Llano Demo

[piesquared]

Not for gaming . They do command the biggest market share with their pitiful IGP however . So they did something right to be the dominate player. I ran that punt back for a score.

Not quite dude. More like you tripped half way down the field and fumbled, but that wasn't entirely unexpected. I don't think anyone in their right mind would defend intel graphics in this day and age.

 

[Nemesis 1]

So who who ever said by todays standards which are set rather low . That I was in my right mind certainly not I. Point is Intel is the market leader by a huge margine If they didn't have that pitiful IGP they wouldn't be in business.

 

[nonameo]

So who who ever said by todays standards which are set rather low . That I was in my right mind certainly not I. Point is Intel is the market leader by a huge margine If they didn't have that pitiful IGP they wouldn't be in business.

I don't know, I'd say they're still in business in spite of the pitiful IGP. Although, looking at the benchmarks, the sandy bridge IGP is not that bad. Then again, this IS IGP we're talking about....

 

[Idontcare]

Not for gaming . They do command the biggest market share with their pitiful IGP however . So they did something right to be the dominate player. I ran that punt back for a score.

The only thing Intel did right with their graphics was price them to be pretty much free provided you were already buying an Intel CPU.

Free is a rather compelling price-point. But it says nothing about the quality or desirability of the product.

Look no further than air-travel for an example of something that people put up with for the sake of lower cost (3" leg room and 8" wide seats) but it certainly doesn't mean I love flying United Airlines just because they have cheap seats.

 

[gdansk]

All this discussion about Llano versus Intel IGP is just pointless. Yes, Intel's IGP are most likely the largest GPU solution out there, but it doesn't mean they've done anything right beside getting their chip-set or CPU into most computers. Its correlation with the quality of their GPU is nearly nil. Of course if it was so bad that Windows was unusable, then it would've. Until recently Intel did "just enough". Beside performance issues, I've had many times more problems with OpenGL on Intel drivers than I ever did ATI or AMD...

Intel Sandy Bridge will have better CPU performance. AMD Llano will have better GPU performance. The power consumption is likely better on SB, but if AMD can get "close enough", they've done their job. Llano, if accepted by OEM, will likely sweep the low end notebook market, with higher end SKUs doing well in the midrange market. Llano is not meant to be an enthusiast part. It will have good enough CPU performance, and adequate GPU performance. It looks as if it can do both, and likely at a cheaper cost than Sandy Bridge. Whether AMD can keep the power consumption down or if Llano is what consumers want will remain to be seen. You don't need this demo to see that an AMD midrange (320 to 480SP) GPU will beat anything Intel has now or will put in IB. It is pretty clear that a quad core K10.5 descendant will not be able to best Sandy Bridge in CPU performance. How much, is the question... and you know what? It is becoming increasingly less important in mainstream and midrange computers, especially as notebooks eclipse desktops.

Also, I'm pretty sure the FCH A70M chip-set is for mobile units, and the name "MX" on the APU is also for mobile components. So a comparison to the i7-2630QM seems fair. As for if they disabled turbo-clocking, that'd only work in Intel's favor as far is the power draw is concerned. Just my two cents...

 

[Khato]

Also, I'm pretty sure the FCH A70M chip-set is for mobile units, and the name "MX" on the APU is also for mobile components. So a comparison to the i7-2630QM seems fair. As for if they disabled turbo-clocking, that'd only work in Intel's favor as far is the power draw is concerned. Just my two cents...

Except they either didn't compare it to an i7-2630QM or they didn't use an Asus P8H67-M - one of those two statements in their 'System Specs' has to be incorrect. If they did indeed use an Asus P8H67-M for the Intel system, then they would have had to use either an i7-2600k as that's the only LGA1155 processor with the HD3000 graphics and hyperthreading. If they did indeed use an i7-2630QM, then who knows what the actual system in use was

It's just annoying because it's clear that they have a superior solution for their target market, but small inaccuracies such as the above call all of their results into question. If they can't get the documentation right, then who knows what else they messed up...

 

[ShadowVVL]

I just hope desktop llano cpu is not going to be over $120. i am expecting $110 at the most.

 

[TridenT]

Thread has case of tl;dr

How well will this perform with a dedicated GPU?

 

[Mopetar]

I just hope desktop llano cpu is not going to be over $120. i am expecting $110 at the most.

Llano is likely going to have multiple configurations. Exactly what kind of profile are you expecting for this price and what leads you to assume such prices?

 

[ShadowVVL]

Im expecting the bottom line quad desktop chip to be around as fast as the athlon 2 x3 445 or 6x faster then brazos.

looking at the cost of intel sb i3 and athlon 2 x4 I figure it will fall around that point.

 

[hans007]

Im expecting the bottom line quad desktop chip to be around as fast as the athlon 2 x3 445 or 6x faster then brazos.

looking at the cost of intel sb i3 and athlon 2 x4 I figure it will fall around that point.

i figure it would be faster...

i mean its 32nm, its got 1MB L2 per core, and its probably got some tweaks on that old core.

so it will be faster even at the same clock. and who knows maybe they implemented turbo etc in it.

 

[itsmydamnation]

i figure it would be faster...

i mean its 32nm, its got 1MB L2 per core, and its probably got some tweaks on that old core.

so it will be faster even at the same clock. and who knows maybe they implemented turbo etc in it.

if an ex amd engineer is to be believed( i have no reason not to) around 10% faster per clock.

 

[ShadowVVL]

someone said the dual core llano was going to be slower then the althon x2 255. which is why i figured the x4 would be around x3 455 speed but i am not sure if that was for mobile. if its faster that's going to be better, have they said the amount of transistors it will have total?

 

[drizek]

AFAIK, their target was to get 90% of the performance of athlon(or was it phenom?), but apparently they are getting better than 100% of the performance.

Of course, I could have about a half a dozen rumors mixed up, but this is what I think it works out to.

 

[veri745]

AFAIK, their target was to get 90% of the performance of athlon(or was it phenom?), but apparently they are getting better than 100% of the performance.

Of course, I could have about a half a dozen rumors mixed up, but this is what I think it works out to.

That was for bobcat. This is straight-up Stars cores + 32nm HKMG and larger cache. Should be at least slightly faster clock for clock.

 

[ShadowVVL]

I haven't been keeping up to date with llano much I thought llano was using beefed up bobcat cores.

 

[ydnas7]

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/190?vs=188
LLano cores have same per core cache as Athlon X2, so think of it as a quadcore Athlon X2 with a speed bump for new process (hopefully)

single threaded core i3-2100 is about 40% faster than athlon x4, http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/188?vs=289 but about the same in highly threaded applications, so I'll guess than Llano is about 20% faster than Athlon x4 per core, which means
LLano is about 20% faster in highly, evenly threaded application, I3 is 20% faster in single threaded type applications and they are about the same in the more general applications.

now over to GPU, both are power limited and bandwidth limited in mobile applications, LLano has more GPU compute power but IF paired up with the equivalent memory as I3, then Llano GPU would be more bandwidth constrained.

so for laptop, both are probably more equivalent than most people expect.

for desktop, LLano will need overclocked memory to make its GPU work, other-wise it won't be much more than HD3000 anyway. I3 will need to overclock its GPU (and use 12 EU version I3-2105) to compare with LLano.

 

[ShadowVVL]

thank you ydsnas, sounds like amd did really good.

yeah i seen something about it using 1800mhz ram which is just fine with me.I was freaking out trying to figure out how they would get enough memory bandwidth for that with only 2 sticks of ddr3.

 

[Arkadrel]

yeah i seen something about it using 1800mhz ram which is just fine with me.I was freaking out trying to figure out how they would get enough memory bandwidth for that with only 2 sticks of ddr3.

Llano useing:
DDR3-1866 = 64x1.866 / 8 x2 = 29,856 GB/s (dual channel)

Now the CPU might take like 5 GB/s of that memory bandwidth, so your left with like ~25 GB/s memory bandwidth for the GPU.


What card does ati/amd have around 480 shaders, and 25 GB/s memory bandwidth?

The Radeon HD 5570, it has 400 shaders, and 28.8 GB/s memory bandwidth.

The Llano will probably be a tiny bit faster than the 5570, but be abit more memory starved than the 5570. So this isnt really the GPU you want to use for running really high resolutions + AA modes.

for 1280x1024 .... it shouldnt be memory starved though, and should be like 3x faster than the Sandy Bridge HD3000.

Im kinda hopeing it somehow ends up supporting/working with DDR3-2133, that would help with memory bandwidth abit more. How fast the Llano ends up, will depend upon how fast the ram you couple it with will be.

 

[podspi]

if an ex amd engineer is to be believed( i have no reason not to) around 10% faster per clock.

Faster than the Phenom II or Athlon II? Tomshardware compared the two and found on average the Athlon II was 5%~6% slower per clock than the Phenom II (due to the lack of L3).


http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/athlon-l3-cache,2416-9.html

 

[Khato]

What card does ati/amd have around 480 shaders, and 25 GB/s memory bandwidth?

The Radeon HD 5570, it has 400 shaders, and 28.8 GB/s memory bandwidth.

The Llano will probably be a tiny bit faster than the 5570, but be abit more memory starved than the 5570. So this isnt really the GPU you want to use for running really high resolutions + AA modes.

And yet, all you need to do is actually watch the AMD demonstration that started this thread and then compare to a youtube video of someone running the FFXIV benchmark on a 5570 which is quite easy to find and you'll see that Llano is running at about 2/3 the speed. Not faster, 33% slower. Granted it's just one benchmark, so it could well be that in other games it'll be closer to a 5570... Or it could be that AMD chose the FFXIV benchmark because it was the best performer on Llano, and other games are at 50% or less of a 5570 - there's no way to know 'til actual benchmarks are available. (Oh, and yes, the demo was with DDR3 1333... which is what you'll see pretty much any actual Llano system equipped with.)

 

[Arkadrel]

And yet, all you need to do is actually watch the AMD demonstration that started this thread and then compare to a youtube video of someone running the FFXIV benchmark on a 5570 which is quite easy to find and you'll see that Llano is running at about 2/3 the speed. Not faster, 33% slower. Granted it's just one benchmark, so it could well be that in other games it'll be closer to a 5570... Or it could be that AMD chose the FFXIV benchmark because it was the best performer on Llano, and other games are at 50% or less of a 5570 - there's no way to know 'til actual benchmarks are available. (Oh, and yes, the demo was with DDR3 1333... which is what you'll see pretty much any actual Llano system equipped with.)

Im kinda hopeing it somehow ends up supporting/working with DDR3-2133, that would help with memory bandwidth abit more. How fast the Llano ends up, will depend upon how fast the ram you couple it with will be.

What speed DDR3 where they useing in the video? Ahh... 1333 DDR3Ram.
Not DDR3-1866 or DDR3-2133.... So ofc the memory bandwidth of the Llano in the demo they showed has much lower memory bandwidth than a actual 5570 would have, beacuse theyre useing slow ram in that demo.

I hope OEMs ship them with fast ddr3... if they want it to be near 5570 level.

 

[Khato]

I hope OEMs ship them with fast ddr3... if they want it to be near 5570 level.

Good luck with that. Have you noticed that despite the fact that DDR3 1600 only costs a marginal amount more than DDR3 1333, pretty much none of the OEMs offer it? When you consider that the going price for DDR3 1866 is almost twice that of DDR3 1600... and when the vast majority of consumers don't know the difference, I can easily see them penny-pinching it down to DDR3 1333.

 

[Arkadrel]

Good luck with that. Have you noticed that despite the fact that DDR3 1600 only costs a marginal amount more than DDR3 1333, pretty much none of the OEMs offer it? When you consider that the going price for DDR3 1866 is almost twice that of DDR3 1600... and when the vast majority of consumers don't know the difference, I can easily see them penny-pinching it down to DDR3 1333.

As sad as it is... yeah I see it going exactly as you proclaim it... Its gonna be up to the consumers to request they get fast DDR3 ram with their products, only way to change the OEM ways is if the consumer demands it.

on a side note, I think we ll see it become very popular to overclock ram, with more people looking into squeezeing better timeings and faster frequencies out of their ram.

 

[Khato]

As sad as it is... yeah I see it going exactly as you proclaim it... Its gonna be up to the consumers to request they get fast DDR3 ram with their products, only way to change the OEM ways is if the consumer demands it.

On the bright side, it looks like DDR3 1866 and DDR3 2133 were actually added to the official JEDEC spec in the January revision of this year. While it likely won't have any effect for awhile, that at least indicates that OEMs might consider using memory at those speeds if it becomes cost effective.

Also, regarding the effect of slower memory on AMD's Redwood core, just look for reviews of DDR2 versions of either the 5550 or 5570 and compare to the DDR3 versions. That gives a good idea as to how memory bandwidth affects performance, and how much that effect can change from game to game.