AMD Publishes Mobile Kaveri Specifications

36 Comments

View All Comments

• rahulgarg - Monday, May 26, 2014 - link

  That 17W Kaveri looks quite useless IMO. 15W Beema would outperform it and at a much lower cost and power.

• lkb - Monday, May 26, 2014 - link

  I agree - I also wonder why there are 2 SKUs one at 17 watt and one at 19 watt but nothing in between them and 35 watts. It seems to me that an OEM could design their product to acommodate 2 extra watts, but they are left with nothing if their product intends for a TDP somewhere between 19 and 35 watts.

• DanNeely - Monday, May 26, 2014 - link

  The 17W TDP gives a direct match to Intel; with Intel spanking AMD so badly on mobile, offering a cheaper option that can recycle cooling will probably make some OEMs happy. The lack of an intermediate TDP is almost certainly lack of demand. Intel droped the 25W point a few years ago; because once performance was no longer so neutered at 17W the demand for 25W chiped dried up. OEMs either went for the lower power ones to be thin and long lasting, or stayed at 35W for either really cheap stuff or desktop replacements.

• monstercameron - Monday, May 26, 2014 - link

  I disagree, with more gcn CUs, dual channel memory controller and higher single threaded perf., it should be faster in games and legacy x86 apps[read single threaded].

• DanNeely - Monday, May 26, 2014 - link

  The 17W one has less GPU as well as less CPU. The only reason I can see it making sense is if it gets much lower idle power.

• gruffi - Monday, May 26, 2014 - link

  No, the 15W Beema wouldn't outperform it in general. In scenarios with up to two threads Kaveri is faster. Beema is only faster if it can use 3 or 4 cores. Graphics performance should be quite similar, 192 stream processors @ 553 MHz vs 128 stream processors @ 800 MHz. But keep in mind, Beema is still single-channel bottlenecked.

• Alexvrb - Monday, May 26, 2014 - link

  Agreed. In 1-2 thread scenarios Kaveri most likely wins. In graphics, Kaveri wins - the clock difference vs shader cores very nearly balance out in terms of raw performance, but dual channel 1600 beats single channel 1866 by miles. With that being said, I still think a 6310 Beema system is more balanced and less likely to get bottlenecked when multitasking.
  
  Ultimately though, which one makes more sense comes down to pricing, and both of them are absolutely destroyed by the new 19W models. So the only reason to buy something less than the 19W units is if form factor/battery life or pricing prohibits it.

• bleh0 - Monday, May 26, 2014 - link

  Hmm...I wonder how much a FX-7600P laptop is going to cost in comparison to an Iris Pro equipped model. If AMD manages to get it in more then just a few designs here and there.

• MonkeyPaw - Monday, May 26, 2014 - link

  Imagine if AMD could drop an eDRAM die on the FX-7600P like Iris Pro? You would see something quite incredible.

• TheinsanegamerN - Monday, May 26, 2014 - link

  That.....would be epic.
  I wonder though, why doesnt amd allow two memory channels on their mobile chips, so we could use 4 memory modules? little more expensive, sure, but doubling memory bandwidth would go a LONG way in improving performance vs chasing higher memory speeds.