KitGuru KitGuru.net – Tech News | Hardware News | Hardware Reviews | IOS | Mobile | Gaming | Graphics Cards
Advanced Micro Devices reportedly plans to release its next-generation code-named Carrizo-L accelerated processing units (APUs) already in December, according to a media report. If the information is correct, AMD’s competitive positions against Intel Corp. will get significantly better early in 2015.
Traditionally AMD unveils new APUs early in calendar year and gradually increases their production to address different segments of the market. With the code-named Carrizo family of APUs AMD wants to change its approach a bit. DigiTimes claims that AMD will release its Carrizo-L APUs for the entry-level notebook segment in December 2014, which will help the company to better compete against Intel’s new Celeron and Pentium microprocessors. Unfortunately, “fully-fledged” Carrizo APUs will only be launched next March.
AMD’s Carrizo APUs are based on the next-generation Excavator x86 micro-architecture and improved AMD Radeon graphics. The new chips will offer higher performance compared to existing offerings. Unfortunately, since Carrizo and Carrizo-L are expected to be produced using 28nm process technology, they will not be as energy-efficient as Intel’s code-named Broadwell microprocessors made using 14nm technology. Still, any new chip will improve AMD’s position on the market.
Carrizo-L APUs are projected to replace AMD's existing Beema and Mullins APUs for entry-level notebooks and tablets, according to the report. Keeping in mind that Carrizo-L is based on high-performance micro-architecture, they should provide a significant performance increase when compared to existing offerings.
It is not completely clear why AMD wants to release new entry-level APUs already in December, ahead of the Consumer Electronics Show in early January. Traditionally all hardware designers roll-out their novelties at CES.
Given the fact that the information comes from unofficial sources, it is possible that AMD will begin revenue shipments of the Carrizo-L this December, but will formally introduce the new chips at the CES trade show in early 2015.
AMD did not comment on the news-story.
Discuss on our Facebook page, HERE.
KitGuru Says: It is interesting that for some reason AMD decided not to proceed with APUs based on the Puma+ low-power/low-cost microarchitecture. Perhaps, in the light of the fact that Intel’s Broadwell chips offer both high-performance and very high energy efficiency, AMD simply has to use high-performance architecture for its low-power offerings to stay competitive.
You seriously can’t get a worse present-day PC CPU than the Celeron. And by worse I mean lower performance. You can get more inexpensive: that’s where AMD comes in. Nothing can compete with the atrocity that is the Celeron.
Celerons beats all of AMD’s offerings in that price range. You must be drunk.
You must be a fanboy. Nobody needs CPUs with performance that low in the first place.
Not a fanboy. Obviously. Tell me any a4 that beats a celeron. Good luck.
http://www.cpu-world.com/Compare/79/AMD_A4-Series_A4-3300_vs_Intel_Celeron_Dual-Core_G530.html
Similar, but still beaten by the A4. And if you have to resort to calling me drunk to elicit some kind of response from me, there’s something wrong. I am happily alcohol free; alas, that has no place in a Kitguru conversation.
LOL. You have to use a celeron from 3 generations ago. xD Try the g1840.
Just proves my point that Celerons are long-term losers.
How? Where are the benchmarks?
Oh, you’re still here? I thought you might’ve started reading more articles. In the meantime, I’ve got very real work to do for computer engineering. Ta ta!
those benchmarks are pretty shit, for starters the ones that are fair show the a4 beating the celeron is anything but singlethread applications, but then the fps benchmarks they pair the celeron with dedicated graphics
of course its gonna be better, they even stated that the celeron had such a terrible gaming experience they HAD to pair it with a discrete card
8 CU in the 15W pack?
If you actually look at it the a4 never won. The Celeron was always better. I know it’s sad but AMD isn’t that good when it comes to CPUs.
http://www.cpu-world.com/Compare/130/AMD_A4-Series_A4-3300_vs_Intel_Celeron_Dual-Core_G1820.html
Celeron £1 cheaper. I’m sure you meant to link that instead of the EoL 530
Sure hope so. That would be amazing, especially for HSA accelerated software.
The fuck? I have some Celeron’s at work (I sell PC’s) and there’s nothing wrong with them, they’re just as fast as AMD’s current chips, if not faster for general purpose computing (for example E1 2100) and that’s just the dual core chip, there are also quad core Celeron’s that offer very respectable entry level performance. I have to wonder (not really) if you’ve even used a current Intel Baytrail product AT ALL? I’m guessing not, so why why open your stupid mouth?
Learn about things before commenting, you’re just highlighting your own lack of experience and intelligence here.
No joke. ‘Cept for in graphics, AMD dominates them there.. almost twice as fast in many competing products, plus you got some real nice general compute performance from AMD too.
Nobody needs entry level products? are you drunk? I sell entry level products to people, it’s price based.
I’vce actually benchmarked AMD E1’s and A4’s vs Intel Celeron’s and Pentium’s etc and yes the Intel’s are faster in the non GPU area.
Bahahahaha quad-core el-crappo CPUs? Putting more cores on THAT is like hooking a 4k up to an integrated GPU. No amount of extra stuff is not going to make that thing move any faster. The problem is that it is such low-spec that no amount of changing the proportions of the speed/cache/cores is going to make anything better.
The reason Celerons were awful in the first place was because of the rock-bottom amount of cache.
As one before me said: “Learn about things before commenting, you’re just highlighting your own lack of experience and intelligence here.”
I have experience. Plenty of it. I prefer an Athlon (or even a Sempron or heck a Pentium) over Celeron garbage. I’d prefer an Athlon XP to today’s Celerons.
All outdated, power hungry and less efficient. Personally I’d never touch an Athlon, maybe 10 years ago..
Yet they’re still very much alive and kicking. People who are actually on a budget (vs a ‘budget’ to buy the latest junk) would look for the products with consistently good performance: Athlon, Phenom (although not many consumer-grade products use this one), Core 2 Duo; if people really knew what NOT to look for, they should think of the Atom, Celeron, Pentium (not too bad but there’s better), and yes A4 chips.
??? celeron is better than amd cpu, a pentium 3 is better than a amd cpu
Really? My 9370 is faster than those.
AMD E series are notoriously slow but the igp are still acceptable due to intel crippling the igp of celerons and pentiums but the a4 in beema should win when compared to 15w pentiums due to its quad core.