Applications, Round Two: Treading Water

Futuremark PCMark Vantage

Futuremark PCMark05

Cinebench R10 - Single-Threaded Benchmark

Cinebench R10 - Single-Threaded Benchmark

Cinebench R11.5 - Single-Threaded Benchmark

Cinebench R11.5 - Multi-Threaded Benchmark

x264 HD Benchmark - First Pass

x264 HD Benchmark - Second Pass

This time we have a more interesting competitor to look at: the Toshiba A660D. AMD says Turbo Core works at speeds of up to 2.4GHz on the A8-3500M, but we have no way of monitoring the actual CPU clocks right now. (CPU-Z if you’re wondering shows a constant 1.5GHz, but AMD says that utility doesn’t currently detect the proper clocks.) When we compare performance results between the Llano notebook and the A660D, we definitely see some differences in performance. Some of that may come from the added L2 cache and other architectural tweaks, but Cinebench R10 in particular shows a healthy 17% performance increase, even with a base clock that’s 7% lower. In the multi-threaded Cinebench result, the lead drops to 10%, which correlates well with how we’d expect Turbo Core to work. PCMark Vantage is still heavily influenced by the storage subsystem, and the storage score of 2950 on the A660D versus 3791 on the Llano suggests the Toshiba HDD is a significant bottleneck.

Looking at other laptops and tests where we’re looking purely at CPU performance, suddenly Llano starts to struggle. The Arrandale i5-520M offers 92% higher single-threaded performance in Cinebench R10 and 48% better single-threaded performance in R11.5; multi-threaded performance also goes to Arrandale, with a 23% lead in R10 and 17% lead in R11.5. x264 also gives Arrandale a decent lead, with i5-520M 17% faster in the first pass and 29% faster in the more intense second pass. The overclocked i3-380M in ASUS’ U41JF tells a similar tale—and both of these laptops are running processors from early last year. When we shift to Sandy Bridge, even without looking at the quad-core parts AMD’s CPU performance is tenuous. The i5-2520M is anywhere from 50 to 150 percent faster depending on which test we look at; even if we toss out the older Cinebench R10 single-threaded result of 150%, R11.5 given the 2520M a 94% lead. In general, then, a moderate dual-core Sandy Bridge i5-series processor looks to be at least 30% faster, so quad-core Llano really only competes with Core i3 and its lower, non-Turbo clocks.

None of the results here are particularly surprising; K10.5 even at 32nm is still largely the same performance. AMD has focused this round up upgrades more on reducing power consumption rather than increasing performance, and that’s a perfectly reasonable approach for a mobile CPU. Most of us probably aren’t doing 3D rendering, CAD/CAM, or unassisted video transcoding on our laptops anyway. It would still be great to see AMD offer up an equivalent to Intel’s Quick Sync; they have the better GPU architecture, but a dedicated decoder like Quick Sync can clearly pay dividends. Outside of that one deficit the reality is that Llano is still plenty fast. Slapping an SSD into Llano will make more of a difference than upgrading an HDD-based Llano laptop to Core i5, so if you’re looking for an inexpensive laptop that can do everything most users need, Llano is very appealing.

Application Performance, Round One: PCMark 7 Fusion GPUs: A Long-Awaited Upgrade to IGPs Everywhere
POST A COMMENT

177 Comments

View All Comments

  • duploxxx - Sunday, June 19, 2011 - link

    talking about crap??? men you are good at that, as if you need a 2600K for some compiling and add a 6990 to an e-350.

    men you do know someting about computers :) your a joke
    Reply
  • BushLin - Wednesday, June 22, 2011 - link

    If you're going to accuse someone of talking crap (correctly or otherwise) it helps if you know the difference between you're and your when attempting to insult them. Reply
  • Broheim - Monday, June 27, 2011 - link

    I use a fast CPU for compiling because I actually like being productive rather than just staring at the screen.

    my point about the 6990 was that a faster GPU != a better user experience for the vast majority of users, but logic seems to be lost on you.
    Reply
  • Regenweald - Tuesday, June 14, 2011 - link

    I'm currently playing the Witcher extended with a 2Ghz X2 ,a 4670 and 800 Mhz memory on a desktop with no complaints. In game settings medium and high. Are you saying that 2 more tweaked 32nm cores, 80 more shaders and ddr3 1600 or 1800 memory will not offer a good mobile gaming experience ? please. Reply
  • jollyjugg - Wednesday, June 15, 2011 - link

    What kind of super computing application are you going to do in your laptop that you would need that "tremendous CPU power" that you are talking about. As somebody who has used both intel and amd machines for years I can tell you that for most user applications, you will hardly notice any difference in performance. The main complaint was that AMD machines were running hot particularly after intel cameup with power gating in nehalem in 2008. With this part you get a machine that runs way way cooler and almost 150- 200 bucks cheaper than comparable intel machines plus you get discrete quality graphics for free. Nobody can change cynics like you. Because you cant expect Intel to sell anything cheap you would want to AMD to sell things cheaper. Well if you want good things in life you should be prepared to pay. Dont write trash. Like gaming is not important for average user, tremendous computing power and 3 GHz CPU speed is also not important for the average PC user. But multimedia and movie rendering etc is. So go Llano!!! Reply
  • Seikent - Tuesday, June 14, 2011 - link

    This platform offer some good things, but if the prices aren't low it won't go well. Now it's quite easy to find a sandy bridge notebook with discrete gpu for a few more dollars.

    If ACF does achieve to work like CF in the future, it would be great!
    Reply
  • SteelCity1981 - Tuesday, June 14, 2011 - link

    Finally we have an intergrated graphics solution that's worth really talking about. Reply
  • aegisofrime - Tuesday, June 14, 2011 - link

    Judging by the performance, this part won't be priced very high. And that's a worry, considering that it packs 1.45 billion transistors. In comparison, Sandy Bridge is 995 million transistors, and sells for more money. Profit margins are gonna be tight on this one. Reply
  • JarredWalton - Tuesday, June 14, 2011 - link

    AMD has a slide that points out that compared to their previous generation, they're packing a 66 mm2 Northbridge, 200 mm2 CPU, and 1080 mm2 dGPU into a 228 mm2 package. They've made money this past quarter, so this should do better than Athlon/Phenom II. Reply
  • JarredWalton - Tuesday, June 14, 2011 - link

    Note: that's supposed to be 108 mm2 GPU, not 1080. Whoops. Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now