# AMD A-Series APU Smashes IGP Performance Records...Surprise



## btarunr (Jun 13, 2011)

Armed with a Radeon HD 6550D graphics core that has 400 stream processors, 8 ROPs, and full DirectX 11 support, AMD A-Series "Llano" accelerated processing unit (APU) was tested to be the fastest integrated graphics solution to date. The tests was run by a forum-member of TweakTown community with early access to engineering samples. On the test-bed was AMD A8-3850 APU, which has four x86-64 cores clocked at 2.90 GHz, and the Radeon HD 6550D IGP with engine clock of 600 MHz. Standard dual-channel DDR3-1333 MHz memory was used, even though the APU supports faster DDR3-1866 MHz. To seat the test bed, Gigabyte A75M-UD2H was used. It's important to note here that the CPU cores were overclocked to 3.773 GHz (145.13 MHz x 26.0), with an insane core voltage of 1.52V.

The setup was put though three generations of 3DMark benchmark, covering DirectX 9.0c, DirectX 10, and DirectX 11 performance. In 3DMark 06, the setup scores 10,492 points. In 3DMark Vantage, it scored P6160 (performance preset, validation). In 3DMark 11, it scored P1591 (performance preset, validation). More details can be read in the screenshots. 



 

 

 

 



*View at TechPowerUp Main Site*


----------



## link2009 (Jun 13, 2011)

This looks really good for AMD. I have a feeling all of their new APUs are going to perform as well as they've had us believe. Go Green team!


----------



## WhiteLotus (Jun 13, 2011)

Yea these apus are going to bring in the money. I can see these being put into small HTPC's and laptops.


----------



## AndreiD (Jun 13, 2011)

Any laptop with a decent graphic part with 4~5h battery life is going to sell well. AMD is going to sell these like hot donuts!


----------



## legends84 (Jun 13, 2011)

DO WANT!!!!!!!


----------



## RejZoR (Jun 13, 2011)

It's really time for AMD to start getting some attention by using the purchase they made some time ago (aka ATI). And for them to start chewing off Intel's piece of pie. If not anything else it will force Intel to start improving their crappy GMA stuff or to lower the prices. Which is all good for us end users.


----------



## Hustler (Jun 13, 2011)

Holy Shit!!!!!

My Phenom II 955 @3.8Ghz with a 1Gb Radeon 4850 only gets 13450 in 3dMark 2006.....


----------



## Nesters (Jun 13, 2011)

3d mark score seems to be around hd3870 level.

I just want to see how CPU side compares to Athlon/Phenom. I really hope that even without L3 cache, it's at least a bit of improvement over Athlon.


----------



## GSquadron (Jun 13, 2011)

@hustler
What do you mean by that? You get double the points


----------



## Over_Lord (Jun 13, 2011)

I don't care about overclocking, I can't wait for this to hit 599$ laptops. Eat foot those lowly GT540M rip-off laptops priced 799$ above.


----------



## Frick (Jun 13, 2011)

Aleksander Dishnica said:


> @hustler
> What do you mean by that? You get double the points



Whut? No, he gets 3000 more.

Will test 3dmark06 here and see what it brings me.



thunderising said:


> I don't care about overclocking, I can't wait for this to hit 599$ laptops. Eat foot those lowly GT540M rip-off laptops priced 799$ above.



Well it depends entirely on what you want from a laptop imo. If I was shopping for one I would definitely look more on build quailty, monitor and battery life over graphics performance.


----------



## Nesters (Jun 13, 2011)

Frick said:


> Whut? No, he gets 3000 more.
> 
> Will test 3dmark06 here and see what it brings me.



Substract CPU score (5,5k probably) and you get double GPU score.


----------



## Hustler (Jun 13, 2011)

Aleksander Dishnica said:


> @hustler
> What do you mean by that? You get double the points



I meant thats pretty amazing performance for an IGP.....only 20-30% slower than a high end 2008/2009 dedicated GPU.

Good job Battlefield 3 has given me the incentive to upgrade in september, as until now, i didnt see the point with all the crappy console port Gfx engines being used in PC games, as my rig was more than adequate..


----------



## Shihab (Jun 13, 2011)

The thing that intrigues me is the thermal output of those APUs.
Wouldn't stuffing both the CPU and the GPU in the same die lower the OC roof because of the extra heat generated compared to _normal_ CPUs ?

Another question: Why would they stuff an entry level GPU in a high end CPU ? I thought anyone who buys a CPU with more than 2 cores wouldn't go for anything less than a mainstream lvl discreet graphics card. so why bother ?


----------



## Hustler (Jun 13, 2011)

Shihabyooo said:


> Another question: Why would they stuff an entry level GPU in a high end CPU ? I thought anyone who buys a CPU with more than 2 cores wouldn't go for anything less than a mainstream lvl discreet graphics card. so why bother ?



Llano isnt the high end CPU, Bulldozer is (will be).....and that sort of Gfx performance combined with a Quad Core CPU is pretty damn impressive, and will be more than adequate for the vast majority of people looking for a mid range laptop, business Pc, or cheap home Pc.

I think AMD are onto a winner here.....


----------



## Sihastru (Jun 13, 2011)

Looks OK-ish, unfortunately it's probably a suicide run (probably) on water at more then 1.5V... not very indicative of the retail product. I don't want to know the TDP at the time of testing...

I'm more interested in the CPU part of the APU, if that's not competitive, it could have a gazillion SP's on the integrated GPU and still *not* sell. AMD always had a better integrated GPU then Intel, and still their CPU's did *not* sell as hot cakes.

And judging by the intensity their marketing department up-talks the GPU part, their CPU part looks like *a flop*. Because a "balanced" APU is not just about the GPU.


----------



## jpierce55 (Jun 13, 2011)

I certainly have to agree it looks like a winner!


----------



## Thatguy (Jun 13, 2011)

Sihastru said:


> Looks OK-ish, unfortunately it's probably a suicide run (probably) on water at more then 1.5V... not very indicative of the retail product. I don't want to know the TDP at the time of testing...
> 
> I'm more interested in the CPU part of the APU, if that's not competitive, it could have a gazillion SP's on the integrated GPU and still *not* sell. AMD always had a better integrated GPU then Intel, and still their CPU's did *not* sell as hot cakes.
> 
> And judging by the intensity their marketing department up-talks the GPU part, their CPU part looks like *a flop*. Because a "balanced" APU is not just about the GPU.




   Heres where you off balanace, users judge computer speed by the interactivity of the GUI and how it responds to user requests. given the way these chips can handily accelerate many of the new gui's, this should be a pretty big seller. Even better is the fact that these chips also support opencl. Once opencl gets more adoption for things like transcoding, the cpu power will become less relevant. 

  the benefits to laptop/oems is going to be lower parts counts and cheaper boards not to mention lower power requirements. this is a win/win for many market segments. AMD is planning for a bulldozer APU in 2012 and I have a feeling they are going to move to all bulldozer cores at some point. They do have some super low wattage apu's for tablets etc to. AMD is right where they need to be to make a strong comeback in the high volume OEM market, which will lead to better enthuasist market parts. 

  Not to mention that even if they doubled the cpu performance, it might or likly won't equal a doubling in computer performance as x86 cores aren't really good at heavy lifting. I told everybody months ago that AMD had a winner with these designs and look at the fact that they are flat out on production on these with massive orders, I think I am correct on this. Hopefully we see them really ramping production and we see the market become a bit less intel dominated. Nothing could be better for the consumer then intel being the underdog for a while and having to play catchup.


----------



## btarunr (Jun 13, 2011)

A8-3850's stock TDP is 100W.


----------



## ensabrenoir (Jun 13, 2011)

Hustler said:


> Llano isnt the high end CPU, Bulldozer is (will be).....and that sort of Gfx performance combined with a Quad Core CPU is pretty damn impressive, and will be more than adequate for the vast majority of people looking for a mid range laptop, business Pc, or cheap home Pc.
> 
> I think AMD are onto a winner here.....



True this is looking like a home run and cashcow for the prebuilt line.   Amd is doing well 2 please its customer base.  I think they won't. Release bulldozer until its in  sandy bridge's performance zipcode.


----------



## Thatguy (Jun 13, 2011)

ensabrenoir said:


> True this is looking like a home run and cash. for the prebuilt line.   Amd is doing well 2 please its customer base.  I think they won't. Release bulldozer until its in  sandy bridge's performance zipcode.



I think they are overwhelmed with order for APU's. shipping 500K in the first run is a pretty big strain on there fab house. I think the bigger issue they have right now it FAB output.


----------



## yogurt_21 (Jun 13, 2011)

3d11 scores are impressive for and igp.


----------



## Over_Lord (Jun 13, 2011)

Frick said:


> Whut? No, he gets 3000 more.
> 
> Will test 3dmark06 here and see what it brings me.
> 
> ...



I'm thinking if a Dell Inspiron or XPS comes with Llano, it will have all those features.

Best would be light, because of the low TDP, leading to lower capacity lighter battery...

ANd LLano laptops will be cheaper, so it's a win-win.

It seems to be more than enough for 1366x768 gaming, so I'm cool!


----------



## Jstn7477 (Jun 13, 2011)

My Mobility Radeon HD 5650 + PII X4 X920 mobile does pretty well for me at 1366*768, so if that IGP has enough memory bandwith, it should be a winner.


----------



## Bjorn_Of_Iceland (Jun 13, 2011)

Wow.. Back when I had a core2duo @ 3.8ghz and an 8800GT @ stock, it was hitting 10k on the 3dmark06!


----------



## inferKNOX (Jun 13, 2011)

If the APU is doing so well, I can't wait for see Zambezi in action!


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Jun 13, 2011)

Its amazing. This is the future of computers.


----------



## Thassodar (Jun 13, 2011)

TheMailMan78 said:


> Its amazing. This is the future of computers.



I have to take a screenshot of this:

TheMailMan78 saying something POSITIVE for once. The end is nigh puny mortals, for this is surely a sign of the Apocalypse.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Jun 13, 2011)

Thassodar said:


> I have to take a screenshot of this:
> 
> TheMailMan78 saying something POSITIVE for once. The end is nigh puny mortals, for this is surely a sign of the Apocalypse.



I say postive things all the time. Your just new.


----------



## dir_d (Jun 13, 2011)

TheMailMan78 said:


> I say postive things all the time. Your just new.



if all the time is every 6 months then yea you do say positive things all the time


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Jun 13, 2011)

dir_d said:


> if all the time is every 6 months then yea you do say positive things all the time



I can't help my superior intellect is wasted upon the masses. It over flows with levels of win that cannot be comprehended with the force of one thousand suns.


----------



## dj-electric (Jun 13, 2011)

That performance level is somewhat weird, its not HTPC but not gamer. somewhere in the middle
but i have to say, im a bit suprised from the scores, they are even higher then i expected


----------



## beautyless (Jun 13, 2011)

HD 5570 TDP avg = 35w 
AMD Phenom II 925 @ 2.8GHz = 95w.
AMD 890FX Northbridge Chipset = 18w.
AMD SB850 Southbridge Chipset = 4w.
Total = 152w.

AMD A8-3850 APU = 100w.
AMD Hudson D3 = ??w
Total = 1xx w.

many of desktop fusion processors tdp are stay at 65w. 
and notbook part tdp is 35 - 45w.

And don't forget that fusion processors physical are smaller than PhenomII + First chipset + Second chipset + Graphic card + Video memory. 
It's cut Graphic card, Videos memory and second chipset while performance still close neck to neck.

And today IGP is far slower than fusion graphics.

The only possible platform that closer in overall performance to Llano is Intel sandy bridge with HD 3000 graphics with some optimization.


----------



## lashton (Jun 13, 2011)

Sihastru said:


> Looks OK-ish, unfortunately it's probably a suicide run (probably) on water at more then 1.5V... not very indicative of the retail product. I don't want to know the TDP at the time of testing...
> 
> I'm more interested in the CPU part of the APU, if that's not competitive, it could have a gazillion SP's on the integrated GPU and still *not* sell. AMD always had a better integrated GPU then Intel, and still their CPU's did *not* sell as hot cakes.
> 
> And judging by the intensity their marketing department up-talks the GPU part, their CPU part looks like *a flop*. Because a "balanced" APU is not just about the GPU.



where have you been hiding thier Phenom II and Athlon II Range have been massive retail performers for them! lets face it and people forget the Phenom II line is 2 generations behind Intel right now


----------



## NC37 (Jun 13, 2011)

Thatguy said:


> Heres where you off balanace, users judge computer speed by the interactivity of the GUI and how it responds to user requests. given the way these chips can handily accelerate many of the new gui's, this should be a pretty big seller. Even better is the fact that these chips also support opencl. Once opencl gets more adoption for things like transcoding, the cpu power will become less relevant.
> 
> the benefits to laptop/oems is going to be lower parts counts and cheaper boards not to mention lower power requirements. this is a win/win for many market segments. AMD is planning for a bulldozer APU in 2012 and I have a feeling they are going to move to all bulldozer cores at some point. They do have some super low wattage apu's for tablets etc to. AMD is right where they need to be to make a strong comeback in the high volume OEM market, which will lead to better enthuasist market parts.
> 
> Not to mention that even if they doubled the cpu performance, it might or likly won't equal a doubling in computer performance as x86 cores aren't really good at heavy lifting. I told everybody months ago that AMD had a winner with these designs and look at the fact that they are flat out on production on these with massive orders, I think I am correct on this. Hopefully we see them really ramping production and we see the market become a bit less intel dominated. Nothing could be better for the consumer then intel being the underdog for a while and having to play catchup.



Aye I told people months back too that these would blow away Intel's new SB offerings on the GPU side. Most of them Mac users all horny for SB. Totally wouldn't believe me.

Man I love it when these "I told you so" moments happen.


----------



## meran (Jun 13, 2011)

seems impressive ,lets hope  laptop vendors don't couple it with 1066 ddr3


----------



## Imsochobo (Jun 13, 2011)

NC37 said:


> Aye I told people months back too that these would blow away Intel's new SB offerings on the GPU side. Most of them Mac users all horny for SB. Totally wouldn't believe me.
> 
> Man I love it when these "I told you so" moments happen.



I imagine 28NM will be good for theese, they'll increase memory speed.
Increase cpu speed.
Keep gpu somwhat the same

My guess, just getting the gpu in was the hard part, but they have loads of shaderpower for an APU to be, just need tiny bit more clocks and memory bandwidth.


----------



## beautyless (Jun 13, 2011)

For comparing
ATI HD 5570 DDR5 default speed + i5 2500@3.3Ghz.


 

 
Source


----------



## dj-electric (Jun 13, 2011)

Im sorry but there is not tini tiny chance that HD5570 can get 8373GPU on 3DMARK V thats seems impossible even with overclocking for this graphics card. i remember that HD4870 and GTX260 192SP were getting those kind of scores


----------



## devguy (Jun 13, 2011)

meran said:


> seems impressive ,lets hope  laptop vendors don't couple it with 1066 ddr3



They won't.  It'll be coupled with DDR3-800 with CAS 7.

But I wanna see someone put some DDR3-1866 CAS 6 on these desktop babies!


----------



## crazyeyesreaper (Jun 13, 2011)

hmm from the looks of the 3dmark 06 and Vantage benchs above,

the IGP on the Fusion chip is roughly equal to 8800gt / 9800gt  4830 / 4850 / 4770

Roughly in 3dmark 06 the Fusion chip beats out most of the reviewed DX10 gpus
in 3dmark Vantage it proves its capable of matching said gpus as well when comparing gpu scores directly

http://www.bjorn3d.com/read.php?cID=1376&pageID=5538

from the looks this should greatly help in terms of the lowest common denominator in PC gaming, as it essentiall means anyone running an AMD fusion rig is getting a decent CPU + 8800gt performance.
THe below graphs are with said gpus + AMD X3 8750 triple core, so performance looks to be like having an athlon II series + 8800 or 4800 series gpu


----------



## Frizz (Jun 13, 2011)

Hmm imagine how many mobile devices would want this tech. I am very impressed with the results and glad that I am holding out to buy a laptop.


----------



## crazyeyesreaper (Jun 13, 2011)

Im glad because DELL , HP etc cant fuck these things up discrete gpus you can water down by tadaa going to IGP, but the fact you can now get a quadcore + 8800gt performance this helps the PC Gaming markets bottom line on hardware it essentially means the cheapest PC you can possible make is more powerful then a console, and developers will know it lol, This should lift the bottom end up a bit in the coming year and offer a better outlook for gaming capable PCs since consoles are expected to remain the same for another 2 years. so these CPUs are great for 720p console ports


----------



## ap4lifetn (Jun 13, 2011)

when is this supposed to be released?

i want one for my htpc


----------



## Nesters (Jun 14, 2011)

crazyeyesreaper said:


> the IGP on the Fusion chip is roughly equal to 8800gt / 9800gt 4830 / 4850 / 4770



There's something wrong with your estimates. 

higher clocked 640+ shader cores discrete would definitely be faster than 400 shader core iGPU.
From graphs i looked at i can say that iGPU is around HD38(50/70) performance level(400 vs 320 cores, 600 vs 668/775 Mhz).



ap4lifetn said:


> when is this supposed to be released?
> 
> i want one for my htpc



Released in June, available in 1st half of July?


----------



## crazyeyesreaper (Jun 14, 2011)

hmm architectural improvements, better designs, um a newer cpu thats not a dual core pushing it, better Ram standards. and the GPU score dosent lie, at least in comparable tests in 3dmark 06 and Vantage, its the same. dont nit pick on it, its a regular review vs a leak, but i would honestly expect a more optimized architecture in the chip compared to what we saw back then your also looking at 65nm and 55nm gpus vs 40nm or 32nm or w.e hmm that could account for some changes as well. 

then again the CPU in the APU package is also much better then the Triple Core Phenom I based x3 8750, and since 3dmark tends to give the CPU more weight then games it could account for the difference but that said it wouldnt impact the GPU only scores and in those situations the GPU here compares favorable to older tech, but again were comparing 5 year old 8800 series vs IGP theres been advances in technology, simple shader vs shader doesnt really mean squat, as AMD changed the schedular and bunch of other aspects with the 6000 series architecture, and made tweaks. Granted we will have to wait for actual reviews but then again these dont scream fake either and no ones debunked them yet with simple logic. so Ill take it with a grain of salt and stand by my post that it brings the performance it should,

and for all the awesomeness of a 4850 its still only 25% faster then a 3870 while having double the specs so yea. care to elaborate why double the specs didnt double performance hmm?

From looks of the graph below the GPU in the APU is around 4830 performance well what do you know a 4830 is only around 10-12% better then a 3870 hmm all things considered this would appear to be believable, So yea comparing multi reviews around the web and those right here on TPU it would appear to me that the APU performs right where it should for the specs it has. granted it WILL lose at higher resolutions but im willing to bet at 1280x720 1280x1024 1440x900 this APU will be right at home.


----------



## Heavy_MG (Jun 14, 2011)

crazyeyesreaper said:


> Im glad because DELL , HP etc cant fuck these things up discrete gpus you can water down by tadaa going to IGP, but the fact you can now get a quadcore + 8800gt performance this helps the PC Gaming markets bottom line on hardware it essentially means the cheapest PC you can possible make is more powerful then a console, and developers will know it lol, This should lift the bottom end up a bit in the coming year and offer a better outlook for gaming capable PCs since consoles are expected to remain the same for another 2 years. so these CPUs are great for 720p console ports


I wouldn't be surprised if HP or Dell screwed with it in one way,such as underclocking the GPU in the mobile Llano so they can go cheap on cooling.



devguy said:


> They won't.  It'll be coupled with DDR3-800 with CAS 7.
> 
> But I wanna see someone put some DDR3-1866 CAS 6 on these desktop babies!


Only DDR3-800? 



Imsochobo said:


> I imagine 28NM will be good for theese, they'll increase memory speed.
> Increase cpu speed.
> Keep gpu somwhat the same
> 
> My guess, just getting the gpu in was the hard part, but they have loads of shaderpower for an APU to be, just need tiny bit more clocks and memory bandwidth.


AMD is going to make Bulldozer cores a part of Llano in 2012 for the "Trinity" APU. Maybe it will be a 28nm chip?
The GPU must have been the hard part,because there is no L3 cache.


----------



## Trackr (Jun 14, 2011)

This is great.. for people who are allergic to graphics cards..

To me it seems like having two perfectly good baskets, and then placing all your eggs in one of them. 

Even to OEMs.. does it matter if you have a CPU and a Graphics Card instead of a CPU that has a GPU inside of it?

It's actually worse, because the user would have to replace both the CPU and GPU if one of them died, since they are in the same package.


I think that instead of creating more powerful Integrated GPUs, for the "We don't know what a graphics card is" crowd..

You should educate people that a graphics card is better.


----------



## Steevo (Jun 14, 2011)

There is one missing here.













































Will it run Crysis?



Everyone who is hating on it needs to remember that he was running lower speed RAM, and that bandwidth is shared with the GPU on the die, so as much as we need fast GDDR5 memory on newer cards to prevent idling, this needs it more as it is feeding four cores, and a GPU on relatively slow RAM. 

And as mentioned above, the lack of cache on the chip means a huge performance penalty when either the CPU or GPU is demanding bandwidth. I'm sure with another die shrink or a respin they will find a way to add some dedicated or shared memory on die to improve performance.


This is exciting, I can see one of these running crossfire where the CPU/GPU runs physics and uses the actual processing capability of the system correctly, two of them and accelerated openCL video editing and you have a hell of a workstation. Or when they add them to the bulldozer even with minor gains in IPC if they can get openCL rolling......


----------



## f22a4bandit (Jun 14, 2011)

Trackr said:


> This is great.. for people who are allergic to graphics cards..
> 
> To me it seems like having two perfectly good baskets, and then placing all your eggs in one of them.
> 
> ...



Except that most people don't care what's in their computer as long as it works. This saves OEMs money on their bottom line, which is about as far as they care. It's a smart move by AMD, especially since these APUs will provide stellar performance in the tablet market, which is where everything is moving.


----------



## DrunkenMafia (Jun 14, 2011)

WOW!!  I wasn't expecting anywhere near that performance from an IGP.  You could play even the latest games with that performance.


----------



## 1Kurgan1 (Jun 14, 2011)

Yeah, thats mighty impressive, I remember seeing 10k scores on ATI 4870's, this is pretty crazy.


----------



## rangerone766 (Jun 14, 2011)

what about dual socketed MB's,and x-fire the cpu's is it possible?

but excited to see these performing so well.


----------



## scazbala86 (Jun 14, 2011)

Trackr said:


> This is great.. for people who are allergic to graphics cards..
> 
> To me it seems like having two perfectly good baskets, and then placing all your eggs in one of them.
> 
> ...



You have to remember,it cost more to have them separate, it takes more power to have them separate. While I agree having a discrete graphics card is better for enthusiasts and gamers, we are the minority of computer users. This will save money for OEMs and people who buy pre-built computers, which is just about everyone, allowing them to do alot more with a computer that costs alot less. Think about the applications for this in the mobile market, getting a laptop with even the lowest end discrete graphics card cost at least $100 more than a similarly configured laptop without the discrete card. Now everyone can get discrete level performance for less while using less battery power as well. AMD has created the perfect solution for almost everyone. Consider yourself educated about how, while yes graphics cards are better, chips like these are better for the majority of users.


----------



## sparkyar (Jun 14, 2011)

1.52v to reach 3.77ghz
thats too much voltaje for less than 3.8ghz


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Jun 14, 2011)

sparkyar said:


> 1.52v to reach 3.77ghz
> thats too much voltaje for less than 3.8ghz



You need a new board man.


----------



## MikeMurphy (Jun 14, 2011)

If anyone bothers to read the source they will quickly realize that the story is not reported correctly.

GPU was overclocked, from 600mhz to 870mhz.  
Memory at 2320mhz, not 1333mhz.

So, 10,492 in 3dMark06 overclocked
and, 7,650 in 3dMark06 with stock CPU and GPU

"here is my setting
CPU: AMD APU A8-8350 @3.77GHz aircooling
MB: Gigabyte A75M-UD2H
DDR OC 2320MHz
FSB: 145 MHz ( Stock is 100MHz, oc 45%)
iGPU: 870 MHz, (stock is 600 MHz)"

Impressive nonetheless, but lets get this reported correctly.


----------



## Thatguy (Jun 14, 2011)

f22a4bandit said:


> Except that most people don't care what's in their computer as long as it works. This saves OEMs money on their bottom line, which is about as far as they care. It's a smart move by AMD, especially since these APUs will provide stellar performance in the tablet market, which is where everything is moving.



The market isn't moving, its just getting bigger.


----------



## bostonbuddy (Jun 14, 2011)

def would make for a nice htpc


----------



## Trackr (Jun 14, 2011)

f22a4bandit said:


> Except that most people don't care what's in their computer as long as it works. This saves OEMs money on their bottom line, which is about as far as they care. It's a smart move by AMD, especially since these APUs will provide stellar performance in the tablet market, which is where everything is moving.





scazbala86 said:


> You have to remember,it cost more to have them separate, it takes more power to have them separate. While I agree having a discrete graphics card is better for enthusiasts and gamers, we are the minority of computer users. This will save money for OEMs and people who buy pre-built computers, which is just about everyone, allowing them to do alot more with a computer that costs alot less. Think about the applications for this in the mobile market, getting a laptop with even the lowest end discrete graphics card cost at least $100 more than a similarly configured laptop without the discrete card. Now everyone can get discrete level performance for less while using less battery power as well. AMD has created the perfect solution for almost everyone. Consider yourself educated about how, while yes graphics cards are better, chips like these are better for the majority of users.



Here are my thoughts:

1.) I don't think it will cost more. An HD 6550-equivalent card costs less than 50$.
2.) You're sacrificing CPU performance with an AMD CPU.
3.) I don't see how it will take less power. They just placed the GPU inside the CPU.

The ONLY positive thing that I can think of in regards to this, is that in a laptop, it's easier to work with one chip.

I also really don't think this will fit in a tablet.


----------



## xBruce88x (Jun 14, 2011)

ok now i know i need a new gfx card whan an igp is faster than what's in my desktop.

Can't wait to start seeing these in laptops!


----------



## Jonap_1st (Jun 14, 2011)

MikeMurphy said:


> If anyone bothers to read the source they will quickly realize that the story is not reported correctly.
> 
> GPU was overclocked, from 600mhz to 870mhz.
> Memory at 2320mhz, not 1333mhz.
> ...



yeah, you're right..
maybe this means if you overclock the cpu, the gpu itself will get overclocked as well..

btw, looking at the temp. it got nothing higher than 40C,
thats very impressive consider it has been overclocked 20% more than stock speed with just aircooling,,


----------



## wiak (Jun 14, 2011)

http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/a8-3500m-llano-apu,review-32207.html
http://pcper.com/reviews/Processors/AMD-Series-Llano-APU-Sabine-Notebook-Platform-Review


----------



## Delta6326 (Jun 14, 2011)

well thats sweet. Any idea when we will see these in laptops? as im looking to buy a new one.


----------



## Thatguy (Jun 14, 2011)

Trackr said:


> Here are my thoughts:
> 
> 1.) I don't think it will cost more. An HD 6550-equivalent card costs less than 50$.
> 2.) You're sacrificing CPU performance with an AMD CPU.
> ...



Does intel/nvidia sign the front of your check ?


1.) how many chips can you yield out of one wafer ?
2.) yeah so much CPU performance "seriously?" yeah its not a gapping chasm. 
3.) just becuase your ignorant, doesn't make it less true. 


 to adress 1. Packaging, boards,chipsets,engineering, etc. All add costs. If the gpu is in the cpu package, its nearly fucking free minus the cost of the silicone.

 2. sure intel beat amd in some benchmarks, ones where very shallow pipelined shitty applications don't really use the cpu to its full extent. When things get heavy on workload, those disparity become far less obvious. Please STFU

3.yes it uses less power, less vrm's, less resistors, less outboard support hardware, less traces on the board disapating power. Yeah it uses alot less power actually. 

  So to sum it up, your just ignorant.


----------



## Thatguy (Jun 14, 2011)

Delta6326 said:


> well thats sweet. Any idea when we will see these in laptops? as im looking to buy a new one.



I would think by august at the worst.


----------



## Funtoss (Jun 14, 2011)

Wow! amazing i gotta get me one!


----------



## rem82 (Jun 14, 2011)

Desktop and mobile Llanos IGP (6550 & 6620)  make* HYBRID CROSSFIRE* with discrete *ΑΜD ΗD 6670, 6570, 6770M +++++* !!! 
That is impressive because one small & cheap GPU with Llanos IGP together in crossfire, make a big graphics performance !! 

*HYBRID CROSSFIRE is DEFFERENT crossfire *!!!! -->
You can see this video for hybrid crossfire in old AM3 socket ! 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D0hYMzIFfMU

For laptops


----------



## Frick (Jun 14, 2011)

Thatguy said:


> Does intel/nvidia sign the front of your check ?
> 
> 
> 1.) how many chips can you yield out of one wafer ?
> ...



2. It still is true that Intel CPU's are faster. Pick you benchmark, and in pretty much every single one Intel will be faster. They are also more expensive, so it does not really matter. You get what you pay for, as always. If I was a mean person I would ask if AMD pay your paycheks. But that is a comment that is pretty much the opposite of constructive.

3. Do we have any power numbers BTW?


----------



## Heavy_MG (Jun 14, 2011)

Frick said:


> 2. It still is true that Intel CPU's are faster. Pick you benchmark, and in pretty much every single one Intel will be faster. They are also more expensive, so it does not really matter. You get what you pay for, as always. If I was a mean person I would ask if AMD pay your paycheks. But that is a comment that is pretty much the opposite of constructive.
> 
> 3. Do we have any power numbers BTW?


Of course the Intel is faster in a benchmark,many benchmarks are optimized  for a Intel processor. Also,the SB chip has hardware optimizations to boost benchmark scores that the AMD Llano does not.
In day to day usage ( which is what Llano is made for) most users don't care,they will see that the GPU runs programs better than the Intel "HD" graphics.
Check out the mobile power use here- http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/a8-3500m-llano-apu,review-32207.html
It has better power consumption than the Intel,yet has a better GPU,and still good CPU power.


----------



## rem82 (Jun 14, 2011)

Frick said:


> 2. It still is true that Intel CPU's are faster. Pick you benchmark, and in pretty much every single one Intel will be faster. They are also more expensive, so it does not really matter. You get what you pay for, as always. If I was a mean person I would ask if AMD pay your paycheks. But that is a comment that is pretty much the opposite of constructive.
> 
> 3. Do we have any power numbers BTW?



Llano & sandy are not only cpu !!! They have IGP inside !!!

Τhe total force of processor and graphic card (CPU+IGP = APU) in Lianos  is bigger than the total force of processor and graphic card (igp) in sandy!!!! This is the correct comparison !!


----------



## Jonap_1st (Jun 14, 2011)

rem82 said:


> Desktop and mobile Llanos IGP (6550 & 6620)  make* HYBRID CROSSFIRE* with discrete *ΑΜD ΗD 6670, 6570, 6770M +++++* !!!
> That is impressive because one small & cheap GPU with Llanos IGP together in crossfire, make a big graphics performance !!
> 
> *HYBRID CROSSFIRE is DEFFERENT crossfire *!!!! -->
> ...



now everyone can play crysis with *bling-bling* enabled on their laptops without spending more than $1000..


----------



## Bundy (Jun 14, 2011)

MikeMurphy said:


> If anyone bothers to read the source they will quickly realize that the story is not reported correctly.
> 
> GPU was overclocked, from 600mhz to 870mhz.
> Memory at 2320mhz, not 1333mhz.
> ...



Thanks for bring sanity to the thread. There is little chance that these CPU will be sold OC in a laptop.



Heavy_MG said:


> Of course the Intel is faster in a benchmark,many benchmarks are optimized  for a Intel processor.



What ones are they?


----------



## mixa (Jun 14, 2011)

WOW, wtf performance @_@
This thing is really eating the sh1t out of Intel, seriously.I wonder if you can do Hybrid CF-X with a discreet 66xx/65xx desktop card.....



rem82 said:


> Llano & sandy are not only cpu !!! They have IGP inside !!!
> 
> Τhe total force of processor and graphic card (CPU+IGP = APU) in Lianos  is bigger than the total force of processor and graphic card (igp) in sandy!!!! This is the correct comparison !!



True indeed.
Do we have to mention that Llano can be OCed even in the lower models, where SB simply can't.Another chop off the intel`s cake


----------



## MikeMurphy (Jun 14, 2011)

Lets not get our panties in a twist.

SB has amazing single-threaded performance, far superior to AMD's.  To suggest that this is wrong is ignorant.

AMD offers better pricing on more cores to make up for the deficit, and now much better graphics performance compared to the majority of the SB lineup that sports the lowly HD2000 IGP.

Both solutions are quite competitive in their own way.  

I'm really looking forward the BD refresh of Llano later this year to close the CPU gap (a little).  Until then the overclocking will help against the locked Intel chips of which Llano competes.


----------



## Nesters (Jun 14, 2011)

MikeMurphy said:


> I'm really looking forward the BD refresh of Llano later this year to close the CPU gap (a little). Until then the overclocking will help against the locked Intel chips of which Llano competes.



Is it really coming this year?


----------



## de.das.dude (Jun 14, 2011)

good time to wait to buy a laptop 

man AMD is furious! bulldozer and these!


----------



## Frick (Jun 14, 2011)

Heavy_MG said:


> Of course the Intel is faster in a benchmark,many benchmarks are optimized  for a Intel processor. Also,the SB chip has hardware optimizations to boost benchmark scores that the AMD Llano does not.
> In day to day usage ( which is what Llano is made for) most users don't care,they will see that the GPU runs programs better than the Intel "HD" graphics.
> Check out the mobile power use here- http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/a8-3500m-llano-apu,review-32207.html
> It has better power consumption than the Intel,yet has a better GPU,and still good CPU power.



I thought the point was that Intel is faster. Of course you don't notice anything when playing Farmville and watch Youtube videos, but they are still faster. In real world applications, too, that require a lot of power.

But Llano is not about raw performance anyway, so it's kinda useless to debate it.


----------



## MikeMurphy (Jun 14, 2011)

Nesters said:


> Is it really coming this year?



Maybe!  Or I suppose more likely, Q1 2012.


----------



## Jonap_1st (Jun 14, 2011)

Frick said:


> I thought the point was that Intel is faster. Of course you don't notice anything when playing Farmville and watch Youtube videos, but they are still faster. In real world applications, too, that require a lot of power.
> 
> But Llano is not about raw performance anyway, so it's kinda useless to debate it.



off course SB was a lot of faster in cpu calculation, how many times this should be discussed because we already knew that?

but the problem is that your forgot that this thread headline is about IGP performance not CPU, which SB graphics cant compete with APU.. 

so if you keep talking about raw CPU performance, its kinda useless to debate it here..


----------



## Frick (Jun 14, 2011)

Jonap_1st said:


> off course SB was a lot of faster in cpu calculation, how many times this should be discussed because we already knew that?
> 
> but the problem is that your forgot that this thread headline is about IGP performance not CPU, which SB graphics cant compete with APU..
> 
> so if you keep talking about raw CPU performance, its kinda useless to debate it here..



Totaly agree with you, but the topic did come up and people was saying that the difference wasn't so big it mattered. Which is wrong.


----------



## Jonap_1st (Jun 14, 2011)

Frick said:


> Totaly agree with you, but the topic did come up and people was saying that the difference wasn't so big it mattered. Which is wrong.



hahahaha.. i understand that 

but, i cant discuss about the difference since there is no official benchmark, 
so, lets wait and see...


----------



## faramir (Jun 15, 2011)

scazbala86 said:


> You have to remember,it cost more to have them separate ...



I don't think it does. 3.2 GHz Phenom II is $115 and Radeon HD5670 is $60. According to rumors top of the line Llano that was featured here will be priced at $170 and above combination should easily mop the floor with it (not to mention the loss of whatever memory fGPU would take for its operation, which is avoided when using dGPU with its dedicated memory). 

CPU: AMD Phenom II X4 955 Black Edition Deneb 3.2GHz 4 ...

GPU: HIS H567FO1G Radeon HD 5670 1GB 128-bit DDR3 PCI E...

AMD will have to drop those prices to make this happen, especially considering the fact that there is no upgrade path for people using existing AM3 boards so the buy-in is even higher than just the cost of APU and expensive memory for performance that is lower than a combination of AMD's existing offerings.


----------



## micropage7 (Jun 16, 2011)

i hope it would trigger high performance on handheld or portable device


----------



## Meizuman (Jun 29, 2011)

Hustler said:


> Holy Shit!!!!!
> 
> My Phenom II 955 @3.8Ghz with a 1Gb Radeon 4850 only gets 13450 in 3dMark 2006.....



Just the same thought here! Phenom 9950 @3.2GHz 512Mb HD4850 and it does something like 11-13k with 24/7 settings. I think I'm out of words here.



Trackr said:


> It's actually worse, because the user would have to replace both the CPU and GPU if one of them died, since they are in the same package.



CPU's die kinda rarely (never if not OC'd?). And I am pretty sure that the GPU in it will not die any more probably. With a discrete card, you have much more components on the board that can die so... Thats how I see it.


----------



## Thatguy (Jun 29, 2011)

micropage7 said:


> i hope it would trigger high performance on handheld or portable device



   Look out ARM x86 has a competitor soon.


----------

