Power Consumption

Both the A8-3850 and Intel's Core i3-2105 are built on a 32nm process and both feature extensive power and clock gating. By virtue of having lower power cores the A8 manages to beat the Core i3 in idle power consumption. Under CPU load however the A8-3850 does consume more power as it simply has more cores that can be loaded up. We also see higher power consumption in 3D gaming, but we do get much higher performance and as a result much better performance per watt.

Power Consumption Comparison
  AMD A8-3850 Intel Core i3-2105
Idle 43.6W 51.7W
GPU Accelerated Video Transcoding 126W 85W
3D Gaming (Metro 2033) 126W 101W
CPU Load (x264 Encode) 123W 87.6W

Final Words

If you're building an entry level gaming PC and have to rely solely on integrated graphics, it's clear that Llano is the only solution on the market today. You easily get 2x the frame rates of Intel's Core i3-2105 and can use that extra headroom to increase resolution, quality or sometimes both. The performance advantage is just one aspect of what Llano offers in this department. You do also get better overall game compatibility, DX11 and GPU compute support although the latter is still missing that killer app.

AMD's dual-graphics (asymmetric CrossFire) is an interesting solution to the argument that you could just buy a cheaper AMD CPU and a low end discrete GPU and get better performance. For example, you could get better performance if you bought a Radeon HD 6570 and an Athlon II X4 640 for $175 vs. a A8-3850 for $135. With dual-graphics in play you could add a discrete GPU to the A8-3850 and have better overall performance (in theory) than the discrete card by itself. In practice, limiting dual-graphics to only DX10/11 titles does hurt some of its potential. In my opinion the better solution here would be more aggressive pricing on the Llano APUs. The Athlon II X4 + Radeon HD 6570 is a better buy (unless you want the power savings of the A8), the only way to truly combat that is for the A8-3850 to drop in price.

If gaming isn't something you're going to be doing then you're better off with Sandy Bridge. And at that point there's no need to spring for the Core i3-2105, the standard 2100 will do just fine.

Compute & Video Transcoding Performance
POST A COMMENT

99 Comments

View All Comments

  • 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

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now