Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

AMD's Fusion APU Pitted Against 21 Desktop CPUs

Posted by Soulskill on from the apples-and-slow-oranges dept.

crookedvulture writes "When AMD unveiled the Bobcat CPU architecture behind its first Fusion APUs, the company claimed its Atom-killer would achieve 90% of the performance of mainstream desktop processors. But does it? This article compares the AMD E-350's performance to more than 20 desktop CPUs between $87 and $999 to find out, and the results aren't particularly encouraging. Although Fusion offers much better integrated graphics than Intel's latest Atom, neither stands much chance of keeping up with even low-end desktop CPUs. The E-350 does offer very low power consumption and impressive platform integration, making it a good choice for home-theater PCs and mobile systems. Desktop users are better off waiting for Llano, a Fusion iteration due out this spring."

2 of 93 comments (clear)

  1. Wow, Biased Summary Much? by Alphanos · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Ok wait, so AMD's next-gen "atom-killer" successfully trumps Intel's next-gen Atom, but "the results aren't particularly encouraging" because it doesn't also beat full-fledged desktop processors? Seriously, talk about misleading.

    In other news, iPods aren't the best at 3D graphics rendering, and cars are not the best choice for transatlantic shipping.

    This is a test of CPU/GPU integration at the low end to start with - and a successful test at that.

    --
    Alphanos
  2. Re:If the technology was so great... by Chris+Burke · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Because you make a very different chip if you're aiming at 9 or 18W vs 60 or 80W.

    Put all those desktop chips in the same power envelope as Bobcat, and they'd suck ass. Give Bobcat the power headroom of the desktop chips' environment, and it wouldn't know what to do with it.

    The results as far as I can see are pretty good, given realistic expectations. Of course the article points out AMD claimed 90% of desktop, which just might be where some unrealistic expectations came from. Knowing AMD, that probably wasn't completely bullshit. It was probably a statement about IPC at equivalent frequencies, not delivered performance at their respective TDPs, possibly confused by a PR person, with a bullshit multiplier in there somewhere. ;)

    --

    The enemies of Democracy are