Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

AMD Fusion E-350 Linux Performance

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • AMD Fusion E-350 Linux Performance

    Phoronix: AMD Fusion E-350 Linux Performance

    By now you have likely seen the AMD Fusion E-350 APU showcased on a number of Windows web-sites, but how is this AMD Accelerated Processor working in the Linux world? At Phoronix today are the first in-depth Ubuntu Linux benchmarks being published from this promising, low-power solution designed to compete with Intel's Atom.

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=15801

  • #2
    would be nice to see how the e350 compares to a core i7 2657M (17 W TDP)

    Comment


    • #3
      Looks pretty nice. I've been considering a Zacate Mini-ITX board as a MythTV front-end after I move this summer (and rebuild the HTPC / Home server setup).

      When you do the graphics comparison, could you add in a dedicated graphics card as an additional data point?

      Something like:
      1) Fusion w/ Catalyst
      2) Fusion w/ r600g
      3) Fusion w/ a dedicated Radeon card running Catalyst
      4) Fusion w/ dedicated Radeon w/ r600g

      Adding in the dedicated card would help us to figure out how much the CPU is bottle-necking the graphics performance.

      Also, checking the smoothness of full-screen HD video playback would be a cool thing to do, as it seems like a lot of people (not just me) are considering the Fusion chips for HTPC duties.

      Comment


      • #4
        d1saster: Why? The i7 costs about three times what an E-350 *with board* costs. Do you actually suggest comparing an Atom to that i7?

        Does anyone already have some SoftRAID benchmarks for the E-350? I ordered mine but it isn't quite here yet.

        Comment


        • #5
          Did I miss the OpenCL tests, or are they just not there? It seems like the biggest advantage that this Fusion architecture has could be seen with the right OpenCL benchmark.

          Comment


          • #6
            audio hdmi

            Maybe a little bit off-topic, but could you test HDMI audio with and or without catalyst drivers with this chipset?

            Comment


            • #7
              Even though video acceleration doesn't work it might be able to play an HD video just using the CPU. However, I couldn't find any information on that. That's why I would like to pose the following two questions:
              Is it fast enough to play a 720p HD h.264 file?
              Is it fast enough to play a 720p HD flash/youtube video?

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by mastereye View Post
                Even though video acceleration doesn't work it might be able to play an HD video just using the CPU. However, I couldn't find any information on that. That's why I would like to pose the following two questions:
                Is it fast enough to play a 720p HD h.264 file?
                Is it fast enough to play a 720p HD flash/youtube video?
                From this post:
                Without hardware acceleration it's possible to play 720p but just barely

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by sandain View Post
                  Did I miss the OpenCL tests, or are they just not there? It seems like the biggest advantage that this Fusion architecture has could be seen with the right OpenCL benchmark.
                  Oh yes, I forgot to ask for that one. I am very curious to see how the OpenCL performance on the Fusion chips works out. I can see lots of potential for reduced startup latency and reducing communication bottlenecks.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Schlensinger View Post
                    d1saster: Why? The i7 costs about three times what an E-350 *with board* costs. Do you actually suggest comparing an Atom to that i7?
                    Because it's a 17W TDP i7, which indicates Atom architecture inside. The article is currently comparing an 18W TDP Fusion chip with an 8W TDP (old) Atom part with way less RAM, which is actually showing a great performance from the Atom chip to me.


                    And I read somewhere there are new Atoms with GPU and MemCtlr in chip now. Does anyone confirm that? Atom is a SoC now?

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by jntesteves View Post
                      Because it's a 17W TDP i7, which indicates Atom architecture inside. The article is currently comparing an 18W TDP Fusion chip with an 8W TDP (old) Atom part with way less RAM, which is actually showing a great performance from the Atom chip to me.
                      No, the i7 indicates it is the i7 (Nehalem) architecture. Not an Atom chip. Also, even though the TDP rating is the same, it will consume quite a bit more power. In exchange, it is much faster.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by jntesteves View Post
                        Because it's a 17W TDP i7, which indicates Atom architecture inside. The article is currently comparing an 18W TDP Fusion chip with an 8W TDP (old) Atom part with way less RAM, which is actually showing a great performance from the Atom chip to me.
                        I think it is fair to do this comparison. After all, Atom 330 + Ion boards are still on sale and have a similar price. The difference in RAM is not so important for compute benchmarks. And considering the difference in power consumption for the whole platform still makes the E-350 appear more efficient.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Please dont try to compare Intels TDP and AMDs TDP. Intels Maximum TDP is around 20% higher as they say.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Nille View Post
                            Please dont try to compare Intels TDP and AMDs TDP. Intels Maximum TDP is around 20% higher as they say.
                            Plus the Fusion TDP includes the GPU, while the Intel one does not since it's on the motherboard.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              From the article: "...but even still with the latest Catalyst drivers the XvBA/video implementation can be buggy depending upon several factors."

                              Can anyone with this or similar hardware expand on this? I mainly have desktops, and nearly all have nvidia (for obvious reasons), so if I were to buy this board, what would I find in terms of hardware video decoding?
                              I know flash won't work (don't really care either), but would XBMC work? And mplayer?

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X