Although the CPU performance on these is so pitiful, one probably wouldn't notice the lack of one of the CPU cores. Esp. at 2.1GHz...
Really? 2.1GHz?
Since we are talking budget, why aren't their dual or triple cores, with boosted GPU cores and higher clock speeds. Take the 100W with 4 CPU cores and shift it towards the GPU side. So you can grab more GPU or more CPU performance depending on your intention. Why not a 800 GPU core with a dual-cpu option.
Almost like a Phenom II X2 + a Radeon 4850. That might be something.
aka. 2 CPU cores - 800 GPU cores 3 CPU cores - 600 GPU cores 4 CPU cores - 400 GPU cores
Not sure about the double core models; but this 3 core is just a bin/fault testing reject with one of the 4 cores busted, and either enough of them had one of the 5 shader clusters bad as well or the total number of these isn't large enough to differentiate the part.
As for putting a bigger GPU on the 2 cores the problem is that it would push their price up; while 2 core chips are only making their way into the lowest end boxes. Also, as slow as he CPU is I'd be worried that with only 2 cores it'd bottle neck an 800 shader GPU.
Closest comparison I can find, really. You can see that Llano does improve in some areas, however in the absence of knowing the system specs, who's to say some of that isn't down to the Radeon cores?
Although AMD has tweaked the A8's cores, the 2.9GHz 3850 performs a lot like a 3.1GHz Athlon II X4. You are getting more performance at a lower clock frequency, but not a lot more.
Adding more shader power won't improve the gaming performance as it would be severely bandwidth starved. The current CPUs are already slightly bottlenecked by it
While this has been suggested before I don't recall seeing 3850 vs. 3650 comparison at same CPU and GPU clockspeed. I know it is possible to lower the CPU multiplier in order to match the CPU portions of the respective chips but I'm not sure whether it's possible to downclock GPU portion of 3850 as well to make it a fair comparison - with nothing but the number of GPU units changed.
This would prove conclusively whether adding more grunt to the GPU portion would be worthwhile.
The dual-cores are coming, their model names will be A4 as opposed to the A8 and A6 that are already out.
It would be cool to see them bump the CPU clockspeed and pair them with the top integrated GPU (6550D) that's in the A8's. Probably keep the TDP at 65W with only 2 cores.
That would be an awesome product (especially at $75 or less) but I think what we're going to get is an even lesser performing GPU than what is in the current models.
It'll be a shame. As said before, a dual core is still powerful enough to run a mid-range graphics card, and Llano's 6xxx series part isn't far off that definition.
A fully clocked 6550D APU along with two CPU cores at 3GHz with a 3.7GHz turbo would be rather nice. Turbo on the 6550D would be even better. ;) However, AMD wouldn't want to render their quad cores worthless.
Exactly, they are just following along with the old model of releasing these things. AMD talks about APU, but the classification of these things starts with CPU performance first.
If you want integrated gaming performance, 4 CPUs isn't really helpful. But more shaders, higher clocked GPU would be.
There should be at least one model with mind blowing GPU and it could easily come at the expense of removing a couple CPU cores.
...however, I suppose we'll get to see what benefit a fourth core can provide for Llano. Having said that, it's not difficult to test by disabling the fourth core on an A8.
A triple-core CPU with discrete-level graphics for under $100 is rather nice, whichever way you look at it. Would it be easy to unlock or overclock, I wonder?
Just look at existing benchmarks comparing Athlon II X4 vs Athlon II X3.
The CPUs in Llano are essentially the same. Anand proved this in the initial A8-3850 review comparing it to the Athlon II X4 at the same clockspeed and getting basically the same benchmark results
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
25 Comments
Back to Article
BSMonitor - Wednesday, August 17, 2011 - link
Although the CPU performance on these is so pitiful, one probably wouldn't notice the lack of one of the CPU cores. Esp. at 2.1GHz...Really? 2.1GHz?
Since we are talking budget, why aren't their dual or triple cores, with boosted GPU cores and higher clock speeds. Take the 100W with 4 CPU cores and shift it towards the GPU side. So you can grab more GPU or more CPU performance depending on your intention. Why not a 800 GPU core with a dual-cpu option.
Almost like a Phenom II X2 + a Radeon 4850. That might be something.
aka.
2 CPU cores - 800 GPU cores
3 CPU cores - 600 GPU cores
4 CPU cores - 400 GPU cores
Instead, you have 5 options all mediocre.
DanNeely - Wednesday, August 17, 2011 - link
Not sure about the double core models; but this 3 core is just a bin/fault testing reject with one of the 4 cores busted, and either enough of them had one of the 5 shader clusters bad as well or the total number of these isn't large enough to differentiate the part.As for putting a bigger GPU on the 2 cores the problem is that it would push their price up; while 2 core chips are only making their way into the lowest end boxes. Also, as slow as he CPU is I'd be worried that with only 2 cores it'd bottle neck an 800 shader GPU.
BSMonitor - Wednesday, August 17, 2011 - link
Hence the comment about Radeon 4850. Radeon 4850's are 800 shader GPUs and the Core 2 Duo were the primary gaming CPU's of that time.Most pre-DX11 games will run well 1920x1200 with a 4850 and a dual-core CPU.
DanNeely - Wednesday, August 17, 2011 - link
I thought the llano core was significantly slower than a core2 though.Taft12 - Wednesday, August 17, 2011 - link
The llano core *IS* the Athlon II core for all intents and purposes.In the same ballpark as Core 2 for the most part.
MrSpadge - Wednesday, August 17, 2011 - link
Figure 10 - 20% slower, clock for clock, depending on model.Roland00Address - Wednesday, August 17, 2011 - link
Athlon IIx2 3.1 ghz 2mb l2 cache vsCore 2 Duo E8500 3.1 ghz 6mb l2 cache
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/55?vs=121
JHBoricua - Wednesday, August 17, 2011 - link
There's already numbers for the Llano cores.AMD A8-3850 - 2.9GHz - 4MB L2 cache vs
Core 2 Duo E8500 3.1 ghz 6mb l2 cache
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/55?vs=399
silverblue - Thursday, August 18, 2011 - link
Ouch. Cache REALLY matters.maroon1 - Saturday, August 20, 2011 - link
And you are comparing Quad core Llano to Core 2 DuoWhy not compare Llano dual core to core 2 duo ?
JHBoricua - Wednesday, August 17, 2011 - link
Actually, it's more of a Phenom II core for all intents and purposes, not an Athlon II.silverblue - Thursday, August 18, 2011 - link
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/85?vs=403Closest comparison I can find, really. You can see that Llano does improve in some areas, however in the absence of knowing the system specs, who's to say some of that isn't down to the Radeon cores?
Taft12 - Thursday, August 18, 2011 - link
Phenom? But there's no L3 cache on a Llano.Here's the bit where Anand figures Athlon II and Llano are quite in line:
http://www.anandtech.com/show/4476/amd-a83850-revi...
Although AMD has tweaked the A8's cores, the 2.9GHz 3850 performs a lot like a 3.1GHz Athlon II X4. You are getting more performance at a lower clock frequency, but not a lot more.
zebrax2 - Wednesday, August 17, 2011 - link
Adding more shader power won't improve the gaming performance as it would be severely bandwidth starved. The current CPUs are already slightly bottlenecked by itArnulf - Thursday, August 18, 2011 - link
While this has been suggested before I don't recall seeing 3850 vs. 3650 comparison at same CPU and GPU clockspeed. I know it is possible to lower the CPU multiplier in order to match the CPU portions of the respective chips but I'm not sure whether it's possible to downclock GPU portion of 3850 as well to make it a fair comparison - with nothing but the number of GPU units changed.This would prove conclusively whether adding more grunt to the GPU portion would be worthwhile.
Taft12 - Wednesday, August 17, 2011 - link
The dual-cores are coming, their model names will be A4 as opposed to the A8 and A6 that are already out.It would be cool to see them bump the CPU clockspeed and pair them with the top integrated GPU (6550D) that's in the A8's. Probably keep the TDP at 65W with only 2 cores.
That would be an awesome product (especially at $75 or less) but I think what we're going to get is an even lesser performing GPU than what is in the current models.
silverblue - Thursday, August 18, 2011 - link
It'll be a shame. As said before, a dual core is still powerful enough to run a mid-range graphics card, and Llano's 6xxx series part isn't far off that definition.A fully clocked 6550D APU along with two CPU cores at 3GHz with a 3.7GHz turbo would be rather nice. Turbo on the 6550D would be even better. ;) However, AMD wouldn't want to render their quad cores worthless.
BSMonitor - Thursday, August 18, 2011 - link
Exactly, they are just following along with the old model of releasing these things. AMD talks about APU, but the classification of these things starts with CPU performance first.If you want integrated gaming performance, 4 CPUs isn't really helpful. But more shaders, higher clocked GPU would be.
There should be at least one model with mind blowing GPU and it could easily come at the expense of removing a couple CPU cores.
silverblue - Wednesday, August 17, 2011 - link
...however, I suppose we'll get to see what benefit a fourth core can provide for Llano. Having said that, it's not difficult to test by disabling the fourth core on an A8.A triple-core CPU with discrete-level graphics for under $100 is rather nice, whichever way you look at it. Would it be easy to unlock or overclock, I wonder?
Taft12 - Wednesday, August 17, 2011 - link
Just look at existing benchmarks comparing Athlon II X4 vs Athlon II X3.The CPUs in Llano are essentially the same. Anand proved this in the initial A8-3850 review comparing it to the Athlon II X4 at the same clockspeed and getting basically the same benchmark results
kenyee - Wednesday, August 17, 2011 - link
The 65W TDP would be nice for HTPC usage and even 3D Bluray doesn't really push the A8-3850 to its limits.What happened to the A8-3800???
silverblue - Thursday, August 18, 2011 - link
The turbo versions do seem to be lagging behind, don't they?For HTPC usage, they're not a bad idea. In the following link, the 3800 (with turbo) uses less power playing 1080p video than an i3-2100:
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/amd-a...
Llano does make more sense as a mobile solution (the aggressive turbo would be helpful) but there's no reason why you couldn't set up one in an HTPC.
jabber - Thursday, August 18, 2011 - link
After all they will just be used for pushing The Sims for the kids on mum and dads laptop/PC.Whats not to like?
zondas30 - Thursday, August 18, 2011 - link
I.m better off by buying i3 2100 and add'ing my old ati hd3870 to system then getin'g one of those amd cpu's, it would be alot cheaper...zondas30 - Thursday, August 18, 2011 - link
besides, all i need is cpu and not some kind of a freekazoid apu that cant eaven handle basick gaming...