AMD is doing the same thing in this space that Intel did with Ivy Bridge -- the competition just isn't there, so it's barely an improvement on the status quo. Too bad.
30 million units?! That's awesome for AMD. How does that compare to Atom? Or even LGA1155 Celeron units? They've carved out a big niche, that's for sure!
>AMD is doing the same thing in this space that Intel did with Ivy Bridge
This is complete nonsense. The two situations are not remotely comparable. IVB is a huge improvement in performance/watt (and a modest improvement in net performance), it is *not* a re-branded SNB.
Wow you are wrong Taft in so many ways... Intel did all it dared to do with Ivy Bridge while still trying to get it out on time. They had to do a die shrink which at these levels is crazy hard. Ya notice that Ivy Bridge low power is just coming out. With ARM biting at their heels, do you think they wanted their low power stuff to come out this late? Oh, silly person who likes to spout words.
Yeah, and Intel appears to be phasing out Atom in this segment, as the goal has always been to get Atom into the handheld space. If Intel really wanted, they could probably offer a dual core 2GHZ+ IVB with HD 3000 at 18W or less and it would be all over for Brazos 2.0.
"If Intel really wanted, they could probably offer a dual core 2GHZ+ IVB with HD 3000 at 18W"
Uh, they already do. Ivy Bridge in ultrabooks with HD 4000 at 17W to be exact. Compared to IVB, Brazos is clearly DOA if not for price.
Compared to Atom... well who cares if Brazos is faster? I agree with you, Atom is destined for tablets and handhelds. Sub 6W TDP and dropping. Brazos is chasing a netbook market that no longer exists.
They lose money because out of 30 million of these sold, probably 10 million went into 15.6"+ size notebooks which stores like Best Buy tried to sell at normal laptop prices. Obviously anyone who pays "full price" for a notebook expects to get a full featured notebook, not some cut down atom competitor. Atom was bad but at least it never made it into rows and rows of 15.6" notebooks in stores.
Guess how many AMD chips these people are likely to buy in the future? Not many. That's right, AMD shot themselves in the foot. If they had at least put in an SSD controller, the display controllers, and some USB ports on the CPU die then they could have shifted this market towards SSDs. Why do I say that? Because if an oem has to choose between
a) $40 of NAND or b) $20 for a FCH plus $30 for a cheap crap 5400 rpm HDD,
they're going to pick the NAND and just skip the FCH entirely. And in doing so, each and every brazos machine would have been guaranteed a very snappy user experience, creating future demand and even higher ASPs.
But no, they blew their shot and blew their foot off. They are not going sell nearly as many of these in the future. Because a 15.6" cheap crap notebook with a $30 320GB slow-as-dirt HDD is almost as agonizing and aggravating to use as an atom netbook.
Ha ha, sure, just like people who buy Celeron-based laptops won't buy Intel chips in the future. I have a Brazos notebook (Lenovo X130e) and it is much, much more responsive than Atom netbooks I have tried. If it's good enough for me, it's more than good enough for the average consumer. AMD hardly "blew their foot off."
What the heck are you talking about? FCH is the chipset. You still need a chipset, buying "$40 of NAND" doesn't eliminate the need for that. HDD vs SSD has nothing to do with it. You still need a CPU, chipset (such as the FCH), and everything else. Then, ON TOP OF THAT, you add an SSD (which is more than just a pile of NAND) or a HDD. For budget laptops models, you're not going to be able to put in a large enough SSD to satisfy users. HDD is the way to go for these sub-$400 models, unfortunetely.
Also, suggesting that they build an SSD controller into the CPU is foolish at this juncture.
Cause their APU's are all cheap so they don't make much profit. They probably have to sell 10 of them to get the profit Intel gets from a single IVY Bridge chip.
When will AMD start to include dual channel in these things? I am sure the integrated graphics can definitely make use of the extra memory bandwidth.
Maybe AT can run a bench on these IGP CPUs with a single vs dual channel memory setup to see how much difference it makes to GPU related activities (games, specifically).
Hold on now... just because Llano benefits by 55% on average going from single-channel to dual-channel doesn't mean the same thing would happen with Brazos.
Llano has a CPU core that's roughly twice as fast per core at similar clock speeds (e.g. E-350 1.6GHz vs. A8-3500M 1.5GHz + Turbo Core), and it's about three times as fast in heavily threaded tests thanks to having twice as many cores (http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/335?vs=385)... More importantly, the GPU core in Llano is up to FOUR TIMES (!) more powerful than the GPU in Brazos (80 cores @ 500MHz vs. 400 cores @ 444MHz).
AMD's engineers aren't stupid. I'd guess the reason Brazos isn't dual-channel is that AMD ran simulations in software before completing the design and determined that adding dual-channel support wasn't a good choice. It might have been cost-ineffective in terms of die size, power, and/or performance; for example,on a 75mm^2 chip, adding the second memory channel would bump up the pin count (and thus package size) by something like 200 pins. Even if the die size doesn't increase much, that makes the package size probably 50% larger. (FT1 is a BGA-413 socket; that means 413 pins, so you'd need around 600+ for dual-channel if I'm not mistaken.)
I'm not sure you can even fit a dual channel controller on a chip that small. Some quick paper napkin numbers indicate that you might be pad limited coming off of the die, which could only be fixed by making the die bigger altogether.
There's little need in my experience for GPU improvement in these chips considering the slow CPU.
I ran City of Heroes on an E-350 (at low graphical setting), and I get about the same (low) frame rate at 1080p that I get at the notebook's native 1366x768. So CPU bottlenecked to the extreme even with such a weak GPU. So better GPU performance will basically let you up the graphics settings a bit while retaining the low performance. Nice, but not that helpful.
it's a pitty that they didn't bring real brazos 2.0, perhaps we will see a new version on the node shift once mature enough. The E2-1800 will be a very good netbook....
On the other hand lets see what trinity 17-18W series will bring to the table, although they will be more expensive they probably have a way better performance
It's a shame that AMD cancelled it and opted for slightly speed-bumped versions of their current architecture. It's not too dissimilar to Atom in this regard - release a new albeit pretty much unchanged generation, possibly with a couple of tweaks here and there to reduce power usage. One can only hope there's an E2-2000 or 2200 on the roadmap somewhere, however until next year (and a new process) there's not a real point in AMD throwing out a much faster Zacate.
I did think "Why not just make a single-core K10.5?" but realised that one single K10.5 core is probably larger than the entire Zacate die. Still, it'd crush Zacate, let alone Atom.
You might not like it, but this is good for the OEM and AMD shareholders as this product remove some of the shortcommings, while keeping cost down. Dropping 28nm conversion was an excellent move. 2013 we will se the new stuff on a mature process with lower cost than now. But i guess this cheap dude, will continue to sell for years, as all the cost is depreciated and 40nm will become even cheaper. x86 for all the world :) 30M is facts that speak for themselves, but it should have been the double. But there is still much left in this platform, its just turning a cash cow.
"If you’re a little depressed about the rebranding of the Brazos Zacate as Brazos 2.0, you’re not alone. This looks like a marketing driven move, particularly with the HD 7000 branding of the GPUs."
=> It's not marketing driven. Its strategic driven by the new CEO.
The reason Brazos 2.0 exists is because AMD is using it as a "delaying product" in order to buy their engineers time for the 2013 line: Kabini APU. (It also provides time for their manufacturing providers to transition to the 28nm process.)
2013: Kabini * 2 to 4 cores. * "Jaguar" cores. (Next major evolution to "Bobcat"). * iGPU moves to GCN architecture. * 28nm manufacturing process.
Originally, they were to release “Krishna” (2 to 4 cores) and “Wichita” (up to 2 cores) APUs in 2012. These were nothing more than 28nm die-shrinks of the existing Brazos platform. They wouldn't have offered anything new from an architectural standpoint. (No "Jaguar" cores. No GCN for iGPU side). Since 28nm process wasn't happening for this low-cost market as scheduled, they cancelled them.
Overall, don't waste your money with 2012 lines from AMD. They are largely superficial improvements to buy time and breathing space for engineers to focus on 2013 lines.
The Vishera (Piledriver-based) or 2nd generation FX CPU; does not get replaced in 2013. It actually sticks around with Socket AM3+ in 2013...Because the 3rd generation FX (Steamroller) and its new socket format comes in 2014.
* Mainstream APUs (A-series) will be revision 1 of the new architecture. * Performance CPUs (FX/Opteron-series) will be revision 2.
2015 * A-series APU => Unknown next generation based architecture (Revision 1) * FX-series CPU => Excavator-based (Revision 2)
This is AMD's "Tick-Tock" model. Instead of die-shrink and new architecture focus, they're doing it with different platforms. Their focus is for the mainstream APU (A-series) to play as the reference or "guinea pig" for the new architecture; while their performance CPUs (FX/Opteron-series) will receive the matured revisions.
"It's not marketing driven. Its strategic driven by the new CEO."
What's the difference? In either case, the result is the same: AMD is rereleasing an existing product with a minor clock speed bump and a new name in order to increase interest from buyers. (Why wants to buy "last year's product" this year? Oh, but wait -- E2-1800 is new!)
Naming is also quite odd; E1-1200 seems like it should be E1-1400 and E2-1800 should be E2-1700. I know they're just model names and are arbitrary, but given the model numbers are close to the clocks why not just have them the same? Because that's also marketing: make the E2 sound a lot faster than an E1.
Every 200-step is 100MHz in CPU speed. Despite that faster GPU, however, it's not really going to improve too much on the E-450, even if it IS 4x the numbering sequence. ;)
The product is not released because of marketing. They are released because it makes sense for the OEM business. So yes its strategic driven. The diference is the product is here. If AMD was porting to 28nm as fast as possible it would not have happened. The strategic context is interesting, and should get attention, the naming is the same old story.
Regarding the naming we better get used to the same renaming nonsense as everyone elses practices,- and these names a truly idiotic and manipulating - as probably the oem wants. But the buyers of these product hardly cares of the name. And cares if tis cgn 28 whatever as if that should have any importance at all for that segment.
Why didnt they jsut put the FCH in the cpu die. It is only a single channel memory bus. Surely they could create a fairly full featured SoC and still keep the pin count under 800.
AMD should have done more than just rebrand. I guess when they let go of all the marketing folks, they kept the cheaper, lower performing models.
I agree that the 15.6" laptop space is not where these should have shown up unless it was incredibly thin. I believe those first Windows 7 tablets should have came with these instead of Atoms for Dell and HP.
I am glad that AMD is pushing the process to give more performance, but in truth it should have been named an E - 500.
Brazos 2.0 should have been a process/die shrink if the architecture was untouched.
I'm surprised at AMD keeping at the same process, too. Ordinarily, you'd have a noticable architectural change, or a process change, sometimes even both... but in this case you can't really say they've made either. True, it'll use less power per clock, and they've been able to bump clocks up overall, but the arguments will generally centre around relative performance when compared to a much faster CPU, and the amount of time said CPU spends at idle after completing a certain task in a significantly faster amount of time. If system A is twice the price, but idles at a similar power and completes a task three times faster, it's going to use less power overall, but is it worth the extra cost?
Until we get reviews, there's no real indication of power usage, but it can only be a slight improvement, surely? Would 32nm have been better?
Who was going to do the die shrink? TSMC can barely give what AMD and Nvidia wants for their GPU's which are much more profitable then low and stuff like Brazos.
The system is generally responsive and I can actually play games like TF2, Civ5 (small and medium maps), Portal 2, etc.
I can also watch 1080p movies on VLC/MPC-HC and on YouTube. I even tried a +19GB version of Avatar (by EbP) and it worked flawlessly. I'm personally not going to feed it with that kind of material often, but it's good to know that it actually works if I need it.
The problem comes when CPU intensive stuff comes along.
Flash is SUPER-taxing. Playing CivWorld is ok, but if you have two CivWorld windows open at the same time or CivWorld and a YouTube video or anything else that uses a lot of CPU... you're a goner.
The performance in general is ok, specially for it's price, consumption and size, but expect the CPU performance to be low. I'm sure that the only reason 1080p videos are working is thanks to the GPU, because the CPU performance is VERY sub-par, although enough for light work.
We’ve updated our terms. By continuing to use the site and/or by logging into your account, you agree to the Site’s updated Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
31 Comments
Back to Article
Taft12 - Tuesday, June 5, 2012 - link
AMD is doing the same thing in this space that Intel did with Ivy Bridge -- the competition just isn't there, so it's barely an improvement on the status quo. Too bad.30 million units?! That's awesome for AMD. How does that compare to Atom? Or even LGA1155 Celeron units? They've carved out a big niche, that's for sure!
meloz - Tuesday, June 5, 2012 - link
>AMD is doing the same thing in this space that Intel did with Ivy BridgeThis is complete nonsense. The two situations are not remotely comparable. IVB is a huge improvement in performance/watt (and a modest improvement in net performance), it is *not* a re-branded SNB.
nicmonson - Wednesday, June 6, 2012 - link
Wow you are wrong Taft in so many ways...Intel did all it dared to do with Ivy Bridge while still trying to get it out on time. They had to do a die shrink which at these levels is crazy hard. Ya notice that Ivy Bridge low power is just coming out. With ARM biting at their heels, do you think they wanted their low power stuff to come out this late? Oh, silly person who likes to spout words.
iwod - Tuesday, June 5, 2012 - link
Then why is AMD continue to lose money.MrSpadge - Wednesday, June 6, 2012 - link
Because they don't cost much -> low absolute profit per unti.MonkeyPaw - Wednesday, June 6, 2012 - link
Yeah, and Intel appears to be phasing out Atom in this segment, as the goal has always been to get Atom into the handheld space. If Intel really wanted, they could probably offer a dual core 2GHZ+ IVB with HD 3000 at 18W or less and it would be all over for Brazos 2.0.mabellon - Wednesday, June 6, 2012 - link
"If Intel really wanted, they could probably offer a dual core 2GHZ+ IVB with HD 3000 at 18W"Uh, they already do. Ivy Bridge in ultrabooks with HD 4000 at 17W to be exact. Compared to IVB, Brazos is clearly DOA if not for price.
Compared to Atom... well who cares if Brazos is faster? I agree with you, Atom is destined for tablets and handhelds. Sub 6W TDP and dropping. Brazos is chasing a netbook market that no longer exists.
Shadowmaster625 - Wednesday, June 6, 2012 - link
They lose money because out of 30 million of these sold, probably 10 million went into 15.6"+ size notebooks which stores like Best Buy tried to sell at normal laptop prices. Obviously anyone who pays "full price" for a notebook expects to get a full featured notebook, not some cut down atom competitor. Atom was bad but at least it never made it into rows and rows of 15.6" notebooks in stores.Guess how many AMD chips these people are likely to buy in the future? Not many. That's right, AMD shot themselves in the foot. If they had at least put in an SSD controller, the display controllers, and some USB ports on the CPU die then they could have shifted this market towards SSDs. Why do I say that? Because if an oem has to choose between
a) $40 of NAND
or
b) $20 for a FCH plus $30 for a cheap crap 5400 rpm HDD,
they're going to pick the NAND and just skip the FCH entirely. And in doing so, each and every brazos machine would have been guaranteed a very snappy user experience, creating future demand and even higher ASPs.
But no, they blew their shot and blew their foot off. They are not going sell nearly as many of these in the future. Because a 15.6" cheap crap notebook with a $30 320GB slow-as-dirt HDD is almost as agonizing and aggravating to use as an atom netbook.
Old_Fogie_Late_Bloomer - Wednesday, June 6, 2012 - link
Ha ha, sure, just like people who buy Celeron-based laptops won't buy Intel chips in the future. I have a Brazos notebook (Lenovo X130e) and it is much, much more responsive than Atom netbooks I have tried. If it's good enough for me, it's more than good enough for the average consumer. AMD hardly "blew their foot off."Alexvrb - Wednesday, June 6, 2012 - link
What the heck are you talking about? FCH is the chipset. You still need a chipset, buying "$40 of NAND" doesn't eliminate the need for that. HDD vs SSD has nothing to do with it. You still need a CPU, chipset (such as the FCH), and everything else. Then, ON TOP OF THAT, you add an SSD (which is more than just a pile of NAND) or a HDD. For budget laptops models, you're not going to be able to put in a large enough SSD to satisfy users. HDD is the way to go for these sub-$400 models, unfortunetely.Also, suggesting that they build an SSD controller into the CPU is foolish at this juncture.
Jumangi - Wednesday, June 6, 2012 - link
Cause their APU's are all cheap so they don't make much profit. They probably have to sell 10 of them to get the profit Intel gets from a single IVY Bridge chip.XZerg - Tuesday, June 5, 2012 - link
When will AMD start to include dual channel in these things? I am sure the integrated graphics can definitely make use of the extra memory bandwidth.Maybe AT can run a bench on these IGP CPUs with a single vs dual channel memory setup to see how much difference it makes to GPU related activities (games, specifically).
XZerg - Wednesday, June 6, 2012 - link
I found a bench:http://forum.notebookreview.com/gaming-software-gr...
Wow!!! it is over 50% hit for using single channel. That really begs the question - why won't they just include dual channel support?
veri745 - Wednesday, June 6, 2012 - link
If by "over 50%", you actually mean "up to 42%", then yes.I'm guessing they don't include dual channel support on Brazos because the die only has a single DDR controller.
JarredWalton - Wednesday, June 6, 2012 - link
Hold on now... just because Llano benefits by 55% on average going from single-channel to dual-channel doesn't mean the same thing would happen with Brazos.Llano has a CPU core that's roughly twice as fast per core at similar clock speeds (e.g. E-350 1.6GHz vs. A8-3500M 1.5GHz + Turbo Core), and it's about three times as fast in heavily threaded tests thanks to having twice as many cores (http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/335?vs=385)... More importantly, the GPU core in Llano is up to FOUR TIMES (!) more powerful than the GPU in Brazos (80 cores @ 500MHz vs. 400 cores @ 444MHz).
AMD's engineers aren't stupid. I'd guess the reason Brazos isn't dual-channel is that AMD ran simulations in software before completing the design and determined that adding dual-channel support wasn't a good choice. It might have been cost-ineffective in terms of die size, power, and/or performance; for example,on a 75mm^2 chip, adding the second memory channel would bump up the pin count (and thus package size) by something like 200 pins. Even if the die size doesn't increase much, that makes the package size probably 50% larger. (FT1 is a BGA-413 socket; that means 413 pins, so you'd need around 600+ for dual-channel if I'm not mistaken.)
Ryan Smith - Wednesday, June 6, 2012 - link
I'm not sure you can even fit a dual channel controller on a chip that small. Some quick paper napkin numbers indicate that you might be pad limited coming off of the die, which could only be fixed by making the die bigger altogether.TheinsanegamerN - Wednesday, July 17, 2013 - link
the lenovo x131e with amd's brazos chip has 2 ram slots. it can run the ram in dual channel.ET - Wednesday, June 6, 2012 - link
There's little need in my experience for GPU improvement in these chips considering the slow CPU.I ran City of Heroes on an E-350 (at low graphical setting), and I get about the same (low) frame rate at 1080p that I get at the notebook's native 1366x768. So CPU bottlenecked to the extreme even with such a weak GPU. So better GPU performance will basically let you up the graphics settings a bit while retaining the low performance. Nice, but not that helpful.
ET - Wednesday, June 6, 2012 - link
I agree that a more minor naming change would have been in order. Looks like E-350 to E-450 was more of a change.duploxxx - Wednesday, June 6, 2012 - link
it's a pitty that they didn't bring real brazos 2.0, perhaps we will see a new version on the node shift once mature enough. The E2-1800 will be a very good netbook....On the other hand lets see what trinity 17-18W series will bring to the table, although they will be more expensive they probably have a way better performance
silverblue - Wednesday, June 6, 2012 - link
It's a shame that AMD cancelled it and opted for slightly speed-bumped versions of their current architecture. It's not too dissimilar to Atom in this regard - release a new albeit pretty much unchanged generation, possibly with a couple of tweaks here and there to reduce power usage. One can only hope there's an E2-2000 or 2200 on the roadmap somewhere, however until next year (and a new process) there's not a real point in AMD throwing out a much faster Zacate.I did think "Why not just make a single-core K10.5?" but realised that one single K10.5 core is probably larger than the entire Zacate die. Still, it'd crush Zacate, let alone Atom.
krumme - Wednesday, June 6, 2012 - link
You might not like it, but this is good for the OEM and AMD shareholders as this product remove some of the shortcommings, while keeping cost down. Dropping 28nm conversion was an excellent move. 2013 we will se the new stuff on a mature process with lower cost than now. But i guess this cheap dude, will continue to sell for years, as all the cost is depreciated and 40nm will become even cheaper. x86 for all the world :) 30M is facts that speak for themselves, but it should have been the double. But there is still much left in this platform, its just turning a cash cow.stmok - Wednesday, June 6, 2012 - link
"If you’re a little depressed about the rebranding of the Brazos Zacate as Brazos 2.0, you’re not alone. This looks like a marketing driven move, particularly with the HD 7000 branding of the GPUs."=> It's not marketing driven. Its strategic driven by the new CEO.
The reason Brazos 2.0 exists is because AMD is using it as a "delaying product" in order to buy their engineers time for the 2013 line: Kabini APU. (It also provides time for their manufacturing providers to transition to the 28nm process.)
2013: Kabini
* 2 to 4 cores.
* "Jaguar" cores. (Next major evolution to "Bobcat").
* iGPU moves to GCN architecture.
* 28nm manufacturing process.
Originally, they were to release “Krishna” (2 to 4 cores) and “Wichita” (up to 2 cores) APUs in 2012. These were nothing more than 28nm die-shrinks of the existing Brazos platform. They wouldn't have offered anything new from an architectural standpoint. (No "Jaguar" cores. No GCN for iGPU side). Since 28nm process wasn't happening for this low-cost market as scheduled, they cancelled them.
Overall, don't waste your money with 2012 lines from AMD. They are largely superficial improvements to buy time and breathing space for engineers to focus on 2013 lines.
2012 => 2013
Brazos 2.0 => Kabini (Jaguar-based APU)
Trinity => Kaveri (Streamroller-based APU)
The Vishera (Piledriver-based) or 2nd generation FX CPU; does not get replaced in 2013. It actually sticks around with Socket AM3+ in 2013...Because the 3rd generation FX (Steamroller) and its new socket format comes in 2014.
* Mainstream APUs (A-series) will be revision 1 of the new architecture.
* Performance CPUs (FX/Opteron-series) will be revision 2.
ie:
2012
* Trinity APU => Piledriver-based (Revision 1)
* Vishera CPU => Piledriver-based (Revision 2)
2013
* Kaveri APU => Steamroller-based (Revision 1)
* Vishera CPU => Piledriver-based (Revision 2)
2014
* A-series APU => Excavator-based (Revision 1)
* FX-series CPU => Steamroller-based (Revision 2)
2015
* A-series APU => Unknown next generation based architecture (Revision 1)
* FX-series CPU => Excavator-based (Revision 2)
This is AMD's "Tick-Tock" model. Instead of die-shrink and new architecture focus, they're doing it with different platforms. Their focus is for the mainstream APU (A-series) to play as the reference or "guinea pig" for the new architecture; while their performance CPUs (FX/Opteron-series) will receive the matured revisions.
JarredWalton - Wednesday, June 6, 2012 - link
"It's not marketing driven. Its strategic driven by the new CEO."What's the difference? In either case, the result is the same: AMD is rereleasing an existing product with a minor clock speed bump and a new name in order to increase interest from buyers. (Why wants to buy "last year's product" this year? Oh, but wait -- E2-1800 is new!)
Naming is also quite odd; E1-1200 seems like it should be E1-1400 and E2-1800 should be E2-1700. I know they're just model names and are arbitrary, but given the model numbers are close to the clocks why not just have them the same? Because that's also marketing: make the E2 sound a lot faster than an E1.
silverblue - Wednesday, June 6, 2012 - link
Every 200-step is 100MHz in CPU speed. Despite that faster GPU, however, it's not really going to improve too much on the E-450, even if it IS 4x the numbering sequence. ;)krumme - Wednesday, June 6, 2012 - link
The product is not released because of marketing. They are released because it makes sense for the OEM business. So yes its strategic driven. The diference is the product is here. If AMD was porting to 28nm as fast as possible it would not have happened. The strategic context is interesting, and should get attention, the naming is the same old story.Regarding the naming we better get used to the same renaming nonsense as everyone elses practices,- and these names a truly idiotic and manipulating - as probably the oem wants. But the buyers of these product hardly cares of the name. And cares if tis cgn 28 whatever as if that should have any importance at all for that segment.
Shadowmaster625 - Wednesday, June 6, 2012 - link
Why didnt they jsut put the FCH in the cpu die. It is only a single channel memory bus. Surely they could create a fairly full featured SoC and still keep the pin count under 800.eanazag - Wednesday, June 6, 2012 - link
AMD should have done more than just rebrand. I guess when they let go of all the marketing folks, they kept the cheaper, lower performing models.I agree that the 15.6" laptop space is not where these should have shown up unless it was incredibly thin. I believe those first Windows 7 tablets should have came with these instead of Atoms for Dell and HP.
I am glad that AMD is pushing the process to give more performance, but in truth it should have been named an E - 500.
Brazos 2.0 should have been a process/die shrink if the architecture was untouched.
silverblue - Wednesday, June 6, 2012 - link
I'm surprised at AMD keeping at the same process, too. Ordinarily, you'd have a noticable architectural change, or a process change, sometimes even both... but in this case you can't really say they've made either. True, it'll use less power per clock, and they've been able to bump clocks up overall, but the arguments will generally centre around relative performance when compared to a much faster CPU, and the amount of time said CPU spends at idle after completing a certain task in a significantly faster amount of time. If system A is twice the price, but idles at a similar power and completes a task three times faster, it's going to use less power overall, but is it worth the extra cost?Until we get reviews, there's no real indication of power usage, but it can only be a slight improvement, surely? Would 32nm have been better?
Jumangi - Wednesday, June 6, 2012 - link
Who was going to do the die shrink? TSMC can barely give what AMD and Nvidia wants for their GPU's which are much more profitable then low and stuff like Brazos.heffeque - Wednesday, June 6, 2012 - link
I have an E-450 on a Zotac AD04 with 8 GB of RAM.The system is generally responsive and I can actually play games like TF2, Civ5 (small and medium maps), Portal 2, etc.
I can also watch 1080p movies on VLC/MPC-HC and on YouTube. I even tried a +19GB version of Avatar (by EbP) and it worked flawlessly. I'm personally not going to feed it with that kind of material often, but it's good to know that it actually works if I need it.
The problem comes when CPU intensive stuff comes along.
Flash is SUPER-taxing. Playing CivWorld is ok, but if you have two CivWorld windows open at the same time or CivWorld and a YouTube video or anything else that uses a lot of CPU... you're a goner.
The performance in general is ok, specially for it's price, consumption and size, but expect the CPU performance to be low. I'm sure that the only reason 1080p videos are working is thanks to the GPU, because the CPU performance is VERY sub-par, although enough for light work.