Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
AMD Graphics Hardware

AMD Demos Llano Fusion APU, Radeon 6800 Series 116

Posted by timothy
from the onward-ever-onward dept.
MojoKid writes "At a press event for the impending launch of AMD's new Radeon HD 6870 and HD 6850 series graphics cards, the company took the opportunity to provide an early look at the first, fully functional samples of their upcoming 'Llano' processor, or APU (Applications Processer Unit). For those unfamiliar with Llano, it's 32nm 'Fusion' product that integrates CPU, GPU, and Northbridge functions on a single die. The chip is a low-power derivative of the company's current Phenom II architecture fused with a GPU that will target a wide range of operating environments at speeds of 3GHz or higher. Test systems showed the integrated GPU had no trouble running Alien vs. Predator at a moderate resolution with DirectX 11 features enabled. In terms of the Radeon 6800 series, board shots have been unveiled today, as well as scenes from AMD's upcoming tech demo, Mecha Warrior, showcasing the new graphics technology and advanced effects from the open source Bullet Physics library."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

AMD Demos Llano Fusion APU, Radeon 6800 Series

Comments Filter:
  • Deceiving? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by mykos (1627575) on Tuesday October 19, 2010 @07:12PM (#33955272)
    I have a feeling that people who buy expensive pieces of hardware have tendency to do at least one web search or pop at least one question off at an internet forum about products before they buy. It's not like AMD is putting the or anything... [overclock.net]
  • Re:Deceiving? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by mykos (1627575) on Tuesday October 19, 2010 @07:13PM (#33955288)
    Wow HTML fail on my part...what I mean to say is "It's not like AMD is putting the same chip with the same everything into four generations of parts or anything"
  • by PopeRatzo (965947) * on Tuesday October 19, 2010 @08:06PM (#33955718) Homepage Journal

    Evidently, they decided that they needed to trim costs more than increase FPS

    That's a nice way of saying "give the consumer less".

  • by Rockoon (1252108) on Tuesday October 19, 2010 @08:23PM (#33955846)
    There is also the problem that the poster is measuring performance based on some single metric (presumably FPS in some game) which doesnt necessarily mean much.

    Many years ago I upgraded from a Voodoo 3 to GeForce 4 Ti 4600, and for more than a few games that GF4 was slower in FPS than the Voodoo at first (but still more than fast enough for gaming.)

    This was at a time when games were almost strictly simple textured polygon throwers, which was the Voodoo 3's only strength. As the use of multi-texturing became more prevalent (heavily used in terrain splatting.. [google.com]), the advantages of the GF4 over the voodoo became apparent as more scene detail became essentially free, whereas that voodoo required many rendering passes to accomplish the same thing.

    Now I'm not saying I know that this generation of AMD gpu's will experience the same sort of future-benefits as that GeForce 4 did, especially since DX10/DX11 really isnt having a rapid uptake, but there could easily be design choices here that favor DX11 features that just arent being heavily used yet.

    The question is not 'is the 6870 slower than that 5870?' in some specific benchmark. The question is, which is these cards will provide a solid gaming platform for the most games. As with my experience, that voodoo performed better than the GF4 for while.. but for the newest games the GF4 kept providing a good experience whereas that voodoo became completely unacceptable.
  • by mykos (1627575) on Tuesday October 19, 2010 @09:03PM (#33956122)
    Getting more than 0 FPS at any resolution with those features enabled already puts it ahead of any integrated graphics solution on the marke--and they're doing it at super low wattage. If it can run AVP that well, it could run anything from 2008 and earlier (save for Crysis) extremely well.

    That's at least 90% of all the games in history released for PC on an integrated graphics processor. Pretty amazing if you ask me.
  • by gman003 (1693318) on Tuesday October 19, 2010 @09:37PM (#33956302)
    Giving the consumer less, but also charging them less. Since very, very few people actually needed the top-of-the-line model of recent cards, it makes some amount of sense.
  • by Chris Burke (6130) on Tuesday October 19, 2010 @11:01PM (#33956894) Homepage

    The idea AMD is going for here, and I think there's some merit to it, is a low range desktop type of system. People who want something cheap, but still want to play games. Intel's integrated chips don't work that well for that (though they've improved) so this is to try and fill the market.

    Think more mid-to-high-end laptops.

    As mentioned in the summary, this is a low-power version of the Phenom II. Not an ultra-low power for consumer electronics or netbooks like Atom or AMD's Bobcat, but still solidly aimed at the mobile market. It provides all the power and cost advantages of a UMA solution plus gets rid of one of the system buses for more savings, while providing good-for-a-laptop graphics without having to significantly re-engineer the motherboard or cooling solution. This is still in theory; demonstrations of engineering samples are nice, but it'll be interesting once the reviewers get their hands on some.

    Of course you're also right, since cost and power usage are relevant for desktop. Just not as much, since you're not dealing with battery life, or the form factor that make it difficult to work with discreet graphics. A single line of UMA-based motherboards with optional pci-e graphics card can serve multiple markets with one design and acceptable margins.

  • by Joce640k (829181) on Wednesday October 20, 2010 @12:14AM (#33957314) Homepage

    You forgot the 9700 era, ATI totally owned NVIDIA then.

    And the current era, they totally own that.

  • by Lonewolf666 (259450) on Wednesday October 20, 2010 @03:27PM (#33965914)

    Those who are interested in fast cars will usually make sure to buy the biggest engine (GPU/CPU) they can afford.
    Your average ricer kids (gaming nerds) are also likely to obsess about technical details and be at least somewhat well informed.
    They might also decorate the car (PC) with lots of spoilers (LED-illuminated fans).
    And then they go drag racing (comparing benchmarks ;-)

When you don't know what you are doing, do it neatly.

Working...