• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Temash A6-1450 review

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
MightyMalus said:
His Verdict makes me wonder to what he is comparing the Jaguar cores.
How can Jaguar suck, but be the better one? How is it correct(in bold, none of the less) to state that Jaguar is slow, yet it is the fastest in the category?

This review, I don't like it.
Click to expand...

I think his point is that it would make more sense to incorporate 2, faster cores in the same power envelope. I actually agree with him. I feel the same way about smart phones with 4 cores. For the typical work load people will be using them for, 2 faster cores will be better than 4 slower cores.
 
I'm not sure I agree.

Two cores aren't enough for gaming and the results would be worse with a 1.4 GHz dual core. The reviewer states in the conclusion that...

...the performance reserves are absolutely sufficient for office and multimedia.
Click to expand...
So why go with two faster cores?

I've used Brazos - those two cores even at 1.6-1.7 GHz were very often fully loaded. Four cores was the only sensible way ahead.
 
I'm going to "steal" this from SA forum and poster strata8 🙂 . It's basic comaprison of 2 "9W" chips, one is Ontario DC @ 1Ghz and other is Temash QC @ 1Ghz (based on Jaguar, Bobcat's successor). Progress is more than evident. More IPC ( MUCH more in a lot of cases), more clock, much more iGPU performance(~2.5x),2x core count, similar "TDP" for both while Temash is a true SoC integrating stuff Bobcat is lacking so comparison is not fair for Temash 😉.

strata8 said:
Pretty good improvement over Ontario even at 9W. Compared to the C-60 at the same frequency and TDP, it's 1.5x faster in single-thread, 2.4x faster in multi-thread, and the GPU 2.5x more powerful.

amdcompar.png


edit: Power values for a C-60 laptop:

Idle - 9.2W
Load - 20.9W
Click to expand...
 
MightyMalus said:
His Verdict makes me wonder to what he is comparing the Jaguar cores.
How can Jaguar suck, but be the better one? How is it correct(in bold, none of the less) to state that Jaguar is slow, yet it is the fastest in the category?

This review, I don't like it.
Click to expand...


Firstly you should know what to compare, in the real world this is only price=performance comparison for Temash APU.Again i will mention the same fact, Temash APU is intended for use in Tablet computers and other similar low power consumption devices.

Temash APU A6-1450 can be built into Ultrabook/subnotebook computer but that is not its main purpose. For this we have Kabini APU A4-5000/1.5ghz/Quad Core/15W TDP, this APU is only right or much beter choice for Ultrabook/subnotebook PC.

Then we have these devices as the Acer, which seems somewhat hardware-unbalanced without a doubt however such devices are quite common in the market. But again there is no problem with this Acer except built-in small capacity battery. If you know what you get under the hood, Temash APU A6-1450(nice price)is very good or best-in-class product CPU+GPU performance no doubt.😎


- AMD Dual/Quad Core Temash APU

vs

- old Intel Clovertrail Atom 32nm(old CPU+GPU rubbish)

- new Intel Bay Trail Atom 22nm(main Temash APU competitor in the near future)

- or possibly only Intel i3 ULV(not i5 or i7) 32nm Sandy Bridge/ Ivy Bridge or Haswell 22nm Mobile CPU











Regarding 22nm Atom Bay Trail, new and awesome "Fully Out of Order" so what are we not in 2013?

Old 40nm Bobcat APU(based on the AMD K8 architecture), from 2010(E-350,E-450,E2-1800) has "Fully Out Of Order" things.

For those who do not know this, old K8 Athlon 64 from 2005 had this new and awesome "Fully Out of Order" arhitecture.:biggrin:
 
Last edited:
Asterox said:
Firstly you should know what to compare, in the real world this is only price=performance comparison for Temash APU.Again i will mention the same fact, Temash APU is intended for use in Tablet computers and other similar low power consumption devices.
Click to expand...

That's what I mean. Temash is supposed to be for tablets. Acer is giving AMD a bad name here. And AMD is being a moron letting it happen.

For a Tablet SoC, Temash looks good and its the best at this moment in time. Yet he calls it slow, but then calls it the best. If he is talking about the SoC, then why make that "slow cores" statement? If he is reviewing it as to the Acer product as a whole, then why later say its the "best"?

What is he smoking!?

Its the contradiction that I don't like. And this product sucks, IMO. If I were to get a laptop I would go for Kabini or Richland, not Temash. Just like I would go for an iX Core, not Atom. Products like these are the ones that I dislike, completely.

I won't be entering that site again.
 
MightyMalus said:
That's what I mean. Temash is supposed to be for tablets. Acer is giving AMD a bad name here. And AMD is being a moron letting it happen.

For a Tablet SoC, Temash looks good and its the best at this moment in time. Yet he calls it slow, but then calls it the best. If he is talking about the SoC, then why make that "slow cores" statement? If he is reviewing it as to the Acer product as a whole, then why later say its the "best"?

What is he smoking!?

Its the contradiction that I don't like. And this product sucks, IMO. If I were to get a laptop I would go for Kabini or Richland, not Temash. Just like I would go for an iX Core, not Atom. Products like these are the ones that I dislike, completely.

I won't be entering that site again.
Click to expand...

He is also looking at the product the soc is in. Temash is quite power hungry for tablets but is too low powered for subnotebooks. In the reviewed device the soc appears quite fine compared to atom (and in terms of perf/watt) but for the device category its subpar.

This SKU should not be in this notebook. A 15 watt kabini would have been better.

(He also critizes that relative to the E-450 or the E-1800 series the singlethread performance isn't really greater because of low clocks and so performance can be quite similar).

Its a badly designed SKU in a device that it shouldn't be in.

Nice chip, poor implementation.
 
It cant even beat a 17W HD3000. Judging by the scores it would exactly match a 14W version of the 17W intel. Yes, that means 28nm AMD cannot beat 32nm intel in performance per watt. Sad day indeed, since it also means it would get creamed by any 22nm intel at the same power envelope. I'd rather have a celeron 1019Y...

You can get celeron 847 mini-ITX combos for just over $50. This temash chip might use a wee bit less power, and have a wee tiny bit more graphics performance, but you aint gonna find it for $50 including the motherboard. Just wait till the 22nm celeron ULV chips start showing up in those mini-ITX combos....
 
Last edited:
sm625 said:
It cant even beat a 17W HD3000. Judging by the scores it would exactly match a 14W version of the 17W intel. Yes, that means 28nm AMD cannot beat 32nm intel in performance per watt. Sad day indeed, since it also means it would get creamed by any 22nm intel at the same power envelope. I'd rather have a celeron 1019Y...

You can get celeron 847 mini-ITX combos for just over $50. This temash chip might use a wee bit less power, and have a wee tiny bit more graphics performance, but you aint gonna find it for $50 including the motherboard. Just wait till the 22nm celeron ULV chips start showing up in those mini-ITX combos....
Click to expand...
I dont think you understand what the 14W and the 17W mean(TDP and power draw are different), these two(temash and ulv i3) aren't even in the same price bracket(<$70 vs >$200), and it does outperform the celeron 847 in most cases except ST performance and going by the prices of the embedded parts this soc will be less than $70 (asus had a brazos 2 c-60 based mini-itx board for $80) so it is possible you might find it in cheap mini-itx boards for similar prices -it wont be power constrained either, so it can stay turboed or possible overclocked.
 
Last edited:
Celeron 847 is not a > $200 part. Intel's list price is $134 but there's zero question that Acer bought it for dramatically less when they included it in their $200 Chromebook.

It's also a two year old part whose inventory may have been dumped. It was artificially constrained then, probably never used even close to 17W, and it has been superseded by better parts. Focusing on it makes for a pretty slanted comparison.
 
Yeah I don't know how I missed all that, thanks..

To be fair, there's no mini-ITX Temash or Kabini out yet either. Who knows if that will hit before other cheap alternatives. Or what the price will be..
 
Yeah it's hard to say what AMD will give us in the mini ITX space but Brazos was a good seller for them there and they won a lot of mindshare too in the HTPC community.

I'd love to get the A6-1450 as i'm sure it would be fine fanless in a mini ITX enclosure with just air holes, but AMD probably thinks they can get more notebook chips out of that one. Something under 10W should be doable fanless with some custom P-states though.
 
I saw a lot of E-350 motherboards and I'm using the ASRock one as a media center just now. Never saw any of the other chips in mini-itx sadly. With a few P-state changes I got mine to be practically silent using the scythe mini kaze at lowest speed, which is nice for a 18W chip and standard mobo.

I would love a 10W chip for this - a 10W quad Kabini at around 1.2 GHz could make for a great little silent HTPC.
 
Abwx said:
Seems that early 2012 Temash was supposed to be only
a dual core offering...

Then mid 2012 a quad core offering was added in the roadmap ,
surely that TDP levels were better than expected.
Click to expand...

It appears that the dual CPU core Temash variant was always the one destined for thin fanless tablets, while the quad CPU core Temash variant was added to the roadmap for tablet convertibles (some of which make use of that "Turbo" feature where CPU/GPU clock operating frequencies are boosted when the tablet is docked with the keyboard). So I doubt that the TDP is materially better than expected.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top