YouTube comments are for flaming, here I wanted a balanced discussion. I understood his points, but I don't think they are very accurate at all. However that might just be me though and that is why I started this discussion.
Arachnotronic
Lifer
- Mar 10, 2006
- 11,715
- 2,012
- 126
That's always been amds issue. They can make a chip but they have no idea what to do after that step.
You need to blame the OEMs that instead of delivering low power, low cost Netbooks with Brazos, upscaled it to full sized Notebooks. And they lose even more points since consumer OEM computers usually come preinstalled with a lot of bloatware that makes your computer ridiculous more slower than it is.
Atom and Brazos had the negative effect that they killed the budget Notebooks that were competent, since the big Cores were better than them even at rather low Frequencies.
The small Cores and the Netbook form factor were introduced as a novelty, aimed at prices around the budget Notebooks, instead of introducing a lower entry level below them. Overally, it was a regression, since they sweeped the good old budget Notebooks that were fairly more performing.
Atom and Brazos had the negative effect that they killed the budget Notebooks that were competent, since the big Cores were better than them even at rather low Frequencies.
The small Cores and the Netbook form factor were introduced as a novelty, aimed at prices around the budget Notebooks, instead of introducing a lower entry level below them. Overally, it was a regression, since they sweeped the good old budget Notebooks that were fairly more performing.
WAIT, hang on a minute, the upscaling of Brazos intro Notebooks was AMD fault, not OEM.
On 2011 Athlon 2/Phenom 2/Turion 2 implementation on was just too costly compared to Brazos, and AMD never releasing a new chipset with a new IGP for these cause it to be left outside of the low end, and later on just killed.
To me it was not a good tradeoff, Athlon 2 with a 80SP chipset and DC DDR3 whould have been A LOT better, and remember that AMD had Athlon Neo and Athlon 2 Neo and 780G on Netbook/Ultraportable when Brazos launched. It was a very important step back in CPU perf, because E-350 was already slower than a L335.
AMD could have done a new chipset instead of keep trying to sell 780G with mods, a 80SP, with DC DDR3 and integrating SB on it as well, they could be still selling that on AM3...
On 2011 Athlon 2/Phenom 2/Turion 2 implementation on was just too costly compared to Brazos, and AMD never releasing a new chipset with a new IGP for these cause it to be left outside of the low end, and later on just killed.
To me it was not a good tradeoff, Athlon 2 with a 80SP chipset and DC DDR3 whould have been A LOT better, and remember that AMD had Athlon Neo and Athlon 2 Neo and 780G on Netbook/Ultraportable when Brazos launched. It was a very important step back in CPU perf, because E-350 was already slower than a L335.
AMD could have done a new chipset instead of keep trying to sell 780G with mods, a 80SP, with DC DDR3 and integrating SB on it as well, they could be still selling that on AM3...
Last edited:
railven
Diamond Member
- Mar 25, 2010
- 6,604
- 561
- 126
That's pretty much what the podcast said. He didn't say it was a bad platform, but was implemented poorly which gave it a negative perception.
Brazos in 2011 was great and rightfully took the market by storm.
Brazos in 2012 was mediocre.
Unfortunately, it had to be sold well into 2013.
Brazos in 2012 was mediocre.
Unfortunately, it had to be sold well into 2013.
To be fair, they did do just that. It was just called Llano instead. There are 2C 160/240SP Llanos out there (A4-series), but they have a 35W TDP compared to 18W of most mobile Brazos variants.
Its important to remember Brazos was about being as cheap as possible to turn out, not about extracting maximum performance.
It was superior to contemporary Atom. The problem was that manufacturers put it in machines that never should have been powered by such a low power chip. That's not entirely AMD's fault, they were and are not in a market position to say no to OEMs. The consumers are partially responsible for buying them but most of my blame lies with OEMs.
Last edited:
You dont get it, Brazos was not a SOC, it was still a 2-chip aproach, Llano follows the same line as in Brazos, they are the same thing in concept.
What i say, instead of going into E-350+A50M (24W), they could have improved the Athlon 2 Neo (12W) + RS785E(13W) + SB820M(5W), about 30W, 33W for Turion 2 Neo total. Thats not a lot more than Brazos...
So, what i meant is a similar aproach to Nvidia solution (IGP+NB+SB on a single chip) while targeting a 30W platform TDP, with HD5450 core as IGP, DC, and adjusted I/O to what was just needed... it was possible. And they could have used that chipset on their entire mobile lineup as well as in desktop.
Instead we got a huge regresión on CPU perf compared to a Athlon 2 Neo, a IGP that was crippled by both bad CPU perf and SC mem and not a lot of reduction in power or in cost, so it could have never overtake Atoms in netbooks.
So no, i dont think it was a good product at all, they should have moved to CPU+1 Chip-Chipset, and making a SoC with a way more limited I/O and 40SP igp for getting intro the netbook sector limited to 10" screens.
Both AMD and Intel decided to go on (CPU+NB+IGP) + SB just to destroy Nvidia chipset division. AMD going on IGP+NB+SB whould have been way better on that time, but that also allowed Nvidia to compite with them.
Last edited:
coffeemonster
Senior member
- Apr 18, 2015
- 241
- 87
- 101
I had an E2-2000 which I think was the top of the line Brazos in an 11" netbook. After a fresh reinstall on an SSD I was overall impressed with it's performance. Streaming 720p youtube videos fullscreen was the most intensive thing I ever did on it, but it didn't let me down.
podspi
Golden Member
- Jan 11, 2011
- 1,982
- 102
- 106
Bingo. On these forums we tend to focus on the parts manufacturers instead of the final product (which makes sense if you are building a PC yourself) - but in the case of OEM designs, you aren't buying an AMD or Intel anything, you're buying an Apple, HP, Dell, etc product.
Brazos was a fantastic product for its time. It was used to make (imho) fantastic products like the dm1z. It was also used to make absolutely terrible products. But blame the manufacturers of those products, not the suppliers who made a sale to an OEM. Are we going to start blaming the hard drive manufacturers too, who sell 5200rpm hard drives to be used as the main drives in junktops?
Or what about the terrible Ultrabooks out there? Should we blame Intel for those? Arguably, it would make more sense to (since Ultrabook is their trademark) but I STILL think it makes more sense to blame the OEM.
This isn't a nuanced argument, it is just a bad one.
again, The problem is that OEMs where given no option from AMD.
It only looks good compared to Atoms, is really bad compared to older AMD products that i have no idea why people keep forgeting about, no one ever owned a older AMD Neo product?
Personally im not a fan of passmark, but hell, 3dmark CPU scores for E-350 looks even worse, anyway is really hard to compare such things as of is today.
Buts lets check scores:
-E-350 : 755 ST:428
Older AMD ULV products for netbooks and ultraportables formerly AMD Neo:
-Athlon X2 L335 : 811 ST:438
-Turion X2 L625 : 872 ST:480
-Athlon 2 X2 K325 : 778 ST:429
-Turion 2 X2 K625 : 978 ST:505
AMD Neo products launched at the same time as E-350, yes, along with Brazos, AMD refreshed the Neo cpus:
Athlon 2 X2 K345 : 897 ST:478
There also where Turions 2 K645 and K685, those where not used, passmark as a single entry for the K685 with a score of 1158
So lets recap once again:
E-350 TDP?
18W APU
+ 6W Chipset
Total= 24W
Slower than AMD own 2009 Neo cpus.
AMD Neo TDP?
L335/L625 18W
+ RS780E(13W) + SB710(4.5W)
Total=35.5W
AMD Neo 2 TDP?
K325/K345 12W
K625/K645/K685 15W
+ RS785E(13W) + SB820M (3.5W)
Total=28.5W / 31.5W Turion 2
im not sure if you guys see my point, AMD could have followed Nvidia strategy and do a IGP+NB+SB tailored for ULV, 80SP+DC DDR3+2 SATA+8 USB+4 PCI-E, and a larger version for desktop and larger notebooks with 4 SATA and 20 PCI-E.
And wait until Llano was ready for APUs, that whould have been a lot better than forcing the cpu perf regresion that we got.
But as AMD never upgraded the chipset for Neo, both new neos and notebooks based athlons where left behind and abandoned, at the end brazos offered more features and better IGP, thus OEM where forced intro using Brazos for everything, not that they whould care about it anyway, is was cheaper for them to use those.
And why? neither AMD or Intel wanted another Atom+ION scenario. So not, to me, that i owned a Neo Netbook before E-350, it was terrible.
It only looks good compared to Atoms, is really bad compared to older AMD products that i have no idea why people keep forgeting about, no one ever owned a older AMD Neo product?
Personally im not a fan of passmark, but hell, 3dmark CPU scores for E-350 looks even worse, anyway is really hard to compare such things as of is today.
Buts lets check scores:
-E-350 : 755 ST:428
Older AMD ULV products for netbooks and ultraportables formerly AMD Neo:
-Athlon X2 L335 : 811 ST:438
-Turion X2 L625 : 872 ST:480
-Athlon 2 X2 K325 : 778 ST:429
-Turion 2 X2 K625 : 978 ST:505
AMD Neo products launched at the same time as E-350, yes, along with Brazos, AMD refreshed the Neo cpus:
Athlon 2 X2 K345 : 897 ST:478
There also where Turions 2 K645 and K685, those where not used, passmark as a single entry for the K685 with a score of 1158
So lets recap once again:
E-350 TDP?
18W APU
+ 6W Chipset
Total= 24W
Slower than AMD own 2009 Neo cpus.
AMD Neo TDP?
L335/L625 18W
+ RS780E(13W) + SB710(4.5W)
Total=35.5W
AMD Neo 2 TDP?
K325/K345 12W
K625/K645/K685 15W
+ RS785E(13W) + SB820M (3.5W)
Total=28.5W / 31.5W Turion 2
im not sure if you guys see my point, AMD could have followed Nvidia strategy and do a IGP+NB+SB tailored for ULV, 80SP+DC DDR3+2 SATA+8 USB+4 PCI-E, and a larger version for desktop and larger notebooks with 4 SATA and 20 PCI-E.
And wait until Llano was ready for APUs, that whould have been a lot better than forcing the cpu perf regresion that we got.
But as AMD never upgraded the chipset for Neo, both new neos and notebooks based athlons where left behind and abandoned, at the end brazos offered more features and better IGP, thus OEM where forced intro using Brazos for everything, not that they whould care about it anyway, is was cheaper for them to use those.
And why? neither AMD or Intel wanted another Atom+ION scenario. So not, to me, that i owned a Neo Netbook before E-350, it was terrible.
Last edited:
Brazos was one of AMD's most successful products. AMD sold a truckload of them in 2011 and 2012. In fact Brazos helped AMD weather a difficult period when AMD kept losing marketshare and revenue at the high end due to the Bulldozer fiasco, GF 32 nm production ramp issues which affected Llano APUs severely and even forced a Llano inventory writeoff of USD 100 million in late 2012. Then Baytrail happened in late 2013 and AMD lost the low end too. Intel made it even worse with their contra revenue program which helped them sell a lot of Baytrail chips into tablets which cannibalized low end netbooks where AMD sold Kabini/Beema. Temash/Mullins were never produced in seriously high volume and did not stand a chance against contra revenue Baytrail tablets. AMD's cost structure advantage was gone and Intel Baytrail was more power efficient due to it being manufactured on a superior 22nm FINFET process.
Last edited:
Nope... Even Intel didn't managed to stop OEM'S to go.retarded and puting those chips.. On an AIO! And still does that!
That's how OEM's Goes retarded all the way.
If a negative CPU scale improvement is a good product, them it is.
Today you are better off with a older AMD Neo then with a Brazos... yeah it was good indeed.
What was the other option for OEMs? Neos? mobile Athlon and Phenoms? with RS780E/RS785E? with DDR3-800 max, and 40SP DX10 IGP? while increasing costs for MB and cooling? Brazos had a better IGP, and features overall.
Today you are better off with a older AMD Neo then with a Brazos... yeah it was good indeed.
What was the other option for OEMs? Neos? mobile Athlon and Phenoms? with RS780E/RS785E? with DDR3-800 max, and 40SP DX10 IGP? while increasing costs for MB and cooling? Brazos had a better IGP, and features overall.
Last edited:
Even my i7 4790K takes a crap on flash bloated web sites -- so I'm not sure that's a fair criticism.
podspi
Golden Member
- Jan 11, 2011
- 1,982
- 102
- 106
TDP != average power usage. I also had the 'pleasure' of using the Neos. TDP may have been similar, battery life was not.
If Intel released the C2D today it would be a terrible product. But usually people judge products in the category and time period they were originally released in. In Brazos' category, price range, and time period, it was a fantastic product - which showed up in sales.
Do you think that im comparing battery life? TDP means the cost in size and money of cooling the device.
But anyway, my MSI u230 with 52000mah was getting about the same bat life (4:30hs) than my DM1z (about 5hs) on 44000mah, Brazos had mostly better idle batt, as soon you started to do something is was the same thing.
But that why i said about why AMD should have come up with a newer chipset optimised for ULV, on 1 chip integrating IGP, NB and SB, and make it just enoght that it needs to operate in a ULV enviroment thus getting rid of everything that is unused. That whould have improved bat life, maybe not as much as in Brazos, but we also have led intro higher perf than Brazos.
Brazos had 2 mayor design problems:
1) It was not a SOC
2) TDP was still too high
That led intro the creation of C series, that ended in something that where not only not that much better than Atoms, and E series attempted to take the "big" netbooks and ultraportables, and OEm retarded mode used C series on notebooks, Lenovo sold 14" notebooks with C-50/60/70.... 100% unusable.
And 2 mayor performance problems
1) K8 based that performed less than K8 based Neos, and by the time it launched Neos 2 (K10), was already in the market for a year.
2) Single channel
Brazos should have been a SoC, how? with a 40SP IGP instead of 80, plenty of room left to integrate the minimum I/O needed, since it only needed to provide 2 SATA and 4-8 USB, since Brazos already provided more than enoght pci-e lanes. That whould allowed to reduce TDP, not only by just 6W of the chipset. Thats what AMD needed to overtake Atoms in netbook.
Brazos SoC and new 1-chip chipset for Neo, that what AMD should have done. And AMD not making a new chipset also ended up killing his own mobile Athlon, Phenom and Neos 2, thats why people started to see Brazos in everything.
Last edited:
Compared to the trash that was Atom at the time, it was far better. If it ran Windows well enough, then it was at least ok. I don't consider Flash part of Windows.
I agree with Shiva on many points.
Brazos 80SP wasn't able to game and would be overkill for 2D, and having a full SOC would have been better. They should've made it the absolute baseline for a laptop. 4USB, 1 SATA, maybe VGA&HDMI all on one chip.
For such a small core and GPU, 18W sure was a high TDP. It's really too bad they couldn't make a SOC at <15W with similar speed.
ARM completely destroyed it. Efficiency... Smoothness... iPad was beating Brazos with half the battery size and could be quick thanks to Nand and OS optimization. The one thing Brazos had over it was Windows productivity software.
It ended up in the OEMs race to the bottom and might have hurt AMDs reputation. I don't believe an inexpensive chip($20-30)should end up in not so inexpensive products($400-500) when you can make something much better for not much more.
I agree with Shiva on many points.
Brazos 80SP wasn't able to game and would be overkill for 2D, and having a full SOC would have been better. They should've made it the absolute baseline for a laptop. 4USB, 1 SATA, maybe VGA&HDMI all on one chip.
For such a small core and GPU, 18W sure was a high TDP. It's really too bad they couldn't make a SOC at <15W with similar speed.
ARM completely destroyed it. Efficiency... Smoothness... iPad was beating Brazos with half the battery size and could be quick thanks to Nand and OS optimization. The one thing Brazos had over it was Windows productivity software.
It ended up in the OEMs race to the bottom and might have hurt AMDs reputation. I don't believe an inexpensive chip($20-30)should end up in not so inexpensive products($400-500) when you can make something much better for not much more.
sm625
Diamond Member
- May 6, 2011
- 8,172
- 137
- 106
It was a bad product in the sense that it found its way into 15" class notebooks that sat on the store shelf next to notebooks with Intel Core chips, and the discount was not enough to justify the atom-class performance. People who bought these things expecting reasonable performance were basically screwed, and they were sure to avoid AMD products in the future. Brazos was a bridge burner. So no, there is no way it was a good product. If they kept it strictly restricted to netbooks then it wouldnt have been so bad. But they had no way of doing that.
Have you ever tried a Brazos+SSD system? With an SSD, Brazos becomes very usable.
Often the real problem with cheap laptops/netbooks/AIOs based on Brazos isn't the chips performance, but poor performance 5400RPM HDDs.
ALIVE
Golden Member
- May 21, 2012
- 1,960
- 0
- 0
also not forget the ram
some cheap solutions were very limited in ram that also hurt performance
very bad choices from the oems really damage a product
too low ram
bad hd
i bought a laptop with an i3 which come with 1 ram module installed bought a kit and went from single channel to double channel. and the performance of the igp doubled at 3d
oems are stupid they cut 10$ and that ruins the product
can really make or kill a cpu and the overall performance of the product
problem with amp just focus on sale and not focused where the cpu was going to be put
while the sold many yes in the end bad choices of oems hurt the name amd for the people
but at that time we also saw some notebooks with the atom 330 but noone is complain about this similar time similar approach of oems
but most of the time a product is killed from the ram and the hd
Last edited:
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter