Leaked AMD Fusion Strategy Guide

H

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
A leaked copy of AMD Fusion Strategy Guide has been posted here. You can see the complete slide presentation below. Please feel free to share your thoughts with us.
 
Someone broke the June 14th NDA. :p

The dual core power is new info: 35W-45W. That points away from there being a 65W quad core Llano with 400SP GPU at full speed as some hoped.
 
very cool, showing alot of tablets in there.......


sad to see them using idle time for battery life indicator....10.5 hrs actual use would be awsome
 
beto said:
What?
Click to expand...
That was supposedly a benefit people here were claiming: that quad core Llano with a 400SP GPU only used 65W. Ask them why they believed it, not me. :p

W.Feather said:
sad to see them using idle time for battery life indicator....10.5 hrs actual use would be awsome
Click to expand...
The disclaimer slides were missing. I'll bet AMD didn't compare using same size batteries and ignored 17W SB. ;)
 
Blah, blah, blaaaaaaah, pretty picture, blah, blah, blah, pretty charts, blah, blah, blah, cough..."bul$i#".... Show me the real hardware and "real" benchmark results...!!!
 
pxc said:
That was supposedly a benefit people here were claiming: that quad core Llano with a 400SP GPU only used 65W. Ask them why they believed it, not me. :p
Click to expand...

Well I am one of those people and I see nothing that would indicate they are not going to have a quad and their best IPG in a 65W APU. That's what previously released info has said anyway and I don't see anything to discount that. We'll see. That's why I am waiting. If previous info was a lie then I'll go Intel.
 
pxc said:
Someone broke the June 14th NDA. :p

The dual core power is new info: 35W-45W. That points away from there being a 65W quad core Llano with 400SP GPU at full speed as some hoped.
Click to expand...

I don't see how that precludes there being a 65W quad core with 400SP. 35-45 W dual core, if you think 15-20W for the GPU and 20-25W for the 2 cores, double the cores and you have 40-50W for the cores, and still 15-20W for the GPU. That still comes out to a possible 65W quad core- And- thats just a guess. I don't really know what percentage of that power is actually GPU or CPU, but it seems reasonable that you could double the cores and only add 20W if you're looking at something in the 35-40W range with GPU.
 
Flyinfinni said:
...
Click to expand...
The 400SP Llano GPU will use around 3x more power than the nearly 30% slower clocked 160SP version in the lower end models that use much less power (omitted: basic math). The 400SP GPU likely uses around 20-25W, based on what the 40nm processors at similar clock speed would expect on a better process. 8W of the 35/45W for the slower 160SP Llano GPU is a reasonable estimate.

I'm not arguing that 65W is impossible, but a quad core Llano with a 400SP GPU will be significantly downclocked to reach that power level from the full speed 100W versions. According to previous information 100W is the TDP target for quad core Llano, not 65W. A 65W quad core will be closer in performance/clock speeds to the 45W mobile version than the 100W desktop versions. That's probably fine for people who want those (the benefit over HD Graphics 2000 will be minimized for 160SP GPU equipped Llano models), but don't pretend that cake will be had and also eaten. Nothing is free. ;)

I wrote as much in the post that's been quoted twice: "That points away from there being a 65W quad core Llano with 400SP GPU at full speed as some hoped." Cake: have it or eat it.
 
It's been a while since I've seen AMD go so aggressively against Intel's offerings... but talk is cheap :)
 
pxc said:
That was supposedly a benefit people here were claiming: that quad core Llano with a 400SP GPU only used 65W. Ask them why they believed it, not me. :p

The disclaimer slides were missing. I'll bet AMD didn't compare using same size batteries and ignored 17W SB. ;)
Click to expand...

no, there is a disclaimer, thats why i said bummer to it being idle time measured, they say in the slides that they measure it as windows idle time...
 
Mercuri said:
It's been a while since I've seen AMD go so aggressively against Intel's offerings... but talk is cheap :)
Click to expand...
Compare the PP slide wordings with the last Athlon II and Phenom II slides before launch. It was just as aggressive on paper. The comparison is still fitting because Llano uses K10 CPU cores, but the competition is no longer Core 2. ;)

W.Feather said:
no, there is a disclaimer, thats why i said bummer to it being idle time measured, they say in the slides that they measure it as windows idle time...
Click to expand...
No, the note on the battery life references the disclaimer page that wasn't included. Those are usually the last page(s) of the presentation and describe the hardware configuations/model numbers. IMO the exclusion was intentional by whoever leaked it.
 
there will be a quadcore 1.6ghz 400 SP 400 mhz 45W

OFC! there can be a quadcore with 400 SP on 65W.

I can't wait to see the performance on cheap laptops in 65W! (requires 45W for cpu+chipset+gpu.
 
pxc said:
The 400SP Llano GPU will use around 3x more power than the nearly 30% slower clocked 160SP version in the lower end models that use much less power (omitted: basic math). The 400SP GPU likely uses around 20-25W, based on what the 40nm processors at similar clock speed would expect on a better process. 8W of the 35/45W for the slower 160SP Llano GPU is a reasonable estimate.

I'm not arguing that 65W is impossible, but a quad core Llano with a 400SP GPU will be significantly downclocked to reach that power level from the full speed 100W versions. According to previous information 100W is the TDP target for quad core Llano, not 65W. A 65W quad core will be closer in performance/clock speeds to the 45W mobile version than the 100W desktop versions. That's probably fine for people who want those (the benefit over HD Graphics 2000 will be minimized for 160SP GPU equipped Llano models), but don't pretend that cake will be had and also eaten. Nothing is free. ;)

I wrote as much in the post that's been quoted twice: "That points away from there being a 65W quad core Llano with 400SP GPU at full speed as some hoped." Cake: have it or eat it.
Click to expand...

let me correct you llano is not built on a 40nm bulk silicone line. the full thing is built on 32nm soi yes folks amd has made a soi gpu and put said gpu on die with the cpu. and from what ive seen the gpu's for llano are tagged 6370 - 6650 so it is entirely possible.
 
The thing that looked most interesting to me was the battery life slide. I'm sure it's a lie, but if the lies are consistent and it holds its own against competing intel models it will go a long way in bridging the battery life gap.

So many teases from AMD lately, I want answers, I want the truth.
 
pxc said:
The 400SP Llano GPU will use around 3x more power than the nearly 30% slower clocked 160SP version in the lower end models that use much less power (omitted: basic math). The 400SP GPU likely uses around 20-25W, based on what the 40nm processors at similar clock speed would expect on a better process. 8W of the 35/45W for the slower 160SP Llano GPU is a reasonable estimate.

I'm not arguing that 65W is impossible, but a quad core Llano with a 400SP GPU will be significantly downclocked to reach that power level from the full speed 100W versions. According to previous information 100W is the TDP target for quad core Llano, not 65W. A 65W quad core will be closer in performance/clock speeds to the 45W mobile version than the 100W desktop versions. That's probably fine for people who want those (the benefit over HD Graphics 2000 will be minimized for 160SP GPU equipped Llano models), but don't pretend that cake will be had and also eaten. Nothing is free. ;)

I wrote as much in the post that's been quoted twice: "That points away from there being a 65W quad core Llano with 400SP GPU at full speed as some hoped." Cake: have it or eat it.
Click to expand...

If the pricing chart over at VR-Zone is to be believed, there will be the A8-3550 (I know it is a desktop product): 4 cores, 400SP, 65W TDP ~ $150
If it is possible to have a 65W Desktop APU with 4 cores and 400SP, then it is possible to have a mobile version, which I think was the chip used in the "A-Series vs Sandy Bridge Mobile Comparison" video that was pulled from Youtube, it was called A8-3510MX.
 
SIX HUNDRED AND NINETY NINE US DOLLARS!

SIX HUNDRED AND NINETY NINE US DOLLARS!
 
The only interesting update I saw was the thing about being able to shut down parts of the cpu/gpu that aren't in use.

Now, that's a good thing to have.
 
Yeah... if it was going to blow the doors off they would have been released already
 
pxc said:
the benefit over HD Graphics 2000 will be minimized for 160SP GPU equipped Llano models), but don't pretend that cake will be had and also eaten. Nothing is free.
Click to expand...

The 160SP model should have no problem at least matching the HD 3000 and it should crush the HD 2000. Even the 80SP Zacate is about as fast as the HD 2000, and it only has single-channel memory.
 
man i love the guys who talk like they have a a series fusion processor in their hands.

all this wattage figures, you pulling out of leaked information which may or may not be correct.

WHO CARES! just wait till the actual product comes out then dicuss its performance and wattage, where REAL WORLD RESULTS can be proven by multiple reliable sources.

Llano is not suposed to be faster than sandy bridge x86 wise. It will just be a WHOLE lot more powerful in mutimedia and games/ hd playback due to its superior GPU.

Then with its power gate tech they are using will be power efficient. This the CPU to have in full size labtops, and all in one desktop pcs. Where it will be competitive is in the sub 700$ desktop market. Sandy Bridge platforms will NOT COME CLOSE to its mutimedia performance and games. Sandy Bridge platforms will be faster x86 but that is it.
 
mzs_biteme said:
Blah, blah, blaaaaaaah, pretty picture, blah, blah, blah, pretty charts, blah, blah, blah, cough..."bul$i#".... Show me the real hardware and "real" benchmark results...!!!
Click to expand...

Yeah, pretty much this.

Ooh, look! There are some dudes using a laptop and smiling! I gotta have one too!

2zque77.jpg
 
everything amd is doing right now is strategic they are launching at major conventions and shows not amd's fault June is the start of the convention season
 
Sojuuk said:
I don't understand how this makes sense?
Click to expand...

I can kinda see how it makes sense. This is purely hypothetical but when we first started hearing about Bulldozer, Core 2 was king of the hill and the i7 was brand new so BD was gonna compete with that and spank it. But it took so long that Sandy Bridge came out and AMD was thinking "oh shit". Now they have to boost it up to tackle SB and theyre still taking so long that Ivy Bridge is now on the horizon. "Oh shit".

Not saying thats how it is, just playing the "what if" game.
 
well I am in the market for a new laptop and I intend to wait till these new Llanos get released. I do hope they have support for some sort of hybrid crossfire like the old days so they can combine a 400sp llano with a cheap or midrange discrete to get some incredibly cheap GPU performance on a laptop.
 
Last edited:
Come on AMD step your game up. I used to love AMD! Good thing I didn't end up waiting for Bulldozer though got my Sandy Bridge in December.
 
Sojuuk said:
well I am in the market for a new laptop and I intend to wait till these new Llanos get released. I do hope they have support for some sort of hybrid crossfire like the old days so they can combine a 400sp llano with a cheap or midrange discrete to get some incredibly cheap GPU performance on a laptop.
Click to expand...

got really tempted by this HP 6017tx w/ SB i7 + 6770M. but when i saw it comes with a 120W power brick, i finally decided there is no choice but to wait for Llano.
 
sublimestuff said:
got really tempted by this HP 6017tx w/ SB i7 + 6770M. but when i saw it comes with a 120W power brick, i finally decided there is no choice but to wait for Llano.
Click to expand...

You are comparing apples with oranges here. 4 core llano won't be anywhere near performnca of i7 SB and even if they put full 400 sp gpu inside it won't match 6770M.

Compare it to one of ultra mobile Sandy Bridge laptops with switchable discret/integrated GPUs and they won't be so astronomical.

Mine 45nm core 2 based dual core CULV takes less than 20W when using intel gpu.
 
I don't get it. They're comparing it to Sandy Bridge when their competition is going to be Ivy Bridge. Someone at AMD needs to be smacked.
 
TeeJayHoward said:
I don't get it. They're comparing it to Sandy Bridge when their competition is going to be Ivy Bridge. Someone at AMD needs to be smacked.
Click to expand...

How can they compare it to something that doesn't exist on the market yet or even in reviews?

Failure.
 
I have a feeling that Llano will crush the competition for the HTPC market. I want to build a newer HTPC using an older i3 and put a discrete GPU in it, but after these rumors of Llano I'm starting to feel a bit more relieved that I'm waiting. This onboard GPU will give you great media performance!
 
mzs_biteme said:
Blah, blah, blaaaaaaah, pretty picture, blah, blah, blah, pretty charts, blah, blah, blah, cough..."bul$i#".... Show me the real hardware and "real" benchmark results...!!!
Click to expand...

I'm sure the link will be there soon enough, if you can wade through the other posts to find it.
 
"Ocworkbench has provided a pair of new exclusive AMD Llano Fusion Performance details right from AMD’s Computex booth. The performance of the Llano Fusion APU’s was evaluated through benchmarks which included 3D Mark Vantage and PC Mark Vantage."

http://wccftech.com/2011/05/31/official-amd-llano-fusion-aseries-apus-benchmark-performance-detailed-computex-2011/

EDIT: if Intel simply doubles EU count the graphics perf. would even beat the A8. what would AMD do then? this could happen with IB, what say??
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top