Acer’s Aspire V5-122 notebook is one of the first laptops to ship with an AMD Temash low-power processor. Specifically, it features a 1 GHz AMD A6-1450 quad-core processor with a TDP of about 6 to 8 watts.
The notebook weighs about 3.3 pounds, has an 11.6 inch display, and it’s expected to sell for around $450. That makes it a low cost alternative to an ultrabook.
While the laptop isn’t yet available in the US, Chippy from Ultrabook News got his hands on a German model and ran a few performance tests.
Chippy reports that the laptop has 4GB of RAM, a 500GB hard drive, and a 1366 x 768 pixel IPS display. It runs Windows 8 64-bit, and gets a Windows Experience Index score of 4.0.
He also ran a few benchmarks and concludes that the laptop offers about a third the CPU performance of an Intel Core i5 Ivy Bridge processor and about the same kind of graphics performance you’d expect from a Sandy Bridge chip.
Clearly, the key advantage to the AMD Temash processor isn’t performance, but price. With a starting price of $450, the Acer Aspire V5-122 is a relatively inexpensive notebook that doesn’t take up a lot of room, and which sells for about half the price of a top tier ultrabook.
It also has a few premium touches such as a backlit keyboard.
Still, at a time when ultrabook prices are getting lower and lower, it’s not clear how large a market there will be for laptops like this which sit between netbooks and ultrabooks in terms of price and performance.
Pathetic is a good definition for the A6 1450. I bought a Acer V5-122P and other then for basic web access and office apps this notebook is worthless and in fact is already worth nothing for trade. A person should buy no PC without a CPU capable of 2.0 Ghz or better. Why AMD handicapped a perfectly good graphics chip with a slow CPU in the A6 1450 is a question I keep asking myself.
Battery life. My Dell A6-1450 gets nine hours.
Anyone know of drivers for this thing for Windows 7? 8 is just entirely unusable.
Just a heads up, I have a V5-122p-0643 and I just installed a 8gb memory module and it ran perfectly. I now have 10gb of ram.
AMD is the best better by performance and price they give extra GPU + CPU performance this ultra book is better than spend 800 $ on other this would be best choice for them who like lite weight with Quad Core. as you AMD APU’s can work fine with HD applications intel notebooks does not support of required nvidia or radeon chips inside ….
it seems a reasonable priced notebook that does day to day work.
So we dont need to pay hefty price for Intel chips with the same performance. Two of my ‘high end’ ultrabooks (>$1200 each) had the same overheating problem because of the ‘graphics card’ issues, I guess intel’s HD graphics cards burn motherboards so I have to keep paying them? I will never buy a high end notebook with integrated intel graphics card again.
SUCK IT AMD!!!! More proof that AMD can’t make an APU to save their pathetic lives. I’ll bet it uses more power than Ivy Bridge.
Unlikely, Temash does not need a companion chip like Ivy bridge.
Wrong again AMD doesn’t need a companion chip but AMD is known for under-performing and using lots of power while doing so and Temash doesn’t CHANGE that Tradition!!!!
To start with you don’t know that because there’s very few proper reviews of Temash yet. Secondly, AMD chips perform just fine. Thirdly, AMD are quite honest about their TDP ratings, probably more so than their competitor.
AMD is everything but honest these days. They are trying to survive not lead the consumer in the right direction.
So you say. But why should they try to lead the consumer at all, consumers can make up their own minds, they just need to get the facts about how AMD is a viable alternative.
That’s the whole Problem AMD IS NOT A VIABLE ALTERNATIVE that’s why they are failing AND HARD!!!!!
Actually AMD are going ok, and they are also bringing out some great new products.
I’ll believe it when I see it. What new products? It seems to me that AMD is bringing out more of the same crap!!!!
Hmm, actually the chip in this laptop uses about one third of the power of the previous generation E350 while being more powerful at the same time, that sounds like it far from being the same to me.
AHAHAHAH…Where is you’re proof of that no seriously where is it? I have been waiting for an ultra low chip to play my games on. Performance per watt is KING to me right next to single core performance and then IGP performance.
Unlike you, I can actually back up the things I say with proof. If only you had the ability to back up your words with proof as well:
First performance tests:
AMD Temash A6-1450 Cinebench 11.5 CPU:0.85
AMD E350 CPU has a score of 0.62 points.
Thus the new chips are more powerful.
If you look here:
You can see that the A6-1450 is a 4-6Watt chip when running at 1Ghz. The E350 was an 18Watt chip that also needed a companion chip for I/O.
There you go. AMD managed to produce a more powerful chip which uses one third the power. It also has a better GPU and a nice plug-in Turbo mode
I don’t care what your CPU “needs” are.
No it doesn’t use a third of the power!!! The a6-1450 at 1.4ghz IS A 14 WATT chip NOT a 6 watt one. They did reduce the TDP but the overall power consumption has NOT CHANGED and that’s the biggest problem!!!!
I see, you’ve actually missed out on the finer details of this chip, this is easily done as it has some new technology in it.
The A6-1450 is a 5.9W chip when it runs at 1Ghz, which is what it does under battery power.
If you plug it in, the chip ramps up to 1.4Ghz and the TDP becomes 14W (It also ramps up the GPU).
I think this is a clever new development, to have such a powerful turbo boost when a machine is plugged in. As having a low TDP is much more important when running under battery power.
The performance numbers I gave above were for the chip running under battery power, if you look at the video in detail you will see that this chip gives a cinebench CPU score of 1.28 when running under mains power. In other words it’s more than twice as powerful as the E350
So, in summary:
E350 = 0.62 points @ 1.6Ghz & 18W
A6-1450 = 0.85 points @ 1Ghz & 5.9 Watts
A6-1450 = 1.28 points @ 1.4Ghz & 14 Watts
That doesn’t matter because I would be running it plugged in so its 14 watt TDP not 6 watt. Oh they didn’t increase performance just the amount of cores and its still a power hog it uses as much as Brazos in 14 watt Turbo mode. 0.62 x 2= 1.24 so not much improvement there.
Sorry, but I don’t think Acer or AMD care about what matters to you. They care about normal usage.
And doubling the number of cores is increasing performance.
And the E350 had to use a companion I/O chip, so the total TDP would have been probably 22W. So even if you don’t take the low power mode into account, they more than doubled performance while decreasing the TDP by 8W. Very impressive.
Wrong the power usage is about the same. But for me AMD didn’t increase IPC all that much they just added MOAR CORES!!!! That will do little to help me and adds extra power usage that I DON’T NEED!!!!
Using 50% more power is not the “about the same” in most people books.
More cores is good, it allows CPU intensive software to run faster.
Only if it uses 4 cores and NOT MANY programs do that. The programs that do you would NOT want to run on ANY AMD device due lack of IPC!!!!!
No, the Jaguar cores are a definite improvement over the previous Bobcat cores…
The “Jaguar” x86-64 cores feature a 40-bit wide physical address vs Bobcat that featured 36-bit, along with a 16-byte/cycle load/store bandwidth, which is double that of Bobcat, a 128-bit wide FPU data-path, which again is double that of Bobcat, and about 50 percent bigger scheduler queues… and that’s not counting the improved instruction sets and other little tweaks.
Really, you don’t get double the performance by doubling the number of cores. Each doubling of cores only accounts for about 50% max real world performance increase.
So anything more requires actual improvement in the performance of the cores!
This is how Intel can also claim up to a 2x improvement for the upcoming Bay Trail, since they both increase the max number of cores and also improve the architecture significantly!
In fact, Bay Trail will provide even more than 2x performance increase for multi-threaded processing that takes advantage of all cores.
So, while I agree that AMD has a long way to go before they can offer true mobile SoC power efficiency, they have however about doubled the performance compared to the previous Brazos/Fusion series.
Benchmarks are already showing Temash provides about double the performance of Hondo Z-60 APU and that’s at its base TDP and clock speed…
The only problem for AMD is overall the CPU performance may not be really better than what Intel will offer with Bay Trail… and like the previous Brazos/Fusion they may have to rely on being able to scale up to a higher TDP range and provide better graphics than Intel can for the ATOM series.
While Bay Trail should counter with being able to provide true Mobile SoC power efficiency and features like Always Connected Standby. Along with probably being able to be cheaper than AMD because the ATOM has to compete with ARM SoC pricing and they’re the lowest anyone can go…
All they did was increase the core count on the CPU and GPU and then shrunk it down to 28nm. AMD is being lazy but then again AMD is now to scumbag company and they only want to make money to survive. Yep Intel has to compete with ARM NOT AMD!!!! AMD is long gone they have no hope. AMD scaling up the TDP is the worst possible thing they could because when they do that they have to compete with Intel haswell not Bay Trail so that adds up to AMD getting royally SCREWED!!!!!
As I already explained, they did more than just increase the core count… I gave you plenty of specific examples of what they did do! So continuing to pretend that they didn’t does nothing but to discredit you!
Like it or not AMD isn’t going anywhere soon! Besides, it’s a good thing because it’s better for consumers if there’s continued competition!
And no, ARM only competes with Intel on the mobile side but the traditional PC side is still Intel vs AMD, and that’s needed to keep Intel honest and producing the best products that they can!
Everyone can have their favorite product but only when there’s choice can we expect both better products and something to fill at least most people’s needs!
So lay off the fanatic opinions and stick to the facts!
You don’t get it do you. AMD increased the core by 2x, the increase IPC by a little bit, and its on 28nm instead 40nm however that’s NOT enough to go up against haswell 15 watt. AMD as expected uses too much power for a tablet and they just signed their death warrant because putting Kabini to compete with Intel haswell is a really bad idea because Intel is superior in every way at 15 watts vs AMD’s 14 watt APU’s.
Sounds more like you’re not getting it as it’s not just increased cores as you could not get a doubling of performance by just doubling the number of cores.
Just like Bay Trail, the doubling of cores to quad only accounts for about 50% of the increased performance but the rest has to come from improvements to the architecture and FAB and that’s more than just a little as you’re trying to claim.
Like it or not, Temash does provide double the performance of the previous Hondo APU and that’s at the same 1GHz and even lower power consumption in the tablet optimized mode.
So AMD did more than improve their APU just a little bit!
The main problem for AMD is Intel may have increased enough to close the previous gap in performance they once had down to negligible… Thus why they’re leveraging being able to ramp up performance.
However, dynamic power range is something Intel is also leveraging.
But the one thing you did say that is true is that Intel is way ahead on power efficiency.
Neither Temash or Kabini will compete with Bay Trail for power efficiency, they’re just better than previous Brazos/Fusion and in dual core configuration for Temash they get low enough to be used in a mobile tablet without too terrible battery life.
While Haswell has a handicap of being over $100 more than Temash/Kabini… the lowest priced Haswell starts at about $170… which is down from Ivy Bridge but still leaves a big gap in pricing vs AMD as even Kaveri still stands to be lower priced.
AMD is also leveraging HSA and hUMA with Kaveri and that remains to be seen what effect it will have on performance.
If the implementation proves to be a success then it could make up for the FAB disadvantage and allow AMD to leverage enough performance to remain competitive.
So, until we actually see benchmarks, at best, your claims are premature and worst wishful thinking!
Its not enough. AMD is staying in the same power envelope which is a foolish mistake as I keep telling you guys but you never listen. Instead of competing with Intel Atom AMD is now competing with Haswell and its a battle that AMD CAN NEVER WIN!!!! Wrong AMD didn’t lower power usage enough to be competitive with Intel Atom so Temash is pretty much screwed!!! AMD did low power usage but NOT by enough to matter. Intel haswell is THE BETTER solution.
I don’t think you understand AMD’s strategy, they’re splitting the difference between Haswell chip and the Atom chip with their new Temash chips. So they’re going to give consumers a better chip than the Atom, at clightly higher power for a lot less cost than Haswell.
I reckon this is exactly what a lot of consumers will want.
Exactly, though it’s looking to be a rather niche market but it does give AMD something to work with…
Since Intel still wants to keep the ATOM and Core i-Series markets separate and Haswell doesn’t lower the Core i-Series prices much and that means it’s still the most expensive option.
Though, for 2014… It’s looking like AMD would need much more than a incremental update to keep from falling behind…
Since Intel will be quickly rolling out Broadwell, after Haswell, and Airmont will also come out to replace the ATOM Silvermont either by end of 2014 or early 2015 and bring the ATOM to 14nm and possibly another big architectural advancement.
So AMD could be in serious trouble by 2015, but a lot can still happen till then… leaving us but to wait and see…
All we know know is AMD will start making use of ARM licensing but while that may allow them to provide some truly mobile solutions, but like Nvidia it’ll take them years to catch up with the other ARM OEMs and they really can’t afford to wait that long…
While HSA and hUMA still have to prove themselves…
On the plus side though… pretty much everyone will start using FinFET with the 16/14nm FAB and that can start compensating for Intel’s Tri-Gate advantage… starting by the end of 2014…
Nvidia started 5 years ago and they are now a decent SoC option. AMD can’t afford that much time if AMD tries to make something like Tegra It’s going to be in big trouble. AMD is in big trouble RIGHT NOW not in 2015 RIGHT NOW!!!!!! AMD won’t bring a big update because they are lazy and only want to make $$$$ with as little R&D as possible.
No, AMD isn’t in serious trouble right now… Haswell isn’t really out yet (roll out and ramping up production will take time), Bay Trail won’t even start coming until the end of the year, Haswell will still be a lot more expensive than AMD’s offerings and despite everything the 28nm roll out is still proving to be better than their previous products.
Just not being as good as they needed them to be doesn’t equal automatic dropping them from the market!
AMD has struggled with the low end for years, they were late to the netbook market with their Brazos/Fusion and they still managed to carve out a portion of the market for example.
So just being the underdog doesn’t mean they’re going to keel over and die and wishful thinking won’t speed it up either!
And no, AMD isn’t lazy… They just don’t have the resources that Intel has and they’ve made some bad choices in the past as to where to invest their R&D but all companies have their ups and downs, even Intel, and a down period doesn’t mean they’re automatically doomed!
Updates for both companies just generally follow a tic-toc cycle of FAB advancement and architectural improvements… So it’s usually small and big changes that span about every two years.
Only rarely do they overlap for a even bigger change but Trinity, Richland, and Kaveri all happened in pretty short order compared to the normal cycle.
While AMD’s investment in HSA and hUMA may pay off… we don’t know yet but it has potential and is something Intel isn’t really pushing as they’re mostly relying on the FAB advantage for now.
Really, even VIA is still around and they pretty much long lost the x86 competition… So even if AMD does fall far behind, it doesn’t mean they’ll die off completely and it’s not a process you can rush either…
In which said chip uses EVEN MORE power than Intel haswell when Plugged in!!!! It only has that kind of power usage when not plugged in thus its useless. Most people want low power usage and awesome battery life neither of which AMD provides.
Nope, it should give great battery life because it can run at such low power settings. But also give better performance when plugged in, it’s a pity that intel don’t have such a consumer-friendly technology.
Ahahahahah….AMD Temash SUCKS ASS!!!! Intel Sandy Bridge uses less power and performs better IN EVERY AREA SUCK IT AMD!!!!
What a freak of nature you really are. You should have some inner peace for the fact that, everyone hates you more than you hate AMD!
Thanks I am a freak and AMD does suck OUT LOUD!!!! Nah just AMD FANBOI’s LIKE YOU!!!!
Nope, AMD’s chips perform pretty well for their price.
Nope, You’re Wrong Intel chips beat it out at the same price unless you can find me some comparisons.
huh? The chips are not in the same price bracket at all.
Thanks for the linkback Brad. We had a good testing session this evening and got some more interesting results. https://ultrabooknews.com/2013/05/10/live-now-acer-aspire-v5-and-amd-temash-testing/
Too bad the graphics work out to HD3000… Which is bad, bad news. The processor performance is… disappointing but probably enough for day to day use without being annoying.
are you for real? “bad bad news” the other web site states its more powerful than the HD3000, that level of graphics on a single chip with a quad core CPU and full system, for a 6w TDP chip, and thats bad? For the first time we can have tablets with enough grunt to do every day tasks with ease, you could always buy a tablet with a similar TDP atom CPU…..Oh don’t forget, the Temash SOC was ment for tablets, not laptops.
Wrong AMD’s Temash sucks that much FANBOI!!!! Wrong ITS a 14 watt TDP CHIP NOT A 6 watt. Wrong AMD has released MORE crap that uses too much power for a tablet as if AMD didn’t learn from the REALLY REALLY AWFUL z-60!!!! That makes it suck TWICE as hard!!!!
GO INTO A CORNER CURL UP AND ………
No AMD NEEDS TO GO INTO A CORNER CURL UP AND DIE!!!!
And then we would get fleeced.
Wow… Backlit keyboard and IPS even at 13×7, is a welcome change.. This might be worth owning after all.
So how much for the same exact notebook except with an Ivy Bridge Core i5 of similar performance.
Too bad performance vs power consumption isn’t all that great compared to any of Intel’s existing offerings based on Chippy’s estimate of a working 3.5 – 4 hour battery life on the 30 Wh battery.
Not much at all. You can pick up an Acer Aspire V5-171 with a Core i5-3317U chip for $485.
So that means getting the AMD one is the bad choice. Not much savings and less performance which includes graphics.
Exactly!!!! AMD SUCKS ASS GET INTEL INSTEAD!!!!
but what if you don’t need to spend all the extra $’s
Then get an Intel Notebook!!! AMD costs too much for too little these days. There was a time where AMD was THE value Company BUT THOSE DAYS ARE LONG GONE don’t you get it yet.
I want a notebook and tablet in one.
Did you know that the lowest cost mobile core i3 processor costs $225. Do you think that’s good value?
This isn’t a tablet. It’s a notebook with a touchscreen which isn’t very useful. For a notebook, an Intel version is about the same price but has a more powerful CPU and GPU with the same battery life.
yea right an Intel Atom has the same CPU and GPU performance… are you dreaming?
I’m talking about the Core i5 version of this notebook Brad linked to above…
Plus it has 6 GB vs 4 GB of RAM. For people wanting the most bang for their buck, the Intel Core i5 version is the best choice.
yep, fair enough, compared to the i5 system above it’s not great value.
This one will have to drop in price, and I expect it probably will.
Told you so. Intel is a far better value for the money AMD can’t even come close!!!!
I expect the AMD machine will be a lot cheaper in a month or two, then it will be the better value machine.
I doubt that will happen and M$ Windows 8 is big time fail NO ONE WANTS M$ Windows 8 on their PC’s!!!!!!
The price probably will come down I reckon, time will tell.
The rest is tough for me, but I agree with you that Windows 8 is undesirable. It’s a tablet OS that managed to wedge in a tablet mode at the expense of compromising the desktop/laptop functionality.
they are deaf and blind drunk on Intel they cant hear you
In what universe does an Intel HD GPU beat an AMD GPU?
When it’s Intel HD4000 vs AMD 8250.
That doesn’t have a touch screen and it is Win7,
this one is a IPS touch screen with a Win8.
Touch on a notebook form factor is a gimmick and to some Windows 7 is preferable. I’ll be putting Linux on it anyway.
I guess there’s the IPS screen. Oh well, it’s a worthwhile trade off for significantly better CPU and GPU performance.
Amazon has the V5-171 with Windows 8 and 6 GB of RAM for $490.
Your comparing a 17w chip with a 6w, either the battery is a cheap one (which i could believe) or AMD’s 6w Chip is actually a lot more than 6w (this chip is inside tablets and runs fine) so i’m going to go with the first one.
No, 30 Whr is just not a very large battery… 6 cell batteries that go into laptops typically has 48-56 Whr!
So this is closer to a small 3 cell capacity and it’s actually good that it can get up to 4 hours… A Core i5 would definitely provide less run time with the same capacity battery and even the older Brazos/Fusion APUs would provide less run time and they started at 9W, on up to 18W max TDP…
The Core i5 variant Brad posted has a 37 WHr battery with a 4-5 hour runtime. So for budget notebooks like these, the Intel versions are better. Same battery life, more CPU and GPU performance and similarly priced.
The Core i5 version of the same Acer only turns in just under 4 hours just for web browsing… PC World, for example, reported they only got barely over 3 hours before needing to plug it in. So it’ll get less if you really pushed it!
Even Ivy Bridge can only idle down to about 3W… and as you stated the Core i5 version gets a slightly larger capacity battery…
Chippy’s review has more details, but Temash does push lower power idle states than the present Ivy Bridge and that can potentially give it even longer run time.
While mind the Acer may not go as low as Temash is normally suppose to go because it’s a laptop instead of a hybrid and Acer may have tweaked it for better performance… So we’ll know better on efficiency once they put it into an actual tablet instead of a laptop or if someone reports on actual power consumption rates…
Acer advertises 5 hours of battery life for both notebooks with whatever internal testing method they use. So not much difference for a significantly lower performing CPU and GPU.
We could quote AnanTech’s battery life number for the V5-171 whic is 4.45 hours for browsing but that probably can’t be applied since AnanTech didn’t test the V5-122 with their own internal test. So I’ll jus go by what Acer claims.
Also, I’m talking about just the notebooks or at least the 11.6″ notebook form factor for budge conscous people where the Intel Core i5 version wins out. Tablets, hybrids and/or smaller screens/devices (if that’s possible on Temash) is outside my original comparison where Temash may be better suited.
The Core i5 version only has a low quality TN screen with no touch capability!
While the Temash version comes with IPS and multi-touch screen!
So there’s a trade off on what you get, and it’s not just a system performance consideration… Especially, if you’re going to be using Windows 8… which benefits from the touch screen…
Now, whether Core i5 provides better performance is not the point being argued… Just whether the product is giving the most bang for the buck and that’s less clear and may actually favor the Temash.
Besides, Acer tends to cut corners on systems to keep pricing low and this isn’t really indicative of what the average system would cost with these kind of specs…
What Acer advertises doesn’t matter compared to what actual usage shows the run time to be!
It’s rare that the advertised run time is the actual rune time of the device… Besides, run times vary according to usage and usage can vary significantly!
Anandtech also was using a SSD, which often helps lower power consumption, and better RAM than the system came with… While the Temash is initially being tested with a HDD and later a SSD and thus follows the user experience most people would get out of the box.
Besides, you’re comparing a 4 Cell 37WHr battery to a 3 Cell 30WHr battery… Getting similar run times is hardly in the favor of the system with the larger battery!
The only argument is cost but the systems are not identically configured!
The Core i5 version uses a low quality TN screen but this Temash version uses a high quality IPS display and it’s multi-touch!
So they really just used the cost savings to beef up the other specs and it’s not a reflection of the cost of the Chipsets.
It does matter if the estimate is from the same company which uses the same tests for relative comparisons…
Also the 37 WHr and 30 WHr with the same battery life does result in “not much difference” when the signicant performance gap is considered.
What you call not much difference can be over a hour difference in run time…
Like run tests done with ATOM SoCs, like the Samsung model with 29Whr can run longer than the MS Surface RT with a 31.5WHr battery and that’s a smaller difference than the difference in capacity between a 30WHr and a 37WHr!
Besides, Temash can probably run longer as it has a lower idle level than Ivy bridge can reach right now… It’s only at full load that that becomes irrelevant and switches to which has the better performance and that’s where the Core i5 would pull ahead.
Nope, because what matters is real life run time and that is usually always less than what they advertise!
It’s rare for any product to actually provide it’s advertised battery life.
Companies tend to use best case scenario that almost no one would actually be able to match. Unless you live inside a lab with controlled environment, but real life is a lot more messy…
Besides, I already pointed out that other reviews indicated less run time for the Intel model and those were using the device as it came shipped!
While, Chippy has indicated that his run time estimates may be skewed because the Temash system switches to the 14W TDP mode, but he hasn’t determined how it switches modes yet… So the reported run times for the Temash model may not be indicative of target battery life for Temash… Since in tablet form it would never go beyond the 5.9W tablet mode unless docked and/or plugged in…
hey. the touch screen monitor makes the temash system more expensive. so if acer make a system with temash and the i5 version specs it will be alot cheaper.
It balances out mostly, for the Acer Aspire V5 the Core i5 version has a larger 37WHr battery and a cheaper TN screen… While the Temash version gets a smaller 30WHr battery and a IPS multi touch display… with similar pricing for both.
But yes, if they didn’t provide the more premium screen then the Temash model would cost less…
The $485 Acer Aspire V5-171 Brad mentioned has a 37 WHr battery. not much bigger than the AMD one. So there doesn’t seem to be much advantage for the AMD. The Intel version is much more bang for your buck.
The TDP for power saving mode is about 8W, 15W is when power is plugged in.
CPU should be 40% faster when plugged in.
And it uses that much more power SUCK IT AMD!!!!
It’s still less power than any Intel chip. Temash is a SOC, it does not require a power hogging companion chip like Ivy bridge or Haswell.
Wrong again you fool Intel haswell will use far less power than ANY AMD Temash SoC!!!! True but that DOESN’T MATTER when AMD is the one making the chip its GOING TO SUCK and its going to hog power like no tomorrow!!!!!
Nope, Haswell chips are going to use more power than Temash chips, that’s before you even include the power of the extra chips that you need with Haswell.
TDP isn’t everything AMD’s Z-60 should of showed you that by now. Intel haswell will use less power than AMD Temash especially in turbo mode.
That’s simply incorrect, even the lowest power Haswells will use more power than this.
TDP means NOTHING!!!! AMD tdp’s meaning nothing because their systems use double or even triple that with their IGP’s. Intel haswell will use less power than the DISAPPOINTMENT that is TEMASH!!!! Temash has ZERO improvements to power consumption and its GPU SUCKS ASS!!!!! Everything about Temash sucks ass according to this video.
You don’t seem to understand TDP at all.
Both Intel and AMD systems can use much more power than their TDP’s would suggest.
Haswell will use more power and cost probably 5x as much as Temash.
Temash didn’t need to improve power consumption, it was already very low, they improved performance considerably which is more useful.
Wrong Intel haswell systems will cost about the same as AMD system as they always do. Wrong AMD’s z-60 uses 18 watts for the whole system THAT’s WAY too much for me for the WEAK ASS performance it puts out. ARM’s Cortex A9’s Power consumption is low and that’s what standard I am measuring AMD and Intel from. Wrong Performance hasn’t increase at all and the GPU is only slightly better than Brazos a big disappointment and MORE reason why AMD will DIE!!!!
Pretty much everything you said there is factually incorrect.
Most importantly though, the performance of these new chips has improved greatly over the previous generation, which is very nice for AMD. This, along with AMD’s lower cost will be very good for AMD’s future.
The performance has NOT increased from what the benchmarks say. The GPU is no better than the HD 3000. AMD’s lower cost is irrelevant to the consumer because the savings aren’t passed down. AMD’s power usage isn’t any better either so they will just as much of a hard time in tablets.
You really weren’t paying attention if you think the performance hasn’t improved.
For cinebench 11.5 CPU performance Temash on Battery gave a score of 0.85 and on mains gave 1.23
Compare this with the old Bobcat based E350 which under the same benchmark has a score of 0.65
So AMD has gone from an 18W chip with a score of 0.65 to a 6W chip with a score of 0.85. Maybe you don’t think that’s an improvement but people with math skills will disagree.
Well then I stand corrected however It still sucks down 18 watts of power for the whole system so its NO BETTER in tablets. Intel Atom uses about 11 watts AMD HAS A LONG WAY TO GO!!!!!
Where did you get that 18W figure for the whole system? Was that under battery power, or under it’s plugged in Turbo mode. And is that exactly the same as your 11W Atom system? Do they use the same screen type, size and resolution, what about the hard drive? You’ll forgive me for not quite believing some random sounding numbers you come up with, because if it did use a constant 18W, then, by simple math, it’s 30Watt/hour would only last 1 hour 40 minutes, but that doesn’t seem to be the case.
Similar and AMD does use 18 watts at full load. I am sure the system where plugged in. Its okay but AMD temash EATS power LIKE CANDY and Intel Atom uses FAR less power. But no it isn’t constantly running at 18 watts that just the max. Max load power is important to me because I do a lot of gaming on low power pc’s.
Similar doesn’t cut it? A slightly larger screen can account for a lot of that difference.
You keep saying that it uses 18Watts at max load, but where is your evidence?
The fact that AMD hasn’t changed the power usage of its temash chips from what they were with the z-60.
Ahhh, now I see where you’re going wrong, you think that if two chips share a similar looking TDP, then everything about them is the same.
Did you know:
* The Z-60 needed a FCH (Fusion Controller Hub) chip that Temash does not need
* The Z-60 was built on the 40nm process, but Temash is built using a 28nm process
* Temash contains a number of power consumption improvements over the Brazos line of chips.
These are 3 actual facts, you didn’t have a fact, just a coincidence.
Yes all of those are true that doesn’t mean AMD uses less power.Quad cores taking as much as an old dual core not bad BUT NOT GOOD ENOUGH!!!!! AMD Temash is a small improvement and quad-cores are USELESS to me so I don’t want the power they consume.
Actually it does mean that Temash uses less power, the FCH used power that is now counted as part of Temash’s TDP.
You might not find quad-cores attractive for whatever reason, but many people will see huge benefits from the doubling of cores.
Not many would and that’s why Temash will flop like a belly whale out of water. So what that only trims a few watts.
We’ll see, I think it’s a great chip and will do well.
The FCH trims some very important Watts, it allows Temash to get to much lower idle power levels, important for tablets.
Even without a FCH AMD temash does not go low enough for tablets. The dual core model will end up in tablets but it won’t be popular because of low battery life.
I think it does, time will tell.
TDP can’t be “about 15 watts”. Temash have supposdly a TDP range of 4-6W.
My bad. I couldn’t find a hard number, and went with the larger number from this article:
But doing a little more digging, I’ve also seen this chip referred to as having a 6W TDP.
That’s because it comes in both dual and quad core configurations!
The quad core just adds a Turbo dock mode that allows it to ramp up to about 14W max TDP.
So they can offer more performance for Hybrids and Laptops than they can for tablets using the same SoC…
well was there any official word on max tdp or official source?
The leaks are from what AMD reps have mentioned at tech shows and from the various leaked benchmarks.
Along with press released images like this…
Here’s another example…
But it wasn’t revealed until they had sample demo models available that Temash quad core would have a Turbo Dock feature and that’s what gives it the higher max TDP mode.
So your telling me that a 6w chip at 1GHz suddenly needs an extra 133% more power to achieve an extra 400mhz in clock speed? There is no way that chip uses 14w even in turbo mode. I don’t think that TDP represents all Temash/Kabini SOC.
Kabini is not a SoC, and the 5.9W at 1GHz is a tablet optimized power mode for Temash…
Basically, they’re allowing the quad core version of Temash to undo the power optimization and switch to a maximum performance mode instead…
AMD basically took Kabini, threw it into a SoC and optimized it for tablet usage but only the dual core version has really low enough max TDP (3.6W) to really go into fan-less designs.
So the quad core already sits in-between and isn’t that ideal for mobile usage… meaning they simply let it go the other way for max performance.
Besides, it’s a quad core and that means a additional 400MHz for each core and not just one! Not to mention whatever increase the iGPU also increases by…
Kabini is an soc.
Well, it does integrate the FCH and most people are pretty loose on what defines a SoC… but there are distinctions like the difference between a Multi-Chip Module (MCM) like Intel Haswell will offer, and a True System On a Chip (SoC) that not only places everything on the same wafer but intergrates them all too!
Mind that AMD isn’t yet integrating everything into their designs yet. Unlike ARM, which is further along and has already started integrating components like LTE, etc in their SoCs.
While AMD itself has started calling it a SoC too, not in their original press releases but now… but like I said, most people are pretty loose with what they call a SoC and I wouldn’t say Kabini is really there yet… It’s just considered good marketing to emphasize it though as people expect certain things from a SoC, like low cost and long battery life…
Regardless, it remains that Temash is the one AMD is marketing towards Tablets and Hybrids, while Kabini may have some overlap but is more in line for low end Ultrabooks and low cost laptops.
AMD never changed their roadmap showing Temash will replace Hondo (the previous tablet optimized APU) and Kabini will replace the Brazos/Fusion series… even having similar TDP range starting at 9W…
Unlike Temash that starts closer to 4W…
Temash may start at 4 watts but it uses 3 times more than for the whole system if not more. Higher TDP chips will use even more. AMD has never been good at low power. Everything AMD makes is a power guzzler. AMD devices chew up power like its candy!!!!!
Well, lets not exaggerate… Everything uses more power than their rated TDP…
Especially because the rated TDP is only accounting for the chipset and not the whole system to begin with but it does give a starting point of consideration.
While such considerations are a bit more complicated these days because the factors like how well the system idles and how quickly it can change power states are X factors that can effect such considerations.
One of the reasons ARM is so power efficient isn’t so much that that they’re just lower powered but because they effectively minimize power usage when not needed.
Using methods like shutting off components unless actually being used and idling down to extremely low levels.
Features like Always Connected Standby are basically sleep states that allow for a bare minimum of activity needed to update the system but otherwise keeps power consumption within the S3 states,
AMD’s main problem is they haven’t achieve that kind of ability yet. So they still need to be more power efficient, but what they’ve done is still a improvement over what they had before.
Like I mentioned already, even the Brazos/Fusion series would have given less battery life with the same size battery… It’s just not good enough to go head to head with the battery life given by ARM and ATOM SoCs yet…
While, some allowance is given by the fact they do generally provide better graphics but better graphics, like higher CPU performance, comes at a cost and that’s just part of the trade off with AMD…
I don’t know where you’re getting your 3 times number, any evidence? Anyway, 12Watts for a whole ultrabook system is still pretty good.
And correction, AMD Was no good at low power chips, but things change based on the evidence of these new chips.
Wrong I have no proof saying that AMD is any good at low power chips so far their low power chips have been all busts!!!!! 5.9 watt TDP AMD z-60 tablet system takes 18 watts.
So where is your evidence that a Z-60 tablet takes 18 watts then?
Oh my gosh you’re an idiot I showed you the review a few days ago on notebookcheck.
I ignored that review because of it’s poor quality, but anyway, did you actually look at that review properly and compare it? If you had bothered, you’d have seen that the fault most likely lies with Fujitsu. That have a very similar Atom tablet that manages a power consumption of 12.8W using an intel Atom Z760.
A properly designed tablet like the Acer Iconia w510 as review by the same people, using the same Z760 managed to use just 8W under load. So to any sensible person it looks like Fujitsu are throwing 5W away to start with.
The rest of the difference can be explained by their chosen benchmark, they used 3DMark to test full load. This puts much more pressure on the AMD chip because the Atom chips they compare it with have an almost non-existant GPU, whereas the AMD chip can actually be used to play games.
Of course you ignored it AMD Fanboi. 3Dmark is the one of the best ways to determine CPU+GPU load of course it will use more power than a PC would even when gaming. its the only review out there so its all I got to go by. But they don’t make AMD tablets so tough luck fool!!!! Neither one of them do well on 3dmark so your point is moot!!!!
I ignored it because it’s a poorly done review. Sure 3DMark is one way to determine CPU plus GPU load, but the Atom z2760 (which you were alluding to) is not even capable of running 3DMark11.
When you say that “Neither” do well on 3DMark you’re being disingenuous. You do know there’s a difference between 3DMark06 and 3DMark11 yea? If you look here:
you’ll see that even the Z-60 has more than 4x the GPU power of the Atom.
Not quite that large of a gap, since moving to a PowerVR GPU with Cedar Trail, the ATOM GMA improved nearly 3x from the previous Pine Trail GMA 3150.
Compared to the Brazos/Fusion iGPUs the difference in performance to the GMA 3150 was 5x to 9x… So GMA 3600/3650 reduced that by nearly 3x and Clover Trail uses the same SGX545 GPU as Cedar Trail, just clocked at 533MHz instead of either 400 or 640 MHz…
The Hondo is on the low end of that scale though because it’s just a minor update to the Desna, which itself was just a tablet optimized version of the Ontario C-50… The lowest end dual core version of the Brazos/Fusion series.
Lack of driver support for the PowerVR GPUs though make the difference greater. Since for example the GPU is rated for DX10.1 support but under developed drivers limit usage to 9.0c instead…
So I’m just pointing out the actual hardware performance difference is less, even though the practical difference is probably closer to your estimate.
Bay Trail, though, should nearly increase the graphical performance another 3x and that means hardware performance would not only catch up to Brazos/Fusion range but could also rival it on the high end…
But unlike the PowerVR GPUs, Intel has better driver support for their own GMA and over a year developing drivers for the HD4000 that the Bay Trail GMA will be based on and will even support features like Intel’s Quick Sync, OpenGL 3.0, etc…
AMD should still have better graphics with Temash/Kabini but not the massive graphical difference in performance as they had before.
A sucky SoC that can’t even compete with ARM!!!!
Kabini is a SoC….The whole G series will be Kabini SoC
Like I said, I don’t consider it a true SoC… but it’s good marketing to do so and it’s close enough to consider it so if you really want to…
Mind, I’ve been following this since AMD still had Wachita and Krishna on their roadmap and back then Kabini wasn’t described as a SoC… they didn’t even mention that it would have a dual core version for Kabini instead of just for Temash.
Marketing does factor, like I could show articles indicating Haswell is a SoC too but it’s really a MCM at this point and it’s really the later Broadwell that really moves to a SoC but even that may not really be considered a True SoC yet…
It just takes time to fully convert a architecture into a SoC… Even with a simple architecture like the ATOM took a few years, unless we forget that before Medfield their was Moorestown, etc… And this was after the ATOM had already started moving in that direction with combining the CPU and North Bridge with Pine Trail…
But there’s a threshold on changes needed before something really benefits from the design… Like the ATOM still used the old FSB for a long time and thus such integrations had little effect, until they finally really started integration and pushing the design advantage.
So keep in mind that this is AMD’s first generation moving towards SoCs and only one seems to benefit from that move yet and that’s Temash…. Since SoC design is basically suppose to provide lower costs and higher efficiencies for lower power consumption… But Kabini is still clearly not going to be marketed for that benefit with a 9W to ~25W (according to AMD’s own press release) TDP range.
And Kabini overlaps with Kaveri’s 15W to 35W TDP as well… So you can understand if I don’t consider it a mobile SoC…
Regardless, it doesn’t change what I stated about why the Temash jumps to 14W when in Turbo Mode…
Exactly!!!! Yes it does AND it gets much worse AMD temash has 25 watt versions but don’t worry Intel haswell at 15 watts WILL UTTERLY CURSH anything and everything AMD has at 25 watts. Further Proof that AMD is going down they can’t make a competitive chip and Temash is proof of this fact.
Specific numbers that have been leaked are that the dual core version
has a max TDP of about 3.6W and the quad version brings that up to
However, the quad version also supports a Turbo
Dock Mode, at least for hybrids and may or may not be a option for
laptops, that raises the clock speed from the default 1GHz to 1.4GHz and
that raises the max TDP from 5.9W to about 14W max TDP!
Mind that the Turbo mode consequentially means both greater power consumption and higher heat generation. So a per-requisite for the Turbo dock is that the dock have both an additional battery to offset the increase power demands and additional fans to boost cooling.
It also seems likely that only the dual core version can actually go into fan-less tablets designs as they usually need to be below 5W max TDP to allow it and it would be hard to support a Turbo mode if the casing was sealed like a normal fan-less tablet would be!
The other things to consider is despite the better power states being reported, power management still looks like it’s just an improvement from before and not quite in the range needed to directly compete with ARM and ATOM SoCs in the mobile market.
For example, there’s no mention anywhere on these supporting mobile features like Always Connected Standby.
While numbers released by AMD show the APU alone for Temash only idles down to about 0.75W, not counting the rest of the chipset… But compare that to what Intel claims for Haswell as being able to idle down to about 0.1W (100mw)… Both examples are with the screen off btw… and Haswell will support features like Always Connected Standby and it’s a much higher range Core i-Series product…
Though Temash will likely be a lot cheaper than Haswell, but Intel is pushing ATOMs to compete with ARM and those are usually priced below what AMD has ever gone before… but on the other hand, not even the upcoming Bay Trail will offer the performance Temash can in Turbo Mode… So it does appear it will sit somewhere between what Bay Trail and Haswell will offer.
Well given that Temash is the lowest end chip in AMD’s Jaguar offerings, then we should see quite decent performance from the 25W 2GHz offerings!
For performance, the Kaveri will be the one to keep an eye out for… and it’ll also be the one that will probably show whether technology like HSA will start benefiting AMD… Neither Temash or Kabini will be pushing those new technologies but are definite improvements over the previous Brazos/Fusion series.
Hint Kaveri going to SUCK EGGS!!!!! AMD does NOT know how to make a proper CPU!!!! Kaveri’s IGP won’t even be fast enough to Catch up to Intel’s Iris Graphics a.k.a. The HD5200!!!!
Do you know that GPU’s are bound by memory bandwidth. Kaveri is going to use GDDR5 which has twice the memory bandwidth of DDR3. So any premonitions you posses regarding Kaveri are clearly ill-conceived.
Its still not going to help AMD’s Shitty GPU be faster than Intel’s Iris!!! Intel made a HUGE leap from IB to Haswell it was so big that it left AMD in the DUST!!!! Intel HD 4000 was on average about 40% slower than Trinity but 3x GPU leap just put Intel WAY AHEAD!!!!!!
Any independent benchmarks to back up that claim? Besides, by the time Haswell makes an appearance AMD’s Richland will be doing the rounds.
You may have a argument for CPU performance but you’re out of your mind for GPU performance.
The HD4000 only caught Intel up to where AMD was with about the mid range for Llano… So even a 3x improvement from that won’t exceed what AMD will now offer with Kaveri!
Remember, AMD has had more than two generations of additional improvements since Llano and Iris is only now improving what Intel had with Ivy Bridge!
Not to mention only Haswell models with Iris Pro get the full benefits because the regular Iris GMAs won’t get the L4 Cache eDRAM and will focus more on providing better power efficiency than the HD4000 provided.
Besides, AMD has better driver support for their GPUs… Intel is doing a better job with Iris than they did with the HD4000 but you can still expect a greater range of games will just work with AMD than Intel…
Really, it’s not like AMD didn’t get a huge graphical advantage by taking over ATI!
AMD is not doubling their IGP performance every year Intel is. AMD Trinity’s GPU is 40% faster than Intel’s HD 4000. Richland improves on Trinity by 20% at most and Kaveri will be another 40% on top of that so Intel Iris still wins at the end of the day and AMD Kaveri is not released until at least 2014 so Kaveri is irreverent.
Wow, impressive prediction skills. To start with Haswell has not been reviewed properly yet. Richland hasn’t been reviewed properly yet and Kaveri is 6 months away.
Why do I get the feeling that you’re just pulling numbers out of your ass.
Sorry but no, Intel did not double their iGPU performance in just a year. What they did was make a improvement and then capitalized on that improvement by scaling up!
The HD4000 had 16 execution units… This moves up to 20 for Iris GMAs and 40 for Iris Pro!
Only the Pro’s get the L4 Cache and maximize performance an additional 40-60%…
Problem is the Iris Pro won’t be offering the power savings as the regular Iris GMAs, trading the power savings for increased performance.
But AMD could easily do the same and scale even higher and like Haswell, Kaveri will cover a wide range of performance options!
So sure, Intel has finally started providing decent graphical performance for iGPUs but at best they’ve just reduced the gap they used to have with AMD.
Besides, AMD will still have better driver support for their GPUs and that’s something Intel still needs to do a lot of work on…
AMD fanboi much. Not they increased by 60% from SB to IB. This they are going to double it and in some cases triple it. AMD drivers suck ass!!!! I have better experiences on Intel drivers. But AMD will still use even more power to do so.
Problem for you is I’m no fanboy, I’m a realist and I don’t allow anyone to spread obvious misinformation!
Like it or not it’s Intel that is the one with a history of lousy driver support for the GMA’s! Really, gaming performance is all over the place because of those driver issues!
And the latest driver release for the HD4000 that was based on code originally intended for Iris wouldn’t have been able to provide up to a whopping 10% performance boost if the original drivers were all that well optimized to begin with!
So, while you can have points on CPU performance and power efficiency for Intel… Points I made myself to others if you had bothered to read anything!!!
But you’re destroying your credibility by going to extremes in your comparisons and both exaggerating Intel’s improvements and what AMD still has to catch up on in other areas!
Sorry but Intel Iris utterly trashes AMD’s IGP’s and AMD won’t even come close until Q214 and by then it might be much too late because R.I.P AMD 1969-2014!!!
Any non-intel-based evidence for that? The only benchmark I’ve seen is that the new 4770k has a GPU on 30% more powerful than the 3770K.
Maybe the higher-end IGP’s will perform better, but maybe they will be too constrained by memory bandwidth.
Kaveri is targeting the performance range of the AMD Radeon HD 7750…
While Iris Pro targets the performance range of NVIDIA’s GeForce GT 650M…
So they’re basically both shooting for similar performance ranges, but we’ll have to wait for actual benchmarks and usage testing to see which are actually better and whether there are any trade offs for either solution…
Only things is the Haswell GMA rollout won’t all offer improved performance as some will emphasize power efficiency instead…
Like the previous demo Intel did showing how Haswell could operate at below 8W and still provide the performance of a 17W Ivy Bridge…
While neither will ever replace a high performance discrete graphic card… They are just getting good enough that you can do without the low to possibly mid-range discrete card.
If that’s True then Intel has won. Intel Haswell has the better CPU and it uses less power. AMD Kaveri Won’t even come close to Intel’s low power chips. Kaveri was AMD’s LAST chance and AMD just wasted it. Kaveri needed to be better than Haswell in every possible way and IT FAILED so NOW AMD IS TOAST!!!!!
Kaveri is a long way from being benchmarked so I don’t know how you can talk with any certainty about it.
AMD can get by just fine by having cheaper chips than Intels, after all that’s exactly what has made ARM so successful.
I’d suggest tranquilizers to counter whatever you’re own and learn to relax!
Unless you forgot, AMD makes discrete graphic cards too, but Intel makes none!
While Intel won’t be pushing their Iris Pro for desktop, only BGA!
So it’s still either AMD or Nvidia discrete cards for gaming rigs, etc.
You’re also failing to factor the cost difference… Intel may be providing the better overall package now but it still cost significantly more to choose them over AMD…
Only Bay Trail will offer equal to lower costs but won’t be offering better performance.
While power efficiency only has to be good enough… AMD may be still a long way from offering mobile power efficiency but they could be good enough for people who don’t need to be running on battery power for very long and for those people the price difference may be worth it.
Besides, no one is making you buy AMD… So why get so upset if other people buy it?
At worst it’s something other people have to deal with and at best it provides Intel with incentive to continue improving at a fast rate and not to ignore the traditional PC market as they expand into the mobile market… The later being win win for everyone!
After all, they don’t call Intel the sleeping giant without a good reason… Intel needs to awakened every now or then or they get complacent and start getting lazy in their product development…
Just look at the original 5 years of the ATOM… They had no real competition so for about 5 years the ATOM saw no real improvement!
Only now that there’s competition that they finally kick it into gear and make the ATOM competitive.
And ARM only challenges Intel on the low end, so Intel still needs a challenger on the high end!
Really, you need to see the big picture and stop hoping for a situation that won’t help the consumers!
That’s the problem AMD won’t have mobile level power usage and their inferior CPU performance means that for what most people want Intel is better plus to them AMD doesn’t exist because of bad marketing. Because AMD sucks ASS and shouldn’t be bought EVER!!!! Doesn’t matter to me because the prices are about the same to me even if AMD is cheap on chip price the savings don’t get passed down to me so its a moot point. AMD’s power consumption won’t be good enough and that’s the problem!!!!!
Look, you can hate AMD all you want but that has nothing to do with actual reality.
AMD doesn’t have to beat Intel to make a niche for itself and there’s more than one way to compete!
Intel isn’t doing themselves any favors by continuing to price Haswell higher than any other option.
Performance and power efficiency are great but it’s not the only consideration for everyone! Really, products like netbooks would never have been popular at all otherwise if that was the case!
Sure, AMD needed a stronger turn out but it’s not going to kill them over night unless their next gen doesn’t improve enough either!
While a lot of people still hold the opinion that Intel graphics still suck, which compared to discrete graphics they still do… Neither AMD or Intel are providing performance that’s better than you can get with discrete graphic cards.
And no, the price savings do get passed down! Over $100 difference is no small bit of change.
The only way to get a Core i-Series at similar price point is to cut corners on the product… like getting a lower quality screen and other ways of lowering costs.
To some people this is no small difference but a deciding factor.
It’s the same argument for ARM competing with Intel… it just needs to be good enough for the average user…
Besides, there’s a difference from what the products should be on paper and what they are in real life… Both Haswell and Kaveri need to be properly vetted and only then can we properly compare as both companies can promise all they want but it’s results that count…
Comments are closed.