AMD Temash : Microsoft Surface Pro 2? Cheaper, Better Battery Life, Better Performance!

So rumors say that Microsoft is ditching Nvidia and Intel for Qualcomm and AMD in their Surface and Surface Pro.

It seems that battery life and graphics performance is something consumers need over raw CPU on their tablets these days. Since Apple released their retina Ipad 3, resolution past 1080p on tablets will be the norm  by 2014.

We know that intel's HD 4000 - 6@350-1100 Mhz found in ULV intel i5/i7 parts cant be much better than future 7000/8000 series Temash GPUs, and they are said to last a measly 4 hrs, which is embarrassing compared to the ipad 4's 10 hours. 

We know the intel HD 4000 scores about 2564 in 3DMark 06. The Temash part will most likely sport a 7270m-8380m, or something of the likes. For comparison sake, a 6380m found in a low voltage mobile llano part has a score of 2639, and for desktop Brazos 2.0, the E2-1800's HD 6340 has a score of 2527. 

I estimate that the Temash GPU will have a score at least over 2200, but will perform better in modern DX11 games when compared to the ULV HD 4000. You can quote me on that.  

Temash will be AMD's first 28nm APU and will have clocks around 2 Ghz, with a 15% IPC advantage over current 40nm Bobcat cores found in Brazos and Brazos 2.0. Battery life will also be double intels, around 8 hours. 

We will have to wait until June until Temash products are distributed to the public, but its capabilities will be first shown at CES 2013 Jan 8-11. 

EDIT: Sea Islands 8000 series GPUs will have full support for Direct X 11.1. 

EDIT 2: It appears that Temash will only sport Two Jaguar Cores, but this is not confirmed. 

Tablet Battle : AMD Z-60 vs Nvidia Tegra 3 vs Intel Atom N2600/Z2670

Enter Hondo : AMD Z-60 Tablet APU

Graphics Performance

GLbenchmark 2.5.1

AMD Z-60 : 36 fps

Tegra 3 : 13 fps

Thats a 277% difference!

Round 1 : Tegra 3

3DMark 06

AMD Z-60 : 1701

Intel Atom N2600 : 373

Thats a 456% difference!

Round 2 : Intel Atom N2600 , Tegra 3

CPU performance

PCMark Vantage

AMD Z-60 : 1770

Atom N2600 : 1803

That's a tie!

Round 3: Intel Atom N2600

There is no doubt about it, that the extra graphics power costs more power. The intel atom Z2760 (1.7W) is the tablet variant of the N2600 (3.5W)

It doesnt seem there is a class of Windows 8 tablets out there even close to the Z-60, especially in graphics performance.  EDIT: i5/i7 tablets over 1000 USD will out perform the Z-60  but at a higher envelope (17W)

link

It will be interesting to see if AMD comes out with a FirePro DX 11.1 tablet for professional graphical tasks. (source)

Guess Who's Back

Whats in the news for AMD?

* Stocks have plummeted (Buy now?), but hopes are high for 2013! AMD will NOT be sold to other tech giants!

* AMD FX 8350 released ($ 195), and it overclocks very well (5.0 Ghz on Air, 5.2 Ghz on liquid)! For the price range, absolutely destroys the locked i5-3570 which is stuck at 3.4 ghz ($ 219)

* Trinity Laptop/Desktop Released. Graphics power is unmatched by intel offerings. A desktop i7 3770k's HD 4000 (77W) falls significantly behind the mobile 7600G found in a 14" ultrathin.(25W)

* Hondo Z-60 released, cant wait to see performance when compared to intel's tablet offerings

* The industry's first quad core 28nm APU,  ready to be demo'd (Tamesh and Kabini)

* Next Gen Mac Pro's will sport 7970 and workstation W9000 offerings from AMD (Nvidia lost this one)

* A10-5800k Overclocked to 7.87 Ghz, AMD FX 8350 Overclocked to 8.37 Ghz on L2N, set to break world record held by the former bulldozer core

* The AMD 7990 is the most powerful consumer graphics card in the world, with 12.11 beta drivers absolutley trounces the GTX 690.

* The AMD S10000 is the industries most powerful server graphics card, with two GPUs in one, at a price point well below that of Nvidia's less powerful single GPU GK110 Flagship the Tesla K20x.

More news and insight to come!

Here is a taste of mobile trinity's performance:

My 14" Samsung 3 series NP355V4C

AMD A10-4600m 7660G + 7670m dual graphics

Dimensions: 13.2 x 9.2 x 1.28 inches

Weight: 4.96 pounds

Price - $549

14" Lenovo Y480

i7 3610 Qm + Nvidia 650m
Dimensions: 13.6 x 9.4 x 1.3 inches

Weight : 4.5 pounds

Price - $1249

It looks like my budget gaming laptop has a noticeably higher graphics score than this thick beast. I challenge anyone to find a laptop for less than 549 with intel and nvidia parts that can achieve over 2249 GPU score.

Stay Tuned!

BRB ... Diablo 3

More Trinity Benchmarks! IPC on-par with Phenom II, ~43% better single core performance than Llano! (K 10.5)

Leaked Benchmarks! More to Come!

A10-4600m vs A8-3500m

+38% higher single core CPU performance. 

+23% higher multi core CPU performance. 

Remember 4 physical cores gives a scaling benefit over 2 modules.

+29% higher multi core CPU performance

+ 43% higher multi core CPU/GPU performance

+41% higher CPU/GPU performance

+220% higher CPU/GPU performance

Looks like Trinity is ready to hit Intel where it hurts! IPC looks great! This is great news for Vishera (FX 8350). Remember old bulldozer arch has significantly worse IPC than Llano. 

NOTE: Compare the single threaded performance to the Phenom II X4 940 in cinebench 10 found here. 

We see at 3 Ghz (even before turbo), the Phenom II X4 940 (scores 2626) actually falls behind the performance of a single core from the A10 mobile part (2792) also at 3 Ghz (with turbo). IPC is looking ahead of K10.5! (by over +6% in this case)

The only benefit older arch has is better scaling. Per core performance, however, is looking ahead of phenom II. This loss in scaling is more than made up for with higher clocks. Comparing a 6C/6T Phenom II X6 @ 4.2 Ghz to a 3M/6T Piledriver CPU @ 4.9 Ghz will be an even match when all cores are used, but for a single core, the Piledriver CPU will edge ahead of the Phenom II by a significant amount (~20%). 

(Gaming benchmarks will be looking much better for Piledriver) 

With current bulldozer arch (in the case of the FX 8150), both scaling and single core performance are lacking when compared to older phenom II processors, with only a max clock advantage. At least AMD has made up for one of these pitfalls. We will see just how much scaling increases with the newer architecture when official benchmark reviews are out tomorrow! I am guessing only ~5% or so. Overclockability will also increase roughly 5% when compared to the FX 8150. 

Phenom II X4 4C/4T - 3.96 x Scaling , 1.00 single core performance @ 3Ghz, hits 4.3 Ghz

FX Bulldozer 2M/4T - 3.28 x Scaling, 0.75 single core performance @ 3 Ghz, hits 4.9 Ghz

FX Piledriver 2M/4T  - 3.44 x Scaling, 0.97 single core performance @ 3 Ghz, hits 5.1 Ghz

Intel i5 3570k- 4C/4T - 3.56 x Scaling, 1.25 single core performance @ 3 Ghz, hits 4.9 Ghz

This of course this is a rough estimate, but you get the idea! 

For the 4M/8T FX 8350, I estimate @ 5.1 Ghz it will match Ivy Bridge i5 3570k single core performance @ 4.3 Ghz. But will scale roughly 85% higher when all threads are used. 

My cost estimate for the FX 8350 will be ~300 USD. 

EDIT: Given officially released clock-speeds (3.2 Ghz not 3.0 Ghz) IPC is looking on par or slightly below K10.5. 

Source

AMD Trinity ultra-thin CPU : A10-4655m 25w Benchmarks

AMD Trinity for ultra-thins :

 A10-4655m

2M/4T 

25 W 

2.0 Ghz / 2.3 Ghz Turbo

Notice how the IPC of the 2M/4T A10-4655m @ 2.3 ghz at least ties if not beats the IPC of K 10.5 Llano 4C/4T A6 which is also at 2.3 ghz turbo.  This is good news for Trinity! If IPC matches Llano, Vishera - FX 8350 - at significantly higher clocks will scream ahead of ivy bridge when all threads can be used. Keep in mind IPC for current FX offerings fall far behind K10.5. (~25%). 

Remember scaling on 2 module chip is roughly 20 percent less than a 4 core llano cpu, so the fact that performance is equal or better when all threads are used further shows the strength of piledriver. 

EDIT: Many of these clock speeds are guesses, but we will know the real performance in 2 days stay tuned! 

Source

AMD 7970m Overclocked vs 7950 Overclocked : a Tie!!

AMD 7970m 3DMark 11 Overclocked Performance Score

This continues to leave me in disbelief...

First Corner :

intel i7 @ 4.4 Ghz i7 2600k

XFX 7950 Black Edition OCd @ 900/1375 Mhz

Score : 7630

Source

Second Corner :

i7 2920xm @ 4.5 Ghz

AMD 7970m @ 1010/1500 Mhz

Score : 7658

Source

WINNER : 7970m!

Overclocked AMD FX 8150 Review : Part I, Enter Gigabyte

PART I of V : Return of AMD FX, Enter Gigabyte

My System:

AMD FX 8150 @ 4.90 Ghz
Promilatech Genesis Cooler - 3 x 135mm Scythe Kama Flex 100CFM fans
Maingear T1000 TIM

8 Gb DDR3 Team Xtreem 2400 cl9 @  @ 1987 Mhz / CL9

Gigabyte GA-990FXA-UD7

XFX HD 6990 + Accelero Twin Turbo Cooler @ 990/1500 Mhz
RevoDrive 3 x2 - 240 Gb 

Comparison Systems : 

AMD FX 8150 @ 4.81 Ghz
Promilatech Genesis Cooler - 3 x 135mm Scythe Kama Flex 100CFM fans
Indigo Xtreme TIM

G. Skill 2200 cl7 @ x 2190 Mhz / CL10

ASUS Crosshair V

XFX HD 6990 + Accelero Twin Turbo Cooler @ 990/1500 Mhz

Intel i7 3770k @ 4.7-4.9Ghz

Various 4-16 Gb DDR3

Various Z77 Motherboards

Various GPUs

Results:

Sources:


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9  10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26


Discussion:



We see that for the benchmarks used in Part I of my review, FX only falls signficantly behind when only a single thread is used. When only one core is being used we see a 25-40% benefit per Ghz for the 3770k over the FX 8150.

When all threads can be used, Bulldozer does a good job of making up for the lost single threaded performance. Scaling for FX outshines the i7 3770k by a significant margin.  Most notably with techarp's x264 HD, where my FX 8150 @ 4.9 Ghz beats a 5.0 Ghz 2600k, and narrowly loses to a 4.9 Ghz 3770k. (Check source 19)

In TrueCrypt 7.1a we see a 4.9 Ghz FX 8150 performing slightly better than its 22nm 3770k intel counterpart at 4.7 Ghz.

In 7-Zip we see the FX 8150 jumping 2.7 % percent ahead of its 3770k counterpart at the same 4.9 Ghz clock for Compression, but falling behind 2.7% with decompression.

The temperature of a 3770k is also seen to sky-rocket up to 78C during a SuperPi 32m test, while my FX 8150 doest hit above 59C.

Next week well see how my GPU  handles graphically intensive workloads on my new Gigabyte board.

Stay Tuned!

Trinity A10-4600m - TurboCore 3.0 = 20% boost!!

TurboCore 3.0

According to this slide, we see that Turbocore 3.0, in the case of the mobile A10-4600m, will increase performance by up to 20% in CPU, and 20% in GPU! We will see just how Trinity Performs in the next few weeks as the release date approaches! (May 15th)

Source

Sneak Peak : AMD FX 8150 @ 4.9 Ghz VS. i7 3770k @ 4.9 Ghz

A Sneak Peak : TechARP x.264 HD 4.0 Benchmark

Team Intel

First Corner :  i7 2600k (stock) @ 3.9 Ghz Turbo
ADDED: i7 2600k @ 5.0 Ghz

Second Corner :  i7 3770k + Asus P8Z77-V @ 4.9 Ghz 

Team AMD

Third Corner : AMD FX 8150 + GA-990FX-UD7 @ 4.9 Ghz

RESULTS:

Single Core Performance : First Pass

i7 2600k @ 3.9 Ghz Turbo

148 FPS


ADDED

i7 2600k @ 5.0 Ghz Turbo

191 FPS

i7 3770k @ 4.9 Ghz 

208 FPS

FX 8150 @ 4.9 Ghz 

158 FPS

In this single core test, a 22nm ivy bridge 3770k @ 4.9 Ghz performs +31.6% better than an FX 8150 at the same 4.9 Ghz clock. For comparison sake, an FX core @ 4.9 Ghz will perform +6.8% better than a 2600k  sandy bridge core @ 3.9 Ghz. In this benchmark, a single 4.9 Ghz FX core will be roughly equivalent to a single 4.1 Ghz Sandy Bridge Core. Of course, scaling is in FX's favour, as we will see.

Multi-threaded Performance : Second Pass

i7 2600k @ 3.9 Ghz Turbo

37 FPS


ADDED

i7 2600k @ 5.0 Ghz Turbo

49.4 FPS

i7 3770k @ 4.9 Ghz

51.8 FPS

FX 8150 @ 4.9 Ghz

50.1 FPS

In this multi-core test, a 22nm ivy bridge 3770k @ 4.9 Ghz only performs +3.3% better than an FX 8150 at the same 4.9 Ghz clock.

Source

Source

ADDED: In this benchmark, my FX 8150 @ 4.9 Ghz manages to beat a 2600k @ 5.0 Ghz when all cores are used.

Source 

Stay Tuned for more system specifics, and benchmarks in the days to come! 

Review Ivy Bridge Parts cherry Picked? Retail parts only up to 4.4 Ghz??

This is astounding! According to reports from Fudzilla, retail ivy bridge parts are having trouble pushing higher than 4.4 Ghz without overly expensive cooling methods. This is only a 26% overclock from stock settings.  Plain and simple, this is a big step backwards. For comparison sake the i7 920 @ 2.66 ghz generally clocked to 4.2 Ghz, a whopping 58% overclock.

Source

ADDED : In other news, my rig is now built but benchmarks need to wait until at least May 2nd because of driver issues I am having with Windows 8. I will most likely scrap my windows 8 idea and stick to the more stable windows 7.

Stay tuned! 

AMD 7970M - Mobile Monster - Better than a GTX 580!! - 31% Better than 680M

3DMark11 Score - Performance : Shocking

These two small GPUs will outperform your desktop GPU no problem

First Corner : New Gen. Mobile Notebook

AMD 7970M

Score: 6125

Source

---

Second Corner : Last Gen. Gaming PC

GTX 580

Score: 6044

Source

This is stunning to say the least! 

AMD 7970M + Mobile CPU in crossfire outperforms GTX 680 OC'd + Desktop CPU. 

---

Comparing Nvidia's Current mobile GPU Flagship Vs. AMD's current mobile GPU flagship.

Source

Check out how the Nvidia 680M performs! The 7970m topples it with ease!!
Its paired with the latest 8 threaded ivy bridge mobile processor @ 3.6 Ghz Turbo

WOW! The 7970 scores a whopping +31% higher than this upcoming Nvidia mobile flagship! This is quite embarassing for Nvidia. 

Source

EDIT: So apparently the 675m costs a whopping $150 MORE than the 7970m, when configuring an Alienware 17xr4. Nvidia is way behind on price to performance with this one. 

Source

Tom's Hardware : Ivy Bridge "Doesn't Impress"

RESULTS:

Tom's shows clock per clock, a 3.5 Ghz 3770k vs a 3.5 Ghz 2700k performs an average of only ~3.7% better. 

Source

3DMark 11 - Trinity A10-4600m : **Updated**

RESULTS: 

performance score

First Corner : 

2C/4T Intel 32nm i5 2450m @ 3.1 Ghz Max Turbo

AMD 7670M

Score: 1177

Source

----

Second Corner :

2M/4T AMD 32nm A10-4600m @ 3.0 Ghz Max Turbo

AMD 7660D IGP 

Score : 1135

Source

2M/4T AMD 32nm A10-4600m @ 3.0 Ghz Max Turbo

AMD 7660D IGP  + 7670M

Score : 2083

Source

----

Third Corner:

4C/8T Intel 22nm i7 3920XM Extreme Edition CPU @ 3.9 ghz Max Turbo

HD 4000 IGP

Score : 615

Source

----

Fourth Corner:

2C/4T Intel 32nm i7 2637m @ 2.8 Ghz Turbo

Nvidia 640M

Score : 1785

Source

----

Fifth Corner

4C/8T Intel 32nm i7 2820QM @ 3.4 ghz Turbo

Nvidia GT 555M

Score : 1439

Source

So when pairing a 7670m with the trinity A10-4600m at a turbo clock of 3.0 Ghz, we see a huge +77% benefit when compared to pairing a 7670m with an i5 sandy bridge part at the higher turbo clock 3.1 Ghz.

ADDED: More Comparisons

Source

From Korea: Trinity A10-4600m

A10-4600m 2.3 ghz / 3.0 Ghz turbo


This has yet to be confirmed

GPU over Llano 156%

CPU over Llano 129%

Power vs Llano 90%

May 15th! 

i7 3770k - the hottest chip ever?

Not only is the 3770k a worse overckocker than the 2600k/2700k, this chip is one of the hottest I have ever seen. Check this out!

65C degrees for the 2600k @ 4.9 Ghz

103C degrees for the 3770k @ 4.9 Ghz

All that for only a +2.6% gain in performance in Cinebench 11.5!?

The numbers dont lie.. This Chip is a larger failure than the FX 8150.

EDIT: Its interesting to see how most if not all review sites fail to show just how hot this chip is while overclocked

NOTE:  HD 4000 graphics still around 20% behind Llano offerings. Intel's statement that they would be even is a blatant lie. 

Source

Intel i7 3770k @ 4.7 Ghz vs i7 2600k @ 4.9 Ghz - a Dead TIE

Here I have tabulated overclocked performance from Overclockers Club. We see here that the much hotter 22nm i7 3770k @ 4.7 ghz is in a dead even tie with intel's older and much cooler 32nm 2600k @ 4.9 Ghz.

DATA

FINAL RESULT

EDIT: 3770k*

IPC looks like an average of ~5-7% better with ivy bridge. This isn't very impressive at all in my opinion, and I am absolutely confident AMD's next generation Vishera processor will be a larger jump from current FX processors, than this Tick-'Minus' bump from intel. 

Not only do these chips generally overclock less, and run hotter than current sandy bridge offerings, The performance does not justify an upgrade from current Z68/2600k/2700k systems.

If you were thinking about upgrading from your current 2600k/2700k, and overclocking to the max, this chip is simply a big fat side-grade. 

Source

FX Benchmarks Continue April 28th

New Gear:

Windows 8 Consumer Preview

Maingear EPIC T1000 Thermal Interface 

Gigabyte GA-990FX-UD7

Team Xtreem 8 Gb 2400 Mhz Cl9


---

Waiting on these

---

Benchmarks starting April 24th 28th and on..

Winrar 4.11

7-Zip 9.20

Winzip 16.5 

Flight Simulator X

Diablo 3 Beta

and much more!

Stay Tuned..

Ivy Bridge i7-3610QM 4C/8T @ 3.3 Ghz HD 4000 - 3DMark 11 Fail!

Intel HD 4000 - 3DMark 11 Performance

EDIT: Battery Life Included

So Ivy Bridge seems to do alright in the DX10 3DMark Vantage, but how about a more modern application? Lets see if its graphics cores are really capable of pushing a DX11 benchmark smoothly. We will see how close my educated guess for Trinity really is when the numbers come out. (Estimate: ~56% higher score than A8-3500m taken from Vantage scaling)

RESULTS:

First Corner:

AMD A8-3500m 4C/4T @ 2.6 Ghz Turbo

AMD 6620G

Performance Score: 820

Source


Battery Life: ~8 hours

---

Second Corner: (Hypothetical)

AMD A10-4600m 2M/4T @ 3.2 Ghz Turbo

AMD 7660G

Performance Score: ~1279

Source

Battery Life: ~12.3 Hours

---

Third Corner: 

Intel i5 2410 2C/4T @ 2.9 Ghz Turbo

Nvidia GT 550m

Performance Score: 1097

Source

Battery Life: 3.8 hours

---

Fourth Corner: 

Intel i7 3610QM 4C/8T @ 3.3 Ghz Turbo

Intel HD 4000

Performance Score: 697

Source


Battery Life: ~6 hrs

Here we see just how poorly intel's next mobile flagship performs in a true DX11 graphical test. The older Lllano A8-3500m (not even AMD's current flagship) still performs a whopping ~17.6% better in 3DMark 11 than the yet to be released $1000+ ivy bridge cpu from intel. DX11 is where AMD will shine, and where intel is just begining to tread water.

More Mobile Trinity Benchmarks! 3DMark Vantage

3DMark Vantage Performance : Mobile Trinity

RESULTS:

First Corner

intel i5 2410 @ 2.9 Ghz Turbo (Max)

Nvidia 550m Discrete GPU

Score : 4465

Source

---

Second Corner

intel i7 ivy bridge 4C/8T @ 2.6 Ghz Turbo

Intel HD 4000 

Score : 3321

Source

---

Third Corner

AMD Llano A8-3500m

AMD 6620G 

Score : 2788

Source

---

Fourth Corner

AMD A10-4600m @ 3.2 Ghz Turbo

AMD 7660G

Score: 4352

Source

AMD's new mobile flagship beats the intel ivy bridge part with HD 4000 graphics by ~31%, and the older llano A8-3500m by a whopping ~56%. On top of that, it only falls behind the i5 paired with a discrete Nvidia 550m GPU  by a mere ~2%. 

More benchmarks to come!

Ivy Bridge is HOT!

3DMark11 CPU Temperatures

 NOTE:  Prime95/Linpack/IntelBurn Test etc. will generally run these CPUs much hotter. 

First Corner

Intel i7 2600k @ 5.38 Ghz

H100 Dual radiator with 2 Fans

Core voltage : 1.50V

Results: 

Source

---

Second Corner

intel i7 3960x @ 5.06 Ghz

H100 Dual radiator with 2 Fans

Core Voltage: 1.57V

Results:

Source

---

Third Corner

intel i7 3770k @ 4.72 Ghz

H100 Dual radiator with 2 Fans

Core Voltage: 1.30V

Results:

Source

---

Not only does the older sandy bridge 2600k overclock ~14% higher than the soon to come out ivy bridge 3770k, the 3707k runs at a voltage ~13.3% less than sandy, and more disturbingly runs at a temperature ~21% higher (on the hottest core). Even a 12 threaded 3960x @ 5.06 Ghz with a whopping 1.57V runs ~25.6% Cooler than the 3770k. 

Is it just me or is 98C on the CPU a bit hot for a 3dmark11 run? My AMD FX 8150 @ 4.8 Ghz  (1.42V) doesnt hit above 65C on the same test. It is still nice to see lower idle temps despite all this. We will see if retail stepping fixes this embarrassing issue. 

Mobile Trinity Blind Test - AMD the Clear Winner!

A Blind Test : Trinity vs Sandy Bridge

Test Systems

Looks like a mistake on the dell system, that "1" should be infront of the 28 Gb

---

Results

Here we see in a blind test, that the majority of people preferred the A10-4600m over the i5 2410m  for these CPU intensive tests (GPU not even being used here). This is impressive to say the least! Check the source for more details! It seems like AMD is really pushing the CPU performance of their new chips! 

Source

EDIT : From SA forums here