In another demonstration of silicon health AMD was showing working 28nm mobile GPU silicon running Dirt 3. It's too early to talk about performance or specifications, but AMD is still committed to a Q4 release for its 28nm GPU lineup.

POST A COMMENT

26 Comments

View All Comments

  • jabber - Thursday, September 15, 2011 - link

    Indeed. AMD boxes do work out better value.

    If I build a box to a price point and go for an AMD based box I can get a low end 880 AMD motherboard with HDMI/USB3/e-SATA/optical out/DVI etc. All good current stuff.

    If I choose an i3 chip and then have to put a low end Intel motherboard in we are limited to 4 USB2 ports and (FFS) serial and parallel ports. Thats it.

    The customer doesnt know the difference between a Athlon and i3 so give them the best all round value. Thats AMD.

    Especially if the AMD box comes in at such a lower cost than the Intel box that I can put in a 64GB SSD (plus keep all the modern connectivity). I just cant do that with the Intel option.
    Reply
  • silverblue - Thursday, September 15, 2011 - link

    I only have to look at X79 to see a rather missed opportunity. Hell, even the AMD A75 chipset boards come with USB3, and there's no Thunderbolt support. Reply
  • frozentundra123456 - Thursday, September 15, 2011 - link

    Dont really follow your reasoning. First you state that Intel does not have a competitive graphics solution, which is true relative to Llano at least. But graphics is not their main business. CPUs are, and they are very good at that.

    But then you talk about the value of an AMD system when using a discrete graphics card. So when you are talking about such a system, I dont see how Intel's graphics performance is relevant.

    I would say that an i3 2100 with a discrete card would be very competitive with the phenom system you mention for very close to the same price. The intel system would be faster in most cases, but the AMD might be faster in heavily multithreaded applications.

    The problem I see with AMD (Llano) on the desktop, is that the graphics is still not really adequate for any kind of serious gaming, and can be far exceeded by an 80.00 discrete card, and probably matched by a 50.00 card.
    Reply
  • Targon - Thursday, September 15, 2011 - link

    It's simple, with AMD, you can keep the same motherboard across multiple generations of CPUs, while with Intel you generally are forced to replace your motherboard with each new generation of CPU. AMD had socket 939, which went from single core to dual-core, Socket AM2 and AM2+ for the DDR2 based processors, and AM2+ allowed the latest Phenom 2 processors which support both DDR2 and DDR3 memory. Those same Phenom 2 processors with DDR3 support can also be used in new motherboards that have socket AM3 and AM3+ with DDR 3 memory, which will work with the Bulldozer "FX" processors.

    As a result, for someone who wants to be able to upgrade their system in stages, you have a LOT more room. The only reason for the move from AM2+ to AM3 was due to DDR3 memory needing a different type of memory.

    In the case of discrete graphics, Intel has an advantage in terms of performance, but if AMD has ENOUGH performance and is competitive in the price vs. performance arena, then again, we end up seeing Bulldozer as a viable CPU design.
    Reply
  • Omega215D - Thursday, September 15, 2011 - link

    To add, I just bought an Athlon II X4 for $80. Where else can I get a quad core that performs really well for that price?

    AMD has been really good in terms of backwards compatibility as well. AM3 CPU in an AM2/2+ motherboard that's most likely already filled up with DDR2 and when budget permits you can upgrade needing only the motherboard and RAM.

    Intel cannot beat AMD on integrated graphics front and they have been making promises of discrete cards for years and fail to produce them.

    If you are going for a value priced PC then AMD is a smart choice. Very few people will notice that it's not the top of the line CPU anyhow.
    Reply
  • frozentundra123456 - Thursday, September 15, 2011 - link

    I agree that AMD is competitive on the lower end, and can be a viable option, especially for someone who builds their own system.

    However, I used to be an AMD fan, and I would like to see them competitive at the mid to high end, not just "good enough". Maybe Bulldozer will do this, but considering all the delays and lack of benchmarks, I seriously doubt it, except perhaps in very specific, highly threaded applications.
    Reply
  • Omega215D - Thursday, September 15, 2011 - link

    Most consumers don't care about benchmarks or other high end stuff. This is where focusing on the low to mid range make sense. Reply
  • adrien - Thursday, September 15, 2011 - link

    IIRC, you won't see Tri-gate stuff in all Ivy Bridge CPUs. And knowing intel, they'll make you pay a premium for it.

    I'm simply highly skeptical in general.
    Reply
  • jdietz - Thursday, September 15, 2011 - link

    IG has a massively long way to go before it catches discrete graphics.

    I am interested in performance-tier products such as GTX460 or Radeon HD 6850.

    Current integrated graphics cannot match even budget-tier discrete graphics solutions. The Ivy Bridge integrated graphics may be able to match budget-tier solutions (obviating the need for them). It will be a long time before integrated graphics can match performance-tier solutions such as those I've mentioned.
    Reply
  • Natfly - Wednesday, September 14, 2011 - link

    Any word on the architecture in this 7000 series of gpus? Are they going to be vliw4 like barts or is GCN coming out this soon? Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now