TweakTown NewsRefine News by Category:
AMD's new APUs are pretty awesome. They combine great graphics with pretty good compute performance into a single chip. They are ideal for laptops, desktops, and embedded solutions. Today's award announcement, which brings them to their second consecutive win, is given by Taipei Computer Association after being judged by a panel of esteemed government officials, academics, research analysts, editors-in-chief of key media outlets and industry experts.
"We are honored to receive this prestigious award from the Taipei Computer Association for the second consecutive year," said Chris Cloran, corporate vice president, AMD Client Products. "The overwhelming market reception and industry accolades for the AMD A-Series APUs demonstrate that AMD is uniquely meeting the needs of our customers and a new generation of PC buyers."
According to the press release:
The second generation AMD A-Series APU combines the company's latest multi-core x86 CPU core architecture and award-winning AMD Radeon HD 7000 Series graphics to provide an increase in performance of up to 29 percent on productivity applications (as compared with the first generation AMD A-Series APUs), an increase of graphics performance up to 56 percent, and deliver up to 12 hours of battery life. Its unique features enable improvements in the areas that matter most to consumers today, including entertainment, gaming and mobility, through a growing ecosystem of APU-accelerated applications.
The AMD FX series of processors is known for overclocking pretty well. It currently holds the world record for fastest clock speed ever achieved and looks to be breaking that once again. A new CPU-z validation screen shot has shown up online. It details the feat even though HWBot rejected the the posting.
The rejection was most likely due to the fact that the overclocker didn't provide much in the way of detail about the cooling system used. When I say much, I mean any. What we do know is that the chip was clocked at a massive 8805.6MHz and was achieved by overclocker Ksin. Speed like that comes only when an overclocker uses extreme cooling such as liquid nitrogen or liquid helium.
To achieve the feat, Ksin used a base clock of 303.29 MHz and a multiplier of 29.0. To reach these clock speeds, an incredible 1.86 volts were pumped through the core. As such, it is recommended that you don't try this at home as that will kill your chip very quickly. Other components of the system include an ASUS Crosshair V Formula motherboard and 4 GB (2x 2 GB) of ADATA memory. The memory was clocked at 1417 MHz.
It appears that the posting has now been removed at the time of writing. I imagine this is due to the lack of cooling information.
UPDATE: The reason that the score was pulled from HWBot is because the Pi score indicated that the frequency could be bugged. This doesn't mean that it is, but that the possibility exists.
"Industry sources" are reporting that the next-generation AMD architecture code-named "Piledriver" will commence production in Q3 2012. Bulldozer, Piledriver's predecessor, was only released in October of 2011, so this could match Intel's one year release cycle. Trinity, an APU based upon Piledriver was released just last week.
The upcoming CPU will continue to be based upon the AM3+ platform. This simple fact should keep enthusiasts happy and will allow for current Bulldozer users to upgrade for only the cost of a CPU. AMD has always had a history of retaining sockets and providing upgrade paths whereas Intel often kills off sockets with each new processor.
Piledriver will be very similar to Bulldozer in that it will be made on a 32nm process and feature the same compute module design. Piledriver will also retain the same dual-channel 1866MHz DDR3 memory controllers. Piledriver will continue to feature AMD's Turbo Core at version 3.0. The new CPU will deliver more performance, thanks to an improved IPC, at lower power usage, thanks to AMD's new energy-recycling technology called resonant clock mesh.
If we remember late last year, AMD had talked about the transistor count in their then-released Bulldozer chip, which was meant to house 2 billion transistors, but actually only had 1.2 billion. How a mistake like that can happen is anyone's guess, but it looks like Team Red are up to their old tricks again, it seems.
Bright Side of News has an interesting piece, where they've noticed that AMD have again given the public an erroneous transistor count. AMD's Llano was meant to have 1.45billion transistors, as the company explained at the Hot Chips 2011 conference, as well as most reviews citing that it sported 1.45 billion transistors.
But, if we look at some of the Trinity reviews, such as AnandTech's, where they state it has 1.178 billion transistors, Tom's Hardware and Tech Report state it has 1.45 billion, but Trinity actually sports 1.30 billion transistors. The die size hasn't changed, and measures in at the same 228mm² since Llano emerged in 2011. Most sites can't really be faulted here, as they've just copy/pasted the specs directly from... AMD.
AMD are just filling their bra with tissues, and flashing their Llano boobies everywhere. But when that bra comes off, you're left looking at a ground covered in tissues. We still love you, AMD, but what's going on?
Researchers from Rice University in Houston, Singapore's Nanyang Technological University (NTU), Switzerland's Center for Electronics and Microtechnology (CSEM) and the University of California, Berkeley have unveiled an "inexact" chip at the ACM International Conference on Computing Frontiers in Cagliari, Italy.
The chip is allowed to make mistakes in order to gain speed and energy usage advances. This new "inexact" processor is up to 15 times more efficient than current processors. It can be used in certain applications where 100% accuracy isn't mission critical. Examples of this would be video or picture processing.
"It is exciting to see this technology in a working chip that we can measure and validate for the first time," said project leader Krishna Palem, who also serves as director of the Rice-NTU Institute for Sustainable and Applied Infodynamics (ISAID). "Our work since 2003 showed that significant gains were possible, and I am delighted that these working chips have met and even exceeded our expectations."
AMD's latest APU is here, in the form of Trinity where AMD is promising double the performance-per-watt of Llano. A bunch of reviews have just gone live, and we've just scraped a roundup of these reviews for you to check out below:
Intel have only just slipped the 22nm-sporting Ivy Bridge chips onto the market last month, and are already teasing us with the next advancements in process technology. Intel have teased a roadmap where they've shown 10nm, 7nm and 5nm processes already locked down.
Intel are also preparing to upgrade fabrication plants in the United States and Ireland to make chips using the 14nm fab method. Slides weer posted to XbitLabs, as well as a quote from Intel CEO Paul Otellini reminding investors that Intel's research and development is quite deep and looks decades in advance.
If it all goes to plan, Intel would start shipping 10nm processors in 2015, with work on 7nm technology starting shortly after. In order to stay a few steps ahead of the competition, process technology is not the only key to the customer puzzle. Intel will also have to break into the mobile space with powerful, but energy-efficient chips.
Our latest poll had almost 3,200 people who answered, Now that Intel Ivy Bridge processors are officially out...
The results for this poll were quite mixed. 26% of TweakTown readers said that yes, they are going to buy an Ivy Bridge based CPU.
13% said that they were 'on the fence' and undecided. With the most votes, 40% said no, they aren't buying and that they are happy with their current system. On the mobile side, 7% said they might consider an Ivy Bridge based laptop and 15% think Intel have started in the construction business and are now building bridges.
Intel really wants to cosy up to Apple, with CEO Paul Otellini having made it very clear to investors and reporters that the chip-making company will continue to angle more business from Apple in mobile devices, with his mission to "ensure our silicon is so compelling [that] they can't ignore us".
Intel already have a strong relationship with Apple as they're the ones baking processors in all of Apple's desktop and notebook products, but Intel want to replace the ARM-based processors that you'll find in Apple's mobile lineup.
If we rewind a few years, we would have found stories of the iPod and iPhone architect Tony Fadell threatening to quite Apple in 2006 if the company had chosen to go with Intel for their forthcoming iPhone, where CEO Steve Jobs had actually favored. Intel's offerings at the time were not energy-efficient enough, but this was 2006 after all.
There has been a lot of debate back and forth about whether or not Ivy Bridge's "slight" heat problem is caused by Intel's choice to not use solder to attach the IHS to the core. Originally, people were blaming the higher density of the transistors, due to the 22nm process, for the heat issue. Then, someone decided to de-lid the chip and found TIM instead of solder.
First, let me recommend you not remove the IHS from your chip as it could damage your chip, not to mention it voids your warranty. Besides, someone else has already done it for you along with the testing needed to prove that the heat issue is due to the TIM used by Intel. Impress PC Watch wiped off Intel's TIM and replaced it with OCZ's Freeze Extreme and Coollaboratory's Liquid Pro to see the difference.
The results? As you can expect from the title of this news post, the TIM choice that Intel made did in fact yield higher temperatures. Load temperatures at stock settings results in an 8*C and 11*C drop in temperatures which is a pretty big change. Overclocking the chip to 4.6GHz resulted in even bigger differences: 15*C for the OCZ TIM and 20*C for the Coollaboratory TIM.
True, these also used a massive air cooler, but the results should be similar with any air cooler, just higher temps for all tests. Intel really dropped the ball here as these aren't low-end CPUs, these are unlocked, overclocking beasts. It would have been a marginal cost for a huge benefit.