AMD Launches Carrizo: The Laptop Leap of Efficiency and Architecture Updates
by Ian Cutress on June 2, 2015 9:00 PM ESTAMD Secure Processor
One of the final pieces in the puzzle is AMD’s Secure Processor, which they seemed to have called the PSP. The concept of the security processor has evolved over time, but the premise of a locked down area to perform sensitive work that is both hidden and cryptographically sealed appeals to a particular element of the population, particularly when it comes to business.
AMD’s PSP is based around a single 32-bit ARM Cortex-A5, with its own isolated ROM and SRAM but has access to system memory and resources. It contains logic to deal with the x86 POST process but also features a cryptographic co-processor.
ARM has been promoting TrustZone for a couple of years now, and AMD has been tinkering with their Secure Processor proposition for almost as long although relatively few explanations from AMD outside ‘it is there’ have come forward.
Final Thoughts
Sometimes a name can inspire change. Carrizo isn’t one of those names, and when hearing the words ‘AMD’s notebook processor’, those words have not instilled much hope in the past, much to AMD’s chagrin no doubt. Despite this, we come away from Carrizo with a significantly positive impression because this feels more than just another Bulldozer-based update.
If you can say in a sentence ‘more performance, less power and less die area’, it almost sounds like a holy trifecta of goals a processor designer can only hope to accomplish. Normally a processor engineer is all about performance, so it takes an adjustment in thinking to focus more so on power, but AMD is promising this with Carrizo. Part of this will be down to the effectiveness of the high density libraries (which according to the slides should also mean less power or more performance for less die area) but also the implementation of the higher bandwidth encoder, new video playback pathway and optimization of power through the frequency planes. Doubling the L1 data cache for no loss in latency will have definite impacts to IPC, as well as the better prefetch and branch prediction.
Technically, on paper, all the blocks in play look exciting and every little margin can help AMD build a better APU. It merely requires validation of the results we have been presented along with a killer device to go along with it, something which AMD has lacked in the past and reviewers have had trouble getting their hands on. We are in discussions with AMD to get the sufficient tools to test independently a number of the claims, and to see if AMD’s Carrizo has potential.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
137 Comments
View All Comments
Refuge - Wednesday, June 3, 2015 - link
Built my mother a new system from her old scraps with a new A8, she loves that desktop, and when she put an SSD in it finally she loved it ten times more. the upgrade only cost her $300, for CPU, Mobo, RAM. Threw it together in 45 minutes, and she hasn't had a problem with it in 2 years so far.nathanddrews - Wednesday, June 3, 2015 - link
I prefer the following setup:1. Beast-mode, high-performance desktop for gaming, video editing, etc.
2. Low-power, cheap notebook/tablet for In-Home Steam Streaming and light gaming (720p) on the go.
In my use case, as long as I can load and play the game (20-30fps for RTS, 30fps+ for everything else) on a plane ride or some other scenario without AC access, I'm not really concerned with the AA or texture quality. I still want to get the best experience possible, but balanced against the cheapest possible price. The sub-$300 range is ideal for me.
AS118 - Wednesday, June 3, 2015 - link
Yeah, that's my thing as well. High resolutions at work, and at home, 768p or 900p's just fine, especially for gaming.I also recommend AMD to friends and relatives who want laptops and stuff that can do casual gaming for cheap.
FlushedBubblyJock - Tuesday, June 9, 2015 - link
Why go amd when HD3000 does just fine gaming and the added power of the intel cpu is an awesome boost overall ...Valantar - Wednesday, June 3, 2015 - link
1366*768 on anything larger than 13" looks a mess, but in a cheap laptop I'd rather have a 13*7 IPS for the viewing angles and better visuals than a cheap FHD TN panel - bad viewing angles especially KILL the experience of using a laptop. Still, 13*7 is pretty lousy for anything other than multimedia - it's simply too short to fit a useful amount of text vertically. A decent compromise would be moving up to 1600*900 as the standard resolution on >11" displays. Or, of course, moving to 3:2 or 4:3 displays, which would make the resolution 1366*911 or 1366*1024 and provide ample vertical space. Still, 13*7 TN panels need to go away. Now.yankeeDDL - Wednesday, June 3, 2015 - link
Like I said, to each his own. I have a Lenovo Z50 which I paid less than $470 with the A10 7300.Quite frankly, I could not be happier and I think it provides a massive value for that money.
Sure, a larger battery and a better screen would not hurt, but for hustling it around the house, or bring it to friend/family house, watch movies, play games at native resolution, it is fantastic.
It's no road warrior, for sure (heavy and the battery life doesn't go much beyond 3hrs of "serious" use) but playing at 1366*768 on something that weights 5 pounds and costs noticeably less than $500, is quite amazing. Impossible on an Intel+discrete graphics, as far as I know.
FlushedBubblyJock - Tuesday, June 9, 2015 - link
Nope, HD3000 plays just fineMargalus - Wednesday, June 3, 2015 - link
I'd rather have a cheaper 15.6" 1366x768 TN panel over a more expensive smaller ips panel.UtilityMax - Wednesday, June 3, 2015 - link
1366x768 is fine for movies and games. But it's a bad resolution for reading text or viewing images on the web, since you see pixels the size of moon crater.BrokenCrayons - Thursday, June 4, 2015 - link
I understand there's going to be a variety of differing opinions on the idea of seeing individual pixels. As far as I'm concerned, seeing individual pixels isn't a dreadful or horrific thing. In fact, to me it simply doesn't matter. I'm busy living my meat world life and enjoying whatever moments I have with family and friends so I don't give the ability to discern an individual pixel so much as a second thought. It is an insignificant part of my life, but what isn't is the associated decline in battery life (on relative terms) required to drive additional, utterly unnecessary pixels and to push out sufficient light as a result of the larger multitude of them. That sort of thing is marginally annoying -- then again, I still just don't care that much one way or another aside from noticing that a lot of people are very much infatuated with an insignificant, nonsense problem.