AMD's Fusion APU Pitted Against 21 Desktop CPUs

crookedvulture writes "When AMD unveiled the Bobcat CPU architecture behind its first Fusion APUs, the company claimed its Atom-killer would achieve 90% of the performance of mainstream desktop processors. But does it? This article compares the AMD E-350's performance to more than 20 desktop CPUs between $87 and $999 to find out, and the results aren't particularly encouraging. Although Fusion offers much better integrated graphics than Intel's latest Atom, neither stands much chance of keeping up with even low-end desktop CPUs. The E-350 does offer very low power consumption and impressive platform integration, making it a good choice for home-theater PCs and mobile systems. Desktop users are better off waiting for Llano, a Fusion iteration due out this spring."

Wow, Biased Summary Much?

[Alphanos]

Ok wait, so AMD's next-gen "atom-killer" successfully trumps Intel's next-gen Atom, but "the results aren't particularly encouraging" because it doesn't also beat full-fledged desktop processors? Seriously, talk about misleading.

In other news, iPods aren't the best at 3D graphics rendering, and cars are not the best choice for transatlantic shipping.

This is a test of CPU/GPU integration at the low end to start with - and a successful test at that.

Re:Wow, Biased Summary Much?

[thermopile]

Hey, wait a minute, Alphanos. Give credit where credit is due (or something like that).

As described in TFA, they sheepishly admit that they wouldn't normally pit low-power CPU's against full fledged desktops, but AMD was so brash in its product announcement that they felt compelled to do it. From the third page:

We likened Bobcat's potential performance to 90% of the Athlon X2 255's—then arguably a "mainstream" part as these terms tend to be used—and noted that "the X2 255 is more than up to the task of running modern games" and "should be plenty adequate for the vast majority of everyday computing tasks." With prospects like that, a comparison seemed to be in order.

The appeal of this to HTPC's and other medium-to-low end computing makes this a tantalizing prospect for me.

Yes it will only be good for about 70+% of users.

[LWATCDR]

Really most users today do not do much with there PCs but run a browser and email. It will run Office just fine and most software you would expect to find in most offices today. It should sell like hotcakes. Look how well the Atom does for so many tasks.

Yes if you are doing CAD, Gaming, editing video then this sucks.
For most other people it will be small, cheap, cool, and good enough.

Re:If the technology was so great...

[bill_mcgonigle]

why wouldn't they just make desktop procs with it and leapfrog ahead again?

When's the last time you saw a Ferrari F-40 pulling a tractor trailer?

Re:If the technology was so great...

[Chris Burke]

Because you make a very different chip if you're aiming at 9 or 18W vs 60 or 80W.

Put all those desktop chips in the same power envelope as Bobcat, and they'd suck ass. Give Bobcat the power headroom of the desktop chips' environment, and it wouldn't know what to do with it.

The results as far as I can see are pretty good, given realistic expectations. Of course the article points out AMD claimed 90% of desktop, which just might be where some unrealistic expectations came from. Knowing AMD, that probably wasn't completely bullshit. It was probably a statement about IPC at equivalent frequencies, not delivered performance at their respective TDPs, possibly confused by a PR person, with a bullshit multiplier in there somewhere. ;)