+1They still have not caught up with Sandy Bridge i5-2500k. Which -in less than a month- will be replaced by its IVB equivalent with about 10% CPU improvement.
But AMD have advantage on the iGPU side, so losing to IVB by, say, 15% on CPU side while outperforming IVB iGPU by 40% might be an acceptable tradeoff for some OEMs and users.
Would be interesting to see how this plays out and if AMD can stall their marketshare erosion. On the notebook side I think situation should be even more fascinating, would be hilarious if Intel popularized the 'ultrabook' format and AMD took the lion's share.
Would be interesting to see how this plays out and if AMD can stall their marketshare erosion. On the notebook side I think situation should be even more fascinating, would be hilarious if Intel popularized the 'ultrabook' format and AMD took the lion's share.
So ivb chips will have integer performance that is 50% greater, AND they will probably be clocked 10-20% higher for a total of 60-75% better integer performance. Total fail...
If they get 970 performance out of it then that's good enough. We've had enough cpu power since the i7 920 came out almost 3 years ago IMO. Personally I'd be more interested in a low power all in one solution from Amd that can run games at medium for all AAA games at 1080p.
w0t?
The IVB desktop chips are clocked only 100mhz higher than their SB counterparts. The performance increase from SB > Ivy is essentially that single digit IPC bump and 100mhz. Where you're getting 60-75% I have no idea but you're wayyyyy off. If Trinity is pulling integer performance up by ~20% over the 4100 which has L3 and slightly lower clocks (Trinity lacks L3 cache) we'll probably be looking at a pretty damn good Trinity/Vishera Piledriver core. If the Vishera parts are the same clocks as the Trinity part there's a good chance we're looking at 15-25% increase from BD>PD *without a die shrink*. That's not "Total fail", the two words you're looking for are unbelievably impressive. I can't think of the last time I saw that kind of gain without a die shrink.
"Unbelievably impressive" to have gotten the IPC back to where the Phenom 2 was several years ago???
Is it possible to "disable" the onboard video and add a discrete graphics card to the A series?
Bob
"Unbelievably impressive" to have gotten the IPC back to where the Phenom 2 was several years ago???
If the Vishera parts are the same clocks as the Trinity part there's a good chance we're looking at 15-25% increase from BD>PD *without a die shrink*. That's not "Total fail", the two words you're looking for are unbelievably impressive. I can't think of the last time I saw that kind of gain without a die shrink.
If you ignore this part...
The good news is that there's clearly something salvageable in the Bulldozer design. I'm not happy with the CMT approach either because moar coars doesn't equate to more performance but this chip is looking to be what Bulldozer should have been in the first place: Nehalem performance. The even better news here is that the Nehalem performance is coming from an APU that's got VLIW4 graphics attached to it limiting TDP and likely clock speeds. If Vishera clocks even higher, coupled with that L3 cache it should be pretty damn good.
Is it possible to "disable" the onboard video and add a discrete graphics card to the A series?
Bob