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.

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

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.

I think it need another 1GHz extra to complete with Sandy/Ivy bridge.

Yup, take away that IGP, up the TDP to 125w, I can sure that Sandy bridge might clock higher than bulldozer.

I still cannot brain whats wrong with AMDdoing with Bulldozer, it is soo screwup that it is worthless to even think about buying it. Now Ivy bridge TDP is tuned down to 77w. Instead of giving more performance for the same TDP, Intel go energy economy on desktop. AMD is all ur fault!

This post has been edited by Boldnut: Nov 14 2011, 11:42 AM

Face it, the 1155 CPU pretty much kill everything else. I presume the Ivy bridge gonna make Sandy bridge-E look like gurf town vs Sandy bridge 1155.

After listen some discussion online among my friend's chatting, surprisingly AMD 8 core @ 3.6Ghz actually look "better" in common customer eyes because 8 core @ 3.6GHz SELL. lol?

Are we back into P4 era again?

This post has been edited by Boldnut: Nov 21 2011, 11:57 AM

I say its 16% at best, because u always take these thing minus by 50% get the realistic answer.

They could have just leave the BD away from the comsumer market. Many cores doesnt work in this area.

Just give the K10/phenom II a 4 issue instruction (like Intel gave its core architectural from a P6) + give K10 a 8 core then we will see AMD start completing at the level with 2011 SB-E.

This post has been edited by Boldnut: Dec 2 2011, 06:03 PM

Quite true, the turbo core doesnt really kicks in well in win7.

I wonder why didnt AMD send a small sample chip to $Microsoft durign the development of win7 b4 bulldozer out. It wouldn't be so bad if they did help Microsoft to optimized the win7 for bulldozer.

It looks like AMD software support are as bad as they are in CPU like their ATI GPUs.

it is not that they have great engine, it is the graphics in D3 are quite dated compared to todays standard. So this has nothing about so great their engine is.

I am positive that AMD Llano could play this game at decent settings, since its graphics is soo dated.

It makes me wonders that hardware companies like Intel/AMD/Nvidia/Samsung/Hynix(for RAM) should start paying serious attention on software development(including games) to push the sales of their hardware b4 is getting too late.

With the trend(low req games/software) like this we'll see hardwares for desktop PC are going to last at least 5yrs or more b4 having any slow down. Back then a powerful desktop P3/P4 PC rarely last over 3yrs.

its seems my dream of having a CG/photo realistic Games are going to take a while to materialize.

This post has been edited by Boldnut: Mar 17 2012, 02:56 PM

well basically now I have a decent hardware, to be ready for photo realistic games, still nothing really push the hardware to run.

Infact because of all above that, I think AMD bulldozer could do ok also, despite their poor performance(if they are selling cheap). The only prob is AMD isnt aggressive on its pricing anymore.

Its totally no reason to buy AMD. I still wonder whats wrong with AMD by pricing such high price. Even higher than Intel's given the same performance.

until they fix all the flaws in the bulldozer architecture piledriver is going to be failure. 10% is not going to help u to complete against even Sandy bridge. These flaws pointed out clearly in anandtech.

The original design of Bulldozer is intended to offer 20-25% higher clock under the same process than Phenom II and only -5% IPC. In other words on a better 32nm, bulldozer should have release @ 4GHz+ from start to 4.5GHz.

Intel has wake up now, it is going to be hard to take market share from them.

P4 era is AMD perfect opportunity to gain share, they screw it hard. Unless Bulldozer can have IPC as good as Ivy bridge + 5-10%. It is going to be a failure.

They got money, they sell their CPU like hot cakes, Intel is weakest that time. It is the only time in the 40yrs that AMD actually leading Intel. If they continue strike new architecture that time it would be gain a lot of market share by then. it took Intel years to copy AMD integrated memory controller and put in in Nehelem CPU and Now Intel has woke up, it is far less likely they gonna make another screw up P4 and let AMD catch up again.

If u dont know, the prime engineers team that design k6/Athlon/Athlon64 all left AMD due to bad management. AMD chip these days are use auto-craft tool that are less efficient than handcraft. Bulldozer are design by another diff engineer team.

Phenom II X4/X6 is nothing more than a tweak Athlon64. It is a 10yrs old architecture.

Intel does use autocrafting tools but the key component are still handcraft. No machine can replace human yet

in other words the current AMD engineers are dumb. If they are smart they wouldnt come out something shit like bulldozer. Bulldozer are shit in every way compared to Sandybrige. Its much bigger, more power hungry, slower, then to make things worst AMD sell it more expensive than 2500K.

Piledriver is not going to get AMD back into game since it offer only 10% IPC at best. Until AMD can increase IPC or Clock frequency like 50-60% they are pretty much doom.

they cant because the bulldozer is too expensive to make. Big chip. They are not generating profit by selling big amount chip @ break even.

Piledriver need to clock 4GHz-4.5GHz+ or it will fail too.

U just have to wait AMD plans to retire AM3+ then u know which CPU the top ones. U got an expensive mobo there, changing to Intel gonna cost u a lot of money.

it is not like anyone wanna jump to AM3+ these days. resale value of AMD3+ board aint gonna be high lol. Save that money upgrade GPU is better.