[SeniorEditor]

Donanimhaber.com published first performance figures of AMDs Fusion L1ano processors. They said that all performance figures came from official AMD documents.

According to news,

- Dual Core L1ano with Winterpark integrated graphic is slower than not only Athlon II X2 250 but also Pentium E6500 in general performance. But It is dramatically (4.7x) faster than Intel platform in general conclusion which includes visual performance and compute capacity.
- Quad Core L1ano with Beavercreek integrated graphic is slower than Athlon II X4 640 but faster than Core i3-540. And also Quad Core L1ano provides graphics performance between Radeon HD 5500-5600 level with integrated graphic.
- AMD will launch Fusion L1ano as A Series Vision Premium Processors.
- AMD also working on special graphics technology for Lynx platform

Source;
http://www.donanimhaber.com/islemci/...-sonuclari.htm

Share|

[psolord]

At least AMD seems to be doing the right thing. Putting decent gpus on decent but albeit somewhat lower end cpus.

The real question is WTF was Intel thinking, when they included crappy gpus on uber fast cpus while dumbing the gpus down for the lower end cpus. I mean WHO on their right mind, will not pair a 2600k with an uber fast gpu.

Morever, why on earth is Quicksync disabled on P67? WTF Intel?

It seems much more reasonable to me, to have a Bulldozer with No gpu and decent fusion apu with a decent gpu on board.

[NextGen_Gamer]

Originally Posted by psolord

At least AMD seems to be doing the right thing. Putting decent gpus on decent but albeit somewhat lower end cpus.

The real question is WTF was Intel thinking, when they included crappy gpus on uber fast cpus while dumbing the gpus down for the lower end cpus. I mean WHO on their right mind, will not pair a 2600k with an uber fast gpu.

Morever, why on earth is Quicksync disabled on P67? WTF Intel?

It seems much more reasonable to me, to have a Bulldozer with No gpu and decent fusion apu with a decent gpu on board.

I definitely agree with you on the Intel situation. Putting the HD Graphics 3000 on only the Core i7 2500K and 2600K, while using the HD Graphics 2000 on the rest of the desktop series, seems ... weird. It's like the opposite of what should have happened, and really I believe Intel should have just put the HD Graphics 3000 on all of them.

I read the issue with the chipsets is a legacy problem. Intel wanted to change as little as possible between P55/H55 and P67/H67, which is why only H67 has integrated GPU support and only P67 has dual PCI-E and unlocked CPU multiplier support. It sounds like the upcoming Z68 fixes that situation at least, as Z68 is quite literally P67 and H67 combined (you get dual PCI-E, unlocked CPU multipliers, and integrated GPU support).

As for the story itself, I find it odd that a quad-core "Llano" would somehow perform slower than a Athlon II X4 640. "Llano" features a slightly tweaked design of AMD's current K10.5 architecture (K10.75, if you will), so it should be faster clock-for-clock when compared to the Athlon II X4 series (Phenom II X4 should be faster as it has an L3 cache). The article doesn't disclose the clockspeed, but if the "Llano" sample was running lower than the 3.00GHz the Athlon II X4 runs at, then obviously it would offer lower performance and I don't know why they would make the comparison to begin with. Another possibility is that the GPU is taking so much memory bandwidth for itself that it is actually starting to effect CPU performance. That's definitely not a good thing as all of AMD's upcoming platforms still use a dual-channel DDR3 interface, and future CPU and GPU architectures will only continue to get more powerful and need more bandwidth.

[watzup_ken]

Intel made a perplexing choice to do that with the HD 3000/2000 GPU. Their argument is that K series buyer pay more, so they get the faster graphics. Little do they realize that the very same group of users are the ones that usually do not go for integrated graphics. So they have much better graphics that people don't use. How nice of them... Anyway, a little shocking to hear that the new quads from AMD is actually slower than previous gen... Are these real quads or dual cores with sort of "Hyper Threading"?

[haylui]

Originally Posted by watzup_ken

Intel made a perplexing choice to do that with the HD 3000/2000 GPU. Their argument is that K series buyer pay more, so they get the faster graphics. Little do they realize that the very same group of users are the ones that usually do not go for integrated graphics. So they have much better graphics that people don't use. How nice of them... Anyway, a little shocking to hear that the new quads from AMD is actually slower than previous gen... Are these real quads or dual cores with sort of "Hyper Threading"?

Llano doesn't have SMT.
p/s: hyper threading has replaces SMT as formal name for such technology...