• What
    is this?
    You've landed on the AMD Portal on AnandTech. This section is sponsored by AMD. It features a collection of all of our independent AMD content, as well as Tweets & News from AMD directly. AMD will also be running a couple of huge giveaways here so check back for those.
    PRESENTED BY

At Computex there are a few systems floating around with an updated version of AMD's Brazos platform. The E-350 we reviewed not too long ago featured two Bobcat cores running at 1.6GHz alongside an 80 SP GPU running at 400MHz. Later this year AMD will refresh the platform with an E-450. You'll still get the same 2/80 core configuration, but clock speeds and memory support will be slightly different.

The E-450 runs at 1.65GHz, a mild increase over the E-350. Remember that AMD used a very GPU-like approach to the design of Bobcat. The chip was very easy to lay out and manufacture, but it doesn't have the frequency headroom of a traditional AMD CPU. Instead AMD will have to rely on process shrinks to really bring about larger increases in clock speed.
 
AMD will also add DDR3-1600 support with the E-450, a mild spec bump over the 1333MHz support we get today.

While the GPU doesn't get any more execution power it will both operate at a higher base frequency and apparently support some form of graphics turbo. Manufacturers at the show tell us that the CPU side won't be able to turbo up.
 
The E-450 is still a few months away from release, we'll see AMD's Llano followed by Bulldozer before Brazos gets this mid-cycle update.
POST A COMMENT

33 Comments

View All Comments

  • LungingAtThePope - Wednesday, June 01, 2011 - link

    E-450 seems a little optimistic, wouldnt E-355 be a bit more fitting? Reply
  • MonkeyPaw - Wednesday, June 01, 2011 - link

    Seems like the "bus" speed has increased, so hopefully its getting more memory bandwidth. That would probably cause a more noticeable speed increase than running at faster clocks on the same old bus. Remember, these are only single channel chips. Still, I'd like to have seen 1.8ghz or more by now. Maybe the current CPU isn't designed to go much faster, and binning is what is making this line so profitable. Reply
  • StevoLincolnite - Wednesday, June 01, 2011 - link

    Indeed.
    One of the pitfalls with IGP's is memory bandwidth... Increase that and you increase IGP performance to. :)
    A move from DDR1333 memory to 1600mhz should have a noticeable effect on performance in non-CPU bound scenarios.

    I wouldn't mind seeing Anandtech do an article to see how IGP's scale with different system memory speeds, would be rather interesting to say the least.
    Reply
  • GullLars - Thursday, June 02, 2011 - link

    I second this request for memory speed (and timings?) effect on IGP performance. Reply
  • zebrax2 - Wednesday, June 01, 2011 - link

    A small number jump like what your suggesting usually means an increase in clockspeed only but since they added a new feature i guess they would want to differentiate it a little bit more Reply
  • Shadowmaster625 - Wednesday, June 01, 2011 - link

    While you're there can you ask those guys why we're still paying over $100 for what looks like about $60 in parts? Reply
  • chamucost20 - Wednesday, June 01, 2011 - link

    exactly... I've wondered why should one go with one of these things if it's actually cheaper (or just about the same price) to put together an Athlon II X2 system that can run circles around this and be mercilessly overclocked. Reply
  • MarcLeFou - Wednesday, June 01, 2011 - link

    I was under the impression this was mainly a low power consumption part (aka extremely low power draw). Reply
  • asmoma - Wednesday, June 01, 2011 - link

    http://www.fudzilla.com/images/stories/2011/Januar...

    A board like this could not be done with a athlon II x2.
    http://images.anandtech.com/graphs/intelpinetrail_...
    http://images.anandtech.com/graphs/intelpinetrail_...
    http://images.anandtech.com/graphs/intelpinetrail_...
    Reply
  • jonup - Wednesday, June 01, 2011 - link

    A 45W Athlon II would probably get a lot closer to Brazos's power consumption. And after some further undervolting you might get marginally close to Brazos while still running circles around it. Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now