Slashdot Mirror
AMD Llano APU Review - Slow CPU, Fast GPU
Vigile writes "Though we did see the fruits of AMD's Fusion labor in the form of the Brazos platform late in 2010, Llano is the first mainstream part to be released that combines traditional x86 CPU cores with Radeon-based SIMD arrays for a heterogeneous computing environment. The A-series of APUs reviewed over at PC Perspective starts with the A8-3850 that is a combination of a true quad-core processor and 400 shader processors similar to those found in AMD's Radeon HD 5000 series of GPUs. The good news for the first desktop APU is that the integrated graphics blows past the best Intel has to offer on the Sandy Bridge platform by a factor of 2-4x in terms of gaming. The bad news is the CPU performance: running at only 2.9 GHz the Phenom-based x86 portion often finds itself behind even the dual-core Intel Core i3-2100. On the bright side you can pick one up next month for only $135."
On newegg that core i3-2100 is retailing for $124; how do the graphics in the llano stack up against the i3's graphics? Might not be such a bad deal at all.
Article (or at least the material they got from AMD) indicates that graphics is precisely where it shines, so an i3-class CPU with nearly-discrete-class graphics, at an i3 pricetag, sounds quite compelling.
This new AMD product specifically targets the budget user with occasional gamings. It allows entry level gaming, for the price of a very cheap CPU + GPU at lower TDP. It's also a better solution than a CPU + Discrete graphics because it already gives you entry level gaming without taking up a PCI-E slot; at the same time allows for asymmetrical CrossFire so in case you want to get a high end CPU you can see a benefit (in DX10 & DX11 titles)
This new APU from AMD shoots down any budget graphics Intel has to offer whilst giving you more CPU power to do anything Atom does.
At the end of the day, Core i3 + HD3000 costs more and has a higher idle power usage.
IMO the title should read: "Brilliant new budget gaming APU from AMD!"
To saw its slow is a little ridiculous. Compared to a 286? I know, that this is in comparison to other modern CPUs, but any modern CPU is pretty fast.
I wonder if AMD or Intel will ever manage to develop an x86 integrated chip for handheld devices. It would be pretty interesting to have binary compatability between desktop and handheld devices.
Well, people that don't want to reward Intel's illegal behavior for a starter. I recently got a Llano based laptop and was shocked at how well the chip handles the things that I do on a day to day basis. Sure, there's no chance of playing The Witcher or DNF on it, but it handles casual gaming just fine, especially the older games that I tend to like to play.
In practice, the dual core is much more responsive than the celeron I was using a couple years back, even though it's a third slower than that older Intel chip.
It's not for those that want top speeds, but it was substantially less expensive than the Intel option. A $100 price difference is pretty significant these days in terms of the machines that most people use. And in practice, I'm not so sure that it is only a $100 price difference as you then don't need to shell out for a graphics chip or the circuitry to make that worse. I ended up spending several hundred dollars less than I would have for the Intel option. Personally, I'd rather spend the money upgrading the warranty or paying for a back up plan.
The article does not test using Quick Sync technology for the video rendering portion. When this is turned on, an Intel HD3000 is 6 times faster at video encoding than a top-of-the-line Radeon. (Benchmarks here). And also some of the tests show the Core i7-970 is twice as SLOW than a Core i5?? Gotta call B.S. on that one. And what's the point of testing a dual card (APU + Radeon) against a single Intel integrated graphics? We all know the HD3000 isn't for gaming, that's why you get a $65 Radeon to run your games. Most mid-range laptops come with some sort of discrete graphics card that rivals the GPU performance of the Llano. I waited around for Llano and was severely dissapointed with the CPU results. TomsHardware and Anandtech reviewed it in-depth and found the gaming performance was comparable against a mid-range discrete card, along with similar battery life and similar heat. However cost is the only thing working in AMD's favor. I still don't see why somebody would buy a 4-year old CPU architecture that will be EOL'd by the time Bulldozer comes out in a few months.
I think the whole point of APUs are to not be high end expensive battleship-system components.
You see, the $230 device you suggest to buy instead have no integrated graphics, and thus you'll want to add $100 or more for a matching decent pice or GPU(or you can be a retard and enjoy integrated shit-tier graphics along with your high end CPU.
Or you simply settle for a lower-mid tier system and buy the Llano device from the above article and end up with a $200 cheaper system.
If you don't need that kind of performance, then that extra $100 is wasted.
My server currently runs on an AMD. For one, it was the lowest energy using quad core I could find (45W). For two, at the time, it was cheaper than most Intel quad cores. And used less power than all but their lowest end dual cores.
Then again, my gaming rig is an i7 and my notebook is a Core2 Duo.
So, to answer your question: when it is the right tool for the job.
Self proclaimed typo king, and inventor of the bear destroying coffee table (patent not pending).
It's just not. Maybe it's "slow" compared to the newest chip, but, if you want to pull that crap, the newest chips are "slow" compared to a new Cray.
If you're doing things on a regular basis that are CPU-intensive, then, sure, you need speed. But 99% of applications aren't even going to stress a quad core @ 3ghz.
My best computers to peak under 300W. And they aren't old or slow (but they aren't the fastest ones availabe either, just near them).
I'd understand if you have 2 or more GPUs...
Rethinking email
If you read TFA, you would have seen that the MHz may have been numerically higher but the performance was slower than the Phenom II Quad-Core. And yes, the Core i3 (Sandy Bridge version) has hardware virtualization assist. http://ark.intel.com/VTList.aspx #deniedfud
Bulldozers wont have on-die graphics like these Llano (Bobcat) CPU's until mid to late 2012 at the earliest.
What should be noted and what isnt well understood is that these "APU's" coming out from AMD are all Bobcat chips. Bobcat is a design directly targeting Intel's Atom market. The review here is for the King of the Bobcat's, the high powered variant weighing in at 100W peek built on the 32nm processes. The low power bobcats only have 80 stream processors (5.9W, 9W, and 18W variants) instead of the 400 stream processors (100W) that this thing has at are on the 40nm process.
All the Bobcat modules have only 2 ALU's and 2 FPU's, and only a 1-channel memory controller, so it is no surprise that it has trouble competing with the i3's. What is surprising is that never-the-less, its competing with the i3's.
"His name was James Damore."
Two 5870 running at full will be 350~400 Watts Each.
Add in the motherboard and other basics you're talking 1000 Watts constantly.
Nice job pulling those numbers out of your ass.
Here's the real power consumption of a 5870 right off of AMD's spec sheets: http://www.amd.com/us/products/desktop/graphics/ati-radeon-hd-5000/hd-5870/Pages/ati-radeon-hd-5870-overview.aspx#2
I'll pull the relevent part out for you: Maximum board power: 188 Watts
Assuming people who bitcoin mine use at least a decent power supply that is 80% efficient PSU at given load (realistically most decent ones are 82%+ in optimal load range), you're going to be pulling 235 watts from the wall per card, max.
235 watts is way less than 350-400 watts, by a long shot.
The rest of the system isn't going to be pulling huge amounts of power, since nobody who is mining bitcoin for real cash does it on a CPU, they do it on GPUs, and the amount of power a motherboard, RAM, disk drive, CPU use while they aren't really working is pretty low, usually in the 30-60 watt range, depending on your CPU, but nowhere near 200 watts of draw
I don't necessarily have an opinion regarding your discussion, but I wanted to point out that power draw specs can be incorrect, especially now that everyone is trying to be green. We have a large cluster here that we ended up having to install extra power for because the machine would shut down during HPL runs. The vendor (and this is not a small vendor) told us that for HPL, you have to spec power for 130% utilization instead of 100%. Now HPL is pretty intense, but it's something to keep in mind.