Also not sure why everyone was shitting over these early APU's. I have a second generation (Zacate) and it's pretty good. CPU is a bit weak, but that was the target anyway. GPU is what allows you to even run games that don't work on any other such CPU.
Those were successful, they were not llano APUs
The E-350 and its ilk were terrible. Not to mention the C60 and whatever they were called. Absolutely terrible. They weren't exactly cheap, and slow.
I own a C60 motherboard that I used as a micro server for over 2 years, it cost me 60 $ brand new 2 years ago, and it was included in the motherboard. The thing eats 8watts peak. The power consumption of the entire system was so low that the ampermeter couldn't detect any ampers going through. Also the C60 includes a Radeon 6290, and guess what, it didn't need a fan cooler. Now it has been replaced with an AM1 Athlon 5350 and yes, the performance is up to the hills right now.
The E-350 and E-450 were exactly the same as the C60 but had more clock Ghz. The were meant for low power super low cost machines. Facebook - skype - gmail - word and excel. And that's it.
Investors are idiots. First gens of anything, never are as super as the 2nd or 3rd.
Llano wasn't bad. Heck I built a Llano rig for a relative that is still in use today and runs well. Only major downside is that AMD changed the socket for the next gens so it has no real upgrade path.
I had a A6-3400 laptop. I now have an AMD FX7500 laptop, which is much faster. But I would reverse back to the A6 all the way before touching a Pentium DC or celeron laptop ANY day.
I had a machine with a E1-1200 which is a very similar processor. It wasn't a powerhouse, but it seemed like enough for what it was for. Ran Google Earth surprisingly well. Easily overwhelmed though. Seemed inexpensive enough too.
The E1-1200 is quite low, but its graphics were ok for google earth
AMD is already so much weaker than Intel and NVIDIA and now this to crush them even further? Not good.
We really need competition in the market.
Unfortunately, I see no future for them unless the likes of Samsung buys them out and gets around that x86 licence clause that prevents the bought out company from using it. Perhaps anti-trust laws could apply to this clause, too?
There will always be AMD. Their processors are not the disaster people describe. Why whould a 20% difference in performance between intel and AMD make me change my mind when I have to pay more for the Intel Processor? Look, I own an Intel Bay Trail tablet (the HP stream) and its a huge deal. But in the rest, the big deals come from AMD, just to mention the FX8320 at less than 150$ is quite a bargain for what you get.
I know someone with one those e1 cpu powered laptops, its like 2 years old i think, that cpu is Slow as CRAP. My 8+ year old core duo laptop its not core 2. Its lowest end core duo chip was made matches the thing in performance. Even using his laptop core duo in mine is faster.
core duo performance is very respectable even today, but its power consumption was higher, its platform didn't support more than 2GB of RAM (depending on the chipset) and it was, at the time, quite expensive. Not to mention that without a dedicated graphics you cannot watch HD videos smoothly, intel gma was the one to blame.
core duo t2050, its lowest end core duo mobile chip made. at time it was cheapest dual core intel was being sold when i bought it and still 750$.
um if you did same test i did, just cpu test alone, my 4770k scored just under 11000. so 4000 you said is um well you can guess.
I was talking a core duo cpu that was made in 2006 vs a cpu from mid 2013.
I had the same core duo, the T2050, I poped in a T2500. I'm very happy with the result, specially because I just spent 10 bucks in the T2500. Socket M for laptops. Improved its performance and I use it for work. Its still quite slower than my AMD FX7500 laptop. But still the core duo its very respectable.
That said a well balanced fx 8350 system with win 10 and a reasonable gpu is set for years to come
Interestingly I ran performance passmark test a test not endorsed by amd due to its intel bias and scored 4063 beating most intel pcs out there sooo can my bias ass definitely say mines better no but its still not a bad buy a few years ago for 157 £.;-)
I said at the time they were to far ahead of the software curve to show it usefully in products sometimes like mantle and hsa now there's limited actual wares.
The FX 8000 line is very respectable. People were disappointed because it couldn't reach intel's performance. So the chip got bad press and people were against it. But in practice, its the best processor for the money.
So, basically, you're complaining that a 31 W CPU is faster than a ~15 W CPU. How very remarkable.
Even lower, the E1 he mentions is 8 watts.
