Featured Articles

IHS teardown reveals Galaxy S5 BOM

IHS teardown reveals Galaxy S5 BOM

Research firm IHS got hold of Samsung’s new flagship smartphone and took it apart to the last bolt to figure out…

More...
Galaxy S5, HTC One M8 available selling well

Galaxy S5, HTC One M8 available selling well

Samsung’s Galaxy S5 has finally gone on sale and it can be yours for €699, which is quite a lot of…

More...
Intel lists Haswell refresh parts

Intel lists Haswell refresh parts

Intel has added a load of Haswell refresh parts to its official price list and there really aren’t any surprises to…

More...
Respawn confirms Titanfall DLC for May

Respawn confirms Titanfall DLC for May

During his appearance at PAX East panel and confirmed on Twitter, Titanfall developer Respawn confirmed that the first DLC pack for…

More...
KFA2 GTX 780 Ti Hall Of Fame reviewed

KFA2 GTX 780 Ti Hall Of Fame reviewed

KFA2 gained a lot of overclocking experience with the GTX 780 Hall of Fame (HOF), which we had a chance to…

More...
Frontpage Slideshow | Copyright © 2006-2010 orks, a business unit of Nuevvo Webware Ltd.
Tuesday, 14 September 2010 09:19

AMD's Zacate APU is faster than Intel's Core i5 CPU

Written by Nick Farell
amd

AMD tries to prove it
AMD has been showing off its codename Zacate CPU/GPU hybrid Fusion chip and had two demonstrations to prove that it would outperform a Intel Core i5 CPU. The move, which is probably designed to put a spoiler on Intel's 32nm Sandy Bridge announcement, is part of the hype AMD wants to have around its new 32nm process chips.

AMD was determined to demonstrate that its latest chips could easily top Intel's last-generation parts. The test involved an unspecified Zacate chip with a pair of Bobcat cores, versus a 2.4-GHz Intel Core i5. AMD refused to say what the speeds of the Zacate chip were.

The first test involved AMD's Zacate challenging the Intel Core i5 with the Microsoft Internet Explorer 9 "Pyschedelic Browsing" demo. As you might expect, the AMD chip kicked Intel's bottom.

Next, AMD played the 2004 NcSoft "City of Heroes" game to get the sense of an average frame rate. The Core i5 version turned out frame rates of about 15 to 20 frames per second, while the Zacate version touched over 30 frames per second.

This would have been impressive if Dadi Perlmutter, executive vice president and co-general manager of the Intel Architecture Group, had not been showing off Sandy Bridge running "Starcraft 2".

Last modified on Tuesday, 14 September 2010 09:34
blog comments powered by Disqus

Comments  

 
+32 #1 hellfire 2010-09-14 09:48
why do they compare ~70mm^2 40nm dualcore aimed to an ultrathin market with a ~225mm^2 32nm 4core\8thread sandy bridge monster and a 81+114mm^2 Arrendale core on 2.4Ghz with a 35W TDP.

They should compare it with smth like i5 540UM on 1.2Ghz within same 18W TDP
 
 
+32 #2 Bl0bb3r 2010-09-14 11:08
Starcraft II's minimum requirements are "GeForce 6600 GT or ATI Radeon® 9800 PRO"... that's 780G graphics. Not that impressive. Basically, Sandy has graphics that AMD had in its chipsets for 3 years now? Yes.

And then there's the thing that Zacate goes after Atom and smaller culv's, not Sandy.
 
 
+29 #3 yourma2000 2010-09-14 12:01
This is quite impressive, it's supposed to be taking on atom based platforms but instead it's outperforming Core i5s, would love to see one of these in a netbook!
 
 
+31 #4 turingpest 2010-09-14 12:11
Sandy Bridge running Starcraft 2 would be impressive had AMD not shown Llano running AVP2 running at around 30fps in DX11...
 
 
+20 #5 leftiszi 2010-09-14 12:29
"AMD was determined to demonstrate that its latest chips could easily top Intel's LAST-GENERATION" parts"

Nice downplay there.

Still, we don't know which Core i5 was used. There are many.

Starcraft 2 on the other hand, is primarily CPU limited, so Intel may had an edge there.
 
 
-27 #6 Naterm 2010-09-14 12:44
Yeah, everyone knows the graphics part in the Arrandale chips sucks. That said, intel does have on-package graphics for sale and AMD still doesn't after four years of talking about it.

Not to mention the clock for clock, watt for watt CPU performance of the i5 is likely better. Notice they didn't do any transcode tests.

Any company can pick and choose benchmarks that they'll win, but it's not necessarily indicative of complete performance. AMD even had benches of Barcelona beating intel's quad core Xeons.
 
 
+11 #7 agent_47 2010-09-14 14:06
@naterm: wow!. you are something....considering ur comparing watt for watt CPU performance of the i5 with 18W low end cpu...lol
btw...where is it's atoms + GPU platform. o right. its atleast a year later.

@leftizi: as much as i agree with you. i am afraid without the specification of the two platform ie: clock, core, etc. it is not possible to make a judgement. but given its a 18W cpu, it is quite something
 
 
+8 #8 Alexko 2010-09-14 14:09
Quoting turingpest:
Sandy Bridge running Starcraft 2 would be impressive had AMD not shown Llano running AVP2 running at around 30fps in DX11...


Actually, that was Zacate.
 
 
+6 #9 turingpest 2010-09-14 16:17
Quoting Alexko:
Quoting turingpest:
Sandy Bridge running Starcraft 2 would be impressive had AMD not shown Llano running AVP2 running at around 30fps in DX11...


Actually, that was Zacate.


damn, forgot that. sorry. it was ontario not llano. and after checking a couple of links it seems that it was running at 60fps, not 30. which is even more impressive.

now, just imagine what llano will do against sandy bridge in starcrap 2.
 
 
+6 #10 leftiszi 2010-09-14 17:10
Here is the video guys
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XH5A4D9qoDQ

can someone post the AvP video? thx
 

To be able to post comments please log-in with Disqus

 

Facebook activity

Latest Commented Articles

Recent Comments