Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Closed

Opinons on AMD's APU's

Tags:
  • CPUs
  • Sandy Bridge
  • Graphics Cards
  • AMD
  • Intel
Last response: in CPUs
Share
a b à CPUs
a b U Graphics card
September 11, 2011 8:19:57 PM

im wondering, where are people at on AMD's APU's, i believe they are going to turn out somthing like intel's "sandy bridge" processors, but at the same time amd does make graphics cards, where as intel dosent

More about : opinons amd apu

a c 94 à CPUs
a c 177 U Graphics card
a b À AMD
September 12, 2011 2:27:16 AM

turn out like sandy bridge? in what way? SB are way faster CPU's, they just have slower built in GPU's. IMO apu's are pointless at the moment. Its better to get a faster phenom IIx4, dedicated video card and motherboard. APU's offer nothing more than onboard graphics, they just moved the chip from the motherboard, to the CPU. IMO its a waste of money buying a CPU with integrated GPU when you will most likely have a dedicated GPU if you are into playing games.
September 12, 2011 3:46:13 AM

iam2thecrowe said:
turn out like sandy bridge? in what way? SB are way faster CPU's, they just have slower built in GPU's. IMO apu's are pointless at the moment. Its better to get a faster phenom IIx4, dedicated video card and motherboard. APU's offer nothing more than onboard graphics, they just moved the chip from the motherboard, to the CPU. IMO its a waste of money buying a CPU with integrated GPU when you will most likely have a dedicated GPU if you are into playing games.


There are some really interesting things going on with the A series architecture that will allow people with low budgets to beef up their graphics later with the crossfire feature.
"Similar to AMD’s CrossFire technology, this enables the on-board GPU to team up with a discrete AMD GPU to provide extra graphical horsepower. "
But then the A series are great on laptop's... I am really happy with my A6-3400M powered NV55S07u Gateway. I also found this to be a various interesting video with a Sandy bridge vs a AMD A series laptop's sitting side by side @ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XqBk0uHrxII&feature=rela... I am also very pleased with the scaling that works great for power management.
And I only paid $449 USD for it which is a far cry from my $399 Compaq C551NR. This things runs for four hours easily in a single charge, and not sure how long offline as my eReader, but I am still playing with it.

Personally I have ran Intel's and AMD's since late 1994, also ATI and Nvidia's graphics cards. Plus a few other odds and ends.
We as users benefit when new tech comes out regardless of who made it. Personally CPU(s)/GPU(s) on a single die are the single best solution for new system builders by providing them a matched combo. Just as a person can get a lower end starter, they can always drop in a better unit later if they need to. But most forget that everyone had started somewhere.
Just as I started with my experince with Win 95 UG. It was on floppies, which was not fun since my Win 3.1 was already on floppy also. Not much later I sold that set for 50% off, and bought it on cd, and moved the files that the UG was looking for onto a single floppy. So when I had to do a reinstall, it was simplified. On the next Win release I used the same method without having to install a previous version of MS Windows... But I can finish this story another time.
Just as I started with my linux experience back in 1998 with Slackware when it was really RTFM to install it. Today I write you from my Kubuntu 11.04. I am still trying out various current distro's that have current or fairly recent kernel's.

I dual-boot... Win 7 for my games and a few other things. Kubuntu I do everything else since it has many open source tools that I do not want to have to try to buy in Win 7.
Related resources
a c 487 à CPUs
a c 365 U Graphics card
a c 123 À AMD
a c 121 å Intel
September 12, 2011 5:30:40 AM

AMD's Llano APUs are similar to the Sandy Bridge Core i series in that the graphics core is integrated with the CPU instead of being part of a chipset. While the graphics core in Llano APUs are a little more power than the Intel HD 2000/3000 graphics core (depending on the Core i3/i5/i7 model number). However, Llano's CPU processing power is much less powerful than Sandy Bridge CPUs.

In my opinion the Llano CPUs are ideal for laptops and low end non-gaming PCs like for a Home Theater PC. As for a gaming PC... with the price of a Llano APU you can buy an AMD Phenom II CPU and a low cost graphics card that will be better than a Llano APU.
September 12, 2011 6:37:58 AM

iam2thecrowe said:
turn out like sandy bridge? in what way? SB are way faster CPU's, they just have slower built in GPU's. IMO apu's are pointless at the moment. Its better to get a faster phenom IIx4, dedicated video card and motherboard. APU's offer nothing more than onboard graphics, they just moved the chip from the motherboard, to the CPU. IMO its a waste of money buying a CPU with integrated GPU when you will most likely have a dedicated GPU if you are into playing games.

The beauty of APU, as compared to Intel's SB, is that you can Crossfire the integrated GPU with your dedicated card, which is, correct me if I am wrong, not possible with Intel chipset.

Getting crossfire without having to buy the second video card, that's another + for AMD APU. :kaola: 
a c 94 à CPUs
a c 177 U Graphics card
a b À AMD
September 12, 2011 8:44:31 AM

crossfiring low end gpu's creates insane microstutter, and doesnt even give the performance of a good mid-range 6850. I would much rather have a good CPU and good dedicated GPU for what it would cost to get a crappy athlon x4 equivelant and a crappy low end crossfire setup. Alsom the inteegrated graphics uses up some ram, so thats another - for AMD APU :p . I actually cant think of a reason to get one...... Maybe a HTPC.
a b à CPUs
September 12, 2011 11:29:58 AM

As has been said, they're good for HTPC usage. Also, people who want a desktop PC in the house and are into light gaming would benefit from one of these too. It's not a chip aimed at enthusiasts really, unless the enthusiast is building a non-high end machine. It'd be also interesting to see if they'll end up selling integrated APU / mobo combinations - that would be like ION. Except, it'll be good.
September 12, 2011 11:59:16 AM

iam2thecrowe said:
crossfiring low end gpu's creates insane microstutter, and doesnt even give the performance of a good mid-range 6850.
Is this an issue with the AMD APU's specifically, or an issue with any low end CPU unable to keep up with crossfired GPU? Are there any articles about this online?
a c 104 à CPUs
a b U Graphics card
a b À AMD
September 12, 2011 12:16:08 PM

The current A series I don't think will ever appeal to harcore gamers or enthusiasts, but where they are very good is budget gaming laptops. Also I think if they get into low end Dell and HP desktops they could give PC gaming a big boost as in the past anyone buying a low-mid range desktop has not been able to run high end games at all. Now with these you can run any game (some at very low settings) on potentially some of the cheapest PCs there are. This could lead to kids buying cheaper PC versions of games instead of console games. Then again it might not.
September 12, 2011 11:41:00 PM

"Not only does the integrated Radeon HD 6620G graphics deliver synthetic scores that are 24% better than the current Intel integrated graphics, but the Radeon HD 6690G2 dual graphics produced scores that were between 38% and 233% better than Intel integrated graphics."
reference @ http://www.notebookreview.com/default.asp?newsID=6155&p...

"Then again, if you fire up a game, the A-series APU surges past Intel’s HD Graphics implementation. Play that same title on a mobile system using battery power and you’re treated to another surprise: improved performance is complemented by longer battery life."
" this APU easily outclasses Intel HD Graphics 3000. Its power-saving advantage is definitely appreciable in the notebook space"
" And Intel’s Sandy Bridge architecture actually does a fair job with its HD Graphics 3000 engine. But Llano blows that away in 3D workloads, using less power in the process."
reference @ http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/a8-3500m-llano-apu,review...

Yes, the A series is a good thing. tick-tock...
November 12, 2011 4:48:28 AM

It sounds to me like a bunch of people running cars down that they have never driven. Ive got a 3850, 16 gigs Cosair ram, xigmatek cpu cooler, 2 WD 320 6gb/s drives Raid 0, Corsair 750 Enthusiast PS, NZXT Case.

Runs Black OPs, MWF2, LFD2 1024 x768 great, maybe faster than my 1100t 6 core 3.3 gig and its a 2.9 gig but its a 32 nm and the 3.3 is a 45nm plus it has a 4 MB L2 cache and is Optimized for gaming, plus its memory controller is 1866 and the Phenoms are 1333 no bottleneck moves data faster. $550.00 Great for people that cant afford more, then later they can add a video card and juice it up if they want to. Ive added 2 different cards to duel graphics but it slows down the graphics and adds chop and stutter, runs better with the chip only GPU graphics.
November 12, 2011 5:09:45 AM

The stutter is caused by the Drivers. ATI has never written a set of drivers that worked the first time since the K-5. It looks like they would have fired those guys by now and hired somebody that can program. Maybe by the next set of drivers, which will be the 4th set they will have what should have come out the first time.
November 12, 2011 5:58:25 AM

nna2 said:
im wondering, where are people at on AMD's APU's, i believe they are going to turn out somthing like intel's "sandy bridge" processors, but at the same time amd does make graphics cards, where as intel dosent



Well, in terms of overall mainstream performance, APUs are better than great - Sandy Bridge notwithstanding. If the next iteration (Trinity) improves upon Win7 perf then we'll see something similar soon. If not then we have to wait for Win 8 to see the module paradigm pay off for desktop which will level the landscape.
a b à CPUs
a b U Graphics card
November 12, 2011 6:14:22 AM

this is Cyprus


This is Slimer


The pipeline flow: vertex shader->hull shader->tesellator->domain shader->geometry shader->pixel shader
a b à CPUs
a b U Graphics card
November 12, 2011 6:19:04 AM

madmikie said:
It sounds to me like a bunch of people running cars down that they have never driven. Ive got a 3850, 16 gigs Cosair ram, xigmatek cpu cooler, 2 WD 320 6gb/s drives Raid 0, Corsair 750 Enthusiast PS, NZXT Case.

Runs Black OPs, MWF2, LFD2 1024 x768 great, maybe faster than my 1100t 6 core 3.3 gig and its a 2.9 gig but its a 32 nm and the 3.3 is a 45nm plus it has a 4 MB L2 cache and is Optimized for gaming, plus its memory controller is 1866 and the Phenoms are 1333 no bottleneck moves data faster. $550.00 Great for people that cant afford more, then later they can add a video card and juice it up if they want to. Ive added 2 different cards to duel graphics but it slows down the graphics and adds chop and stutter, runs better with the chip only GPU graphics.

Because the cpu have nice and big caches where they get the data from
a b à CPUs
November 13, 2011 6:16:44 AM

madmikie said:
It sounds to me like a bunch of people running cars down that they have never driven. Ive got a 3850, 16 gigs Cosair ram, xigmatek cpu cooler, 2 WD 320 6gb/s drives Raid 0, Corsair 750 Enthusiast PS, NZXT Case.

Runs Black OPs, MWF2, LFD2 1024 x768 great


Added the bold myself...your screen resolution is hardly representative of what most gamers would use. As for your 'running cars that they have never driven' comment...well, I think that applies to everyone on this forum at some stage or other. But what people do is read reviews and look at benchmarks, to understand how any component runs, and then feed that back if necessary.
November 13, 2011 6:00:52 PM

I also have a llano HTPC. Fantastic processor, and I feel the APU is the future. This particular APU might not be the most powerful, but it just goes to show where things are heading. Enthusiasts are not all that turned on by the APU, at least not until they get a bit better, but for the mainstream computer users, this is a great thing. AMD has at least done one thing right making APUs... IMO this will pay off big time in the long run for AMD, because I personally think the enthusiast gamers on PC are diminishing, and in the end it matters more when you make a great product for the masses. To summarize, APU was AMDs best move recently, and hopefully they dont mess it up like they have so many other things :p 
a b à CPUs
a b U Graphics card
November 17, 2011 12:56:19 AM

i have to agree with diellur if you tryed running your games in 19** x 1080 or higher im sure you would hit problems... and when it comes to memory bandwith, i brought mine up to 1600mhz, it dosent matter all that much...
a b à CPUs
November 17, 2011 1:45:29 AM

For 90% of users it is the way to go . More than enough to run video , most games , e-mail and other tasks . Not meant for gamer or heavy work loads ,now , maybe in the long run the chips will have the power though .
a b à CPUs
a b U Graphics card
November 17, 2011 12:18:50 PM

yeah, im sure in time, integrated will get closer and closer to gfx cards
November 26, 2011 2:26:32 PM

I am a system builder and have put the A-8 3850 Chip through the paces with several different configurations. The Onboard GPU handles games pretty decently since you can dedicate up to 2 GB ram to Video in the bios. One thing we did find out is there is a sweet spot for the speed of memory for the APU that needs to be kept in mind. I have turned out several gamer versions and have been more than astounded by the increase of video performance over what the video card could produce by bechmarking it alone.
Best machine in my line-up is a A-8 Apu with our standard Liquid cooling, 16 GB ram, 6950 ATI 2 GB Radeon (in Crossfire with APU), 1 TB HD, DVD RW/CD, 18-1 Reader, 8 channel sound, Windows 7 Home Premium. Running without overclocking this machine can play any game out there and benchmarks way above everything else I have seen. I have even had two monitors hooked up one I was gamming on and the other playing a movie and saw no decrease in Hi-end gameplay. This APU is simply put Awesome! Below is a bit of text I sent a customer when building and testing the configurations for a machine he wanted. The first part is about MS system rating and how speed could be increased by a Solid State drive, second is about benchmarking.
"Overall rating is still 5.9 but that could only be sped up by using solid state hard drive or even a Hybrid drive but the graphics is maxed out at 7.9 for aero & business & Gaming! This one shows 3dmark11 test (only for direct x 11 machines), It only goes up to max score of 4200 and yours is 4443!"
Of Note (I have the 3Dmark Graphs) The similar systems were way down bunched at a benchmark of 986 with the closest benchmark only at 1900 and this was with the 3DMark11 benchmark run on 9/30/2011.
I later ramped up the system by overclocking it to a very stable 3.8 GHz with our standard liquid cooling system and it stayed very cool.
a b à CPUs
a b U Graphics card
November 26, 2011 6:17:07 PM

dave you said it was being linked ith a 6950, that would prolly pull it up coz thats a high end card (*9**)
November 26, 2011 7:47:12 PM

but you missed the point that there was a big increase over just using the card itself which only gave it a score of about 2396! so that was an over 100% increase with it in crossfire with the APU> The APU Graphics alone scored 2146!
January 10, 2012 10:02:19 PM

im looking at this same threa because im building a Llano low end gaming rig for a friend and wanted to see about overclocking, seems some people think they are awsome and can really handle themselves and some think they are trash....
January 10, 2012 10:31:56 PM

mild, the a8-3870k+6670 can run bf3 at 1080p with a mix of med/high settings, You'll have to OC them, though. The people who think they are trash have never seen benchmarks, videos, talked to people with the setup or don't even have the set.

Also, get 1866 ram, NO EXCEPTIONS, apu's LOVE faster ram. Instead of having dedicated ram like discrete GPUS (IE 2 gb of ddr5 etc), they play off the ram from the mobo.
January 10, 2012 11:50:42 PM

well my friend has very low budget so i looked at 4gb 1333 ddr3 ram.. maybe that would be an early upgrade because it is cheaper? he only has 400$ budget lol but i got parts covered, was more thinking of when make my new pc, prob not for quite a while, but still. so i thought 1600 RAM had almost no performance increas over 1333? and 1866? that needs overclocking to be used as well does it not?
a b à CPUs
a c 92 U Graphics card
a b À AMD
January 11, 2012 12:04:30 AM

get at least 1600mhz for an apu
January 11, 2012 12:14:32 AM

Mild, i suggest you make a thread asking people what components you need for a 400$ APU setup so you can get the most out of the money.
a b à CPUs
January 11, 2012 12:27:10 AM

APU's are not positioned for the high end gamer rig. Their the exact opposite, their for light weight machines that use little power and have the possibility of gaming. Basically you'd use them in any situation where you'd want integrated graphics that also do moderate gaming, not where you'll be wanting an expensive dedicated GPU, or even a mid level GPU.

I recently got a HP pavilion with a A-3530MX with DDR3-1600 memory. I bought it because my desktop replacement Sony Vaio is getting long in the tooth and I'm really tired of lugging a 17 inch laptop with a full sized keyboard around with me when I'm on business trips. Those things suck to carry when your rushing through airport terminals and what have you. I need a portable laptop that is easy to bring with me when I'm out on trips but can do moderate video gaming at nights and has battery power to last through long flights. Some of my flights are from South Korea to the USA, that is an 16~18 hr long flight in a cramped plane full of Koreans.

For that role this laptop has proven amazing. I can play my games, write my reports, do office email and what have you. Also can watch movies and other assorted multimedia tasks.

For desktops, I'm not so sure. Dedicated discrete graphics cards are cheap and their dedicated memory will stomp anything a share system like an APU can do. If AMD is serious about this APU business they might want to invest money in developing a bus for adding on dedicated video memory to their chip. Similar to the old days of stick L2 Cache memory. Add 512 ~ 1GB (or 2GB who knows) of high speed GDDR5 memory at 256-bit width.
a c 186 à CPUs
a c 109 U Graphics card
a b À AMD
a b å Intel
January 11, 2012 8:19:09 AM

APU=htpc regular task etc
SB=gaming, rendering, desktop apps etc.
Phenom=gaming, desktop apps etc.
Apu's aren't that good for gaming, though are great in laptops! :) 
January 11, 2012 6:25:58 PM

um, as you are saying wuth apus not for gaming, my friend games on a windows xp era machine with an old sempron in it and i dont even know what type of graphics card, probably not that great of out though.
January 11, 2012 8:32:35 PM

iam2thecrowe said:
turn out like sandy bridge? in what way? SB are way faster CPU's, they just have slower built in GPU's. IMO apu's are pointless at the moment. Its better to get a faster phenom IIx4, dedicated video card and motherboard. APU's offer nothing more than onboard graphics, they just moved the chip from the motherboard, to the CPU. IMO its a waste of money buying a CPU with integrated GPU when you will most likely have a dedicated GPU if you are into playing games.



I think you meant that AMD have way, way faster built in GPU and have just a slower CPU. I correct you because simply there is no software that the AMD CPU can not run, where as there is a very dicernable difference between their relative on-board GPU,s. On an APU basis win goes to AMD.... :lol: 

No you are not limited to on-board graphics with AMD, you have the opportunity to X-Fire where I can tell you that 2 x 5770 is greater than single 6850. If you head over to you tube and bother to have a look you can see for yourself what 3D gaming performance you can expect from an X-Fired APU and I'm sure like me, you'll find it's far from useless. Before Llano I'd have agreed with you, but this APU from AMD changes the landscape completely.

I subsequently read you made another comment about micro-stutter on low end X--Fired GPU's and then grandiosely dismissed them out of hand. Yes the Mirco-stutter does occur and I do get that in Crysis 2 on initial play, but if you would just be a little patient and give the two GPU's time to buffer and sync you'll find they'll play smooth as silk. I think it's due to the 128 bit memory interface as apposed to the 256 bit of the beefier ones. My 6850 starts off at its best performance, where as the pair of 5770's get faster as they warm to the task and fairly fly once the buffer and sync has been acheived.
a b à CPUs
January 11, 2012 10:20:21 PM

i think people are missing completely the concept of the apu, they arent to max out anything at 1080p, they are to make that fancy powerpoint presentation work without a discrete gpu, they are so you wont have to run your games at 640x480 just because its integrated, they are so html5 doesnt stick and look all crappy on your integrated graphics, they are so your blu ray movie does not max out your brand new quad core because the integrated graphics under that tiny little chipset heatsink cant handle it...understand who it was made for before you start to bash...and who it was made for will appreciate it much more

will i put a c-50/e-350 in my main pc...absolutely not... my thin and light netbook so i wont have to avoid watching 720p youtube videos or convert my 720p mkvs to lower quality avi before transfering to my netbook...absolutely

will i put it in my little sisters pc so she can stop bugging me that cityville is moving slow...absolutely

so my little cousin can play NFS MW...or some other old crappy game at a descent resolution and stop complaining how my pc can play everything smoothly and his cant??? catch my drift???

just because we have set youtube to only allow hd videos to appear when we search does not mean it is like that for everyone

although i really do wish fm1 boards were cheaper

cheap 1155 board $50
g530 $45

cheap fm1 board $60
a4-3300 $65

come on amd

$30 can get me 6 $5 footlongs
a b à CPUs
a c 92 U Graphics card
a b À AMD
January 11, 2012 10:35:34 PM

the apus are perfectly powerful enough for gaming.

and A8 is a lot more powerful than an xbox so it will be able to play all those games on medium.
January 11, 2012 11:00:48 PM

Capricorn, your 50$ intel mobo, cheap quality, no features, micro atx (which i hate) and 70$ get you a atx fm1 mobo with 2 pci-e slots (not x1 either) lots of other features, and more reliability, and the pentium g530 (i think) has less power than the 3300, im not sure entirely though. and the 3300 will still have better integrated graphics with the 6410 rather than intel HD, (not even 2000 if i remember correctly)
a b à CPUs
January 11, 2012 11:13:05 PM

now dont get me wrong, i get that, completely, im just saying that amd should be able to make something likke the a4-3000 at 2.2ghz and sell it for $45 and get asrock or biostar or somebody to release an fm1 board without hdmi and dvi for $45, that would win so hard
January 12, 2012 1:28:09 AM

One of the strengths of AMD is that they are full-featured from top to bottom from Sempron to Thurban, ie buy a Sempron today and fit a Thurban next month, it's the kinda setup we up-graders wanted...wasn't it??

If you want cheap non-up-gradable throw away system, you can buy plenty of those with Intel inside logo. Or buy a cheap pre-owned system and plug in a better GPU. You won't need a new, dirt cheap, no-frills dead end FM board for what you are after?
a b à CPUs
January 12, 2012 1:39:37 AM

Honestly it's hard to justify an APU inside a desktop system, at least not at the mid-sized ATX level. I can see it inside a mini-ITX form factor being used as a cheap PC for office work / low end gaming. Low power mini-ITX systems often do not have enough room nor enough PSU for a discrete GPU.
a b à CPUs
January 12, 2012 1:41:56 AM

Here are the PSU's I'm talking about that would go with this kind of system.

Pico PSU 90w

They have 80/90 and 120w PSU's that size. They privide barely enough power for a Board, CPU, memory, storage and some form of display.
January 12, 2012 3:56:19 PM

+1 on that last post capricorn, that sounds like a great idea. other than no hdmi, not that i need it, my largest monitor right now is 17" 4:3 ratio LCD but i know lots of people like to have monitors larger than 20"....
January 26, 2012 3:48:17 AM

as for apus not being able to game, i strongly disagree, my laptop equipped with a a6-3410mx and a 6545g2 is more than capable of playing skyrim, bad company 2 (haven't tried bf3) gta 4 (terribly optimized game, my laptop hates it) and most new releases. if i want some extra fps i can disable turbo and o.c the base clock to 2.4 with only a small voltage increase, and a heat increase of about 5c (stays at about 75c during stress tests) and i don't need to worry about buying games anyway, if it doesn't run to my satisfaction, i will play it solely on my desktop (i5-750, 6870)
February 2, 2012 6:00:56 AM

I'm not affiliated with AMD in any way. I'm just a computer programmer/geek and I've been waiting for this for a long time.

I think you guys are missing one huge deal here... It's a long post, but read it all.

The Unified Memory Architecture (UMA) of the APU allows for much more RAM and much lower latency for GPU operations. With an add on card you have to transfer data to and from the GPU through the PCIe bus and although the PCIe bus may be fast, you are still limited by the latency of transferring data through that bus. Today the GPUs stream processors are used for other things other then just graphics and if you run out of RAM on your GPU card then you're screwed! Frame rates drop and drivers drop textures... This doesn't mean the APU is faster, but that it has much more potential for the future.

Although you will never get away from the fact that the APU needs some dedicated RAM, simply because it must have a 'screen buffer', this is also a limitation of an add on GPU card. A screen buffer is essential to display the graphical information on your monitor and even an add on GPU card needs dedicated RAM in its own pool for a screen buffer. Where the add on GPU and the APU differ is that the APU can access ALL OF SYSTEM RAM without a DMA transfer through the PCIe bus! This is AWESOME and this is something your add on cards will never do. If you put 16GB of RAM on your motherboard then you can use all 16GB for GPU and 16GB minus GPU dedicated RAM for CPU (15GB if you use 1GB). The APU driver will use the dedicated RAM for the GPU first and then when it needs more, it can allocate system RAM from your operating system. This means more RAM for GPU and that means higher res textures and more of them. It also means low latency processing of other stream based data other than graphics, such as audio, physics and pretty much anything else you can think of.

Honestly, UMA is the way to go. The XBOX 360 uses it as well as having some dedicated GPU RAM. The APU may not be up to par in high end graphics yet, but it is a great proof of concept that won't hurt the pocket, especially for entry level enthusiasts. The APU is a serious contender for general computing and games as well. I have no doubt you will get better graphics on a modern APU then you would your 360. UMA is definitely the direction CPU and GPU companies should be going.

I believe the only people that would criticize this APU are the people that don't fully understand how advanced the technology truly is. As the APU series of chips evolve I bet you will see some very incredible things happen in the computer industry. If only AMD would skip a few generations of GPU and get to the more modern GPUs.

That's my two cents...
a b à CPUs
February 2, 2012 6:29:24 AM

rsn10100 said:
I'm not affiliated with AMD in any way. I'm just a computer programmer/geek and I've been waiting for this for a long time.

I think you guys are missing one huge deal here... It's a long post, but read it all.

The Unified Memory Architecture (UMA) of the APU allows for much more RAM and much lower latency for GPU operations. With an add on card you have to transfer data to and from the GPU through the PCIe bus and although the PCIe bus may be fast, you are still limited by the latency of transferring data through that bus. Today the GPUs stream processors are used for other things other then just graphics and if you run out of RAM on your GPU card then you're screwed! Frame rates drop and drivers drop textures... This doesn't mean the APU is faster, but that it has much more potential for the future.

Although you will never get away from the fact that the APU needs some dedicated RAM, simply because it must have a 'screen buffer', this is also a limitation of an add on GPU card. A screen buffer is essential to display the graphical information on your monitor and even an add on GPU card needs dedicated RAM in its own pool for a screen buffer. Where the add on GPU and the APU differ is that the APU can access ALL OF SYSTEM RAM without a DMA transfer through the PCIe bus! This is AWESOME and this is something your add on cards will never do. If you put 16GB of RAM on your motherboard then you can use all 16GB for GPU and 16GB minus GPU dedicated RAM for CPU (15GB if you use 1GB). The APU driver will use the dedicated RAM for the GPU first and then when it needs more, it can allocate system RAM from your operating system. This means more RAM for GPU and that means higher res textures and more of them. It also means low latency processing of other stream based data other than graphics, such as audio, physics and pretty much anything else you can think of.

Honestly, UMA is the way to go. The XBOX 360 uses it as well as having some dedicated GPU RAM. The APU may not be up to par in high end graphics yet, but it is a great proof of concept that won't hurt the pocket, especially for entry level enthusiasts. The APU is a serious contender for general computing and games as well. I have no doubt you will get better graphics on a modern APU then you would your 360. UMA is definitely the direction CPU and GPU companies should be going.

I believe the only people that would criticize this APU are the people that don't fully understand how advanced the technology truly is. As the APU series of chips evolve I bet you will see some very incredible things happen in the computer industry. If only AMD would skip a few generations of GPU and get to the more modern GPUs.

That's my two cents...



Holy sh!t....... batman.

I'm not being rude, but take this entire post and throw it out the window.

UMA sucks due to the differences between generic DDR and dedicated GDDR. Discrete GPU's have dedicated high speed memory with low latency and ridiculous bus width. GPU's are vector processors, meaning each individual calculation is slow compared to a generic CPU but the chip can do dozens if not hundreds of calculations simultaneously. To do that it needs incredibly fast access to local memory where the data for those calculations are kept. GPU's need ultra fast memory to operate efficiently, and dedicated graphics memory will always be faster then main memory.

APU 3530MX
12.8GB/s per channel with DDR3-1600, two channels puts you at 25.6GB/s

Radeon 6770M (6750M is same memory speed), GDDR5 @ 1.8Ghz (900Mhz memory clock) puts you at 57.6GB/s, that's with a 128-bit memory interface
Radeon 6990M (fastest Radeon for mobile applications), GDDR5 @ 1.8 Ghz as 115.2GB/s with a 256-bit memory interface.

Discrete Desktop GPU

Radeon 6750 GDDR5 @ 2.3Ghz (1150Mhz memory clock) with 128-bit memory interface gives you 73.6GB/s bandwidth.
Radeon 6970 GDDR5 @ 2.75Ghz (1375Mhz clock) with 256-bit memory interface gives you 176GB/s bandwidth.

Finially, Llano desktop APU

A8-3850, DDR3-1866, 14.9GB/s per channel, dual channel puts you at 29.8GB/s memory bandwidth.

I used those above numbers to give people an idea of the difference in scale between a discrete GPU and an IGP.

Best bet would be to create a special backside bus design that allows a user to plug-in a GDDR-5 (or 6 / ect..) memory chip with a 128-bit bandwidth. It should be easy to get 512MB or even 1GB of dedicated 128-bit GDDR-5 onto something the size of a SO-DIMM. Just an idea.
a b à CPUs
a c 92 U Graphics card
a b À AMD
February 2, 2012 6:42:31 AM

you could also connect maybe 10mb(or more) of eDRAM on the die itself with a very fast bus to the gpu. The eDRAM on the xbox 360 allows for 256 bg/s bus, the eDRAM can be used for very fast and easy AA as well as any need for fast gpu caching.

AMD may also consider using GDDR5 ram as main ram for systems with APUs, might be expensive but might work.
February 2, 2012 7:06:23 AM

palladin9479 said:
Holy sh!t....... batman.

I'm not being rude, but take this entire post and throw it out the window.

UMA sucks due to the differences between generic DDR and dedicated GDDR. Discrete GPU's have dedicated high speed memory with low latency and ridiculous bus width. GPU's are vector processors, meaning each individual calculation is slow compared to a generic CPU but the chip can do dozens if not hundreds of calculations simultaneously. To do that it needs incredibly fast access to local memory where the data for those calculations are kept. GPU's need ultra fast memory to operate efficiently, and dedicated graphics memory will always be faster then main memory.

APU 3530MX
12.8GB/s per channel with DDR3-1600, two channels puts you at 25.6GB/s

Radeon 6770M (6750M is same memory speed), GDDR5 @ 1.8Ghz (900Mhz memory clock) puts you at 57.6GB/s, that's with a 128-bit memory interface
Radeon 6990M (fastest Radeon for mobile applications), GDDR5 @ 1.8 Ghz as 115.2GB/s with a 256-bit memory interface.

Discrete Desktop GPU

Radeon 6750 GDDR5 @ 2.3Ghz (1150Mhz memory clock) with 128-bit memory interface gives you 73.6GB/s bandwidth.
Radeon 6970 GDDR5 @ 2.75Ghz (1375Mhz clock) with 256-bit memory interface gives you 176GB/s bandwidth.

Finially, Llano desktop APU

A8-3850, DDR3-1866, 14.9GB/s per channel, dual channel puts you at 29.8GB/s memory bandwidth.

I used those above numbers to give people an idea of the difference in scale between a discrete GPU and an IGP.

Best bet would be to create a special backside bus design that allows a user to plug-in a GDDR-5 (or 6 / ect..) memory chip with a 128-bit bandwidth. It should be easy to get 512MB or even 1GB of dedicated 128-bit GDDR-5 onto something the size of a SO-DIMM. Just an idea.


So what you're saying is that GDDR5 is better then DDR3. I don't think anyone would contest that, but that is no reason to say that UMA sucks. I think you still missed the point... A GDDR5 UMA APU would be much better then the comparable GPU add on card system and I'm sure in that case you would have to say that UMA doesn't suck. Using 4GB or more RAM is also a lot more interesting then being stuck with 1GB as well so UMA wins again. The whole point I was trying to make in my previous post is that UMA will eventually end up winning out over Non-UMA and seeing this unification is exciting. As the APU evolves I'm sure there will be some interesting things in the future. And honestly, 29.8GB/s isn't that bad.

And there is no need for a backside bus here. I would go with UMA on an integrated GDDR5 memory controller. You could have DDR3 and a dedicated GDDR5, but why not go all the way and go for GDDR5?
February 2, 2012 7:25:42 AM

Oh, and the next generation of APU has been rumored to have the 7xxx series of GPU so I'd like to note that most of the 7xxx series uses GDDR5. So very interesting indeed. ;) 
February 2, 2012 7:48:09 PM

I am using an A6-3650 in my HTPC for netflix, OTA, streaming, etc.... So far I have no complaints with how it has worked.

The thing I look forward to most with an APU is when people can actually play PC games with the desktop they bought from a retailer for $600. The average consumer does not need top end processing power so it would be nice if more APUs were out there so there would be more PC gaming.
a b à CPUs
February 2, 2012 11:02:32 PM

rsn10100 said:
So what you're saying is that GDDR5 is better then DDR3. I don't think anyone would contest that, but that is no reason to say that UMA sucks. I think you still missed the point... A GDDR5 UMA APU would be much better then the comparable GPU add on card system and I'm sure in that case you would have to say that UMA doesn't suck. Using 4GB or more RAM is also a lot more interesting then being stuck with 1GB as well so UMA wins again. The whole point I was trying to make in my previous post is that UMA will eventually end up winning out over Non-UMA and seeing this unification is exciting. As the APU evolves I'm sure there will be some interesting things in the future. And honestly, 29.8GB/s isn't that bad.

And there is no need for a backside bus here. I would go with UMA on an integrated GDDR5 memory controller. You could have DDR3 and a dedicated GDDR5, but why not go all the way and go for GDDR5?


You missed it totally. GDDR5 and DDR3 are the same technology, GDDR5 was just designed to be tightly coupled with the GPU in a large parallel bus's. It has lower latency's but is more expensive to create.

The difference is that UMA has horrible latency / bandwidth compared to dedicated graphics memory. SIMD vector processor (what a GPU is) require access to low latency high bandwidth memory due to all their computations they must perform every cycle. Forcing a SIMD vector processor to go through a shared main memory bus to get it's data will ensure it'll stall and not operate at peek efficiency. Just look at the numbers between a Llano A8 @ DDR3-1333 vs DDR3-1600 vs DDR3-1866.

It's been demonstrated over and over and over again that graphics memory doesn't make a difference unless your at high resolution / 4~8xAA. Also discrete GPU's have 1~3GB of memory now, more then enough for 1080p with 4~8xAA. Really don't know where you get that a UMA setup would somehow provide more memory then a dedicated memory.

29.8GB/s is HORRIBLE, it's enough to work at low level gaming, but it's nothing compared to a mid-range card at 73.6GB/s, and doesn't touch the high end at 176GB/s.
February 2, 2012 11:15:39 PM

Actually, GDDR5 and DDR4 are the same. GDDR5 is the next step up from DDR3 and is roughly equivalent to what the new DDR4 standard will be. DDR4 will be coming this year, maybe even as soon as the end of next month. Know your hardware...

And 29.8GB/s is enough for people that don't live in the matrix. :p 
      • 1 / 2
      • 2
      • Newest
!