What is interesting in the new platform?

The idea of ​​a single chip that combines functions and central processing unit, and a graphics accelerator, hovering over the market computer systems a long time ago. However, single-chip solutions did not exist for desktop or mobile computers until recently. Moreover, PC architecture has traditionally provided for a large number of different chips: processor, video, chipset (two independent chips), very often - various peripheral controllers.

Meanwhile, the integration of as many system components as possible into a single chip promises significant advantages. If all the necessary computing units and controllers are in one chip, it is both cheaper and more efficient. The speed of interaction between components increases. The board design is simplified, there is no need to interconnect several different chips with high-speed buses. In most cases, energy consumption and cost are reduced, and the cooling system becomes simpler and more efficient.

AMD has been working towards component integration for quite some time now. One of the most striking examples is the transfer of the RAM controller from the north bridge to the processor. However, the company took its most decisive step in 2006 with a major merger with Canadian graphics chip and system logic manufacturer ATI. strategic goal The merger was the development of a single integrated platform that would combine the functions of both the central processor and the graphics core (and a full-fledged one, so that, for example, an additional chip was not required to organize image output). The company called it APU (Accelerated Processing Unit). The bet made on the creation of an integrated platform was so great that AMD even changed its own logo, adding the slogan "The Future is Fusion" to it. The first market product was supposed to appear in 2010.

Another thing is that AMD very rarely manages to meet the deadlines or the declared functionality. I ran into this when AMD released the Puma platform. On paper, the characteristics looked very impressive, but in practice nothing interesting happened. Not to mention the very interesting concept of XGP, which, it seems to me, AMD ruined with its own hands, failing to properly build the interaction between product manufacturers and consumers.

Unfortunately, the development of the APU only confirmed the general trend. After the acquisition of ATI AMD fastened a new slogan to its name and, having unraveled the sails, moved to create a single processor, and this was back in 2006. However, the development was so delayed that Intel's main competitor, having sailed many other seas during this time, came to the finish line first. How did it happen? Moreover, the Arrandale platform (the first Core generation i3-i5) with a very strange internal organization, where inside a single processor package there were two completely different cores, the CPU and the graphics controller, even made according to different technical standards (32 and 45 nm, respectively), are already completing their life cycle, and the new generation of Sandy Bridge is entering the market with might and main, in which the blocks of the central processor and graphics controller are already organically integrated and united by a single bus.

And only then does the AMD Brazos platform appear on the market with two processor options (during development, they had the code names Zacate and Ontario).

Does this mean that AMD is late? Perhaps she will not receive the status of a technological leader, but let's not exaggerate. After all, the new AMD platform that has entered the market is aimed at the low-performance devices market segment: tablets, netbooks, ultraportable laptops. Intel has powerful multi-core battleships with huge salvo performance entering the market. AMD offers a less productive, but at the same time very economical solution in every sense for mobile and ultra-mobile solutions - which, I must say, are now experiencing a real boom. If the company manages to capture this growth and gain a foothold in the market (which, however, there are some doubts), it will be an undoubted success.

After all, Intel in this segment can only respond with the Atom platform, which is distinguished by both low performance and very weak functionality (and in many cases the functionality is narrowed, as they say, "for political reasons"). For example, it still does not have an external digital video output, and it is unlikely to receive one in the near future. Therefore, in order to get an HDMI output and more or less decent graphics performance, you have to fuss with NVIDIA ION2, which in the current situation can only be called a perversion (an external chip is "hung" on the PCIe 1x bus, in addition to the usual platform). You can read more about this in our material on the history of netbooks.

True, it should be noted that at least the netbook segment is very sensitive to price. Therefore, you can sell a lot of devices, but is it possible to get a big profit from this?

Technological aspects of the APU

However, let's leave the conceptual reasoning to the end of the article and move on to the analysis of the new AMD platform. Which, by the way, has already been repeatedly considered in our materials.

There are two variants of the APU in the Brazos line, codenamed Ontario (9W consumption) and Zacate (18W). Between themselves, they differ in clock frequency, 1 and 1.6 GHz, respectively. You can read more in our presentation of the architecture of new AMD processors. It also describes the Bobcat core, on the basis of which the processors participating in today's testing are built.

After entering the market, the code names are discarded, Ontario is now the C series, Zacate is the E series. In total, four processors should enter the market, two in each line. Between themselves, they differ in the number of cores - one or two. They are called C-30 and C-50 for a 9-watt system and E-240 and E-350 for an 18-watt system, respectively. In mid-December, a review of the preliminary performance of the AMD Zacate processor line by Alexei Berillo was released, which describes the platform and conducts some preliminary tests.

In addition to the APU chip itself, the platform includes another hub, similar in function to the traditional south bridge. In the current platform, this is a powerful and functional Hudson M1 chip, which, however, can be a little more power hungry than we would like for an ultra-mobile platform. You can read more about its functionality in the corresponding review.

Finally, a material was recently released, in which, in real applications, the performance of the E-350 processor and its main competitor, Intel Atom, is compared. The comparison is made on the example of desktop systems. On the one hand, this way you can more clearly compare the performance of different solutions, on the other hand, a lot of interesting things remain outside the material, for example, energy consumption issues.

Well, let's move on to research. mobile processors. Today we have a summary in which we will evaluate the performance of two chips at once - S-50 and E-350. And for comparison, we will take a wide variety of systems based on Intel processors from different lines.

Participant configuration

To begin with, let's define the test participants and their technical characteristics. In general, there was some overlap with the selection of configurations, because, as it turned out, we had not yet tested a single Intel Atom-based netbook using the new method, and the netbook that we had interfered with the process in every possible way (it was not possible to launch the test suite managed). In addition, as it turned out, the test set of applications works on a netbook for about a week (and this despite the fact that almost all three-dimensional packages did not start or immediately crashed). Therefore, the comparison with Intel Atom was carried out only in synthetic tests, alas.

At the same time, in the bins of test results, there was a very interesting system based on a dual-core processor from the CULV line, SU4100. Despite the fact that the processor is considered obsolete, at one time it was created as an inexpensive energy-efficient solution, i.e. in positioning it is close to the older version of AMD Brazos. Therefore, it was decided to include it in the list. But we did not include systems based on Core i5 and older Core i3 in this comparison, this is a completely different class of processors. They are more productive, but they also consume more energy. For comparison, we took the weakest Core i3-350M we tested to see how much faster it is. Other systems are mentioned in some individual tests.

*There is some confusion in the power consumption data as AMD tends to list the maximum power draw, while Intel gives the typical, which is less. Therefore, the comparative data in this column should be treated critically.

There are two closely related processors N450 and N455 in the Intel line. They are no different, except for DDR3 support in the second case, N455 was released a quarter later and for some reason it has 1 W more thermal package, despite the fact that all other characteristics and even the price are the same. You can compare processors, the comparison shows that although Intel, it would seem, gives exhaustive information, there are still many "gray areas" in the characteristics.

Atom is manufactured in 45 nm technology, while AMD processors are manufactured in 40 nm. But the Atom has a lower supply voltage, ie theoretically it should be more economical... And how will the platform and graphics behave?

Comparison in synthetic benchmarks

To begin with, let's make an approximate comparison in synthetic tests. To do this, we use the traditional set of packages, the first of which are two tests Cinebench 10 and 11.5 . From synthetic tests, I trust this one more, because it is still built on a real engine.

*The test fails because the video core does not support the required functions.

What conclusion can be drawn from the test of the 10th version? Aimed at netbooks and tablets, the weaker C-50 overtakes the Atom N450, with which it is approximately equal in power consumption and slightly behind the Atom D525, but this model is much more voracious, even Intel specifies a 13W thermal pack for it. So for its niche, even its CPU performance is not bad. The E-350 is faster than the Atom line of processors, but well behind the SU4100.

Separately, it is worth paying attention to the performance in OpenGL. Integrated Intel video is very weak and cannot compete with AMD products. The NVIDIA ION2 result (the result in brackets for Atom D525, this platform was used in the ASUS EEE PC 1215N netbook) can already compete with the younger AMD Brazos model (although it lags behind the older one). But the economic feasibility of building such a platform is a big question, because it is a complete Intel platform Atom (processor plus chipset), on which one more graphics chip hangs via an external interface. Expensive, inconvenient to manufacture design, created out of desperation. Yes, and ION2 was inserted there, apparently, to get support for the HDMI interface.

In Cinebench 11.5, the balance of power in OpenGL has changed a bit - now the NVIDIA adapter occupies a middle position between AMD solutions. However, all three scores are low. By the way, interestingly, the situation in processor tests is about the same.

In general, the 525th model from Intel is between the two AMD platforms in terms of performance (and in terms of consumption it should lose much to them, because its thermal package differs from the Atmo N450 almost twice).

Let's look at the test PC Mark Vantage.

In the wilds of PCMark results, I leave it to readers to understand. Although the final score, in general, approximately repeats the results of Cinebench. It is difficult to comment on the results of subtests, so we will not do this, but move on to testing in real applications.

Testing in real applications

Testing in real applications is carried out in accordance with test method 2010. Let me remind you that the results of specific applications can be compared for all mobile and desktop systems (except for games, the settings in this group have been seriously changed, and the test task parameters for Photoshop, where the size of the test file has been reduced). But this applies only to the test results themselves, it is impossible to compare the rating numbers, because they are calculated based on different sets of applications.

If there are empty columns in the table, this means that either the test did not work correctly, or it is impossible to calculate the rating correctly.

Let's start with professional applications.

3D visualization

This group contains applications that are demanding on both the performance of the processor and the graphics subsystem. Therefore, the results of their work are of purely academic interest.

Only two systems passed the test, the E-350 and SU4100. The weak C-50 predictably “didn’t pull”, the i3-350M didn’t work out the Lightwave test, so its results were excluded from consideration. In this group, AMD's first victory. And in both applications.

3D rendering

Let's see how things stand in the rendering of the final scene, where the main load falls on the central processor. There are still only two members.

And here the processor from AMD is slower. However, I must say that both processors performed the test for a very long time, it is definitely not worth using them in such applications in real life.

Computing

This group measures the mathematical performance of the processor. Let's see…

AMD processors do not look so advantageous anymore. E-350 is weaker than SU4100. But this is already a rather old processor, besides, it is also focused on energy efficiency, and not on performance.

Compilation

Program Compilation Speed ​​Test Using the Microsoft Compiler visual studio 2008.

First, for this test, there are results for the E-350 processor in a desktop system, and we see that the results are almost the same - both in a laptop and in a desktop board.

Let's look at the balance of power. The C-50 is in the deep tail of any comparison. Such low results make one wonder: the processor may be too weak even for some home tasks, such as flash video.

The E350 even lost to CULV in both versions and is very far behind the Core i3.

Java application performance

This benchmark represents the execution speed of a set of Java applications. The test is critical to processor speed and reacts very positively to additional cores.

Interestingly, the alignment of forces in this test remains almost the same. There was a noticeable difference between the desktop and mobile version of the E-350 installation, the desktop version went ahead. Because of which? Faster memory?

Both AMD processors lag behind Intel solutions, but they will almost certainly be noticeably faster than Atom.

Let's move on to productive household tasks: working with video, sound and photos.

2D graphics

Let me remind you that only two tests remained in this group, quite diverse. ACDSee converts a set of photos from RAW format in JPEG. And Photoshop performs a series of image processing operations - applying filters, etc. The results of the Photoshop test cannot be directly compared, because the test file is reduced (this is done so that the test works better on systems with a small amount of RAM).

In the ACDSee test, there is again a noticeable difference between the E-350 processor in a laptop and a desktop.

Like it or not, but the marked alignment of forces is preserved here. We can make a preliminary conclusion that in situations where only the processor performance is needed, the AMD E-350 outperforms even the relatively old Intel SU4100.

Audio encoding in various formats

Encoding audio to various audio formats is a task for modern processors simple enough. The dBPowerAmp wrapper is used for encoding. She knows how to use multi-core (additional encoding streams are launched). The result of the test is her own points, they are the inverse of the time spent on coding, i.e. the more, the better the result.

The test is quite simple, but at the same time visual. In general, it confirms the noted trend.

Video encoding

Three tests out of four are encoding a video clip into a specific video format. The Premiere test stands apart; in this application, the script provides for the creation of a video, including the application of effects.

Immediately striking is the catastrophic lag of the S-50. The rest of the processors follow the trend already noted: the E-350 lags behind the SU4100, the i350M is far ahead.

And finally, several types of household tasks.

Archiving

Archiving is a fairly simple mathematical problem in which all processor components are actively working and the final performance depends on all components.

One of the most obvious and simple tests. The results are quite clear, they can be used to assess the level of processor performance.

Performance in Browser Tests

Pretty simple tests too. Both measure performance in Javascript, which is perhaps the most performance-demanding part of the browser engine. The trick is that the V8 test has a result in points, while the Sunspider has a result in milliseconds. Accordingly, in the first case, the higher the number, the better, in the second - vice versa.

The results of this test are roughly in line with the trend, with the exception of a strange dip in the results of the i350M, most likely due to technical reasons.

Comparison in HD Play

This test has been removed from the desktop test, although it is still valid on mobile. Even if the system can cope with decoding, in a laptop it is very important how many resources it requires for this. This is both heating and battery life ...

Let's take a closer look at this test, because almost every user can face it.

In principle, both AMD processors can even handle 1080p software decoding. Although, I would say that it is "on the verge": almost always with such high loading processor, the system is already starting to drop frames and playback is losing smoothness. AT program mode the load for all processors is approximately the same, for some reason the weakest S-50 has the lowest load.

When hardware acceleration was enabled, the places were immediately distributed in the usual way, although I thought that AMD systems would be ahead here due to good optimization algorithms in ATI video chips. However, this did not happen.

Well, time to jump to conclusions.

Overall rating of the system

Let's look at the average score of the systems that participated in the test.

In the first line, the ratings are calculated for two systems (based on the ratings of all applications launched on them), i.e. AMD E-350 and Intel SU4100, in the second - for three, only applications that have been launched and worked on all three are taken into account. systems.

Let's briefly summarize the impressions from the performance tests. It immediately catches the eye that Atom was not tested in real applications, but the SU4100, which is already leaving the stage, participated. At the same time, in testing desktop systems, where the E-350 and Atom were compared, both processors could not come close to the outdated and cheap processors of the Celeron line. I'm afraid that the same claims would not be made to this article - they say, where did I find a laptop with SU4100? Indeed, Intel is now almost not promoting this line (and in vain), I think it will soon disappear from everywhere, if not already. And why are there no Atom results.

In the near future we will definitely try to measure the performance of the netbook on Intel Atom and publish comparative results. However, based on the results of synthetic tests, I would assume that processors from the mobile line will be weaker than the C-50. Moreover (although it is not certain that tests will show this), due to the more powerful graphics subsystem, AMD processors should be more comfortable in everyday work. The E-350 in netbooks should become the leader in terms of speed.

Although the catch is that the E-350 is positioned in more productive segments than netbooks. And it turns out an interesting picture: Intel had a processor for the same niche, also energy efficient and not very slow. It was also installed in large 15-inch laptops, citing the fact that performance is not so important in office systems. The processor, by the way, was not very popular and is now leaving the stage. And AMD, it seems, will try to play in this segment again. On the other hand, now in Intel products there should be a gap between too slow Atom and more productive, but also voracious modern Core. The AMD E-350 falls into this gap and looks good for a certain category of products, if it didn't seem that the SU4100 is more interesting.

Power consumption and battery life

Let's see how much energy a laptop with a particular processor eats up under various work scenarios. Unfortunately, we don't have data for the SU4100 and Core i3-350M (these laptops were tested before we started measuring power consumption). But we can measure the power consumption of the system on Intel Atom, its results should be obviously more interesting than those of CULV.

*18 W at minimum backlight brightness.

**27W with no load on HDD.

The results were a little unexpected for me. It turns out that the new C-50 system consumes slightly more power than the Atom N450 system (for measuring the system with the Atom 450, we used the MSI Wind 160 model with standard power consumption drivers from Microsoft). Of course, we are talking about the power consumption of the system as a whole (including the screen, etc.), but the systems are very close, two netbooks with almost the same characteristics. Since the power consumption is close, then the autonomy of devices with AMD C-50 APUs should also be approximately the same as for devices based on Atom, and for tablets, for example, this is not a very good option.

However, for the same power consumption, the C-50 is faster than the N450, and the D525 definitely consumes more power and, more importantly, dissipates much more heat. By the way, the netbook with S-50 is much colder than its competitor on Atom.

The E-350 is also not a leader in energy consumption, in economical modes it is close to portable models on Intel. Although, if we draw analogies again, its energy consumption should be close to CULV systems, and at one time they performed very well in terms of autonomy: laptops with them easily pulled for 7-8-10 hours.

We will provide more detailed data on energy saving and other information in reviews dedicated to specific laptops on AMD C-50 and E-350 platforms.

conclusions

Once again, you take new AMD products in your hands with the thought that they will change the world, but you give it away with the thought “just one more processor, somewhere a little better, somewhere a little worse.” This, by the way, is not very good for the product, because high expectations lead to disappointment in real research, and disappointment forms the wrong impression about the product, not allowing you to correctly evaluate its advantages. However, AMD's new processors are a step forward. Let's try to evaluate which one?

Firstly, even the performance of the processor core AMD Brazos platform outperforms Intel Atom. Atom mobile series can only compete with the younger version, which runs at a much lower clock speed, and at parity, the AMD platform is far ahead. And, importantly, this difference in performance manifests itself in a segment where it is very important (because, let's be honest, the overall level of performance of all products is very low).

However, there is a subtle point in positioning. While Brazos is faster than the Intel Atom, they are generally in the same segment. On the one hand, this is good, because products based on them can easily be integrated into existing systems positioning of manufacturers' products. On the other hand, within the framework of this positioning, they can get the label “cheaper alternative to Intel Atom”, with which they will remain, content with low profits and those users who do not want to pay for the Intel platform at all.

The second important advantage of the AMD Brazos platform is much more powerful graphics, both in terms of performance and functionality. Now that graphics are used to speed up rendering even in Internet browsers, a powerful graphics chip will definitely not be superfluous. Especially since the main processor does not shine high speed so help would be very helpful. In terms of performance, AMD Brazos is much more successful with HD content, which is important for a platform of this class. In terms of functionality, it uses a modern graphics core with support for DirectX 11, and also immediately and fully supports HDMI digital video output. This is a significant advantage for final products - both motherboards and mobile devices, netbooks and tablets. But these advantages still need to be conveyed to the user, to convince him that they are important, and this is already the task of building the right marketing policy on the part of AMD and manufacturers. Let's hope for the best, although previous experience in this area inspires some concern.

From a constructive point of view, the most important advantage of the APU is that it is a single chip, so the platform is much cheaper, more compact, colder than the competitor's multi-chip solutions. However, this advantage is more for developers and manufacturers. What difference does it make to the user, how many chips are in his device? He needs it to be productive, cold and with good autonomy. And by what means this is achieved is the second question. Moreover, it is not a fact that if the manufacturer saves on production, then the final products will become cheaper.

But the lack of heating is an important advantage for the user. According to my feelings, the level of heating of both variants of the platform is extremely low. The Acer 522 netbook with the C-50 processor still managed to warm up quite a bit, but the heating even in the hottest place reached 31–32 degrees Celsius, and the blown air was also not very warm. And the Aspire One Happy model on Atom 450 from the same manufacturer was simply hot, it was unpleasant to hold the netbook on your lap. But the processor there is the “coldest” of Intel line. The E-350 is not able to heat the laptop case at all. The eMachines 644 we tested remained cold at all times, warming up (and slightly warming up the case) only the hard drive. At the same time, the cooling system in both laptops worked almost silently.

Summing up, we can say that the products themselves turned out to be very good. In terms of speed, functionality and other parameters, they are well suited to the tablet and netbook market, which is now actively developing and evolving, and can serve as the basis for very interesting devices. It's a pity they came out too late, if they hit the market in 2010, during the boom of netbooks, a productive, versatile, low-heating platform with HDMI support could have made a splash.

However, even now the time has not yet been lost. But you can't let things go by themselves. In order for AMD Brazos to be successful in the market, they must be actively promoted both among consumers and among manufacturers. And here there are some concerns. Because, firstly, the image of the manufacturer of “an inexpensive alternative to Intel products” has been fixed for AMD, which makes buyers and manufacturers discard interesting functionality and focus only on price, which is fundamentally wrong. Very often, the fact that a product is built on the AMD platform means that it is poorer in functionality, does not have additional features, a good set of delivery, etc.

For example, Brazos can be an excellent base for HTPC, but one platform is not enough for this. On its basis, you need to build an interesting end product with the desired functionality and (this is important!) A good package. Who will produce them and how to bring them to market?

The same applies to the segment of laptops and netbooks. Potentially, the platform can be very successful if it is presented correctly (emphasizing the existing significant advantages) and if the initiative is supported by manufacturers by releasing really interesting solutions, and not just another super-cheap models from the “to be” series (which can ruin the most interesting technological solutions). And it's not worth it, especially at the present stage, to get involved in dubious adventures such as organizing new incomprehensible market niches (what they are going to do with the E-350), and even less trying to position the processor against competitors, to whom it loses in terms of performance. By the way, good example The same CULV platform from Intel can serve as unsuccessful marketing here. For some reason, a weak but economical processor was shoved into 15-inch desktop laptops, which killed the whole idea. Let's hope AMD doesn't repeat this mistake.

Summing up, I would like to say that AMD Brazos is a necessary and interesting product for its segment. But its success will largely depend not on technological and technical advantages platform, but from properly built marketing and competent promotion of the platform to the market. Only in this case the platform will be successful. Otherwise, it will remain another rare niche solution, of which we have already seen a lot of examples on the market.

New Asus laptops K43BR and K53BR on the AMD Brazos platform

The range of laptops from ASUS has replenished with a couple of new products K43BR and K53BR. Both solutions are based on the AMD Brazos platform, represented by the AMD A50M chipset and one of the AMD E-450, C-60, or C-50 dual-core APUs.

At the heart of the RAM system of mobile computers and K53BR there are two 204-pin slots that support 4-gigabit DDR3-1333 MHz or DDR3-1066 MHz modules. The disk system of new products consists of one 2.5-inch HDD-drive with a capacity of 320 GB, 500 GB or 750 GB.

Multimedia capabilities of models and K53BR based on mobile video card AMD Radeon HD 7470, 14-inch (ASUS K43BR) or 15.6-inch (ASUS K53BR) HD LED-backlit display, a pair of built-in speakers from Altec Lansing, 0.3 MP webcam and microphone.

Among the additional advantages of new products, we note the support of a number of useful technologies:

SmartLogon - provides biometric authentication of the user by his facial features, using the built-in webcam for this.

Comparative data sheet new laptops and K53BR presented in the following table:

Updated ASUS netbook Eee PC 1215B

ASUS decided to upgrade the hardware mobile computer Eee PC 1215B. Recall that this decision It was first shown at CES 2011 and went on sale a few months later.

AT updated version model added the ability to use the new dual-core APU AMD E-450 , which supports Turbo technology Core and Possess graphics core AMD Radeon HD 6320, as well as increased the maximum possible storage capacity to 500 GB.

The rest of the netbook package has remained unchanged and includes:

12.1" screen with LED backlight;

up to 4 GB DDR3 SO-DIMM;

integrated speakers and microphone;

Webcam;

6-cell battery;

a standard set of external and network interfaces.

The updated version of the novelty will be available for sale immediately after the official announcement of the new APU AMD E-450. The mobile computer technical specification summary table is as follows:

ASUS K53BY laptop is a great solution for work and entertainment

AT model range 15.6 ”notebooks from ASUS has an interesting solution called K53BY. It is based on the AMD Brazos platform and its uniqueness lies in the list of supported processors, which includes two new products (AMD E-450 and C-60) that have not yet been officially presented by AMD.

As for the rest of the hardware components of the laptop, there were no surprises here. Therefore, we briefly note only the key ones:

2.5" SATA HDD from 320 GB to 750 GB;

up to 8 GB of DDR3-1066 MHz RAM;

mobile AMD graphics card Radeon HD 6470M supporting 512 MB or 1 GB VRAM;

integrated speakers from Altec Lansing;

optical drive DVD Super Multi or Blu-ray Combo;

6-cell battery;

webcam and microphone.

As an additional advantage, the model has support for several proprietary technologies that increase the level of comfort when working with this new product:

IceCool - allows you to reduce the heating temperature of the outer surface of the case, which is designed to rest your hands;

Power4Gear - Automatically adjusts fan blades based on workload and case temperature.

Palm Proof - distinguishes between targeted movement of fingers on the surface of the touchpad from accidental touch with the palm of your hand and blocks the touchpad in the latter case;

SmartLogon - provides biometric authentication of the user by his facial features, using the built-in webcam for this.

Detailed table of technical specifications of the new laptop:

Review and testing Acer netbook Aspire One 522 powered by AMD Brazos

Announcement of the new MSI WindPad 110W tablet based on the AMD Brazos platform

MSI plans to introduce a new 10.1” tablet computer during Hannover CeBIT 2011, according to authoritative Internet resources. WindPad 110W. The novelty will be based on the AMD Brazos platform, namely the AMD Ontario C-50 dual-core APU with a frequency of 1 GHz. Recall that it has an integrated graphics core AMD Radeon HD 6250, which operates at a clock frequency of 280 MHz and supports the execution of DirectX 11 instructions.

To store information, the tablet will have a 32 GB SSD drive, an accelerometer and a screen backlight that automatically turns on thanks to the ambient light sensor. This model comes with a pre-installed operating Windows system 7 Home Premium.

Photo of MSI WindPad 100W tablet being prepared at CeBIT 2011.

The summary technical specification of the new tablet is presented in the table below:

Many computer users have heard that you can significantly improve the performance of your computer by overclocking its processor. In this article, we will talk about how to overclock amd cpu, let's get acquainted with the features of this operation.

As a rule, a newly purchased computer becomes obsolete in a year and a half, due to the rapid development modern technologies. Very soon after the purchase, it begins to fail to cope with new games that require large computing resources, to slow down. Overclocking the processor will extend the life of the computer, saving a significant amount on buying a new one, or on replacing its main parts (upgrade). In addition, some people use overclocking immediately after purchase, trying to increase its performance to the maximum, because in especially successful cases it can increased by 30%.

Why is overclocking possible?

The fact is that AMD processors have a large technological margin, incorporated in them by the manufacturer for reliability. To understand how to overclock an amd processor, you have to say a few words about its device. The processor operates at a certain frequency, which is set for it by the manufacturer. This frequency is obtained by multiplying the base frequency by an internal multiplier that the processor has and can be controlled from the BIOS. For some of them, this multiplier is locked, and these are not very suitable for overclocking, while for others you can change it yourself. The base frequency is generated by an oscillator installed on the motherboard. The frequencies of this generator are also used to form other frequencies necessary for the normal operation of the computer. It:

• The frequency of the channel that links the CPU and the northbridge. As a rule, this is 1GHz, 1.8GHz, or 2GHz. But in general, it should not be greater than the frequency of the Northbridge. This channel is called HyperTransport.
• The frequency of the North Bridge also depends on this generator, the frequencies of the memory controller and some others depend on the same frequency.
• The frequency at which it works RAM, is also determined by this generator.

From this we can draw a simple conclusion - the maximum overclocking of a computer is possible only when choosing components that function reliably in extreme conditions. First of all, they include the motherboard and RAM.

The question arises — how to overclock an amd phenom or athlon processor? There are two ways to do this - you can increase its multiplier, or you can increase the frequency of the base generator. Let's say our generator has a standard frequency of 200 MHz, and the processor multiplier is 14. Multiplying one by the other, we get 2800 MHz - the frequency at which the processor operates. By setting the multiplier to 17, we get a frequency of 3400 MHz. True, whether our processor will work at this frequency is a big question! The second way is to increase the frequency of the base oscillator. By increasing its frequency by 50 MHz, we will have a processor frequency of 3500 MHz (with a multiplier of 14), however, the frequencies of all elements of the board that depend on the generator will also increase.

System heat dissipation

With an increase in frequency, the heat dissipation of any element always increases and there comes a limit when it refuses to work at a given frequency. In order to restore it to working capacity, increase the voltage on it. This, in turn, increases the heat it generates. Ohm's law says that increasing the voltage by 2 times, increases the heat dissipation by 4 times. Hence a simple conclusion - in order to successfully overclock the amd processor with a hair dryer (athlon), you need to take care of it good cooling. Moreover, if overclocking is carried out through a generator, then the motherboard must also be cooled. For cooling, both high-performance coolers and water cooling are used, and in extreme cases, liquid nitrogen.

CPU overclocking

Can be done using AMD utilities OverDrive, which allows you to overclock the processor and test its operation. This utility is produced by AMD and is designed to facilitate this process.

But many users prefer to carry out such overclocking through motherboard BIOS fees. True, this path requires some theoretical training and knowledge. You will also need a utility that will allow you to evaluate the result - this is CPU-Z, it will show the new processor frequency and Prime95 - a utility that allows you to evaluate the stability of the system under overclocking conditions, as well as some others - to control temperature and performance.

bios settings

Depending on the type motherboard, BIOS settings may change, but we recommend setting some of them like this:

1. For Cool 'n' Quiet, select Disable.
2. For C1E select Disable
3. For Spread Spectrum select Disable
4. For Smart CPU Fan Control select Disable

You must also set the power plan to High Performance mode - high performance.

Remember that you perform all actions for overclocking the processor solely at your own peril and risk!

Overclocking technique

It is recommended to overclock the amd athlon (phenom) processor by increasing its multiplier by one step in steps. After each increase in the multiplier, it is necessary to check the stability of the processor at the new frequency using the Prime95 utility, and if the test fails, make another attempt by increasing the voltage on the CPU by one step. After the test is passed without errors at least three times in a row, you can increase the multiplier by one more step and try to pass the tests again. Acting in this way, you will find the value of the multiplier and voltage at which the processor will be stable, and the next increase in the multiplier should lead to the fact that the test will not be passed. After this value of the multiplier and voltage is found, it is recommended, for permanent operation, to reduce them by one step. When overclocking, carefully control the temperature of the processor, it should not go beyond the limits set by the manufacturer.

If, by changing the value of the multiplier, it is not possible to obtain high overclocking, then it is worth trying the second way - to increase it by increasing the frequency of the base generator.

In this short article, we talked about the very principle of how to overclock amd athlon and phenom processors without dwelling on the details. For those who want to know more about this, there is a lot of literature, both in paper and electronic form.