• What
    is this?
    You've landed on the AMD Portal on AnandTech. This section is sponsored by AMD. It features a collection of all of our independent AMD content, as well as Tweets & News from AMD directly. AMD will also be running a couple of huge giveaways here so check back for those.
    PRESENTED BY

CPU Performance

For the full breakdown of x86 CPU performance head over to Bench and compare away. As I mentioned in our preview of the A8-3850 a couple of weeks ago, general purpose performance isn't that great. Although AMD has tweaked the A8's cores, the 2.9GHz 3850 performs a lot like a 3.1GHz Athlon II X4. You are getting more performance at a lower clock frequency, but not a lot more.

Compared to the Core i3-2100/2105 the A8-3850 really doesn't change the current state of AMD vs. Intel. If you're running lightly threaded apps, the Core i3 just has much better performance. Look at our single-threaded Cinebench scores below and you'll see a 50% performance advantage.

CPU bound gaming performance is also an area where the A8 falls behind the i3. Here you're looking at a 25 - 50% advantage for the i3-2100/2105:

Applications that are a mix of one or more CPU intensive threads still favor the Core i3 as you can see from the Photoshop performance results:

Go to the other end of the spectrum and load the A8-3850 up with CPU intensive threads, and it'll actually hold its own. As strong as the Core i3 is, there's no replacement for more cores when it comes to these thread heavy workloads. I should add that despite the A8's core count advantage, it's biggest victory in these heavily threaded tests is still only 9%:

There's not much more to be said here. The A8-3850 isn't going to set any records for general use performance. If your primary use for your PC is going to be gaming however, Llano has something to offer you...

The Direct Competitor: Intel's Core i3-2105 Llano GPU Performance vs. DDR3 Speed
POST A COMMENT

99 Comments

View All Comments

  • silverblue - Thursday, June 30, 2011 - link

    So, in other words, you completely skipped over what I posted, especially the comparisons between similarly clocked parts? In that case, you may not recall my saying that comparing to Thuban was unfairly skewed in AMD's favour and that for productivity you'd have to be mad to fork out for a high-end Core 2 Quad that is soundly beaten by Thuban under those very circumstances.

    I'm not going to spend anymore time on this subject for fear it may cause my brain to dissolve.
    Reply
  • silverblue - Thursday, June 30, 2011 - link

    We really don't know how Bulldozer will perform. Superior in some areas, inferior in others, perhaps. Its roots are in the server domain so it probably won't be the be-all-and-end-all of desktop performance. Should handily thrash Phenom II though.

    That is, if they stop pushing it backwards... if they do it anymore we may as well wait for Enhanced Bulldozer. :/ I can only truly see Bulldozer being a 9-12 month stop gap before that appears, and as we know, Trinity is going to use the Enhanced cores instead of first generation Bulldozer cores, so it remains to be seen how long a shelf life the product will have.
    Reply
  • duploxxx - Thursday, June 30, 2011 - link

    Ivy Bridge before buldozer, oh man you really have no idea about roadmaps...
    Server and desktop will be there long time before Ivy, if they don't hurry with Ivy even Trinity will be ready to be launched.
    Reply
  • j_iggga - Thursday, June 30, 2011 - link

    Single and double threaded performance is most important for games.

    Bulldozer has no chance in that regard. The only hope Bulldozer has is that it outperforms a quad core Intel CPU with its 8 cores in a fully multithreaded application.
    Reply
  • L. - Thursday, June 30, 2011 - link

    GPU's are most important for games, that and a CPU that can feed your GPU's ;)

    More and more stuff is using 4+ threads, I'd be surprised if the next benchmark from Crytek isn't vastly multithreaded on the CPU side.

    We'll see anyway, but the design choices AMD made for Bulldozer are definitely good, as were their multicore designs that Intel quickly copied - for the best.
    Reply
  • frozentundra123456 - Thursday, June 30, 2011 - link

    Are you kidding me??? If Bulldozer is so great why do they keep having delay after delay and are showing no performance figures?? Reply
  • HangFire - Tuesday, July 05, 2011 - link

    Given the number of Nocona CPU's Intel sold- as evidenced by the huge number showing up on the secondary market right now- Intel server shipments won't die even if they have an inferior product (again).

    The faithful will buy on.

    L., you seem to be betting on a jump for Bulldozer that will exceed that of C2D over Netburst. I'm not sure that's even possible. C2D only lacked a built-in memory controller, and that has been fixed. I'll be happy if BD even matches Nehalem in core instruction processing efficiency.

    But I agree the more progress AMD makes, the better the market is for all of us, no matter which we buy.
    Reply
  • frozentundra123456 - Thursday, June 30, 2011 - link

    totally agree with your post. Just a weak gpu tacked on to ancient CPU architecture that could easily be beaten by a 50.00 discrete GPU in the desktop.

    I can see a place for this chip in a laptop where power savings is important and it is not possible to add a GPU, but for the desktop, I really dont see a place for it.

    And I agree that Bulldozer is late to the game and may not perform like the AMD fanboys claim. AMD talks a good game, but so far they have not been able to back it up in the CPU area.
    Reply
  • jgarcows - Thursday, June 30, 2011 - link

    Can you use OpenCL with the Llano GPU? If so, how does it perform for bitcoin mining? Reply
  • JarredWalton - Thursday, June 30, 2011 - link

    Yes, Llano fully supports OpenCL -- it's basically a 5570 with slightly lower core clocks and less memory bandwidth (because it's shared). On a laptop, Llano is roughly half the performance of a desktop 5570 (around 40Mhash/s). The desktop chip should be about 40%-50% faster, depending on how much the memory bandwidth comes into play. But 60Mhash/s is nothing compared to a good GPU. Power would be around 60-70W for the entire system for something like 1Mhash/W. Stick a 5870 GPU into a computer and you're looking at around 400Mhash/s and a power draw of roughly 250W -- or 1.6Mhash/W.

    In short: for bitcoin mining you're far better off with a good dGPU. But hey, Llano's IGP is probably twice as fast as CPU mining with a quad-core Sandy Bridge.
    Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now