Fusion GPUs: A Long-Awaited Upgrade to IGPs Everywhere

During our conversations with AMD, at one point they mentioned that they prefer not to use the term “IGP” anymore since they consider it a derogatory term. I asked what we should call Llano’s graphics and they said AMD officially refers to it as the “Fusion GPU” (fGPU), so that's what we'll use going forward. Regardless of what we call it, though, there’s no doubt that the 6620G fGPU is a dramatic upgrade to the old HD 4250; in fact, the 6620G should also boast significantly better performance than Intel’s HD 3000…provided the CPU core doesn’t become a bottleneck. Let’s start with 3DMark comparisons to see just where Llano falls. Again, we have the 6620G and 6630M Llano setups tested, but now we’re adding CrossFire to the mix.

Futuremark 3DMark 11

Futuremark 3DMark Vantage

Futuremark 3DMark Vantage

Futuremark 3DMark06

Futuremark 3DMark05

Futuremark 3DMark03

I’m including all of the 3DMark iterations to provide a broad view of graphics potential. The latest 3DMark11 release seems to be almost purely GPU-limited, but of course it requires DX11 support and thus many of the other laptops (including Intel’s IGP) fail to run it. 3DMark Vantage’s Performance defaults are about as demanding, and Llano comes out 40-50% ahead of Sandy Bridge’s HD 3000. Of course, Arrandale completely falls on its face in the Performance test, generating a result of just 161, but AMD’s old HD 4250 is only marginally better with a score of 238. Remove some of the demands with the Vantage Entry-Level preset and Sandy Bridge starts to close the gap, with the quad-core 2820QM actually coming out ahead of Llano. Things that make you go hmm….

Things don’t get any better when we look at Asymmetrical CrossFire (ACF) from Llano. 3DMark11 comes in a whopping 50% faster than the 6630M dGPU, or 78% faster than the fGPU. If that performance boost showed up in our games, things would be great, but unfortunately it doesn’t. AMD informed us just yesterday that only DX10 or DX11 games and applications will even work with ACF, so perhaps that explains why we see little to no benefit in 3DMark03/05/06. The Vantage Performance preset shows a respectable 38% increase vs. the dGPU and 68% over the fGPU, but on Entry-Level it’s only 11-14% faster, and in 3DMark03 the dGPU actually scored lower than the fGPU.

If we were to stop our analysis of graphics performance right now, I suspect there would be a lot of confusion. Llano’s fGPU is anywhere from being equal to HD 3000 to 50% faster; Asymmetrical CrossFire is either a boon or a bust. So which is it? This is why we only place a minor emphasis on 3DMarks; let’s get to some actual gaming benchmarks.

Applications, Round Two: Treading Water Fusion GPU Takes on Gaming
POST A COMMENT

177 Comments

View All Comments

  • duploxxx - Sunday, June 19, 2011 - link

    talking about crap??? men you are good at that, as if you need a 2600K for some compiling and add a 6990 to an e-350.

    men you do know someting about computers :) your a joke
    Reply
  • BushLin - Wednesday, June 22, 2011 - link

    If you're going to accuse someone of talking crap (correctly or otherwise) it helps if you know the difference between you're and your when attempting to insult them. Reply
  • Broheim - Monday, June 27, 2011 - link

    I use a fast CPU for compiling because I actually like being productive rather than just staring at the screen.

    my point about the 6990 was that a faster GPU != a better user experience for the vast majority of users, but logic seems to be lost on you.
    Reply
  • Regenweald - Tuesday, June 14, 2011 - link

    I'm currently playing the Witcher extended with a 2Ghz X2 ,a 4670 and 800 Mhz memory on a desktop with no complaints. In game settings medium and high. Are you saying that 2 more tweaked 32nm cores, 80 more shaders and ddr3 1600 or 1800 memory will not offer a good mobile gaming experience ? please. Reply
  • jollyjugg - Wednesday, June 15, 2011 - link

    What kind of super computing application are you going to do in your laptop that you would need that "tremendous CPU power" that you are talking about. As somebody who has used both intel and amd machines for years I can tell you that for most user applications, you will hardly notice any difference in performance. The main complaint was that AMD machines were running hot particularly after intel cameup with power gating in nehalem in 2008. With this part you get a machine that runs way way cooler and almost 150- 200 bucks cheaper than comparable intel machines plus you get discrete quality graphics for free. Nobody can change cynics like you. Because you cant expect Intel to sell anything cheap you would want to AMD to sell things cheaper. Well if you want good things in life you should be prepared to pay. Dont write trash. Like gaming is not important for average user, tremendous computing power and 3 GHz CPU speed is also not important for the average PC user. But multimedia and movie rendering etc is. So go Llano!!! Reply
  • Seikent - Tuesday, June 14, 2011 - link

    This platform offer some good things, but if the prices aren't low it won't go well. Now it's quite easy to find a sandy bridge notebook with discrete gpu for a few more dollars.

    If ACF does achieve to work like CF in the future, it would be great!
    Reply
  • SteelCity1981 - Tuesday, June 14, 2011 - link

    Finally we have an intergrated graphics solution that's worth really talking about. Reply
  • aegisofrime - Tuesday, June 14, 2011 - link

    Judging by the performance, this part won't be priced very high. And that's a worry, considering that it packs 1.45 billion transistors. In comparison, Sandy Bridge is 995 million transistors, and sells for more money. Profit margins are gonna be tight on this one. Reply
  • JarredWalton - Tuesday, June 14, 2011 - link

    AMD has a slide that points out that compared to their previous generation, they're packing a 66 mm2 Northbridge, 200 mm2 CPU, and 1080 mm2 dGPU into a 228 mm2 package. They've made money this past quarter, so this should do better than Athlon/Phenom II. Reply
  • JarredWalton - Tuesday, June 14, 2011 - link

    Note: that's supposed to be 108 mm2 GPU, not 1080. Whoops. Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now