On your conclusion you compared a relatively high end $150 board with budget H67 boards when earlier on in your article you said that the lower end A75 boards would cost around $100.
Wouldn't it make more sense to compare a high end A75 board to a higher end H67/Z68 board and a lower end A75 board with the lower end H67? If you did it that way, you would be paying only $25-40 more for Llano over Sandy Bridge.
I do realize you haven't tested one of the $100 A75 boards, but your conclusion seems to be a bit questionable nonetheless.
"Desktop Llano certainly isn't a low power system - the A8-3850 is rated at 100W, so if you want something to word process, look at emails and play flash games, an AMD Fusion board for $150 will do all that quite easily for all under 60W. "
Alternative: Wait for A8-3800 instead; same IGP but slower clocks (while still faster than say an E-350) @ 65 watts TDP.
Xbitlabs managed to get their hands on A8-3800 silicon which might also be worth reading (no idea what the sites reputation is like so take it with a grain of salt)
What about having a Core i3 2100 + H61 motherboard + Dedicated Radeon HD 6570? It runs faster on both processor and graphics, and the price is equal to the Llano combo.
Other than that -- I love the conclusion part of this article. The cheapest available FM1 A75 motherboard at google shop is currently $103 (if that is true). With the A8-3850, that will end up at $250. Is Llano a good choice to pick over the i3 2100 for an $25 premium?
Well, it all depends on the user. And the points I would like to make are: -If you only play flash games, browse the web, type, watch Full HD movies, and use the computer for productivity reasons, pick the Core i3 2100 - the Intel HD graphics will suffice for those flash games - with similar or even better power consumption. -If you want to do some gaming, then A8-3850 might be the better choice.
Overall, I agree with Anand. I would personally choose the i3 2100 due to its beastial dual-core performance and being able to do anything except heavy GPU stuff - which can be solved by adding a single HD 6570 - and it runs faster than the APU, with the price being similar to the Llano.
TBH, i3 2100 and H61 without any additional GPU will run fine for office desktops. Except if the employees are allowed to play Metro 2033 in office.
For mainstream users, which Llano is presumably aimed at, the i3 2100 ends up the better deal as it'll offer better performance in all common tasks.
Llano does have a better native graphics solution, though still not good enough to actually allow for gaming. And if you skip gaming both Llano and the i3 2100 are good enough to handle all other graphics tasks like video and 2D acceleration.
THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A COMMON TASK THAT REQUIRES AN i3 2100 !!!
Why do you people keep on throwing that idea around, when it's clear that any basic user (you know, e-mail,facebook,youtube @ home, same @ work + excel, word, stuff) DOES NOT need an i3 (or a Llano for that matter) at all.
Llano has a much much much better graphics solution, which is completely hidden in this biased review as the gpu benchmarks w/ decent RAM are NOT SHOWN (and yes, 2ghz ram is CHEAP today, so anyone buying a Llano should not go for anything lower).
Llano does actually Allow for gaming, the titles tested here only show how with an integrated gpu, you'll be very limited in DEMANDING titles, as Crysis, Metro, ... while NOT demanding titles, like dirt 2 and pretty much everything else, will be fine without _ANY_DEDICATED_GPU_ This will of course not be at maximum settings, but come on, people play on CONSOLES every day, hasn't killed them yet.
I demand a real benchmark, with decent RAMsticks !
I'd agree that no common task /requires/ an i3 2100, or a Llano equivalent, but between the two of them the former is the better option for such.
Most significantly Llano /doesn't/ have a much better graphics solution. Sure, it's better but still not good enough to do native resolution gaming and low/mid settings - which is the bare minimum for gaming at this day and age.
For anything else, speaking about the GPU-side of things, anything will suffice. Certainly both Llano and Intel's HD2000/HD3000 solutions.
Perhaps I were overly enthusiastic about Llano's GPU prowess, I didn't expect it to be quite as memory-starved as it was, but I always envisoned it being a lot closer to what a discrete solution with the same clocks and core count would offer.
As it is I'd recommend an Intel solution to anyone at this point, with or without a discrete card as required.
You may chose to scream bloody murder about it if you want to, it's no skin of my back, but the numbers do speak for themselves.
No shit ... "doesn' t have a much better graphics solution" ... Seriously read a few other reviews and you'll understand there is a world of difference between 11 fps and 30, dx11 and no dx11, etc.
There are MANY games which lie on the fringe of "playable" with a Llano which are clearly unplayable on an i3.
The fact that this review is not showing is that with all those, the difference is between play and no play, and everytime the Llano is far ahead.
I linked a review in the comments of the OC article here on AT and it shows things ... like 11 fps crysis gamer settings @ 1920x1080.
While 11fps is not playable, 11fps in crysis w/ those settings and that resolution implies almost everything is playable with some stuff tuned down.
THIS IS NOT THE CASE with an i3.
The difference might be hidden w/ these benchmarks but it's there and so big it cannot justify the pricing of the i3 2105.
Llano is good enough to do native resolution gaming @ low / mid settings, even if you consider native to be full HD, there are many many many games that are playable on it this way.
A German magazine has proven that a Llano will run fine with DDR3-1600 (and upwards). It's called computerbase, have a look: http://tinyurl.com/6zsv6kk
DDR3-1600 RAM isn't that much more expensive than the run-of-the-mill type... both are ridiculously cheap right now. With only 65€ for 8GB of (good gamer) RAM, I'd say that this has already become the new standard minimum amount.
a) s1155 prices have dropped, you can expect A75 to do the same b) Llano is AMD and WILL be cheaper c) The core i3 2100 is way overkill for flash, full hd and basic stuff d) For that you have a 18W e-350 that's so much more money and power efficient e) Office desktops do NOT need the power of an i3-2100
Besides, you seem to think the GPU is useless outside of games, might be partly true today but it's not meant to last.
IMHO it's not that GPU is useless outside of games (even Windows Aero requires a "real" GPU to run), but what I'm saying is that Intel HD Graphics is sufficient for daily usage except gaming and graphical computing. I might be incorrect, though, but for me, personally, an i3 2100 is sufficient (even overkill, I agree) for office tasks.
E-350 and Pentium G620 (SB) might be better in price/performance, but what I've noticed from the E-350 (and of course, Intel Atom) is the lack of real-time responsiveness on laptops. It might be just me, though.
"Besides, you seem to think the GPU is useless outside of games, might be partly true today but it's not meant to last.".
We'll see when we get there. The industry has a terrible, terrible record of adapting software to new hardware, especially to new CPU instruction sets / capabilities. Look at all the x86 extensions that are still barely used (anything after SSE2 ?).
My take it... that exact same quote will still apply 3 yrs from now, and by then, we'll be due for an upgrade ^^
Not quite ... a shit GPU can play full HD x264 with MPC-HT . I think that's maybe the most relevant "performance" aspect of a cheap box for people looking at mail, music, facebook and youtube ;)
In fudzilla it has been said that A8-3850 will cost $135 USD and that there will be fm1 boards around $70 USD, thats cheaper than the core i3 2100 + h67 combo, so I guess that's a much better offer.
That was an interesting read. Lots of figures regarding motherboard performance, not a lot of discussion of them, and few performance figures about the APU itself. I hope that a full Llano review will appear soon. While the preview was quite comprehensive there was something wrong with the GPU figures, as it produced worse results than the lower clocked mobile part. It will be interesting to see if this got clarified, and to get a better overall feel regarding overclocking performance.
if the qoal of the test is: "The main test here is CPU usage, and how much is offloaded by the controller" Why would sou set the speed max t0 100Mbps (1000 MB file across a home network with a 100 Mbps lowest common speed ) and not 1Gbps?
there is only one word for this kind of review.....scapyard
content is not detailed enough to make a decent compare, horrible efforts on OC, info which is not even relevant for the non-turbo versions, not even a manual OC effort which has already shown by other sites to have high potential.
Price ranges and compared platforms are out of proportion due to this way to expensive MB not to mention incorrect price info while already available in a link post a bit later... do you guys actually share data internally?
and is there any reason what so ever that a Intel platform is required here to compare which is already as it should in the originan LIano review? NO
"The question now becomes, is Desktop Llano worth the extra $75?"
I keep wondering how much it cost to get you to claim Llano is 1/3 more expensive that i3 ?
REALLY ???
1) I do not remember you comparing _whole_platform_cost_ when reviewing Intel chips against AMD, at a time when there was a $30 Intel mobo tax in place.
2) Taking one of the highest-end Llano mobos with the highest-end Llano chip and comparing it price-wise to lowest-end SB (which it thoroughly trounces in everything besides single-threaded pure CPU loads) coupled to a low-end SB mobo? REALLY?
Eh .. sometimes bias is so visible, I'm not the only one to react anymore ;)
But they do it every day... if anyone remembers the Xeon e7 review, where AT clearly showed that a 45nm Opteron was better in perf/watt than a 32nm Xeon ... biggest fail ever on the part of Intel that (they had same efficiency within 2% at full load, but reality is not full load :p ).
Even Tom's Hardware, which was Intel sponsored since the day it was sold wasn't even half as hard on the Llano as you guys ....
The one good info anyone can get out of this is that Intel is afraid of Llano and they're ready to pay a lot to get it slandered... one more reason to buy it, if Intel thinks it's great :)
No, you're not the only one to "react". You and all your asshole AMD luvin' fanboys from AMD zone or wherever are all over every one of the recent AMD articles on this site. Llano is an inexpensive APU that fails to impress. It's not bad, but for what it delivers? PLEASE!
Overclocking? Intel wins by such a huge margin it doesn't even matter.
HTPC? Llano is buggy right now. Your best bet is a discrete GPU for serious HTPC use, and as long as you're getting a discrete GPU, you should buy the better CPU to go with it. Guess what, Intel wins again.
Gaming? Get a fucking clue, L. and duploxx. AMD has some great GPUs, but Llano is barely good for entry level gaming. No one that really cares about gaming is going to be impressed by something that matches a $35 dGPU.
General performance? Intel wins. Doesn't matter if it's SYSmark, PCMark, Sunspider, or some other test -- Intel has a substantially faster CPU architecture.
Pricing? Right now, AMD even loses this. Sure, you can get AMD systems for less than Intel systems, like if you get last-gen AMD. The Llano stuff right now is too expensive on the motherboard side to beat Core i3 and Pentium. When motherboard production ramps up, AMD and Intel will still be very nearly tied on pricing for low-end parts. Hooray!
3DMark. AMD wins in the IGP battle! Who cares about 3DMark? L. and duploxx and a bunch of other retarded AMD bigots who drink the AMD kool-aid and quote AMD PR like a bible.
In summary: everyone with half a brain can see the AMD Llano articles at Anandtech for what they are: factual representations of performance showing that AMD only wins on graphics, and only against IGP. Llano is only going to impress the dimwitted folks that slobber over every AMD release. Those who look for the best system will stay away, but I'm sure Best Buy will sell lots of these Llano systems to people that really have no idea what hardware is inside and don't care one way or another.
"Tomorrow's technology today" they say... Seing as the Board has 3 "legacy" oh, no let me use "outmoded" PCI slots, I would call that "Yesterday's technology in store tomorrow"
Who ever needs more than 1 PCI slot anymore? I can easily live with NONE.
But still they keep on designing boards with 2 and 3 of those... try finding a board with a 4x or 8x PCI-E for a RAID Add-on, almost non-existent unless you go for a server board.
This is supposed to be a higher end product for enthusiasts and I'm really NOT enthusiastic about NOT having a PCI-E 4x expansion on it.
The way see it, AMD Llano, used without a discrete GPU, is a good start-up platform for - multimedia management: USB3, SATA3 and quad core are strong points, enabling light video encoding tasks - a kid's PC, who does not play yet 3D shooters.
Somewhere in this article I saw: "Metro 2033 is the Crysis of the DirectX 11 world (or at least until Crysis 2 is released)" Ummm.... Crysis 2 sold here is not DX11 capable ? http://www.amazon.de/Crysis-2-Limited-Edition-uncu...
"with up to 2x the performance of the highest version of Intel's integrated graphic solutions of the Sandy Bridge second generation Core series."
A very statement statement considering all tests last two days show 2 - 6 times higher performance, with drivers and programs (and BIOS) yet to be tuned for the Fusion platform.
Horse shit. What is it with all the AMD crazies? Llano's IGP is on average about twice as fast as HD 3000, unless you test with a few specific games. Anything OpenGL pretty much tanks on Intel, but the number of current OpenGL titles that people play is quite small... Minecraft is probably the best example. Let's take a few of the major sites.
Tom's Hardware: Metro 2033: Llano is about 2x faster than HD 3000 Call of Duty Modern Warfare 2: Llano is twice as fast, give or take (depending on settings) World of Warcraft: Llano is twice as fast, give or take.
AnandTech: Crysis: Warhead: Llano is about twice as fast Metro 2033: Less than twice as fast HAWX: Less than twice as fast Civilization V: About three times as fast (one of the few cases where we see more than a 2x increase) DiRT 2: About 2.5x as fast Mass Effect 2: Less than twice as fast StarCraft II: usually less than twice as fast
Legit Reviews: Resident Evil 5: Less than twice as fast HAWX 2: about 2.5x as fast STALKER Call of Pripyat: about twice as fast
PC Perspective: Civ V: Tied with the HD 3000 in the i7-2600K DiRT 3: about 2.5x compared to HD 2000 Left 4 Dead 2: Less than twice as fast StarCraft II: about 2x
So that's four major sites and the highest lead by Llano in graphics is only 3x -- nowhere near the 6x you claim. On average, 2x lead compared to the i3-2105 looks about right, and if you put in an HD 6670 -- which is really the bare minimum for anyone that actually wants to play games -- you get double the performance of Llano. OMFG! That's amazing! Let's all praise AMD for delivering an IGP that can perform half as fast as what mainstream gaming actually needs!
GTFO. I'm sick of all the AMD crybabies. Llano is mediocre on desktops at best. It's better on a laptop, but only for medium detail 720p gaming. To pretend that medium detail 720p is more important than all the other aspects is stupid. But then, no one ever said fanboys were smart.
We’ve updated our terms. By continuing to use the site and/or by logging into your account, you agree to the Site’s updated Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
44 Comments
Back to Article
jjj - Thursday, June 30, 2011 - link
no desktop Llano review or there will be one soon?ganeshts - Thursday, June 30, 2011 - link
Coming soon.. We are working on it right now, getting pictures in the engine.FragKrag - Thursday, June 30, 2011 - link
On your conclusion you compared a relatively high end $150 board with budget H67 boards when earlier on in your article you said that the lower end A75 boards would cost around $100.Wouldn't it make more sense to compare a high end A75 board to a higher end H67/Z68 board and a lower end A75 board with the lower end H67? If you did it that way, you would be paying only $25-40 more for Llano over Sandy Bridge.
I do realize you haven't tested one of the $100 A75 boards, but your conclusion seems to be a bit questionable nonetheless.
L. - Thursday, June 30, 2011 - link
Motherboards are going to be much cheaper on the AMD side, as usual.Comparing mobo prices now, and taking a high-end cheap-brand on one side against a cheap board on the other does indeed not make sense.
If it's any indication, my NAS mobo (gigabyte am3) cost like 35 euros. Quite likely that there will be Llano boards around 50 euros before long.
cknobman - Thursday, June 30, 2011 - link
Agreed this article's conclusion is not based off an apples to apples comparison and is really misleading.To the reviewer - please do a better job of trying to compare similar products next time.
qu3ry - Thursday, June 30, 2011 - link
Agreed, and also:"Desktop Llano certainly isn't a low power system - the A8-3850 is rated at 100W, so if you want something to word process, look at emails and play flash games, an AMD Fusion board for $150 will do all that quite easily for all under 60W. "
Alternative: Wait for A8-3800 instead; same IGP but slower clocks (while still faster than say an E-350) @ 65 watts TDP.
Xbitlabs managed to get their hands on A8-3800 silicon which might also be worth reading (no idea what the sites reputation is like so take it with a grain of salt)
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/print/amd-a8-...
ganteng3005 - Thursday, June 30, 2011 - link
What about having a Core i3 2100 + H61 motherboard + Dedicated Radeon HD 6570?It runs faster on both processor and graphics, and the price is equal to the Llano combo.
Other than that --
I love the conclusion part of this article. The cheapest available FM1 A75 motherboard at google shop is currently $103 (if that is true). With the A8-3850, that will end up at $250.
Is Llano a good choice to pick over the i3 2100 for an $25 premium?
Well, it all depends on the user. And the points I would like to make are:
-If you only play flash games, browse the web, type, watch Full HD movies, and use the computer for productivity reasons, pick the Core i3 2100 - the Intel HD graphics will suffice for those flash games - with similar or even better power consumption.
-If you want to do some gaming, then A8-3850 might be the better choice.
Overall, I agree with Anand. I would personally choose the i3 2100 due to its beastial dual-core performance and being able to do anything except heavy GPU stuff - which can be solved by adding a single HD 6570 - and it runs faster than the APU, with the price being similar to the Llano.
TBH, i3 2100 and H61 without any additional GPU will run fine for office desktops. Except if the employees are allowed to play Metro 2033 in office.
AnandThenMan - Thursday, June 30, 2011 - link
What a load of PR rubbish.Exodite - Thursday, June 30, 2011 - link
How so?For mainstream users, which Llano is presumably aimed at, the i3 2100 ends up the better deal as it'll offer better performance in all common tasks.
Llano does have a better native graphics solution, though still not good enough to actually allow for gaming. And if you skip gaming both Llano and the i3 2100 are good enough to handle all other graphics tasks like video and 2D acceleration.
It makes sense to me.
L. - Thursday, June 30, 2011 - link
Stop this please.THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A COMMON TASK THAT REQUIRES AN i3 2100 !!!
Why do you people keep on throwing that idea around, when it's clear that any basic user (you know, e-mail,facebook,youtube @ home, same @ work + excel, word, stuff) DOES NOT need an i3 (or a Llano for that matter) at all.
Llano has a much much much better graphics solution, which is completely hidden in this biased review as the gpu benchmarks w/ decent RAM are NOT SHOWN (and yes, 2ghz ram is CHEAP today, so anyone buying a Llano should not go for anything lower).
Llano does actually Allow for gaming, the titles tested here only show how with an integrated gpu, you'll be very limited in DEMANDING titles, as Crysis, Metro, ... while NOT demanding titles, like dirt 2 and pretty much everything else, will be fine without _ANY_DEDICATED_GPU_
This will of course not be at maximum settings, but come on, people play on CONSOLES every day, hasn't killed them yet.
I demand a real benchmark, with decent RAMsticks !
Exodite - Thursday, June 30, 2011 - link
I'd agree that no common task /requires/ an i3 2100, or a Llano equivalent, but between the two of them the former is the better option for such.Most significantly Llano /doesn't/ have a much better graphics solution. Sure, it's better but still not good enough to do native resolution gaming and low/mid settings - which is the bare minimum for gaming at this day and age.
For anything else, speaking about the GPU-side of things, anything will suffice. Certainly both Llano and Intel's HD2000/HD3000 solutions.
Perhaps I were overly enthusiastic about Llano's GPU prowess, I didn't expect it to be quite as memory-starved as it was, but I always envisoned it being a lot closer to what a discrete solution with the same clocks and core count would offer.
As it is I'd recommend an Intel solution to anyone at this point, with or without a discrete card as required.
You may chose to scream bloody murder about it if you want to, it's no skin of my back, but the numbers do speak for themselves.
mino - Thursday, June 30, 2011 - link
"I'd agree that no common task /requires/ an i3 2100, or a Llano equivalent, but between the two of them the former is the better option for such."Yeah, between the two i3 is a better option for uncommon single-threaded tasks.
Now, what have those to do with the low-end desktop market?
L. - Thursday, June 30, 2011 - link
Bloody Murder !No shit ... "doesn' t have a much better graphics solution" ...
Seriously read a few other reviews and you'll understand there is a world of difference between 11 fps and 30, dx11 and no dx11, etc.
There are MANY games which lie on the fringe of "playable" with a Llano which are clearly unplayable on an i3.
The fact that this review is not showing is that with all those, the difference is between play and no play, and everytime the Llano is far ahead.
I linked a review in the comments of the OC article here on AT and it shows things ... like 11 fps crysis gamer settings @ 1920x1080.
While 11fps is not playable, 11fps in crysis w/ those settings and that resolution implies almost everything is playable with some stuff tuned down.
THIS IS NOT THE CASE with an i3.
The difference might be hidden w/ these benchmarks but it's there and so big it cannot justify the pricing of the i3 2105.
Llano is good enough to do native resolution gaming @ low / mid settings, even if you consider native to be full HD, there are many many many games that are playable on it this way.
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/amd-a...
Yet another one ... high quality, full HD, far cry 2 , playable on Llano, 11 fps on HD3000.
Finally - Thursday, June 30, 2011 - link
A German magazine has proven that a Llano will run fine with DDR3-1600 (and upwards). It's called computerbase, have a look: http://tinyurl.com/6zsv6kkFinally - Thursday, June 30, 2011 - link
DDR3-1600 RAM isn't that much more expensive than the run-of-the-mill type... both are ridiculously cheap right now.With only 65€ for 8GB of (good gamer) RAM, I'd say that this has already become the new standard minimum amount.
havoti97 - Sunday, July 3, 2011 - link
You are not entitled to anything. You get what's given to you. If you don't like it, go look elsewhere or do yar own benchmark.L. - Thursday, June 30, 2011 - link
This is almost correct.a) s1155 prices have dropped, you can expect A75 to do the same
b) Llano is AMD and WILL be cheaper
c) The core i3 2100 is way overkill for flash, full hd and basic stuff
d) For that you have a 18W e-350 that's so much more money and power efficient
e) Office desktops do NOT need the power of an i3-2100
Besides, you seem to think the GPU is useless outside of games, might be partly true today but it's not meant to last.
ganteng3005 - Thursday, June 30, 2011 - link
IMHO it's not that GPU is useless outside of games (even Windows Aero requires a "real" GPU to run), but what I'm saying is that Intel HD Graphics is sufficient for daily usage except gaming and graphical computing. I might be incorrect, though, but for me, personally, an i3 2100 is sufficient (even overkill, I agree) for office tasks.E-350 and Pentium G620 (SB) might be better in price/performance, but what I've noticed from the E-350 (and of course, Intel Atom) is the lack of real-time responsiveness on laptops. It might be just me, though.
kevith - Thursday, June 30, 2011 - link
Does that mean to say, that I´ll not be able to run Windows Aero with any buil-in GPU? AMD or Intel...StormyParis - Thursday, June 30, 2011 - link
"Besides, you seem to think the GPU is useless outside of games, might be partly true today but it's not meant to last.".We'll see when we get there. The industry has a terrible, terrible record of adapting software to new hardware, especially to new CPU instruction sets / capabilities. Look at all the x86 extensions that are still barely used (anything after SSE2 ?).
My take it... that exact same quote will still apply 3 yrs from now, and by then, we'll be due for an upgrade ^^
L. - Thursday, June 30, 2011 - link
Not quite ... a shit GPU can play full HD x264 with MPC-HT . I think that's maybe the most relevant "performance" aspect of a cheap box for people looking at mail, music, facebook and youtube ;)Seikent - Thursday, June 30, 2011 - link
In fudzilla it has been said that A8-3850 will cost $135 USD and that there will be fm1 boards around $70 USD, thats cheaper than the core i3 2100 + h67 combo, so I guess that's a much better offer.L. - Thursday, June 30, 2011 - link
Shhh ./.. don't say that out loud it might just show even more how Liano is a perfect victory for AMD ;)ET - Thursday, June 30, 2011 - link
That was an interesting read. Lots of figures regarding motherboard performance, not a lot of discussion of them, and few performance figures about the APU itself. I hope that a full Llano review will appear soon. While the preview was quite comprehensive there was something wrong with the GPU figures, as it produced worse results than the lower clocked mobile part. It will be interesting to see if this got clarified, and to get a better overall feel regarding overclocking performance.ET - Thursday, June 30, 2011 - link
Ah, I see that a reply for this was posted while I was writing this. Hopefully it's a soon "soon".JustWalkingBy - Thursday, June 30, 2011 - link
if the qoal of the test is: "The main test here is CPU usage, and how much is offloaded by the controller"Why would sou set the speed max t0 100Mbps (1000 MB file across a home network with a 100 Mbps lowest common speed ) and not 1Gbps?
duploxxx - Thursday, June 30, 2011 - link
there is only one word for this kind of review.....scapyardcontent is not detailed enough to make a decent compare, horrible efforts on OC, info which is not even relevant for the non-turbo versions, not even a manual OC effort which has already shown by other sites to have high potential.
Price ranges and compared platforms are out of proportion due to this way to expensive MB
not to mention incorrect price info while already available in a link post a bit later... do you guys actually share data internally?
and is there any reason what so ever that a Intel platform is required here to compare which is already as it should in the originan LIano review? NO
duploxxx - Thursday, June 30, 2011 - link
just have a look at this review.... some do actually are able to OC as it couldhttp://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/amd-a...
L. - Thursday, June 30, 2011 - link
Smell the bias ;)L. - Thursday, June 30, 2011 - link
http://www.neoseeker.com/Articles/Hardware/Reviews...These guys got the idea about Llano . it's all about the RAM speed, why don't you try that out a bit ;)
28 FPS in Far Cry 2 @ 1080p is definitely huge for an IGP.
mino - Thursday, June 30, 2011 - link
"The question now becomes, is Desktop Llano worth the extra $75?"I keep wondering how much it cost to get you to claim Llano is 1/3 more expensive that i3 ?
REALLY ???
1) I do not remember you comparing _whole_platform_cost_ when reviewing Intel chips against AMD, at a time when there was a $30 Intel mobo tax in place.
2) Taking one of the highest-end Llano mobos with the highest-end Llano chip and comparing it price-wise to lowest-end SB (which it thoroughly trounces in everything besides single-threaded pure CPU loads) coupled to a low-end SB mobo? REALLY?
Shame.
L. - Thursday, June 30, 2011 - link
Eh .. sometimes bias is so visible, I'm not the only one to react anymore ;)But they do it every day... if anyone remembers the Xeon e7 review, where AT clearly showed that a 45nm Opteron was better in perf/watt than a 32nm Xeon ... biggest fail ever on the part of Intel that (they had same efficiency within 2% at full load, but reality is not full load :p ).
Even Tom's Hardware, which was Intel sponsored since the day it was sold wasn't even half as hard on the Llano as you guys ....
The one good info anyone can get out of this is that Intel is afraid of Llano and they're ready to pay a lot to get it slandered... one more reason to buy it, if Intel thinks it's great :)
whatthehey - Saturday, July 2, 2011 - link
No, you're not the only one to "react". You and all your asshole AMD luvin' fanboys from AMD zone or wherever are all over every one of the recent AMD articles on this site. Llano is an inexpensive APU that fails to impress. It's not bad, but for what it delivers? PLEASE!Overclocking? Intel wins by such a huge margin it doesn't even matter.
HTPC? Llano is buggy right now. Your best bet is a discrete GPU for serious HTPC use, and as long as you're getting a discrete GPU, you should buy the better CPU to go with it. Guess what, Intel wins again.
Gaming? Get a fucking clue, L. and duploxx. AMD has some great GPUs, but Llano is barely good for entry level gaming. No one that really cares about gaming is going to be impressed by something that matches a $35 dGPU.
General performance? Intel wins. Doesn't matter if it's SYSmark, PCMark, Sunspider, or some other test -- Intel has a substantially faster CPU architecture.
Pricing? Right now, AMD even loses this. Sure, you can get AMD systems for less than Intel systems, like if you get last-gen AMD. The Llano stuff right now is too expensive on the motherboard side to beat Core i3 and Pentium. When motherboard production ramps up, AMD and Intel will still be very nearly tied on pricing for low-end parts. Hooray!
3DMark. AMD wins in the IGP battle! Who cares about 3DMark? L. and duploxx and a bunch of other retarded AMD bigots who drink the AMD kool-aid and quote AMD PR like a bible.
In summary: everyone with half a brain can see the AMD Llano articles at Anandtech for what they are: factual representations of performance showing that AMD only wins on graphics, and only against IGP. Llano is only going to impress the dimwitted folks that slobber over every AMD release. Those who look for the best system will stay away, but I'm sure Best Buy will sell lots of these Llano systems to people that really have no idea what hardware is inside and don't care one way or another.
Snotling - Thursday, June 30, 2011 - link
"Tomorrow's technology today" they say... Seing as the Board has 3 "legacy" oh, no let me use "outmoded" PCI slots, I would call that "Yesterday's technology in store tomorrow"Who ever needs more than 1 PCI slot anymore? I can easily live with NONE.
But still they keep on designing boards with 2 and 3 of those... try finding a board with a 4x or 8x PCI-E for a RAID Add-on, almost non-existent unless you go for a server board.
This is supposed to be a higher end product for enthusiasts and I'm really NOT enthusiastic about NOT having a PCI-E 4x expansion on it.
dczyz - Thursday, June 30, 2011 - link
Just picked up a ASUS P8Z68-V PRO and was very disappointed with the lack of support for the Server 2008 based OS's.Since Server 08 is being used in Home Server, and Small Business I would like to see motherboard reviews cover compatibility for that.
mino - Thursday, June 30, 2011 - link
Server 2008 R2 is Windows 7 driver-wise. What more "compatibility" do you want?NOBODY is going to do server OS validation for you on desktop platforms for free. If you need that, go for a proper WS board.
Meaker10 - Friday, July 1, 2011 - link
So again you acknowledge the NB frequency option but ignore it?No look at if this helps performance?
enterco - Saturday, July 2, 2011 - link
The way see it, AMD Llano, used without a discrete GPU, is a good start-up platform for- multimedia management: USB3, SATA3 and quad core are strong points, enabling light video encoding tasks
- a kid's PC, who does not play yet 3D shooters.
Somewhere in this article I saw: "Metro 2033 is the Crysis of the DirectX 11 world (or at least until Crysis 2 is released)"
Ummm.... Crysis 2 sold here is not DX11 capable ? http://www.amazon.de/Crysis-2-Limited-Edition-uncu...
puretech - Saturday, July 2, 2011 - link
"with up to 2x the performance of the highest version of Intel's integrated graphic solutions of the Sandy Bridge second generation Core series."A very statement statement considering all tests last two days show 2 - 6 times higher performance, with drivers and programs (and BIOS) yet to be tuned for the Fusion platform.
whatthehey - Sunday, July 3, 2011 - link
Horse shit. What is it with all the AMD crazies? Llano's IGP is on average about twice as fast as HD 3000, unless you test with a few specific games. Anything OpenGL pretty much tanks on Intel, but the number of current OpenGL titles that people play is quite small... Minecraft is probably the best example. Let's take a few of the major sites.Tom's Hardware:
Metro 2033: Llano is about 2x faster than HD 3000
Call of Duty Modern Warfare 2: Llano is twice as fast, give or take (depending on settings)
World of Warcraft: Llano is twice as fast, give or take.
AnandTech:
Crysis: Warhead: Llano is about twice as fast
Metro 2033: Less than twice as fast
HAWX: Less than twice as fast
Civilization V: About three times as fast (one of the few cases where we see more than a 2x increase)
DiRT 2: About 2.5x as fast
Mass Effect 2: Less than twice as fast
StarCraft II: usually less than twice as fast
Legit Reviews:
Resident Evil 5: Less than twice as fast
HAWX 2: about 2.5x as fast
STALKER Call of Pripyat: about twice as fast
PC Perspective:
Civ V: Tied with the HD 3000 in the i7-2600K
DiRT 3: about 2.5x compared to HD 2000
Left 4 Dead 2: Less than twice as fast
StarCraft II: about 2x
So that's four major sites and the highest lead by Llano in graphics is only 3x -- nowhere near the 6x you claim. On average, 2x lead compared to the i3-2105 looks about right, and if you put in an HD 6670 -- which is really the bare minimum for anyone that actually wants to play games -- you get double the performance of Llano. OMFG! That's amazing! Let's all praise AMD for delivering an IGP that can perform half as fast as what mainstream gaming actually needs!
GTFO. I'm sick of all the AMD crybabies. Llano is mediocre on desktops at best. It's better on a laptop, but only for medium detail 720p gaming. To pretend that medium detail 720p is more important than all the other aspects is stupid. But then, no one ever said fanboys were smart.
puretech - Monday, July 4, 2011 - link
Lol, you use games as a measure? So tired of people not understanding the Fusion concept.henhaohenhao - Wednesday, July 13, 2011 - link
Come go and see, will not regret it Oh look
http://www.ifancyshop.com
henhaohenhao - Wednesday, July 13, 2011 - link
Come go and see, will not regret it Oh look
http://www.ifancyshop.com
ghd nz - Monday, January 7, 2013 - link
http://www.cl-australia.org