What are the performance metrics?

Is anyone besides HP going to use them and is anyone at all going to use them with a 1080p IPS screen?
Sigh.

That's certainly very low power consumption. I just wonder if it's also performance comparable and not just low power consumption...

medi01Is anyone besides HP going to use them and is anyone at all going to use them with a 1080p IPS screen?
Sigh.

I'd love to get my hands on one for my HTPC setup... would be a good AM1 alternative.

the54thvoidWhat are the performance metrics?

Doesn't seem too flash for what HP are asking. $750 for 768p screen and a 500gb mechanical harddrive seems a bit pricey

I'm guessing the A12 + 1080p/1440p + SSD is going to be in the i7 (HP) or i7 + discrete graphics (anyone else) price bracket

Thats all fine and dandy, but what does that help us consumers, if no one (HP doesn't exist, as they are shitty company) uses their chips.

hojnikbThats all fine and dandy, but what does that help us consumers, if no one (HP doesn't exist, as they are shitty company) uses their chips.

There is more than HP, just HP is usually the first ones to use them.

HumanSmokeDoesn't seem to flash for what HP are asking. $750 for 768p screen and a 500gb mechanical harddrive seems a bit pricey

I'm guessing the A12 + 1080p/1440p + SSD is going to be in the i7 (HP) or i7 + discrete graphics (anyone else) price bracket

They are Pro machines. I was thinking the same that they look expensive with 768p screens, but considering they are pro laptops, probably they are not that much expensive. For example the cheapest Precision starts at $999 with an Intel processor.
Dell's Six New Precision Workstations

But I am not in laptops, definately no idea about business systems, so I could be completely wrong. I do find HP's prices on their AMD power laptops to favor.... Intel.

As for Carrizo, I would say that it is pretty late and the biggest problem I am reading is that in the very few laptops that are out there the manufacturers limit the chip at 15W TDP which means 30% lower performance than what it can do.

only 2mb of cache? lame... its not like it would be very hard to had more, maybe for power reasons during cache-coherency?
if this can handle a decent game settings at fluid 720p maybe it will make a decent htpc/"living room" computer (stream, light gaming, fb machine, lolcat browser) other than that its kinda "meh"

RejZoRThat's certainly very low power consumption. I just wonder if it's also performance comparable and not just low power consumption...

watch out it might run like a 450 in a few years with a lack of updates.

btarunrThis is made possible because "Excavator" features heavily compacted registers and decode engines, and AMD spent a lot of R&D kicking out redundant or useless components from the silicon.

I hope AMD spends more R&D for Zen just like they did when researching this A12 Carrizo. R&D is the lifeblood that flows into making a product as best as it can be.

Judging AMD's past with integrated graphics, this little Carrizo should definitely be able to handle 1080p for HTPC users. Now imagine if this was also equipped with some HBM memory and 14/16nm process, I'm thinking these could make it into next generations ultrabooks/tablets. That's the market where AMD needs to undeniably penetrate.

Remember, Core architecture was born out of Pentium 3 roots. Sometimes, to progress, you have to go one step back and build on top of that instead of keep building on top of flawed latest tech (which was Pentium 4 back in those days for Intel)...

I'm hugely unimpressed. A core M-5y10 sits at a 4.5w TDP and will likely outperform this in everything but GPU performance and even then who is going to notice in the ultrabook market where the AMD chip will be throttling anyway.

RejZoRRemember, Core architecture was born out of Pentium 3 roots. Sometimes, to progress, you have to go one step back and build on top of that instead of keep building on top of flawed latest tech (which was Pentium 4 back in those days for Intel)...

Also remember Intel took good things from P4 and applied them to new parts. 64 bit instructions and hyperthreading are just two examples.

Yup. HT is awesome. It seems like AMD should look at their Athlon XP and Athlon64 CPU's and learn what made those good and apply the knowledge to what they have today. Hopefully Zen is just that.

Technically the current module setup is similar to hyperthreading. They aren't two true cores per module.

cdawallI'm hugely unimpressed. A core M-5y10 sits at a 4.5w TDP and will likely outperform this in everything but GPU performance and even then who is going to notice in the ultrabook market where the AMD chip will be throttling anyway.

Considering this would be an evolution of this chip... and your chip looses on Intel slanted benches... highly unlikely.
cpuboss.com/cpus/Intel-Core-M-5Y10-vs-AMD-FX-7600P

cdawallTechnically the current module setup is similar to hyperthreading. They aren't two true cores per module.

It is two real physical cores per module. Each core is independent of one another and has its own independent L1, unlike hyper treading.

Hyper threading equivalent is just how AMD initially tried to market the unusual architecture.

RejZoRRemember, Core architecture was born out of Pentium 3 roots. Sometimes, to progress, you have to go one step back and build on top of that instead of keep building on top of flawed latest tech (which was Pentium 4 back in those days for Intel)...

To be fair this is for mobile market with power consumption as its focus. They still need products to sell between now and Zen architecture.

PatriotConsidering this would be an evolution of this chip... and your chip looses on Intel slanted benches... highly unlikely.
cpuboss.com/cpus/Intel-Core-M-5Y10-vs-AMD-FX-7600P

Did you just compare a 30w+ AMD chip to a 4.5w intel one and claim victory? Compare the 12w AMD to the 4.5w intel and see what comes out on top. The A12 already is on the market. It has already proven on the absolute top end to compare to an entry level i5. That's using higher watt cpu's however. The article touts a 12w unit, that is hugely unimpressive when the 4.5w Core M's are out and offer near core i5 performance.

Dent1It is two real physical cores per module. Each core is independent of one another and has its own independent L1, unlike hyper treading.

Hyper threading equivalent is just how AMD initially tried to market the unusual architecture.

They still lack a FPU. Two half cores per module as far as I'm concerned.

cdawallDid you just compare a 30w+ AMD chip to a 4.5w intel one and claim victory? Compare the 12w AMD to the 4.5w intel and see what comes out on top. The A12 already is on the market. It has already proven on the absolute top end to compare to an entry level i5. That's using higher watt cpu's however. The article touts a 12w unit, that is hugely unimpressive when the 4.5w Core M's are out and offer near core i5 performance.
They still lack a FPU. Two half cores per module as far as I'm concerned.

No, I gave you a taste of what the 12w chip can do... as the 12w chip specification wise is an evolution of that 35w chip.
I see no evidence that the A12 is on the market yet... the fx chip is the closest thing performance wise and that is why I compared it.

You can keep your core M... I will take the performant chips.

HP elitebook 755 G3 A12-8800B based. There are also several HP's that feature the FX-8800P, which is the performance variant (not business class CPU). It will not perform like the CPU you posted at 12w. Reviews already indicate that. It performs somewhere an i3 and i5 at that wattage, which happens to be similar to the Core M. Call it what you will, but underwhelming is what I call it.

Oh and since you can't apparently search.

www.notebookcheck.net/AMD-FX-8800P-Notebook-Processor-Specifications-and-Benchmarks.144074.0.html
laptoping.com/cpus/product/amd-fx-8800p/

Look into it a little harder and find the review of the HP running the CPU. I want you to find that for yourself. I would read it after a couple of beers because when forced into a 15w TDP envelope it gets is ass handed to it by the core M. Call it performance or call it junk either way at 12w it is underwhelming.

RejZoRThey still lack a FPU. Two half cores per module as far as I'm concerned.

Even if you don't agree with the module being a full cores (your opinion) it clearly has physical components which hyper threading doesn't.

cdawallTechnically the current module setup is similar to hyperthreading. They aren't two true cores per module.

Hyper threading lacks independent L1, L2, and L3 cache and its not even a core. Has more missing components than a core within AMD's module architecture so its impossible for the two the be similar.

At 15w I see it outperforming the 5200u by 50-100% ...thanks for the links!
Sweet.

You are a bit too personally vested in the Core M thing... Should have sprung for the 70, as that is the only one close-ish to an i5 in single threaded. Enjoy your 4.5w c2d.
Don't get me wrong, the fact that they can turbo enough to make single threaded performance bearable at 4.5w is nice... but I need more threads.
Yoga 3 vs yoga 2 shows you how bad core M is.

Dent1Even if you don't agree with the module being a full cores (your opinion) it clearly has physical components which hyper threading doesn't.

Hyper threading also lacks an FPU as well as L1, L2, and L3 cache and its not even a core. Has more missing components than a core within AMD's module architecture so its impossible for the two the be similar.

Still shares the pipeline for processing (l1i, fetch and decode) They are cores, but like I said at best I will give them half cores. They perform like hyperthreading which is what the point of my post was.

PatriotAt 15w I see it outperforming the 5200u by 50-100% ...thanks for the links!
Sweet.

You are a bit too personally vested in the Core M thing... Should have sprung for the 70, as that is the only one close-ish to an i5 in single threaded. Enjoy your 4.5w c2d.

Read again that's at 35w.

Dent1Even if you don't agree with the module being a full cores (your opinion) it clearly has physical components which hyper threading doesn't.

Hyper threading also lacks a FPU as well as L1, L2, and L3 cache and its not even a core. Has more missing components than a core within AMD's module architecture so its impossible for the two the be similar.

Just FYI, this is not my text you've quoted. I never said that line...

RejZoRJust FYI, this is not my text you've quoted. I never said that line...

Yes sorry about that. Edited

cdawallThey perform like hyperthreading which is what the point of my post was

Fair enough. I do believe AMD intention was to have a alternative to hyper threading. In the original AMD press release documents even said that. Then they started to back track from this statement and started going down this real core.

Marketing wise they would have faired a lot better if they marketed their FX4xxx as dual cores and FX 8xxx as a quad core with a "physical hyper threading" feature and they would have directly competed with the i3 and i5 line up.

Then they should have release a 16 core and marketed it as a 8 core with "physical hyper treading" to compete with the i7.

Had AMD did this it would have rescued the module architecture and would have outperformed its Intel equivalent. The only downside would be the high TDP but that would be forgiven by the enthusiasts if the performance was there.