Pretty much most likely there.
AMD so called quad core, just like FX-4100, dual modules.
And yes, the mobile processor roadmap showed, there are 2 SKUs, placed top of A8-3850MX and another one is placed between A8 and A6.

Currently there are no thin and light laptops with Llano inside, don't know if that will be the case with Trinity. I think AMD should really capitalize on the thin and light market, not just the netbook market.

A lot of laptops nowadays are going towards lighter and thinner. Just look at XPS 14z, Series 7 etc.

Simulation does benefit from multithreading. It depends more on the software end if it can make use of the extra threads. Depending on the job requirement, many employers wouldn't pay 4x to a single person when they can pay the same amount to get 4 person to do the job much faster unless the job requirement is necessary in terms of creating new ideas. In the case of real work, there is the need for more laborers than the need for creative workers, it is just the normal hierarchy and somebody has to execute what the creative worker has thought of.

Laptops are getting thinner and lighter but the Ultrabook is still somewhat a gimmick and its success is still unknown since it is priced quite high. In the case where I am looking for an ultra light notebook like that I would rather get the MacBook Air instead which comes to about the same price anyway. Also the thin and light form factor is not what makes tablets and smartphones popular, it is more of the software capabilities and the method of interaction with the device which is totally different from what a traditional notebook can provide.

Analyzing Bulldozer: Why AMD’s chip is so disappointing

http://www.agner.org/optimize/blog/read.php?i=49
Is it all benchmarks were crippled amd?

This post has been edited by chenwah88: Oct 26 2011, 08:18 AM

That does not matter, as Bulldozer even shown worse than Phenom II, let alone Intel.

I'm not talking about ultrabooks because they use ulvs and have less functions. I was talking about thin and light form factors, more like the MacBook pro.

For example, Asus u36sd/jc, Sony VAIO sb, and newer ones like series 7. They are fully functional just like the normal, heavy laptops but they are designed in such a way that they are around 2kg or less. One of the best example would probably be Toshiba r835: full voltage processor, disk drive, and the weight is almost like ultrabook at 1.4kg, no overheating problem also.

But if we look at Llano notebooks, they are mostly heavy, weighing around 2.4kg, they are like traditional laptops which is good for the lower-end market, but laptop makers should fit AMD processors to higher-end laptops at around the 2.5k-3k range.

Why the Cinebench 11.5 multi-threaded result so much difference from the rest? 2600k just 0.01 point more than stock FX8150?

Cinebench fully utilize the whole processor.
Result for "8 cores" is definitely normal.

What I mean was the result is 'different' from other review sites Cinebench 11.5 benchmark result.

Majority of software do not use ICC (Intel's C Compiler, used in specialized server, HPC and custom applications). Take for example Microsoft products (compiled with Microsoft's own compilers), or even compare the results compiled with GCC (GNU C Compiler) under Linux in the previous posts.

You should check the review again, because they disabled the Turbo functions to check and compare IPC differences between Bulldozer, Thuban and Sandy Bridge.

Well as long as laptop doesnt have battery life of a phone/or a day, then it isnt revolutionary. it is sad that battery technology arent progressing much.

I am still waiting for a light weight laptop that can last for a full day on a single charge without me carrying additional battery to get that. Even the so call 8-10hours battery life netbook these days claimed by manufacturer are base on the dimmest LCD brightness + everything @ complete idle. marketing gimmick ftw.

When u take a those and use as ur everyday task like standard brightness, web browsing/word processing, batterylife goes back down to 5hours.

then u add with mobile broadband like celcom or umobile or p1wimax wiggy the battery live goes even shorter.

DamN!! I accidently bent 3 pins on my Phenom II 1055T. Now I can't even OC Normal boot up works fine but whenever I increase the core clock as well as DRAM frequency, the system won't even boot up..

My next system will be Intel already. Damn AMD should get rid of those useless pin... Gggrrr...

This post has been edited by Thrust: Oct 27 2011, 06:33 PM

If you accidentally bend it, you can bend it back slowly.....
If broken, then that is different

Actually phones don't fare that much better than laptops would or at least that is true for smartphones and not the type of phones that has simple features and meant for long standby time. Phones are suffering a similar problem where there is an increase in performance but there is no increase in battery capacity. From what I know the iPhone 4 has longer battery life than the iPhone 4S due to the addition of the dual core A5, more performance = more juice. Battery technology is progressing but very slow with the use of carbon nanotubes to increase battery capacity but what we have now is only a proof of concept and not a finished and viable product. Some manufacturers also wouldn't make it unless it is cheap enough to produce so that the majority could buy it. In other words we might not be seeing any improvement for at least another decade.

Laptops did improve quite a lot over the years in terms of battery lifespan. Take for example my C2D @ 65nm laptop would only last at best 2 hours or 1 1/2 hours currently because the battery degraded a little. These days you have newer laptops which does run more efficiently and would easily be more than 5-8 hours average for simple tasks. You may not have noticed this change because you're used to seeing comparisons between more up to date laptops but when you have something like mine to compare with you could see the difference in battery life has improved over the years and it will get better with IB and with Intel pushing for more efficient displays like the LG self refresh, it could have small gain in battery life.

AMD should have made FMx into a LGA socket already. They have Socket C32 in their server range so they should make LGA sockets for the desktop as well.

6hours tops for texting thats for netbook. about 4-5hours for web surfing that is non-youtube.

The 8 hours are claimed by manufacturer is NOT realistic because the LCD brightness are dimmed so low that you would normally never use that kind of brightness, then it is assume that the laptop are left idle + with most other devices set disabled such as wifi. Check this article, you'll get the idea why ur C2D only last 2 hours top. When it is selling that time manufacturer claim to last 3-4hours. I have my Pentium M where manufacturer claim to last 5hours, when it is barely over 2hours when I use for web surfing with flash only.

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/mobile/di...om_8.html#sect0

For laptop to reach complete mobility we need to reach at least a day under normal brightness, web surfing with Wi-Fi. This assuming we human go to sleep and left our laptop charging for tomorrow usage.

I sometimes wonder, AMD bobcat may sound a new approach but despite its low TDP, it seems its power throttling % are not as aggressive as Sandy bridge ones.

This post has been edited by Boldnut: Oct 27 2011, 08:48 PM

Latest review here: Tom's Hardware > All Reviews > Components > CPU > AMD FX: Energy Efficiency Compared To Eight Other CPUs with Bulldozer versus Deneb, Thuban, Bloomfield, Lynnfield, Gulftown and Sandy Bridge. Another earlier (very short) review here: Digital Versus: AMD FX-8150.

Related review here: Legit Reviews - ASUS Crosshair V Formula 'Bulldozer' Motherboard Review pits Phenom II X6 1100T against FX-8150, including CrossFireX and SLI performance. Also another article on Bulldozer from ExtremeTech here: ExtremeTech > Computing > AMD may be betting future success on Bobcat, not Bulldozer.

Laptop manufacturers when I bought the C2D did not place emphasis or market my laptop with the number of hours it would last. If I recall correctly the marketing strategy last time was the weight of the laptop, it is the current version where more emphasis is being placed for battery life. It is definitely very unlikely that you would ever achieve the manufacturer's 8 hours because their tests are in a controlled situation and does not account for degradation of parts over time. It is normal for the marketing team to hyperbola something normal to something that is beyond the product could achieve, it is similar to what happened with Bulldozer where the marketing was too aggressive and made the product sounded better than it should be and when the actual product came out it fell flat on the ground.

My C2D is only able to push out 2 hours and there were no marketing to back up saying that it would last 5 hours. Anything that has to do with light will eat up battery no doubt. That is why an eReader with an eInk display would easily outlast a tablet with a conventional backlit panel. 5 hours average battery life is quite good I'd say and more would definitely be better but to have higher capacity we would need bigger batteries and would mean bigger laptops which is not what Intel wants with Ultrabook. The battery life of an Ultrabook would probably be the same with the current notebooks despite the improvement in the processor because the battery has to shrink to fit the slim form factor.

Plenty of us have having to work hours easily exceed that short 2-3hours time. I am quite positive that plenty of us would prefer "plug free" during our daily job. Which is not possible with our current battery technology.

I just hope that they actually cater this market, and see the need of a full day battery life. I fail to see why we would need more performance just for web surfing/texting.

clocking down more aggressively to save even more power seems the best way to go. But Bobcat seems lacking in this area. So much for a low TDP x86 chip but Sandy bridge are underclocking much more aggressively than bobcat. It does get pretty close to bobcat's TDP in idle while still offer much better performance.