• JUser::_load: Unable to load user with id: 67

Featured Articles

IHS teardown reveals Galaxy S5 BOM

IHS teardown reveals Galaxy S5 BOM

Research firm IHS got hold of Samsung’s new flagship smartphone and took it apart to the last bolt to figure out…

Galaxy S5, HTC One M8 available selling well

Galaxy S5, HTC One M8 available selling well

Samsung’s Galaxy S5 has finally gone on sale and it can be yours for €699, which is quite a lot of…

Intel lists Haswell refresh parts

Intel lists Haswell refresh parts

Intel has added a load of Haswell refresh parts to its official price list and there really aren’t any surprises to…

Respawn confirms Titanfall DLC for May

Respawn confirms Titanfall DLC for May

During his appearance at PAX East panel and confirmed on Twitter, Titanfall developer Respawn confirmed that the first DLC pack for…

KFA2 GTX 780 Ti Hall Of Fame reviewed

KFA2 GTX 780 Ti Hall Of Fame reviewed

KFA2 gained a lot of overclocking experience with the GTX 780 Hall of Fame (HOF), which we had a chance to…

Frontpage Slideshow | Copyright © 2006-2010 orks, a business unit of Nuevvo Webware Ltd.
Wednesday, 02 March 2011 13:41

AMD pits Llano against Sandy Bridge

Written by

APU comes out on top
AMD has posted a rather interesting Youtube clip comparing its upcoming Llano APU to an Intel Sandy Bridge processor.

The test pitted a Llano-based laptop against an Intel Core i7-2630QM rig in a couple of real life tests and, obviously, AMD came out on top. AMD ran some 3D and office apps side by side, proving that Llano could easily outperform Sandy Bridge in Final Fantasy, with not stuttering or dropped frames.

AMD’s power consumption figures were also better, staying under 48W, while Intel jumped back and forth between 45W and 55W. In a spreadsheet test, and the game running in the background, both processor were equally matched, but when the testers piled on some video and post processing, Llano pulled ahead. In addition, power consumption was still under 48W for the AMD, while Sandy went over 70W. AMD then launched a 3D modeling application, only to see Sandy Bridge struggle to cope, while Llano managed to deal with all four workloads.

The test rigs were closely matched in terms of hardware. The AMD testbed was based on an A8-3510MX APU with HD 6620M graphics and the A70M Fusion Controller Hub (FCH). Intel sported a 2GHz Core i7-2630QM, HD 3000 graphics and H67 chipset. Both machines had 4GB of DDR3 and the exact same 128GB SSD.

AMD’s Llano clearly has a lot to offer, although it probably won’t need to deal with such heavy workloads in real life and Intel will still dominate the high-end. However, Llano could easily hit the sweet spot and score plenty of design wins in the much broader mainstream market. In addition, Llano is expected to end up somewhat cheaper than comparable Intel Sandy Bridge processors and AMD might have a pretty good chance of unsettling Intel in the mid range mobile market.

You can check out the video here.
blog comments powered by Disqus


+96 #1 Nerdfighter 2011-03-02 14:06
For high-end desktops,a CPU and a GPU separated will probably still be the way to go, but Fusion could deal a serious punch to Intel on the laptop market. Can't wait for some Llano laptops.
+62 #2 Super XP 2011-03-02 14:11
This is great news, finally AMD has something faster than Intel and now we can see some aggressive price competition that should help drive prices down further.

AMD's been working on Fusion for so long, there's absolutely no way it won't outperform. Llano APU is going to put AMD back in the game for real...

AMD’s notebook solution is a lot more versatile than Intel’s solution, with AMD you have the ability to play games and watch HD video w/superb PQ and no problems, while still enjoying low power/long battery life that Fusion has to offer. It’s a win-win situation for the buyer and the maker whether you are a gamer or not.
-79 #3 dicobalt 2011-03-02 14:16
So what they are saying is that Intel integrated graphics are slow. Tell us something we don't know. I use Intel because it is a fast *CPU*. I would never consider using integrated graphics on any system, laptop or desktop.

Who plays a game on integrated graphics? Who does 3d modeling on integrated graphics? Nobody.

Wow you guys don't like this comment much. So I guess there are some people who do play games on integrated graphics and do 3d modeling on integrated graphics. You people are crazy.
+66 #4 JAB Creations 2011-03-02 14:33
Intel intentionally gimps the integrated graphics / CPU combos. To get the decent integrated graphics (which still don't compare to AMD's integrated but blow away the lower models glued to the non-K CPU's) you have to get a K series CPU. However the people who would benefit from those integrated graphics won't bother to get a K-series CPU.

AMD seems to have always provided a better bang for the buck and it's not about spending as much money as you can throw at something, it's all about getting as much as you can for the budget you have to work with. You don't need 100 FPS if your LCD will only show 60 FPS tops and only fan boys or people blinded by materialism won't comprehend that. Save the rest of the money to take your girlfriend or wife out. 8)
-25 #5 Jurassic1024 2011-03-02 15:01
"You don't need 100 FPS if your LCD will only show 60 FPS tops"

I hear this argument far too often and its BS. Don't you ever think of future games at all? Or are you the guy still trying to justify his video card purchase from 4 years ago?
+2 #6 DaRAGE 2011-03-02 15:39
Totally agree with jurassic. Just because a game runs at 100 fps but the lcd only shows 60 fps doesn't mean u skimp on a graphics card to allow yourself to get those 60 fps. Expect future games with higher system demands. Not only do frames per second in games juggle around with minimums, average fps, and maximum fps. If i'm buying a graphics card, i want my minimum fps to be 60. BTW. You can feel a difference in how smooth a game runs at 60 fps to 100 fps, even if it cant output that 100 fps. And the Frames that you look at, at 60 FPS is probably a different picture of the frame im looking at, at 100 FPS.
+28 #7 Super XP 2011-03-02 15:59
I think you've missed the point of the article Big Time... It's telling you that "IF" & "WHEN" you want to play a game with your portable PC (Notebook etc...) you can with AMD. Notebooks are not for gaming, but the ability is there if you choose too. Intel's solution really stinks Big Time, it even slows down your regular use of a notebook with Win 7.
Quoting dicobalt:
So what they are saying is that Intel integrated graphics are slow. Tell us something we don't know. I use Intel because it is a fast *CPU*. I would never consider using integrated graphics on any system, laptop or desktop.

Who plays a game on integrated graphics? Who does 3d modeling on integrated graphics? Nobody.
+6 #8 razorleaf 2011-03-02 16:01
It would be interesting if AMD would lunch a dual CPU boards with Crossfire drivers for integrated graphics, leaves more slot's for GPU's
+12 #9 Bl0bb3r 2011-03-02 16:06
@JAB, while you're right, the part with 60fps isn't quite right. True that benches post maximum fps, but those that actually matter are minimum fps to have fluid motion guaranteed all the time, and in a lot of the cases those will be between 30 and 60 fps, while in some below that.
+6 #10 Memristor 2011-03-02 16:48
More interesting would be a comparison with a dedicated graphics card.

To be able to post comments please log-in with Disqus


Facebook activity

Latest Commented Articles

Recent Comments