Jump to content

34 posts in this topic

Posted

does anyone know is microsoft will make a surface tablet with amd cpu's, there has been no news on this and its ****ing me off?


thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Not likely

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

No they aren't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

No. They just aren't technologically competitive. Sure, they can do low power parts, but their power/performance at the low-power end of the scale is years behind Intel.
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Yea they do that, then folks who use them would then complain of how slow they are. So the better question is why would they want to?
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

[quote name='SharpGreen' timestamp='1340130550' post='594943337']
Yea they do that, then folks who use them would then complain of how slow they are. So the better question is why would they want to?
[/quote]

They'd want to use a AMD APU if they wanted better graphics performance. Lets face it, while the i5 is the better CPU, Intels HD4000 IGP isn't anywhere as close to what AMD puts into it's new APUs. But again, the Surface Pro could be targeting those who want to consume media AND do some work, those people aren't going to be playing something like Crysis on these devices so having something better than the Intel HD4000 IGP could be for nothing. As long as the devices can do 1080p video playback I think everyones happy.
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

[quote name='GP007' timestamp='1340185760' post='594944931']
They'd want to use a AMD APU if they wanted better graphics performance. Lets face it, while the i5 is the better CPU, Intels HD4000 IGP isn't anywhere as close to what AMD puts into it's new APUs. But again, the Surface Pro could be targeting those who want to consume media AND do some work, those people aren't going to be playing something like Crysis on these devices so having something better than the Intel HD4000 IGP could be for nothing. As long as the devices can do 1080p video playback I think everyones happy.
[/quote]
Considering the market for the pro models (in my opinion) is mostly made of business, I'd think the iGPU would be more than enough.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

It would be a sad day ruining a great product my last amd/ati box was $650 and couldn't run wow on the lowest settings above 5fps (my kids Gen 1 aspire one with a atom and the 945 chipset ran at 15fps) I sold it a month later for $175 because I didn't want to rip off the person.

Amd will be kept a float by console gpu's

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

so you tried to run WoW on a computer that was already 10 years old when WoW launched ?

that's theonly way to explain tha, as an AMD will run WoW and other games just as well as an intel comouter of the same or higher value.

their cpu's are eaker than the igh end intel's but then, no ames today need a very powerul cpu.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

[quote name='HawkMan' timestamp='1340264804' post='594947379']
so you tried to run WoW on a computer that was already 10 years old when WoW launched ?

that's theonly way to explain tha, as an AMD will run WoW and other games just as well as an intel comouter of the same or higher value.

their cpu's are eaker than the igh end intel's but then, no ames today need a very powerul cpu.
[/quote]

Are you having some keyboard problems, there? :p

I can't see them using AMD, their performance is so poor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

[quote name='Wakers' timestamp='1340268307' post='594947435']


Are you having some keyboard problems, there? :p

I can't see them using AMD, their performance is so poor.
[/quote]

ipad's are **** to type on :)

as for AMD, while their performance is lower than high end intels, they are absolutely not poor, especially not their APU's. and what exactly do you propose a customer need the improved perfromance of a more expensive i5 over an AMD APU for n anything but a video editing/3D workstation ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Well in the pro version, it would be a laptop replacement. So, many things.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

like?

are gonna render your 3DSMAX previews on a tab ? oh wait, AMD will be ale to handle that just fine as well.

so howis AMD to slow to be usable in such a form factor, especially since with their APU, they will in fact be faster at most tasks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

For the same reason that you don't buy a

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

I think this was said already but in case it wasn't, MS said at the start that these are the first in a "range" of hardware devices. So who knows what other versions of the Surface we'll see? For example I expect a 7" ARM version at some point, I think it's a given. And probably later after that a 13" Pro version as well.

Who's to say we don't see a AMD version at some point? If we want to compare AMDs APUs to something like Intels Atoms then I'd go with AMD in that case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

you know most people in this thread dont know wtf they are talking about...and its sad. i tried not to get involved (tried to resist), but i can't. why would i want an amd apu over intel ivy? its simple amds trinity uses less power than ivy and overall its more efficent. plus with everything becoming gpu accelerated (like office, media creation....not stuttering when playing hd flash or movies, while mantaining good battery life), vsphere managing multiple (like 30) vm's at once....intels platorm does not cut the cheese.
these are from anands review.

[center][img]http://images.anandtech.com/graphs/graph5831/46668.png[/img][/center]
[center][img]http://images.anandtech.com/graphs/graph5831/46669.png[/img][/center]
[center][img]http://images.anandtech.com/graphs/graph5831/46670.png[/img][/center]
[center][img]http://images.anandtech.com/graphs/graph5831/46671.png[/img][/center]
[center][img]http://images.anandtech.com/graphs/graph5831/46672.png[/img][/center]
[center][img]http://images.anandtech.com/graphs/graph5831/46673.png[/img][/center]
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

[quote name='HawkMan' timestamp='1340291246' post='594948199']
like?

are gonna render your 3DSMAX previews on a tab ? oh wait, AMD will be ale to handle that just fine as well.

so howis AMD to slow to be usable in such a form factor, especially since with their APU, they will in fact be faster at most tasks
[/quote]

In my experience just doing basic stuff (using a C50 APU based laptop) was much slower than I ever remember Atoms being. In fact my ARM based tablet seemed faster.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

[quote name='MS Pandya' timestamp='1340129906' post='594943315']
No. They just aren't technologically competitive. Sure, they can do low power parts, but their power/performance at the low-power end of the scale is years behind Intel.
[/quote]

Fusion > Atom

IMO

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

[quote name='SharpGreen' timestamp='1340417251' post='594952015']
In my experience just doing basic stuff (using a C50 APU based laptop) was much slower than I ever remember Atoms being. In fact my ARM based tablet seemed faster.
[/quote]

well the c-50 is a very low powered chip, but it still beats the atom in most tests.and we would be talking about the Z or A series, not the C series.

http://nl.hardware.info/reviews/1961/4/amd-fusion-apu-review-benchmarks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Sorry but - if you want a laptop / desktop replacement, only silly people would consciously choose an amd chip of any description over an i5. It's that simple.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

[quote name='Crisps' timestamp='1340417384' post='594952017']
Fusion > Atom

IMO
[/quote]

I would absolutely agree. However, AMD have nothing to compete with ULV Ivy Bridge, which is what my post was referring to. The Fusion smokes the Atom at some 3D stuff, but the ULV Ivy Bridge is a masterwork of engineering that puts Intel about five years ahead of its competitors.



[quote name='jorel009' timestamp='1340414896' post='594952001']
you know most people in this thread dont know wtf they are talking about...and its sad. i tried not to get involved (tried to resist), but i can't. why would i want an amd apu over intel ivy? its simple amds trinity uses less power than ivy and overall its more efficent. plus with everything becoming gpu accelerated (like office, media creation....not stuttering when playing hd flash or movies, while mantaining good battery life), vsphere managing multiple (like 30) vm's at once....intels platorm does not cut the cheese.
these are from anands review.


[center]<graphs snipped>[/center]

[/quote]

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make, that the Trinity/Llano platforms are more power efficient? The series of graphs you've just linked shows the best power efficiency on fairly standard (not even ULV) [i]Sandy Bridge[/i] parts, which will be more power efficient on Ivy Bridge's 22nm process, due to simple power leakage. For real world use, and power efficiency, ULV IB chips as will go in to the Surface are the best option out there. They could compromise performance with an Atom or Fusion (of which the Fusion would be the better choice), or go for a higher performing part like a Trinity or ULV IB, of which the IB is the better choice. All there is to it really :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

[quote name='MS Pandya' timestamp='1340443509' post='594952587']
I would absolutely agree. However, AMD have nothing to compete with ULV Ivy Bridge, which is what my post was referring to. The Fusion smokes the Atom at some 3D stuff, but the [b]ULV Ivy Bridge is a masterwork of engineering that puts Intel about five years ahead of its competitors.[/b]

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make, that the Trinity/Llano platforms are more power efficient? The series of graphs you've just linked shows the best power efficiency on fairly standard (not even ULV) [i]Sandy Bridge[/i] parts, which will be more power efficient on Ivy Bridge's 22nm process, due to simple power leakage. For real world use, and power efficiency, ULV IB chips as will go in to the Surface are the best option out there. They could compromise performance with an Atom or Fusion (of which the Fusion would be the better choice), or go for a higher performing part like a Trinity or ULV IB, of which the IB is the better choice. All there is to it really :)
[/quote]


......wow? i believe that ulv ivy is in ultrabooks right? well the 25w trinity part stays pretty close to it in [b]most [/b]tests, and beats out some sandy bridges and generic ivys as well. we will see in a few days how the ulv trinity part fares....dont worry ill update this thread with the info.


[center][img]http://images.anandtech.com/graphs/graph5872/47194.png[/img][/center]
[center][img]http://images.anandtech.com/graphs/graph5872/47195.png[/img][/center]
[center][img]http://images.anandtech.com/graphs/graph5872/47196.png[/img][/center]
[center][img]http://images.anandtech.com/graphs/graph5872/47197.png[/img][/center]
[center][img]http://images.anandtech.com/graphs/graph5872/47198.png[/img][/center]
[center][img]http://images.anandtech.com/graphs/graph5872/47199.png[/img][/center]





no i was pointing out that trinity is better than ivy bridge in power consumption, it gets beat every time. i7-3xxx denotes ivy bridge models, intel has major leakage with ivy. amd just released their ulv chip a few days ago (17w), so no intel is not the better choice. i would venture and say that its either on par or better. those new 3d transistors are not working out to well.



http://www.anandtech.com/show/5872/intel-dual-core-ivy-bridge-launch-and-ultrabook-review/3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

[quote name='jorel009' timestamp='1340470758' post='594953379']
no i was pointing out that trinity is better than ivy bridge in power consumption, it gets beat every time. i7-3xxx denotes ivy bridge models, intel has major leakage with ivy. amd just released their ulv chip a few days ago (17w), so no intel is not the better choice. i would venture and say that its either on par or better. those new 3d transistors are not working out to well.
[/quote]

Yeah. Again, the numbers that you chose post [i]do not support[/i] the claims you're making. The most power-efficient chips listed on those benchmarks are the i7-2367M chips, which are i7, Sandy Bridge ULV parts. The most relevant comparison of all the graphs are the normalised min/Wh figures. These show the minutes of runtime the various chips are capable of, per watt-hour of battery capacity, and as such, normalise for varying battery capacities They are a value for overall system runtime so are still affected by all other components in the system, but they're still a fair comparison.

Unsuprisingly, of the chips listed, the i7-2367M chips lead the pack with normalised battery life, which should be expected with their 17W TDPs. The A10-4500M has similar normalised battery life to the i5-2540M. This isn't really suprising, as both operate within a 35W TDP. The i7-3720QM you've chosen to single out is indeed an Ivy Bridge part. What you may have failed to realise is that it is also a 45W TDP quadcore part with 2.6GHz cores. It is not a ULV processor at all, and does not intend to be.

What the graph does not show is any 17W ULV Sandy Bridge parts (relevant model numbers would be i7-3517U, i7-3667U, i5-3317U, or i5-3472U), or the 17W AMD part you're talking about (most likely the A6-4455M). However, as they have the same TDP, will ultimately have similar battery life due to operating within the same power envelope.

The point I have made is that at the 17W TDP point, Intel are able to offer better-performing processors than their AMD counterparts. I looked around for performance figures for the A6-4455M (the 17W ULV part you mentioned), and was able to find a PC Mark Vantage score of 4300 (testing performed by AMD, [url="http://hexus.net/tech/items/cpu/39409-2nd-generation-amd-a-series-apus-enable-best-in-class-pc-mobility-entertainment-gaming-experience-single-chip/"]source here[/url]). The 17W ULV [b]Sandy Bridge[/b] chip (such as that powers the HP Folio 13, [url="http://www.engadget.com/2012/01/01/hp-folio-13-review/"]source here[/url]) puts out a PC Mark Vantage score of 6701. Please bear in mind that this is an actual, shipping product as well. The Ivy Bridge i5 or i7 (most likely an i5) part that will inevitably power the Surface Pro will have [i]superior performance[/i] to the Sandy Bridge part (if nothing else for the fact they're clocked higher), and thus significantly better performance to any AMD parts that are capable of operating within the same power envelope. Given than Ivy Bridge chips are currently shipping on a 22nm process vs the 32nm process that AMD are shipping on (and will be for quite some time), and I think it adequately supports my original point that:

[quote name='MS Pandya' timestamp='1340129906' post='594943315']
No. They just aren't technologically competitive. Sure, they can do low power parts, but their power/performance at the low-power end of the scale is years behind Intel.
[/quote]

Any questions?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

omg....enough with sandybridge, ivy is less efficient and more power hungry then sandy...dont you get that? i did not say anything about sandy, i was talking about ivy bridge vs trinity power consumption. they could make both options, they dont need to stay with just intel.









[img]http://43.imagebam.com/download/mksh6hoIR51kUswhF4KeRA/19798/197976585/46670.png[/img]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

[quote name='winrez' timestamp='1340264258' post='594947371']
It would be a sad day ruining a great product my last amd/ati box was $650 and couldn't run wow on the lowest settings above 5fps (my kids Gen 1 aspire one with a atom and the 945 chipset ran at 15fps) I sold it a month later for $175 because I didn't want to rip off the person.

Amd will be kept a float by console gpu's
[/quote]
over-exaggerating just a little are we? lowest settings not able to go over 5fps, at least make it believable... haters gonna hate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.