BenetanegiaYeah except the GTX680 uses a chip almost half the size. Compare it to the GTX560 Ti and in 2560x1600 is in fact twice as fast. And with a significantly smaller die.

A CPU is not the same, it does not scale like that, but it still holds true to the iGPU. 56% over Llano is far from impressive IMO. Especially when we are talking about a marketing slide. Real difference is not going to be more than 20% on the GPU and 10% on the CPU most probably atributable to higher clocks.

EDIT: I'm sorry for picking up the GPU thing again, didn't see page 2 until after the fact...but I wanted to point this out to Benetanegia.
...
You are kidding right?
294 vs 520mm... 28nm vs 40nm...

28nm from 40nm is a 102% shrink. The surface area of a GF110 die assuming perfect shrink is going to be 260mm^2. Already your logic is a bit flawed.

You're right, a CPU is not the same as a GPU, it is a CPU.

However Llano is a 32nm product and so is Trinity. You need to be looking at GTX480 vs GTX580... :twitch:

29% + 56% in same TDP (realistically I see 10-15% and 30%) is EXTREMELY impressive on the same node. :wtf:

BenetanegiaYeah show me a thread were Nvidia or Intel claimed something anything close to what AMD did with Faildozer, the 60% over GTX580, the 41% over GTX570 and we can start talking about why I "bitch" about AMD's slides and not about Nvidia/Intel ones. In preparation I'll make a resume for you: they have not even closely lied as much as AMD.

imgur.com/L5v7H.jpgassets.vr-zone.net/14296/amd_hd7970_performance.png
tpucdn.com/reviews/AMD/HD_7850_HD_7870/images/perfrel_2560.gif

you are comparing up to "1.6x" to average performance all around from TP
i have a llano laptop with a 720p screen(asus k53ta), and i have a hd6650m alone with it for dual graphics
so far i played every game with full fps perfectly, and i get better fps than my friend who has the same laptop but with i5 and gt540 even tho my laptop cost me half the bill he payed
this is were the APU rocks

BeepBeep2EDIT: I'm sorry for picking up the GPU thing again, didn't see page 2 until after the fact...but I wanted to point this out to Benetanegia.
...
You are kidding right?
294 vs 520mm... 28nm vs 40nm...

28nm from 40nm is a 102% shrink. The surface area of a GF110 die assuming perfect shrink is going to be 260mm^2. Already your logic is a bit flawed.

You're right, a CPU is not the same as a GPU, it is a CPU.

However Llano is a 32nm product and so is Trinity. You need to be looking at GTX480 vs GTX580... :twitch:

29% + 56% in same TDP (realistically I see 10-15% and 30%) is EXTREMELY impressive on the same node. :wtf:

also lets not forget that 30% over stars is light years ahead of Bulldozer! so its all good progress

theoneandonlymrkeven if it had a die shrink ,100% is in retard land of expectations, from any company, intel inclusive

+1

BeepBeep2EDIT: I'm sorry for picking up the GPU thing again, didn't see page 2 until after the fact...but I wanted to point this out to Benetanegia.
...
You are kidding right?
294 vs 520mm... 28nm vs 40nm...

28nm from 40nm is a 102% shrink. The surface area of a GF110 die assuming perfect shrink is going to be 260mm^2. Already your logic is a bit flawed.

You're right, a CPU is not the same as a GPU, it is a CPU.

However Llano is a 32nm product and so is Trinity. You need to be looking at GTX480 vs GTX580... :twitch:

29% + 56% in same TDP (realistically I see 10-15% and 30%) is EXTREMELY impressive on the same node. :wtf:

:banghead:

And who is comparing both things?

My GTX680 vs GTX580 argument was directed at who said that process shrink does not mean a big performance increase. He said "look at GTX580 vs GTX680". I said apples to oranges, it's nearly half the size. Learn to read ffs and this way we can avoid stupid posts like yours and I don't have to explain the same thing for the 3rd time in another post.

Secondly, "assuming linear scaling"? Really? You are pretending to teach me a lesson about die sizes and you start by saying "assuming perfect scaling"? Perfect scaling does not exist, GK104 is goddamn close to the size that GF110 would have at 28nm process.

And third, regardless of how much increases over Llano it's not impressive at all, because Llano's TDP is far from good, when the competition has nearly 40w lower power consumption on the "same process" and is faster. It's like looking at the GTX570 and claiming it's impressive, because it has a 33% higher perf/w than GTX480 and same performance.

sergionographyyou are comparing up to "1.6x" to average performance all around from TP

The average is about 40% there, which is false nevertheless. And so is the 41% of the HD7870, that's a far worse a lie actually.

i have a llano laptop with a 720p screen(asus k53ta), and i have a hd6650m alone with it for dual graphics
so far i played every game with full fps perfectly, and i get better fps than my friend who has the same laptop but with i5 and gt540 even tho my laptop cost me half the bill he payed
this is were the APU rocks

That only reinforces my point. You need a dedicated GPU. You are needing a HD6650 to play at a dreadful resolution that I have not used in 12+ years. Yeah that's certainly impressive... NOT. You'd be much better off with a CPU that is equal to the APU without the iGPU (that is, a very cheap quad) and a dedicated GPU like an HD6750. That would cost the same, consume the same and destroy your setup in performance. The comparison with the 540m is meaningless, low-end Fermis are awful, especially on laptops were their TDP really limits them. AMD cards fare better there and so does the Kepler parts from Nvidia. Much better. For anyone wanting to game even the slightest, a IvyBridge+Kepler GK107 with Optimus (660M or 650M, 640M not so much) or IB+HD76xx/77xx is a much much better option. An AMD CPU would do fine too, but I think they are only going to offer Trinity on the low end so Intel it is (plus Intel is superior).

An APU is OK if you find niche uses for it, like "I want to play these select games that are 2 years old at low resolution and reduced graphics settings". In that scenario you can certainly find games where the APU will be able to play them and SB/IB won't, but opening the spectrum and expecting to play ALL games and new games at decent quality settings and 1080p which is the standard now and the APU is not going to be able to handle them, plain and simple. When you buy a PC, especially those who buy cheap setups where an APu is going to get used expect their PCs to last at least 3 years. An APu will simply not be able to handle games in 2 years, hell they don't even handle them today by most gamers standards.

A 56% increase in GPU performance is not going to change that, because discrete GPUs are improving more than that and hence it's far from impressive. Like I said an increase like that is adecuate, also what you'd expect from a product that is pretending to stay relevant, but it's far far from being impressive.

hmm I probably shouldn't have mentioned about the GPU thing. I suppose a better comparison would have been a 480 and 580. Now I have derailed the thread :o

BenetanegiaAnd third, regardless of how much increases over Llano it's not impressive at all, because Llano's TDP is far from good, when the competition has nearly 40w lower power consumption on the "same process" and is faster.


That only reinforces my point. You need a dedicated GPU. You are needing a HD6650 to play at a dreadful resolution that I have not used in 12+ years. Yeah that's certainly impressive... NOT. You'd be much better off with a CPU that is equal to the APU without the iGPU (that is, a very cheap quad) and a dedicated GPU like an HD6750. That would cost the same, consume the same and destroy your setup in performance. The comparison with the 540m is meaningless, low-end Fermis are awful, especially on laptops were their TDP really limits them. AMD cards fare better there and so does the Kepler parts from Nvidia. Much better. For anyone wanting to game even the slightest, a IvyBridge+Kepler GK107 with Optimus (660M or 650M, 640M not so much) or IB+HD76xx/77xx is a much much better option. An AMD CPU would do fine too, but I think they are only going to offer Trinity on the low end so Intel it is (plus Intel is superior).

An APU is OK if you find niche uses for it, like "I want to play these select games that are 2 years old at low resolution and reduced graphics settings". In that scenario you can certainly find games where the APU will be able to play them and SB/IB won't, but opening the spectrum and expecting to play ALL games and new games at decent quality settings and 1080p which is the standard now and the APU is not going to be able to handle them, plain and simple. When you buy a PC, especially those who buy cheap expect their PCs to last at least 3 years.

okay a few things. One, llano is made for a long term strategy by AMD, and even right now it makes sense to the .ain profit market for computers right now, namely sub-$600 computers and mainly laptops. Sure a discrete gpu and faster cpu are going to be faster, but it will also cost more and consume more power. Kepler mobiles shouldnt even be compared until trinity is out anyhow.
Second, AMD is moving to heterpgeneous computing, hence the fusion nomenclature. Did i already say it? Because its AMD's plan to survive, given how intel is dominating the x86 market. Moving floating point onto the gpu as well as any computing tasks it can. If AMDfollows through we'll see that next year. For now, trinity if AMD is telling the truth, will be great for students, kids, and normal people who aren't looking to spend much on a PC, and do expect it to last 4 years. Most people i have sold to(see people who buy at retail) find it nuts to pay more than $750 on a PC. If they have kids who play games, or if they are casual gamers looking to say, play a few mmos, which is going to make more sense for four years of light gaming, videos, music, multitasking, and web browsing at $600, an APU with a GPU more than twice as fast, or a Pentium or i3 with just it's intel 3000/4000 graphics? Oh and let's not forget drivers for games and gpu acceleration in flash for browser based games.

BrooksyXI am glad AMD is deciding to give up on the high end cpu market and concentrate more on the low end segment.

Me too.....that is where their strength is. Now if we can only get the hardcore amd fanatics to stop posting how low to mid range product are gonna best the competitions high end stuff and rile everyone up we can.all enjoy thier advancements.

I am probably going to pick up a trinity laptop for myself and build a desktop variant for the parents.

BenetanegiaYes, exactly, that's why it's not impressive. Any gamer will look for a dedicated card, so why include such a GPU? It's far from good for gaming and overkill for anything else. It's a waste.

So what do you propose? You want AMD to integrate SLOWER GPU into the APU?

BenetanegiaI know a lot of people bought Llano and are very disappointed because they expected it to be playable with their games, because that's the way they marketed.

That isn't AMDs fault. If your friends wanted to play games they shouldn't be looking at an APU. Or they should have paired the Llano with a dedicated card. AMD offers consumers a range of tools and your friends bought the wrong tool. Whos fault is that?

BenetanegiaSo unless they at least double GPU performance, it's completely useless for gaming and a waste of silicon for anything else and like I said a 56% - which is NOT going to be 56% in reality, try 20% - is far from impressive.

But the slide says "56% increase in visual performance" - AMD didn't say gaming. Visual performance can be any moving 2D or 3D effect. You jumped to the conclusion that they meant gaming.


--------------------------------------

BrooksyXI am glad AMD is deciding to give up on the high end cpu market and concentrate more on the low end segment.

ensabrenoirMe too.....that is where their strength is.

urrrm. Who said they have given up on high end CPU market. I can remember seeing high end CPUs on the 2012 roadmap.

High end amd = mid range in reality so the answer is both yes and no

Vulpesveritasokay a few things. One, llano is made for a long term strategy by AMD, and even right now it makes sense to the .ain profit market for computers right now, namely sub-$600 computers and mainly laptops. Sure a discrete gpu and faster cpu are going to be faster, but it will also cost more and consume more power. Kepler mobiles shouldnt even be compared until trinity is out anyhow.
Second, AMD is moving to heterpgeneous computing, hence the fusion nomenclature. Did i already say it? Because its AMD's plan to survive, given how intel is dominating the x86 market. Moving floating point onto the gpu as well as any computing tasks it can. If AMDfollows through we'll see that next year. For now, trinity if AMD is telling the truth, will be great for students, kids, and normal people who aren't looking to spend much on a PC, and do expect it to last 4 years. Most people i have sold to(see people who buy at retail) find it nuts to pay more than $750 on a PC. If they have kids who play games, or if they are casual gamers looking to say, play a few mmos, which is going to make more sense for four years of light gaming, videos, music, multitasking, and web browsing at $600, an APU with a GPU more than twice as fast, or a Pentium or i3 with just it's intel 3000/4000 graphics? Oh and let's not forget drivers for games and gpu acceleration in flash for browser based games.

What makes more sense? Since gaming was mentioned, a dedicated GPU always, even for light gaming and MMOs like you say. How many people upgraded their cards for the WoW update? A lot.

An APU based system is NOT much cheaper than a system based on an Athlon II and even many PhenomII are also substantially chepaer. Intel's cheap Pentium line from what I can see and something like G840 is still faster in most everyday tasks, except on number crunching things like video conversion and the like and it's $50 cheaper. With little more you can get a decent dedicated card that is much better than Llano iGPU, MUCH better, we are not talking about a few percents here we are talking about 3x faster. Something that can actually play games.

Again you are describing a very limited situation in which you pretend that X number of games can be played. But what about Conan MMO (don't remember the name) for example? You need a fast GPU and like that there's many many others. What about SWTOR? Llano just does not handle it period. It's a complete falacy to say that a Llano GPU will handle MMOs or games in general and SB can't do it. Old games both can handle them more or less right, in general (Llano is 1.5-2x faster not 10x faster). About newer games, neither handle most of games, and the fact that Llano can play some more games, does not make it any more suitable for gaming, unless you know exactly which games are going to be played and those are indeed handled. Like I said a very limited situation that affects a very very limited amount of people. In best case it's a complete gamble: knowing if a certain game will be handled by the 2-3 year old mid-range GPU (i.e. HD5770) of his son's PC is already difficult for most parents, it's a completely ridiculos task to know that with something like a Llano iGPU (actually no lol, you can assume that it won't and be right 95% of times). It is NOT a gaming solution, far from it, so any judgement based on that assumption is just flawed.

It's simple if you don't want to game, any iGPU will do it, choose the best CPU as CPU is what is going to give you the best results. You want to game with at least a little security of being able to play any game that you/your children will play in the next couple years? Dedicated GPU, always. Like I said any $80 dedicated GPU crushes LLano. I would agree to the general usefulness of APUs if they didn't cost on average $40 more than similar performing Pentium, Athlon II's and the like. But they do cost more so it's easy, gaming involved in any form, dedicated GPU, pay $40 more than you would with Llano, knowing you are getting 3x more GPU performance, 5x if you go for aftermarket cards like HD4870, GTS250 and the like which I've seen selling for $50.

EDIT: And about heterogeneous computing. When AMD trully integrates CPU and GPU, then let's talk about it. Until then it's more than proven that a dedicated GPU is much faster than integrated GPU, because Llano and Trinity (and SB) are nothing but separate entities slapped together. If heterogeneous computing takes off, once again dediceted GPU >>>>>>>> iGPU. And video conversion, by far the most common of heavy duty tasks performed by the average joe is much faster on dedicated hardware like Quicksyic or the thingy that GTX680 has anyway.

ensabrenoirHigh end amd = mid range in reality so the answer is both yes and no

That is just silly, its like saying a Sempron was high end because it beat out a high end Pentium 4. Or a Pentium 4 was lowend because it had midrange performance.

BenetanegiaWhat makes more sense? Since gaming was mentioned, a dedicated GPU always, even for light gaming and MMOs like you say. How many people upgraded their cards for the WoW update? A lot.

An APU based system is NOT much cheaper than a system based on an Athlon II and even many PhenomII are also substantially chepaer. Intel's cheap Pentium line from what I can see and something like G840 is still faster in most everyday tasks, except on number crunching things like video conversion and the like and it's $50 cheaper. With little more you can get a decent dedicated card that is much better than Llano iGPU, MUCH better, we are not talking about a few percents here we are talking about 3x faster. Something that can actually play games.

Again you are describing a very limited situation in which you pretend that X number of games can be played. But what about Conan MMO (don't remember the name) for example? You need a fast GPU and like that there's many many others. What about SWTOR? Llano just does not handle it period. It's a complete falacy to say that a Llano GPU will handle MMOs or games in general and SB can't do it. Old games both can handle them more or less right, in general (Llano is 1.5-2x faster not 10x faster). About newer games, neither handle most of games, and the fact that Llano can play some more games, does not make it any more suitable for gaming, unless you know exactly which games are going to be played and those are indeed handled. Like I said a very limited situation that affects a very very limited amount of people. In best case it's a complete gamble: knowing if a certain game will be handled by the 2-3 year old mid-range GPU (i.e. HD5770) of his son's PC is already difficult for most parents, it's a completely ridiculos task to know that with something like a Llano iGPU (actually no lol, you can assume that it won't and be right 95% of times). It is NOT a gaming solution, far from it, so any judgement based on that assumption is just flawed.

It's simple if you don't want to game, any iGPU will do it, choose the best CPU as CPU is what is going to give you the best results. You want to game with at least a little security of being able to play any game that you/your children will play in the next couple years? Dedicated GPU, always. Like I said any $80 dedicated GPU crushes LLano. I would agree to the general usefulness of APUs if they didn't cost on average $40 more than similar performing Pentium, Athlon II's and the like. But they do cost more so it's easy, gaming involved in any form, dedicated GPU, pay $40 more than you would with Llano, knowing you are getting 3x more GPU performance, 5x if you go for aftermarket cards like HD4870, GTS250 and the like which I've seen selling for $50.

EDIT: And about heterogeneous computing. When AMD trully integrates CPU and GPU, then let's talk about it. Until then it's more than proven that a dedicated GPU is much faster than integrated GPU, because Llano and Trinity (and SB) are nothing but separate entities slapped together. If heterogeneous computing takes off, once again dediceted GPU >>>>>>>> iGPU. And video conversion, by far the most common of heavy duty tasks performed by the average joe is much faster on dedicated hardware like Quicksyic or the thingy that GTX680 has anyway.

"llano can't handle swtor?" seriously? you're joking me. I have two coworkers with llano laptops who play swtor on them all the time and play on high settings at 720p. I beleive you aren't looking at things from the perspective of normal (i.e. not enthusiasts / eyecandy-obsessed / hardcore gamer) people, who have no issue whatsoever at playing at lowered settings.
My point is that an average person won't be just gaming, perhaps their kid will be playing games, and they will want to use the same computer for multitasking. Unless I'm incorrect, even though it's not going to be faster for each individual application, through multitasking, say running an antivirus, all the bloatware that comes with an average PC, a few browser tabs, and say a media player at the same time is what I know "normal" people to do. And if they play a game, they'll leave most of it running too. So real world experience isn't going to be that much difference.
And I am thinking more along what you'll find in an OEM route. They're unlikely to have in a retail model a discrete GPU in a sub $600 PC. They'll be running whatever integrated graphics come with it. Wherein an AMD APU has an advantage over an Intel processor in the same price range for an average user.
While it is true that say, a discrete radeon HD 6750m (6670)will be about 75% faster on the GPU end, you should also remember this is adding another 30-50w to the heat in the computer and power drain on a battery in a laptop. And if you want more performance, you have the dual graphics option, which pushes it again at a higher graphics level than say a dedicated CPU and discrete GPU of the same price bracket.
Honestly, go into say, bestbuy and see how many laptops in the sub-$600 bracket can actually run newer games. The only ones which can even play say, Crysis on lowered settings are the Llano-based laptops.
If you can find a new laptop in retail with a discrete GPU than is in Llano with 5-6 hours battery life, and is as fast or faster CPU-wise when all cores are in use, then let me know. Sure any $80 desktop GPU is going to be better in most cases in a desktop, in small form factor desktops and in laptops the AMD APU will generally be a better low budget solution.
Am I wrong?
here's the newegg list;
PCs & Laptops, Laptops / Notebooks, Intel Core Du...
and Bestbuy intel laptops at $500-600
www.bestbuy.com/site/olstemplatemapper.jsp?id=pcat17080&type=page&qp=q70726f63657373696e6774696d653a3e313930302d30312d3031~~cabcat0500000%23%230%23%2311a~~cabcat0502000%23%230%23%23o~~f305%7C%7C24353030202d20243539392e3939~~nf551%7C%7C496e74656c26233137343b&list=y&nrp=15&sc=abComputerSP&ks=960&usc=abcat0500000&sp=-bestsellingsort+skuid&list=y&iht=n&st=processingtime%3A%3E1900-01-01
and A8 powered in the same price range:
www.bestbuy.com/site/olstemplatemapper.jsp?id=pcat17080&type=page&qp=q70726f63657373696e6774696d653a3e313930302d30312d3031~~cabcat0500000%23%230%23%2311a~~cabcat0502000%23%230%23%23o~~f305%7C%7C24353030202d20243539392e3939~~f551%7C%7C414d44~~nf546%7C%7C414d442041382d536572696573&list=y&nrp=15&sc=abComputerSP&ks=960&usc=abcat0500000&sp=-bestsellingsort+skuid&list=y&iht=n&st=processingtime%3A%3E1900-01-01

Have fun trying to even run a game on those intel PC's.
Shall I list the retail desktops too?
newegg:
PCs & Laptops, Desktop PCs, Pentium D, Core 2 Duo...

So yeah. Have fun finding an OEM build one with such a setup.

Also, I'm just pointing out that is AMD's strategy, calling every bit of this a fail is certainly nothing but hate in my opinion. AMD showing an overall 15-30% increase in performance is getting called a complete failure, when that is a significant increase given that this is still on a 32nm node. And like before, I say take AMD's statements with salt, however I do expect it will increase performance to at least some extent.

Honestly, I know that Intel gives a better price / performance CPU-wise, especially on higher end builds. However, that doesn't mean that with the way that computing is going, especially in a budget-retail-light user end, where graphics acceleration is becoming more common, light gaming is becoming more common, and bloatware is becoming more and more rampant, AMD has if nothing else, a means to compete.

And I'm hoping, and I believe for the sake for competition, you should at least hope that AMD delivers on it's claimed performance gains. A leap of perfomance / watt of that high, if they keep their costs as they are right now, will be significant and give them an edge in lower end builds, and would be the first iGPU to give decent enough performance levels to consider for a budget gaming PC over say, that pentium + 6670, as the GPU performance would only be 10-20% lower, and CPU performance would not only be superior for multi-thread, but for real life use, and single thread wouldn't be nearly as horribly trounced by the pentium.

That is of course, if AMD delivers on their statements, which I do hope they do.

Oh, and Trinity is expected to incorperate a competitor for quicksync, I belive it's called VCE. Which is already in the discrete Radeon HD 7000 series GPUs.

Vulpesveritas...

We should just agree to disagree. IMO either you can play or not. And with Llano you can't, 30 fps, 720p, is not gaming... it's blurslideshow. If you are going to play like that to me is just 1000x times to play gems from the past like Starcraft, Diablo, Sins of a Solar Empire, Counter-Strike, COD1/2, and those will play on a SB too. I don't know, there's a bazillion games that I would play on max settings rather than playing new games on lowest settings posible. And same goes with kids. I don't personally have kids, but if I had, I'd rather give them quality games of the past and a quality experience regarding resolution, AA and in-game settings. In fact every gamer/enthusiast should do that to teach their kids some culture, before they fall prey to the COD brainwashing.

And please don't pretend that SWTOR plays nicely on anything but the absolute minimum on Llano because I've seen it in a wide range of computers and NO it's not playable by the standards of most people, with a lowe end GPU much less an iGPU. In fact I don't know a single person who expects anything less than 1080p. They don't expect mroe either, but 1080 is on Bluray, it's on the TV, it's on the consoles (so they believe at least), so it MUST be on computers too. For different reasons, but I agree with them. I have refrained from buying a laptop lately, because it seems that every single one comes with 1300x768 or whatever is the crappy resolution*.

And like I said, if you have such low standards, you may as well go with Ivy/Sandy and play on even lower settings in some games or play games that it can handle. It's 30-40% slower than Llano, not more, it's not like it's a different world kind of performance, discrete GPUs on the other hand are. IMO you are taking one situation and generalising over it. There's only a handful of games that Llano can handle nicely that Sandy Bridge won't (and difference will be even smaller with Ivy vs Trinity). Of course if you play those all day long, it's perfect for you, but otherwise there's a thousands games that it won't handle just like Intel's offerings so why even bother.

Regarding power consumption, what a mid-range dedicated card consumes is more or less the power consumption difference between Llano and competing SB so that is not a problem at all.

* So I know about what laptops are available because I've been looking for them and there's like a million of them for less than 600 € (remember 1€ == $1 here) and a "nice" dedicated GPU along with even i5's. That is not the problem at all, crappy resolution is.

I'm sorry but once again, you're only looking at things from your perspective, not an average joe on the streets. And I'd love to see a sub $600 laptop with a faster gpu than is in an a8 at a respected retailor available in physical stores at non-sale/clearance prices here in the usa, if you know of one point me that way.

In the end, youve already stated you wouldnt pay so little and vye for performance, in disregard for my "normal people who are still impressed by 720p and buy a sub-$750 pc every 4-6 years or until it dies." Which is the majority who buy retail in my experience anyhow. Worked at two retail stores thusfar and that's what I've seen. Oh, and my two co-workers, one has an asus with an a6 and dual graphics i found on a $360 deal for him on newegg, and the other has an hp with an a8-3500m, and both play swtor on a daily basis.

BenetanegiaIt's simple if you don't want to game, any iGPU will do it, choose the best CPU as CPU is what is going to give you the best results. You want to game with at least a little security of being able to play any game that you/your children will play in the next couple years? Dedicated GPU, always. Like I said any $80 dedicated GPU crushes LLano. I would agree to the general usefulness of APUs if they didn't cost on average $40 more than similar performing Pentium, Athlon II's and the like. But they do cost more so it's easy, gaming involved in any form, dedicated GPU, pay $40 more than you would with Llano, knowing you are getting 3x more GPU performance, 5x if you go for aftermarket cards like HD4870, GTS250 and the like which I've seen selling for $50.

still here ay ,rileing the same shit

ive a p4 dual core with HD3000 integrated gfx that says an average user needs a better igpu then intel provide ,,, just to play movies ,SB is better but still not good enough for me ,nice to see your dedication ,odd though it is

VulpesveritasI'm sorry but once again, you're only looking at things from your perspective, not an average joe on the streets. And I'd love to see a sub $600 laptop with a faster gpu than is in an a8 at a respected retailor available in physical stores at non-sale/clearance prices here in the usa, if you know of one point me that way.

In the end, youve already stated you wouldnt pay so little and vye for performance, in disregard for my "normal people who are still impressed by 720p and buy a sub-$750 pc every 4-6 years or until it dies." Which is the majority who buy retail in my experience anyhow. Worked at two retail stores thusfar and that's what I've seen. Oh, and my two co-workers, one has an asus with an a6 and dual graphics i found on a $360 deal for him on newegg, and the other has an hp with an a8-3500m, and both play swtor on a daily basis.

Yeah a lot of people do stupid things and that still doesn't make Trinity impressive in any way.

www.tomshardware.com/reviews/star-wars-gaming-tests-review,3087-4.html

Look there's no way I'm going to believe they play it nicely even on ultra low resoution. I've seen it in GPUs like GTS450 and HD4870 myself and it does not run so well on those, much less on lower end cards. And the review above shows that not even on the lowest settings would llano play it nicely so that's a no no no.

I find it amusing to even be talking about this here anyway. Lol. 1) Playing on a laptop? 2) 720p? 3) 30 fps

Come on...

I don't care if llano is enough for the lowest of the lowest expecting crowd. They can expect to play on SB or better yet IB too. This whole argument of yours that SB can't play games, but llano on the other hand can somehow be enough for thegrand mayority of people, is just blatantly stupid. See the SWTOR link above? So HD6450- HD5570 it's playable no? So what about this one:

www.anandtech.com/show/4444/amd-llano-notebook-review-a-series-fusion-apu-a8-3500m/11

In 7 out of 9 of the titles the SB is capable of playing to the same performance level than a Llano would in SWTOR (it's also 30% slower on average or so). So basically SB CAN play games by your standard definition. And only in 2 out of 9, 3 out of 10 counting SWTOR the Llano setup is a real advantage for this average joe guy you so desperately want to vindicate. My point has been clear all along and this data, plus your definition of what's playable, has settled this all along. For the average guy 7 out of 10 times with modern games (much more if we include older games) SB iGPU is enough. Llano is thus a niche product for those who want to play the those other 3 out of 10 games on the cheap, intead of paying a measly $50 for a real gaming experience. GREAT!

EDIT: And yeah call me elitist :laugh: but I would pay $700 for a laptop instead of $600 if that is going to offer me a real gaming experience. These people who want to buy cheap PCs with crappy graphics and expect to be able to play something, is the same people as always. Uneducated people who can't understand that on PC gaming a measly extra $50 is the difference between playable and blurslideshow. The answer for this people is to teach them, not APUs. APUs just make it worse.

So let's see at this price point, llano is just as energy efficient, costs 10% less, is between 20-50% faster in graphics intensive tasks, and is more or less just as fast while multitasking, although is ~20% slower for Microsoft excell. Yeah it's a real "niche" product. Oh lets ignore the extras too.

So let's see at this price point, llano is just as energy efficient, costs 10% less, is between 20-50% faster in graphics intensive tasks, and is more or less just as fast while multitasking, although is ~20% slower for Microsoft excell. Yeah it's a real "niche" product. Oh lets ignore the extras too. Like usb 3.0, or that at $600 you start to find blue ray drives bundled in some laptops. Let's not forget this is mainstream we're talking about, not us.

VulpesveritasSo let's see at this price point, llano is just as energy efficient, costs 10% less, is between 20-50% faster in graphics intensive tasks, and is more or less just as fast while multitasking, although is ~20% slower for Microsoft excell. Yeah it's a real "niche" product. Oh lets ignore the extras too.

Just as fast, the CPU... :laugh:

And 20-50% faster on dreadful gaming settings. Wow I'm impressed. The point that you are trying to avoid desperately, is that Sandy Bridge is more than enough by your own definition. Llano being faster is meaningless, because SB is enough and isn that what this average joe (who you do know, but I don't, apparently) wants. Same argument you have been making for Llano vs a real GPU. If something is enough it is enough, or it is not. plain and simple. You draw the line not me. And on the CPU side SB is just light years ahead, so my point stands. For real gaming: dedicated GPU. For the rest whichever is the best CPU. It happens to be SB and IB in the future. I didn't make the rules,I let you make them, so please don't try to change them on the fly.

EDIT: BTW I'm extremely curious as to why this average joe wants a Blu-ray drive if it's only going to use a 720p screen. Just curiosity.

BenetanegiaAnd 20-50% faster on dreadful gaming settings. Wow I'm impressed. The point that you are trying to avoid desperately, is that Sandy Bridge is more than enough by your own definition. Llano being faster is meaningless, because SB is enough and isn that what this average joe (who you do know, but I don't, apparently) wants. Same argument you have been making for Llano vs a real GPU. If something is enough it is enough, or it is not. plain and simple. You draw the line not me. And on the CPU side SB is just light years ahead, so my point stands. For real gaming: dedicated GPU. For the rest whichever is the best CPU. It happens to be SB and IB in the future. I didn't make the rules,I let you make them, so please don't try to change them on the fly.

I could try screamin HSA at you, it might sink in i spose , have you used any gpu accelerated soft yet? ,and your scaleing is dubious light years is a step beyond as pile driver is not that far behind SB in the guestimate world were in ,either way this is fantasy land at the min, wind it in ,their isnt a wizz review of it yet

so when will we start seeing these in laptops?

theoneandonlymrkI could try screamin HSA at you, it might sink in i spose , have you used any gpu accelerated soft yet? ,and your scaleing is dubious light years is a step beyond as pile driver is not that far behind SB in the guestimate world were in ,either way this is fantasy land at the min, wind it in ,their isnt a wizz review of it yet

Yeah, scream it, and call me in 2014 when HSA will really become true. Until then it's a moot point, so don't bother me with your pointless posts. I don't appreciate them personally, they are annoying and contribute zero to the point at hand.

And FYI Intel is working on something similar, with a similar release date and so is Nvidia, and apparently Qualcomm and Apple and and and, so yeah.... whatever...

BenetanegiaJust as fast, the CPU... :laugh:

And 20-50% faster on dreadful gaming settings. Wow I'm impressed.

I love how you deliberately ignored my previous post which was aimed directly at you. My arguments were too water tight for you:)

Again I say: The slide says "56% increase in visual performance" - AMD didn't say gaming. Visual performance can be any moving 2D or 3D effect. You jumped to the conclusion that they meant gaming.

Apparently you don't get many people don't see a difference between 720p and 1080p. I do, probably you do, but I've learned color quality sells more.

In the end, im saying it's more or less as fast given gpu acceleration and bloatware pushing threads. And you get more for the price in general. So it's less niche, more general competition.