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!"
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.
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