Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Closed

Core i7-3720QM: Ivy Bridge Makes Its Mark On Mobility

Tags:
  • Intel i7
  • Mobility
Last response: in Reviews comments
Share
May 14, 2012 3:46:03 AM

We've already seen that Ivy Bridge doesn't make much of a splash in the desktop space. But we collected notebooks based on Ivy Bridge, Sandy Bridge, Arrandale, and AMD's mobile Llano, and found that the new architecture's effect on mobility is profound.

Core i7-3720QM: Ivy Bridge Makes Its Mark On Mobility : Read more

More about : core 3720qm ivy bridge makes mark mobility

May 14, 2012 4:47:33 AM

Would there be a noticeable performance gap between the i7-3720QM and the i7-3612/5QM? I'm trying to decide whether the extra 300 Mhz is worth ~$150 more (which I'm guessing not really)
Score
2
May 14, 2012 4:57:24 AM

fstrthnuWould there be a noticeable performance gap between the i7-3720QM and the i7-3612/5QM? I'm trying to decide whether the extra 300 Mhz is worth ~$150 more (which I'm guessing not really)


There would be a performance difference in applications that could use the extra MHz (Video games, encoding/decoding) and performance would scale accordingly. Otherwise no you'd likely never notice.
Score
4
May 14, 2012 5:00:24 AM

Wow, it looks like Ivy Bridge is a very compelling option in the mobile market. I had no idea the mobile versions of Llano were so performance constrained by their TDP. The graphics performance results are especially interesting. Just turned my whole world view upside down.

Great job. Another excellent review Andrew.
Score
20
May 14, 2012 5:10:00 AM

It looks like the Geforce GT650M in the notebook I'm looking at would bottleneck faster than the processor would, so I guess I'll save $$ then
Score
0
May 14, 2012 5:21:08 AM

A high end desktop plus an ivy bridge ultrabook. Now, THAT works pretty well.
Score
2
May 14, 2012 5:30:34 AM

... why there waz no screenshots of picture quality differences in games between intel's HD4000 and AMD's HD6620?
Score
15
May 14, 2012 5:36:16 AM

dragonsqrrlWow, it looks like Ivy Bridge is a very compelling option in the mobile market. I had no idea the mobile versions of Llano were so performance constrained by their TDP. The graphics performance results are especially interesting. Just turned my whole world view upside down.Great job. Another excellent review Andrew.


To be fair, it was a low power APU being bench-marked against higher end, higher power, and newer chips. I would be surprised if it won much of anything, besides power usage, against the Sandy and Ivy i7s. A higher TDP mobile A8 might be able to beat HD 4000 if it had 1600MHz or maybe even 1866MHz memory, granted it still wouldn't win in CPU performance.
Score
7
May 14, 2012 5:40:00 AM

Interesting review. But i guess people are likely to point out differences in price (thus affecting performance/$), and RAM speeds, which apparently impact IGP performance.

IIRC, the IGPs on the mobile chips can be OC'd, right?

Quote:
The Core i7-3720QM particularly shines in tests involving:

Video Transcoding
DX9 Graphics
Web Browsing

Hmmm...wouldn't you agree that "data decryption" should be on this list too? The difference b/w each proc is significant...plus you've got hardware acceleration for AES256 on SB and IB...

I hope the mobile i3s get HD4000...still wondering why the i5s didn't get it...
Score
4
May 14, 2012 5:44:43 AM

Andrew, love the review. But there's what seems to be a big error. You said on the power usage tests that AMD defaults to max battery life while Intel goes to balanced? Looking at World of Warcraft results, it looks like all the other results may be running max battery life mode for the AMD A8 chip.

The i5-460M is faster than A8-3520M, just not that much faster. I have a feeling you need to run the application and gaming tests on max performance all over again. It doesn't matter for the Intel part as Balanced pretty much performs like max performance.
Score
7
May 14, 2012 5:46:05 AM

Also, you need to do a battery life test. Power usage and battery life tests are hard to connect, because of advanced power management techniques and different usage models.
Score
5
May 14, 2012 5:49:49 AM

@ 400$ for this benchmarked processor...really, it should beat every Liano ^-
Score
13
May 14, 2012 5:53:52 AM

ojasInteresting review. But i guess people are likely to point out differences in price (thus affecting performance/$), and RAM speeds, which apparently impact IGP performance.IIRC, the IGPs on the mobile chips can be OC'd, right?Hmmm...wouldn't you agree that "data decryption" should be on this list too? The difference b/w each proc is significant...plus you've got hardware acceleration for AES256 on SB and IB...I hope the mobile i3s get HD4000...still wondering why the i5s didn't get it...


ojas, All the Core branded mobile chips have the full graphics. For Sandy Bridge that's HD 3000, and for Ivy Bridge its HD 4000. I think you are too much into desktops. ;) 
Score
4
May 14, 2012 6:09:27 AM

ojasInteresting review. But i guess people are likely to point out differences in price (thus affecting performance/$), and RAM speeds, which apparently impact IGP performance.IIRC, the IGPs on the mobile chips can be OC'd, right?Hmmm...wouldn't you agree that "data decryption" should be on this list too? The difference b/w each proc is significant...plus you've got hardware acceleration for AES256 on SB and IB...I hope the mobile i3s get HD4000...still wondering why the i5s didn't get it...


I think that it's just the desktop i5s and i3s that won't have HD 4000. The mobile ones should have it, kinda like how the mobile Sandy i3s, i5s, and i7s more or less all have HD 3000, but the same is not true for their desktop counterparts. Well, the i5-3570K gets HD 4000, so it's the only exception to the desktop i5s not having HD 4000 and that's just because it's a K edition.
Score
1
May 14, 2012 6:14:41 AM

Quote:
Honestly I find these benches a bit contradicting compared to the benches done by Anand with the A8 mobiles.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/4444/amd-llano-notebook-r...

The Review clearly show the A8 with IGP is at least 2X as fast as the HD3000 with i5 CPU


Actually, that clearly shows that the 6620G of the A8s is only marginally better than the HD 3000 and that with the 6630M, the A8s are then closer to twice as fast (some of the time) as the HD3000-using equipped Sandy systems. Keep in mind that the mobile versions of Intel's IGPs are similar to the desktop versions, but the mobile Llano IGPs are much slower than the desktop versions, so on the mobile side, they clash much more, instead of Llano wiping the floor with Intel's IGPs. Trinity will almost certainly let AMD take the lead in mobile graphics IGPs again. Until then, AMD always has the ability to do CF with the IGP and still use similar amounts or even less power than Intel while beating Intel for graphics performance, although Llano clearly can't touch Sandy and Ivy in CPU performance.
Score
1
May 14, 2012 6:45:58 AM

The chart on the first page has a small error. The 3610QM is 2.3GHz, and the 3612QM is 2.1GHz. It's easy to see how the model numbers would be confusing though. The price for both, including the 3615QM, is $378.

http://ark.intel.com/products/family/65506
Score
2
May 14, 2012 7:12:08 AM

s3anisterThere would be a performance difference in applications that could use the extra MHz (Video games, encoding/decoding) and performance would scale accordingly. Otherwise no you'd likely never notice.


And don't forget VT-d. That will help you if you are interested in virtualization.
Score
4
May 14, 2012 8:00:46 AM

blazorthonActually, that clearly shows that the 6620G of the A8s is only marginally better than the HD 3000[...]

You must not be reading the same article as the rest of us if that's your conclusion.
Score
3
May 14, 2012 10:26:53 AM

DavidC1ojas, All the Core branded mobile chips have the full graphics. For Sandy Bridge that's HD 3000, and for Ivy Bridge its HD 4000. I think you are too much into desktops.

Um...well, i'll cite this statement from Chris Angelini's desktop IB review:
Quote:
This time around, Intel divides up 3D alacrity a little differently. All mobile and desktop Core i7s get HD Graphics 4000, and all but one (Core i5-3570K) mobile and desktop Core i5s get HD Graphics 2500.
Score
2
May 14, 2012 10:39:22 AM

KyuuketsukiYou must not be reading the same article as the rest of us if that's your conclusion.


First benchmark is Battlefield: Bad Company 2
DX10 Low, FRAPS Runthrough

1366x768
A8-3500M+6620G = 48.1FPS
i5-2520M+HD3000 = 30.4FPS
The A8 is 58% faster than the i5.


Second benchmark is Civilization V
DX10/11 Low, LateGameView Benchmark

1366x768
A8-3500M+6620G = 28.6FPS
i5-2520M+HD3000 = 10.7FPS
The A8 is 167% faster than the i5.


Third benchmark is DiRt 2
DX9 Ultra Low, Built-In Benchmark

1366x768
A8-3500M+6620G = 68.1FPS
i5-2520M+HD3000 = 44.3FPS
A8 is 54% faster than the i5.


Fourth benchmark is Left For Dead 2
Low, Timedemo

1366x768
A8-3500M+6620G = 67FPS
i5-2520M+HD3000 = 48.5FPS
A8 is 38% faster than the i5

Fifth benchmark is Mafia 2
Low, Built-In Benchmark

1366x768
A8-3500M+6620G = 34.2FPS
i5-2520M+HD3000 = 16.5FPS
A8 is 108% faster than i5.


Sixth benchmark is Mass Effect 2
Low, FRAPS Runthrough

1366x768
A8-3500M+6620G = 52.1FPS
i5-2520M+HD3000 = 35.8FPS
A8 is 43% faster than i5.


Seventh benchmark is Metro 2033
DX10 Low, Built-In Benchmark

1366x768
A83500M+6620G = 28.6FPS
i5-2520M+HD3000 = 17FPS
A8 is 68% faster than i5.

Eighth benchmark is STALKER: Call of Pripyat
Low + Object, Standalone Benchmark

1366x768
A8-3500M+6620G = 61.7FPS
i5-2520M+HD3000 = 36.3FPS
A8 is 70% faster than the i5.


StarCraft II: Wings of Liberty
Low, FRAPS Playback

1366x768
A8-3500M+6620G = 49.4FPS
i5-2520M+HD3000 = 51.2FPS
i5 is 5% faster than A8.


Ninth benchmark is Total War: Shogun 2
Low, Replay Benchmark

1366x768
A8-3500M+6620G = 79FPS
i5-2520M+HD3000 = 55.1FPS
A8 is 43% faster than i5.

Total for A8-3500M+6620G = 516.8
Total for i5-2520M+HD3000 = 345.8

The A8 is clearly not double the i5. When I said marginally, I missed that the post I replied to referred to i5s, not i7s, so yes, I was wrong on that. However, the post that I replied to was still wrong as well. The i7 would have changed that total FPS from 345.8 to 397.9. The A8 is only 49% faster than the i5, on average, and that is very far from double. The i7 would have brought that down to a mere 30%. Still, I suppose that this is a good deal more than marginally greater, so yes, I was wrong, but nonetheless, so was the post that I replied to. The A8 might be about twice as fast as the mobile i3s with HD 3000, but not the i5s and not even close at that.
Score
2
Anonymous
May 14, 2012 10:51:49 AM

Why did you only pick out the low quality benchmarks to make your point, blazorthorn? Anantech said that the difference was more pronounced (76% improvement over HD3000) at medium quality.
Score
2
May 14, 2012 10:58:37 AM

ColinPWhy did you only pick out the low quality benchmarks to make your point, blazorthorn? Anantech said that the difference was more pronounced (76% improvement over HD3000) at medium quality.


I picked the first few benchmarks because I didn't want to do the math with more than ten benchmarks. If you want to, then you go ahead and do it. Either way, 76% is not double and is still a far ways off from it. If it were at least 85% to 90%, then I can understand calling it roughly double. However, not before that.
Score
2
May 14, 2012 11:05:14 AM

The chip is great and everything but.. 378$?! U KIDDING ME?! Intel, you want Ultrabooks to get to the 600-700 dollars range, and if the rest of the lineup is 200+ dollras then I'm afraid manufacturers will have to cut too many corners to hit this target.
Score
5
May 14, 2012 11:15:49 AM

doronThe chip is great and everything but.. 378$?! U KIDDING ME?! Intel, you want Ultrabooks to get to the 600-700 dollars range, and if the rest of the lineup is 200+ dollras then I'm afraid manufacturers will have to cut too many corners to hit this target.


Keep in mind that it's an i7 and even more, a well binned i7. Ultrabooks will have much cheaper processors available.
Score
4
May 14, 2012 11:25:57 AM

blazorthonKeep in mind that it's an i7 and even more, a well binned i7. Ultrabooks will have much cheaper processors available.


Yeah I'm aware of their i7 tax (not bashing, seems completely justified). But since notebook OEMs are saying that Intel's cpu prices are too high, and seeing that a mobile i7 2760QM was also 378$ (pretty comparable) makes me lose hope for a relatively cheap and high-quality Ultrabook for the time being, unless they put this high-quality plastic initiative on high(er) gear.
Score
1
May 14, 2012 1:20:30 PM

Something just does not seem right in your review. While I dont argue that Ivy Bridge is certainly the new king of mobile and there is no other competition it seems like your testing of the AMD APU is inaccurate.

I noticed in most of the benchmarks that the AMD APU always exhibited really low power consumption usually around 20 watts which is a good 15 watts below its thermal envelope. Plus your game benchmarks are giving the APU very low frame-rates compared to what I have seen in multiple other reviews. There is absolutely no way Intel IGP 3000 if roughly equal to the A8 APU in graphics performance like your charts indicate.

It appears you tested the AMD with the wrong power profile compared to the Intel solutions.
Score
9
May 14, 2012 2:09:58 PM

cknobmanSomething just does not seem right in your review. While I dont argue that Ivy Bridge is certainly the new king of mobile and there is no other competition it seems like your testing of the AMD APU is inaccurate.I noticed in most of the benchmarks that the AMD APU always exhibited really low power consumption usually around 20 watts which is a good 15 watts below its thermal envelope. Plus your game benchmarks are giving the APU very low frame-rates compared to what I have seen in multiple other reviews. There is absolutely no way Intel IGP 3000 if roughly equal to the A8 APU in graphics performance like your charts indicate.It appears you tested the AMD with the wrong power profile compared to the Intel solutions.


I think that the A8 had power savers while the Intels had high performance. At least, that's what this page of this review seems to imply:

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/core-i7-3720qm-ivy-...

Dropping Intel's performance by 50% and their power usage by 40% to 50% would bring them more in line with Llano's power usage and would leave Llano as much more competitive. Unfortunately, Llano does not seem to do as well as the Intel chips do with a high performance profile, so they seem more comparable when they use their power saver profile. Maybe some tweaking could alleviate some of the problems. Either way, Llano is obviously more competitive than let on by this review.

They should have either made this much more clear in each page, or if they were feeling particularly generous, maybe even do it over with the power profiles and power usage during each benchmark kept in mind at each step in the review. As it is now, it does not seem too useful to gauge and compare Llano, Sandy, and Ivy Bridge because of this. Also, with only i7s included from Sandy and Ivy, we don't even know how well Llano stacks up against Intel's competition that's actually in it's own budget range. This review just has a very unfinished feel to it. Come on Tom's, you can do better than this!
Score
6
May 14, 2012 2:37:33 PM

The real question with IB processors is whether Intel will go back to the proven solution for heat dissapation and replace the heat paste it is currently using with the solder. The IB is a great mobile solution, but it may be relegated to being a niche product if Intel decides to stay with its current design over the fluxless solder (which is 20X more efficient at heat dissipation). Unless rectified the SB will predominate with gamers over the IB platform, and Intel's new chip will be a moderate failure. The IB can be super, but only if Intel corrects its design mistake.
Score
0
May 14, 2012 3:19:39 PM

BenchmarkGeniusPeople keep talking about the GPU performance but that is only 5% of the story. I know everyone loves the GPUs but they do little actual work outside of the gaming community (which doesn't use integrated graphics). The real story there was the IvyBridge CPU performing sometimes more than 5x better than APUs and up to 2x better than Sandy. The Adobe test was staggering. Did anyone notice Ivy was 2x better in WinRAR? Holy crap! The quicksync performance is awesome. I am definitely going to get a system with Ivy although I want the 3820 (call me greedy, but an extra 2 MB of cache and another CPU bin is the what the doctor ordered). I will wait for Haswell on the desktop side, but will definitely be upgrading to Ivy on the mobile side.


I recommend that you wait and see how Trinity comes around. By then, it's VCE might be up and running and then we will see if it can stack up against Intel and Nvidia's hardware encoding. Heck, for all we know, it could be even faster than HD 4000 Quick-Sync (maybe, maybe not, but we don't know much about it, let alone how it will perform, so who's to say that it won't be king, even if only for a little while?). Besides, we already knew that the i7s would beat low end APUs in CPU performance. That's just common techy sense.

If you didn't already think that the i7s were several times faster than the APUs in CPU performance even before reading this, I'm kinda surprised.

Also, you can bet that a lot of people will be gaming on these IGPs. Their gaming performance is more than just 5% of the picture here. With Trinity and Haswell supposed to both bring great leaps in IGP performance yet again, IGP gaming is probably going to actually become a fairly common thing, at least compared to its past.
Score
2
May 14, 2012 4:13:01 PM

the bad thing about owning a first gen Core i7 series mobile processor was you didn't have an intergrated IGP to save power when you didn't need to use something heavy on graphics. My Radeon 5730 Mobile kills my battery life and since i'm stuck with a 6 Cell battery because Asus never made a 9 cell battery compatible with my laptop the best i can get out of my laptop is an 1 hour and 55 minutes surfing the net anything gaming or movies and it just sucks the battery life right out of it.
Score
2
May 14, 2012 4:31:41 PM

Intel igp is still the low end can't even match last years amd 6550D igp
it does not couple with a gpu
Trinity will have no competition
As far as 4core cpu is concerned amd & intel cpu are all more than capable though bragging rights go to Intl
and the winner for best all in one solution AMD
Score
-1
May 14, 2012 4:57:09 PM

Great Review Andrew!

Could you provide Idle power numbers for the systems used? I'm curious to see if there is an improvement between the Ivy and Sandy systems when you remove the display and and drive as variables. Thanks.
Score
0
May 14, 2012 5:02:09 PM

trinyIntel igp is still the low end can't even match last years amd 6550D igpit does not couple with a gpu Trinity will have no competitionAs far as 4core cpu is concerned amd & intel cpu are all more than capable though bragging rights go to Intland the winner for best all in one solution AMD


HD 4000 doesn't need to beat the 6550D in gaming performance, it just needed to beat the 6620G and that it does, by a considerable margin too.
Score
-1
Anonymous
May 14, 2012 5:12:45 PM

What in blazes are you talking about Triny? Show me the 6550D benchmark please. The coupling with the GPU thing didn't work so well in the first gen AMD CPUs although that is a nice feature (that only works with AMD cards of course... can't couple with nVidia).
-Trinity will have no competition? Oh noes, a fanboi.
-4core CPUs are all more than capable? Well, I use VisualStudio 10 on mine. If one platform compiles 4x faster than another, guess what, one is considerably more capable than the other. If one is doing photoshop at 5 to 6x the performance of another, then one platform is completely more capable than another. Somehow doint real world tasks gets minimized by you as "more than capble", but you put this enormous premium on doing a few 3D content things faster on AMD as somehow making it a better all around solution?

You are either 12 or no one is paying you to use your computer. If someone is actually giving you money to use your computer, then you want the tasks you do to be done faster. Now cheaper I can see. Saying somehow that a small bump in 3D performance somehow makes one platform the best all around solution though is just plain stupid.
Score
2
May 14, 2012 5:50:13 PM

ivy reached to laptops...haaaaa
Score
1
May 14, 2012 6:05:27 PM

doron said:
The chip is great and everything but.. 378$?! U KIDDING ME?! Intel, you want Ultrabooks to get to the 600-700 dollars range, and if the rest of the lineup is 200+ dollras then I'm afraid manufacturers will have to cut too many corners to hit this target.

These are the high-end units that will be in more robust laptops. I'm pretty sure the smaller ultrabooks will be running LV i3s and maybe i5s
Score
4
May 14, 2012 6:46:56 PM

Something is definitely fishy in this test. How is the 6620G no threat to the HD 3000 when tomsharware's own review of the A8-3500M clearly shows that the Radeon HD 6620G soundly thrashes SB's HD 3000 in pretty much every mobile scenario:
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/a8-3500m-llano-apu,...
So, what exactly has changed here? Every site has the HD 3000 being trounced by the HD 6620G in the mobile space. Something is rotten in Denmark. :( 
Score
4
May 14, 2012 7:06:58 PM

Lol.

First Intel pays off Anandtech to split off the horrendous overclock performance and stock thermals into a separate article.

Now Intel pays off Tom's Hardware to completely fudge tests comparing their $400 mobile processor to a mobile Llano in graphics tests.
Score
-1
May 14, 2012 7:35:29 PM

lol now I understand why when I use APU graphics on my laptop, nothing works as it should. 6620 on APU my ass! Thanks god for dedicated 6650m. Naming suggests only marginal difference, but in reality it's at least twice as fast, when i switch to 6650m. Oh, and no stuttering. only thing I can use apu-6620 graphics is CrossFireX, it helps, although not much
Score
-3
May 14, 2012 7:51:16 PM

I agree that the AMD were most likely set to default in which means "max battery life".

Overall I think that skews the results by much. Intel 3000 graphics are not as good as the a good portion of AMD graphics.
Score
2
May 14, 2012 7:55:05 PM

Benchmarking with MAX Battery profile on AMD? This for real on TH?! Waste of time article thx. Benchmark both on MAX Bat and then MAX Performance. Who cares if AMD doesn't have balanced?! Use the LCD's!
Score
1
May 14, 2012 8:23:12 PM

Quote:
We know that upcoming Trinity-based APUs will include the company's VCE capability, but because that feature isn't even enabled on the Radeon HD 7000-series add-in cards, we don't know how it'll match up.

Is this true? Why would you add VCE to desktop gpu die design, if it's never ever enabled. For FirePro series? Trinity will use cpu and gpu on the same die, so reusing those "standalone" chips is out of the question.
Score
0
May 14, 2012 8:28:54 PM

SuperVelocelol now I understand why when I use APU graphics on my laptop, nothing works as it should. 6620 on APU my ass! Thanks god for dedicated 6650m. Naming suggests only marginal difference, but in reality it's at least twice as fast, when i switch to 6650m. Oh, and no stuttering. only thing I can use apu-6620 graphics is CrossFireX, it helps, although not much


Hmm..I'd be curious to see your evidence on either of those ;) 
Score
2
May 14, 2012 8:31:27 PM

CommunismLol.First Intel pays off Anandtech to split off the horrendous overclock performance and stock thermals into a separate article.Now Intel pays off Tom's Hardware to completely fudge tests comparing their $400 mobile processor to a mobile Llano in graphics tests.


I'd be curious to see your evidence for that ;) 
Score
2
May 14, 2012 8:51:03 PM

Hi Toms editor,

Thanks for the review. However, is it possible to do a separate comparison to an overclocked A8? Llano APUs are well known for having significant overclocking headroom, and it's generally very easy to elevate the stock 1.6 Ghz clock to somewhere between 2.6 to 3.0 Ghz. Doing this will give us overclockers a better sense of where the Llano chip falls in comparison to Intel's chips, but also let us known when is a good time to upgrade.

Thanks!
Score
0
May 14, 2012 8:56:23 PM

blazorthonActually, that clearly shows that the 6620G of the A8s is only marginally better than the HD 3000 and that with the 6630M, the A8s are then closer to twice as fast (some of the time) as the HD3000-using equipped Sandy systems. Keep in mind that the mobile versions of Intel's IGPs are similar to the desktop versions, but the mobile Llano IGPs are much slower than the desktop versions, so on the mobile side, they clash much more, instead of Llano wiping the floor with Intel's IGPs. Trinity will almost certainly let AMD take the lead in mobile graphics IGPs again. Until then, AMD always has the ability to do CF with the IGP and still use similar amounts or even less power than Intel while beating Intel for graphics performance, although Llano clearly can't touch Sandy and Ivy in CPU performance.



Are you sure about that? Looking at the charts on the link you provided, it seems that the A8-3500M with 6620G tends to have anywhere from 25-75% higher FPS than the HD 3000
Score
-1
May 14, 2012 9:00:52 PM

carbonfountainAre you sure about that? Looking at the charts on the link you provided, it seems that the A8-3500M with 6620G tends to have anywhere from 25-75% higher FPS than the HD 3000


I already corrected that.
Score
2
May 14, 2012 9:02:45 PM

4 core APU to 3.0ghz? I hear 2,3-2,5 is max. for everyday use. But I guess it's more of a cooling design problem, if anything. So it could be different between two laptop manufacturers and even between cpus of the same model. I wouldn't let it above 80° celsius for long though.
Score
1
May 14, 2012 9:08:02 PM

SuperVeloceIs this true? Why would you add VCE to desktop gpu die design, if it's never ever enabled. For FirePro series? Trinity will use cpu and gpu on the same die, so reusing those "standalone" chips is out of the question.


VCE is going more or less everywhere because it is a part of the Radeon 7000 series (like Blu-Ray playback with Radeon 6000 cards, even the 6770 and 6750, which are re-brands of the older 5770 and 5750, were upgraded to include features of the Radeon 6000 series, such as the native Blu-Ray playback capability). Also, Quick-Sync is pretty much everywhere at this point, so why not let AMD have VCE everywhere that they can too?
Score
3
May 14, 2012 9:28:58 PM

Yea, I agree with greghome. These results make no sense at all. I thought multiple tests had shown that the HD3000 was considerably slower than the A8, and the HD4000 only brought the performance to about equal levels to high end Llano.
Score
-3
      • 1 / 2
      • 2
      • Newest
!