AMD refreshes Zacate, Ontario lineups

New blood is coursing through the Fusion family—the lower rungs of it, at least. AMD has added two E-series Zacate APUs as well as a fresh C-series Ontario chip to its low-power product line, and it’s sprinkled on some platform enhancements for good measure. The new chips offer higher clock speeds and what looks like a sort of Turbo implementation, with higher peak clock speeds for either CPU cores, graphics, or both.

Here’s how the freshly introduced E-450, E-300, and C-60 compare to the original Zacate and Ontario lineups:

Model CPU

cores

CPU

speed

Radeon

graphics

IGP

speed

TDP
E-450 2 1.65 GHz HD 6320 508/600 MHz 18 W
E-350 2 1.6 GHz HD 6310 500 MHz 18 W
E-300 2 1.3 GHz HD 6310 488 MHz 18 W
E-240 1 1.5 GHz HD 6310 500 MHz 18 W
C-60 2 1.0/1.33 GHz HD 6320 276/400 MHz 9 W
C-50 2 1.0 GHz HD 6250 280 MHz 9 W
C-30 1 1.2 GHz HD 6250 280 MHz 9 W

In addition to the higher core and GPU clocks, the E-450 supports DDR3-1333 RAM, up from DDR3-1066 across the rest of the E and C series. AMD’s own numbers show little to no difference in CPU performance between the three newcomers and their direct predecessors; however, the numbers reveal 3DMark Vantage score increases in the 10-42% range. So, higher graphics performance could be the chief appeal of this refresh.

What about battery life? AMD has stuck to the same 18W and 9W thermal envelopes as before, and its numbers suggest that systems based on the E-450 and C-60 achieve identical run times to those based on their direct predecessors (the E-350 and C-50, respectively) at the Windows desktop. The press release touts considerable battery life improvements, but if you read the fine print, those are versus the 2010 Nile platform.

To spice things up a little more, the E-450, E-300, and C-60 have been imbued with support for the DisplayPort++ standard, which allows HDMI signals to be piped through DisplayPort outputs. Also, the chipmaker says E-series APUs now support HDMI 1.4a—and, consequently, 3D displays. I’m guessing only the newfangled E-450 and E-300 have that honor.

Systems based on the E-450, E-300, and C-60 should be available right now, according to AMD’s announcement.

Comments closed
    • trek205
    • 8 years ago

    some of you are living in a fantasy land with some of these gaming claims. Portal 2 is about the only somewhat modern game I have tried and found acceptable. lol at Mass Effect and TF 2 being playable. its like that laughable video from AMD where they show one little part of Batman being playable. right before and after that scene it is below 20 fps way too much to be playable. the E-350 is dog ass slow and that 80sp gpu is no better than the 40sp 4250 in some cases because of it.

      • Hattig
      • 8 years ago

      So the extra 20% on the E-450 might make some of these just-unplayable games playable?

      You’re talking about a market of <20W CPU + GPU TDPs in a cheap chip. Please find something that is more capable of playing games than Zacate given those restrictions. Atom isn’t it. And who doesn’t have a back catalogue of games that they haven’t played yet, or want to play again, for which Zacate will be more than capable?

      In fact ARM SoCs are better, but only because the games are written with their capabilities in mind.

        • trek205
        • 8 years ago

        the E-450 probably wont deliver even 5% more real world gaming performance. and who cares if there is not anything faster with those same restrictions if it still sucks? that is like being the smartest retarded kid in a school.

          • Hattig
          • 8 years ago

          You’re pretty much the only one saying it sucks. And as you’re not offering any alternatives that meet the same power and cost targets, then you’re just trolling, aren’t you?

            • trek205
            • 8 years ago

            I already said there is NO direct competitor but that does not mean its worth a crap for gaming. I used the Zacate platform for 2 weeks and it was a joke for most gaming. even some older games struggled more than I thought they would. its not really designed for gaming and some people here are only kidding themselves.

            • NeelyCam
            • 8 years ago

            He’s simply stating that Zacate isn’t good enough for playing games.

            The fact that you are trying to force him into a specific power/cost target and be happy with it [i<]just because[/i<] Zacate happens to be in that power/cost target makes you sound like an AMD fanboi trying to justify your own Zacate purchase somehow. You know, 'coz admitting that it was a mistake is just out of the question. Now, I don't know if you bought one or not. Your argument just makes me think that you might have.

            • Hattig
            • 8 years ago

            Nope, my laptop here is Intel based. My netbook is … ho hum … VIA based – my current smartphone is faster :-/

            • NeelyCam
            • 8 years ago

            [quote<]my current smartphone is faster :-/[/quote<] Is that because you don't have an SSD on your netbook...? Not a fair comparison if your netbook has a HDD...

          • sschaem
          • 8 years ago

          The e350 just using 1333 vs 1066 memory result in 15 to 20% higher FPS in games.
          Add a 20% faster GPU on top a 6% faster CPU and you can see that your claim of 5% doesn’t hold up.
          If you try to run at 1366x with 4x AA and else, no wonder. The e-350 sweet spot is 1024×600

            • trek205
            • 8 years ago

            lol if you think its going to run games 15-20% faster from slightly faster memory. wait for the review and then check the results as I am betting on about a 5% overall difference in games. best case scenario in games will be about about 10% faster IMO.

            running games with AA? do you really think that is what I was referring too? I looked at reviews before I used the system so I knew about what to expect. good lord even an 9500gt would blow that 6310 away and I would not run AA on any remotely modern game with it. not to mention the cpu is the limiting factor almost half the time. bottom line is the Zacate platform cannot even run some games AT ALL and its not really designed for that.

      • kc77
      • 8 years ago

      Slow compared to what though? Atom?

        • NeelyCam
        • 8 years ago

        [b<][u<]Dog ass[/u<][/b<] slow for gaming in general. This is not a comparison to Atom. They both suck for gaming, Zacate just sucks marginally less.

          • Hattig
          • 8 years ago

          Zacate doesn’t “suck” for gaming. It’s adequate, and that’s enough for most people. That that’s exactly what sschaem wrote in #9, that trek205 took issue with in #20. You’ll have more issues with DRM that won’t let you play if you’re not online, or games that require the disc to be in the non-existent drive.

          In terms of integrated graphics: Atom sucks for gaming (2/10). Atom + Ion sucks less (3.5/10). Zacate doesn’t suck. It doesn’t excel either – let’s say 5/10. HD3000 gets 6/10. Llano gets 8/10.

          Each dropped point could be equated to the number of years back that the GPU would have to go to be a decent mainstream card. Subtract two or three more for decent enthusiast card.

      • maxxcool
      • 8 years ago

      It sucks for modern gaming at normal resolutions.

        • trek205
        • 8 years ago

        some people here just need a reality check. anandtech has a good review that perfectly mirrors my findings as I also tested about 15 games myself. [url<]http://www.anandtech.com/show/4218/amds-brazo-e350-msi-x370-sony-vaio-yb/5[/url<] here is what anandtech had to say about the results for some modern games on LOWEST settings. "So running at the native 1366x768 found on so many consumer laptops today, the E-350 manages to break 30FPS in exactly zero out of eight games. Ouch." hell some games could not even get but 10-15 fps. and you can think turning the res down will help but it wont in most cases as the cpu is too slow to do anything more. you can then check out some popular older games on the very next page and see that even many of those are sketchy at best on lowest settings. [url<]http://www.anandtech.com/show/4218/amds-brazo-e350-msi-x370-sony-vaio-yb/6[/url<]

          • Hattig
          • 8 years ago

          “Out of the 23 titles tested above, only three are definitely not playable at native resolution: Crysis, Far Cry 2, and Supreme Commander. [Update: Civ5 should probably be skipped as well.] The former two are somewhat newer titles, but I had requests to run them so that’s why they’re in the list.”

          i.e., Zacate is good enough for playing [some] games.

          But only if you’re not a gamer who demands more than low settings, or if you want to play the latest games or some particularly heavy games. And in this case the same goes for Atom, Atom + Ion, Intel Integrated Graphics, …

          But Atom can’t even do the games that Zacate can do. And that is a major difference if you want a netbook and occasionally play games. You will have to select the games you play on it, but if you don’t have some older games you haven’t played yet then you either have too much time to spend playing games so you never miss any, or you’re not a gamer.

            • NeelyCam
            • 8 years ago

            Atom atom atom…

            Why are you bringing up Atom? Its GPU is obviously not meant for gaming – making such comparisons is just pointless. It’s like comparing Zacate and Sandy Bridge in CPU tasks.

            [quote<]if you don't have some older games you haven't played yet then you either have too much time to spend playing games so you never miss any, or you're not a gamer.[/quote<] This reaches a new level of silliness. You're saying that I'm not a gamer unless I want to play old games on a bad-for-gaming system? Sorry, but no thanks. If I want to play games, I choose a real gaming system and newer/better games.

          • kc77
          • 8 years ago

          Huh? From that list it looks like it plays quite a bit and definitely more than anything running Intel graphics. Seems to me you have some sort of personal issue.

            • NeelyCam
            • 8 years ago

            [quote<]From that list it looks like it plays quite a bit and definitely more than anything running Intel graphics.[/quote<] Um... SB+HD3000 whoops Zacate across the board.

            • BlackStar
            • 8 years ago

            At more than double the wattage and four times the cost, the SB had better to.

            Even so, Zacate can still run games that SB can’t (Intel’s pitiful drivers at work here).

            • NeelyCam
            • 8 years ago

            I rather pay more and get something decent than cheap out and get crap. Sorry. Zacate just isn’t good enough.

            You’re justifying your own purchase to yourself. This is normal. It’s called decision bias.

            • kc77
            • 8 years ago

            So you’re comparing a 216mm chip with a 75mm chip that’s smaller than Atom, and meant for a completely different market in power and size? Do you not see the illogical beginnings of this comparison?

            “I rather pay more and get something decent than cheap out and get crap. Sorry. Zacate just isn’t good enough.”

            Do you make up the entire CPU market? Isn’t good enough compared with what? Atom? Cause that’s what it’s up against. Under that logic why buy a Ford Focus when we all can get Ferrari’s instead? Hell why do people even rent apartments anyway? They should buy a 2000 sq ft home instead. Why cheap out?

            You don’t really have to justify something when the numbers support your own claim. You do when they don’t. This would be contrary to responding to someone with no numbers and pulling an example that costs hundreds more, that’s not in the same power envelope, form factor, or damn little else while being cheeky around the hypocrisy of the illogical comparison you just presented.

            • maroon1
            • 8 years ago

            216mm is the size of quad core sandy-bridge

            Dual core SB is smaller than that

            • kc77
            • 8 years ago

            The comparison is still ludicrous. Zacate / Brazos is 75 mm on 40nm while the i3 is 81mm on 32nm.

            • NeelyCam
            • 8 years ago

            It’s not that ludicrous. Clearly Zacate/Brazos is smaller and cheaper to make, but you give up performance, and with the full system cost included, the difference is not all that significant (see my other post below).

            To me, Zacate is too slow, while i3 is fast enough (and not that more expensive). Although, I went with a 2600K myself..

            Now, Deccan would probably be fast enough for me, so let’s see next year if I’ll finally buy an AMD system after a seven-year break… (I doubt it, as my current Intel desktops are fast enough for me for a few years… I could use a new ultraportable, but I’ll probably wait and see how the Ultrabooks turn out)

            • NeelyCam
            • 8 years ago

            I should’ve said “Zacate is not good enough [b<]for me[/b<]". I thought it was implied, but I guess it wasn't... I was also agreeing with the original poster, trek205, as he seemed to share my opinion. Somehow the AMD fanbois pounced on him, saying that he's wrong, and Zacate IS and should always be good enough for him - he should just accept lower resolution/details/FPS and shut up. (thumbthumbthumb). No, I don't make up the entire CPU market (and neither do you). You're the one who insisted in making it a Brazos vs. Atom argument, and you kept repeating it over and over. That was never the argument. [b<]Clearly[/b<] Brazos is better in gaming that (current-gen) Atom. I don't think anybody would argue that. (Atom CPU is better in some cases, and it consumes less power.) I could consider Ford Focus, but I can afford something faster and better. I can't afford a Ferrari (are you implying Sandy Bridge is the "Ferrari of CPUs"..? lol). Buying a house can be much more expensive than renting (except when you really look into it, if you buy a house now, your mortgage interest is likely to be less than your monthly rent, especially when you consider mortgage interest deduction in taxes). But your examples are a bit silly. All of them cost much much more than CPUs. Would you rather buy a $3 bottle of wine or one that costs 3x more? 5x more? Would you rather buy the scratchiest, crappiest (no pun intended) toilet paper for $2/6 or the soft and absorbent (!!), high-quality stuff for $4/6? What I'm saying is that I can afford a PC that costs $600 and likely choose that over a system that costs $300, because I consider the speed/capability/quietness/whatever worth the extra money.

            • kc77
            • 8 years ago

            “Somehow the AMD fanbois pounced on him, saying that he’s wrong, and Zacate IS and should always be good enough for him – he should just accept lower resolution/details/FPS and shut up. (thumbthumbthumb).”

            No one has said it should be good enough for him…. absolutely no one. What people are pointing out and rightfully so is A) you can game on it which you can’t do with Atom unless you go with an ION as well (even then it beats it more than it doesn’t [url<]http://www.anandtech.com/show/4134/the-brazos-review-amds-e350-supplants-ion-for-miniitx/5[/url<] and B) You would have to be a moron to think that you are going to play every game out there no matter how GPU intensive it is on Zacate/Brazos. Not even i3/2100 can pull that off. "No, I don't make up the entire CPU market (and neither do you). You're the one who insisted in making it a Brazos vs. Atom argument, and you kept repeating it over and over. That was never the argument. Clearly Brazos is better in gaming that (current-gen) Atom. I don't think anybody would argue that. (Atom CPU is better in some cases, and it consumes less power.)" I'm insisting on it because I like most people know what market it's in. I don't make comparisons between two different processors that are in completely different markets while calling other people "fanbois" while not realizing the hypocrisy of making the comparison itself. (BTW Atom does not beat Brazos/Zacate in power for most workloads, especially when gaming or watching video nor does it at idle.) "I could consider Ford Focus, but I can afford something faster and better. I can't afford a Ferrari (are you implying Sandy Bridge is the "Ferrari of CPUs"..? lol)." Not the best of all, but it's up there. Again I'll ask do you make up the whole market? No. Then the fact that YOU can afford better is irrelevant because those chips are made for people who can't afford more or want an extremely small form factor with low power something that YOU are not looking for. No? "But your examples are a bit silly." My examples are just as silly as comparing two different processors meant for different people and different markets. I went to the extreme because somehow everyone kind of understands that except an unlucky few. "All of them cost much much more than CPUs. Would you rather buy a $3 bottle of wine or one that costs 3x more? 5x more? Would you rather buy the scratchiest, crappiest (no pun intended) toilet paper for $2/6 or the soft and absorbent (!!), high-quality stuff for $4/6? What I'm saying is that I can afford a PC that costs $600 and likely choose that over a system that costs $300, because I consider the speed/capability/quietness/whatever worth the extra money." Depends on what I needed the wine for ...just like this CPU. If all I need is cooking wine then a $3 bottle of wine will work just fine.

            • maroon1
            • 8 years ago

            “At more than double the wattage and four times the cost, the SB had better to. ”

            Really ? more than double the wattage ?

            i3 2100T (35watt) beats E-350 in gaming. And it is several times faster in CPU benchmarks.
            [url<]http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/core-i3-2100t.html[/url<] And no it is not four times the cost Also, you could get 35w Pentium G620T which is probably faster than E-350 "Even so, Zacate can still run games that SB can't (Intel's pitiful drivers at work here)." Can you give me an example of a games that is playable on Zacate, but doesn't work on SB GPU (with latest driver)

            • kc77
            • 8 years ago

            “Really ? more than double the wattage ?”

            It will be double the wattage for most. That Zotac [url<]https://techreport.com/articles.x/21300/4[/url<] is the most power efficient board you can get for the i3 (and that model is the most expensive version as well -- since it's the mobile version) meanwhile the Gigabyte [url<]http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/e-350-motherboard-brazos,2958-16.html[/url<] is one of the most power hungry for the E-350. That's why the idle numbers look so off. You are paying for that level of efficiently in a very big way. Given the care they took to get the i3 down to those numbers which is impressive no doubt (since it's beating Atom too) a better MB for that E-350 would put it under those numbers. Now what's the cost difference? 169+135 =300 vs $100. So it's not 4 times the cost but it is 3 times the cost. That's why comparing the two is apples and oranges. At that cost difference you could get a 100GB SSD and STILL be under the afore mentioned in power and cost. Are you kidding?

            • NeelyCam
            • 8 years ago

            You’re kidding, right? You’re comparing a Z68 mobo to an E-350? I mean, seriously? You should not be comparing it to Z68 boards (that are horribly expensive and power hungry), but to a H61 or H67 board.

            First, price. The Gigabyte E-350 board you’re talking about costs $130 – not $100:

            [url<]http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813128468&Tpk=e350N-usb3[/url<] And the H61 board is $70: [url<]http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813138327[/url<] Put it together with the i3-2100T is $205 total - 1.6x the price of E-350... NOT 3x or 4x. (And add another $200 for the rest of the system - memory, case/PSU, HDD/SSD, maybe an optical drive - and the system price is only 25% higher.) Second, power consumption... i3-2100T with an H67 mobo (like maroon1 linked): [url<]http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/core-i3-2100t_11.html[/url<] It beats E-350 on idle and HD video playback. Full load power is obviously higher (50% higher), but this is because the CPU is also more powerful, so it finishes the job faster and goes idle quicker. Caveat, as you already mentioned, is that the Gigabyte E-350 board isn't that power efficient... but if you scale the E-350 idle number by -35% (the same ratio as the Zotac vs. Gigabyte idle in your link), E-350 would idle only about 15% lower than i3-2100T. So sorry, but your estimates are off. An i3 system is much less expensive and consumes much less power than you think.

            • kc77
            • 8 years ago

            “You’re kidding, right? You’re comparing a Z68 mobo to an E-350? I mean, seriously? You should not be comparing it to Z68 boards (that are horribly expensive and power hungry), but to a H61 or H67 board.”

            Expensive yes. Power hungry? Nope.

            “Put it together with the i3-2100T is $205 total – 1.6x the price of E-350… NOT 3x or 4x. (And add another $200 for the rest of the system – memory, case/PSU, HDD/SSD, maybe an optical drive – and the system price is only 25% higher.)”

            You picked a BIOSTAR?!?! LOL Do me a favor don’t ever build a system for me.

            As for the rest of the post since you went with probably the worst MB one could pick there’s just no reason to even parse the rest of it. My MB selection might have been expensive but at least it was feature rich and power efficient and quite popular. Your recommendation…well you couldn’t pay me to buy that thing.

            “Caveat, as you already mentioned, is that the Gigabyte E-350 board isn’t that power efficient… but if you scale the E-350 idle number by -35% (the same ratio as the Zotac vs. Gigabyte idle in your link), E-350 would idle only about 15% lower than i3-2100T.”

            Yet you picked it anyway and did a price comparison on it? Good job.

            • NeelyCam
            • 8 years ago

            [quote<]As for the rest of the post since you went with probably the worst MB one could pick there's just no reason to even parse the rest of it.[/quote<] That's a fair comment. Let me try again... Will you accept this ASRock board as a worthy opponent ($75 with shipping): [url<]http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813157236[/url<] Or do you require that I only use Gigabyte in the comparison? ($90 - $10 rebate = $80). [url<]http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813128484[/url<] Let me adjust the numbers [b<]without[/b<] taking into account that mail-in rebate (taking it into account would obviously make the numbers more favorable for i3): "Put it together with the i3-2100T is $225 total - 1.7x the price of E-350... NOT 3x or 4x. (And add another $200 for the rest of the system - memory, case/PSU, HDD/SSD, maybe an optical drive - and the system price is only 29% higher.)" [quote<]"Caveat, as you already mentioned, is that the Gigabyte E-350 board isn't that power efficient... but if you scale the E-350 idle number by -35% (the same ratio as the Zotac vs. Gigabyte idle in your link), E-350 would idle only about 15% lower than i3-2100T." Yet you picked it anyway and did a price comparison on it? Good job.[/quote<] That's why I did my best trying to adjust the numbers to make it fair.. did you miss my comment "E-350 would idle only about 15% lower than i3-2100T"? My point was that you said 3-4x more expensive and 2x more power hungry. I was pointing out that it's 1.3-1.7x more expensive and 1.2x more power hungry (while being much more powerful), indicating that your estimates were off. Do you disagree with my conclusion somehow? If you do, could you point out how?

            • kc77
            • 8 years ago

            When I pick MB’s I typically go for quality (I prefer ASUS or EVGA in a pinch). I don’t buy MSI, Asrocks, and certainly not BIOSTAR. I’ll show you why in a minute. Therefore I picked the Zotac because not only is it feature rich but it’s also one of the most efficient. Zotac is known for doing feature rich boards in form factors that the others don’t do…much less well. That’s why Xbitlabs picked them. They went with a H67 and I’ll use that as well. No problem with that board. The problem is…

            “Or do you require that I only use Gigabyte in the comparison? ($90 – $10 rebate = $80).

            [url<]http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813128484[/url<]" If we went with this board the power envelope grows and you would be looking at larger power differences. Meaning it wouldn't help your case. In addition that board has problems galore...just google it. Gigabyte doesn't make the most power efficient boards so it's a trade off (a large one) in order to get the i3 down in price to the E350. As you've been making recommendations in order to drop the price you've either lost power efficiency or features (6GB SATA ports). The best case scenario without recommending BS builds is an i3 build that's 2x the cost with power efficiency similar to E-350, but hardly better if at all (xbitlabs' choice of the H67 Zotac is the best you can get before you end up with subpar Gigabyte or OEM boards). 2X the cost is still significant you're still talking about a E-350 build that at least is walking around with a SSD in the build for the same cost of the i3 build without it. A SSD's performance increases are substantial. If we were building a HTPC you're talking about the i3 build probably walking around with a mechanical (just to keep the price in check ...but not power) or a really small low performing SSD (better power but lower performance and size) which you aren't going to benefit from. As I said before power efficiency comes at a price for Intel builds ... it's not free.

            • NeelyCam
            • 8 years ago

            Asrock is a bit of a risk, but I have been pretty happy with the two I’ve used in the past – issues were small (driver-related, mainly). MSI I’ve never had any problems with (three mobos). I’ve had one Asus board die on me (a second one is still going steady, after five years)… similar 50:50 track record with Gigabyte. Never tried EVGA, and wouldn’t touch Biostar myself.

            MSI makes particularly power efficient motherboards – generally more efficient than Asus IMO. Intel boards are pretty much always more efficient than others out there (stripped features, Intel’s fantastic but expensive GbE..) but they come with a cost (extra $20 isn’t necessarily that significant).

            Personally I wouldn’t make a build without an SSD these days… the performance gain per dollar is much better in HDD->SSD than in any CPU upgrade. So, in that sense, your E-350 with SSD vs. i3 without one isn’t such a fair comparison. I think it would be more fair to compare it to an i3 with SSD that’s a bit more expensive. The price difference won’t be that much more.

            I’m not saying that E-350 is a bad solution for everyone. I’m just saying that I find the i3 (or rather i5) to be a better solution for myself, even though it costs more, since I don’t consider E-350 to satisfy [i<]my[/i<] "good enough" requirement. Now, once 2012 is here and 28nm Brazos follow-up is out, I'll reconsider. Deccan CPU should be "good enough".

            • trek205
            • 8 years ago

            no issue here as I got the same performance they did. some new games stand no chance of getting more 15 fps. for some other games 30 fps with dips in the low 20s and teens is still not what I would call playable. yes some 3-6 year old game will be fine but Zacate is getting more of a pass than a $10 video card would get if it delivered that type of performance. I think just the fact that you can fire up a somewhat modern game and it not a be slideshow somehow makes it “playable” to some people. I am not even super picky but after playing around for dozens of hours in 15-20 games, I would say the Zacate platform is awful for most games made in the last 2-3 years. it was funny to play Crysis on such a low power platform and get almost playable performance though.

            • BlackStar
            • 8 years ago

            [quote<] I am not even super picky but after playing around for dozens of hours in 15-20 games, I would say the Zacate platform is awful for most games made in the last 2-3 years.[/quote<] In other words, it is capable of playing games, if not very well. Noone is expecting a netbook-class APU to match dedicated gaming hardware, this should be obvious. However, for someone like me who plays games occasionally (two or three games per year, tops), being able to fire up a game when I'm not on my gaming machine (i.e. most of the time) is a pretty big deal. I wonder if my dm1z can be upgraded to the E-450. It is pretty obvious that the E-350 is limited primarily by memory bandwidth and secondarily by CPU performance (i.e. you can enable MSAA at a low performance cost but you can't enable AF == bandwidth limitation) and 1333MHz memory could help a lot here. When you are tittering at 20-30fps, even a 20% improvement in performance can be very noticeable.

    • ronch
    • 8 years ago

    I wish these parts had the ability to scale faster more often while sticking to the same power envelope just the way desktop parts do. As it is, it feels like AMD is afraid to raise clock speeds and move the TDPs higher in the process.

    • sirsoffrito
    • 8 years ago

    Any idea what process node this is built on? I assume 40 nm.

      • NeelyCam
      • 8 years ago

      Yes, because 28nm isn’t ready for prime time yet.

    • Duck
    • 8 years ago

    Yay for C-60. That looks like the one to get. A real atom killer too.

    • HisDivineOrder
    • 8 years ago

    Keep the pressure on Atom. Soon, netbooks that can’t play HD flash videos will be a distant memory attributed to crappy Intel CPU’s and AMD CPU’s will be seen as wonderchips that are both cheap and can do everything you ever wanted to do.

    Then Intel will actually have its engineers design an Atom CPU that is actually useable for more than a NAS or checking your email. And the world will rejoice.

      • UberGerbil
      • 8 years ago

      That’s not where Atom is headed. The whole netbook thing was an accidental phenomena that grew out of one place the Atom happened to rest at on its way [i<]down[/i<] the power curve. It's possible Intel will decide at some point they actually want to dominate that market (probably if future netbooks actually cannibalize "real" notebooks from below even as they're being consumed by tablets) but they won't use Atom for that; meanwhile for now it looks like they've lumped that into the "low end value" box they're happy to confine AMD to in every segment, while they pursue "ultrabooks" instead.

    • Farting Bob
    • 8 years ago

    Well i dont think my e-350 will be too worried by this, a 50Mhz boost is just pointless. I get that it has a higher GPU turbo boost but i still dont see it as an upgrade. Just supplanting the e-350 which should be phased out after this announcement.

      • sschaem
      • 8 years ago

      Whats missing in the table is also DDR3-1333 support.

      Overall the e-450 get 6% boost in PCMark and 23% boost in 3DMark.

        • Farting Bob
        • 8 years ago

        The 3D mark score is mostly moot. You dont want to be gaming on this. Anything more advanced than a facebook game will be bottlenecked (and hell i know many flash games that will bottleneck the CPU in an instant).

          • sschaem
          • 8 years ago

          On a netbook (1024×600 display) the E-350 was benchmarked as follow:
          Left for dead2 : 37.8fps
          COD MW : 28fps
          Bioshock2 : 29fps
          Fallout3 : 38fps
          UnrealT3 : 32fps

          You dont want to get netbook as a gaming platform, but you can play games on it…
          And that extra 23% might be enough to boost the visual quality 1 notch and keep a ~30fps gameplay.

          As for Flash, GPU acceleration is around the corner.
          Check demo like this :
          [url<]http://www.sherwooddungeon.com/SherwoodAlpha.html[/url<] [url<]http://dl.dropbox.com/u/1907247/evo/babylon-final/evof-cob.html[/url<] In year I bet those E-450 will shine at running WebGL & Flash 11 games.

            • swaaye
            • 8 years ago

            In a year I hope there are more interesting hardware choices than the current Atom and this Zacate/Brazos stuff.

            • Voldenuit
            • 8 years ago

            Deccan (the sucessor to Bobcat) is due in 2012.

            Cedar Trail (the third generation Atom) is due in November of this year.

            @sirsoffrito: All current Bobcat CPUs are on 40nm. Deccan will be on 28nm.

            • MadManOriginal
            • 8 years ago

            Meh, it’s hard to call Atom CPUs ‘generations’ yet when looking at them with a larger viewpoint. They are all bascially the same architecture packaged in different ways (differnet chipset, integration, etc.) so far, a real ‘new’ architecture isn’t due out until 2013. I would say they are more like siblings or cousins at this point 😉 a ‘new generation’ won’t be applicable until Silvermont codename in 2013.

          • Goty
          • 8 years ago

          *shrugs* I can play TF2 at 1366×768 on mostly high settings (without AA) on my E-350, so it’s certainly capable of doing some light gaming.

            • BlackStar
            • 8 years ago

            I finished both Portals on a E-350 at 1024×600 2xAA (mainly because it looked better than 1366×768 without AA). Unlike Intel’s chips, Zacate is capable of gaming. I’m planning to play Mass Effect next, apparently the E-350 can handle that acceptably.

    • Hattig
    • 8 years ago

    So how is a 276/400MHz GPU on the C-60 worthy of being called a HD6320 whilst a 500MHz GPU with the same features is a HD6310? Is that a typo?

    The C-60 does improve upon the C-50 significantly with those turbos.

      • xeridea
      • 8 years ago

      Looks like thats 400 MHz turbo speed, so its basically the same speed normally, but able to clock up. Perhaps making it 276 normal makes it easier to turbo the integer cores to 1.33 GHz easier. To bad the E-Series doesn’t have turbo on the integer cores for non media type tasks that wouldn’t benifit from 600MHz GPU.

      • jensend
      • 8 years ago

      It’s a typo- the actual name for the C-60’s IGP is HD 6290. ([url=http://www.hardwaresecrets.com/printnews/AMD-Launches-E-450-E-300-and-C-60-APUs/5863<]hardwaresecrets[/url<] and [url=http://www.fudzilla.com/processors/item/22447-amd-readies-more-ontario-apus<]fudzilla[/url<] were the first sources I found for that)

        • Hattig
        • 8 years ago

        That makes sense. Thanks.

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This