bit-tech.net

AMD Ontario performance numbers leaked

AMD Ontario performance numbers leaked

AMD's upcoming Fusion APU, Ontario, has had its performance numbers leaked online.

Raw performance figures for AMD's first Fusion based product, the upcoming Ontario processor, have been leaked and frankly things are looking pretty good.

The story originates from German site Hardware Infos which seems to have gotten its hands on a leaked specification table that shows the Ontario based accelerated processing unit (APU) to be capable of 1.352 GFLOPS of floating-point performance. To put this in context this is just over twice the performance of an Intel Atom D510 CPU, but falls 15 per cent short of a low power Athlon II X2 250u. The leaked performance figures also suggest the APU contains a curious 488kB of cache.

While it’s disappointing that AMD’s new architecture seems to be beaten out by a processor based on the ageing K10 architecture its worth remembering that Ontario based APU’s are reported to operate at only 18W and include a DirectX 11 graphics core to boot. This compares favorably to the 25W Athlon II X2 250u draws (which, don’t forget, will also require an additional graphics chip) and certainly points to Fusion being able to take the fight to Intel in terms of performance per Watt.

Intel's Atom D510 meanwhile only draws 13W, but it's looking very much worth the extra 5W for the performance and graphical wizardry that the Ontario APU offers.

These figures are broadly in line with AMD’s early claim that its Bobcat based Ontario APU core would feature 90 per cent of 2010's mainstream performance in just 50 per cent of the die area. Obviously the accuracy of this claim depends where you draw the line for "mainstream" though.

Unfortunately, consumers won't be able to buy a boxed retail Ontario APU as it’s a BGA only chip and so has to be soldered directly to a PCB. Hopefully we might get a couple mini-ITX or similar small form factor boards with the CPU built in though.

What do you think of these early performance numbers? Let us know your thoughts in the forums.

AMD Ontario performance numbers leaked AMD Ontario performance numbers leak

AMD Ontario performance numbers leaked AMD Ontario performance numbers leak

38 Comments

Discuss in the forums Reply
MrJay 30th July 2010, 14:11 Quote
Me likey!
been itching to get on with a new ITX build, looks like a board based around this chip would be a winner.
Phalanx 30th July 2010, 14:12 Quote
That's stunning. I'll hold off building my HTPC until this launches then :)
mjb501 30th July 2010, 14:54 Quote
Looks very promising.
Tulatin 30th July 2010, 14:57 Quote
Looks promising, though I think I'd be more receptive of it if it could match the performance of the 250u listed; still if it can do all this in the power/thermal envelope of the Atom, that'd be impressive.
Evildead666 30th July 2010, 15:44 Quote
Very impressive indeed.
Why they tested on Server 2008 R2 for an atom oriented type of chip could indicate that Low-power servers may also be powered by such chips...
How many could fit in a 1U blade ?
general22 30th July 2010, 15:53 Quote
Pretty shifty benchmark, 3 different operating systems (Yes I know they are the same core). Still it looks like they made a good low power CPU for a HTPC with the integrated GPU.
crazyceo 30th July 2010, 15:54 Quote
Yawn
javaman 30th July 2010, 15:57 Quote
Will a version of this be hitting the gap between netbooks and cheap laptops sort of where the CULV processors sit or is neo challenging that spot?
rickysio 30th July 2010, 16:31 Quote
And the next thing we know, Intel issues press release : Next Gen Atom, with similar TDP but tripled performance bound... one month before Ontario launches.
CowBlazed 30th July 2010, 19:19 Quote
11-12" netbook with this is a complete win.
borandi 30th July 2010, 19:24 Quote
You mean 1.352 GFlops, not 1,352. 1,352 GFlops puts it on par with the GTX480.

(On the continent, they use a comma where we use a decimal point. The french call it 'le point' I believe.)
ChuckyP83 30th July 2010, 19:50 Quote
You could say 1,352 Megaflops...
Just sayin...
alwayssts 30th July 2010, 19:59 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by javaman
Will a version of this be hitting the gap between netbooks and cheap laptops...?

Yes. Is it effectively replacing Neo in that area.

Llano will be replacing the regular laptop lineup.

AFAIK AMD (per their roadmaps) does not plan to offer a triple or dual core Llano for laptops, only quad-core, which leads me to assume Ontario will fill that segment.
HourBeforeDawn 30th July 2010, 20:18 Quote
wow that could be an Atom killer right there given the wider range of support and most likely HD support as well. hmm I have a 12" ION Netbook but I would be happy to replace it with a similar model of this. ^_^ and I bet will have much better battery life too.
Blanx3_Bytex 30th July 2010, 22:05 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by crazyceo
Yawn

crazyceo are you seriously uninterested in a new product that could give the mobile market a proper shakeup? or maybe suspect fanboy-ism is at work...
ssj12 30th July 2010, 22:23 Quote
looks like Intel needs to step their game up on the low powered CPUs now. Interesting turn of events.
null_x86 30th July 2010, 23:15 Quote
numbers look pretty damn impressive, but why make it a x86 architecture? Why not x64?
HourBeforeDawn 30th July 2010, 23:41 Quote
Everybody listen CrazyCeo was simply born with a negative outlook on life, if you notice ALL his post tend to be negative so dont waste your time with him and just move on for more worth wild post.
Bakes 30th July 2010, 23:44 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by HourBeforeDawn
Everybody listen CrazyCeo was simply born with a negative outlook on life, if you notice ALL his post tend to be negative so dont waste your time with him and just move on for more worth wild post.

No, I've seen some positive posts ;)

I'd only say that he has an unusually negative outlook on AMD and ATI products in general.
dyzophoria 31st July 2010, 04:24 Quote
id like to see AMD beat the 13w draw :), promising but im an addict on ultra low power stuff,lol
general22 31st July 2010, 04:53 Quote
Worth noting is that this chip isn't really in the current netbook territory which would be the Atom N450 which is listed as a 5.5W chip.
Bindibadgi 31st July 2010, 05:40 Quote
Yes it's 1.3 GFLOP. Typo fixed.

The graph is from a German website we linked to and they use , instead of . :)

General - true, but AMD will also launch single core versions too afaik. The comparative was dual core to dual core. Companies use the 410 because it's something like $20 cheaper. The 410 is actually an expensive chip compared to what Intel launched the D230 at two years ago.

Null - x64 is not needed in the lowest performance sectors, plus it adds transistors which = heat and cost.

dyzophoria - Ontario is currently being FAB'd by TSMC if its 40nm, so as soon as TSMC goes to 28nm or AMD goes GOFLO w/32/28nm the wattage will drop again.

Also remember that this chip has out of order execution, unlike the Atom which is an in-order core only = less transistors and lower heat ;)
l3v1ck 31st July 2010, 08:09 Quote
Are there any leaks on Bulldozer yet?
alpha0ne23 31st July 2010, 11:43 Quote
Finally the dream might come true............an always on HTPC that is economical to use 24/7/365 and is more than powerful enough to run bloooray and play the occasional game
bobwya 31st July 2010, 19:09 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by general22
Worth noting is that this chip isn't really in the current netbook territory which would be the Atom N450 which is listed as a 5.5W chip.

Uhhmm, so that includes the HD graphics support chip / aging chipset power draw as well - right? (cough, cough)
HourBeforeDawn 31st July 2010, 19:52 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by dyzophoria
id like to see AMD beat the 13w draw :), promising but im an addict on ultra low power stuff,lol

but if you take into account the gpu that intel has to add along with their cpu and the communications and so forth the wattage is great then AMD single CPU/GPU solution so if you are an ultra low power addict then this is lower then Intels offering already and like what Bindi said will get even lower when they switch to a smaller process. :)
frontline 31st July 2010, 21:17 Quote
Looks like the next few months are going to be very interesting on the CPU/GPU/APU front!
azrael- 1st August 2010, 02:05 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bindibadgi
Null - x64 is not needed in the lowest performance sectors, plus it adds transistors which = heat and cost.
Last I checked Windows Server 2008 R2 (the one built on the Win7 codebase) was 64 bit only, so either the OS was incorrectly specified or Ontario *does* do x64. :)
Bindibadgi 1st August 2010, 05:07 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by azrael-
Last I checked Windows Server 2008 R2 (the one built on the Win7 codebase) was 64 bit only, so either the OS was incorrectly specified or Ontario *does* do x64. :)

Oh well, there we are then :P I assumed they'd skimp on it given the design is power sensitive not performance
DrTiCool 1st August 2010, 10:35 Quote
Nice AMD, now roll out Bulldozer specs.
null_x86 2nd August 2010, 00:08 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by azrael-
Last I checked Windows Server 2008 R2 (the one built on the Win7 codebase) was 64 bit only, so either the OS was incorrectly specified or Ontario *does* do x64. :)

AFAIK, R2 is all 64 bit, non-R2 is all 64 bit except for the very base standard version of W2K8 Standard.

@Bindi, true, I do forget about that. I just would love the ability to be able to carry a 64bit OS in my back pocket, if nothing else then to say I did.
general22 2nd August 2010, 04:03 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobwya
Uhhmm, so that includes the HD graphics support chip / aging chipset power draw as well - right? (cough, cough)

Well yes it does include the integrated graphics and by aging support chip I am guessing you are referring to the no longer used ICH7. This has been replaced by the newer more power efficient NM10 southbridge. Don't forget this Ontario chip will also require an I/O chip.

Anyway my point was this doesn't compete with netbook Atom CPU's(in terms of power draw) which is the idea some were getting. It does look to do very well against dual core Atoms.
Bindibadgi 2nd August 2010, 04:14 Quote
"more power efficient" but lower performance NM10. SATA performance is poor and we don't know what Ontario will pair with yet. AMD's 55nm "full" southbridges are pretty cool running already.
general22 2nd August 2010, 04:22 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bindibadgi
"more power efficient" but lower performance NM10. SATA performance is poor and we don't know what Ontario will pair with yet. AMD's 55nm "full" southbridges are pretty cool running already.

I didn't know it was lower performance, although I guess the netbook market doesn't really care from what I have seen. I am sure this could compete with netbook Atom in a scaled down form which you mentioned earlier but not in its current spec. I am thinking Ontario would be a good fit for larger CULV notebooks but we will have to wait and see.

I am hoping the forthcoming mobile platforms from AMD do well as I am a little sick of buying Intel all the time in the mobile space.
Bindibadgi 2nd August 2010, 06:05 Quote
Yea CULV competitor maybe, or a replacement for the "large" netbook/Ion market of ~11-12 inches.
Hashime 4th August 2010, 03:15 Quote
"Ontario" That really screwed me up for a second, I was thinking the province, not the core.
crazyceo 4th August 2010, 13:57 Quote
This is the problem with AMD "Leak's". You all start leg humping and then realise you're doing it to a dead horse!

I'll happily wait for the Bit-Tech full detailed review before I comment further.
Blanx3_Bytex 7th August 2010, 20:58 Quote
Has Bit-tech ever actually done a review on a mobile processor yet?
Log in

You are not logged in, please login with your forum account below. If you don't already have an account please register to start contributing.



Discuss in the forums