You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
What embedded SoC or Fusion processor can outperform ps360?
- Thread starter Flux
- Start date
I don't think the CPU part is equivalent to PS360 by quite a stretch. Maybe the GPU is in situations involving only light pixel shading and mostly opaque pixels (due to its tile-based deferred rendering scheme). It could certainly not match 360 fillrate in particular for transparent pixels...Apple A6. Believe.
The extra cost of the A8 K, an FM1 mobo, high speed RAM, and the risk of OCing it makes the example kind of moot.
The extra cost of the A8 K, an FM1 mobo, high speed RAM, and the risk of OCing it makes the example kind of moot.
Somehow I don't think that needing a motherboard (or 1866 RAM) counts as an extra cost! (especially when the OP has not said a thing about price).
I doubt it, unless the CPU is 3-4x faster than A5X CPU (and even more in vector processing). Quad core A15 based CPU could be 3x faster than the current dual core Cortex A9 (1.5x perf per core, 2x cores), but so far it seems that the first Krait and A15 based products will be dual cores. Maybe we will see a quad core A15 in A7. With second gen Rogue in it, it would likely reach current generation console performance (9 year behind them in time, but in your pocket).Apple A6. Believe.
D
Deleted member 13524
Guest
Oops, wrong thread.
Nonetheless, I thought any quad-core/400sp Llano and Ivy-Bridge were already up to the task of surpassing any console so far (Wii U is still a mistery, though).
In it seems that 2012 APUs only need less than 30W to use that kind of performance, which is a feat by itself.
Nonetheless, I thought any quad-core/400sp Llano and Ivy-Bridge were already up to the task of surpassing any console so far (Wii U is still a mistery, though).
In it seems that 2012 APUs only need less than 30W to use that kind of performance, which is a feat by itself.
Somehow I don't think that needing a motherboard (or 1866 RAM) counts as an extra cost! (especially when the OP has not said a thing about price).
You're still having to sink extra cost into an 'unlocked' processor, an FM1 mobo (which can be very expensive compared to the last gen of AM3s) and possibly very fast memory to get the most out of it. While I am a fan of Fusion, at the same time, to me it's worthless as a serious desktop platform for gaming. Mobile is a different argument, but on the desktop front, Fusion is a bit silly as a gaming platform, and we'll probably never see Fusion APUs get used for GPGPU game physics. The best chance for that is use in a game console (suspected PS4?).
Last edited by a moderator:
Blazkowicz
Legend
if you go for the cheapest 1866MHz ddr3, it's affordable these days, on my usual retailer it's 60€ for 2x4GB, versus 49€ for 2x4GB 1600. an FM1 mobo can be affordable too, check the boxes : "Asrock", and "A55 chipset".
here is the most expensive such one : http://www.ldlc.com/fiche/PB00119414.html
you should be able to overclock a locked APU model, at your own risk.
factor in the price of a CPU cooler, too - but here there's kind of an advantage, perhaps the only one, you don't have to pay for a nice GPU cooling. only one heatsink to make your low end gaming rig quiet at full load.
sure you could get a pentium G, lower end mobo, slower memory and a radeon 6850, stock heatsinks, so the APU is moot if you're after framerates.
piledriver APU will be incrementally better except it's on a FM2 socket, which I don't remember what's it for. fine grained "turbo", maybe.
here is the most expensive such one : http://www.ldlc.com/fiche/PB00119414.html
you should be able to overclock a locked APU model, at your own risk.
factor in the price of a CPU cooler, too - but here there's kind of an advantage, perhaps the only one, you don't have to pay for a nice GPU cooling. only one heatsink to make your low end gaming rig quiet at full load.
sure you could get a pentium G, lower end mobo, slower memory and a radeon 6850, stock heatsinks, so the APU is moot if you're after framerates.
piledriver APU will be incrementally better except it's on a FM2 socket, which I don't remember what's it for. fine grained "turbo", maybe.
You're still having to sink extra cost into an 'unlocked' processor, an FM1 mobo (which can be very expensive compared to the last gen of AM3s) and possibly very fast memory to get the most out of it. While I am a fan of Fusion, at the same time, to me it's worthless as a serious desktop platform for gaming. Mobile is a different argument, but on the desktop front, Fusion is a bit silly as a gaming platform, and we'll probably never see Fusion APUs get used for GPGPU game physics. The best chance for that is use in a game console (suspected PS4?).
FM1 motherboards don't cost much, The memory is not that fast nor does it cost a huge amount and why does it have to do GPGPU game physics? The 360 nor PS3 do game physics on the GPU nor do highend AMD cards.
sure you could get a pentium G, lower end mobo, slower memory and a radeon 6850, stock heatsinks, so the APU is moot if you're after framerates.
piledriver APU will be incrementally better except it's on a FM2 socket, which I don't remember what's it for. fine grained "turbo", maybe.
My point entirely. It would've been cool to see Propus Athlon II x4s move to 32 nm, but of course it would've competed directly with AMDs own Fusion processors. My biggest beef is still over bandwidth, hence why as a performance part I generally disregard Fusion in desktops. I've considered the idea of making a very small mini-ITX Fusion system, and Trinity certainly seems desirable, if it goes into desktops.
Similar threads
- Replies
- 11
- Views
- 3K
- Replies
- 90
- Views
- 13K
- Replies
- 34
- Views
- 5K
D