If you haven't gotten the hint, today is all about Llano. The big story is of course Llano's notebook appearance; however, in the coming weeks you'll be hearing a lot more about Llano on the desktop as well. This is AMD's Socket-FM1, the brand new socket that'll be used for desktop Llano parts:

If you read our Computex coverage, the socket should look pretty familiar. Motherboard manufacturers all over Taiwan are busy readying their Socket-FM1 boards for retail release. In fact, there was so much interest in desktop Llano on behalf of the motherboard manufacturers that a number of Socket-FM1 boards and CPUs made their way off the island as Computex ended.

Existing Socket-AM3 coolers will work on FM1 motherboards

By now you may have already seen a lot of information leaked from AMD's Llano presentations, as well as its desktop strategy. In the past few days performance numbers have been revealed as well. While we're hard at work on our full review of AMD's desktop Llano APU, we wanted to chime in with some thoughts on Llano's desktop performance.

AMD isn't ready to disclose pricing or the entire product matrix for Llano on the desktop, but what we do have is the high-end desktop Llano SKU: AMD's A8-3850.

The 3850 has four cores running at 2.9GHz and doesn't support Turbo Core. On the GPU side it has the full Radeon HD 6550D configuration with 400 shader processors running at 600MHz.

Sandy Bridge's GPU performance is the target, but how much better will AMD do on the desktop? Let's find out.

CPU Performance: Pretty Much an Athlon II X4


View All Comments

  • Shadowmaster625 - Tuesday, June 14, 2011 - link

    Look at all the graphs on page 4. Then try and guess how much thought was put into deciding which graph should be at the top of the page. Reply
  • basket687 - Tuesday, June 14, 2011 - link

    You declared that the GPU performance of Llano is on par with the HD 6450, but all discrete graphics cards were tested with an i5 2500k which is vastly superior to Llano in CPU performance and that is an important consideration (especially that games can be pretty CPU limited at the low resolutions you used), so I think that you should test discrete cards with a CPU more comparable to Llano in order to reach a more accurate conclusion. Reply
  • norwayishot - Tuesday, June 14, 2011 - link

    Good point - I would think its around a 10 fps difference if not more... Reply
  • Seikent - Tuesday, June 14, 2011 - link

    yep, the i5 2500k costs way more too. Reply
  • Taft12 - Tuesday, June 14, 2011 - link

    Dick-waving is far more important than grammar or missing a few words! Reply
  • StormyParis - Tuesday, June 14, 2011 - link

    I was exaggerating a bit. 21.5", 1680 LCD are $120; 26 inchers are around $300.
    Hey, you just made me realize my monitors are actually more expensive than the PC connected to them (E-350, 4GB, 650GB) ! I always overspent on screen s and keyboards, and underspent on PCs... Must be a quirk, sorry to have overgeneralized.

    The iPhone 4 is 960x640, which is indeed not as much, but not that far from 1024x768.
  • seapeople - Friday, June 17, 2011 - link

    It doesn't matter how cheap xxxx resolution monitors are when the user is just going to set the LCD to 1024x768 anyway so everything "looks bigger".

    When your vision isn't that great, it's a choice between big and fuzzy and small and fuzzy, and I've seen many people choose the big and fuzzy option.

    You think they'd just get better glasses or something...
  • StormyParis - Tuesday, June 28, 2011 - link

    Windows 7 has decent font / icon scaling. It allowed me to move my parents' ancient 21" IBM CRT from 1024x768 to something much higher, while preserving icon and text size. It looks much nicer.

    I had gotten that CRT specifically to be able to use a low resolution / bigger text/icon size without the ugly jaggies of a down-scaled LCD. Now, if it ever finally dies, I now I'll be able to replace it with an LCD. The thing is around 10yrs old, and just won't quit.
  • harshw - Tuesday, June 14, 2011 - link

    Hope Ganesh gets to do his usual, thorough analysis of the integrated GPU especially w.r.t HTPC applications. I have an aging E5200 on a G45 board that I'm itching to replace. But had to hold off on Brazos, I think the E-350 and its GPU is a tad underpowered. Let's see what the 6550 is capable of ... Reply
  • frozentundra123456 - Tuesday, June 14, 2011 - link

    Yet another disappointment from AMD. I see a place for this chip in the notebook market where power saving, space, and lack of upgradability dominate. If the price is right you could have a low to mid price laptop with decent CPU and GPU performance.

    However, to me the desktop part is a total disaster. The highest clocked chip cant even make 3ghz and there is not turbo mode. The only reason this chip can be a success is if they can sell it for the same price as the Athlon II X4 chips. Then you would get the same CPU performance with better graphics.

    Otherwise, just buy an X4 640 and put in a discrete card.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now