New APUs have allot of alteration?

[IFeaRZz]

http://www.kitguru.net/components/apu-components/anton-shilov/amds-carrizo-apus-rumoured-to-feature-integrated-hbm-memory/

The newer APUs seem to have a huge performance increase thanks to these improvements!

[Izaya Orihara]

No benchmarks? No cares. 

[carolkarine]

APUS that come with a dedicated 1-2gb of high bandwidth RAM would see massive gains.

[Polyvalent]

"HBM will unlikely dramatically boost performance of AMD’s IGPs unless the company plans to significantly increase the amount of stream processors and other execution units in the Carrizo. "

 

So its telling us AMD needs to make good chips for good performance?

 

 

 

WHAT

[Misanthrope]

"HBM will unlikely dramatically boost performance of AMD’s IGPs unless the company plans to significantly increase the amount of stream processors and other execution units in the Carrizo. "

 

So its telling us AMD needs to make good chips for good performance?

 

 

 

WHAT

 

They chips do offer good performance for their price tag.

 

Anyway, in this case it seems like this could seriously cut into the low end and perhaps even medium range graphics market, I know I rather have a solution like this if it would give me at least 260/750 levels of performance.

[The_Evenger]

I'm very interested

[Mister Snow]

I wonder if they will implement that memory in their new CPU line in some way. 

[Kamina]

Sounds expensive. 

[Me1z]

It's cool that they're doing new stuff, but APUs will still seem like paper weights to me until they make them with at least 6 core variants. It's great that they've effectively gone and kicked Pentium and Celeron where the sun doesn't shine, but that's like taking candy from a baby. Please AMD, give us something that has more processing power than a consumer grade microwave. Here's an idea: make a motherboard with dual APU support! You could crossfire them together and the collective of 2 APU's cores could actually stack up aganst an i5 / i7 in terms of performance and would allow for incremental upgrades over time. Stop kicking babies and take back your place in the market already. </rant>

[Polyvalent]

They chips do offer good performance for their price tag.

 

 

Except with HBM said price tag will go up.. and unless the chip has major improvements in other areas the price / performance wont be as appealing.

[Levent]

i will wait for release to decide ,lesson learned from bulldozer and amd's marketing tricks

[Misanthrope]

Except with HBM said price tag will go up.. and unless the chip has major improvements in other areas the price / performance wont be as appealing.

 

But so would the performance. The idea here is to offer similar peformance on a chip for less than the cost of an i3 + 750i which is a very popular entry level rig. 

I also like the other idea of a dual chip motherboard to level 2 APUs together but that solution seems like it would make the motherboard way too expensive defeating the purpose, this tech however could pay off.

 

Also let's not forget than this would benefit laptop chips as well and in those well even a bad performing APU from intel or AMD is almost always universally used so if you could advance APU's further it would greatly help corner that market.

[martinrox1568]

It's cool that they're doing new stuff, but APUs will still seem like paper weights to me until they make them with at least 6 core variants. It's great that they've effectively gone and kicked Pentium and Celeron where the sun doesn't shine, but that's like taking candy from a baby. Please AMD, give us something that has more processing power than a consumer grade microwave. Here's an idea: make a motherboard with dual APU support! You could crossfire them together and the collective of 2 APU's cores could actually stack up aganst an i5 / i7 in terms of performance and would allow for incremental upgrades over time. Stop kicking babies and take back your place in the market already. </rant>

you can't crossfire a cpu. . . At most it would give you double the cores which would do nothing to gaming

[StingBull]

APUS that come with a dedicated 1-2gb of high bandwidth RAM would see massive gains.

 

What's the point? Adding a cheap GPU instead is always a better idea.

[Me1z]

you can't crossfire a cpu. . . At most it would give you double the cores which would do nothing to gaming

 

You're not getting it, the big feature of APU's that somehow justify their existence is their integrated Radeon cores. They've already proven that they are capable of crossfire-ing with a separate discrete GPU like an R7 260X for significant performance gain. Linus has a video on it here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eSwGtc9e7Qs 

 

Now as for double the cores, yes it would make a difference, because quite frankly AMD core are weak. Even if a single game or application cannot make use of all 8 cores (APUs only have 4 each), using multiple programs at once would benefit from the extra processing power. Lets say you want to run a game, Skype, Chrome, and some miscellaneous overclocking/monitoring programs all at once, like I do almost every single day. If you assume that the game itself is utilizing 4-5 cores, skype and chrome are each using 1 core because too many tabs and poor optimization, that leaves 1-2 open cores for misc. programs and background processes. Each core = one simultaneous process, regardless of program. I'm not a budget builder, so put that aside and forget about the whole" pointless for gaming" thing. I'm not the type to make a bare bones "this is good enough" type system, when I build a computer I make sure all needs are addressed and exceeded. Unless you are doing something crazy like video encoding there is no reason that your processor should be burning itself out at 100% with regular daily use. If your cpu is running at 100% capacity for simple daily activities like gaming then in my opinion, you did it wrong, and your system was not properly planned around its intended use.

[carolkarine]

What's the point? Adding a cheap GPU instead is always a better idea.

 

small form factor systems. and this is a step in the direction of the future, where it's all on one chip. eventually we'll be buying decent APUs that have mid-tier performance across the board.

 

well, hopefully.

[martinrox1568]

You're not getting it, the big feature of APU's that somehow justify their existence is their integrated Radeon cores. They've already proven that they are capable of crossfire-ing with a separate discrete GPU like an R7 260X for significant performance gain. Linus has a video on it here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eSwGtc9e7Qs 

 

Now as for double the cores, yes it would make a difference, because quite frankly AMD core are weak. Even if a single game or application cannot make use of all 8 cores (APUs only have 4 each), using multiple programs at once would benefit from the extra processing power. Lets say you want to run a game, Skype, Chrome, and some miscellaneous overclocking/monitoring programs all at once, like I do almost every single day. If you assume that the game itself is utilizing 4-5 cores, skype and chrome are each using 1 core because too many tabs and poor optimization, that leaves 1-2 open cores for misc. programs and background processes. Each core = one simultaneous process, regardless of program. I'm not a budget builder, so put that aside and forget about the whole" pointless for gaming" thing. I'm not the type to make a bare bones "this is good enough" type system, when I build a computer I make sure all needs are addressed and exceeded. Unless you are doing something crazy like video encoding there is no reason that your processor should be burning itself out at 100% with regular daily use. If your cpu is running at 100% capacity for simple daily activities like gaming then in my opinion, you did it wrong, and your system was not properly planned around its intended use.

No, see you're not getting it. First, why spend money on a 2nd cpu just to have a weak crossfire?? Thats $200 that you couldve spent on a 7950. Now with ur arguement of the other applications. Even with 100 tabs open in chrome, your cpu would only take like a 3% hit.  skype? thats another percent. Unless an app is actually doing something like rendering video, extra cpu cores aren't gonna help at all. So unless your rendering video, playing a game, and have a movie playing in the background, all this is pointless. And the last part of all this is that an $300 i7 will do it better compared to 2 $200 cpu's

[StingBull]

small form factor systems. and this is a step in the direction of the future, where it's all on one chip. eventually we'll be buying decent APUs that have mid-tier performance across the board.

 

well, hopefully.

 

I don't think all in one design will replace the current one in the future. Because no matter how good it gets it can't be better than having different dedicated parts doing their own job.

[fringie]

Dare I say they should just make the dye size bigger. It isn't the best approach I know but I want them performance games nooooa. There's probably a good reason to why they can't too but let me have this.

 

+ This could be amazing, especially on laptops.

[Misanthrope]

I don't think all in one design will replace the current one in the future. Because no matter how good it gets it can't be better than having different dedicated parts doing their own job.

 

By that logic we would be going into 3 or 4 way SLI systems in the future. That is not the case, all chips strive to have as little size and energy as possible and why we want lower scale manufacturing process. The logical conclusion is that miniaturization will eventually be good enough that most consumer level stuff will be done in a single chip.

 

[Misanthrope]

Dare I say they should just make the dye size bigger. It isn't the best approach I know but I want them performance games nooooa. There's probably a good reason to why they can't too but let me have this.

 

+ This could be amazing, especially on laptops.

 

There is a good reason: $ Remember that making a bigger die would mean that very quickly you would not only need new, more expensive and space efficient motherboards (might not seem like a big concern but not everybody can afford a 300 bucks mitx board) but also the heat output and power consumption could potentially increase to the point of making the chips impractical, like again the FX9590.

[StingBull]

By that logic we would be going into 3 or 4 way SLI systems in the future. That is not the case, all chips strive to have as little size and energy as possible and why we want lower scale manufacturing process. The logical conclusion is that miniaturization will eventually be good enough that most consumer level stuff will be done in a single chip.

 

 

But that would imply way way into the future. Right now a mid-tier GPU is loads and loads better than an APU. But here's the thing, the bar is always rising. Mid-tier GPUs will be better next year and the year after that. If APUs want to replace them they need to improve faster than them. I don't see that happening for a very long time.

[fringie]

By that logic we would be going into 3 or 4 way SLI systems in the future. That is not the case, all chips strive to have as little size and energy as possible and why we want lower scale manufacturing process. The logical conclusion is that miniaturization will eventually be good enough that most consumer level stuff will be done in a single chip.

 

I think sli/cf being the norm is a possibility. Having higher clocks requires more power and the power it requires is not linear at all. Assuming scalability gets sorted it would make sense to buy a couple (or even 10+) of cheap low powered GPU's. Unfortunately, we are a long way of that being a possibility and super-computers aside APU's have my bet at the moment until a new uber demanding device requires a gpu form factor.

 

 

There is a good reason: $ Remember that making a bigger die would mean that very quickly you would not only need new, more expensive and space efficient motherboards (might not seem like a big concern but not everybody can afford a 300 bucks mitx board) but also the heat output and power consumption could potentially increase to the point of making the chips impractical, like again the FX9590.

You didn't let me have it.. .

[Misanthrope]

But that would imply way way into the future. Right now a mid-tier GPU is loads and loads better than an APU. But here's the thing, the bar is always rising. Mid-tier GPUs will be better next year and the year after that. If APUs want to replace them they need to improve faster than them. I don't see that happening for a very long time.

 

So your solution is to abandon the idea completely? I'd stick with AMD's strategy: find uses and markets for what you can achieve to finance the R&D. This is also the same thing intel does by the way only they happen to be further down the road right now. Standing still waiting to die however is no strategy at all.

[Misanthrope]

You didn't let me have it.. .

 

I wouldn't mind if AMD actually came up with a bigger socket, I'm just saying that I don't know where would they'd be getting the money, realistically speaking.