POST A COMMENT

99 Comments

Back to Article

  • zac05 - Thursday, June 30, 2011 - link

    was waitting for this reviw very badily......

    probabily amd llano desktop version is just a beafed up amd apu mobile version, it has a clear winnig point on its mobile platform ( added advantage of batterylife and graphics performance for relatively lower price than the intel counter part )

    but for desktop its a mixed review....i think the bulldozer family apu..which is the real desktop apu variant must come into picture, for a face to face comparison with the intel counter part ...phew we have to wait another 4-5 months for that i guess.

    a8-3850 would be good for casula gamers....else i3 will provide more performance and lower tdp for others
    Reply
  • Musafir_86 - Thursday, June 30, 2011 - link

    Hi Anand,

    -Thank you for the nice review, but would you add image quality (IQ) comparison as well? From what I found around the internet, Intel HD 2000/3000 still lacking competitive/comparable quality of the rendered images. So, it would be better to show what's the actual IQ the user will see even when the frame rate (FPS) looks like it's playable.

    Thanks again.
    Reply
  • ganeshts - Thursday, June 30, 2011 - link

    Yes, that is coming up in a separate review. Give me a couple of hours. Reply
  • Musafir_86 - Thursday, June 30, 2011 - link

    -Wow, what a quick reply, thanks!

    -Hmm, Anand said you're covering HTPC scenarios, right? So would that mean video (output) quality only? Or that will include 3D games as well?

    Regards.
    Reply
  • StormyParis - Thursday, June 30, 2011 - link

    Thanks. very much looking forward to that t, being gaming or video. Reply
  • AnandThenMan - Thursday, June 30, 2011 - link

    Seconded, a comparison of image quality would be nice. I'd also like to see 1024x768 dropped from testing, who runs that resolution? Looking at a couple of other reviews, the tests were done@ 1680x1050 with good frame rates on Llano. If a game has to be dropped down to 1024 to play then why bother, it's going to look ugly anyway. Reply
  • Musafir_86 - Thursday, June 30, 2011 - link

    -In my place, budget/value systems often bundle with second-hand 15" or 17" CRT (sometimes LCD too) to reduce the sale price. So, I think 1024x768 (and 1280x1024) resolutions are still relevant. :)

    Regards.
    Reply
  • L. - Thursday, June 30, 2011 - link

    The third world is a dreadful place indeed...
    17 inches *shivers*
    Reply
  • ppeterka - Thursday, June 30, 2011 - link

    Hey, you dissin' me? My home rig is 17", my work rig is 2x17", and not gonna change soon. I don't want to. I enjoy life even at sub-HD resolutions too... Reply
  • L. - Thursday, June 30, 2011 - link

    Just kiddin', my laptop is 17" too ... 17" of eye-killing 1920*1200 madness.

    No reason to change, except you can get LED pannels for like 130 euros now .. and damn it's good for the movies.
    Reply
  • evilspoons - Thursday, June 30, 2011 - link

    Haha, I stupidly ordered a 1920x1200 panel in my work laptop (I really should've gone with 1680x1050).

    It's a 15".

    Hahaha.
    Reply
  • Alexvrb - Thursday, June 30, 2011 - link

    You don't like your eyes very much, do you? Reply
  • misuspita - Thursday, June 30, 2011 - link

    Oh come on, we come from the same place and that is not true. Budget systems come with the cheapest 19 LCD's which add 80€ to the price of a new budget PC. Resolution?1600x900.

    Yes, if you buy a second hand PC, then you get it with older monitors, but then, you don't get a brand new A8, right?

    I also think that the resolutions tested should be max 3:

    1. laptop minimum - 1366x768
    2. LCD medium - 1600x900
    3. LCD standard - 1920x1080
    Reply
  • Musafir_86 - Thursday, June 30, 2011 - link

    -Where are you from? I'm from Malaysia, and the place I mentioned is in context of a city (that's just a bit bigger than a town); in bigger cities the situation would be different, of course.

    -BTW, I meant a *NEW* budget system paired with a recond/refurbished monitors. CRT is offered to the most budget-constrained customers who would want a PC just for some word processing, surfing the internet, watching YouTube, and some light gaming for their kids. But more would prefer a LCD anyway, even if it's a refurb. :)

    Regards.
    Reply
  • misuspita - Thursday, June 30, 2011 - link

    Sorry, your nickname is a word from romanian language, and I thought you are from Romania.

    Well, here new systems come with LCD's only, because they got really cheap in the past 5 years. And the cheaaaapest one still boasts a higher resolution than 1024x768. That's pretty ancient and not used anymore. Why do we not test in 640x480? I mean, safe mode works, we shoul test that one too...
    Reply
  • L. - Thursday, June 30, 2011 - link

    Again guys, we're reviewing new tech, the kind that costs a lot of money ... and stuff ..

    If you're into refurbished, I don't quite see the point of getting an i3 when you could get so much more out of second hand (pardon me, but in your position I'd rather spend 130 bucks on a full HD led-backlit LCD rather than a useless core i3).
    Reply
  • ET - Thursday, June 30, 2011 - link

    I'd argue for 1280x720 (720p) as the minimum resolution. That's a reasonable resolution to use as a step down on a 1080p monitor or HDTV.

    By the way, looking at Newegg, the lowest price monitors are either 1366x768 or 1440x900, then a couple of 1600x900 and then 1080p. The difference between in price between the cheapest 1600x900 and 1080p is $10.

    Probably 1366x768 and 1080p are the only two resolutions really worth testing these days, since the market seems to be moving towards them as standards (much as I personally hate 16:9). Though I argued for 720p, the difference between it and 1366x768 is small.
    Reply
  • BigDDesign - Friday, July 01, 2011 - link

    1366x768 feels good with my eyesight and a 15" laptop. WTF is the problem with actually seeing what is on the screen at 2 feet away. 16:10 would be better, but we are stuck with cheap panels at 16:9. I wear glasses for the small stuff. Still don't think that a native resolution of anything less than a 24" monitor is good for 1080p resolution. Reply
  • stephenbrooks - Monday, July 04, 2011 - link

    --[Still don't think that a native resolution of anything less than a 24" monitor is good for 1080p resolution.]--

    Yep, bought a 21.5" 1080p panel and it's pixels seem a little small for desktop use, suggesting 23-24" would be better. (Until all applications and OSes magically become resolution independent.)
    Reply
  • zebrax2 - Thursday, June 30, 2011 - link

    I disagree as many of lower end plasmas use 1024x768. Reply
  • Roland00Address - Thursday, June 30, 2011 - link

    1366x768 would be preferable than 1024x768, for very few things use 1024x768 anymore, and 1366x768 is the default resolution for 720p tvs, 18.5 inch monitors, and older cheap monitors bought in the last 3 to 4 years. Reply
  • BigDDesign - Friday, July 01, 2011 - link

    I like to play games. 1024X768 is useable in a pinch. So bragging is out. Who cares? Reply
  • CSMR - Sunday, July 03, 2011 - link

    What do you mean, image quality comparison? If two graphics cards differ in image quality, one of them does not work and needs bug-fixes. So your question is really, are there any bugs in graphics output on this "APU".

    Unfortunately sites often do "image quality comparisons" but it is nonsense, actually marketing nonsense.
    Reply
  • Musafir_86 - Tuesday, July 05, 2011 - link

    -Image Quality (IQ) here means the rendered 3D images of 3D games, the latest of them includes Crysis 2, DiRT 3, etc.

    -In most games, different levels of quality (quality setting like low, medium, high) is provided for scalability reason (so they can cater a wider range of customers).

    -Different GPU uses different algorithms/techniques or 'tweaks' to squeeze maximum performance at a given quality metric. So, in applying those tweaks, the rendered output is sometimes different between one another even though the quality level is same (e.g. High vs. High). Driver maturity is also another contributing factor.

    -FYI, Anandtech DOES provide IQ comparisons before, especially when comparing new Radeon and GeForce generations.

    -BTW, I hope the IQ comparison as promised by Ganesh would be available soon.

    Regards.
    Reply
  • ckryan - Thursday, June 30, 2011 - link

    Like the mobile version, Llano on the desktop is actually kinda impressive. Not necessarily for its current perfomance, but rather as an indication of what to expect from Trinity. With a significant performance boost to both parts of the CPU, I can easily envision my next laptop using Llano's successor.

    While its impossible not to compare these parts to Sandy Bridge, its not like a Phenom II x4 is hopelessly obsolete. Llano's desktop power figures are pretty good, but it seems like the 2105 draws way more power than it needs at idle -- my i5 2500k/P67 and a GTX 460 pulls 49w from the wall according to my P3 Kill A Watt.

    Still, I'm glad to see AMDs fusion initiative paying some dividends. It's good to have options, but I think it's time they stopped playing hard to get with Bulldozer.
    Reply
  • L. - Thursday, June 30, 2011 - link

    Hey .. I was just thinking, considering the scaling, would you just run those tests again with a decent memory kit ?

    I mean, most people buying Llano will probably get 1866 at the price of 1600, considering usual RAM market trends (1333 is dead/ price rising - 1600 is bottom price, many kits actually do much more than their SPD - 1866 is bottom within 3 months I guess, etc.).

    So, what about some real neat kits @ 2.2+ or even relatively cheap ones around 2Ghz ?

    I'm pretty sure that's where Llano will start making sense (or ... with quad-ddr5 .. 8 times the bandwidth should do the trick, right ?)
    Reply
  • L. - Thursday, June 30, 2011 - link

    I forgot one detail, there is no benchmark showing how that 6550D fares when you add a bit of shiny to your gfx settings, is it really so pitiful noone would ever consider pressing the button ? Reply
  • mino - Sunday, July 03, 2011 - link

    i* cannot handle that, so writing such is a big no-no. Reply
  • jjj - Thursday, June 30, 2011 - link

    No overclocking section :(
    I know the ASRock A75 Extreme6 review covers it a bit,but not nearly enough(doesn't even tell us idle voltages)
    Was curious to see how it overclocks in a few scenarios:
    - with a discrete GPU (IGP fully sleeping)
    - with 2 CPU cores disabled (if it is even possible)
    - with the GPU starved by limiting the ammount of ram it gets
    - how far can it be underclocked
    Reply
  • beginner99 - Thursday, June 30, 2011 - link

    Marketed for years as being something special (APU) but seriously it's nothing special at all. Intel was 1.5 years earlier (Arrandale). Agreed the power of the igp was pretty bad but still...

    This is basically only usable in the mobile version. And there it ain't to bad especially in terms of power consumption. Considering AMDs mobile track record in the last couple of year I would say its a pretty good comeback. And this was obviously its main target.
    Reply
  • L. - Thursday, June 30, 2011 - link

    Don't ask too much of a first rushed-in prototype ;)

    Let's see what it does with a decent memory system, dozer modules and a few other updates, I think we might play Metro 2033 on those ;)
    Reply
  • zondas30 - Thursday, June 30, 2011 - link

    Hello everyone, i just registered but this site is realy ny favorite for review and i am browsing it alot.
    now on the subject, what i realy think is that these apu's might not be very dominating in theyr performance but they are realy good for gaming and that asymmetric CrossFire thingy is realy one hell of a thing, for people like me that dont have alot of $ to spend on new pc and loves gaming it should be wery good selection, only thing that interests me is that if i could do that asymmetric CrossFire with my old ati radeon hd 3870, i still love it and it is still powerfull for me on 1440x900 resolution. so as i was saying, it might not be dominating in its porformance with programs but it is fantastic thing for gaming.
    Reply
  • ET - Thursday, June 30, 2011 - link

    I'm interested in how desktop Llano compares in performance to laptop Llano, but found it impossible to compare. The difference in resolutions is excusable (though as has been commented, the resolutions in this article are very old and should be replaced), but then you have different sets of games, and when there's an overlap they are ordered differently, and are run with different options, be it DX9 vs. DX10 or low vs. medium, ... It's a real pain. Reply
  • Arnulf - Thursday, June 30, 2011 - link

    First, thanks for your review, I have been eagerly looking forward to it for months now !

    A thought has occured to me when I got to Conclusion section of your article: how does A8-3850 + Asymmetric Crossfire fare compared to similarly priced Athlon/Phenom II + single discrete GPU - whatever RAM APU uses up ?

    Say A8-3850 = $135, HD6670 (the strongest card for Asymmetric Crossfire) = $84 on Newegg, how do these compare to identically priced Phenom II 955BE (= $115) + HD6750 (= $105), assuming one can get FM1 at the same price as AM3 with identical features ? In other words: is Asymmetric Crossfire worth the hassle of upgrading your platform, assuming ideal circumstances (they are going to fix DX9 at some point, I'm sure) ?
    Reply
  • Seikent - Thursday, June 30, 2011 - link

    As you can see in the review, at least for now, the asymmetric crossfire doesn't scale pretty well. That's the cost of being asymmetric. And it doesn't work on DX9.

    So you should be way much better with the 955 + hd6750 combo on the cpu and gpu side.

    In general, Llano doesn't make much sense with a discrete video card because you're already paying for 'integrated' graphics.
    Reply
  • silverblue - Thursday, June 30, 2011 - link

    What's wrong with the scores for the A8 at 1024x768? Reply
  • duploxxx - Thursday, June 30, 2011 - link

    Great review, solid baseline for initial review, something we can always expect from Anand. Few of your review members dough miss quite a bit training to get to a certain level..... you are to kind to them when you review it before posting :)

    Hope to see a decent review on OC and potential of this chip also combined OC + CF

    one remark, since when does a general users need cpu horse power like SNB 2100, they don't, they would be more then fine with Pentium alike SNB and for the record while benchmarks might show quite a bit of performance difference in single threaded benchmarking apps, common use for browsing, office etc it has 0 added value with this kind of CPU performance.... in atom alike platforms it is more then noticable. Put any unknown user behind either platform compared here for general tasks and they will be fine with both, once you startup any game worth mentioning (even SIMS) they will notice the difference what to choose.
    Reply
  • seapeople - Saturday, July 02, 2011 - link

    But in "common use for browsing, office, etc" then quad core multithreaded performance is almost completely useless. I don't know why people keep bringing up common use office applications as a win for Llano. Reply
  • cacca - Thursday, June 30, 2011 - link

    Please do it.
    Put a big NO on direct x10/11 for Intel and let us know the real performance of llano.

    Is starting to be a joke this website

    "... if gaming is going to be the most intensive thing you do on your notebook... "

    I' would like to know if you think that game are NOT the most stressing application for a desktop used by general public, leaving outside workstation for rendering and video encoding.

    In thi review you never put under stress the 2 different solutions, so we could not see the real shorcomings of the 2 platforms.

    no AA is a joke.
    Reply
  • L. - Thursday, June 30, 2011 - link

    This.
    +1
    rep.

    Whatever floats your boat, but AT needs to make sponsor money too you know, it's not like they could say "i3-2100 is useless don't buy it".

    Besides, the only way to compare two cpu's for gaming today is the following : which one enables the fastest GPU operation and general game score for a given budget (i.e. core i3-2100 + hd 6950 > core i5 + hd6750).

    As you mentioned, video encoding and rendering should NOT be a relevant part of a review, most people don't do it at all (yes, I download x264, but there's like 15 different people tops encoding these and it serves millions of users).

    And rendering... why not complex HPC-type stuff ? Database benchmarks (even that is MORE relevant than rendering) ? SuperPI ... now that's relevant for a user :) - at least if he participates in LN2 OC Competitions, like everyone and their dog.
    Reply
  • L. - Thursday, June 30, 2011 - link

    Oh and to go further than that ... i3-2100 + CF6950 > i5+6970
    And yet here we are, buying i5-2500k's and saying its THE cpu to get .. lol
    Reply
  • smartarse - Thursday, June 30, 2011 - link

    Yeah, that's generally how things are done around here.

    Intel's CPU wins a benchmark by 5%? YOU MUST BUY THE INTEL CPU

    Intel's setup uses 10w less at the plug? Clearly, any respectable human being would think of the planet

    Core iX integrated graphics beat 890GX in 2 of 10 games? YOU MUST HAVE ONE NOW!!!!

    Now, flip that around:

    AMD ties Intel in a real world benchmark you actually use? You still want Intel for it's Sysmark score.

    AMD is more efficient? Who cares about efficiency?

    Llano integrated graphics win by 200%? Meh, we expected more, and graphics don't matter anyways.
    Reply
  • HW_mee - Thursday, June 30, 2011 - link

    I had to create an account after reading the review and comments.

    I have a two points that I hope people are open for a discussion about.

    First of all, I believe Anand has missed the point of desktop Llano processors. The target platform seems to be laptops, and it really fits in the laptop market, while the desktop Llano processors seem to get low priority from AMD.
    The desktop processors are useful as they provide a powerful platform at a low cost, which is an indication of the intended market for these parts.

    The target consumer for the desktop parts seems to be OEM's, as they can now get rid of dGPU parts in AMD equipped machines in the 500 - 700$ segment, as this segment often features a Radeon 5450, Nvidia GT 430 or similar low end dGPU.
    One less component to worry about is welcome news at any OEM.

    Looking at Llano as a part for a home build, which I think is what Anand is doing in this review, makes it seem odd. Home build are designed to be very good at one or several points, single threaded performance, gaming, low power etc. The only point where Llano excels is idle power use, which nobody seems to care about, and delivering balanced performance with excelling or being particular bad at anything.

    Second point I think should be discussed is peoples notion of what an average user needs in terms of computing power.

    You guys are very demanding users and seem to expect a lot from the average user.
    Going the list of people i know and their computers specification shows that none of them are even close to needing an i3-2100. the computers have a mix of single core Pentium M and ULV processors in the laptops and the desktops consist of a mix of old Athlons, post socket A, and first gen core processors.
    These people are not even close to really stressing their processor. The two most common complaints from the average users I know is the slow harddrive and crappy Intel IGP.

    I could write a lot more on this, including talk of SSD/dGPU being more useful than a powerful processor, but I think I have rambled enough.
    Reply
  • HW_mee - Thursday, June 30, 2011 - link

    Anand needs an edit button, just to allow editing for one minute after posting.

    I wanted to edit this part:
    The only point where Llano excels is idle power use, which nobody seems to care about, and delivering balanced performance with excelling or being particular bad at anything.

    to say:
    The only point where Llano excels is idle power use, which nobody seems to care about, and delivering balanced performance without excelling or being particular bad at anything.

    changing with to without makes a big difference :-/
    Reply
  • L. - Thursday, June 30, 2011 - link

    And for that ... we have the successor to e-350, the only APU that actually hits the spot. it's what everyone needs as HTPC, PC, laptop, work pc, ... all you like.

    And it's prolly as powerful as an Xbox360 anyway ;)
    Reply
  • MrSpadge - Thursday, June 30, 2011 - link

    As work PC? Glad you're not ruling my IT department!

    MrS
    Reply
  • BSMonitor - Thursday, June 30, 2011 - link

    "You guys are very demanding users and seem to expect a lot from the average user.
    Going the list of people i know and their computers specification shows that none of them are even close to needing an i3-2100. the computers have a mix of single core Pentium M and ULV processors in the laptops and the desktops consist of a mix of old Athlons, post socket A, and first gen core processors."

    Ok grandpa, you sound like my 60y/o supervisor.

    "in my day, a horse could get you everywhere you need to go"

    Try running WIndows 7 and Office 2010 on a Pentium M. Not gonna be pretty. Try jumping on a web site with some Java or Flash.

    YOUR point is that, "I never really use my PC except to look at pictures or lightly browse the interent". Well, why are you looking at a new PC for this if your Pentium M can handle it.

    The point of ALL these articles is to decide what is the best available tech on the market right now. No one cares that you still use woefully underpowered machines to run windows 2000 and office 95..
    Reply
  • L. - Thursday, June 30, 2011 - link

    You sir . are unnecessarily offensive.

    If MS managed to make Office 2010 heavy enough to be an issue on anything above a p3, it's quite just another episode of "hey we can't code shit, but let's do it anyway, add some duct tape, paint it and sell it".

    The point of the articles is to decide what is the MOST APPROPRIATE tech on the market for a USER's specific NEEDS.

    In that, you sir, fail.

    Most people only use facebook,youtube,gmail (or any webmail,really),some music player, some divx player (yes not everyone watches full HD x264 like me), and a few flash games or stuff.

    Would you seriously state that an i3-2100 is REQUIRED for those tasks ?
    Reply
  • BSMonitor - Thursday, June 30, 2011 - link

    http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/71?vs=289

    And that Celeron is actually faster than an equivalent Pentium M.

    Are you just stuck in a box? Software today cannot run on 5 year old hardware. Let alone 8y/o.

    =

    MOST people multi-task. You must be of the variety that sits at the computer screen and receives and email notification and thinks, "whoo that is cool, email.. who knew!"

    ==

    OWNED
    Reply
  • HW_mee - Thursday, June 30, 2011 - link

    Great, lets try using that Celeron as a comparison point, I guess it is 4 times slower than an i3-2100, heck it is the cheapest Intel processor you could but 3 years ago, but even that is enough for a game of L4D, Fallout 3 or Oblivion.

    If you go cheap today and buy a dual core 2.X GHz, what task will you not be able to complete "fast enough" as an average user? You mention Encoding sound/video, but the average user just downloads that song/movie straight from the Internet.
    Reply
  • BSMonitor - Thursday, June 30, 2011 - link

    He is not comparing Core 2's. He is talking about Athlon 64's and Pentium M's.

    No benchmarks are left from that era to compare against a Pentium M. That single core Celeron with modest cache is the closest thing to it.
    Reply
  • HW_mee - Thursday, June 30, 2011 - link

    Wow, who is he? L.? he does not mention any other processor than an i3 and seems to support my opinion.

    I agreed to look at the dual core Celeron you linked to, implying the single core side of my post is based of people who are to lazy to upgrade, and now you start talking about a single core Celeron... I am sorry buddy, but there is a picture on the Internet that shows the only way I can reply you:

    http://img26.imageshack.us/img26/7522/impliedfacep...
    Reply
  • BSMonitor - Thursday, June 30, 2011 - link

    "You guys are very demanding users and seem to expect a lot from the average user.
    Going the list of people i know and their computers specification shows that none of them are even close to needing an i3-2100. the computers have a mix of single core Pentium M and ULV processors in the laptops and the desktops consist of a mix of old Athlons, post socket A, and first gen core processors."

    OWNED
    Reply
  • HW_mee - Thursday, June 30, 2011 - link

    I will try again, patience, patience.....

    I still don't know who "he" is, as you replied to one of my post and you quote me, but you refer to a different person.

    I will do a long list of the mentioned systems, and describe how well they handle the owners "average" usage. Remember I am not talking about "heavy" users, which I am sure you are, but average users.

    If you think this list is boring, I think it is, just skip to the bottom of this reply.

    The single core parts are beginning to dwindle, but they still tug along. Most of them simply get used as the owners, including me, think they are good enough for their purpose.

    The Pentium M laptops are single core, only a few of those left, mainly due to lack of driver support for the crappy Intel IGP, which laptops back then often got equipped with.
    They get used for basic office task and viewing flash. I posted one guys laptop somewhere in this comment section. Multitasking on these is limited ie. grooveshark + mail + office is the limit, but they get by. The Pentium M laptops get by as the users reach their requirement limit when they have some music going and are writing a document.

    The ULV's consist of a couple of SU2700 equipped Lenovo's and a bunch SU7300 laptops. The single core SU2700 is the bottom of these laptops, but they can take the punishment of the average users, again music + writing is the limit of these average users. Most of the SU7300 laptops have often been bought as I recommended them some time ago and they do everything the average user expects of them.

    I own one of the SU2700 machines and it is a great road warrior, I do not perform any "heavy" work on it, as that is not the purpose of a light laptop. I can multitask on this thing, multiple FF tabs with one tab running flash video, while writing/compiling a document and mixed background task. I often push this computer to the limit and switching applications does not happen instantly. Luckily I do not consider myself an average user.
    My main complaint is the crappy Intel IGP, I load up a game and everything runs fine except for stupid graphical glitches such as missing textures, badly rendered textures and flickering areas.

    The Athlon 64 computers consist of one single core and a bunch of dual core. They range from socket 939 to AM3 and they work just fine. The single core is actually being used by a "heavy" user and it is running great.
    All the Athlon machines are used for every tasks the owners come up with, flash, video, gaming, music etc. and they have no problems handling it.
    The only complaint among the Athlon processors is that the single core Athlon user thinks the computer is slow at compiling a new kernel and can't really handle full-HD video, but that is to be expected with a processor from 2003 ;-)

    The first gen core processors refers to the good old 65 nm desktop parts ie. E6300, E4400 and so forth. These processors only seem to be limited by the user, as the casual user seems unable to image a processor intensive task.

    That list contains very few single core processors, mainly Pentium M models and Intel ULV, note I did not write single/dual core at the desktops. Additionally I mentioned in a different reply only the laptops fit the single core computer at an average user scenario, which you seem frightened of.

    ++++ interesting again +++++++

    You asked why I am looking at buying a new PC when my Pentium M can handle all my tasks.

    Well I am not looking for a new PC, I just keep myself up to date in the hardware world, as people I know sometimes buy a new PC and ask me what they should buy.

    The performance expectation from the average user is rising slowly. Single core is being replaced by dual core and so forth, but average hardware performance is growing faster than average user expectations.
    The difference in average expectation and average performance has made my "job" of recommending hardware very easy.
    processors have been plenty powerful since Core 2 Duo appeared, harddrives are massive, memory dirt cheap and now games can be handled with adequate graphics on something as low as an integrated GPU :-)

    Feel free to call the average user a "whoo that is cool, email.. who knew!" moron, as that is the average user. They watch youtube, download music on Itunes, write e-mail, play a few games, download adware from the Internet etc. Most of these users are happy with something as crappy as a processor with a performance level available around 2005, and even worse some of them use a 4:3 monitor and enjoy games at resolutions below full-HD.

    I am tired, going to bed now and leaving for an extended weekend.
    Reply
  • BSMonitor - Thursday, June 30, 2011 - link

    You are right, I switching between them.. it's this one:

    http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/72?vs=289
    Reply
  • BSMonitor - Thursday, June 30, 2011 - link

    And YES! Compared to the stated Pentium M, etc. single core nonsense you are spewing. Convert some songs in your iTunes library, have a flash movie playing, and be working on a document in your gmail account...

    I'll be done with both tasks and on to the next before your gamil document even opens.
    Reply
  • HW_mee - Thursday, June 30, 2011 - link

    I hope the 60 years old thing was a bad joke, as I almost laughed.

    I have just finished maintenance of a laptop used by one of my friends. The laptop is a HP NC8230 from 2006 equipped with a 1.86 GHz 2nd gen Pentium M, it is being used with/for the following:

    Windows 7 enterprise, paid by the employer.
    Office 2010, used for writing research articles.
    Firefox & IE for online video, grooveshark, casual browsing etc.

    He probably has other uses, but I can't remember them right now. The only complaint he has is load times and that is caused by the ancient and slow 80 Gb 5400 rpm harddrive.
    Reply
  • BSMonitor - Thursday, June 30, 2011 - link

    And he is doing none of those things simultaneously. Guarantee it. What he is using it for is typing text. Reply
  • HW_mee - Thursday, June 30, 2011 - link

    One last reply, yawn.

    No he does not use windows and office at the same time..... idiot, do you want the facepalm link again?

    It is not my computer, but I sometimes borrow it when I visit him.
    I know that it usually has a word document running, 3 to 5 tabs open in FF one with Grooveshark, Outlook open with some blabla, mail, some Windows gadgets on the desktop and Sophos antivirus somewhere in the background.
    The computer does get slow when Sophos starts crunching on the harddrive. Antivirus programs is one of the commonly known reasons to go for dual core and a fast harddrive.

    If he starts watching flash video he stops Grooveshark, as he wants to listen to the video, but the rest of the programs remains open. Microsoft have actually implemented a great scheduler in Windows 7, as long as you have enough memory, even a single core processor can pull through a lot.
    Reply
  • Gigantopithecus - Thursday, June 30, 2011 - link

    I agree with your post almost entirely. My only disagreement is that I know very few people still using single core CPUs like the Pentium M and S754/939 Athlon Is. Those CPUs are no longer sufficient for basic tasks. However, they're also OLD. Any dual-core CPU aside from the Pentium D abominations and the Atom dual cores - and I include the first-gen Athlon X2s - is sufficient for basic usage.

    Your points that this platform is targeted more at OEMs than enthusiast DIYers and that SSDs and dGPUs being more important than CPUs to overall system quality are, imho, very poignant.
    Reply
  • HW_mee - Thursday, June 30, 2011 - link

    Thank you.

    The single core parts are only in the older laptops, the Athlon's and ULV's are dual core, but immensely slow compared to a i3-2100.

    I believe that any post Pentium 4 processor, either Intel dual core or Athlon X2, should be enough for a casual user, yet people here give me the impression that i3-2100 or athlon X4 is a bare minimum in any computer :-/ I just had to respond to that.
    Reply
  • seapeople - Saturday, July 02, 2011 - link

    Come on, this is getting silly. You may be right on your points about the "average user", but what's also true about the "average user" is they probably set their 1440x900 20" LCD monitor to 1024x768 because "it all looks bigger". Does that mean we should all team up and head out to different websites reviewing new monitors saying "The 1080p resolution is USELESS nowadays! Most people don't even use it! Ever since they came out with 720p, resolution doesn't even matter on a monitor anymore,"

    Just because people happily tolerate crappy old processors doesn't mean they wouldn't notice and be happier with the speed of an i3.
    Reply
  • HW_mee - Tuesday, July 05, 2011 - link

    Unfortunately some users do set their LCD monitor to lower than native resolution because they want things to be bigger, I do not see this with Windows 7, but a lot of older people did it in XP to get bigger icons and text.

    I am not saying that the average user idiotic mindset should be the point of a test, I am saying that the discussion on Intel iX-XXXX vs some AMD X4 for an average user is overkill. Give the average user a cheap Athlon X2, an E-350 or a low end Core 2 and use the money saved on an SSD or proper GPU and the end user will be way happier than with an expensive processor.

    It is funny, people replying to my post really seem to hate reading about someone recommending a slow processor.
    Reply
  • Seikent - Thursday, June 30, 2011 - link

    +1

    It's a bit obvious that Llano is not for the people reading this review, but I see a lot of average users that at most have a dual core pc (celeron, pentium 4, athlon x2, etc) that don't want to update their computers because they don't use them very much and they are good enough to browse and write stuff. For them, Llano is a suitable upgrade.

    Remember that there are a lot of countries where the salaries are way lower than USAs and electronic stuff is more expensive, so it isn't cheap to buy a $400 USD PC.
    Reply
  • HW_mee - Tuesday, July 05, 2011 - link

    Thank you. It is nice to see someone who comments on the market I find Llano is intended for, instead of thinking I am a troll claiming somebody may not care that their 5 year processor is slow compared to what they can get now.

    BTW. I am from a country where the average income is higher than in most of the world and the equivalent of 400$ barely buys you a computer, that was the launch value of the Wii when it launched here :-)

    For that money you can get an Atom or Sempron based computer :-( not exactly a fast computer by any accounts. The AMD A8 processors will probably end up in OEM system costing the equivalent of 1000$ once they get here.
    Reply
  • BigDDesign - Friday, July 01, 2011 - link

    If you can move a mouse fast, than a faster processor works. PEROID. Use a mouse to it's ability, and there is room for even faster CPU's. Enough said. Reply
  • tech6 - Thursday, June 30, 2011 - link

    While it may make a good entry level gaming system, I would also say that it is a solid business PC platform, providing enough GPU and CPU performance, decent power usage at a competitive price. The weakness of the Sandybridge desktop is the single core graphics which is underwhelming on larger (and increasingly common) monitors and this is where AMD has a sizable advantage. Reply
  • BSMonitor - Thursday, June 30, 2011 - link

    Nope. Why on earth would a company switch from Intel to AMD machines because the AMD APU delivers better integrated gaming performance???

    Not a one.

    Llano is a tiny niche product. A total yawn.
    Reply
  • L. - Thursday, June 30, 2011 - link

    Look at a few trends, like desktop virtualization, thin clients, all that.. and you'll see how smaller-scale APU's are quite the business flavor of the moment.

    This goes just the same for brazos ..

    Llano is way too powerful for anything businessy so let's not bring it into the discussion.
    Reply
  • BSMonitor - Thursday, June 30, 2011 - link

    And what benefit does a Llano CPU with 4 cores and decent gaming performance do for the desktop virtualization picture??

    The Core i3's wipe the floor with them in terms of power usage and single threaded applications.

    So what benefit is Llano in this case? What good would 2 extra cores and better FPS do with the real work applications on the server?

    Intel has already been producing these chips since January. It's now July.
    Reply
  • mino - Sunday, July 03, 2011 - link

    Tell ya what. The benefit is we get paid trolls like you over here. Reply
  • jaydee - Thursday, June 30, 2011 - link

    How many monitors can you connect to this with a discrete gpu? Can you do 3 or more DVI/HDMI montors between the motherboard output and a discrete gpu? Reply
  • j_iggga - Thursday, June 30, 2011 - link

    The other dude hit it on the mark. The target for this is OEM parts for budget desktops. So the point about the discrete GPU being more cost effective is moot

    So given that...it's great that finally everyone can game adequately.

    1920 x 1080 on integrated? unheard of in my time
    Reply
  • HangFire - Thursday, June 30, 2011 - link

    OK, so maybe it's better than i3 for laptops. But what I was looking for in Llano was a greatly improved per-clock efficiency in the CPU, something that will drag AMD back into true competitiveness with Intel.

    Instead we get slight tweaking.

    If Bulldozer doesn't deliver a better CPU than oft-tweaked cores dating back to Hammer, AMD is dead on the desktop. Low-end laptops will be the only place they can compete, at least until Intel completes implementing DirectX 10 and 11.
    Reply
  • L. - Thursday, June 30, 2011 - link

    Bulldozer will deliver .. and it will kill Intel at it's price point, I bet your head on that ;)
    And Intel will be dead on the Server market, you can expect a 30+% perf/watt advantage for Interlagos on release day, only dampened when Intel will release their first 22nm Xeon ---

    More blood in the water, better market for us.
    Reply
  • BSMonitor - Thursday, June 30, 2011 - link

    Bet taken. Bulldozer will be an underclocked, overheating monster. AMD is 2 years minimum behind with Bulldozer.

    Ivy Bridge will be out before Bulldozer... Bet on that.
    Reply
  • L. - Thursday, June 30, 2011 - link

    AMD is 2 years in advance with bulldozer, as it is not designed as a desktop processor, but a byproduct of Interlagos, which will very likely take a lot of server market share from Intel.

    I'd like to see how AMD could be two years behind, when Intel has been stretching a core design from core1 to sandy bridge ;)

    Bet on the fact that AMD has always priced their stuff right, Bulldozer is in i7-2600k range, that means it will beat it hands down.

    Ivy will be a win in desktop for Intel, but then again, this depends on how fast both Intel and GF can get to 3d-gate 22nm. (which if we look at current trends would mean Intel 6 months before GF more or less).
    Reply
  • BSMonitor - Thursday, June 30, 2011 - link

    You are completely wrong. Bulldozer was scheduled for release in 2009. It is 2011. Hence 2 years.

    Considering Conroe processors still dominate Phenom II x2, x4, and x6 processors from AMD. I would say AMD is behind. About 3 generations.

    GF is just now shipping its first 32nm chips. Still not a single heavyweight chip at 32nm. Intel has 32nm 6-core processors for over a year. Ivy Bridge is out this fall at 22nm.

    Are you just completely drinking the AMD Kool-Aide or what?
    Reply
  • silverblue - Thursday, June 30, 2011 - link

    If I remember correctly, Bulldozer's design was torn up and started again from scratch in 2008. This would undoubtedly increase development time, especially if they completely changed the design.

    And for the final time, stop spreading BS about Conroe dominating Phenom II. Even Penryn doesn't. There are plenty of instances where K10.5 beats the Core 2 family and in most cases where Core 2 wins, the difference is marginal at best, not to mention that a) there aren't any hexacore Core 2s out there nor any with any turbo technology, and b) any sufficiently high performing Core 2 parts are massively more expensive than anything AMD is shipping.

    I dedicated a HUGE post on this topic to you on Toms using Anandtech Bench data and you've obviously decided to ignore it so... believe what you like. :)
    Reply
  • BSMonitor - Thursday, June 30, 2011 - link

    Yeah, I exaggerated. But the only way to deal with the diluted is to use such devices. Perhaps they will think and research.

    Phenom II vs Core 2 is not even close clock for clock.

    Phenom II only wins in scenarios where it is grossly clocked higher than the similar Core 2. The 9650 is a 3GHz part, Ph II 980 a 3.7GHz part.

    http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/49?vs=362

    The recently released 980 barely outperforms the 3 y/o Penryn Core 2.
    Reply
  • 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
  • AnandThenMan - Thursday, June 30, 2011 - link

    What happened to them, I thought it was stated that they will be up "in a few hours". And what about some DX11 tests, seeing Llano is capable, why not run a few DX11 games to see what it can do? Reply
  • crocin - Thursday, June 30, 2011 - link

    Would be interesting to see how this A8-3850(150$?) will fair vs an intel pentium G840 + amd 5670(85$+70$=155$). Simply because these are the 2 options one would have when picking up a system with same money yeah?

    Also, wont this system would make so much more sense, if mobo makers came out with a 20$ motherboard w\o pci-e, hell no old school pci slots either. One 4gb ram slot of speeds upto 1866. Hmmm, that will bring AMD into the win for ultra cheap desktops. Or I am just crazy maybe. :p ANyway, always best part about AT is the technical part and the colorful graphs yey,
    Reply
  • triclops41 - Thursday, June 30, 2011 - link

    Slap this in a windows version of a Mac Mini and you have the coolest HTPC/portable 720p gaming system around. Almost as good as a PS3 or 360, tiny, quiet and versatile. Reply
  • JoJoman88 - Friday, July 01, 2011 - link

    To me this just will not due for desktop at all. I can see the positives for notebooks and all but unless there is a greater range to crossfire with this is no use to me. Isn't that the problem with PS3 and 360, you are stuck with the video that the unit comes with at the time of purchase. Yes you could just pop in a better Fusion chip later and keep the rest of the system the same,that is better that what you can do with a PS 3 or 360. I have at least 5 AMD video cards that will smoke this thing.

    I know AMD will improve the Fusion line in the future. but they will never come even with the latest separate CPU and video card. Is Open CL really going to be that big of a deal that you will need the feature. I can't see this APU doing Open CL and gaming at the same time. Would, or do games use Open CL/Direct Compute at the the same time as Direct X. Would they not be using the same GPU at the same time and choke the system down.What about multitasking, you couldn't run a Open CL/Direct Compute at the same times as you were playing a DX game at the same time without killing the GPU Right ?!?

    I just don't see what good except as others have said that this desktop stuff is aimed for OEM's to save money and raise the preformance of their lower end computers. I am open to that i'm totally wrong about how this works.
    Reply
  • bhima - Saturday, July 02, 2011 - link

    The Llano APU in a desktop just makes absolutely no sense as a budget gaming system unless you really only want the APU's graphics. Otherwise, if you are planning to actually buy a cheap discrete GPU you'll already surpass Llano's on-board offering with like a $50 board AND you won't be severely bottlenecked by their piss-poor performing CPU. The mobile Llano's make sense, but the desktop ones are just too damn gimped compared to the i3... the lowest performing Intel processor.

    /yawn wake me up when Bulldozer gets here.
    Reply
  • Aone - Sunday, July 03, 2011 - link

    When you did the price calculation of Llano vs. Athlon you forgot to include MB price.
    Llano MB prices are >100$ today.
    And IMO, Phenom X2+d.GPU is much better option for gaming PC than Athlon X4.
    Reply
  • qqgoodhao - Sunday, July 17, 2011 - link

    http://www.ifancyshop.com

    Women's fashion, men's personality + shoes

    Travel bagthat eye-catching jacket + super pack free shipping
    Reply
  • zgoodbbb - Wednesday, July 20, 2011 - link

    http://www.ifancyshop.com

    Women's fashion, men's personality + shoes

    Travel bagthat eye-catching jacket + super pack free shipping
    Reply
  • Idanisi - Thursday, August 11, 2011 - link

    would crossfire work with a nvidia video card? Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now