New Llano leaks

Can you say limited on purpose? :) Note how the score in lame superpi is 27 seconds @ 4.7Ghz,which is 2x slower than deneb :p:. Note also the poor 3dmar99 score of 189.This is single core benchmark and Agena at 2.5Ghz scores roughly 330pts,74% higher. On chiphell forum someone mentioned the Turbo core bug,which "seems" to plague BD ES also (early superpi scores of B1/B0 were around 27s for 3.2Ghz Zambezi,very low score).
http://forum.coolaler.com/showthread.php?t=266652

Edit: looking at C10 score and speedup,in order to get to 6.68x speedup the clock speed in single thread benchmark(and probably in all other single threaded benchmarks) has to be locked at around 1400MHz,despite CPUz showing 2.4Ghz.

5.4GHz ??

http://www.coolaler.com.tw/image/gig...4h/5400mhz.jpg

I no understand if this is on LN2 or Air

The guy who ran the tests said the software cannot read the real clocks so he is not sure if 5.4Ghz is real or bug. He also said that there is some bug in the ES/bios so that scores don't scale with clock increase.Sometimes the test finishes up in line with clock increase,sometimes it's 2x slower.So the ES is definitely "broken" in some way. This is clearly evident by looking at the superpi and cpumark99 scores which are 1.7x-2x lower than Deneb at same clock.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by soothpain

Should be right ... Because able individual Super-
In fact, the software used to display information is not updated, see do not know is true or false ...


4.7GHz runs a bit confused
5.4GHz result in reasonable points

Little brother has tried, even running times PI or CPUmark99 score and some will fall by half
May is the relationship between ES ... Not final

---

Anyone know when these hit retail? I am looking to buy one but don't see boards or Chips. I keep seeing the 990FX Sabertooth show up here in there on new egg, but no FM1

btw guys, take note of lack of the "Hypertransport" term, with 4x PCIe2 connecting to the southbridge.

Either this makes overclocking easier by not involving the interface... or 32nm is pretty sweet.

But the stock clock is 2.4GHz...right?

It's a 3800- an SKU that in terms of clocks won't exist.

38X0s (desktops) should have higher clockspeeds, no?

Looking at supposed 5.4Ghz AIDA64 cache/memory results,it's safe to say that 5.4Ghz is not real. Actual clock can be easily extarpolated via the cache BW numbers and cache latency numbers (vs Deneb):
http://www.coolaler.com.tw/image/gig...400_aida64.jpg
Compare with Deneb at 3.4Ghz and its results:
http://img199.imageshack.us/img199/4774/cachememr.png

Actual clock speed when he selected the multiplier 54 is around 3-3.1Ghz according to AIDA64 numbers.So real/effective multiplier is either 15x or 15.5x and something in BIOS is responsible for the bug (or "feature") :).
This clock speed(5.4Ghz <=> ~3.05Ghz) lines up perfectly with what I said in first post.Actual clock is around 1.7-1.77x lower than what CPUz reports,especially in single thread workloads where Turbo bug is most pronounced.

edit:
Look here. 5.4Ghz supposedly has 4300pts in CPU part of 3dmark06.This lines up perfectly with actual clock speed of 3-3.1Ghz :). Another confirmation it's NOT 5.4GHz.And those Chinese guys have no idea ,they still think it's really 5.4GHz.. They just had to compare AIDA64 scores and this simple 3dmark06 cpu test with Deneb at 3Ghz,that's all...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Macadamia

It's a 3800- an SKU that in terms of clocks won't exist.

38X0s (desktops) should have higher clockspeeds, no?

---

valid ES sample, SKU will exist

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cesariuth

5.4GHz ??

http://www.coolaler.com.tw/image/gig...4h/5400mhz.jpg

I no understand if this is on LN2 or Air

---

The CPUMark score doesn't seem bad as my 4Ghz Thuban scores 553.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mrcmtl

The CPUMark score doesn't seem bad as my 4Ghz Thuban scores 553.

---

The score is not correct for the clock speed since the real clock is not 5.4Ghz...

very nice! Seems a bit better in Cinebenchs than Athlon x4 clock to clock. Impressive is 4.7 GHz with stock voltage?!
Commercial version of listening to a locked multiplier of Dong Lin a pity ... you ...
Because ... Llano is a super strong friends overclocking
Only adjust the multiplier to 47 (BIOS to the most strained to 47 only), the rest did not move, did not increase the voltage directly on the 4700MHz ...
http://www.coolaler.com.tw/image/gig...4h/4700mhz.jpg

Informal has it nailed.

It's probably true that AMD has been deliberately gimping clocks on this and BD for the past x months.

Do we know the ES number of this one Coolaler got? Hexus got one as well and it would be nice to know if the samples are the same.

Read above FLanker,those are wrong readings in CPUz.Real clock is ~2x lower.

I tried wrote him at coolalerforum about hwinfo...we will see, if he use it.

New results posted @ 2.7Ghz?(shows as 5.4Ghz in his CPUz):
http://forum.coolaler.com/showpost.p...4&postcount=77
Since one of our fellow users notified me that the real clock is actually 2x lower than what CPUz reports,I will do rough calculation based on this.

Also,I see the OP posted the hwinfo screen showing 3.6Ghz as max T clock and actual clock of 3.1Ghz while multi is set to 47x (maybe showing as 4.7Ghz in CPUz). I think this is wrong since if the scores are done at 3.6Ghz then llano is actually up to 20% slower than Deneb at the same clock,which is not realistic IMO.

Latest scores recap,I still use 2.7Ghz as a real clock of Llano(5.4Ghz showing in CPUz)- note that clock may be higher than 2.7Ghz so below may be not correct :
3dmark11 physics score - Llano is 11% faster at the same clock vs Deneb (X4 Deneb @ 3.5 scores 14fps,LLano @ 2.7Ghz scores 12fps).

C10 64bit- Llano is 14.5% faster at the same clock vs Deneb (X4 Deneb @ 3.2Ghz scores 13419,LLano @ 2.7Ghz scores 12793).

CINEBENCH R11.5 - Llano is around 16% faster at the same clock vs Deneb (X4 Deneb @ 3.5Ghz scores 4.11,LLano @ 2.7Ghz scores 3.68).

edit:
now he posts hwinfo while running Cinebench MT test :). CPU "throttles back" down to 2.4Ghz real?? clock while test runs ! Priceless info. Looking at the latest info,the original MT scores may have been correct.So Llano is around 2-5% faster than Deneb with L3 and above calculation is not correct since I don't think the sample ran at 2.7Ghz(5.4Ghz shown).It probably ran at around 3Ghz so 10% has to be taken off .

your deneb compare, is that with or without L3? since i though llano will only have L1/L2 cache

20% slower than deneb at the same clock is what that german site tweaktown.net got while testing that msi notebook with superpi. That doesn't look so good.

good to know, hwinfo is great software...

Again, I wrote him about possibility problem. Think, this 3600 MHz is CPU turbo ratio (manualy changed from default turobboost) and 2400 Mhz stock clocks

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Manicdan

your deneb compare, is that with or without L3? since i though llano will only have L1/L2 cache

---

I said Deneb and Deneb has L3. Propus has no L3,but I didn't use its numbers since it also has 2x less L2.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jimbo75

20% slower than deneb at the same clock is what that german site tweaktown.net got while testing that msi notebook with superpi. That doesn't look so good.

---

Yep I saw that.But as you can read in my last post,scores are not 20% lower than Deneb,they are actually a bit better at the same clock.Pretty good in my book :).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by informal

I said Deneb and Deneb has L3. Propus has no L3,but I didn't use its numbers since it also has 2x less L2.



Yep I saw that.But as you can read in my last post,scores are not 20% lower than Deneb,they are actually a bit better at the same clock.Pretty good in my book :).

---

Yep I just saw that as well.

Hmm so 10-15% faster clock for clock than Deneb? If Llano comes out the blocks near 4 GHz that surely must be a real threat to the 2500K.

Edit ok so 5%, still not bad.

the IPC increase of llano over deneb is kinda unexpected, if its really pushing 10-20% better without L3, then our IPC guesses at BD might be a little off, or these number are way off. i cannot expect much more than 5% plus or minus deneb

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Manicdan

i cannot expect much more than 5% plus or minus deneb

---

That should be correct.

edit:
btw I posted at the original Chinese forum and explained how the results are borked.I hope they understood,or at least the OP understood.He seems to be using hwinfo32 now,it supports family 15h and seems to correctly detect the clocks.

Yep I'd take even with Deneb in a heartbeat. Now it's just down to GF providing the clocks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Manicdan

the IPC increase of llano over deneb is kinda unexpected, if its really pushing 10-20% better without L3, then our IPC guesses at BD might be a little off, or these number are way off. i cannot expect much more than 5% plus or minus deneb

---

Llano also has twice the cache L2 (4MB vs 2MB)

What I want know is a quality mobo (Gigabyte FXA-UD3/UD5 cousin). All the boards are "cheapo", specially in the number of sata ports.

So by my reckoning BD is 15% faster then Denab?

Which make it's no faster then the old Nehealm based Core i7's.

It better be faster then that else I'm selling up and moving to Intel.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by almighty15

So by my reckoning BD is 15% faster then Denab?

Which make it's no faster then the old Nehealm based Core i7's.

It better be faster then that else I'm selling up and moving to Intel.

---

This isn't bulldozer, it's llano the midrange part.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by almighty15

So by my reckoning BD is 15% faster then Denab?

Which make it's no faster then the old Nehealm based Core i7's.

It better be faster then that else I'm selling up and moving to Intel.

---

Just buy SB and be over with it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jimbo75

This isn't bulldozer, it's llano the midrange part.

---

As far as I know, Llano and Bulldozer are spelled the same way :up:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by almighty15

So by my reckoning BD is 15% faster then Denab?

---

absolutely right! more IPC, 2x as many cores, and faster clocks, but only 15% faster, lol

Remember at first CPU-Z, BIOSes with Brazos platform? It showed 200 MHz baseclock (some Giga boards), later correct 100 MHz baseclock.
Im thnking, Llano is the same...User from coolaler see in BIOS 200 MHz, CPU-Z show 200 Mhz, but real is 100 MHz. Look at screen from HWINFO (default=100!):
http://www.coolaler.com.tw/image/gig...5m-ud2h/23.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by informal

I said Deneb and Deneb has L3. Propus has no L3,but I didn't use its numbers since it also has 2x less L2.

---

Yeah, take a look at the Regor dual-core Athlon II processor. It has 1mb L2 cache for each core and no L3 cache. Therefore, it performs closer to the Callisto Phenom II processor, than the Propus quad performs to Deneb.

Damn, I forgot to resize the AMD VISION logo :D will fix that..
Nevertheless, the bus is 100 MHz (UMI) by default. Clocks should be fine too. Just the current multiplier plays crazy, I dunno why...
Notice that CPB (Core Performance Boost) is disabled there, so it can't go to turbo.
The Max clock (HFM) is in fact the CPU Max PLL clock.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by devguy

Yeah, take a look at the Regor dual-core Athlon II processor. It has 1mb L2 cache for each core and no L3 cache. Therefore, it performs closer to the Callisto Phenom II processor, than the Propus quad performs to Deneb.

---

If I remember well, the benefit of the extra 512kb cache was estimated to be around 7%IPC.

i would like to see 3DMark series score

Proper screenshots at 3.7Ghz:
http://www.cbbimg.com/out.php/i81165...134DF0D34B.jpg
http://www.cbbimg.com/out.php/i81167...CD4DF0D8FC.jpg

so 3D06 is over 10k.

Also note how Easytune sees the CPU as a 3851.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Macadamia

Proper screenshots at 3.7Ghz:
http://www.cbbimg.com/out.php/i81165...134DF0D34B.jpg
http://www.cbbimg.com/out.php/i81167...CD4DF0D8FC.jpg

so 3D06 is over 10k.

Also note how Easytune sees the CPU as a 3851.

---

Dead links :shakes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mrcmtl

The CPUMark score doesn't seem bad as my 4Ghz Thuban scores 553.

---

Liano score of the A8 is more or less equal to i5 2300.. just where AMD from a marketing perspective in there slides are rating it against
http://forums.overclockers.com.au/sh...d.php?t=954186

off course superpi scores are always way better on the intels...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mumak

Damn, I forgot to resize the AMD VISION logo :D will fix that..
Nevertheless, the bus is 100 MHz (UMI) by default. Clocks should be fine too. Just the current multiplier plays crazy, I dunno why...
Notice that CPB (Core Performance Boost) is disabled there, so it can't go to turbo.
The Max clock (HFM) is in fact the CPU Max PLL clock.

---

i think your CPB is not able to handle/read the values correct of the turbo 2.0, neither the GPU, it is somehow calculating from a wrong bus freq

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BeepBeep2

Dead links :shakes:

---

argh, I'm not rehosting because it's rude, so just go to the coolaler thread with the UD2H instead of the UD4H.

Page 3.
http://forum.coolaler.com/showthread.php?t=266864

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by duploxxx

i think your CPB is not able to handle/read the values correct of the turbo 2.0

---

What? I say CPB is disabled on that machine. It might be because the machine is on battery power (on batt CPB is off)..
Wrong bus frequency is the result of invalid multiplier read. GPU clock should be ok.
I have already tested a different Llano model and there it worked ok..

5200 CPU score in '06...@ 3.8
Deneb @ 3.9 Ghz gets 5200.
Looks about the same as Deneb, maybe a tiny bit faster.

3D performance is about the same as that of an 8800/9800GT...I suppose you could call that impressive.

deleted.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SpuTnicK

http://images.people.overclockers.ru/preview/207359.jpg
:wasntme:

---

1. This is a Llano thread
2. Repost of a screen we already found to be fake
3. The screen is fake
4. Screen was from a month ago
5. The screen was fake :shrug:

Also note, that there are (performance) errata in Llano B0, so I don't relay that much on performance results.

3dmark IGP world records tumble, unsurprisingly.

http://translate.googleusercontent.c...caQ#post396366

Is HWiNFO showing the Llano clocks correctly on coolaler?

interesting results, but the Q off course is what presets..... that A8 would run circles against its compettitor i5 GPU wise that is already something we knew just from a spec perspective.

GPU performance increase is huge when OC.

would like to see some CPU benches like cinebench and others to see how it fares against older Athlon and Phenom and the husky core enhancements.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mumak

Also note, that there are (performance) errata in Llano B0, so I don't relay that much on performance results.

---

what errata bug in B0 LIano ??? these are production SKU just like the link below. Are you mixing with BD?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by duploxxx

what errata bug in B0 LIano ??? these are production SKU just like the link below. Are you mixing with BD?

---

There was a frequency bug in Llano before, and I can sure it's B0 chips having bugs.
AFAIK I saw some screenshot before, some ES maybe B0 stepping, there's number 0 in the stepping blank. As for the benchmark on that SKU, it's also 0 stepping, but I can't sure if it's a B0 chip, maybe it's C0/D0/E0 & so on. If that SKU is B0 it could have some bugs.

both Coolaler and Radeonfanboy have retail SKU -> B0 stepping, sure you are not confusing with BD ????

CPU-z wasn't able to read the correct Bus speed and not able to translate the turbo that is all

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by duploxxx

both Coolaler and Radeonfanboy have retail SKU -> B0 stepping, sure you are not confusing with BD ????

CPU-z wasn't able to read the correct Bus speed and not able to translate the turbo that is all

---

No I'm not confusing with bulldozer. Was Coolaler find the frequency bug of Llano before? It was a B0 chip. Soon clarified by those taiwanese, that system couldn't read the frequency correctly. So I guess that was a ES chip but not a final retail one. As for the llano chip that tweaktown have, it could be buggy as well, of course it could also be a healthy retail one too.

No, I'm not mixing anything.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by undone

No I'm not confusing with bulldozer. Was Coolaler find the frequency bug of Llano before? It was a B0 chip. Soon clarified by those taiwanese, that system couldn't read the frequency correctly. So I guess that was a ES chip but not a final retail one. As for the llano chip that tweaktown have, it could be buggy as well, of course it could also be a healthy retail one too.

---

the issue has nothing to do with the B0 stepping

edit. look at the list of SKU below and then see some screenshots from Coolaler, some parts do mention correct the 2700MH and miltiplier while other parts are providing 3.x... it's BIOS and SW reading issue.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mumak

No, I'm not mixing anything.

---

if radeonfanboy would use some decent CPUID info we could know what stepping that SKU has....

The top model Llano is going to be clocked at 2.9GHz and it won't support CPU turbo
http://vr-zone.com/articles/amd-a-se...led/12620.html

Attachment 116106

We've seen some few AMD fans claiming that this is going have 4GHz clock speed @ stock ! Those who made such crazy claims should be disappointed

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dartaz

The top model Llano is going to be clocked at 2.9GHz and it won't support CPU turbo
http://vr-zone.com/articles/amd-a-se...led/12620.html

Attachment 116106

We've seen some few AMD fans claiming that this is going have 4GHz clock speed @ stock ! Those who made such crazy claims should be disappointed

---

Do you not see the second model down? Base 2.4Ghz / Boost 2.7Ghz?

And the forth model down? Base 2.1Ghz / Boost 2.4Ghz?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by almighty15

Do you not see the second model down? Base 2.4Ghz / Boost 2.7Ghz?

And the forth model down? Base 2.1Ghz / Boost 2.4Ghz?

---

Are you trying to say that I'm blind ?

If you read my words carefully you would notice that I was talking about the top model. I didn't say that all Llano models don't support turbo

The point is that Llano is below 3GHz, even in turbo mode. But we heard some few people claiming that will have 4GHz stock speed or 4GHz in turbo mode.

If you think Llano's top desktop parts won't have turbo you are quite deluded. Also, Donanimhaber has shown about 5 different slides about Llano in the past month alone, constantly upgrading them as the launch nears.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dartaz

Those who made such crazy claims should be disappointed

---

I thought it would be above 3Ghz and am disappointed anyways. Otoh, I thought GPU clock would be lower, so it pans out I guess.

I also find it hard to belive there will be no Turbo at all. We'll see in a few days.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dartaz

The top model Llano is going to be clocked at 2.9GHz and it won't support CPU turbo

We've seen some few AMD fans claiming that this is going have 4GHz clock speed @ stock ! Those who made such crazy claims should be disappointed

---

There are always people who live in dreams .....these are 65W and 100W parts with GPU, with a bit of sence you could know in front that such a GHZ range is never feasible.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DarthShader

I thought it would be above 3Ghz and am disappointed anyways. Otoh, I thought GPU clock would be lower, so it pans out I guess.

I also find it hard to belive there will be no Turbo at all. We'll see in a few days.

---

I am so dissapointed that you are dissapointed since the chip doesn't get to 3.0ghz mark so dissapointing, you wouldn't buy it anyhow so why care or post.

Radeonfanboy already posted some very interesting tests which show a very good improvement of Husky cores and OC capabilities.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by duploxxx

I am so dissapointed that you are dissapointed since the chip doesn't get to 3.0ghz mark so dissapointing, you wouldn't buy it anyhow so why care or post.

---

So, among your many excellent qualities, you also have the ability to read people's minds? Wow. :p:

No wait, skratch that, doesn't work, since I actualy do consider Llano, due to limited budget. Since my interest is OpenCL and how to take advantage of Fusion, what better choice would there be for me? OC is of course always an option, but it forces you to get a proper sized case and cooler. A lone Llano with no descrete GPU would like odd in a Raven case, wouldn't it? :D

Llano Sabine platform power consumption and some other test

http://blogs.amd.com/fusion/2011/06/...m-innovations/

http://blogs.amd.com/fusion/files/20...-100933-AM.jpg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lkbdy...layer_embedded

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DarthShader

So, among your many excellent qualities, you also have the ability to read people's minds? Wow. :p:

No wait, skratch that, doesn't work, since I actualy do consider Llano, due to limited budget. Since my interest is OpenCL and how to take advantage of Fusion, what better choice would there be for me? OC is of course always an option, but it forces you to get a proper sized case and cooler. A lone Llano with no descrete GPU would like odd in a Raven case, wouldn't it? :D

---

so i will meet you then next week?
https://amdfusion.wingateweb.com/por...MreAKG9O9WKdct

here is also some more information
http://developer.amd.com/zones/OpenC...s/default.aspx

look at the specs from the A8-3800 and A8-3850 they have a rated TDP of 65W and 100W with only a difference of 200MHZ, clearly that must mean something.... also the tests from Radeon showed already a lot of OC potentional.

besides that, look at the vantage cpu score from Radeon stock it provides 10038 CPU while a athlon x4 630 only has approx 9300 @ 2.8, so this more or less equals phenom 940 3.0 the one with L3 cache.
Athlon x4 630 = 95W TDP on 45nm and the graphics 5550 (more or less) is a 40W TDP.... not that bad for the first revision on 32nm and actually if you look at the A8-3800 with the 2.4/2.7 and 6550D in a 65W that seems to be really nice for a first release which will go against the i3 2120.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by duploxxx

so i will meet you then next week?
https://amdfusion.wingateweb.com/por...MreAKG9O9WKdct

here is also some more information
http://developer.amd.com/zones/OpenC...s/default.aspx

---

You mean, if I am attending the developer summit? I'd love to, but I am at the opposite end of the world, in Europe. If you're going, then I am jealous. :)

Quote:

---

look at the specs from the A8-3800 and A8-3850 they have a rated TDP of 65W and 100W with only a difference of 200MHZ, clearly that must mean something....

---

It's actualy a 500mhz difference for all cores. But since the GPU clock is the same, that still doesn't quite explain the difference. It's just two days left...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DarthShader

You mean, if I am attending the developer summit? I'd love to, but I am at the opposite end of the world, in Europe. If you're going, then I am jealous. :)


It's actualy a 500mhz difference for all cores. But since the GPU clock is the same, that still doesn't quite explain the difference. It's just two days left...

---

also from Europe btw. I'll see what i can grab from the official slides from AMD if you want.
yes it is 500Mhz difference but not at Turbo, so will depend a bit how the APU will handle load and the effect of GPU powerconsumption on the CPU turbo. only few more days.

If you look close in the end of the AMD video you can actually see that they compared the A8-3500 against 3 different Intel configs.

USB3 the i7 2620M
power the i3 2310M which is a 35W TDP, strange they took this one and not the one below, afterall the i5 will be the real competitor for A8
graphics the i5 2410M 35W TDP which is a 2.3-2.9 with HD3000 650-1200.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by duploxxx

also from Europe btw. I'll see what i can grab from the official slides from AMD if you want.

---

I doubt the slides will be kept a secret. I think the speeches are going to be the interesting part. :up:

I wonder what will happen if the IGP is disabled for discrete GPU operation. There should be huge TDP headroom locked up. Will there be an automatic CPU clock increase?

hmm 100 mhz bus clock? interesting

Attachment 116170

Fingers crossed for a black edition, would love to see how these things go with cold.

100Mhz bus clock might be related to power savings in general, since CPU -> Xbar is on die now and doesn't play by the same rules that external interfaces used to.

So yeah, RIP HTT ;D

i3-2100s are on sale at Frys. Almost pulled the trigger but had to quickly slap myself and remember that Llano is going to be released soon :).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DarthShader

I doubt the slides will be kept a secret. I think the speeches are going to be the interesting part. :up:

I wonder what will happen if the IGP is disabled for discrete GPU operation. There should be huge TDP headroom locked up. Will there be an automatic CPU clock increase?

---

AMD will webcast the keynotes,more details here http://phx.corporate-ir.net/phoenix....ews&id=1571329

Some Llano reviews.... WooHoo!

http://www.brightsideofnews.com/news...verclock!.aspx
Follow the link from BSN ot Coolaler for even more info.

Based on this quote from Coolaler I sure hope there's an unlocked (Black Edition) Version!

Overclocking parts. After a series of tests, not pressure the highest probably to 47x117=5499MHz, FSB has 47 is the highest. Such a fairly impressive, originally the default frequency is 2.4GHz, has more than twice is almost, but also because the relationship is not locked frequency multiplier engineering sample, commercial version may be locked multipliers, quite unfortunately, if the market can also be played, but kind of interesting.

Reguardless, looks like a FUN chip!


EDIT: I was just excited to see a review.... Looks like there are some problems with the sample.
My statement above still stands though! The FUN part... :}

So when will liano actually hit the market?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daveburt714

Some Llano reviews.... WooHoo!

http://www.brightsideofnews.com/news...verclock!.aspx
Follow the link from BSN ot Coolaler for even more info.

Based on this quote from Coolaler I sure hope there's an unlocked (Black Edition) Version!

Overclocking parts. After a series of tests, not pressure the highest probably to 47x117=5499MHz, FSB has 47 is the highest. Such a fairly impressive, originally the default frequency is 2.4GHz, has more than twice is almost, but also because the relationship is not locked frequency multiplier engineering sample, commercial version may be locked multipliers, quite unfortunately, if the market can also be played, but kind of interesting.

Reguardless, looks like a FUN chip!


EDIT: I was just excited to see a review.... Looks like there are some problems with the sample.
My statement above still stands though! The FUN part... :}

---

Sorry but he didn't hit 5.4Ghz... We have already discussed this,it's a bug.Real clock is approximately 2x lower than that.
But why you guys read about ES when we have real thing(retail) already tested here ? :) OCed to 3.77Ghz on CPU side and 45% on the GPU side. I summarized the performance difference Vs SB here.

dave look at my comments in coolaler forum...Later he began with CPU-Z to use HWinfo....CPU-Z "thinking", baseclock is 200 MHz, but this is not right...it is 100 MHz (look at hwinfo spec)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alex-Ro

So when will liano actually hit the market?

---

dave: introduction is in July; availability shortly thereafter

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daveburt714

Some Llano reviews.... WooHoo!
Based on this quote from Coolaler I sure hope there's an unlocked (Black Edition) Version!

---

dave: black editions are planned but Scorpius should be the first recipient.

dave

should be more like introduction tomorrow; availability right away (for notebook Llano at least)

APU smashed new IGP world records with Gigabyte A75M-UD2H ( 3Dvantage P6160 igp )


http://forums.tweaktown.com/overcloc...p6160-igp.html

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by informal

Sorry but he didn't hit 5.4Ghz... We have already discussed this,it's a bug.Real clock is approximately 2x lower than that.
But why you guys read about ES when we have real thing(retail) already tested here ? :) OCed to 3.77Ghz on CPU side and 45% on the GPU side. I summarized the performance difference Vs SB here.

---

wow 6k is awesome for vantage, compared to my score:
http://3dmark.com/3dmv/2099582
12k for 4850 xfire with a 3.6ghz phenom II (i think thats the speed i was using), its clear these APUs are very well rounded.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jimbo75

If you think Llano's top desktop parts won't have turbo you are quite deluded. Also, Donanimhaber has shown about 5 different slides about Llano in the past month alone, constantly upgrading them as the launch nears.

---

A8-3850 is 2.9GHz and it doesn't have turbo.

Here is review for this CPU from anandtech
http://www.anandtech.com/show/4448/a...rmance-preview


Let me tell you that both CPU & GPU performance of Llano is not impressive. CPU performance is almost identical to Athlon II. While GPU performance is slightly faster than intel HD3000. We are talking about Llano with 400 shaders.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dartaz

A8-3850 is 2.9GHz and it doesn't have turbo.

Here is review from anandtech
http://www.anandtech.com/show/4448/a...rmance-preview


Let me tell you that both CPU & GPU performance of Llano is not impressive. CPU performance is almost identical to Athlon II. While GPU performance is slightly faster than intel HD3000. We are talking about Llano with 400 shaders.

---

Did you also read the ECS thing on the front page? 33% overclock on their mobos? Looks like AMD are just going to let the OEM's decide what to do with the TDP headroom instead.

As for "slightly faster" than HD3000? What benchmarks have you been looking at lol. It's massively faster in everything except Anands pet Dragon Age Origins at laughably low settings. Oh btw, it does that while sucking half the juice.

http://media.bestofmicro.com/M/K/296...-%203DMark.png

In perf/watt terms Llano is about 3.5 to 4x that of HD3000. It's a massacre.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dartaz

A8-3850 is 2.9GHz and it doesn't have turbo.

Here is review from anandtech
http://www.anandtech.com/show/4448/a...rmance-preview


Let me tell you that both CPU & GPU performance of Llano is not impressive. CPU performance is almost identical to Athlon II. While GPU performance is slightly faster than intel HD3000. We are talking about Llano with 400 shaders.

---

Anand for some mystical reason used DDR3-1333 modules for that sloppy test. So that review is irrelevant.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jimbo75

Did you also read the ECS thing on the front page? 33% overclock on their mobos? Looks like AMD are just going to let the OEM's decide what to do with the TDP headroom instead.

---

I didn't find find the word "ECS is front page ?

Quote:

---

As for "slightly faster" than HD3000? What benchmarks have you been looking at lol. It's massively faster in everything except Anands pet Dragon Age Origins at laughably low settings. Oh btw, it does that while sucking half the juice.

---

Lest than twice as fast HD3000 is not massive. People expected much more than that

Even at higher settings the difference between Llano (with 400 shader GPU) and HD3000, the difference is much less 2x in most cases
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/...u,2959-14.html

Quote:

---

http://media.bestofmicro.com/M/K/296...-%203DMark.png

In perf/watt terms Llano is about 3.5 to 4x that of HD3000. It's a massacre.

---

3.5 to 4x in 3dmark ?

Do you think an average consumer is going to buy Llano for 3dmark ? Show us real gaming benchmarks

Updated benches with 1866 memory

http://www.anandtech.com/show/4448/a...ance-preview/3

Needless to say "slightly faster" won't be getting used again.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dartaz

3.5 to 4x in 3dmark ?

Do you think an average consumer is going to buy Llano for 3dmark ? Show us real gaming benchmarks

---

I'm sure you can figure out that if Llano is outperforming HD 3000 by a large margin while drawing about half the power then it's a massively superior part. You want more performance? Put in some decent memory like Anand was forced to do and see what the gap is. It's about twice as fast at lowest possible (intel favouring) settings and it will still be drawing a helluva lot less power.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jimbo75

Updated benches with 1866 memory

http://www.anandtech.com/show/4448/a...ance-preview/3

Needless to say "slightly faster" won't be getting used again.

---

So ?

I saw DDR3 1866 from the beginning. It was already updated when I first looked at the review

Even with DDR3 1866, it was less than 2 times the speed of HD3000 most of time. And HD3000 was using DDR3 1333. At least they should compare it with similar DDR3 speed. Not to mention that not many people use DDR3 1866 specially laptop users, because a decent DDR3 is going to cost you money $$ (I rather buy a dictated GPU than waste money on a decent DDR3)

EDIT: The word "slightly" is subjective. THe reason why I used this word is because Llano was expected to be several times faster than HD3000. I never imagined that llano is going to be less than 2 times the speed of HD3000. I was shocked.

Anand noted that they didn't see the performance speed up that AMD had promised in terms of IPC. They note the memory speed it part of it, but fail to mention that they only used 1333 till later on. I'm guessing that will make up the difference (if not drive it over what was estimated). That said, it isn't going to push it past the 2500K, but hey, not bad at any rate :).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dartaz

So ?

I saw DDR3 1866 from the beginning. It was already updated when I first looked at the review

Even with DDR3 1866, the difference is less than 2x most of time. HD3000 was using DDR3 1333. At least they should compare it with similar DDR3 speed.

---

By all means petition anand to use better memory...like the HD3000 is bandwidth limited I don't think.

It's close to 2x performance at ROCK BOTTOM SETTINGS.

What happens at higher settings?

http://images.anandtech.com/graphs/graph4444/38917.png

Almost 3x faster than the fastest mobile i7?

http://images.anandtech.com/graphs/graph4444/38923.png

Twice as fast?

http://images.anandtech.com/graphs/graph4444/38926.png

Almost 3x faster?

The higher the settings go, the more Llano pulls away. It's not even a contest. In ALL games Llano is making playable settings while the I7 is unplayable.

Looks decent if it's matched with some good memory. Will be interesting to see how it performs once the drivers are a bit more stable and working (talking about the weird Xfire thingy).

I'm in need of a laptop, these may just be what I need. A laptop, good battery life and can play games (and cheap!!).

I'd love to see MLAA tests. Being compute intensive, this method is perfect for bandwidth limited situations.

Can Intel's IGP do MLAA?

How about an IQ comparision between those two?

jimbo75,

You have picked the best case scenario for Llano and you did that on purpose. I'm talking about average performance.

I saw those charts, so I wonder why you trying to show them to me when I already looked at the review

You said "The higher the settings go, the more Llano pulls away". But do you realize that at high settings Llano gets about 30 fps or less ? Do you think the game is going to be playable if you play at even higher settings. You are ignoring the fact that the game won't playable anyway.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dartaz

jimbo75,

You have picked the best case scenario for Llano and you did that on purpose. I'm talking about average performance.

I saw those charts, so I wonder why you trying to show them to me when I already looked at the review

You said "The higher the settings go, the more Llano pulls away". But do you realize that at high settings Llano gets about 30 fps or less ? Do you think the game is going to be playable if you play at even higher settings. You are ignoring the fact that the game won't playable anyway.

---

Plenty of games are very playable at 30fps. When Crysis was first released people soon started saying that "30 fps in Crysis is great". Then again nothing could play it much higher. Isn't that strange?

Yes I picked the best benchmarks on Anandtech but you based your scores on his worst case scenario for Llano. ~2x faster with ~1/2 the power draw is all that needs to be said. AMD designed the part to be like this, do you really think they couldn't just have upped the clocks by 50% and totally blown the HD 3000 away? Of course they could have, but that would have been at the expense of power draw. This is a balanced part designed for balanced loads and on that metric it totally owns SB so hard it's almost embarrassing.

Forget the comparison and look at those last 3 graphs. A 35W LAPTOP is capable of playing modern games at high settings. That's unreal.

its not unreal its exactly the laptop i would buy if i would not have two amd last gen and one i5 laptop here LOL

look at the pricing in germany they came up with even an dedicated gpu 1gb ON TOP for less then 600 € THATS INSANE

finally it comes out it was the right decision to postpone bulldozer since AMD is getting to roll over mobile/htpc/micro mass segment first now with that price/perf/watts^^ It all makes perfect sense to me now. i was not that excited about a new tech strategy for long compared with that move amd took now :O I think many people will think very different about amd soon as much as they are surprised and obliged to think that cant be true now ;)

Dartaz, bandwidth limitations mean its around 50 - 120% faster than HD3000. If thats slightly in your books, good for you since im sure it makes you happy.

Im actually impressed with the graphics performance of Llano, especially on the mobile variants. Almost matching 6630m with the mem b/w limitations is extremely impressive.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jimbo75

I'm sure you can figure out that if Llano is outperforming HD 3000 by a large margin while drawing about half the power then it's a massively superior part. You want more performance? Put in some decent memory like Anand was forced to do and see what the gap is. It's about twice as fast at lowest possible (intel favouring) settings and it will still be drawing a helluva lot less power.

---

The results would humiliate intel further if sites would test AMD's graphics at ultra low quality, comparable to intel's 'graphics'. Of course that wouldn't happen with intel's marketing dollars in play. Anand retests intel hardware with hand delivered intel drivers hot off the press (as insignificant as they were), meanwhile manufactures excuse after excuse for using 10.12 drivers in many of their AMD reviews. No doubt they used Vision drivers that were as outdated as possible. I see 11.6 has been released, I wonder if they plan on retesting...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dartaz

Do you think an average consumer is going to buy Llano for 3dmark ? Show us real gaming benchmarks

---

From toms data:

Twice the battery life with over twice the gaming performance (SB + HD3000 vs A8 + HD6620G)

Is that not impressive?

Llano is awesome as value gaming complet PC....APU in games rocks! core to core is Llano a bit better than Athlon x4 (example look at Cibennch score)