MrSeb writes: "It’s been a turbulent 12 months for AMD. Since the company launched Llano, its first mainstream “Fusion” part, it has replaced its CEO, brought in multiple new executives, debuted a disappointing architecture, delayed its next-generation Brazos parts by a full year, and outlined a comprehensive vision of the future that de-emphasizes cutting-edge process node transitions in favor of re-useable IP blocks that can be shared between multiple SoCs (system-on-a-chip). When it launched last year, Bulldozer ran hot, scaled poorly, and was less efficient than its predecessor. When it came to building Llano’s successor, AMD clearly had its work cut out for it. How does Trinity do, then? Well, on the GPU side it comfortably holds its own against Intel's Ivy Bridge HD-4000, but the Piledriver CPU still doesn't come close to Sandy Bridge, let alone Ivy Bridge. But really, Trinity was never intended to compete directly with Ivy Bridge. AMD’s goal with Trinity is to position the CPU as a successor to Llano, a further fulfillment of the company’s “Fusion” vision, and as an anchor in the popular $400-$700 segment. Based on what we’ve seen today, and a few educated guesses, it’s got a fair chance of pulling it off — short term." Link to Original Source
Real Programs don't use shared text. Otherwise, how can they use functions
for scratch space after they are finished calling them?