Jump to content



Photo

microsoft surface and amd?

microsoft surface

  • Please log in to reply
33 replies to this topic

#16 OP jorel009

jorel009

    Neowinian

  • Joined: 08-March 11

Posted 23 June 2012 - 01:28

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.

Posted Image

Posted Image

Posted Image

Posted Image

Posted Image

Posted Image




#17 +SharpGreen

SharpGreen

    Now with built-in BS detector.

  • Tech Issues Solved: 1
  • Joined: 20-August 04
  • Location: North Carolina
  • OS: Ubuntu 14.04, 12.04 and Windows 8.1
  • Phone: Galaxy Nexus

Posted 23 June 2012 - 02:07

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


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.

#18 Crisp

Crisp

    To infinity and beyond

  • Tech Issues Solved: 2
  • Joined: 06-May 10
  • Location: 127.0.0.1

Posted 23 June 2012 - 02:09

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.


Fusion > Atom

IMO

#19 OP jorel009

jorel009

    Neowinian

  • Joined: 08-March 11

Posted 23 June 2012 - 02:18

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.


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.i...view-benchmarks

#20 Wakers

Wakers

    Neowinian Senior

  • Joined: 30-July 07

Posted 23 June 2012 - 08:31

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.

#21 Prince Charming

Prince Charming

    El Presidente

  • Joined: 17-May 07

Posted 23 June 2012 - 09:25

Fusion > Atom

IMO


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.



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.


<graphs snipped>



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) Sandy Bridge 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 :)

#22 OP jorel009

jorel009

    Neowinian

  • Joined: 08-March 11

Posted 23 June 2012 - 16:59

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.

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) Sandy Bridge 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 :)



......wow? i believe that ulv ivy is in ultrabooks right? well the 25w trinity part stays pretty close to it in most 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.


Posted Image

Posted Image

Posted Image

Posted Image

Posted Image

Posted Image






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...rabook-review/3

#23 Prince Charming

Prince Charming

    El Presidente

  • Joined: 17-May 07

Posted 23 June 2012 - 17:29

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.


Yeah. Again, the numbers that you chose post do not support 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, source here). The 17W ULV Sandy Bridge chip (such as that powers the HP Folio 13, source here) 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 superior performance 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:

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.


Any questions?

#24 OP jorel009

jorel009

    Neowinian

  • Joined: 08-March 11

Posted 23 June 2012 - 20:06

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.









Posted Image

#25 Circaflex

Circaflex

    Neowinian Senior

  • Tech Issues Solved: 2
  • Joined: 18-August 02
  • Location: California
  • OS: 8 x64, 7 x64, Mountain Lion, Ubuntu
  • Phone: hammerhead

Posted 23 June 2012 - 20:25

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

over-exaggerating just a little are we? lowest settings not able to go over 5fps, at least make it believable... haters gonna hate.

#26 Darrian

Darrian

    The Apathetic

  • Tech Issues Solved: 1
  • Joined: 22-October 01

Posted 23 June 2012 - 20:48

I love the surface and want one so badly I can't even describe it. It's like I'm 5 and Christmas is only a couple days away. I wouldn't buy one with an AMD CPU. I love them in my desktops (and use them exclusively), but I don't like their mobile solutions. I'm sure I'd like their graphics better than Intel's, but it's just not worth it IMO. I do wish they'd use nVidia graphics instead, though, I'm sure they could've done that if they really wanted to. I think these will be capable of some light gaming (hell, I plan on at least trying to play Guild Wars 2 on it, since it seems to run (with slooow load times) on my wife's aging Intel HD 3000-powered laptop) but they aren't being made as portable gaming machines, and I'm ok with that. That's why I have a desktop.

#27 c3ntury

c3ntury

    Say whaa?

  • Joined: 24-December 09
  • Location: irc.neowin.net

Posted 24 June 2012 - 10:14

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.


You're comparing one CPU to another, comparing a high end Intel, to a lower end AMD one. and then taking it as gospel for the entire series.

/shamelessly stolen by what Pandya's told me over IRC.


you know most people in this thread dont know wtf they are talking about...and its sad.


WUT.

#28 HawkMan

HawkMan

    Neowinian Senior

  • Tech Issues Solved: 4
  • Joined: 31-August 04
  • Location: Norway
  • Phone: Noka Lumia 1020

Posted 25 June 2012 - 16:37

For the same reason that you don't buy a £500+ laptop with an AMD processor, or a mid-range desktop with anything other than an i3 or i5.


why?

i have an AMD powered gaming tower. next time I'll probably go with intel, but not because of the aming, because of 3DSMAX rendering. we're also selling identically priced laptops at work at above upir 500 dollar range, one has an i5 and a 540, the other has an A6 with a far more powerful radeon card. for a user who want a cheap gaming laptop the AMD is a far better xhoixe, it also has excellent B&O sound system.

so our arguments are pure BS. yes intel offers betterr high end cpu performance, too bad you wont need it for anything but a rendering workstation.

#29 BajiRav

BajiRav

    Neowinian Senior

  • Joined: 15-July 04
  • Location: Xbox, where am I?
  • OS: Windows 8.1, Windows 8
  • Phone: Lumia 920

Posted 25 June 2012 - 16:45

I thought MS specifically mentioned IvyBridge?

#30 Arceles

Arceles

    Time Craymel

  • Tech Issues Solved: 1
  • Joined: 28-November 09
  • Location: 4th dimmension.
  • OS: Win 7 Ultimate / Win 8.1 Pro (With Start Menu Start8, otherwise is UNUSABLE) / Android 4.1.2 Jelly Bean
  • Phone: XT890 Motorola RAZRi (x86 processor)

Posted 25 June 2012 - 16:52

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.


My Laptop begs to differ since with my customizations I tend to be closer to lower ends i7s, and mostly on par with i5, for a fraction of the price and far better graphics power.

Translated: I paid far less money for such an amazing machine. All of the people complaining about APUs surely haven't tested their real power using both overclocking abilities in both CPU and GPU (dedicated)