and a fair amount of power due to the smaller process it's made with.
Facebook
Twitter