AMD to launch its own Ultrabook-like notebook design?

Last week at CES 2012, there were a ton of thin-and-light notebooks from various PC makers that were shown off to its attendees. All of them were based on Intel's Ultrabook design specifications. Now Digitimes is reporting that AMD wants some of that thin-and-light laptop action. The story claims that the processor company will be releasing its Ultrabooks competitor sometime in June 2012.

The story, which uses unnamed sources, claims that AMD will offer its Trinity platform, code named Ultrathin, as the basis for its new notebook design. The big difference between AMD and Intel's design is cost. AMD is aiming to have its thin-and-light notebooks priced between 10 to 20 percent less than notebooks based on Intel's Ultrabooks specifications.

The story also claims that AMD is expecting that PC makers such as HP, Acer and Asus will join in and sell Ultrathin-based notebooks based on AMD's design. However, it adds that Intel will still likely dominate the thin-and-light market this year. It predicts 75 different kinds of Ultrabooks wil be put on the market in 2012 compared to just 20 notebooks based on AMD's designs.

AMD's move into this market is apparently causing some concern from some notebook makers who think that AMD's Ultrathin launch could rapidly cut into the cost of Intel's Ultrabooks.

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

Microsoft rated third among global brands in 2011

Next Story

Rumor: Sony developing Windows Phone product?

14 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

What I like about AMD 'Ultrathin' notebooks is that I'm more than sure that it's Video Card will leave the dust on Intel's.

Jose_49 said,
What I like about AMD 'Ultrathin' notebooks is that I'm more than sure that it's Video Card will leave the dust on Intel's.

exactly.. whats the point of getting a 1500 dollar ultrabook (I had the Asus Zenbook i7/256GB) when you can only play games from 2 years ago on the most basic settings.. I would like to be able to play some casual games on low settings and not have the CPU power of the i7

Lachlan said,

exactly.. whats the point of getting a 1500 dollar ultrabook (I had the Asus Zenbook i7/256GB) when you can only play games from 2 years ago on the most basic settings.. I would like to be able to play some casual games on low settings and not have the CPU power of the i7

Exactly what I think too, AMD is becoming quite the experience... while intel is becoming the "desktop" processor, because you ain't playing in the office!

Lachlan said,

exactly.. whats the point of getting a 1500 dollar ultrabook (I had the Asus Zenbook i7/256GB) when you can only play games from 2 years ago on the most basic settings.. I would like to be able to play some casual games on low settings and not have the CPU power of the i7

exactly. If AMD made ultrabooks, I think it could be quite interesting in the graphics performance department.

FalseAgent said,

exactly. If AMD made ultrabooks, I think it could be quite interesting in the graphics performance department.

Werent the Fusion processors meant to match against the atoms, and smoked the atoms?

Was that so ? I thought they were to compete with i3 or i5 (I sincerely don't know, just speculating).

If it was competing with Atom, then Atom bite the dust looooong time ago.

Jose_49 said,
Was that so ? I thought they were to compete with i3 or i5 (I sincerely don't know, just speculating).

If it was competing with Atom, then Atom bite the dust looooong time ago.


The E-350 was for markets dominated by the Atom. It was so good that some manufacturers even built 15'' notebooks with an E-350 inside.

AMD is going to need a revolutionary idea to come back at this stage. I really do feel sorry for them and for the IT industry.

Clearly most people fail to comprehend what Bulldozer was about: multithreading. Sure, not all programs are multi-threaded but when you begin to compare an eight core Bulldozer against a more expensive but stuck at 4 cores Intel CPU things start to change. Nothing Intel has to offer is tempting, who wants to spend $600 on a 6 core CPU when you can get 8 for $200? Anyone who is screaming about performance when the benchmarks are already above 100 FPS on 60hz LCD (60 FPS max capable) is too blind to know it doesn't matter past a point and likely should have spent that excess money on their girlfriend instead.

JAB Creations said,
Clearly most people fail to comprehend what Bulldozer was about: multithreading. Sure, not all programs are multi-threaded but when you begin to compare an eight core Bulldozer against a more expensive but stuck at 4 cores Intel CPU things start to change. Nothing Intel has to offer is tempting, who wants to spend $600 on a 6 core CPU when you can get 8 for $200? Anyone who is screaming about performance when the benchmarks are already above 100 FPS on 60hz LCD (60 FPS max capable) is too blind to know it doesn't matter past a point and likely should have spent that excess money on their girlfriend instead.

Clearly most people dont care about multithreading or AMD. AMD should be catering to the consumers, not the other way around.

Iridium said,
AMD is going to need a revolutionary idea to come back at this stage. I really do feel sorry for them and for the IT industry.

Clearly You're a moron. I'm sitting on an FX-8150 and still to see what can an i7 do what this can't. Go do some fanboy benchmarks and shut the heck up about things you clearly don't understand. Most of us don't build PC's to do benches, we build them to work/gaming/rendering with them so please, next time just don't comment.

i don´t mind cpu power is not near intel offerings. You actually will be able to play games at least at double rate than in "ultrabooks", unless you are buying the lenovo t430u with nvidia graphics. Which will cost around the double

iguanas said,
i don´t mind cpu power is not near intel offerings. You actually will be able to play games at least at double rate than in "ultrabooks", unless you are buying the lenovo t430u with nvidia graphics. Which will cost around the double

Intels cpu's are better, but afiak amd fusion performs much better than intels integrated graphics

If these designs are reasonably priced I don't see why they wouldn't do well.