You could just as easily say the reverse. There are a lot of AMD supporters in these forums.
People will say anything to put AMD down and prop Intel up.
CPU: Intel > AMD
iGPU: AMD > Intel
End thread.
People will say anything to put AMD down and prop Intel up.
CPU: Intel > AMD
iGPU: AMD > Intel
End thread.
You do realize there's a bigger quantity of consumers that would rather have a faster CPU than a faster IGP, right?
You do realize there's a bigger quantity of consumers that would rather have a faster CPU than a faster IGP, right? Business users, power users, video and photo editors, software programmers, 3D rendering, architects, and engineers all come to mind. I'm pretty sure they're a bigger market than people wanting gaming on the cheap or AMD fans. It should go without saying that the HD 4000 is still "good enough" and AMD's mantra for the past years has been "good enough".
And these power users and architects buy $600 laptops for their work? I think our definitions of power users aren't the same...Business users, power users, video and photo editors, software programmers, 3D rendering, architects, and engineers all come to mind.
And these power users and architects buy $600 laptops for their work? I think our definitions of power users aren't the same...
yes, we all know that... but for like 80% of people, the cpu speed of trinity to i3 is meaningless...
...Heck! a bobcat is suficient to 80% of people
You're saying that "HD4000 is good enough", and the argument that Trinity CPU is not good enough is the list of these users that would rather have faster CPU, none of which are in the price market of Trinity/i3.I didn't say that. I said why a faster CPU is more important to more people.
When did I say a budget? People on $600 budgets probably wouldn't have any of those professions, except perhaps a small business owner.
And for 99% of people, the IGP difference from the HD 4000 to HD 7660G is meaningless. And given they have the same pricing, that's exactly why they'd go with the i3. Take any random consumer, and ask him whether AMD or Intel is better, and 9/10 times they'll say Intel.
AMD's own "good enough" mantra is why they're not posting larger market share numbers. They need to do significantly better than Intel in relevant areas: pricing, form factor and weight, battery life, features, marketing, and overall performance. They're not better than Intel in any of those things, so that's why Intel keeps winning.
And for 99% of people, the IGP difference from the HD 4000 to HD 7660G is meaningless. And given they have the same pricing, that's exactly why they'd go with the i3. Take any random consumer, and ask him whether AMD or Intel is better, and 9/10 times they'll say Intel.
AMD's own "good enough" mantra is why they're not posting larger market share numbers. They need to do significantly better than Intel in relevant areas: pricing, form factor and weight, battery life, features, marketing, and overall performance. They're not better than Intel in any of those things, so that's why Intel keeps winning.
i thought that OEM are more responsiable for this than amd itself
Google centrio...it's no accident.
Centrio is an integrated mixed-use complex composed of a shopping mall, a hotel, a BPO/office building and a condominium tower located along Corrales Avenue Cor. C.M. Recto Avenue in Cagayan de Oro City in the Philippines.
You're saying that "HD4000 is good enough", and the argument that Trinity CPU is not good enough is the list of these users that would rather have faster CPU, none of which are in the price market of Trinity/i3.
Both are good enough for 90+% of consumers who are buying in the sub $700 range. I have a solid desktop - i7 3720QM is almost the same power as my desktop CPU, at stock even faster, while HD4000 is several times slower than my GPU. Trinity just looks more balanced compared to a mid-range desktop.
Besides, they did well with Llano from a market share / financial aspect, so I guess this market isn't so small as you are trying to make it.
"Good enough" isn't good enough to win AMD a large number of consumers in comparison to Intel. If they're only as "good enough" as Intel, then Intel will easily keep winning.Take any random consumer, and ask him whether AMD or Intel is better, and 9/10 times they'll say Intel.
AMD's own "good enough" mantra is why they're not posting larger market share numbers. They need to do significantly better than Intel in relevant areas: pricing, form factor and weight, battery life, features, marketing, and overall performance. They're not better than Intel in any of those things, so that's why Intel keeps winning.
Future performance advances will happen here, it doesn’t take a huge leap of logic to add a local memory cache ala Haswell/Crystalwell or Tiran (before the roadmap reshuffle)
the GPU memory controller talks to physical memory like an x86 CPU does. This generally means backwards, broken, and wholly stupid, but it is far easier to change an integrated GPU’s MC than the entire x86 world, hardware and software
Either way, the IOMMUv2 is a big step forward, and lays the groundwork for all future CPU/GPU integration. This will make GPGPU programming vastly easier and saner for the overwhelming majority of coders, and Trinity basically brings us there in coding practice, just not at full speed.
This IOMMU on the PCIe card needs to support it too, and that currently means only 6900 and 7000 series GPUs (...) On a more mundane level, it makes frame-buffer limitations on external GPUs a thing of the past, and can allow neat tricks with multiple GPUs that simply weren’t possible before.
i didn't get it.....
second archtecture analyst of trinity...
http://semiaccurate.com/2012/05/28/trinity-has-a-brain-and-a-queue/
highlights...
There's no argument that Intel has much better brand recognition. You called Netburst bad yourself a number of times, and Intel still had 80%+ x86 market share: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/05/10/q1_x86_cpu_market/Read:
"Good enough" isn't good enough to win AMD a large number of consumers in comparison to Intel. If they're only as "good enough" as Intel, then Intel will easily keep winning.
I think he's telling you that you misspelled Centrino. Or he really doesn't know about it, in which case googling "centrio" wouldn't enlighten him...I know...that is the dogma of this thread...
Read:
Take any random consumer, and ask him whether AMD or Intel is better, and 9/10 times they'll say Intel.
AMD's own "good enough" mantra is why they're not posting larger market share numbers. They need to do significantly better than Intel in relevant areas: pricing, form factor and weight, battery life, features, marketing, and overall performance. They're not better than Intel in any of those things, so that's why Intel keeps winning.
"Good enough" isn't good enough to win AMD a large number of consumers in comparison to Intel. If they're only as "good enough" as Intel, then Intel will easily keep winning.
New AMD A-Series APUs Win 2012 Best Choice of COMPUTEX TAIPEI Award
http://www.techpowerup.com/166813/N...012-Best-Choice-of-COMPUTEX-TAIPEI-Award.html
Don't worry - the award will no doubt be torn to shreds by our local forum experts, who are much more quialified than "a panel of esteemed government officials, academics, research analysts, editors-in-chief of key media outlets and industry experts ".
Llano had a fairly normal power efficiency curve, and Bulldozer was nothing unusual either. Trinity changes things, if you plot power vs voltage, you get the flattest curve SemiAccurate has seen, not the usual arch.
Llano won the same award last year.