Temash peformance tablet SoC

[piesquared]

It's quite a marvel really, AMD is coming out of nowhere with a fraction of the revenue of their competitors. Gotta love the scrappy underdog that never quits! Hats off AMD.

In the tablet arena, the company is attempting to bridge the glaring gap between chips that have been essentially taken from smartphones, and chipsets that were designed primarily for notebook computers. This is where Temash fits in, as a low-power processor that is claimed to be the highest-performance tablet SoC on the market. Doubling the graphics performance over its predecessor, Temash appears to be well suited to Windows 8 tablets used for gaming, entertainment or productivity tasks.

We took a look at an 11.6-inch prototype tablet powered by a Temash chip, and the hardware is certainly promising. As 1920x1080 becomes the industry standard for tablet displays, and applications demand more power, AMD's graphics heritage could give the company an edge as it works to gain traction in the tablet market.

Intel and ARM chips currently power most Windows 8 tablets, however many of the Intel-based devices have difficulty driving games and other graphics-intensive content without dropping the frame(s)

http://www.electronista.com/articles/13/01/09/chips.aimed.at.portable.devices/

 

[tweakboy]

Lurker on the loose.. JK JK. good post.

 

[Homeles]

I don't find it that unreasonable for AMD to briefly steal the spotlight. Conversely, I don't find it unreasonable for Intel to yank it right back later in the year.

 

[Exophase]

From what I hear, it's a quad core 1GHz Jaguar. If this is the case and the CPU cores can't clock beyond that at all then I'm not very impressed. If you have word otherwise please let me know.

If within 5.9W it can run all cores at 1GHz then it should let fewer cores run at higher than that. There's no good excuse for anything else. I won't argue that it has the fastest GPU, that is afterall what they're focusing on bragging about. And it may win some CPU benchmarks that are very heavily threaded. But I'm quite skeptical that it can be declared highest performing when it comes to single threaded performance, which in many cases is still going to be the dominating factor at these levels. I think the 1.8GHz Clovertrail will outperform it in single threaded tasks and even most moderately threaded ones, and will probably still use less power doing so.

 

[sontin]

It will even lose to A15 with clocks up to 1,9GHz.

 

[itsmydamnation]

I don't find it that unreasonable for AMD to briefly steal the spotlight. Conversely, I don't find it unreasonable for Intel to yank it right back later in the year.

i dont think AMD care so much about spot light, they jsut want sell a whole pile of chips . So even if intel do steal the thunder im pretty confedent that haswell + atom wont be able to rain inkabini/temash parade across the board unless intel take a big hit to there margins in this market.

 

[Ferzerp]

Above poster typically claims any release by AMD is special and best performing with posts that read like pure marketing (pretty much all he posts, along with anything he can find that he can twist to be negative about intel or nvidia).

No doubt, this one is a snoozer too.

:yawn:

 

[Exophase]

It will even lose to A15 with clocks up to 1,9GHz.

I don't think a quad core A15 will have to clock anywhere close to 1.9GHz per core to beat this. I bet they will tend to out-perform around 1.2GHz or so (although it'll vary I'm sure)

Power consumption is another story, there's too little information to work with. I expect this is going to be something like 1W for each 1GHz core. Am curious to see what other people think. What I don't think is that the TDP is going to be the sum of everything - all four cores, GPU, I/O, etc - running at max.

 

[Haserath]

Above poster typically claims any release by AMD is special and best performing with posts that read like pure marketing (pretty much all he posts, along with anything he can find that he can twist to be negative about intel of nvidia).

No doubt, this one is a snoozer too.

:yawn:

Careful, one more post and pie squared will release the demons of AMD upon you.

 

[Ferzerp]

Careful, one more post and pie squared will release the demons of AMD upon you.

Eh, purely factual and easily verified information is allowed.

 

[piesquared]

Love it! I wonder if those GCN compute units were originally designed for mobile and then scaled up for high performance, or vice versa.

 

[MightyMalus]

Well, it is an x86 chip. <--See your huge contradictions, Intel fanatics?

Ahh, I guess ARM>x86 then. lmao

 

[Arachnotronic]

Temash is 3.6W to 5.9W. http://technewspedia.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/17098_Kabini-Temash-portada2.jpg

I bet you anything that the 4 core Temash is 5.9W, which is why AMD wasn't touting any TDP values at CES and instead focusing on how "fast" the chip is.

People who think that AMD magically out did the ARM stuff on tablets without any compromises on an unproven GloFo 28nm process are delusional. With Bay Trail at <3W, this is likely DOA for iPad-like tablets.

Should be awesome for really low power netbooks/notebooks though.

 

[Haserath]

Eh, purely factual and easily verified information is allowed.

I was mostly referring to his post count.

 

[Abwx]

I don't think a quad core A15 will have to clock anywhere close to 1.9GHz per core to beat this. I bet they will tend to out-perform around 1.2GHz or so (although it'll vary I'm sure)

You are overestimating thoses ARM15 , likely that they have
at most half Kabini s throughput at same frequency/core.

 

[Abwx]

People who think that AMD magically out did the ARM stuff on tablets without any compromises on an unproven GloFo 28nm process are delusional. With Bay Trail at <3W, this is likely DOA for iPad-like tablets.

If they reduce Kabini s GFX down to a VR5XX level
they can go well below 3W...:sneaky:

 

[Haserath]

You are overestimating thoses ARM15 , likely that they have
at most half Kabini s throughput at same frequency/core.

Or you are underestimating A15.

 

[MightyMalus]

Gotta bench Exynos 5 Quad or Tegra 4 and find out.

 

[itsmydamnation]

From what I hear, it's a quad core 1GHz Jaguar. If this is the case and the CPU cores can't clock beyond that at all then I'm not very impressed. If you have word otherwise please let me know.

If within 5.9W it can run all cores at 1GHz then it should let fewer cores run at higher than that. There's no good excuse for anything else. I won't argue that it has the fastest GPU, that is afterall what they're focusing on bragging about. And it may win some CPU benchmarks that are very heavily threaded. But I'm quite skeptical that it can be declared highest performing when it comes to single threaded performance, which in many cases is still going to be the dominating factor at these levels. I think the 1.8GHz Clovertrail will outperform it in single threaded tasks and even most moderately threaded ones, and will probably still use less power doing so.

You sound like you think it wont turbo, that to me seems a pretty unlikely event. AMD confirmed at hotchips that jaguar supports all the hooks needed for turbo but turbo itself is a SOC level decision and he wasn't going to talk about it. Each CPU has C6 CC6 etc states and high efficiencies level for clock gating. WHY on earth wouldn't they have a turbo that&#8217;s like 95% of the work to free up all this head room and then just not implementing the bit that tracks power. does not compute.

The bobcat based C-60 and C-70 have turbo for both CPU and GPU. the CPU Turbo can go from 1ghz to 1.3ghz on C50/60. why would AMD be taking a backward step? Why wouldn't AMD be able to reach say 1.6ghz, or even higher on a single core turbo when the GPU is largely idle for example.

Temash is 3.6W to 5.9W. http://technewspedia.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/17098_Kabini-Temash-portada2.jpg

I bet you anything that the 4 core Temash is 5.9W, which is why AMD wasn't touting any TDP values at CES and instead focusing on how "fast" the chip is.

People who think that AMD magically out did the ARM stuff on tablets without any compromises on an unproven GloFo 28nm process are delusional. With Bay Trail at <3W, this is likely DOA for iPad-like tablets.

Should be awesome for really low power netbooks/notebooks though.

the 3.6watt part would likely be a dual core with a reduced power GPU however they choose to do that ( clocks, disable parts, both etc). depending on CPU headroom for Trubo i dont see how this is as dead in the water like you proclaim.

 

[MightyMalus]

Why wouldn't AMD be able to each say 1.6ghz

Capable and purpose. Can they? Ofcourse. Do they want to? Maybe. I wouldn't be surprised if they scale/turbo the iGPU's and not the CPU tho.

But hey, it performs well no matter what clock rate its going, so does it matter?
Its like Intel vs AMD on desktop lol I don't understand these people!
Maybe Temash's IPC are so good it don't need it and decided to save power? lol
Who cares, it runs pretty well.

 

[itsmydamnation]

Capable and purpose. Can they? Ofcourse. Do they want to? Maybe. I wouldn't be surprised if they scale/turbo the iGPU's and not the CPU tho.

But hey, it performs well no matter what clock rate its going, so does it matter?
Its like Intel vs AMD on desktop lol I don't understand these people!
Maybe Temash's IPC are so good it don't need it and decided to save power? lol
Who cares, it runs pretty well.

the point is it should do both, rarely are you bound by both CPU and GPU at the exact same time. since ortando AMD have released llano, bulldozer, trinity, hondo and vishera, all have turbo's. They should have a pretty good handle on it by now.

 

[MightyMalus]

the point is it should do both, rarely are you bound by both CPU and GPU at the exact same time. since ortando AMD have released llano, bulldozer, trinity, hondo and vishera, all have turbo's. They should have a pretty good handle on it by now.

Maybe I came off a bit "weird" in how I said it. I mean that maybe they won't do it because of power usage. Maybe they wanted to be at those watts. Or maybe they did it fully or partially turboed. Ofcourse they can do it. But by the comments, it performs well. So, does it really matter if it has a turbo? Its probably supercharged! >.>''

 

[Exophase]

You sound like you think it wont turbo, that to me seems a pretty unlikely event. AMD confirmed at hotchips that jaguar supports all the hooks needed for turbo but turbo itself is a SOC level decision and he wasn't going to talk about it. Each CPU has C6 CC6 etc states and high efficiencies level for clock gating. WHY on earth wouldn't they have a turbo that&#8217;s like 95% of the work to free up all this head room and then just not implementing the bit that tracks power. does not compute.

The bobcat based C-60 and C-70 have turbo for both CPU and GPU. the CPU Turbo can go from 1ghz to 1.3ghz on C50/60. why would AMD be taking a backward step? Why wouldn't AMD be able to reach say 1.6ghz, or even higher on a single core turbo when the GPU is largely idle for example.

Never heard anything about turbo for Z-60 for instance, so until it's confirmed I'm not holding my breath. Why taking a backward step? Because C60 has 9W TDP vs these other processors with the same base speeds on everything and much lower TDP.

I was very clear in my post that it only applies IF it can't go past 1GHz. No need to tell me how I'm proclaiming anything. I just think it's weird that a quad core would be called a 1GHz processor without listing the turbo clock speed.

 

[itsmydamnation]

i never said you where proclaiming i said "it sounds like you think". I was telling Intel17 he was proclaiming. Also from what i can see they didn't list any clock speeds for any parts, richland, kabini or temash.

 

[Exophase]

Sorry, I wrongly skimmed that part. Nonetheless, I at least thought I made it clear that all of that's only true IF it can only be clocked to 1GHz. I did ask to be informed if that isn't the case!

I've found 1GHz from various searches for Temash, I figure this number comes from somewhere.