Leaked roadmap shows two low-power AMD APUs, code-named Zacate

User Comments: 13

1. July 26, 2010 11:15 AM
   

   Kibaruk, TechSpot Paladin, said:

   Do Atom all-in-one chips give advanced graphics featuring DX11?

   And how much W does Atom top-end consumes? Pricing is not comming soon to make a comparison there though.

   Reply
2. July 26, 2010 11:25 AM
   

   Vrmithrax, TechSpot Paladin, said:

   I'd think that, if we want to compare apples to apples as far as performance/features/power goes, you'd have to compare this AMD offering to an Atom/Ion pairing or perhaps Tegra2 (but I'm not sure the Tegra would have the same computing horsepower). I'm thinking power consumption would be very comparable when looking at truly similar performance - assuming, of course, that AMD's offering lives up to their initially implied specs. And there is something to be said for having a completely internally integrated gpu/cpu system that avoids many of the pitfalls being experienced with the Atom/Ion combinations. But, as always, we won't be able to really make any kind of judgment call until there are direct benchmark tests available.

   Reply
3. July 26, 2010 12:50 PM
   

   Kibaruk, TechSpot Paladin, said:

   Vrmithrax, I think when comparing performance/features/power, you should compare a one-in-all chip to another one-in-all chip, and not a one-in-all chip to a one-in-all chip+more chips.

   Reply
4. July 26, 2010 1:06 PM
   paynetrain007 said:

   Yes you would definitely not be able to compare one of these new amd chips to a atom. maybe to a atom + a discrete graphics solution that is currently in netbooks.

   Reply
5. July 26, 2010 1:39 PM
   

   Vrmithrax, TechSpot Paladin, said:

   Kibaruk said:

   Vrmithrax, I think when comparing performance/features/power, you should compare a one-in-all chip to another one-in-all chip, and not a one-in-all chip to a one-in-all chip+more chips.

   That's kind of the problem. A comparable (performance-wise) Atom would only be able to compete if it was paired with an Ion (based on initial reports of what this new fusion system is supposed to be able to do). And the Tegra is too weak on the CPU side to really fit into the competition. So, as far as I can tell on the sliding scale of integrated performance now: AMD>Intel>nVidia. But, as I said, that all depends on true benchmarks of an actual product. It's a bit of a stretch to try to pigeonhole the new AMD products into the same performance/power specs as an Atom (which has shown very lackluster results in practice, hence the usual pairing with an Ion to get graphics oomph).

   I think maybe you see the issue... You can't say it uses more power than the Atom, when it's not a real even-keeled comparison. If this Fusion stuff turns out to only have basic Atom-level performance, then yes, that power consumption difference is a big strike against AMD, and many of us will be really disappointed in AMD's showing.

   Reply
6. July 26, 2010 4:35 PM
   

   Kibaruk, TechSpot Paladin, said:

   Exactly VRM, I was just making a reply to what Jose Vilches wrote comparing power consumption to Atoms.

   Reply
7. July 27, 2010 1:05 AM
   Staff
   

   Jos said:

   I'm not saying Atom will perform better or be more efficient than Zacate... quite the contrary. The TDP comparison was simply made to point out that (if the leaked roadmap and specs are accurate) AMD's first Fusion chips may not be targeted at netbooks after all, as we expected them to be from the company's earlier statements in its earnings conference call.

   To further clarify that point: Intel's latest Atom N400 series processors feature an integrated graphics core and consume up to 6.5 watts of power. Even the Atom D525, which features two cores and is meant for nettops, consumes just 13 watts. On the other hand, if you look at their Core i3, i5 and i7 low voltage variants they all feature a 18W TDP. So it makes sense that these so-called Zacate chips could compete against Intel's CULV offerings, price and performance-wise, in the ultrathin laptop segment rather than with Atom on netbooks.

   Reply
8. July 27, 2010 7:15 AM
   

   Kibaruk, TechSpot Paladin, said:

   Thank you Jos for answering the power consumption of Atom. Sounds amazing!

   Reply
9. July 27, 2010 8:28 AM
   

   Vrmithrax, TechSpot Paladin, said:

   Holy cow, I didn't realize that new N400 had such low TDP... Pretty remarkable!

   Thanks for the clarification, Jos... I can definitely see that AMD might have to do a little streamlining to catch up with Intel on that front. Makes me wonder how that new Atom would stack up to a Tegra 2 in a netbook?

   Reply
10. July 27, 2010 8:37 AM
    

    Burty117, TechSpot Chancellor, said:

    The thing is though, i thought the Tegra 2 wasn't x86 based? just a bunch of arm chips put together? If so its a bit unfair to add Tegra to the competition since its based more for smart phones and set top box's?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nvidia_Tegra

    Reply
11. July 27, 2010 10:00 AM
    

    Vrmithrax, TechSpot Paladin, said:

    True enough, but nVidia announced all these plans for the Tegra to target netbooks on down to the small mobile applications. Just wondered (out loud) how the package stacks up to one of the low end Atoms. The only actual product I remember seeing announced was a Toshiba (I think?) netbook that used Tegra. Not sure any ever saw the light of day.

    Reply
12. July 28, 2010 5:25 PM
    9Nails, TechSpot Paladin, said:

    I'm sorry, an APU is a what?

    Reply
13. July 28, 2010 7:06 PM
    

    dividebyzero, trainee n00b, said:

    I'm sorry, an APU is a what?

    marketing bonanza

    APU : Accelerated Processing Unit (or possibly AMD's Promising Upstart)

    Probably easier than referring to it as CPU+GPU

    Reply

Recently commented stories