Do you know the design details of AMD APUs? How, please tell us?
Sandy Bridge is probably the last good Intel innovative CPU. Do you agree? If not, we have nothing more to talk about. That said, SB was 32nm and CRZ is 28nm, both planar nodes: it sounds like a fair comparison.
Why the hell should we compare Carrizo with Broadwell. Do you have any idea about the cost per chip difference between them? Broadwell simply sucks: such a great process and such a poor performance jump. Wait, no jump at all. Just less power at best.
HSA is great, and all the others will just copy it sooner or later.
It is not correct. The 40% power reduction is at the same (even slightly higher) performance. Sad but true, that's instead exactly what Intel is doing: see the Core-M chip. Just a castrated version of Haswell (at 14nm).
I do not care about investments. So I just wish you all the best.
Once more, that's your opinion. You simply compare it with the I7. The market segment and the price are completely different.
Carrizo is just a mobile chip, and to me a very good value for the money you spend. Think about the crazy expensive Intel IrisPro GPU: Carrizo can easily draw circles on it.
I bet so.
Once more, I disagree. Let's wait and see.
The design stuff is easy to find no the net. Do a search, but I like Realworldtech the best. I mean really, that's kind of a silly question, anyone can find this stuff. Here's a good link on BD ->
AMD's Bulldozer Microarchitecture
Your view of "good" is simplistic. Broadwell is vastly superior to Sandy Bridge in the same way you point out Carrizo is improved, except Broadwell is better at everything (albeit, not to the same extent we expected). Ivy Bridge was a nice a shrink, Haswell looked great on paper, and fooled me when it came out. Based on the design, I was expecting much better multi-threaded performance, but in reality, it didn't help that much. Broadwell is too narrowly focused, but it does move Intel lower into tablets. But, that market is iffy. Carrizo is pure junk, by comparison, and can't replace the predecessor because it actually performs worse at high clock speeds.
You obviously don't understand what Carrizo is. I'm not talking about IPC, I'm talking about clock speeds. Carrizo CAN NOT clock as high, and is a lower performance part because of it. If you use them both at 25 watts, Carrizo will perform better, if you look at 125 watts, or 95 watts, Steamroller would. Of, if you want to look at 3.7 GHz base, for example, you'd need much more power for Carrizo than Kaveri. If you don't know this, there's nothing left to talk about until you learn more about the processor. Even AMD has published this. Actually read it. That's why it's not going to be on the desktop, it performs worse, and is targeted at narrow watt ranges.
You have the market segment stuff completely backwards. AMD can't market it there, so you have the tail wagging the dog. AMD's BD line is quite large, not small, so from that perspective it IS the same segment. But, you have it all backwards. They don't sell it for as much, because it's wholly inferior and no one would buy it. Thus, the inferiority I'm telling you about is exactly the cause it's in a different segment, and exactly why Intel can charge more. It's not because AMD's chips are small, they're huge. But, they have to segment them where people will actually buy them. Of course, I'm not referring to Jaguar/Puma, just the big junk.
HSA is just a name. It didn't help Kaveri, and saying it is fully HSA 1.0 now isn't going to change anything. But, sadly, once again Intel has already copied the unified memory architecture, so it's not even an advantage for AMD. So, yes, it's good to have, but not a big deal by any means. The problem is, once again Intel failed to innovate, but didn't fail to copy before AMD gained any advantage. It's easy to hate Intel, not only for their lack of innovation, but also because nonsense like contra revenue destroys the merits of technology. It's disgusting.
Broadwell isn't a bad chip, but it's easy to see why people are disappointed by it. I am as well. Intel is being very myopic, and worrying too much about power. AMD had no choice, there's no way they're getting performance out of the BD line, it's horrible. Intel has no idea how to make a low-end chip, Atom is a disaster and a terrible design. But, it keeps AMD out with contra revenue. But, in terms of performance per watt, at low wattages, it's a good improvement. Also, unlike AMD, they didn't have to sell two chips when they came out with Haswell (same process as IB, so I'm using it as an example). Because AMD hurt the potential performance with Carrizo, they have to keep Kaveri, which didn't improve performance over the Piledriver processors. So, AMD has three lines of big processors, from different generations, because they can't improve performance uniformly. In each case, the max clock speed dropped. Haswell didn't have that problem, and yet still had better performance at lower wattages than IB. So, you pan Intel for something, but then go easily on AMD for doing something far worse. Three generations of the processors, and yet the oldest is still the performance part, due to higher clock speeds. That's OK, because, well, AMD said it's for mobile, but it's not OK for Intel, even though they improve performance in mobile dramatically, but only improve performance on the desktop slightly. That's worse, right? AMDroids always use weird logic.
Until Carrizo is out, it's silly to say what it can and can't do compared to Intel's Iris Pro. Obviously, AMD's GPU technology is more efficient, but if you haven't noticed, memory is becoming the bottleneck on APUs, and Intel's memory controller is way better. So, we'll have to see, but iGPU performance obviously matters little, since AMD has had a edge for a long time, and it hasn't correlated into sales. Look at the last several years. AMD had better iGPUs, and suffered badly in market share losses. But, again, you don't compare the cost from a retail perspective, but from a creation perspective to judge the success of a design. AMD can't sell their chips for much, because they suck. That's not a positive, so why are you using it as one? If you want to talk about how tiny a core is, and use that as a basis, I'll go along with that. Telling me a large chip sells inexpensively is exactly the point you don't want to make.
You're right, let's wait and see. Most of the time, it's easy to see, and it is this time too, Carrizo should continue to languish, but you never know until you know. Particularly on a product we haven't seen benchmarked, but given AMD's guidance about performance, I'd be astounded if it performed radically different in IPC, and if it doesn't, the performance improvement will be too small to even compete with Intel's superior design. And yes, I do compare them, because AMD's chip is large, and isn't cheap to make. Much larger than Core M, about double the size. It's also significantly larger than Haswell, if you want to move up a node for Intel, so let's not try to pretend they aren't competitors, because you don't like the comparison. It has to compete with those chips, or sell at very low margins. Or more like not sell at very low margins, since they can't move chips even with low pricing. And that should tell you the chip isn't any good. But, let's wait and see, you're quite right. Anything can happen, as always.
