HSA should have improved access for "vram" in ram. And new delta compression should further improve this. But this improvement looks too big. I am not saying it is not possible, but If so, main difference will be in synthetic tests. Because synthetic test does not need a lot of bandwidth for CPU and GPU at same time. This leads me to believe that real world (games) will have smaller improvement, but some rare games may go up to this level of performance. And btw, this level of performance is around today's average gaming PC (desktops). So it still looks very good indeed. Probably cheap, small and low power consumption in comparison to what it delivers.

^ This. I've noticed things tend to go sideways with proper gaming just like you said. In any event, I'm skeptical about the power consumption part. AMD hasn't been a player in the notebook market exactly for power reasons. This shift in power consuption is kind of fast for what I've seen AMD be able to do. If there's a catch, I believe it's that the cpu is extremely weak. If there's no catch (aka the cpu is at least half-decent), that's an impressive feat from AMD. About time they address their power consumption issues.

From kaveri performance on 95W TDP vs 65W TDP, I presumed that even 35W FX-7600p which is not out should have been very good (did not had full HSA/delta compression). I think main improvement for TDP would be from GloFo 28nm SHP. CPU part will be at level of 7850k (carrizo will bring higher IPC but clock low enough to fit TDP) or better unless TDP restriction kills it. And that would still be more than enough for given iGPU performance. Freesync capable notebooks would be very good thing for AMD. And I would advice them to make sure those come soon even if that means they have to contract some manufacturer to make them based on their specifications to ensure full feature sets and early readiness for sale. Because "too late to market" was biggest disadvantage AMD had in last 3 years in mobile sector. And I do not think it was their fault. But there is mistake AMD makes purely on their own, mobile APUs limited to 35W TDP. Intel's CPUs goes up to 45W, GPUs to 100W. Why not make TDP unrestricted 45W APU or even 95W APU which would have user configurable TDP to deliver best mobility and desktop level experience?

Apparently Carrizo is BGA only, no desktop.

Apparently Carrizo is BGA only, no desktop.

Apparently BGA does not prevent Desktop solutions. It only prevents you from picking board and APU on two separate occasions or upgrade. But it gives grater control and reduces development costs as manufacturer only has to ensure compatibility with APUs he's gonna solder on it. Low cost/HTPC would be targets here.

^ This. I've noticed things tend to go sideways with proper gaming just like you said. In any event, I'm skeptical about the power consumption part. AMD hasn't been a player in the notebook market exactly for power reasons. This shift in power consuption is kind of fast for what I've seen AMD be able to do. If there's a catch, I believe it's that the cpu is extremely weak. If there's no catch (aka the cpu is at least half-decent), that's an impressive feat from AMD. About time they address their power consumption issues.

There aren't any "extremely weak" cpus from AMD, unless you want to call Intel's i5xxx and i3xxx cpus "extremely weak," too...;) AMD has no trouble matching and/or besting Intel's i5's (and i3's) in terms of both performance and cost, and Intel sells a boatload more of those than it does i7's--which is where you have to go to get something faster than AMD in terms of a cpu... Most games these days are fairly GPU bound, though, as opposed to cpu bound, certainly. As the display resolution increases, so does the software's dependence on the GPU. In that market, even an i7's advantage in raw processing power comes to naught with the AMD IGPs stealing the show...going with an Intel IGP is clearly going with a by-comparison "extremely weak" GPU...;) I'm kind of disappointed that AMD hasn't outlined a new desktop cpu road map in a while, though. Bringing the Steamroller cores into the FX lineup should not be challenging at all for AMD, imo--if the yields are good enough on the APU side of the fence it pretty much follows they shouldn't have any yield situation with an FX Steamroller. Of course, they'd have to exceed four cores with an FX variant, and I wonder if it could be a 6/8-core yield situation behind AMD's lack of presence in the desktop cpu markets. AMD's already said that Carrizo won't be going to the desktop, so maybe that's why. At the very least AMD needs to bring a PCIe 3.x core-logic chipset to its FX lineup--even though the difference over 2.x is nil with respect to a discrete GPU, it's often just a matter of bullet-point marketing. I wish AMD would be a bit more forthcoming on why the sudden stagnation on the desktop...no sense letting Intel walk away with most of the profits in that market...! (But, what do I know?...;))

There aren't any "extremely weak" cpus from AMD, unless you want to call Intel's i5xxx and i3xxx cpus "extremely weak," too...;) AMD has no trouble matching and/or besting Intel's i5's (and i3's) in terms of both performance and cost, and Intel sells a boatload more of those than it does i7's--which is where you have to go to get something faster than AMD in terms of a cpu...

Beat in price, sure, but not in performance. The single thread performance of AMD's high end 8 cores are still way behind a K series i5 (the most common gaming CPU) and very few games use more than 4 threads. Their APUs are starting to catch up, but certainly not there yet.

There aren't any "extremely weak" cpus from AMD, unless you want to call Intel's i5xxx and i3xxx cpus "extremely weak," too...;) AMD has no trouble matching and/or besting Intel's i5's (and i3's) in terms of both performance and cost, and Intel sells a boatload more of those than it does i7's--which is where you have to go to get something faster than AMD in terms of a cpu... Most games these days are fairly GPU bound, though, as opposed to cpu bound, certainly. As the display resolution increases, so does the software's dependence on the GPU. In that market, even an i7's advantage in raw processing power comes to naught with the AMD IGPs stealing the show...going with an Intel IGP is clearly going with a by-comparison "extremely weak" GPU...;) I'm kind of disappointed that AMD hasn't outlined a new desktop cpu road map in a while, though. Bringing the Steamroller cores into the FX lineup should not be challenging at all for AMD, imo--if the yields are good enough on the APU side of the fence it pretty much follows they shouldn't have any yield situation with an FX Steamroller. Of course, they'd have to exceed four cores with an FX variant, and I wonder if it could be a 6/8-core yield situation behind AMD's lack of presence in the desktop cpu markets. AMD's already said that Carrizo won't be going to the desktop, so maybe that's why. At the very least AMD needs to bring a PCIe 3.x core-logic chipset to its FX lineup--even though the difference over 2.x is nil with respect to a discrete GPU, it's often just a matter of bullet-point marketing. I wish AMD would be a bit more forthcoming on why the sudden stagnation on the desktop...no sense letting Intel walk away with most of the profits in that market...! (But, what do I know?...;))

There are extremely weak amd cpus, just like there are extremely weak intel cpus. And I was primarily referring to the cpu in the ps4/xbone. That one is quite a shamble.

The killer of this cpu will be ddr3 like it has been in the past though it makes sense due to rediculous ddr4 pricing. I would like to see some results with say 2400mhz ram i know the a10 5800k kept scaling and still wanted more.

Only reason amd doesnt already kick ass in mobile is because intel is taking losses on cpus to dominate the market. Amd apus are already raping them unless the intel variant is using a dedicated gpu.

The killer of this cpu will be ddr3 like it has been in the past though it makes sense due to rediculous ddr4 pricing. I would like to see some results with say 2400mhz ram i know the a10 5800k kept scaling and still wanted more.

It is bit wrong. AMD's issue with memory is not low frequency (or sticking to ddr3), but amount of data AMD gets through dual channel at same frequency+timing vs intel. AMD needed in past 2133MHz to have same GB/s as intel on 1600MHz. Considering Carrizo as full HSA 1.0 there had to be changes in memory controller therefore part of this limitation may go away.

The killer of this cpu will be ddr3 like it has been in the past though it makes sense due to rediculous ddr4 pricing. I would like to see some results with say 2400mhz ram i know the a10 5800k kept scaling and still wanted more.

Of course it wanted more. The GTX 560, which is quite an old card by today's standards can output a memory bandwidth of 128GB/s. DDR4 at 3.2 GHz averages around 50. Integrated gpus will always be limited by this, no matter how much voodoo Intel/AMD does under the hood.

There are extremely weak amd cpus, just like there are extremely weak intel cpus. And I was primarily referring to the cpu in the ps4/xbone. That one is quite a shamble.

For only being at like 1.6 ghz per core, the jaguar APU inside the PS4 is a pretty reasonable guy for being low spec'd. AMD needs to get back to manual designed cpu cores, not reference machine built designs. That's what's killing IPC performance in their cores right now.