bit-tech.net

AMD's Brazos and Zacate Benchmarked

AMD's Brazos and Zacate Benchmarked

AMD's Zacate appears to be outclassed by Intel's top-end Atom, when paired with Nvidia's Ion NG.

The first benchmarks of AMD's Fusion-based chips, the Brazos C-50, Brazos C-30 and Zacate E-350, have appeared - and initial impressions aren't all that favourable for the Zacate line.

French tech site Blogeee.net has posted scores comparing AMD's Fusion to Intel's various Atom processors in 3DMark06, and it's not looking too good for AMD's Zacate range if the figures are accurate.

While AMD's Brazos platform handily beat Intel's entire Atom range - in some cases by a factor of 17 - when the chips were paired with Intel's own Graphics Media Accelerator GPU, the story changed when Nvidia's Ion GPU was introduced into the equation.

With the Brazos C-30 scoring 1,611 and the faster C-50 managing 1,749, AMD's latest Fusion chips blew past Intel's Atoms - and even managed to pip the Atom N330 with Nvidia Ion to the post, which scored a close 1,555.

The Zacate E-350 performed even better, boasting an impressive 2,251. This also demonstrated that it's possible for AMD's mobile Fusion chips to be used without dedicated graphics hardware, relying instead on the integrated GPU.

However, the story changed when the desktop-orientated Atom D525 was paired with Nvidia's Ion NG graphics platform. This setup scored 2,480 in the 3D benchmark, beating even the impressive performance of the Zacate platform, which won't be going down well with AMD fans.

That said, AMD's APUs have the bonus of having everything integrated into the chip, rather than having a separate CPU and GPU. It's also worth noting that 3DMark06 is an old synthetic 3D benchmark, and that it's not necessarily indicative of current performance in real games using different engines. It also doesn't provide any indication of the chips' performance in other areas, such as video playback.

Even so, the initial impression from the figures is that the Brazos line-up can offer a serious alternative to Atom and Ion pairings in the mobile space, but Zacate appears to need more power in order to seriously take on top-end Atom chips in the small-form factor and all-in-one desktop space.

Do you think that AMD's Zacate can still offer something new in the CPU market, or will the convenience of a single-chip setup be ignored in favour of the raw power of an Atom and Ion NG pairing? Share your thoughts over in the forums.

44 Comments

Discuss in the forums Reply
NickCPC 24th January 2011, 13:11 Quote
Well, 3DM06 is ridiculously CPU weighted (my OC'd 2500K + HD6850 comfortably beats a friend's OC'd i5 760 and 2x HD4870X2s in Crossfire) - but the platform will surely be targetting the HD video crowd, so I'm not reading too far into it.
Enzo Matrix 24th January 2011, 13:13 Quote
What about power consumption? Does the Atom D525 and ion use less or the same power as zacate or does zacate use less?
r3loaded 24th January 2011, 13:29 Quote
3D Mark 06, and pairing Atom with Ion isn't really a fair comparison. Remember that Fusion integrates the GPU on-chip, and consumes less power. Yawn.

/me walks past
CAT-THE-FIFTH 24th January 2011, 13:49 Quote
It seems that the Toms Hardware review of the Asrock E350M1 was missed by Bit-tech:

http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/asrock-e350m1-amd-brazos-zacate-apu,review-32098.html
CAT-THE-FIFTH 24th January 2011, 13:51 Quote
It seems that even a CULV and Ion combination is slower in games.
CAT-THE-FIFTH 24th January 2011, 13:53 Quote
BTW,nice to see that Bit-tech also missed the news that 1.3million Zacate chips have been shipped already:

http://www.engadget.com/2011/01/22/amd-ships-1-3-million-fusion-apus-35-million-directx-11-gpus-s/
Xtrafresh 24th January 2011, 13:54 Quote
so how long until anything relevant turns up again?

Edit: ah, apparently, minus 5 minutes :D Thx for the link CAT :)
Evildead666 24th January 2011, 13:59 Quote
The dude on the Blogeee website got the info from a 'friend'.
he doesn't have any of the hardware, or all of the test info on hand.

Some people in the comments asked about the difference between the E-350 and the C-30/50 numbers.
C-30 = single core 1.2GHz/280MHz GPU.
C-50 = Dual Core 1GHz/280MHz GPU
E-350 = DC 1.6GHz/500MHz GPU

I'll be waiting for real benchmarks when someone has the stuff in their hands.
frontline 24th January 2011, 14:07 Quote
Parge 24th January 2011, 14:56 Quote
This is a truly terrible source. If bit tech isn't going to post too many news stories (which is fine), at least make sure the ones they do post contain actual facts and not wild google translated speculation. Another cracker from Gareth 'halfarsed' Halfacree.
Gareth Halfacree 24th January 2011, 16:07 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Parge
This is a truly terrible source. If bit tech isn't going to post too many news stories (which is fine), at least make sure the ones they do post contain actual facts and not wild google translated speculation. Another cracker from Gareth 'halfarsed' Halfacree.

Love you too, sweetie. Kisses!
Parge 24th January 2011, 16:31 Quote
Less holidays in Norway and maybe less of your articles will be taken down.
Senilex 24th January 2011, 16:46 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Parge
This is a truly terrible source. If bit tech isn't going to post too many news stories (which is fine), at least make sure the ones they do post contain actual facts and not wild google translated speculation. Another cracker from Gareth 'halfarsed' Halfacree.

this. this. and more this. Everything that Gareth writes seems to mis informed or not researched in any capacity at all. Remember the Dual Bios 6950 bit of news that was written the other day then was pulled as they made a complete tit of themselves.
SoulRider 24th January 2011, 17:22 Quote
Guys, please, you are being a bit hard on Gareth. I mean he's obviously just anti-AMD and is trying to start flame wars with terrible posts that involve AMD. :D
He picks virtually the only review which calls out the AMD chips as a crap option. ;)
-EVRE- 24th January 2011, 17:33 Quote
O.o

yea, this isnt what I would have published for AMD's new CPU/GPU's...
bobwya 24th January 2011, 18:25 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gareth Halfacree
Quote:
Originally Posted by Parge
This is a truly terrible source. If bit tech isn't going to post too many news stories (which is fine), at least make sure the ones they do post contain actual facts and not wild google translated speculation. Another cracker from Gareth 'halfarsed' Halfacree.

Love you too, sweetie. Kisses!

Oh wtf. Is this joker for real? Or perhaps he's just some geeky kid working after school for some extra pocket money...

btw Mr G. - since the AMD APU's are out in the wild why have you not covered the most important data... You know like uhhmm, duhhh system power consumption!! Performance figures are meaningless if your AMD netbook only has 2 hours battery life...
KidMod-Southpaw 24th January 2011, 18:50 Quote
Well, these chips seem great for real world benchmarks. This will take the media benchmarks to decide it.
Xyllian 24th January 2011, 19:03 Quote
Im sorry but that is a plain stupid comparison, i bet the AMD chip draws just about half the power compared to the ION/ATOM combo. Completely different playing fields.
Snips 24th January 2011, 19:13 Quote
Thanks Gareth. This piece was a nice short accurate thought provoking piece on the new AMD offering.

I too agree that while it is a good single low powered CPU/GPU solution, it still has a fair bit of catching up to do with the market satuarion of Atom or Atom/ION combination.

The real question here for the low end netbook, low powered notebook is whether AMD have come too late to the market. Maybe not since they are so cheap to replace and I've had two myself over the last 2 years for one accident to another.
frontline 24th January 2011, 19:42 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snips
Thanks Gareth. This piece was a nice short accurate thought provoking piece on the new AMD offering.

I too agree that while it is a good single low powered CPU/GPU solution, it still has a fair bit of catching up to do with the market satuarion of Atom or Atom/ION combination.

The real question here for the low end netbook, low powered notebook is whether AMD have come too late to the market. Maybe not since they are so cheap to replace and I've had two myself over the last 2 years for one accident to another.

Not too late for me, who thought that Atom powered anything was a complete waste of space.

Personally, i have no interest in tablet computing and it has probably already reached saturation point with the ipad. Netbooks/ultra-portable laptops haven't even begun to reach their potential. This sector has been dominated by under-powered, low price crap or over-priced, low battery life products.

The main use for a low power netbook or ultra-portable has got to be web browsing, e-mail, with a bit of HD video streaming and maybe some audio/video encoding + casual gaming. GPU accelerated video and GPU accelerated web browsing is available on this platform, making genuine multi-tasking a possibility on a low end machine.

From Tom's Hardware review:
Quote:
In the context of media-oriented nettops, though, I’d rather not use Ion’s CUDA-based encode acceleration and get a better picture. That takes away much of the platform’s advantage over AMD’s E-350
schmidtbag 24th January 2011, 20:37 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by CAT-THE-FIFTH
It seems that the Toms Hardware review of the Asrock E350M1 was missed by Bit-tech:

http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/asrock-e350m1-amd-brazos-zacate-apu,review-32098.html

i think this is important to bring up, because tom's hardware is (or at least at one point was) a very biased site and they were saying how zacate is performing very well (altho i'm a little confused how the celeron did so well considering what it was). i think an atom with ion could possibly beat zacate in cpu+gpu tests.

if anyone wants REAL facts, don't rely on 1 website. i check guru3d for benchmarks, i check bittech for tech news and backup benchmarks, and i use phoronix for linux news and untested benchmarks.
StoneyMahoney 24th January 2011, 21:14 Quote
Snips 24th January 2011, 22:34 Quote
Why is it when Bit-tech speak the truth about product reviews the fanboys come out trying to quote from other sites, as if they can be trusted any more than Bit-Tech.

Face facts gents, maybe it just isn't that good in the first place.
frontline 24th January 2011, 23:11 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snips
Why is it when Bit-tech speak the truth about product reviews the fanboys come out trying to quote from other sites, as if they can be trusted any more than Bit-Tech.

Face facts gents, maybe it just isn't that good in the first place.

Do you even bother to read anything before trolling every AMD related thread?

bit-tech haven't reviewed anything, the only info available IS from other sites, including the info which is the source of the article.
schmidtbag 25th January 2011, 00:01 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snips
Why is it when Bit-tech speak the truth about product reviews the fanboys come out trying to quote from other sites, as if they can be trusted any more than Bit-Tech.

Face facts gents, maybe it just isn't that good in the first place.

sites like tomshardware IS a site that some people find more trustworthy than bit-tech (personally i don't but some do). and like i said in my previous post, its better to check multiple sites, especially non-biased ones, and just get a mental average of what the product performs best against. also, you can't base how good a product is on 1 test that is currently about 5 years old.
i've seen test results where a triple core phenom II has outperformed one of the lower-end quad core i7s with HT on. that does not at all mean its faster just because a couple tests said so.

honestly, you MUST be an intel fanboy considering the fact that you did not realize what i and frontline have mentioned.
Krayzie_B.o.n.e. 25th January 2011, 01:10 Quote
Great article....
I just love all the pie charts, benchmarks, and the two tons of information in this article that compared all the different cpu's and configurations together so I could see for myself how the chips performed. Great job with all that DATA. Must of been a pain to do all those test. I'm glad you took the time to do them and post the results, Thanks.

Oh wait I'm sorry wrong Thread cause this article offered NOTHING!!
leexgx 25th January 2011, 01:45 Quote
i not looked at tomware site for long time (2 years+) norm junk reviews or mistakes that should not be there (went down hill when that media company taken hold of them)

bit-tech/cpc, hardocp, anandtech
CAT-THE-FIFTH 25th January 2011, 02:26 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by schmidtbag
Quote:
Originally Posted by CAT-THE-FIFTH
It seems that the Toms Hardware review of the Asrock E350M1 was missed by Bit-tech:

http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/asrock-e350m1-amd-brazos-zacate-apu,review-32098.html

i think this is important to bring up, because tom's hardware is (or at least at one point was) a very biased site and they were saying how zacate is performing very well (altho i'm a little confused how the celeron did so well considering what it was). i think an atom with ion could possibly beat zacate in cpu+gpu tests.

if anyone wants REAL facts, don't rely on 1 website. i check guru3d for benchmarks, i check bittech for tech news and backup benchmarks, and i use phoronix for linux news and untested benchmarks.

Toms Hardware and Hardware Heaven are the only two major sites which have reviewed AMD Zacate ATM. The Toms Hardware review is the only one which compares Zacate to a CULV Ion and an Atom Ion motherboards.
CAT-THE-FIFTH 25th January 2011, 02:33 Quote
Here is a review of a notebook with a E350:

http://www.laptopmag.com/review/laptops/hp-pavilion-dm1.aspx?page=2

From the review:
"The dual-core 1.6-GHz AMD E-350 CPU and 3GB of RAM powered the dm1z to a PCMark Vantage score of 2,198. That's well above the netbook average (1,351), and beats out the 1215N (1,921) which has a 1.8-GHz Intel Atom D525, and the Toshiba Satellite T215D (1,938), which has a 1.7-GHz AMD Athlon II Neo K125 CPU. However, the dm1z is 1,400 points below the ultraportable average, and comes up short compared to the Lenovo Thinkpad X100e (2,382), which has a dual-core AMD Turion processor, and the Dell Inspiron M101z (2,431), which has a 1.3-GHz AMD Athlon CPU. Even the Acer Aspire 1410, which has a 1.2-GHz Intel Celeron SU2300 CPU, fared better (2,475).
However, synthetic benchmarks are one thing, and real-world tests are another. The dm1z took 2 minutes and 45 seconds to transcode a five-minute, 114MB MPEG4 to AVI using Oxelon Media Encoder. That's more than twice as fast as the netbook average (5:56), but still a minute slower than the ultraportable average (1:58). The dm1z's time also falls between Atom-powered netbooks like the 1215N (3:17) and older AMD-powered machines such as the Dell M101z (2:16).

Converting a five-minute 1080p video to an iPod touch format using MediaShow Espresso took 7 minutes and 21 seconds. That's twice as fast as the Dell Inspiron Duo (14:44), and much better than the 1215N (12:08) and the Aspire 1410 (11:31). Despite having a 7,200-rpm, 320GB hard drive, the dm1z was slow to duplicate a 5GB folder of multimedia; it took 4 minutes and 36 seconds, a rate of 18.4 MBps. That's even slower than the netbook average (18.9 MBps)."
CAT-THE-FIFTH 25th January 2011, 02:39 Quote
Anyway,it will probably be better to wait a few more weeks until more reviews are released to get a better view of the pros and cons of the new AMD E350 based motherboards. Pricing is going to be another major factor too.
wiak 25th January 2011, 04:11 Quote
well
how much power use the so called faster Atom D525 was paired with Nvidia's Ion NG compared to zacate? ;)
and you also have to remember that if you buy a amd zacate netbook/nettop you are guaranteed to get a system that can decode hd in hardware, have alot better 3d perf, and fast enught cpu, if you buy a intel atom system you might get a Intel integrated crapstics, integrated crapstics + a broadcom hd decoder or if your lucky you can pay premium for nvidia ion
Snips 25th January 2011, 09:15 Quote
I know, lets blame Intel because it's all their fault....and let's blame Nvidia as well...because they are doing well again.....and they aren't aloud to because if we can't do a decent job of anything THEN NO ONE CAN!

Come on guys! seriously for one minute. Why bad mouth Bit-Tech just because they report that the current AMD product has some small failings in one particular area. It's not huge, just one small area on this particular product line. Why bad mouth this site as if it's somehow their fault? Quoting other sites here, just shows how desperate you all seem to be for AMD to do well. Of course we would all like to see AMD do well but you can't shoot the messenger when it clearly hasnlt gone well on this particular occasion. If you don't like what Bit-Tech has to say, I'm sure they aren't making you stick around. Although, they must have some of your respect since you DO come here and read their excellent, well informed and accurate topics.

Peace!
Cthippo 25th January 2011, 09:24 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snips
Removed by Bindi.

Insulting other forum members is not appreciated
Snips 25th January 2011, 09:42 Quote
Sorry Boss! Can that go for them as well?
Digi 25th January 2011, 10:03 Quote
Removed by Bindi

OnT: Any competition is better than no competition. I am not in the market for these sorts of chips from any vendor but it's good to see AMD advancing their tech in at least one area. I would have thought despite maybe being beaten by the atom+ion combo, the fact that GPU+CPU are all on one chip would make for a much more competitive price?
Bindibadgi 25th January 2011, 10:40 Quote
Snips: Appreciate the support but please conduct yourself more appropriately in future. Flaming others is not the way to go about making your point.

I've got the Gigabyte E350-USB3 (iirc) coming next week and I'm trying to source a D525 and NV Ion part to compare it to, but people don't want to lend me stuff if they aren't the focus of reviews usually. I've already got a SU2300 laptop and old D330, and I intend to do a clock to clock comparative against an Athlon II X2 as well rather than use a 240e that Tom's did. For a desktop CPU comparative, if I can disable one of the cores in the BIOS ill set it up as a Sempron 140 (£22 CPU): Zacate mini-ITX boards should retail for around the same cost as Sempron 140+basic 880G. There's a lot I'd like to do, but just don't have the parts yet (plus TW goes on Chinese New Year holiday next week).

I was going to use one to do a guide into a low cost Linux XBMC box, but AMD still don't provide any UVD drivers for Ubuntu either.
Denis_iii 25th January 2011, 13:11 Quote
when will next gen Phenom II's be released? are they to be fusion?
Bindibadgi 25th January 2011, 13:19 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Denis_iii
when will next gen Phenom II's be released? are they to be fusion?

Llano. It will have a Phenom II core.
Yslen 25th January 2011, 20:30 Quote
PC Perspective ran some tests a while ago; if memory serves the top end atom + ion combo uses way more power than the AMD chips; they are desktop orientated after all!

Also, synthetic benchmarks? The high end atoms have HT no? I imagine 3dMark makes good use of that, where many apps would be less efficient. Lets wait until bit-tech run them through the good old CPC benchmark suite before yelling at each other.
StoneyMahoney 25th January 2011, 21:17 Quote
Compiling the data from the other reviews, I expect our trusty Bit-tech reviewers to find something along these lines when considering the E-350:

1) 10-15% faster CPU performance than a D525
2) 10-15% slower GPU performance than an Ion 2
3) Significantly better battery life than the other combination

Sounds like a move toward to more balanced, usable ultra-budget gaming platform and I'm all for that now my laptop battery charging system is dead. Have to see how much the Thinkpad X120 weighs in at.
Yslen 25th January 2011, 21:40 Quote
Yep, power really is the key. The ION platform might be quicker but if it can't compete on battery life nobody will want to buy it, because hours of battery life is one of the main selling points of the machines these will be going in.

As for the atom/ion desktop system... why? £30 gets you a discrete, passively cooled graphics card that will sit in the PCI-e slot making no noise and walking all over the ion in terms of performance. Considering how much more expensive the ion systems seem to be this is a fairly major issue...
tad2008 26th January 2011, 14:11 Quote
The big question for me is why did they use 3dmark06, it's a directx9 based benchmark!
tef 26th January 2011, 17:18 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bindibadgi
Snips: Appreciate the support but please conduct yourself more appropriately in future. Flaming others is not the way to go about making your point.

I've got the Gigabyte E350-USB3 (iirc) c...

I was going to use one to do a guide into a low cost Linux XBMC box, but AMD still don't provide any UVD drivers for Ubuntu either.

let us know these result..
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