CPU Performance: Pretty Much an Athlon II X4

As we found in our look at mobile Llano, the A8 isn't impressive as a general purpose x86 microprocessor. In general the chip is somewhat faster than the Athlon II X4 635 and I'd say it performs more like a 645 based on the numbers I've seen here. Again, nothing to be impressed by but if you're building a value gaming PC it may not matter.

Note that heavily-threaded applications actually favor the A8-3850 to the Core i3 2100 (its most likely target based on pricing rumors) thanks to its four cores. They may not be as efficient as the i3's cores, but you sure do have more of them. We have been discussing this tradeoff with AMD for quite a bit over the past couple of years. You lose out on single-threaded performance but you do gain better performance in heavily-threaded workloads. I had assumed that Turbo Core would partially solve this with Llano but 2.9GHz is going to be the fastest SKU AMD offers and it doesn't ship with any turbo enabled.

SYSMark 2007 - Overall

Adobe Photoshop CS4 - Retouch Artists Speed Test

Cinebench R10 - Single Threaded Benchmark

Cinebench R10 - Multi-Threaded Benchmark

x264 HD Benchmark - 1st pass - v3.03

x264 HD Benchmark - 2nd pass - v3.03

7-zip Benchmark

Dragon Age Origins - 1680 x 1050 - Max Settings (no AA/Vsync)

World of Warcraft

Starcraft 2

Introduction GPU Performance: Between a Radeon HD 6450 & 5570
POST A COMMENT

131 Comments

View All Comments

  • nuker - Tuesday, June 14, 2011 - link

    Any hints on the probable cost of this processor? Reply
  • KingKuei - Tuesday, June 14, 2011 - link

    Admittedly, I have stopped following AMD chips since the move from AM2+ to AM3. So at this point, if the A8 is targeting Core i3, is there anything known about their future roadmap that would indicate any other line of chips such as a "Phenom"-class chip to target i5/i7??? Reply
  • Veerappan - Tuesday, June 14, 2011 - link

    Take a look at the Bulldozer/Zambezi line of chips that should be out in the next few months. Those are the 4/8 core competition for i7. The first iteration will not have an integrated GPU, but that is coming eventually. Reply
  • LtGoonRush - Tuesday, June 14, 2011 - link

    Is the absence of Turbo Core something particular to this sample, or is it not present in desktop Llano processors? Reply
  • JarredWalton - Tuesday, June 14, 2011 - link

    The highest desktop CPU (A8-3850) is apparently already running close to maximum performance. It seems like there should still be headroom available, but because of the way AMD is doing TC versus Intel's Turbo Boost, maybe they can't make use of the final few MHz. Or maybe current Llano chips just don't clock stable enough at 3.0+ GHz. Reply
  • MrSpadge - Tuesday, June 14, 2011 - link

    Yeah, that's really strange. They pushed their 45 nm chips to 3.5+ GHz with lots of (unnecessary) voltage, and now the maximum they're allowing the 32 nm chips is 2.9 GHz? For the cost of looking stupid compared to Intel in single threaded performance? And with a 100 W TDP.. which gives them all the headroom they could realistically use for single thread? Sounds like AMD 32 nm isn't quite there yet, or they introduced some speed bumps into the design.

    MrS
    Reply
  • StormyParis - Tuesday, June 14, 2011 - link

    Last time I used a 1280x1024 screen was ... 10 years ago ? can you even *BUY* those anymore ? Let alone 1024x768 (isn't that what my *phone* has ?). And LCD screens *don't* degrade beautifully.

    I'm guessing those rez may be useful when trying to isolate CPU vs GPU performance... which will we be relevant as soon as Anand release their much-awaited tutorial: Llano: how to saw off the integrated graphics and hammer in a 6890....

    FYI, my E-350 is driving a 1920x1200 main screen, and a 1680x1050 secondry one. Relevant tests, please, people ?
    Reply
  • BLaber - Tuesday, June 14, 2011 - link

    Absolutely agree , 1024 x 768 ,resolution gaming test are absolute joke & No wonder Sandy bridges shitty graphics are able to keep up , increase the resolution & Sandy Bridge will eat dust , Anand I hope for better that this. Reply
  • tisho75 - Tuesday, June 14, 2011 - link

    +1
    I don't know any laptop running these resolutions these days. Seems like someone want to show 'how close' are Sandy Bridge graphics to Llano... Please show tests at least at 1366x768 and 168x1050
    Reply
  • TrackSmart - Tuesday, June 14, 2011 - link

    +2
    1366x768 is the de facto standard on laptops and would yield more useful results Anandtech readers. Widescreen has been standard for a long time now. It doesn't make sense to test laptops as if they still had 4:3 aspect ratios...
    Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now