AMD A8-3850 Review: Llano Rocks Entry-Level Desktops

[elbert]

Does overclocking the A8-3850 make it the fasted gaming AMD CPU on the market? I ask due to a 3.6Ghz overclock review with a 6970 shows it nipping the heels of a i7 2500k.

I found the answer to my earlier question. It seems with a 6xxx GPU the A8-3850 games between the phenom II 945~975 at stock speeds. At $135 its within the price range of its competition.

 

[tajisi]

Taken in context this CPU is a great development for the budget market. It's not made for performance users, nor is it geared toward that market. Llano will allow people who buy $300 K-Mart or Wal-Mart computers to get a little bit more for their money, though something like this may be overkill for the market it targets.

I have customers who insist a flash drive is the same thing as a USB Wifi stick because they look similar. That being said, most of the type of people who will end up owning it really won't be able to utilize it fully. It will, however, make life less painful for the techs among us since we won't have to wait three years (due to working with a faster budget CPU) for their OS to install all the ignored service packs while they run eight Anti-Virus programs and AOL in the background.

 

[Jimmmmmn]

smaller, more efficient, less money and better performance. checks all the boxes doesnt it?

 

[frozentundra123456]

Just don't understand the enthusiasm for this chip. Outdated cpu performance and mediocre graphics. If they could have gotten the graphics up to say 5670 levels, then they would have had a winner.

As it is, just buy a i3 2100 or even x4 640 and drop in a discrete card.

I do think this chip has a place in laptops though where power savings is critical and you cannot easily drop in a discrete card.

 

[justinmalek0]

I almost wish my current htpc died so i have an excuse to upgrade...almost.

 

[gmarsack]

As a system builder for businesses I will definetly consider the A8 CPU since it should be low cost, high performance... I mean, that CPU really is special by all respects. Great job, AMD!

 

[yuhong]

"The USB 3.0 ports are completely unusable until you get drivers installed, which makes any remaining USB 2.0 ports valuable for keyboards and mice, particularly if you need to install Windows or change BIOS settings. "
The reason MS required this for USB 3.0:
http://blogs.msdn.com/b/usbcoreblog/archive/2010/09/23/reasons-to-avoid-companion-controllers.aspx

 

[mosox]

What about the image quality? That should be in there for a HTPC product.

 

[silverblue]

There's a lot of childish downvoting going on. People, get a grip. People are allowed their opinions; it's not as if we've got a whole slew of Chinese shopping scams going on.

Llano definitely has a market, however what I'd really like to see is one with a more aggressive implementation of Turbo Core than the one sported by the 3800, say... 2.4GHz default, four speed bins of 266MHz resulting in nearly 3.5GHz for single core usage, 3.2GHz for two, 2.9GHz for three and nearly 2.7GHz for four assuming the GPU is idle (remember that Intel's implementation allows for turbo with all cores active but only a slight boost, although AMD's version only has one speed step and shuts off the idle cores). The quad core mobile A6-3400M turbos from 1.4GHz to 2.3GHz for example, and excluding the dual core models, all the quad cores boost at least 700MHz under optimal conditions. These are also far lower TDP parts (albeit with a 444MHz GPU clock on the top parts), so would it be naive to think that a 100W desktop part could offer an aggressive implementation of Turbo Core and still keep the GPU at 600MHz? Remember that the 3800 is a 65W part with a small 300MHz boost over its default 2.4GHz clock speed, so I'm sure they could release a faster version which could address the criticism that the i3-2100 is generally faster.

 

[cangelini]

[citation][nom]yuhong[/nom]"The USB 3.0 ports are completely unusable until you get drivers installed, which makes any remaining USB 2.0 ports valuable for keyboards and mice, particularly if you need to install Windows or change BIOS settings. "The reason MS required this for USB 3.0:http://blogs.msdn.com/b/usbcoreblo [...] llers.aspx[/citation]

Great link yuhong, thank you.

 

[someoneelse]

well excellent article but one thing that a few things puzzle me

1stly why is anyone bothering with 2 usb 1.1 sockets surely thats just a pian in the neck or do I not understand usb?

2ndly This chip is obviously a big plus for Htpc's so why no HQV 2.0 benchmarks or at least a some reference to video quality ?

3rdly If llano set the benchmark for integrated graphics minimum. Would more people get into PC gaming do you think? ( it would certainly get rid of the rubbish sub $70 grfx card sector for new pcs)

and 4thly slightly off topic rant but...

Will graphics company/divisions stop messing around and make a graphics card specifically for video use ( on board or discrete ) that can get near 100% in both HQV 2.0 benchmarks. ie a graphics card specifically for video use that doesn't carry a massive gaming processing overhead. Surely that would be an instant best seller with Htpcs. I would ditch my current grfx card on the day of release.

oh and lastly why no trolls about intel running toms hardware??? - does a positive review for amd product not compute with said trolls.

 

[thomasxstewart]

http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/category/category_slc.asp?CatId=7182&name=AMD-APUs&

 

[jj463rd]

[citation][nom]flong[/nom]There will be a huge difference in the OVERALL computing experience between a llano and the 2500K. The difference from going from a llano to a 2500K would be MORE dramatic than from a Pentium 4 to a 920 because the 2500 K is faster than the 920 and the llano is probably not much faster than a Pentium 4 with a good graphics card.The difference between having a powerful computer like the 2500K and the subpar CPUs being discussed is huge - I repeat huge. I can say this with some authority because I have first-hand experience. You have to remember that everyone hates to wait and everyone feels that their time is valuable (even if it isn't ha, ha). A more powerful computer will do everything faster and better and so the main benefit is that they save you time. Time is money for most people. We haven't even touched on that aspect.Even Grandma doesn't like to wait on a computer. Sure she will put up with it but she will sense frustration. Besides, whose grandma is not worth an extra $150 ha, ha.I doubt that the llano chips are aimed at the retirement community because they would not even know where to begin to build a computer - many don't even know how to use a computer.[/citation]

Go to Passmark The CPU score of the AMD A8-3850 is well pretty good.It's almost the same as the Phenom II X4 940.It scores at 3,679 and is significantly more powerful than a Pentium 4 by far.Almost an order of magnitude more powerful.Your statement is quite outrageously wrong.The Core i7-920 scores at 5,563,the i5-2500K at 7,193 and a 3.0 Ghz Pentium 4 scores at a meager 491.According to the Passmark scores the i5-2500K has about twice the CPU score over the A8-3850 whereas the i7-920 has over 11 times the CPU score over a 3.0 Ghz Pentium 4.Of course I could have chosen a slower or a faster Pentium 4 though.

 

[Guest]

Interesting article.

 

[flong]

[citation][nom]jj463rd[/nom]Go to Passmark The CPU score of the AMD A8-3850 is well pretty good.It's almost the same as the Phenom II X4 940.It scores at 3,679 and is significantly more powerful than a Pentium 4 by far.Almost an order of magnitude more powerful.Your statement is quite outrageously wrong.The Core i7-920 scores at 5,563,the i5-2500K at 7,193 and a 3.0 Ghz Pentium 4 scores at a meager 491.According to the Passmark scores the i5-2500K has about twice the CPU score over the A8-3850 whereas the i7-920 has over 11 times the CPU score over a 3.0 Ghz Pentium 4.Of course I could have chosen a slower or a faster Pentium 4 though.[/citation]

You know I really respect that you took the time to go to benchmarks to present a case that there is a difference between the comparisons between a Pentium 4 and the I-7 920 and the reviewed llano and the 2500K. It took some time to look this up.

That being said, my point still stands - artificial benchmarks aside; there is a world of difference between the 2500K and the llano and the difference in cost is about $70. If you are talking about gaming, both the llano and the 2500K would require the purchase of a discrete GPU.

If you are talking about an HTPC, then I am not sure that the llano weak on-board graphics will do the job and you STILL may need to purchase a discrete GPU. Thus the request above for HQV 2.0 benchmarks.

My point was is that there is a world if difference in real-world performance between the llano and the 2500K. I guess we can quibble about how much this huge difference is, but in the end it is still a HUGE difference. All you have to do is check the real-world benchmarks and frankly, those are the only ones that count. There are millions of 2500K users who will attest to its real-world quality, it has a 91% 5-egg approval on Newegg. That is the highest rating on Newegg that I have seen for any product ever. This is because it is an incredible value at $215 and it provides and overall wicked-fast computer experience, even if you don't game, for the user.

I really don't understand the vitriol of several AMD posters. To me the llano doesn't make sense. If it does to you, then great, go out and buy it. No one is putting you down or judging you.

For the $70 difference between the 2500K and the llano, the llano just doesn't appear to be worth it. It doesn't game well, its value as a HTPC CPU has not been confirmed, it has a very weak on-board GPU and it will provide a slower, weaker computer experience in the real world for any computer user. That being said, different people like different things - go out and buy the llano if you think it will give you a better computing experience.

 

[jj463rd]

[citation][nom]flong[/nom]You know I really respect that you took the time to go to benchmarks to present a case that there is a difference between the comparisons between a Pentium 4 and the I-7 920 and the reviewed llano and the 2500K. It took some time to look this up.That being said, my point still stands - artificial benchmarks aside; there is a world of difference between the 2500K and the llano and the difference in cost is about $70. If you are talking about gaming, both the llano and the 2500K would require the purchase of a discrete GPU.If you are talking about an HTPC, then I am not sure that the llano weak on-board graphics will do the job and you STILL may need to purchase a discrete GPU. Thus the request above for HQV 2.0 benchmarks.My point was is that there is a world if difference in real-world performance between the llano and the 2500K. I guess we can quibble about how much this huge difference is, but in the end it is still a HUGE difference. All you have to do is check the real-world benchmarks and frankly, those are the only ones that count. There are millions of 2500K users who will attest to its real-world quality, it has a 91% 5-egg approval on Newegg. That is the highest rating on Newegg that I have seen for any product ever. This is because it is an incredible value at $215 and it provides and overall wicked-fast computer experience, even if you don't game, for the user.I really don't understand the vitriol of several AMD posters. To me the llano doesn't make sense. If it does to you, then great, go out and buy it. No one is putting you down or judging you. For the $70 difference between the 2500K and the llano, the llano just doesn't appear to be worth it. It doesn't game well, its value as a HTPC CPU has not been confirmed, it has a very weak on-board GPU and it will provide a slower, weaker computer experience in the real world for any computer user. That being said, different people like different things - go out and buy the llano if you think it will give you a better computing experience.[/citation]

No the llano doesn't require the purchase of a discrete GPU.
For high end or mid range systems the llano is not the CPU that's desired.It's really orientated towards the budget end.
AMD's bulldozer line will be orientated towards the mainstream mid to high end range.llano is also going to be used in laptops as well and apparently the battery life is from what I've heard substantially better.


See here is the thing.The average Joe buys a name brand computer like Dell,Gateway,emachines,Acer,HP etc.In the past he would have been very disappointed and extremely frustrated because "out of the box" after purchase on a micro tower desktop he couldn't play most (nearly all) gaming titles because of the weak Integrated Graphics on board.Now with the fairly good graphics Integrated with the CPU (both cooled by the same CPU heatsink and Fan)your average Joe (not a techie custom builder) can play many titles perhaps not in high resolutions but they are playable on a low cost budget system ($300 to $500 range depending on the CPU model,other hardware etc).Sure the graphics are not high end but neither are they low end either and it blows away any Integrated Graphics out there.
Also it's great for videos as well.
The i5-2500K is a great bang per buck high performing CPU no doubt about it but it's orientated towards mid range custom gaming systems.
For a person who games a lot especially with new titles and has the money for one I would choose an i5-2500K right now.
Here are some videos for you
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mdPi4GPEI74
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uwhuNcx4BTY

Like what's been said llano will be especially great for laptops and not requiring a specialized (huge battery draining) mobility GPU

 

[kkiddu]

It's amazing how Llano is absolutely perfect for a huge chunk of PC-users.

Way to go, AMD. For a user who knows he'll never need more performance, he gets a full computer in $600.

 

[flong]

[citation][nom]jj463rd[/nom]No the llano doesn't require the purchase of a discrete GPU.For high end or mid range systems the llano is not the CPU that's desired.It's really orientated towards the budget end.AMD's bulldozer line will be orientated towards the mainstream mid to high end range.llano is also going to be used in laptops as well and apparently the battery life is from what I've heard substantially better.See here is the thing.The average Joe buys a name brand computer like Dell,Gateway,emachines,Acer,HP etc.In the past he would have been very disappointed and extremely frustrated because "out of the box" after purchase on a micro tower desktop he couldn't play most (nearly all) gaming titles because of the weak Integrated Graphics on board.Now with the fairly good graphics Integrated with the CPU (both cooled by the same CPU heatsink and Fan)your average Joe (not a techie custom builder) can play many titles perhaps not in high resolutions but they are playable on a low cost budget system ($300 to $500 range depending on the CPU model,other hardware etc).Sure the graphics are not high end but neither are they low end either and it blows away any Integrated Graphics out there.Also it's great for videos as well.The i5-2500K is a great bang per buck high performing CPU no doubt about it but it's orientated towards mid range custom gaming systems.For a person who games a lot especially with new titles and has the money for one I would choose an i5-2500K right now.Here are some videos for you http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mdPi4GPEI74http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uwhuNcx4BTYLike what's been said llano will be especially great for laptops and not requiring a specialized (huge battery draining) mobility GPU[/citation]

That's an excellent point. This chip's main market will be computer builders like Dell and aftermarket builders. I was thinking in terms more of the individual builder, building their own computer.

For individuals savvy enough to build their own computers, the 2500K is clearly the better choice in a price vs performance comparison. For individuals who lack the know-how of adding a video card and changing their own computers, then it makes sense that the llano's combo helps that individual.

I mentioned that the llano needs a discrete video card to play games in reference to Tom's Hardware's review where they add a second discrete card which the llano puts in crossfire automatically. Left to itself, the llano is pretty anemic for gaming. Still at low resolution it does play some games.

Thank you for a thoughtful, intelligent reply.

 

[Guest]

What a bunch of bullshit! Where is the entry form for the PC?

 

[Guest]

Rofl they are giving away a $1500 MSRP Llano system. Thats just such a huge waste of money. Might as well give away 3 Llano systems or save the $1500 to give away a Bulldozer machine.

A $1500 Llano setup is like spending $1500 on a Celeron setup. Its silly!

 

[Guest]

well i am confused GREAT ARTICEL THOUGH i have a teenage son who actually understands all this and he seemed to like it, but is this where we enter? i should have had him dot his lol

 

[silverblue]

The form is linked on the last page:

https://spreadsheets.google.com/spreadsheet/viewform?formkey=dGZEUDdHck1MNEtPWU5qdDJNN293ZlE6MA

 

[Onus]

AMD nailed this one. Companies like Dell and HP will churn these out by the millions for the budget consumer market. This machine handles anything consumers might expect. Never again will some poor drone say "but it says 'Graphics Media Accelerator' | 'High Definition Graphics,' I thought I could play games on it!" Anti-virus or other background tasks won't bog it down; this may not be for enthusiasts, but it is very nicely aimed at the bulk of the market, so is an outstanding business move. Well done, AMD. Never mind that it doesn't improve my own life, this was a good move.

 

[sudeshc]

Great work AMD....Impressed

 

[Guest]

for god sake dont u guys dare to underestimate the 70$ more money, for that much money I can feed my family for 2-3 month in my country. If i can save that much money for using Llano I prever to use it than i5 2500k