Reviews of AMD's new Llano processor appear

futurepastnowfuturepastnow
Posted:
in General Discussion edited January 2014
If you follow tech news, you may know a little about AMD's newest new processor- the Llano "APU" which combines four processor cores with a 400-SP integrated GPU (there are cut-down versions as well). A few reviews of the mobile version:



Anandtech, Phoronix (Linux-focused), HardOCP (gaming-focused)



Desktop versions just have higher clock speeds.



I think this raises a couple of interesting questions. First, what is the right balance of CPU:GPU for the average computer user? Have we reached a point where faster processors don't benefit people as much as faster graphics?



And second, the Macbook and Mac mini still haven't been updated. Is Apple waiting for this processor? Should it be?

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 10
    tallest skiltallest skil Posts: 43,388member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by FuturePastNow View Post


    And second, the Macbook and Mac mini still haven't been updated. Is Apple waiting for this processor?



    Nope.



    Quote:

    Should it be?



    Nope.
  • Reply 2 of 10
    backtomacbacktomac Posts: 4,579member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by futurepastnow View Post


    if you follow tech news, you may know a little about amd's newest new processor- the llano "apu" which combines four processor cores with a 400-sp integrated gpu (there are cut-down versions as well). A few reviews of the mobile version:



    anandtech, phoronix (linux-focused), hardocp (gaming-focused)



    desktop versions just have higher clock speeds.



    I think this raises a couple of interesting questions. First, what is the right balance of cpu:gpu for the average computer user? Have we reached a point where faster processors don't benefit people as much as a ssd ?



    And second, the macbook and mac mini still haven't been updated. Is apple waiting for this processor? Should it be?



    t, ftfy.
  • Reply 3 of 10
    backtomacbacktomac Posts: 4,579member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post


    Nope.







    Nope.



    I really wonder how Llano would perform in the MM server. Might actually work as well or better than the current Intel solutions at Llano's price point.



    I'm not holding my breath though.
  • Reply 4 of 10
    futurepastnowfuturepastnow Posts: 1,772member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post


    Nope.







    Nope.



    I don't seriously expect Apple to use this, either, but you've got to admit it's an interesting option.
  • Reply 5 of 10
    MarvinMarvin Posts: 15,322moderator
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by FuturePastNow View Post


    I don't seriously expect Apple to use this, either, but you've got to admit it's an interesting option.



    It is from the point of view of graphics. AMD wins hands down here:



    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mdPi4GPEI74



    But Apple can't do it without giving up Thunderbolt and their relationship with Intel. I think both Apple and Intel want to go as far as putting Intel chips in iPads.
  • Reply 6 of 10
    tallest skiltallest skil Posts: 43,388member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Marvin View Post


    I think both Apple and Intel want to go as far as putting Intel chips in iPads.



    Intel-made, Apple-custom ARM-based chips, you mean.



    Wow, hyphens.
  • Reply 7 of 10
    futurepastnowfuturepastnow Posts: 1,772member
    Selling off XScale five years ago wasn't one of Intel's finer business decisions. Though Intel still has an ARM license.
  • Reply 8 of 10
    nvidia2008nvidia2008 Posts: 9,262member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by FuturePastNow View Post


    I think this raises a couple of interesting questions. First, what is the right balance of CPU:GPU for the average computer user? Have we reached a point where faster processors don't benefit people as much as faster graphics?



    And second, the Macbook and Mac mini still haven't been updated. Is Apple waiting for this processor? Should it be?



    We have reached a point where indeed a faster CPU and GPU on a desktop or laptop is meaningless for the average user. Hence the success of the iPad. Only gamers need better horsepower but with most games being console ports, running a big hot gaming rig is becoming more and more ridiculous to the average "gamer". Plus the lack of titles and nonsensical DRM increasingly shoved down honest user's throats. I myself will be ditching PC gaming soon.



    As for your second question, nope, Shitel integrated graphics is good enough for Apple, the CPU (and certainly SSD where available) does most of the heavy lifting anyway so MacBook and Mac mini will get Sandy Bridge by the end of the year.
  • Reply 9 of 10
    nvidia2008nvidia2008 Posts: 9,262member
    What I am most disappointed with is OpenCL and CUDA. Doesn't look like it will gain any real traction on the high-end (with Intel dominating) or the low-end (with ARM dominating).
  • Reply 10 of 10
    sactoman01sactoman01 Posts: 209member
    The more important thing here is NOT faster CPU, but more RAM so applications have room to "breathe" and also access the hard drive less often. I just got a new Windows 7 Home Premium-based machine with 8 GB of RAM and with that much RAM available, programs often run 40-80% faster because most of the function of the program is done in RAM, not swapping back and forth from a storage device (even with an SSD you might see a slight slowdown because the I/O to the SSD is often way slower than the I/O to RAM).



    If I had the money and bought a new iMac, I would certainly get at least 8 GB of RAM installed.
Sign In or Register to comment.