Quote:
Originally Posted by Sasquach
Llano = Phenom II cores (its more like Athlon II) + GPU = A series
Bulldozer = Bulldozer cores(modules) = FX series
Any GPU comparison used in that chart is Bulldozer(CPU) + discrete GPU (The radeon 6670 in the slide's case), SB(CPU) + ondie GPU (Intel HD graphics 2000/3000), Llano (Phenom II CPU) + ondie GPU (Radeon 6550).
Bulldozer cores will replace the Phenom II cores in the fusion APU's later on
|
Then the WHOLE comparison is bunk. AMD has broken a cardinal law of acceptability and is now PROVEN no better then Intel or Nvidia for making misleading comparisons. The cardinal law of LIKE COMPARISON, meaning you compare iGPU against iGPU, never discreet versus integrated and then claim victory for graphics on the discreet, but then saying it means your product is faster when it's CLEARLY not.
In fact, Bulldozer without an iGPU is INFERIOR to Sandy Bridge. A 2600K will happily serve a top end gaming rig OR an HTPC with it's integrated GPU, something the Bulldozer FAILS at. It has to fall back on the old "use an external GPU". Inferior. The more I see, the more I think Bulldozer is a waste of time. Flexibility is a majorly valid feature for broad sales of a chip. Bulldozer is a step back for AMD. The iGPU is totally necessary to make up for AMD's weak ass FPU on Bulldozer. And yes, when it comes to general use opposed to optimized code, Bulldozer looks to have inferior legacy x87 performance and is totally reliant on SIMD/MIMD to offset that.