


|
From the sound of this it does not seem like it can complete with AMD's fusion solution |
|
AMD fusion isn't the competition as much as ARM chips are. This is a tier a bit lower in performance and TDP. |
|
An Atom from what I have heard nor an ARM currently can compete with the Fusion chips and setup's, and it is also way cheaper as well as much more energy efficient than anything Intel currently has on the market. |
|
Uh, no. Wrong on multiple counts, and in multiple ways. 1) Fusion isn't a brand; it's a product strategy. It refers to putting GPUs and CPUs on a single die. Therefore, Bobcat is a Fusion product. Llano is a Fusion product. Future versions of Bulldozer that combine CPU and GPU will be Fusion products--but the first iteration of Bulldozer *isn't.* 2) Bobcat is a 40nm chip. It is not an SoC. It is not designed to fit into the same power envelope as an Atom. Atom can't match ARM power consumption; Bobcat can't match Atom. The fact that Bobcat's lowest-power versions may debut in a few tablets doesn't mean it's truly a competitive solution. AMD won't be able to even think about targeting these markets until Ontario and Zacate are shrunk to a 28nm process. Even then, they'll be playing the "rich experience" card as opposed to the "great battery life" card. Remember, folks, physics is a ***. Atom looks the way it does because Intel chose to conserve power virtually every time when it came time to choose between power and performance. Bobcat outperforms Atom because AMD chose to improve performance at the cost of maximum power conservation. This isn't going to magically change at some point in the future. ARM chips, in fact, will end up drawing more power as they adopt certain x86 features. |