Early benchmarks show AMD Fusion Ontario APU to be a potential Intel Atom smasher

Early benchmarks show AMD Fusion Ontario APU to be a potential Intel Atom smasher

Summary: AMD is staking quite a bit on its new Fusion architecture -- which combines CPU and GPU in an Accelerated Processing Unit, or APU -- and the first independent benchmarks for a Toshiba NB550D netbook using the C-50 "Ontario" APU should encourage the chipmaker.Dutch site Hardware.

SHARE:

AMD is staking quite a bit on its new Fusion architecture -- which combines CPU and GPU in an Accelerated Processing Unit, or APU -- and the first independent benchmarks for a Toshiba NB550D netbook using the C-50 "Ontario" APU should encourage the chipmaker.

Dutch site Hardware.info compared the C-50 to Intel's Atom N550 netbook processor, the primary competition to one of AMD's low-power entries. In two of the four benchmarks the testers used, the Fusion chip smoked the Atom: It nearly doubled the N550's PCMark Vantage - Gaming score (1,380 to 697) and destroyed it by more than tenfold in 3DMark06 (1,769 to 153). The site didn't (or couldn't) run the PCMark Vantage - TV and Movies test for the dual-core Atom, whereas the dual-core Fusion processor scored 1,046. The only test that the Intel chip won was Cinebench 10 (1,466 to 1,271).

The results suggest that the C-50's integrated Radeon HD 6250 GPU is far superior to the N550's GMA 3150, especially considering that it supports DirectX 11 graphics while Intel is still stuck at DirectX 9. At 8 watts, the AMD processor also sips slightly less power than the 8.5-watt Atom. One question still unanswered is how the battery life of the Ontario chip fares in the wild. But overall, this is good news for a company that could use some after its CEO resigned yesterday.

[Via GuruHT]

Topics: Processors, Hardware, Intel, Mobility

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily email newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.

Talkback

7 comments
Log in or register to join the discussion
  • RE: Early benchmarks show AMD Fusion Ontario APU to be a potential Intel Atom smasher

    <p>Perhaps CineBench is biased towards Intel? :)</p><p>I can't wait to get my hands on Acer Iconia 10.1" tablet running Windows 7.</p>
    Grayson Peddie
  • What about the NVidio Idon chipset?

    I would not expect the best graphics from the GMA 3150. A better comparison would be against the Atom/NVidia Ion chipset combo.
    TexasJetter
    • But the combo isn't in the same market

      The lack of decent Intel GPU (particularly H.264 acceleration) is killing the usefulness of the Atom.

      NVidia Ion is not price competitive.
      Richard Flude
      • RE: Early benchmarks show AMD Fusion Ontario APU to be a potential Intel Atom smasher

        @Richard Flude - now that Intel have a license for nVidia's IP, perhaps we'll see some dramatic improvemments in up-coming Atom and Ix chips.
        bitcrazed
  • RE: Early benchmarks show AMD Fusion Ontario APU to be a potential Intel Atom smasher

    The real question reference the Atom is, how will the new cross licensing agreement between Intel and Nvidea affect future Atom products. Intel never has been a Graphics "Tour de Force"
    oskar401
  • Intel/Ion combination

    @TexasJetter
    I think it is appropriate in this case; you are talking apples to oranges when you add an external vendors (Nvidia) product. It would be like saying an Intel Mobo has excellent graphics while using an ATI video card; the mobo has crummy Intel IGP yet you are rating the graphics based on the add-in card. In the situation you propose, you are comparing Fusion's integrated graphics to an Intel processor with added Nvidia graphics (Ion).
    justanitguy
  • RE: Early benchmarks show AMD Fusion Ontario APU to be a potential Intel Atom smasher

    All of the benchmarks run were graphics ( Vantage - Gaming, 3DMark06, Vantage - TV and Movies, Cinebench 10). I don't think it's any mystery past generation Intel integrated graphics were downright lame so it's certainly not surprising to see atom get beat badly in graphics tests. I'd like to see some general purpose tests to go with this- and of course the big factor with any atom/low power chip is what is battery life like? Seriously I think in terms of importance with a device that would use an atom or similar chip the priority goes something like: cost, battery life, general performance, graphics performance. So from this test we know in the lowest priority category (at least lowest priority for the typical buyer) fusion wins. It may win in other categories too, but that remains to be seen, and is it reasonable to suggest that perhaps the reason the other categories weren't advertised is because they weren't very good?
    fatbaldandhappy