I actually like my APU, sure it's not the greatest out there but it gets the job done
[QUOTE=Shreddinger;40897396]AMD should stick to making GPUs[/QUOTE]
You want to pay 600$ for a Pentium?
[QUOTE=Shreddinger;40897396]AMD should stick to making GPUs[/QUOTE]
Intel don't need even more of a monopoly, their prices are insane.
[QUOTE=Novangel;40896240]A trailer for an APU. Now I've seen everything.[/QUOTE]
Aww sweet
[t]http://filesmelt.com/dl/AMD_APU_trailer.jpg[/t]
[editline]sdhwd[/editline]
Is there any Mini-itx motherboards supporting this newfangled CPU&GPU hybrid in question?
Seems like a obvious choice for a HTPC.
[QUOTE=Van-man;40897588]Aww sweet
[t]http://filesmelt.com/dl/AMD_APU_trailer.jpg[/t][/QUOTE]
is this supposed to be a joke about no driver
[QUOTE=Zezibesh;40897730]is this supposed to be a joke about no driver[/QUOTE]
Well that too :v:
[QUOTE=Em See;40896374]AMD write a story, of course the lead characters are cores[/QUOTE]
i got bored
[IMG]http://i.imgur.com/0Id7U6Z.jpg[/IMG]
Didn't say the trailer was rendered on APUs, not impressed
[QUOTE=Forumaster;40896274]This video gives me a neat idea for a game.
The closer you get to losing, the worse the game performs. Can you counter the exponential failure-curve? Or will you succumb to the inevitable program crash?[/QUOTE]
GlitchHiker already exists.
... Well, it did. But then everyone lost.
This makes me want to build a new tiny PC for LANs or somthing.
But can it run Planetside 2?
Looks like I'm going AMD for my next PC build
Not really a significant upgrade, I will wait for Kaveri.
[QUOTE=Forumaster;40896274]This video gives me a neat idea for a game.
The closer you get to losing, the worse the game performs. Can you counter the exponential failure-curve? Or will you succumb to the inevitable program crash?[/QUOTE]
You know, I've always wanted to see someone make games off of all these ideas.
[QUOTE=Silikone;40898871]Not really a significant upgrade, I will wait for Kaveri.[/QUOTE]
Is that seriously the name for the next platform?
It means "friend" in Finnish.
Then again, wouldn't be the first name random names from random languages collide, the first 2 generations of Pokemon were awfully confusing for young Finns because of the region names Johto (cable) and Kanto (stump).
I can only dream to have this in a laptop.
I fucking hate the Intel HD Graphics.
i can't work out whether it's really hard or really really easy to make a trailer with design this generic to represent an entirely abstract mathematical concept
[QUOTE=richard9311;40898589]But can it run Planetside 2?[/QUOTE]
Yeah maybe about 20FPS in biolabs. You really need a overclocked intel processor to be able to run PS2 at 60FPS
Won't DDR4 be a good thing for APUs a bit down the road?
[QUOTE=darth-veger;40899548]I can only dream to have this in a laptop.
I fucking hate the Intel HD Graphics.[/QUOTE]
Laptops with the AMD A-series APUs are generally pretty cheap (well compared to similarly performing Intel/Nvidia counterparts), so it might be more financially in-reach than you may have previous expected.
honest question
can it run crysis 1 well
im not joking, this is a legitimate question
[QUOTE=Wii60;40900640]honest question
can it run crysis 1 well[/QUOTE]
Yes.
[QUOTE=Wii60;40900640]honest question
can it run crysis 1 well
im not joking, this is a legitimate question[/QUOTE]
It'll probably do a reasonable job of Crysis 2 and 3 at reduced resolution as well.
[QUOTE=GiGaBiTe;40896692]While the IGP may be better, the CPU itself is still based on Bulldozer and has the same problems as its predecessors. It still lies about the number of cores it has (the A10-6800K has two cores, not four as advertised) and the performance improvements still come mostly from clock speed increases. It also still has poor single thread performance.
[/QUOTE]
Saying it only has 2 cores is just as much a lie as saying it has 4 full cores. It has 4 integer cores with some other resources shared between pairs of cores.
This thread has reminded me about how i know next to nothing about AMD's tech.
I just always stuck by intel and would follow intel news.
[QUOTE=pebkac;40902639]Saying it only has 2 cores is just as much a lie as saying it has 4 full cores. It has 4 integer cores with some other resources shared between pairs of cores.[/QUOTE]
Depends on your definition of core, at any rate, it doesn't have 4 cores that can run at their best performance at the same time if they're all being utilized. Regardless, most people don't want to get into an in-depth understanding of how the processor they're buying works, and how it had 4 integer cores inside of 2 cores, and how that affects their performance. It seems like a really dishonest tactic.
Totally getting this for my parents.
[editline]5th June 2013[/editline]
And to think I almost bought Haswell.
Was looking at Haswell because I wanted a cheap computer with an iGPU that could still reasonably game, but it looks like AMD just got my money.
I think we're going to increasingly see these CPU+GPU architectures. It's cheap and performant.
[QUOTE=Ta16;40897306]Well let's just hope steamroller is a better improvement.[/QUOTE]
Unless AMD drops the shenanigans with the shared core resources for two threads, I don't think it will be much different.
[QUOTE=pebkac;40902639]Saying it only has 2 cores is just as much a lie as saying it has 4 full cores. It has 4 integer cores with some other resources shared between pairs of cores.[/QUOTE]
[thumb]https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/ec/AMD_Bulldozer_block_diagram_%288_core_CPU%29.PNG/727px-AMD_Bulldozer_block_diagram_%288_core_CPU%29.PNG[/thumb]
Each module in the Bulldozer arch is a core. The integer units on the core are not cores, they're integer units. It's impossible for an integer unit to be a core because it only does one function, it can't operate by itself in an autonomous fashion.
Picture the above diagram cut in half and you have a "quad core" APU. But it's only two cores with four integer units. The FPU is shared in each core, as well as all of the other inner core logic, besides the small L1 caches.
You basically have a dual core processor here. You can load Core 0, Thread 1 and Core 1, Thread 1 to 100% and get little performance loss, but if you do something like load Core 0, thread 1 & 2, you get severe performance degradation. This is why Linux kernels try and keep high CPU usage threads on different cores on Bulldozer, because it doesn't have four real cores.
[QUOTE=GiGaBiTe;40908353]Unless AMD drops the shenanigans with the shared core resources for two threads, I don't think it will be much different.
[thumb]https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/ec/AMD_Bulldozer_block_diagram_%288_core_CPU%29.PNG/727px-AMD_Bulldozer_block_diagram_%288_core_CPU%29.PNG[/thumb]
Each module in the Bulldozer arch is a core. The integer units on the core are not cores, they're integer units. It's impossible for an integer unit to be a core because it only does one function, it can't operate by itself in an autonomous fashion.
Picture the above diagram cut in half and you have a "quad core" APU. But it's only two cores with four integer units. The FPU is shared in each core, as well as all of the other inner core logic, besides the small L1 caches.
You basically have a dual core processor here. You can load Core 0, Thread 1 and Core 1, Thread 1 to 100% and get little performance loss, but if you do something like load Core 0, thread 1 & 2, you get severe performance degradation. This is why Linux kernels try and keep high CPU usage threads on different cores on Bulldozer, because it doesn't have four real cores.[/QUOTE]
Or you could just call them "modules" with the understanding that each of them has more hardware than a traditional core but isn't actually two fully independent cores. I'm not saying it's a very sensible design, but claiming that each module is the same as 1 core is completely wrong. In the best case scenario a 4 module chip will perform like an 8-core, in the worst case scenario it's like a quadcore. It's just a shame that the best case only happens in specfic workloads, and then they go and base their whole consumer cpu lineup on that architecture. That certainly wasn't a very smart move.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.