text:
AMD's last, best hope: Low-power Kabini, Temash are ready for action; could rejuvenate mobile market
- By Joel Hruska on May 23, 2013 at 6:12 am
- Comment
Share This article
The big picture
Late last year, I theorized that Kabini and Temash could turn out to be precisely what the struggling x86 tablet/low-power market needed. After spending time with Microsoft's Surface, Surface Pro, and Samsung's Ativ (Tegra 3, Ivy Bridge, and Clover Trail), I concluded that the market badly needed a design that could offer stronger performance than Intel's Haswell without the accompanying hit to weight and battery life.
Can Kabini and Temash do that? Maybe. The A4-5000 beats Brazos out on core count and Intel's Clover Trail on CPU efficiency. The 128-core, 500MHz GPU will outperform the previous HD 5000 hardware thanks to its superior architecture and increased core count. I'm not sure there's much of a market for the 25W Kabini; AMD's new A10-5745M is a Richland quad-core at 25W with a 2.1GHz clock speed and a 384-core GPU. Granted, Richland's TDP figures don't include a south bridge, which tilts the math in Kabini's favor if TDP is a concern.
Still, After looking over Anand's performance figures, I feel pretty good about where Kabini ended up. If you were looking for a laptop with long battery life and performance that sat considerably nearer to Ivy Bridge than Clover Trail (at a fraction of the price), these systems could be precisely what you want. It's harder to predict what will happen with Temash, mostly for reasons beyond AMD's control. For whatever reason, x86 tablets have mostly failed to ignite at market. The problem is, AMD's window of opportunity to grab a foothold in this space while Intel is stuck on 32nm is only 6-7 months wide. Come the first part of 2014, Intel will have Bay Trail ready to go, and Sunnyvale faces a serious fight.
All of this is happening at a time when AMD's sales have slumped sharply. This hasn't stopped CEO Rory Read from proclaiming that AMD will achieve profitability in the back half of the year, despite huge questions regarding customer demand for laptops, tablets, and the new consoles. If that demand materializes, AMD has a good chance of banking meaningful profits. If it doesn't, the company could be forced into bankruptcy. The stakes really are that serious — if AMD doesn't capture a significant boost in demand via new tablets, greater laptop market share, or strong console sales, the company won't survive.
But Kabini, Temash, and the triple-set of licensing royalties from the Wii U, Xbox One, and PS4 are going to give it a shot.
- Previous
- 2 of 2
Post a Comment
how many times/years have we keep hearing that AMD is in trouble that they will go into bankruptcy? I will believe it when AMD says "we are going bankruptcy".
Joel Hruska
If the PS4/Xbox One and Kabini / Temash / Richland do not sell well, AMD is in serious trouble.
But if the *only* thing you took from this was that the possibility is there, you missed the point. I think these chips are good chips. I'm actively trying to get some in hand, so I can cover them directly. These are excellent products with a shot at turning things around, and the Xbox / PS4, if they catch, could turn things around for AMD.
I like AMD, in fact I'm using APU llano and so far so good I do not regret it one bit. I do hope the new APU's do well, can't wait til they come up with a 8 core APU for desktops. Like I said, for some years there has always been that speculation of AMD going bankrupt. I really hope that day won't come.
You should of gotten and Intel ultrabook they use FAR less power and are MUCH faster in everyday tasks!!!!
How much faster? for all I know I'm not wasting $$ for 5sec or so of difference
Heh. But Intel has far better battery life and with Haswell AMD is finished!!!!!
But then with te 6-core Steamroller Kaveri, Intel is finished… it goes in cycles…
No you're Wrong NOT this time. 6-core Steamroller will NOT be enough to stop Intel. Intel has the lead in power consumption and in performance and Steamroller/Kaveri Won't change that.
low power consumption on the desktop is just a fad and for laptops Kabini is plenty powerful
I see you're back but low power consumption on a desktop IS AWESOME and NOT worthless Kabini IS NOT ENOUGH for emulation and gaming!!!! I've posted lots of other Anti-AMD comments on: http://amdfx.blogspot.com/2013/05/amd-steamroller-fx-9650-45-ghz-48-ghz.html#comment-form.
Yea, been busy.
Kabini is fine for almost all games at low-res/low-detail, which is enough for most people.
I didn't see any of your comments on that link, they were removed for trolling maybe?
Uh no I have lots of comments on that page jml12 is the username of the commenter. Not for me its not enough which is why Intel is superior to AMD in the low power market.
If you really want low power, this Kabini chip uses a lot less power than any intel ULV core-i3 chip. The only way to go lower is to get an Atom, but they suck!
AMD Kabini is NOT fast enough CPU or GPU wise. Yeah Atom sucks but they use far less power.
Kabini is plenty fast enough for 90% of users according to every review I've seen. Atom isn't.
Kabini is plenty fast enough for most users but it still uses WAY TOO MUCH power it should use sub 10 watts on full load not 20 watts.
Kabini uses less than half the power of intels supposed 17W systems, which can actually use 50+Watts:
And Kabini will only go over 20 Watts in artificial conditions, even playing games it stays under 20Watts and can even play some games at less than 10Watts:
Which games can it use less than 10 watts for because I didn't see any? Kabini still uses too much power. With Kabini AMD is headed in the right direction but its STILL NOT GOOD ENOUGH!!!! Although one more revision like this it might just be good enough.
My mistake, I was looking at Kabini web browsing power usage at Toms:
It still uses about half the power of intels "17Watt" chips when gaming and can still boast some better frame rates than a core i3-3217U in some games:
So if Kabini still needs to be improved, then Intel has even more work to do!
True but AMD has a third of the performance CPU wise and 75% of the GPU performance. AMD has a lot of work left od with Kabini.
One Third! that's a bit harsh, I can't find a single benchmark where it has one third the score of a core-i3. Ofter, it offers about 80% of the core-i3's performance, that's more than enough for most people.
Sure, they have some more work to do with Kabini, I expect they will have a refresh next year with some better turbo abilities, but the one they have out now looks really good.
No AMD has a lot of work and most it having to do with power consumption. AMD kabini needs to use a third of what it actually uses. AMD kabini is a mediocre chip AT BEST!!!!
Kabini gives plenty of performance for most people at a considerably lower cost than core-i chips, it also uses a lot less power.
What you're saying is that it needs to use Atom-like levels of power. There's already chips like that called "Atom", and their performance is poor.
AMD are on the right track giving us reasonably well performing chips at relatively low power levels. Do you not understand that there are trade-off involved?
Kabini uses less power than Ivy Bridge but Intel haswell is a different matter. Intel haswell's battery life has improved a great deal check: http://www.anandtech.com/show/7047/the-haswell-ultrabook-review-core-i74500u-tested/5. Yeah that is EXACTLY what I am saying. Intel Atom can easily go into a smartphone AMD needs to be able to do the same but it can't. For the Performance AMD IS NOT GOOD ENOUGH!!!!
Haswell only really improves battery life if the computer spends a lot of time idle. That's nice, but it's not truly using a lot less power. Also that Anandtech review leaves out a lot, like does it use less power when playing games for example.
For the price, AMD's performance is great, which makes it a much better solution than intel for most people.
Talk about and AMD Fanboi. Anandtech didn't have that Info just yet and Intel is disorganized as crap. Actually I would like to know that as well. AMD Kabini isn't fast enough for my gaming but the Intel Haswell NUC might be.
Yep, that "Article" is short on details, so their 50% power usage number needs to be taken with a grain of salt.
If you're serious about gaming on an IGP, an AMD based system is much better value and has much better performance than any intel system (with the one exception of the super-expensive power-hogging Iris Pro).
Wrong on small systems Intel is far better for the power used. At 15 watts I would get a superior Intel CPU and HD 5000 graphics vs 4 weak ass Jaguar Cores and AMD's HD 8330 which is inferior. AMD Kaveri I don't think it will be that good and thus AMD is finished.
If you want performance at low power levels, mobile Richland is a better comparison for the Haswell chips. Kabini is for low-cost low-power systems.
You are ignoring price again so you can make pointless comparisons that make intel look good. That's a sure sign of a rabid fanboi.
Uh no it isn't because AMD richland doesn't have chips that use 15 watts Kabini does. I am comparing TDP so price doesn't matter to me I'll just save up for it. AMD richland uses 25 watts+ and it still can't match Intel Iris or Iris Pro.
Inform yourself, there are indeed 17W Richland chips, these chips will do pretty well against similarly watt intel chips and will likely be a lot cheaper.
You save up for chips with a lower TDP? If so that's pretty stupid. You can't save money by buying lower-TDP chips, they are too expensive.
Yes because they use less power. No Intel will still outclass them pretty badly. I like getting good parts not just run of the mill parts.
Yea, you've said you like to use less power in order to save money, that's stupid because you'll never make back the premium you have to pay to get a low-power chip.
sure, you "like getting good parts", most people don't pay extra for crap they don't need or won't save them money, you're special that way
To save money on my electric bill. Also with less power drawn I can have a small PC box. Intel haswell has Intel's NUC. AMD uses Kabini which is vastly outclassed and Haswell uses less power.
Saving money on your electric bill is stupid, low-power desktop chips are much better overall value than true mobile chips.
You want a NUC box? I thought you were a power user?
Haswell uses less power than Kabini… wheres the proof???
Kabini still gives much better performance per $ than Haswell.
No it really isn't stupid 9 out of 12 months a year. Maybe but both cost a lot of money. Performance per $ is unimportant Performance per watt is important.
Paying an extra $100 (the price difference between low-power desktop and ULV chips generally) in order to save $2 a month is very poor economics.
Saying "Performance per $" is unimportant is the same as saying that price is unimportant. I think you are very much on your own with an opinion like that.
Performance per watt is nice, but a secondary consideration.
Actually it because I want my pc as small as possible. Most people you included won't understand. I like small PC's. Thought I could get a low power mid range video card and a quad core Intel haswell Xeon 25 watt CPU.
Sure, I think small PCs are cool too. But I am not willing to give up on performance to get a small PC (which also costs more) .
Sure, get your mobile quad-core Haswell, pay that extra $100 and get a PC that performs more poorly.
The CPU I was talking about is NOT a mobile CPU its a desktop Xeon CPU with no GPU. I was thinking of adding a GPU to it. And it will perform quite nicely I think.
You want to run a server chip on a desktop, save on your power bills and also run a GPU? Oh dear.
Oh my you really don't get it do you!!!!
I really don't get your "reasoning" if that's what you mean.
If you want a Xeon CPU to save on IGP power, that's stupid. If you get a Xeon for a simple gaming box, then you're paying way over the odds for server features that you'll never use.
Here, I'll do it for you,
If you want a decently performing low-ish power desktop chip you'll want the 35W $184 core i5-3470T. It's much cheaper than the rip-off mobile chips and has 4 real cores running at 2.9Ghz. (You could always wait a few months/half a year for a Haswell equivalent to come out)
If you want a low-power but high performing GPU the Radeon 7790 seems to be a good option.
Stick the whole lot in a small miniITX case and you can upgrade at your leisure.
If you want to pay a lot less but can put up with less performance, the new 65W Richland A10-6700 would be my pick.
The Xeon I was thinking about also has 4 cores but has a low TDP and no IGP. AMD's Radeon 7790 doesn't come in a half height card. AMD APU's are power hogs. My combo would take about the same 65 watts but would provide MUCH better performance. Also the cpu I was thinking about costs about $250.
Which Xeon are you talking about, the 1265LV2? That's a 45W $350 quad core that runs at 2.5Ghz. So it's much more expensive, slower and uses more power than the chip I proposed.
Do you know that when the IGP is not being used it uses almost no power, so there's no point going for a Xeon for IGP power savings.
There are HD7750's available in half height.
Also, the 65W AMD APUs are most definitely not power-hogging, they take only a few more Wats that intels 55W chips, but they also give better game performance.
Wrong CPU moron its this one: Intel Xeon E3-1230LV3. AMD's 65 watt APU's use too much power and underperform.
Oh, I'm sorry for not guessing that you'd make such an incredibly stupid choice for a CPU.
I'll say this again, because you're obviously not intelligent to work it out.
If the IGP isn't being used, it will take almost no power.
This means that a CPU which normally has a 35W TDP, wil actually behave like a CPU with a much lower TDP if the IGP is never used.
Thus your idea to pay over the odds for a server chip is incredibly stupid.
Got it now?
Also, plase justify your other stupid statement about AMDs 65W APU, they can idle at the same level as the Haswell, but the IGP will also give much better frame rates in games.
I wouldn't be so sure about that because of quick Sync. Most of the time you maybe be right but not this time. Oh by the way the CPU you're talking about is a dual core not a quad core fool. AMD Richland sucks ASS and is a Trinity Re-brand plain and simple.
What's QuickSync got to do with anything?
Damn, you noticed that the 3470T is a dualie eh? Sorry, you caught me, I was just trying to sucker you into getting a lame dual core. The 3570T is a nice $200 45W quad-core though and worlds better than you mental Xeon idea. I take it you've seen the error of your Xeon ways now though, but are too ashamed to admit it?
Richland is a new stepping of Trinity with some firmware improvements, you'd better get used to that idea though, because that's what your beloved intel is going to do with their Haswell 1.1 this time next year.
Yeah You're right but that doesn't matter because Intel is still superior and Intel Haswell 1.1 will still be far better than Kaveri!!!!
so, still no admission on your Xeon madness then?
Haswell 1.1 Vs Kaveri is much to far in the future to predict with any certainty.
Intel Xeon has a TPD of 25 watts while the 3570T has a TDP of 45 watts there is no way omitting the GPU would cancel out 20 watts.
No? Here is an example of an i3-3225 where the GPU manages to burn up 37W all on it's own. Also, there's a 500Mhz difference between those chips, from the weak 1.8Ghz Xeon chip you specced to the much better 2.3Ghz 3570T, do you thing that maybe that could account for part of the difference as well.
Nice try, but you'd have to be mad to get the Xeon, especially that one. In reality with an external GPU, ny chip would be much more powerful while only burning a few extra Watts.
Ahahah..Nice Try Intel HD 4000 takes that much power where's your proof?
Sorry I mis-read the article, it was actually 31W, not 37W:
Still, the intel IGP can burn loads of power. If you down-clocked the 3570T to 1.8Ghz and disabled the IGP, the two chips would probably be extremly close in power usage.
Just give up, you can't justify getting a Xeon in order to save power on the IGP, it was just a stupid idea.
The Intel Xeon costs about the same or a bit less but you are right. And thus the reason I would just get a regular GPU because it uses about the same amount of power and performs many times better.
The mid-range GPUs are the sweet-spot for gaming on a power-budget, the low end GPU's don't give enough performance and the high-end GPU's burn a lot of power.
That I would have to agree with you on.
I'm still going to get a high-end card for myself though, because I'm more interested in performance than the performance/power sweet spot.
Congrats on getting a secondary space heater. I am glad that performance per $ is just a past trend now because it means I can get smaller pc's and not worry about my electric bill.
I like good graphics performance, what can I say.
Sure, you can shave a few Watts of on CPUs, but I don't believe that you are actually trying to save money on your electric bills. Don't you have a 27inch monitor, you do know they can use up to 100W. A good way for you to save power would be to downsize your monitor, why don't you do that?
Wrong at max my Acer 27″ led monitor uses 30 watts. Right now I got it setup to use 14 watts.
Glad to hear it, otherwise you're power saving efforts would be for naught.
That would be correct. Now I need to find a pc that uses less than 20 watts at full load.
That's a tall order, I don't think even the lowest power Haswells will let you do that.
I somehow doubt you're right on that one. Actually it should be quite easy for Haswell's with TDP's of 15 watts or less.
I was basing my estimate off the intel NUC, which uses about 27W at full load:
And, being generous, Haswell improves load power by about 20%, so still above your 20W threshold.
Active power from Intel haswell hasn't been measured properly and there are no benchmarks of Active power for Intel haswell right now.
Actually I looked at a bunch of other reviews and they all say that the NUC's power usage is a lot worse than that.
From what I've seen of Haswell's load power usage, on the desktop at least, it's nothing special:
Wrong Intel made Haswell for mobile so Haswell will deliver unlike AMD.
Any evidence, or is this just more wishful thinking on your part?
I can't find the load power for Intel Haswell ULT anywhere otherwise I would be able to tell you.
So you're just making stuff up again, I see.
It seems like we both are making stuff up.
Don't judge everybody by your own standards.
If you can't find definite numbers behind your Haswell ULT load-power assertions, then you're just making stuff up. Feel free to call me out if you think I'm making stuff up.
I see very well I only thought that because you said there was no improvement on Intel Haswell means you would be wrong.
Haswell made some improvements. That statement is definitely correct.
Yep and those improvements and AMD look really bad in mobile it will take Kaveri just to stack up to intel.
Richland also made improvements in mobile over Trinity, but you just ignore those don't you.
No you're wrong AMD Richland is a complete JOKE. IT actually uses MORE power and only gives a slight boost to CPU + GPU an NO I am not joking.
That's crazy, can you prove this outlandish claim?
AHAHAHAHA..Acutally that so easy its funny. Here: http://techreport.com/review/24954/amd-a10-6800k-and-a10-6700-richland-apus-reviewed/3. Also it gets a lot worse for AMD as the 65 watt CPU doesn't use that much less than the 100 watt version. This is a good example of why AMD SUCKS ASS AND also why Intel is far superior.
Huh, As I read the charts, the A10-6700 performs better than the A10-5800 while also using a lot less power. So with Richland, performance is up and power usage is down at the same time.
If you look at the scatter plots on the last page of the review you'll see why intel chips are generally a bad choice:
The AMD chips give superior CPU performance and superior IGP gaming performance than similar priced intel chips.
Oh wow YOU ARE AN IDIOT!!! Wrong Performance is slightly increased and power consumption is increased by at least 15 watts and its just the APU providing the increase so AMD failed BIG TIME!!!! At the cost of MUCH more power used at load which at that point you might as well get a real GPU. This combo of Intel and NVIDIA awesomeness the Giada D2308 will crush AMD to the ground and use far less power while doing so.
Dumbass, read my response properly before accusing me of being an idiot.
The A10-6700 performs better than the A10-5800 AND uses less power.
That's what I said and that's not wrong.
But what you don't get is that the A10-6700 is a 65 watt part yet it uses every bit as much power as a 100 watt part from AMD. Your claim while true is irrelevant due to this fact. Looks like I hit a nerve with you AMD fanboi.
So, my claim is true, finally. AMD did in fact reduce power while increasing performance, thanks for finally admitting that you were completely wrong
The A10-6700 does in fact use 17W less than the A10-6800 according to TechReport. so your "every bit as much power" comment is clearly BS. And so what if the difference is just 17W, that just means that the 100W parts are more efficient than their 100W TDPs would indicate.
No you couldn't be more wrong. And you don't get IT AMD Richland 100 watts USES MORE POWER than AMD Trinity 100 watts plain and simple. That 17 watt difference was AMD trinity 100 wats compared to AMD richland 65 watts and thus means that AMD richland is horribly inefficient.
Nope, wrong again, the 100W AMD Trinity was actually quite efficient and didn't get close to it's TDP limit in practice. The 100W Richland does make more use of it's TDP to give better performance.
How can you say that Richland is inefficient with the fact is that 65W Richland is more powerful than 100W Trinity (and much more powerful than 65W Trinity), and it uses a lot less power.
To increase performance and decrease power usage is a great achievement by AMD.
Wrong way pal. The slightly increased performance and increased power usage by a good it and yes I am comparing apples to apples. I am comparing 100 watt AMD APU's and Richland uses more power but does a little bit more. I can say that because AMD richland can't even compare to Intel's Haswell or Even Intel's 22nm Atom. Wrong AMD richland is one of AMD's greatest failures.
It's only the wrong way in your eyes because you're a rapid intel fanboi.
The A10-6700 and A10-6800 use exactly the same silicon, the fact is it's faster and lower power than the previous generation. Just face the facts and accept it.
Damn you're an IDIOT!!! Neither one is uses less power than Intel's Core i3. SO what the GPU is faster on AMD's APU's but it uses TWICE the POWER to get there. At that point you might as well put a dGPU on the Intel and call it a day. It would use the same amount of power but it WOULD SLAUGHTER AMD APU's for breakfast, lunch, and DINNER!!!!! No I won't accept it because you are comparing a 65 watt APU to a 100 watt APU unless the comparisons are even I won't consider it.
Dumbass, take off your intel-flavoured sunglasses. The comparison is very even, The lower power Richland performs slightly better than the very fastest high power Trinity. The performance is very similar but the power consumption has gone well down with the new Richland chip.
The performance between generations is much closer in this case, so I am using that as the constant, not the TDP, if you wern't such an intel bigot you would see that is more reasonable than using a non-constant TDP as a constant.
According to TRs scatter plot, the only reason to get an i3 would be for discreet GPU gaming:
But even for that, the AMD FX-6350 is a much better deal. So what if they use a bit more power than an i3, this is on a desktop where power consumption matter little.
AMD richland uses more power than Trinity plain and simple. No it hasn't sorry chump you're comparing the 65 watt richland with 100 watt Trinity both chips are binned differently. So 65 watt Trinity and 65 watt Richland would end up the same with AMD richland using more power than Trinity. But both suck out loud because both use too much power and Intel is far faster than both. Wrong AMD's FX-6350 uses twice the power and fails to deliver over and over again. Intel core i3 is faster than ANY FX series in single threaded tasks and it beats the 4 core FX series and gives the 6 core FX series a run for it money while using MUCH LESS POWER to do so.
I'll make it as simple as I can:
At the same Level of Performance, Richland uses less power than Trinity.
Did you even look at:
The FX-6350 costs about the same as the i3-3225, but it performs much better CPU-wise and discreet GPU-wise. So what if it uses more watts at full load, it's on a desktop, performance is more important.
Says some stupid chart. Intel Core i3 is better where it matters in gaming and casual tasks. Very Few games use more than 4 cores and thus Intel is superior to AMD PERIOD!!!!! Power consumption is important on the desktop not much I as I'd like to be but much more than you'll ever understand.
So, with your misdirection with the i3 and crap, I take it that you finally accept that Richland uses less power to give the same performance. I'll take my apology in written form.
Blah, Blah about the 4 cores and i3 being better, if you can come up with a comprehensive chart that say that then I'll listen, otherwise I'm believing the big comprehensive chart rather than some internet troll.
No you're still DEAD wrong!!! No AMD still uses more power for more performance its as simple as that. If you can find me AMD Trinity 65 watts vs Richland 65 watts only then can you prove me wrong on that count. Nope as I said the i3 is much better at everything that matters for example Gaming and web browsing not to mention emulation. AMD can't hold a candle to even the Core i3 in single thread performance and power usage.
Blah Blah Blah,
You want to keep TDP as a constant, that's ok, but my method of keeping performance as a constant is more accurate, as the performance of the A10-5800 and A10-6700 is very close. Otherwise, all you're saying is that performance is up and bit and power used is up a bit. Pointless. You can't gauge exactly how much progress they made. My way of taking performance as a frame of reference makes much more sense.
AMD have much better options than the i3 for CPU power, GPU gaming and IGP gaming, I've shown you the data. As usual, you have nothing to back up your hollow fanboi words.
Hahah The Performance of the a10-5700 and A10-5800 is close as well you what you said is meaningless. No you're way is that of an AMD fanboi. AMD has a faster IGP but that's coupled with MUCH MUCH higher power usage even among the 65 watt models.
No it's not, where's your proof than the 5700 and 5800 are close. The 6700 and 5800 are much closer.
Sure, the Desktop Richlands have a higher full-load power usage, but under light loads and idle they regularly beat the i3. besides it's not important in a desktop machine.
Light loads don't matter much to me because I spend most of my time gaming meaning full load and thus Intel wins and AMD loses. Yeah it is important in a desktop machine because I don't want to use a large and or noisy fan and I want a small PC. So high power using CPU and APU's need NOT APPLY!!!! Meaning AMD has no place in my new rig. AMD is not fast enough at sub 30 watts and AMD's Performance APU's take at least 110 watts of power and thus can't be in small PC's.
Obviously you don't spend most of your time gaming, you seem to spend an inordinate amount of time trolling, that's pretty light usage if you ask me.
Whinging about not being able to use a desktop AMD chip in a sub-30W rig is stupid, you can't run a desktop intel chip in such a machine either. You need a mobile intel chip, thus you should compare that with a mobile AMD chip…. More of your double standards.
Yep I need a mobile chip and Intel is king of mobile AMD can't even compare.
Yes, they do compare, you're just afraid to do the comparison.
What does AMD have that can compare to Intel?
Comparing mobile Richland to mobile Haswell is more price appropriate than comparing it to Kabini. Richland is still a lot cheaper than Haswell though.
Haswell is more expensive but is Haswell is far better than Richland in almost every way possible. Sure it can't beat the 35 watt Richland's IGP but it beats every other richland APU using less power and getting awesome battery in the process.
At 3x teh price of mobile Richland, Haswell would need to be better than mobile Richland. It's definitely not 3x better though.
No it isn't but it really doesn't need to be. Intel haswell has much improved battery life in ALL AREAS load power included. In fact Intel Haswell gets double the battery life all across the board. Also Intel's IGP is much better than AMD richland's IGP.
Back to your usual trolling, but without using all CAPS in an attempt to disguise it!
Prove that Haswell has improved load power, I've asked you to back up this statement before but you come up short… as usual.
Prove that Haswell doubled battery life, I've seen no evidence for that.
AMD's IGP beats any intel IGP under $400, i.e. in all but some niche chips.
Below $100 AMD apu's SUCK ASS!!!! Intel's HD graphics aren't great at under $100 but their CPU's still rock OUT LOUD!!!
AND intel have good APUs under $100…. I don't think so. Where's your proof?
Those are some weak links, I've always acknowledged that intel have improved the idle performance of Haswell, but you've said numerous times that only Load-Power is important to you. Where's the proof that Load-Power has decreased significantly??
The Intel Pentium G2020 is great example of awesome value that AMD can't even come close to matching. Those links are the best I can find however they still prove Intel haswell is not only well worth the money it is just flat out better than AMD.
The G2020 definitely has it's good points, it's CPU performance is good for the price, but it also has serious drawbacks, it's IGP performance is truly terrible:
They're the best links you could find? some super-weak reviews! I'm still waiting for some evidence for your Haswell load-power assertion. Until then all you can safely say is that Haswell only improves battery life if you don't use your computer much! I thought you were only interested in full-load power consumption.
As I said AMD does have a better IGP even at below $100 but its CPU is sorely lacking at that price. That's all you can assume because those review told exactly what I needed to know. Intel Haswell ULT improves battery life on all fronts and even under load you will get at least 3 hours which is at least double what Intel could do before.
They are some super-weak reviews, but then I expect you to ignore any useful information that does not further your cause.
Did you notice that in CNet's photoshop test the new Macbook Air's are more than 50% Slower than the 2012 Air's. I bet you didn't see that one in your orgasmic excitement over some low-load battery run times. Also, none of the reviews mention that Apple increased the battery size on the new Air's.
None of them test the Air's battery life under full load. You have said numerous times that this matters to you the most, so how exactly do these reviews tell you "exactly what I needed to know" Mr. Fanboi?
I see you like to find faults with Intel however Cnet sucks so I don't look at ANY of their benchmark results. That is true I am still searching for hard numbers but it is better that's for sure. But the first reviews tell me that Intel haswell ROCKS and that Intel CAN'T BE BEAT!!!!!!
I like to find fault with intel, but I also praise them when they deserve it. You on the other hand find fault with AMD even when no fault exists.
I expect you to ignore CNets results, you have a habit of ignoring information if it does not suit your perverted world view.
So, no hard numbers, but you still say that it rocks, weak.
Of course and there are lots of faults with AMD. You just don't see them. AMD mobile uses a lot more power than Intel mobile. Intel Haswell mobile stomps all over AMD mobile. AMD kabini isn't good enough to be in mobile because its AMD only mobile product. Richland isn't mobile IT SUCKS TOO MUCH POWER!!!!!!
It's a sure sign of weakness comparing Kabini with Haswell which costs 6x as much.
ALL CAPS Again, you must be completely wrong about your "Richland uses too much power". Mobile Trinity used less power than mobile ivy bridge under full load, Haswell didn't improve load-power at all, thus Richland wins.
Wrong again, I see all the faults with AMD and I use them all when I'm arguing with AMD fanbois.
"AMD mobile uses a lot more power than Intel mobile"
You still have not shown this to be true. Haswell under full load has not been shown to be any more power efficient.
"Richland isn't mobile IT SUCKS TOO MUCH POWER"
If this were true you would be able to show it easily, proof please.
Intel haswell and AMD richland notebooks are just being released so I too will have to wait a bit before benchmarks are in.
Yup, I'm sure in a few weeks we'll have a clearer picture of the state of competition.
AMD Richland doesn't hold a candle to Intel haswell sorry. Here: http://www.anandtech.com/show/7085/the-2013-macbook-air-review-13inch/6. AMD has nothing that can compete with this.
Temash has better battery life, and it also much cheaper.
Wrong sorry it doesn't Intel haswell has better battery life and its faster but its expensive as all hell.
Saying "wrong sorry" doesn't cut it, prove it.
No but AMD temash isn't built for good load power and it shows with its poor load battery life.
So you say that Temash has poor load power, forgive me for not taking you for your word, but can you prove that?
Oh yes I cetainly can: http://www.notebookcheck.net/Review-Acer-Aspire-V5-122P-61454G50NSS-Notebook.93321.0.html.
Nice try, but No, that link just shows that the Acer Aspire V5-122p has poor load power performance.
Other sites have reported the same full load of 23W for a higher Watted Kabini Laptop using a much larger screen:
This indicates that the Acer laptop is performing poorly at full load, although I understand why you focus on that one review, for you it paints the whole Temash line in a poor light. Why not try looking a balance of review before arriving at a conclusion?
There are no other reviews that's why. I focus on that one review because its the only one there. SO what Intel haswell at full load is far better than Kabini or Temash. Like which review because I can't find any? And Face IT Intel has won AMD has lost!!!!
"Intel haswell at full load is far better than Kabini or Temash"
Have you got data for Haswells power consumption at full load??? If not, then you're just making things up… as usual.
There's plenty of reviews of the 15W Kabini on the net now.
Idiot I was talking about Temash not Kabini!!! And Kabini also gets far worse battery life than Intel haswell under full load.
Dumbass, if Kabini can do better than Haswell, then Temash is capable of doing the same.
Sure you can say "Kabini also gets far worse battery life than Intel haswell under full load", but where is your proof?
Any evidence better than the assumptions of an intel fanboi?
Kabini's load battery life is far worse the Intel haswell's. Read the Macbook air review and also read the Kabini notebook reviews.
So do you have a review where the Air is tested under full-load so I can make a proper comparison?
No I can't find any for some reason.
So, a fact that you can't actually prove is really just a …..
Your new 'rig' sounds like a POS toy to me, what the hell kind of games are you playing? Flash based "Intel Troll Trainer"?
Luckily, AMD won't have to deal with the RMA's you will attempt after you damage your hardware due to your extreme levels of stupidity.
No you are false and dumb too. No I play doom 3 BFG edition mostly right now. No but Intel won't have deal with RMA's for your stupidity!!!
Performance wise of course you would be right but that doesn't matter because Intel is better than both in CPU power and power usage. Actually I just did and AMD has made ZERO progress its just a simple re-brand nothing more just like the current 8000 series. No they don't not for single threaded apps like dosbox and most emulation like wii and ps2 emulation.
It matter, because it means that what you said was incorrect. AMD greatly reduced power consumption, the thing that you supposedly hold dear, while keeping the same performance levels. In typical fanboi fashion, you praise intel for reducing power consumption, but dismiss any time AMD do exactly the same thing. That's a clear example of your double standards.
Ooooohhhhh, "emulation", is that all you've got, is that the only possible reason left to get an intel chip, if so, that's pretty weak.
It may mean next to nothing for you but emulation IS AWESOME and I love playing old games and no one does that better than INTEL!!!! Wrong AMD's richland pretty much stood still delivering very little improvement at the same TDP while using more power at the same TDP!!!!
You and the other couple of people who do lots of emulation should stick with intel then (until the emulators become more multi-threaded), for everyone else, AMD is better value.
Rather than your inaccurate long-winded sentence you could just say that, at the same performance levels, Richland decreased power consumption.
I know you hate to acknowledge that though, that's what makes you a fanboi whereas I'm an impartial commentator. I acknowledge the progress intel and AMD make.
Wrong it makes you a fanboi not me. That might happen one day soon but Intel still uses less power and Kabini is unsuitable for emulation even with its four cores its IPC in much too low.
I've acknowledged the progress intel have made with Haswell, whereas you haven't acknowledged the progress of Richland, you should realise that makes you the fanboi.
Oh no! Kabini is less suitable for emulation than an intel chip that costs 6x as much, only a fanboi would concentrate on such niche usage and inappropriate comparisons.
No you haven't and RIchland made ZERO progress so there is nothing to acknowledge. Niche usage maybe but its very relevant to me.
"Richland made Zero progress"? It's weird that every review of Richland came to a different conclusion. What is it they say about people who stick to a belief despite all the evidence being to the contrary?
Emulation may be relevant to you, but the world, thankfully, is populated by people who are not you, these people should consider buying AMD chips.
But they don't and that's great because Intel is superior for what they want as well. More people should be like me not less. Yeah AMD richland made little to no progress go ahead try to prove me wrong?
You keep saying that "intel is superior" but you haven't been able to refute Tech Reports scatter plots that clearly show that AMD have better options for CPU-power, IGP gaming and discreet gaming.
It's easy to disprove you Richland statement. See the A10-6700, it performs slightly better than the old A10-5800 but uses a lot less power. There you go, totally disproven.
Wrong at the really low end Intel wins I means at sub $100. Also you're wrong here:http://hexus.net/tech/reviews/cpu/47257-amd-a10-5700/?page=8. And here:http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/a10-6700-a10-6800k-richland-review,3528-11.html. Compare these two and thus AMD richland IS A BIG FUCKING JOKE!!!!!
Where does intel win exactly? any clues apart from your vague under $100 idea?
Are you reading those graphs correctly at all. I've no idea how you are trying to prove your so-called "point". The graph on Tomshardware show that both Richland chips are much more power efficient than the previous generation, with the one exception of gaming, where the A10-6700 is much more efficient, but the A10-6800 uses a little more power than the previous gen.
Why look at the Hexus review for the Trinity chips, why not look at the Hexus review of Richland:
The A10-6800 only uses a watt or two more power than the A10-5800, and it's a more powerful chip.
You're just proving my point, and very efficiently too. The only big f***ing joke here is your attempt to be smart :-)
A watt more like 3 watts. Face it Richland is JUST a re-brand its a little faster and uses a little more power. So for gaming AMD richland is terribly inefficient and thus its worthless to me.
3 Watts is so small it could be a measurement error, so you have the choice, use the same amount of power and get better performance, or use less power and get the same performance, Richland makes both possible.
Richland worthless for gaming? it's easily the best chip for IGP gaming our there. more powerfull that the HD4600 and much better value than Iris Pro. Just pick the right Richland chip, the A10-6700 looks like the best balance of power and performance.
Intel's HD 5000 is a much better value for me. IT performs about the same and uses MUCH less power.
LOL, HD 5000 good value! The cheapest HD5000 mobile chip is about $350, seems you need to learn what the word "value" means.
Doesn't matter when AMD richland notebooks cost every bit as much to buy. Thus Intel is the best solution low power usage and great IGP performance.
AMD notebooks are usually cheaper, and besides, Haswell notebooks are far from cheap.
I wouldn't say that AMD or intel can give great IGP performance, their top of the line chips are only barely adequate. Discreet GPUs still rule.
And you're a power hogging gamer so what else is new. AMD Richland and Kaveri are FAR FROM CHEAP!!!!!! Intel is much better at the price point.
I don't play games much, and we all know that AMD has much better idle-power stats with desktop chips. So I'm probably saving power over an equivalent intel setup.
How the F*** do you know how much Kaveri is going to cost? Are you magic?
And what price point is intel better at? And in what way is it better?
You must be the laziest troll on the net. Most decent trolls at least put a bit of effort in, but you're just making your beloved intel look bad with your lack of effort.
No they are tied with Intel's Ivy Bridge in idle and IVY Bridge crushes at everything CPU. Oh by the way AMD richland isn't even released yet but Intel is still superior and AMD is inferior. Every Price point.
More super lazy trolling:
Intel chips have poor idle power on the desktop:
For CPU performance, AMD beats them quite well:
Hey stupid, Richland has been released and is available in retailers:
For CPU performance and IGP gaming, AMD are unbeaten under $300:
Wrong with Intel haswell that has changed and Intel now crushes AMD in all front as far as power usage goes. Hey IDIOT not the mobile version and mobile is all I care about these days. THE DESKTOP IS DEAD FACE THE FACTS!!! Wrong again for emulation and single-threaded tasks INTEL IS SUPERIOR and their IGP is decent enough for gaming at that price level.
Hey lazyboy, I gave you links to prove my points, you just give me back waffle. Facts are provable, stupidity like yours is not.
more "Haswell crushes" nonsense. Haswell will clearly use more power under load than Kabini and it costs 6x as much, what's the point of even trying to argue.
The Desktop is losing ground, sure, which leads less intelligent commentators to conclude that it's dying, but it's not going to disappear completely any time soon. I already explained this to you, but your brain doesn't seem to have retained that information. So instead of saying thing that I have already rebuffed, why not criticize my rebuff.
I like the way you say "emulation and single-threaded tasks", it's because you can't think of another important single threaded task isn't it.
I don't think so. Temash might be able to claim battery life as good as Haswell's but Kabini's NOT EVEN CLOSE!!!! Intel Haswell has much better battery life even under load. Here:http://www.notebookcheck.net/Review-Acer-Aspire-V5-122P-61454G50NSS-Notebook.93321.0.html. And Here: http://www.engadget.com/2013/06/13/macbook-air-review/.
The Macbook Air does look like a well put-together machine and Apple have taken measures to keep that battery life up.
But the links you sent on don't really tell much, you can see a few things though:
The Temash Acer Aspire v5 has a 30 Whr battery, but the Macbook Air has a 54 Whr battery.
So, if you plugged the Airs battery in the Temash machine, it's idle time would jump (from 6Hrs 19mins) to 11 hours 22 mins, which, according to Anandtech's much more thorough review:
Would put it ahead of the macbook Air (at 11.03 Hrs)!
Comparing the load-power of the machines is more difficult because the Acer has a large, but mechanical hard drive which uses a lot more power under load than the Air's SSD.
I still haven't seen a full-load (Game playing for example) battery scenario for the Macbook Air, so I still don't know what's it's full-load battery performance is like.
Sorry but Intel HAS WON this ROUND hands down!!!! And guess what the extra EU's aren't used to increase performance they are used to lower power consumption. Lower clocks and voltage is part of the reason why load power is greatly reduced. This awesome for me. I can't wait for Intel's HD 5000 is NUC form. Intel PCH shrink to 32nm also decreases power usage as well. Wrong Temash would tie as best with Intel haswell 15 watts for idle battery life. Intel has reduced power usage by a lot and it shows.
So you're not bitterly disapointed with HD 5000? All those extra EU's and not much more performance.
According to Anandtech, HD 5000 is only 31% faster than HD 4000:
After intel said we would get 2x the performance:
I'm pretty sure that if AMD mentioned a 100% improvement but only delivered 30% you'd be all over it like a bad rash, but for some reason you give intel a free pass.
Sure, you can get a HD 5000 NUC, but take a close look at those Anandtech results, not one game on that page reached a playable 30fps at a lowly 1366×768 resolution.
I've already demonstrated that Temash will have better idle than Haswell, if you think otherwise then please show me how you came to that conclusion.
No because I read a semiaccurate article a long time ago on Crystalwell that shows what is happening right now. Wrong not on the 15 watt models Intel has done exactly as promised. Wrong only slightly better idle and worse load battery life. Face it AMD can't beat Intel's Haswell in mobile. Sure AMD's IGP's are faster but they use MUCH MORE power and they aren't that much cheaper.
So you were prepared for the big disappointment this time then, that explains it. You must still be bummed about not being able to play games on an NUC Haswell though? The IGP is still just too slow to be able to play a decent game at a reasonable fps.
So you accept that Temash has better idle-power than Haswell now eh? Half way there. Now please explain why you think it has worse load-power?
So, If you think AMDs IGP's use "much more power" than Haswell, please can you point me to where you got your information about how much power Haswells IGP uses.
Yeah it something I kinda of forgot but just remembered when I saw it. Well I am not sure about that here is a look at AMD's Terrible battery life: http://www.notebookcheck.net/Review-Acer-Aspire-V5-122P-61454G50NSS-Notebook.93321.0.html. Intel haswell crush AMD Kabini an Temash in battery life. I wish I could find them but I think they will come out later and they will shock you. AMD richland is a power hog.
That link you gave show's that Temash has great battery life, with a weak 30WHr battery that Acer gets 6Hrs 19 minutes of Idle. If it had the same battery as a Macbook Air, it would last longer than it!
The lack of information about Haswell's IGP power usage and the lack of information about how long the Macbook Air would last while playing a game is very strange. I reckon there's something wrong with the Air's Windows drivers or something like that.
There is no need if you read page 6 of the Macbook air review from anandtech and I mean really read it. AMD's has decent Idle battery life but at full load its DOWNRIGHT terrible. I laugh AMD's Temash can barely inch out against a much higher TPD intel Cpu that is pathetic for AMD. Yep in fact there is something wrong with Air's Windows drivers from what I heard you would be correct.
I see, you're still focusing on that one Notebook-check review for your load-power conclusions, that's a fanboi special technique that I'm well familiar with.
If you want some more detailed information about AMD's Jaguar line try a few Kabini reviews to start with:
Take note there, that a 15W Kabini chip could play a game while the system draws 20.3W. Whereas a system with a 17W i3-3217U draws 34.4W.
Check out some more Kabini reviews for similar results.
Haswell not having good Windows drivers is a problem, because it means we can't see if Haswell's true load-power performance has improved over Ivy-Bridge,
Intel haswell doesn't have good Windows Drivers that is true I wonder if their Linux drivers are better? Yeah I have seen that review before but Intel haswell creams it to pieces. Well don't plan on using Windows in my next pc so bad Windows Drivers is of no concern to me.
Now you're making excuses for their bad windows drivers, is there no end to your fanboi apologist behavior.
You saw that review eh? But the information didn't sink in, did it? So if a 15W Kabini system can play a game using 14.1W less than a 17W Ivy-Bridge system, do you really think a 15W Haswell will do 14W better when playing a game?
Yes I did it was the first kabini review I saw. While Kabini almost gets into my power envelope it isn't fast enough for me Intel Haswell with HD 5000 barely gets into my power envelope but the HD 4400 uses more power then the HD 5000. Kabini is a great improvement over the sucky Brazos but its not good enough for me just yet.
Back to talking about "you" again, that deflection about from talking about the mysterious 14W gap usually means you lost the general argument and only want to talk a specific scenario that you made up specifically so intel could "win" in your mind.
My power envelope is sub 20 watts and while kabini does get there in some form its too weak to do much of anything. Intel is much faster then AMD kabini and its IGP is a lot faster than kabini. Kabini uses less power than Ivy Bridge but its much weaker as well.
Kabini is actually strong enough to do plenty of office work, web browsing and a few games.
Will Haswell actually get you into that sub 20W load-power envelope? I'd like to know
I love watching you backpeddle, stupid little punk bitch.
Are you 12, or 8? Maybe even younger…
disgusting levels of blind ignorance
No but are you 8 years old sure sounds like it.
I love watching you backpeddle, stupid little punk bitch.
Are you 12, or 8? Maybe even younger…
disgusting levels of blind ignorance
Ahahahah….The HD 4600 uses far less power than anything RIchland has. Sure Richland may have a faster GPU but it uses almost twice the power of Intel's IGP to do so.
You're also forgetting that Richland is much better value, and yes it uses more power on the desktop, but I thought you were looking for mobile chips.
AMD richland only performs as well as a Core i3 IB and uses more power to boot. Yes that is true and thus Intel haswell is the HANDS DOWN winner. Intel WINS AMD LOSES FATAL K.O.!!!!!
Huh, Richland uses less power at idle then the i3 in any review I've seen, that suits people with light-usage scenarios much better. It has a more powerful CPU in the vast majority of tests, then, for Gamers, it has a much better IGP.
Isn't it obvious, some chips are better than others at certain things, I can clearly see this reality, but your brain-dead fanboi-ism has made you blind.
More CAPS again, you must be trying to hide something… oh yes, Haswell costs 3x more than mobile Richland, you're leaving out that small but super important detail.
Wrong again when it comes to laptops Intel and AMD cost the same. Intel haswell and AMD richland laptops will have about the same price attached to them. So chip price doesn't matter to me due to this very reason.
No, they clearly don't cost the same, just look it up and do some research for a change.
Oh really why don't you show me then?
Try this thing called "Google" I know it's hard, but you'll eventually work out how to use it.
There aren't any expect for a high-end notebook that Intel beats the tar-tar out of.
prove it.
I have no idea what that sentence means.
"expect for a high-end notebook"
I should expect a high-end notebook?
"intel beats the tar-tar"
Intel makes toothpaste?
No Intel doesn't make toothpaste and yes Intel beats the CRAP out of the MSI GX-60 but then again the GX-60 SUCKS ASS. Here is something that you might not be aware of:http://www.anandtech.com/show/7096/performance-retrospective-amds-radeon-hd-7970m/5.
That Anandtech link showed me nothing I didn't know already.
AMD's quad-core mobile chips really only compete with intels dual-core mobile chips, and they have nothing to compete with a chip like the i7-3720QM.
This is exactly the reason why intel can price their chip at $380, a lack of competition. This lack of competition would be made much worse if AMD died.
So, I'm not sure why MSI put a $140 AMD chip in that machine, it doesn't have the power to drive such a powerful graphics card, but then, neither would a $140 intel mobile chip.
Also, did you find this link because you were trying to prove that there's no difference between AMD and intel notebooks? Because that it what we were discussing a couple of posts back. If so, then you failed there, because that Anandtech review is comparing a $2000 intel notebook with a $1300 AMD one
Actually AMD isn't really competition for Intel that notion died a long time ago. ARM is Intel's new competition and if you can't see why then you're a MORON. I don't know what MSI as think either and yes Intel would be faster then MSI's GX-60. The $1300 AMD notebook SUCKS ASS a Intel $1300 ROCKS OUT LOUD is the point I was trying to prove.
If AMd isn't competition, then why are their dual-core chips so much cheaper than their quad-cores. It's because their dual-cores compete with the AMD quad cores, their performance metrics are quite similar.
ARM is only competition for the Atom end of the market, they are no competition for the other parts of the CPU market, and if you can't see that, then, I'm afraid, you are the moron.
That AMD notebook was poorly designed and unbalanced, having an unnecessarily expensive GPU and a low-cost CPU, hence it's a really poor example of a $1300 AMD notebook. You're going to have to do a lot better than using this outlier to prove your point.
Because AMD is trying to compete with Intel not the other way around. Don't be so sure about that ARM will soon be as fast as low end x86 non-Atom parts. Yes that AMD notebook was poorly designed and that's an understatement. Intel's $1300 notebook is a lot faster than Anything AMD can put out.
Incorrect, Intel have parts which have no direct competitors with AMD, Intel choose to increase the price on these parts.
The speed of ARM chips has been improving rapidly, over the past few years, but that doesn't mean they are going to catch up with x86 any time soon.
Sure, a $1300 intel notebook will be better than any $1300 AMD notebook. It makes no sense, at the moment, to put an AMD chip in such an expensive machine because the AMD mobile chips top out at about $150. Intel have that market to themselves, and they're milking it.
Yep Intel sure is milking the $1000+ laptop market. AMD is getting pricier as well but they still can't compete. We have a taste of a world without AMD and its not that bad expect for people like you. You see for the parts I want Intel is MY ONLY choice. Intel has ZERO competition where I am shopping. ARM will catch up but it won't matter because by then Intel X86 NOT AMD's x86 will use less power than ARM.
LOL, we do have a taste of a world without AMD, and it's a very expensive world. In every market where AMD don't have the chips to compete, the intel prices jump up about threefold. Maybe you would be happy with such a world, but most wouldn't.
Sure, intel is your only choice, but that's because, as I've shown, you're a fanboi. Would buying AMD make any discernible difference to you, no, not really. You'd save a bit of money on the original purchase, you'd burn a few watts more and your performance would be roughly the same. Face it, you're only talking a few percentage points difference either way. Having a good SSD instead of a mechanical HD makes much more of a difference than the flavor of CPU you use.
My next pc will be my first pc with an SSD I never had one of those before. Price-wise sure but the end product doesn't cost that much more. I am not thinking from the OEM's view point I am thinking from a consumer view point and from there AMD isn't that much cheaper than Intel. Wrong again buying AMD would get a weaker PC both CPU and IGP wise. Intel costs more but it also uses less power than comparable Kabini APU's and gets very good load battery and idle battery life is comparable to low power devices like Apple's Ipad and AMD Temash with the proper battery. AMD has NOTHING even in the same league as Intel haswell ULT.
You've never had an SSD? You do know that they save power and improve performance don't you? I thought you were interested in those things? Why not simply upgrade your current machine with an SSD, it makes a much bigger difference than the usual CPU upgrade.
Again, you think that AMD should compete directly with Intel. That's just a bad idea, Kabini/Temash are great products that Intel have no answer for, they have nothing at that price level that can give decent performance at low power levels. Haswell is a great chip, but the extra performance over Temash/Kabini is not worth the extra money for most people.
No I was thought that SSD's use even more power than a mobile Hard Drive. No AMD should create an Ultra low power product to compete with ARM. Wrong again Intel does have an answer to Kabini and Temash and that answer is Haswell. Sure AMD is cheaper but AMD is just trying to survive so they if they price their chips too high no one will buy then expect you and other rabid AMD fanbois. Going by Battery life test Intel haswell uses far less power than AMD kabini and Temash. The Macbook Air gets just under 6 hours under load while AMD Temash most likely under similar loads from notebookcheck gets less than 2 hours but its battery is smaller but even with that Intel Haswell uses far less power than the AMD A6-1450 and its much faster to boot.
Nope SSD's use less power at idle and at full power:
It's not worth AMD's trouble to compete with ARM, with their forthcoming 3.9W Temash they should be able to get some of the high-end tablet market, that's where the bulk of the profit is.
I've seen no evidence that Haswell uses less power then Temash/Kabini at either idle or full load. At idle, Temash would last longer than Haswell if it had the same battery, and at full load I've not seen a proper test of Haswell.
Sometimes you are right and sometimes you are wrong about SSD's. Then AMD is crammed in between ARM and Intel with no way out. AMD gets far worse load battery life even accounting for the smaller battery the Air still gets 70% more battery life under heavy load.
I'm generally right about SSD's though and your statement of "thought that SSD's use even more power than a mobile Hard Drive" is basically wrong.
I noticed what you did there: "the Air still gets 70% more battery life under heavy load." Well done on backpedaling on what you said earlier, but Anandtechs "Heavy Load" is still not the same thing as a proper full-load.
There aren't any reviewers that would do full load the rigged way an AMD fanboi like yourself would want. Face IT Intel haswell under load gets far more battery life than anything AMD has assuming most reviewers run similar tests which they most likely do.
LOL, you were the one who was obsessed with full-load power, probably because Trinity does idle power load so well on the desktop, but now you've changed your mind completely because it doesn't suit you. Didn't you say that you need good load-power performance because you do so much gaming. Gaming load-power is much closer to full-load than the multitude of web-browsing-load tests out there. Are you planning on gaming less now???
"assuming most reviewers run similar tests" Sure make unreasonable assumptions because it furthers your fanboi agenda. I prefer my facts assumption-free the way they should be.
NO I don't plan on doing less gaming. No don't say that because of any fanboi agenda I say that because its true. AMD doesn't have what I need and Intel might have what I need.
You set a very low bar for "truth" when it comes to intel. If something is true then you should be able to prove it. If you can't prove it, that does not make it false, it's just an unknown.
I think you base what you "think" you need off of intels product sheet, like you "think" you need super-low power, when you really don't.
That's because, gasp, you are uneducated idiot who lies pathologically.
BTW, amd has the ARM license, not intel.
SO what AMD is going to die in a few years along with M$ SO YOU SUCK!!!!!!
What a dumb child. You really need a life, stupid kid.
No you need a life you stupid gamer!!!!
LOL, false on the first count, pure idiocy on the second (web browsing, really?) and then on to …emulation. HAHAHA
You are an incompetent little idiot.
No but that sounds like you. You incompetent little idiot!!!!
I'm just shocked by your amount of ignorance. Are you being paid to be this stupid?
You really need to shut the **** up, stupid, uneducated child.
You're the ignorant one you stupid redneck!!!! SHUT UP and FUCK OFF DUMB child!!!
Here look at this:http://www.legitreviews.com/article/2083/6/. Intel haswell will use a lot less power. It even goes down to 4.5 watts SDP with an 11.5 watt TDP.
Sure, there will be a version of Haswell that get's down to 11.5W but that's going to be a lot slower (1.3Ghz) than the CPU in the current NUC (1.8Ghz), and that's no speed demon as it is. Why not just give up on performance completely and get an Atom based system.
I am not going to use that version I am going for the HD 5000 version that creams everything in its class. Nothing from AMD or ARM in that power class can match Intel's HD 5000. Kabini's much too weak and ARM doesn't have anything that powerful just yet. Also Kaveri and Richland don't have anything of that power class.
Actually HD5000 is looking pretty weak, even the super-expensive HD5200 barely eeks out a few %-points advantage over AMD chips that are a third of the price, and without that large cache, it looks like HD5000 will perform much worse. There are some 17W quad-core Richland chips on the way that will give similar intel chips a run for their money.
You're joking AMD richland doesn't stand a chance of matching Intel's 15 watt Haswell chips in anything. The low power version of richland will be stripped down so any chance it might of had of matching Intel is pretty much gone.
I'm pretty sure the low-power Richland chips will be able to match and beat the Haswell chips in the most important metric, price.
Yes, the lowest power 17W Richland chips are slightly stripped down, but their 19W chips are true quad-cores with their full GPUs. And because intel play fast-and-loose with theri TDP values, these chips will probably use less power than the 17W intel chips.
I'm basing my estimate on the performance of the intel NUC, and even though that was using a 17W CPU, it could consume 46W at full load:
From what I've seen Haswell improves decreases load power by about 20%, so any future Haswell-Nuc type device will still be well above your 20W threshold.
What are you basing your optimism on? a hunch?
Wrong X-bit labs is an AMD fanboi website and they do everything and anything to make Intel look bad and AMD look good. actually it uses about 30 watts at full load so Intel haswell will use 20 watts if not less.
Ok, so even if we take your word that it uses 30W at full load, that's with a 17W CPU. To get down to 20W at load, we're going to need a 7W CPU, and intel don't plan such a Haswell chip.
Oh wow you couldn't be more wrong. First off there is a 4.5 watt SDP chip and second the PCH was shrunk from 65nm to 32nm thus lower power usage ensures. Also it doesn't work that way. Intel's HD 5000 is fast en efficient because it has 40 execution units at low clock speeds and low voltages. Intel haswell includes the PCH as part of the TDP so it uses 7 watts less for the TDP.
SDP??? what's that?
The bottom line is that even going to a weaker chip with an 11.5W TDP won't be enough to give you a 20W system, just face it. And if you compared a chip with similar performance to the NUC system, the situation would be even worse.
Damn you're an IDIOT!!!! Intel haswell uses a lot less power than you think it does. Wrong the 11.5 watt TDP Intel haswell would easily match 20 watts if not less.
I'm an idiot? proof please.
Sure, Haswell uses less "idle" power, but it's load power performance is not nearly as impressive an improvement. Have you any information on which to base your mad belief that you'll be able to get a sub-20W NUC system?
It uses a lot less idle power and it will much less power under load. Intel's HD 5000 rocks out loud and makes Kabini look really weak.
It'll use around 16% less power under load, a nice improvement, sure, but a long way from giving you a sub-20W machine.
Sure, HD5000 will be faster than Kabini, but HD5000 chips all cost north of $300, so likely 6 times more expensive than Kabini.
Wrong it will use even less power than that. Two things you're wrong on. First Intel's Ivy Bridge NUC at max load uses about 35 watts. And Second the load power improvement is a lot more than 16%. So yes I will have a fast sub-20 watt NUC no problem.
Blah, Blah, Blah, a lot of words with no substance.
Sure, Haswell's idle power consumption has improved, but can you actually Prove that load-power-consumption has improved, because I've seen no indication of it:
Can you counter with some evidence to back up your assertions?
If not, then your 35W Ivy Bridge NUC will give way to a 35W Haswell NUC.
Which Xeon are you talking about, the 1265LV2? That's a 45W $350 quad core that runs at 2.5Ghz. So it's much more expensive, slower and uses more power than the chip I proposed.
Do you know that when the IGP is not being used it uses almost no power, so there's no point going for a Xeon for IGP power savings.
There are HD7750's available in half height.
Also, the 65W AMD APUs are most definitely not power-hogging, they take only a few more Wats that intels 55W chips, but they also give better game performance.
Sure, I think small PCs are cool too. But I am not willing to give up on performance to get a small PC (which also costs more) .
Sure, get your mobile quad-core Haswell, pay that extra $100 and get a PC that performs more poorly.
You are an ignorant little child. Do you really think that A FEW watts costs much at all?
What are you paying, < $10 USD per KW?
Get out of this comment section you little lying shithead.
A few watts more like 60 or 70 watts and that's a lot of watts I won't have to spend on my PC due to powering superior Intel/Nvidia components!!!!!
Completely false, you little lying shill.
How so you turd-mister?
Busy as in, having a life besides playing terrible games in an emulator and leaving comments without a shred of fact, plastered with caps and extreme grammatical errors?
Watch out, those are concepts that are entirely alien to this 'Jml' idiot child.
I see you on every AMD related article spreading lies and talking in caps.
TIme to go to bed, little boy.
You're an AMD fanboi who only thinks well of AMD when AMD is in deep SHIT you dumb boy!!!!!
The only decent chip is the PS4 APU everything else SUCKS HARD!!!! Kabini uses too much power to compete with the Atom and doesn't have a fast enough CPU/GPU to compete with the same TDP Haswell. Temash uses too much power for a tablet. You're forgetting about Kaveri which will also have GDDR5 memory from what I recall.
Joel Hruska
"The only decent chip is the PS4 APU"
The PSU 4 CPU and Xbox One CPU are identical.
It's going to be difficult for one of them to SUCK HARD if the other doesn't.
Wow you are blind as a bat Joel. No they ARE NOT the same. Only the Jaguar CPU is similar everything else is different. Sony has HSA Xbox doesn't also Sony has GDDR5 instead of DDR3. Xbox One also has a bigger SoC due to using eSRAM. So Many differences and you can't see them. So yes the Xbox One will tank HARD and it will suck hard just like Teamsh and Kabini!!!!!!
Joel Hruska
…None of which has anything to do with the CPU.
If the Xbox One sucks compared to the PS4, it won't be because of the CPU — it'll be because of other decisions Microsoft made.
Yeah The GPU for one. The CPU is no different I assume but the SoC powering each is. You're right the CPU is mediocre on both of them a sharp contrast to the last gen when both of them were High end PC's for a fairly low price by PC standards. No they are both mid-range at best. Everything else M$ did with the Xbox ONE will make it TANK HARD!!!!!
Well they both are base on the Jaguar CPU but both are somewhat modify and sense no one has tell what's the difference between the PS4 and XBOX CPU it might more than possible the PS4 is a bit more powerful than the XBOX.
I don't think AMD will ever go bankrupt. They are looking to be profitable in the second half of the year. The consoles will generate massive revenue for them. Even if they somehow ran out of money someone would buy them for their GPU division or their x86 license.
x86/64 are Intel's license to AMD, I don't think Intel would allowed that, it's a license that's non transferable.
"x64″ is only Microsoft's term for AMD64, which is not an architecture, its an extension to x86. Amd could probably spin off their CPU side if need be, their GPU side is still profitable and would anyways be in high demand. In any case I don't think it'll come to that
In any case lets hope it doesn't have to come to that.
Joel Hruska
AMD could attempt to spin off the discrete GPU business, theoretically, but not without retaining a licensing agreement to use the same tech in APUs. It would be effectively impossible for them to separate CPU and GPU at this point; everything going forward is an APU.
interesting, perhaps they saw this was going to come to, with the APU at hand maybe they can free themselves from Intel's license agreement and someone else could buy them or save them, Samsung perhaps? Arm perhaps but I don't think they are a match against Intel. Or maybe I'm just misunderstanding.
False, amd licenses x86 ONLY from Intel. Intel licenses x64-x86 from AMD. Very important distinction….
http://twitter.com/juanrga juanrga
About so many times like they are going to be killed by Intel and/or Nvidia.
In before JML and Chojin troll the sh!t out of this article.
Just ridicule their retarded comments and they will go away.
Joel Detrow
Please don't feed the trolls.
Too late Trolls FEED THANK YOU!!!!
Hi there Troll here reporting FOR DUTY!!!!
I'm confident about AMD, Blackberry pulled surprise profits and the fact that the new parts give almost 4x the fps of Clover Trail says enough.
In a generation or two, modern gaming will be availible on mobile parts, something which was unheard of before.
I think they really need to market the 4x more fps than Intel thing though that'll turn heads as it's an extremely serious margin in a graphics market where 10% is a generational change nowdays.
Kruskal's Algorithm
The problem is Intel is also increasing their Atom's graphics power (Silvermont) by a similar leap due to a transition to Gen7 graphics (Ivy Bridge GPU) from the existing PowerVR. Also, Intel has been (nearly) doubling graphics performance ever since the HD 3000 on their Core lineup. Iris (Haswell) will do the same.
Yep that's right and AMD is going to have a hard time competing against Intel's ALMIGHTY Haswell.
But even the Flagship Haswell, the 4770K can't match AMD Trinity performance for games, and AMD have Richland coming out soon and that will beat Haswell even more.
The Flagship Haswell with Iris Pro crushes AMD Trinity and Richland TO THE GROUND!!!!! But Intel haswell Iris Pro is too expensive so Nvidia has 95% of all those wins which spells BIG trouble for AMD!!!!
Sure, Iris Pro might be a bit faster than Trinity, have you seen any comparisons with Richland though, because I havn't? Any proof that it crushes Richland?
Any proof of your wild 95% figure?
Actually here: http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/31551-nvidia-mobile-boss-talks-haswell. Richland is sightly faster and uses slightly less power so Intel still kicks the crap out of it!!!!
That's a claim from a Nvidias Chief blogger!!!
If you think that is in any way proof then you are the most gullible person in existance!
Seeing as Haswell is well behind Trinity (with the exception of the massivly expensive power hogging Iris Pro) then Richland will have no problem seeing it off
Intel Iris is much faster than AMD richland. Intel will revise its IGP's and Crush AMD into the ground. Yeah and you're and AMD fanboi.
Sure, Iris Pro will probably end up only 20% faster than Richland, but a 3x the price… great value…. not.
And your precious Haswell is suffering from GPU driver problems at the moment, it's giving very uneven frame rates compared to AMD and Nvidia solutions.
Haswell 2.0 will extend Intel's lead in IGP's. AMD doesn't stand a chance and consoles have never helped companies all that much.
Haswell 1.1, next years chip will have to do something drastic about memory bandwidth to regain the IGP lead from Kaveri. Iris Pro is one way to go, but it is an extremly expensive way to go.
Sure, having one console has never given a company an advantage over any others, but this time AMD have All the consoles, That's never happened before, and it's a great return for a smaller investment.
Not even having all three consoles will help AMD. The Wii U SUCKS ASS and don't sell well. The Xbox One SUCKS EGGS and WILL Tank FOR SURE!!!! The PS4 is the only one that will do fairly well and AMD might make a little bit off that but not enough.Oh Intel is going rip Kaveri TO SHREDS!!!!
How will having all the consoles not help AMD? please explain/
Sure, the XBox One sucks, that does not mean it will tank though, microsoft have the marketing dollars to push it hard.
Intel can't even compete with AMD's current chips for playing games, Kaveri will only extend AMD's IGP lead.
No GDDR5 equals Kaveri being memory bandwidth limited and not good enough meaning Intel will trample all over it. No one wants M$ Xbox one so yes it will tank. Intel has the IGP lead right NOW NOT AMD!!! Intel ripped it from AMD's lazy hands with Intel Iris Pro. Kaveri will put AMD back in the lead BARELY but it won't be good enough.
no no-GDDR5 thing is unconfirmed as-yet, it just wasn't mentioned in the latest AMD documents about the updated Kaveri socket. But seeing as a GDDR5 chip would probably have to be BGA anyway, it's not an indication that there won't be a GDDR5 version of Kaveri.
Iris Pro doesn't count as having the IGP lead, just 20% better performance than Trinity at 3x the cost means that it will never be a popular chip. Also because of the high power consumption on Iris Pro, users would be much better off with a cheaper chip and a discreet GPU.
Yes GDDR5 would need to BGA but that's okay. Iris Pro does use a lot of power but its more like 20% faster than Richland and yes Intel does have the IGP lead you just don't want to admit defeat.
And I won't admit defeat until Iris Pro is actually available, so far to me Iris Pro looks like a paper launch.
You, on the other hand don't want to admit that Iris Pro is basically pointless, and was just an attempt at grabbing the benchmark lead.
AMD will still have the lead in the sub-$400 IGP chip market.
Admit defeat Iris Pro is launching and AMD has lost its lead. When and IF AMD fully loses their IGP lead They are FINISHED!!!! So what AMD will have the lead in the ~$400 area but Intel still uses less power and performs better.
So, AMD is finished because intel has a single chip that performs only slightly better at 3x the cost. Do you really believe that?
That isn't the whole story. AMD is finished they couldn't build the miracle chip to keep them afloat. The Xbox one will tank and the Wii U sucks. AMD isn't gaining much from new consoles.
I gave you evidence that AMD will gain a lot from the consoles, where is your proof to the contrary, or are you just talking out or your …
And I am telling from history that console deals provide razor thin margins.
great, a vague history lesson instead of evidence. Weak.
That's Nvidia sour grapes, not evidence.
AMD had relatively small development costs for the new consoles, they just added GCN to Jaguar cores, they were going to do that anyway. This change in console design ethos is why history is a poor indicator in this case.
Still AMD won't make much money off consoles because 2 out of 3 of them won't sell well or at all and the third will be mediocre at best. AMD needs the Semi-custom APU business just to survive but it doesn't seem to turning out all that well and that means goodbye AMD. The only reason why I would even want AMD dead is the SHUT THOSE STUPID AMD FANBOI's and AMDFX and XBITLABS UP FOR GOOD!!!!
Xbox will still sell, sorry to break that to you.
So how is the semi-custom APU business not doing well for AMD, are you just bummed that intel wasn't able to take that business from them?
You want AMD to die in order to shut up the AMD fanbois, do you not see the double standards??? You being the most notorious intel fanboi that you are.
Xbox will still sell, sorry to break that to you.
So how is the semi-custom APU business not doing well for AMD, are you just bummed that intel wasn't able to take that business from them?
You want AMD to die in order to shut up the AMD fanbois, do you not see the double standards??? You being the most notorious intel fanboi that you are.
No One wants the Xbox One so it won't sell all that well and the Wii U SUCKS ASS and doesn't sell well either. Double standards what are you talking about?
XBox has a lot of rabid fans, microsoft could sell a turd in a box and they will still sell millions.
Double standards: You complaining about AMD fanbois when you yourself are one of the more rabid intel fanbois around.
AMd fanboi's are jackasses and morons at least Intel fanboi's aren't total idiots.
I beg to differ, AMD fanbois generally know more about technology and use logic, reason and evidence to argue their case. Intel fanbois it seems, like to use ALL CAPS to make inane comments about wanting some company to die. It would be great if they had enough technical knowledge to be able to argue properly.
Actually I am the exception since I am a troll. THe way AMD is going without a Miracle product is going to be the death of AMD. Kabini is not special or unique enough to help AMD.
Being a troll does not preculde you from also being a fanboi, you're both.
Miracle products are not required. It doesn't matter if a product is high-performing or low power, the only thing that matters is how many they sell and how much money they make. That's how business works.
No You're DEAD Wrong AMD does need a Miracle product to take sales from Intel. But in order to get that AMD does need something really good.
nope it just needs a good product that sells well, that's all.
Wrong AMD needs a lot more than just that. AMd really does need a miracle product to take sales away from Intel.
Plenty of companies have had miracle products that didn't sell well. Sales are more important than miracles.
You're missing the point AMD needs a miracle in order to get sales its a simple as that.
You missed my point, that a miracle product might not sell a lot of units.
Yeah I did miss your point sorry about that and it depends on how good the product is and how well its marketed.
Yup, how good the product is, marketing and price are all important, more so than miracle status.
But AMD has only price to fallback on and that's NOT enough to help them. Kabini may be cheaper but its still much too weak and it uses too much power to used in a tablet.
You say "only price", but price is the most important thing, It's the reason why 10billion ARM chips are made per year but only a half billion x86 chips are produced. Cheaper x86 chips means more of that ARM action.
Sure Kabini uses too much power for a tablet, that's why AMD have a separate SKU called Temash for their tablets and convertibles. And don't come off sounding stupid by saying it still uses too much power because I've already demonstrated that it could use less power than in iPad.
Actually there are no power figures for AMD temash nor any proper reviews for that matter so I will just assume that its uses as much as a high end ARM SoC which is still too much power usage. Price isn't the only factor but you are right and AMD is stuck right in the middle of ARM vs INTEL.
If they can make a 10hr tablet out of Temash, and there is no evidence to the contrary that they can't, then that would be fine.
But the question is can AMD do that? Because I don't think they can and this review: http://www.notebookcheck.net/Review-AMD-A6-1450-APU-Temash.92264.0.html#c1160794 is proof of that.
So, you think a review of a 11.5 inch laptop with an inappropriate CPU is proof that they they can't do something.
5 seconds on google showed me this Gigabyte AMD Temash Tablet:
which has a Temash and has a 14 hour battery life.
I don't think the gigabyte AMD tablet won't even get half of the promised battery life. You can't trust marketing staff from Companies because they flat out lie most of the time.
12 hours is a bold claim, i would be all over the internet if it could only manage 6 in reality, no company would be stupid enough to try that. Why not give they the benefit of doubt until you see a proper review.
I see. Fine you're right.
I'll take it all back though if I'm proved wrong
And l'll be disappointed as all hell.
You're taking it quite personally!
Maybe because I like low power chips. High end high power chips are dead mobile is the new future accept it.
I accept that high-power high-performance chips are declining, but that does not mean they are going to die, this is a mistake that people who only look at the graphs and trends make.
In the past many people needed high-power chips just for decent computing performance, now they don't. In the future, the market for high-power chips will decline to just the number of users that require higher-than-mainstream performance
Even intel acknowledge this with their 130W+ Sandy Bridge E line. Sure these chips won't be as popular in the future, but they will exist. If these chips are dead, then intel didn't get the memo.
As performance gets better high-power high-performance will become the ghost of the past FINALLY!!!!! Low-power is the future accept and give in now before all your high end chips completely die off.
Nope, you're flat-out wrong, true power users, the type that do heavy computation on their desktops, will always need the highest performance chips that they can afford and be damned with the power consumption. You obviously don't understand this type of user.
Maybe but Intel will be there for them because their LGA2011 line is just for those people. LGA1150 is for mainstream desktop and Intel Mobile is for Low power AMD can't possibly match Intel's AWESOME lineup.
Actually, for reasonable computing at very low power levels, Temash/Kabini reach lower power levels than any Haswell/Ivy B intel chip.
But Temash/Kabini is half the speed of Intel Ivy Bridge and the IGP of Temash can't even compare to Intel's HD 4000 Let alone their HD 5000.
Umm, Kabini can actually out-run some flavors of HD4000:
And it delivers much smoother frame-rates as a bonus. It's also not that far behind in terms of CPU speed:
Managing to beat Ivy bridge in a number of benchmarks, not bad at all for a chip that's much cheaper.
Nope when real CPU work comes into play Kabini is wiped out by Intel's almighty Core series CPU's. Nope it still can't out run a HD 4000 let alone a HD 5000.
Did you see those benchmark results, it can out-run HD4000, why are you in such denial, here's another one:
On Skyrim:
AMD Kabini A4-5000: 30fps
Intel Core-i3 3217U: 19fps
Sure, the Core series might be 30% better when it comes to heavy-duty CP tasks, but how important are those tasks on ultra-mobile systems…. not very.
I am comparing Core I5 and Intel HD 4000 crushes AMD kabini into the ground. 44fps for Intel core i5 and Kabini at a low 30 fps. No you are the one in denial. AMD is slower than Intel. Intel is superior to AMD.
You should have been more specific… that you wanted to compare a $200 HD4000 chip with Kabini, and not a HD4000 chip that is more price appropriate. Face it, you were wrong.
I'm afraid you are the one in denial, you talk about superiority but are unwilling to give details, surely even you recognise that the IGP on the intel chips is far from "superior", and again…. what about price.
Price doesn't matter to me as much as longer as its faster and uses less power. OH and Intel's HD 5000 WILL Bury Kabini into the ground in EVERYTHING!!!!
BS, aren't you always talking about saving on the price of your electricity bills, price must be super important to you.
Comparing HD5000 to Kabini IGP is pretty stupid, they're in totally different markets, do you not understand this?
Wrong their TDP's are 15 watt for select models and thus that's how I compare chips by TDP and power draw. Doesn't matter if they are in different markets I judge them both the same way.
Kabini is obviously in a different TDP category than Haswell, Kabini systems get down to around the 16W mark, whereas Haswell systems will all be above 20W.
I see, and why do you judge them ignoring price, do you judge other things the same way? You only do this because it's the only way your fanboi mind can make the Intel chips look good. AMD chips perform better at CPU and IGP performance than similarly priced intel chips, this is why you don't like to dwell on price.
I don't dwell on price because everything else matters to me more than Price. Performance per watt, IGP performance, and IPC are things that come WAY before price. AMD can't match this Combo of Intel and Nvidia Awesomeness:http://vr-zone.com/articles/giada-introduces-the-d2308-a-high-end-mini-pc/38618.html
You do realize that you're in a tiny minority of people if you consider price that unimportant don't you?
Maybe or its just that price is my last priority and it seems that is all amd is good at so they are the last one I consider to buy.
I bet you don't buy other products with price as your lowest priority.
Actually sometimes I do.
I'd love to be a salesman when you stroll along then.
Too bad I am a lot smarter than I let on you wouldn't trap me.
So you've said, I thought smart people didn't need to say that they were smart!
Maybe but it doesn't matter. People always underestimate the truly intelligent!!!
sure, sure, whatever gets you through the day
Really huh but then I could say the same to you AMD fanboi!!!!
Huh? I don't go around telling people I'm smart, that's your thing.
Because you're not smart at all you're just average. And by the way I don't either.
Uh, you just did! D'oh!
No I didn't sorry but you said it not me.
didn't you say "Too bad I am a lot smarter than I let on"
Yeah I did for good reason.
Is that because you let on you are really stupid, and being smarter than you let on still only means that you are of below average intelligence?
Heh, it doesn't matter what an average joe like you thinks. You are an AMD Fanboi and I am a troll. Kabini is only good in niche uses in everything else Intel beats in one or more categories.
It doesn't matter because you don't understand.
No I don't understand what you are blabbing on about.
Heh, I could say the same to you AMD fanboi. I know you like being wrong about everything. You give AMD FAR TOO MUCH CREDIT!!!!! AMD is DEADMAN WALKING!!!
LOL, I don't think you proved me wrong on a single occasion, I've caught you out a number of times though. Is that why you've had to resort to your all-caps-trolling again. Sorry, I must have hit a nerve again.
It's a pity you have to fall back on the trolling, but obviously you can't stand the heat of a real discussion.
I wouldn't be so sure its just the blind like you can't see it. You are so loyal and devoted to AMD you make them look good in any way you can.
I'll recommend an intel chip whenever it warrants it, in fact I've already recommended a number of intel chips to you didn't I??? Would a blind fanboi have done that???
You on the other hand dismiss the scenarios where AMD is better out of hand. So, who's the blind fanboi exactly?
In low power usage Intel Atom and Intel Haswell are superior to AMD Kabini and Temash. AMD Kabini is no doubt a huge improvement over Brazos but AMD waited too long and now Atom is going to eat AMD's lunch.
Kabini is vastly more powerful than the current Atom and is massively cheaper than Haswell. If you can't see that there is a rather decent niche for a chip like Kabini then your intel-worship has completely blinded you. Come on, admit it, it has a place.
Next-gen Atom is 6 months off and will be Kabini v1.1's problem.
No I am afraid you're wrong on that one. Its more powerful than the current Atom but not by that much. Intel's new 22nm will crush kabini in CPU power and in power consumption. Kabini 1.1 won't be out until Q214 so its Kabini's problem for the next 9 months.
Kabini is roughly 3x faster than current Atom at CPU stuff, and it's so much faster on the GPU side that's it's hard to measure.
Kabini thus has no competition for the next 6 months. Who knows, maybe intel will push back the next Atom like they did with Broadwell.
Nope that won't happen its on 22nm however the 14nm will no doubt be pushed back like Broadwell. Actually Kabini is nowhere near that 3x figure.
We'll see.
Actually, you right for a change, I accept that Kabini isn't near 3x Faster than the current Atom. It's actually 4x faster than the current Atom.
Look at the results on:
Truecrypt AES Kabini is 14.7x Faster
Truecrypt TwoFish Kabini is 2.5x Faster
7-Zip Compression Kabini is 1.8x Faster
7-Zip Decompression Kabini is 1.8x Faster
SunSpider Javascript Kabini is 1.5x Faster
Panorama Factory Kabini is 3.1x Faster
x264 HD video encoding Kabini is 2.8x Faster
All that gives an average of Kabini being 4x Faster than the current Atom.
If you come up with BS about this being unfair, just keep in mind that I completely ignored OpenCL accelerated applications, I left out gaming performance and this isn't the fastest iteration of Kabini.
You just gave me a shit load of diabetes.You went on about how he is supposedly a fan boy for AMD, yet you're up Intel's ass.
No Intel's just better that's fact and facts can't be avoided. Intel haswell has far better power consumption than Trinity, Richland, and even Kaveri. AMD is in real trouble Intel's IGP slaughters AMD's IGP badly at OpenCL. Intel is also catching up fast in gaming performance. Intel has low power solutions that AMD can't even compete with.
If intel being better is a "fact" then it should be easy to prove. Prove it.
" Intel has low power solutions that AMD can't even compete with"
Did you miss my post, Kabini is miles faster than Atom, it uses less power than Haswell, and is far cheaper, it's easily good enough for 90% of PC users.
AMD might be good for for some people and some people will buy it. While its not a bad chip and improves upon Brazos in every way possible its still not fast enough to beat haswell. Temash is faster than Atom but it uses MUCH more power and has FAR less battery life as I showed you in a link awhile back.
Now you're starting to make more sense. Some fair points there, but as I showed you, a well configured Temash system could equal or even surpass ULV Haswell for battery life. Sure, it wouldn't be as powerful, but it's not bad going for a chip that's less than a quarter of the price.
That maybe be true but price isn't as much of object to me as performance per watt is. Guess What AMD is in big trouble because Haswell is every bit as good as Intel as it is and AMD doesn't have anything that can compare. Oh by the way Load Battery life on Haswell has Increased by 70% and I am NOT joking that is awesome.
AMD in big trouble eh? So picking up some big design wins from Acer, HP and Samsung aren't important eh? and that's ignoring the console design success they've had.
So, battery life on Haswell under full load has increased by 70% eh? It sounds like you're joking because you have not provided any proof…. Well?
http://www.anandtech.com/show/7085/the-2013-macbook-air-review-13inch/6. Nope Consoles aren't going to help AMD all that much because if they didn't get those wins they would be dead already. Nope that's not going to help AMD very much either.
I see, you think Anandtech's "Heavy" load test is a true full-load test. No. It's not. It's only a test of full CPU load. A full-load test would also stress the GPU at the same time. If you think that wouldn't make much difference take a look at the 2012 Air review from Anandtech:
Running a game can increase power draw by about 50% over testing the CPU alone.
Also, Anandtech's "Heavy" load battery life test is also skewed, because the New Macbook Air's have larger batteries, but more importantly, the CPU on the new Air's is also quite a bit weaker than the 2012 Air.
So, No, you failed to prove your point yet again.
Wrong again the new air's Battery is only 8% larger and the heavy load also consists of video/photo editing work so you're wrong again MR. AMD LOVER!!!! Not compared to the Heavy load which actually uses more power than ANY game and is almost comparable to running 3dmark which does bring up power usage a great deal.
How am I wrong exactly, I said the new Air has bigger batteries, and it does. The new Air has a less powerful CPU, and it does. And Anandtech's Heavy load test does not stress the GPU, which as I've shown would increase the power draw dramatically. If you think only stressing the CPU would use more power, then please, by all means provide me with a link that shows this.
Wrong again video editing and flash use the GPU not the CPU!!!! And yes they do increase power draw dramatically why do you think under those loads the AIR only gets just under 6 hours instead 12 under anandtech's Heavy load testing.
Really? Again forgive me for not believing you, but can you show me where it says that Anandtech's "Heavy" load test stresses the GPU? It may run with the GPU on, and maybe Flash might use it a bit, but where does it say that video editing is using it, and how do we know that it's being used as much as a game would use it?
You know that is a good question but to be fair notebookcheck has the same issue it would seem. No reviewer uses games to discern heavy load power. Anandtech on page 6 of the Macbook air review that they found that OS X tends to fire up the dGPU so those kinds of tests are not needed.
When Anandtech refers to dGPU they mean the discreet GPU in a dual IGP/Discreet GPU system. Their test, from their description does not appear to load the GPU, playing a game would get much closer to a full-load than what they appear to be doing. But what's really needed is a full CPU/GPU load test.
I think it's the windows driver issue, which was reported to be destroying the Air's battery life when running windows is the issue here, without Windows, reviewers can't run their usual tools to load the GPU and CPU simultaneously in order to determine how the machine behaves under full load.
Maybe but that doesn't matter. Even an IGP is a GPU and follows the same rules as a dGPU on OS X. No One runs games to test max load they do other tasks. I know you love to make Intel look bad but face IT Intel wins AMD loses BADLY!!!!! Intel haswell's load battery life is so much higher than even Temash can dish out.
LOL, saying that Haswell's load power performance has improved substantially requires proof, you don't have any. That Anandtech review went very easy on the GPU. My point about gaming was that a test of power consumption during gaming would be closer to a full-load power consumption test, but I haven't seen a gaming test on the Macbook Air either.
Face it, you have no proof, so I'm not going to concede the point until you do.
I wouldn't be so sure about that but then again AMD fanbois like you don't know the meaning of defeat so this is to be expected. Also: http://www.pcper.com/reviews/General-Tech/MacBook-Air-11-2013-Review-Windows-Perspective/Battery-Life-and-Conclusion. Nope Then I won't concede either face it AMD has lost BADLY!!!!!!
That pcper review is a very-light load test (It's also inconsistent with other tests I've seen). Where is the full-load test?
I'll concede if I'm proved wrong, but I'm not the one spreading lies about load power based off a few wild assumptions and a complete misunderstanding of the tests that review sites perform.
Face it, you assumed Haswell used less power under load because you completely misunderstood that Anandtech test. Now that I've shown that test to be far from a full-load, you're still spouting nonsense, why not just shut up until you have proof?
NO I won't shut up sorry. AMD has lost I am sorry to say it. AMD's IGP's are faster but they use more power and AMD can't even come close to the same battery life.
I'm just trying to help you look less stupid. Stating something as fact when you can't back that up is something stupid irrational people do.
Now for more General Trolling nonsense, why don't you go away, do some real research, then come back and do some real trolling, not this weak-sauce amateur-hour crap.
"AMD has lost I am sorry to say it"
AMD has lost what exactly?
"AMD's IGP's are faster"
No they're not. Intel has Iris Pro which is the fastest IGP.
"AMD can't even come close to the same battery life"
You're right, AMD can't beat the intel Atom for battery life. The new Temash/Kabini chips look like they can beat the rest of the intel line though.
AMD's Kaveri will be faster than Intel's Iris Pro is what I meant by that but for now you're right. AMD has lost on performance per watt and battery life. Nope AMD can't beat haswell on battery life. The small 25% improvement to power usage for haswell is only for the HD4400 15 watt chips the HD5000 versions use even less.
If you want to speculate about the future, why not speculate all the way forward to Broadwell.
You still have not proven that Haswell beats Kabini on full-load power, but feel free to keep spreading your wild speculation as fact.
You are a child who plays terrible, outdated games. Some of us actually have a use for multiple cores and actually do something called 'working' and 'earning money'.
Stupid little kid.
No You're the Stupid little kid not me. Doom 3 BFG not an old game Sorry you lose. Plus older games have better gameplay something your stupid ass KNOWS nothing about M$ call of duty FANBOI!!!!!
You are rabid jackass and a complete idiot.
I honestly don't even think you really believe half the shit you say. Go back to your emulator, little kid. Maybe fantasy shit-for-brains land, free from nasty facts and actual figures, will provide you with some condolences.
I just can't stop laughing at just how stupid and sad you are. EMULATORS!
just lol, little child, lol.
I see you are a total tool and an IDIOT and you SUCK SHIT!!! Emulation is AWESOME!!!! Go back TO HELL SCRAWNY WEAKLING!!!! Your free from facts SHIT FOR BRAINS XBOX GAMER!!!!!
I applaud your patience in dealing with this 'Jml' troll child.
He's incredibly ignorant and uses caps and repetitive statements to attempt to make some sort of point.
I think he may have some kind of problem.
Thanks, I'm just trying to bring some civility back to the internet, he's not even a very effective troll.
Maybe we'll start to see some PC games with a focus towards the lower end of the graphics spectrum, on a small screen, dropping a few details to go from 23 to 30 fps can't be that big in difference. Or maybe OEMs could just ship the devices with Linux, if I remember correctly Valve got a big boost in performance on the Source engine in Linux, surely that'd be enough to make a lot of games playable.
I'd quite like to see a fairly cheap, very small netbook for travelling, that has an adequate battery life, and can still cope with light gaming.
Kruskal's Algorithm
"As soon as I saw that the A4-5000 couldn't push 25FPS in L4D2, I knew this wasn't going to be a pretty show."
My apologies, Mr. Hruska, but you are mistaken. Read the graph again and you'll see that's an 8W chip pushing 25fps in L4D2, not the 15W A4-5000. All of a sudden the numbers look quite impressive. With a few driver tweaks, game updates, and potential additions of tweaking tools (remember BrazosTweaker and its ability to control the thermal profile, voltage, and clock speeds of Brazos chips?), overcoming that paltry 10% to raise it over 25fps isn't anywhere near unimaginable.
My HD 3000 got 30% faster in a few games in the months after release due to driver enhancements alone. Updating my NVIDIA drivers from 285 to 310 gave me literally 70% faster Skyrim performance on the exact same hardware. With a few easy tweaks to driver settings, in-game settings, and mods, the game soared to DOUBLE the initial performance.
Don't worry too much about that 10% miss from your target. AMD will speed it up. If they don't, you can, by just fiddling with the settings, OS, and driver. Yes, you CAN play L4D2 on an 8W tablet. I've found a way to get Skyrim working decently on a C-60 tablet (9W AMD). True story.
Joel Hruska
True, I misread the graphs and will need to fix that.
Game tests suggest that while the A4-5000 is far better than anything in Atom country, it doesn't match IVB's HD4000.
Kruskal's Algorithm
Their test (Whiterun run-through) is highly CPU-bound, so this makes sense. Notice the A4 trounces the i3 with IVB-HD4000, while the i5 (also IVB-HD4000) edges out the A4. The primary difference there is CPU clock (and price).
http://twitter.com/juanrga juanrga
There are several issues with the techreport review. Moreover, they are using Skyrim, which is not representative of average gaming. Skryim is one of about a dozen of special titles optimized for Intel HD graphics! http://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/gaming/overclocking/games-optimized-for-intel.html
My interest in AMD has grown in the past 5 months as they keep spinning out new and more creative APU's on the market every other month. And its not just improvements to the CPU but across the whole board.
What's particularly got my interest is AMD's power efficiency and their work on HSA or HUMA. I'm hoping steamroller will come out one day but I'm not going to hold my breath. One day I hope to install their APU with HSA technology in my ageing laptop which what I love about it is it'll look like a dinosaur to any lookers but work flawlessly and I won't have to recharge my battery for a while.
Well, I assume you know that you will need to upgrade to an HSA implemented system first ;)
Looks as though steamroller should be here pretty soon, no need for breath holding.
Okay, you people need to ban this little 'Jml" troll child/ idiot.
Apparently, this pathological liar has no other purpose in life except to spread lies and false information in the comment section.
Such behavior makes it nearly impossible for any factual discussions to take place.
Oh wow, the stupid little shithead 'Jml' has multiple accounts just to remove negative votes from his own posts.
LOL, you are a sad and useless little piece of *****.
Oh wow, the stupid little kid 'Jml' has multiple accounts just to remove negative votes from his own posts.
LOL, you are a sad and useless little piece of *****.
Bogen Cannith
There is a market for low power desktop PCs, The HTPC market is booming, how many people have DVRs out there with low space, with a HDHOMERUN and other similar devices out there, there is no reason to have one.
Hookup one of those FM transmitters and you can have music or even audio from a TV Sound throughout your home on any stereo.
2 projects you can do with a low power PC, one a file server for your multimedia and other files, and another one is to build a super Wifi router file server.
Having one of these devices doing 2 or 3 tasks are possible, you'll be saving space and money.
Beside how many would complain about surfing on the big screen.