New AMD A4-3450 APU Surfaces

[alextheblue]

[citation][nom]greghome[/nom]it's 50 mhz faster...........what to do you expect? ( I am comparing the E450 to the E350 if any of you idiots cant get what im trying to say)[/citation]The main difference between the E-350 and the E-450 isn't CPU clockspeed. You have to look at the GPU and memory clocks. Minimum GPU clock is only up 16Mhz (meaning base speed of 508Mhz) over the E-350 but it also adds GPU turbo, allowing the GPU to run at 600Mhz. It supports DDR3 1333, too. The added memory bandwidth greatly complements the GPU turbo. To use your own line, I guess an idiot like you wouldn't understand that.

For anyone interested in budget Atom-competitors, the E2-1800 is basically an E-450 with an additional 50Mhz boost to CPU clocks (bringing it to 1.7Ghz) and an additional boost to GPU clocks - base clock speed goes up another 15Mhz (523) and the GPU turbo allows it to run at 680Mhz - another 80Mhz over E-450's maximum, or up to 188Mhz faster than the E-350's GPU. So if you directly compare E-350 with E2-1800, it's only 100Mhz faster CPU, which is only a 6.25% bump. However the max GPU clocks are up 38%, quite a decent jump.

 

[SteelCity1981]

i'm still using a Core i7 720QM on my laptop and the only things i've have used that has been able to max it out is on benchmark test other then that for what i do i won't need another laptop for another 4 or 5 years at this rate. cpu's are soo fat now it's getting to the point where it's making computer sales slower and slower with each passing cpu generation, because you avg consumor is completely happy with the laptop or desktop they bought 4 or 5 years ago. I mean our avg consumor couldn't tell the diff between a Core 2 Duo based processor and the latest Core i series processor in what they do. There used to be a time when fully utlizing your avg software meant you needed good hardware to do it Now your avg modern hardware is so advanced to the point where it can fully utilize your avg software 10x overs it is overkill for what your avg software needs to be fully utlized.

 

[blazorthon]

[citation][nom]greghome[/nom]it's 50 mhz faster...........what to do you expect? ( I am comparing the E450 to the E350 if any of you idiots cant get what im trying to say)[/citation]

You're calling people idiots when like alextheblue has already addressed, the advantage is in the GPU and supported memory, not the CPU cores, and not only that, but you also decided to call people idiots when you couldn't even make a single sentence without screwing it up. Sure, grammar isn't everything, but if you're going to insult people, you could at least have the decency to do it properly so that you don't look like even more of an idiot for it. The minute CPU frequency advantage of the E-450 over the E-350 is just another way to differentiate it slightly.

 

[DRosencraft]

where does it say that the new generation will be faster by 10-15 % at equal clocks ?

imho the new generation will clock 10-15 % higher and that's the 10-15 % faster that amd is talking about.

Lol, yeah, you're clearly arguing with the wrong person.

 

[blazorthon]

[citation][nom]sonofliberty08[/nom]E-450 r faster if u compare it on graphic program and games[/citation]

Actually, I don't think that the E-450 APU is faster in graphics than an Intel Sandy Bridge or Ivy Bridge (when they come out) in graphics performance. It kills Atom in both CPU and especially GPU performance, but it is still just a netbook type processor. I'll definitely check that before saying that I'm sure, but I don't think that the E450 beats an i3, not even an i3 with HD 2000, in GPU performance. It might be close, but I don't think that it wins.

EDIT: I fixed a grammar mistake that might have made the second to last sentence confusing. Also, I'm absolutely sure that no E series APU beats an i3 that has HD 3000 in graphics performance.

 

[blazorthon]

Lol, yeah, you're clearly arguing with the wrong person.

Maybe so, but muy is wrong about what he said anyway, so who muy is arguing with probably isn't important.

 

[blazorthon]

[citation][nom]otacon72[/nom]...pretty sad when the only thing AMD competes against now is the Atom.[/citation]

It could be pretty sad if it was true. Get an FX-8120 or an FX-6100, disable one core per module, and overclock it to about 5GHz (yes, that's an easy number to achieve if you do it this way despite these CPUs also having a significant performance per Hz boost over stock to go with the very high overclock, both thanks to this mod). FX can now compete with even the non K edition LGA 1155 i5s even if you overclock the i5s (Turbo settings manipulation and BLCK) by 25% (about the most that non K edition LGA 1155 i5s can be overclocked by, although up to maybe 30% might be doable on some, especially with very good motherboards and such that have somewhat higher than average tolerance for BLCK increases) performance per core. This is due to the significant increase in per Hz performance (about 25%) from the entire module's resources being dedicated to only one of the integer cores in the module rather than shared between two such cores and the even more significantly decreased power usage from having fewer active cores.

Beyond that, most stock AMD CPUs (going at least back to Athlon/Phenom II) beat similarly priced Intel CPUs in many (perhaps most) very well-threaded workloads, AMD's APUs have much greater value than pretty much all of their competing platforms, AMD's Opterons have far more performance than similarly priced Xeons for workloads that can use all of their cores (such as very distributed work including a lot of, if not most or even all, server workloads). Intel might be able to have the fastest CPUs for some workloads, but AMD has the fastest for the money in many workloads too and in many where Intel supposedly has a lead, AMD can compete similarly well if you actually know what you're doing.

 

[tomfreak]

I am still wanting them to release an underclocked dual core Llano that use 18w tdp for desktop. IMO, they should ditch the brazos as it is not selling cheap enough. It should have been selling half of the price now. I got my brazos desktop mobo @ $110-$130. I regret every bit of it when I look at the Llano mobo + CPu pricing now.
Sandy bridge manage to have 17w on mobile, but it is still a mobile CPU only and their GPU driver is not something u want when compared to Radeons.

 

[blazorthon]

[citation][nom]Tomfreak[/nom]I am still wanting them to release an underclocked dual core Llano that use 18w tdp for desktop. IMO, they should ditch the brazos as it is not selling cheap enough. It should have been selling half of the price now. I got my brazos desktop mobo @ $110-$130. I regret every bit of it when I look at the Llano mobo + CPu pricing now. Sandy bridge manage to have 17w on mobile, but it is still a mobile CPU only and their GPU driver is not something u want when compared to Radeons.[/citation]

That probably won't ever happen. There are Trinity APUs for that TDP, but AMD isn't going to waste their time by using a previous gen APU to compete with their newer APUs for the same market. Even this new A4 at least doesn't compete with Trinity because there are no Trinity APUs released that compete with it and AMD wants to get rid of their inventory of Llano APUs, not make more of them.

 

[master_chen]

God I just LOVE when brainless inexperienced AMD schoolkids butthurt for such simple matters.
Yeah, gimme moar of your juicy butthurted thumbs down..m-mmm, I so looove the burnt smell of your assess being on fire. )

 

[tomfreak]

[citation][nom]blazorthon[/nom]That probably won't ever happen. There are Trinity APUs for that TDP, but AMD isn't going to waste their time by using a previous gen APU to compete with their newer APUs for the same market. Even this new A4 at least doesn't compete with Trinity because there are no Trinity APUs released that compete with it and AMD wants to get rid of their inventory of Llano APUs, not make more of them.[/citation]Maybe it is a reason why they cancelled the enhanced brazos. The pricing for the cheapest Llano + cheapest mobo is soo close to Brazos. Yet it offer a huge performance advantages. For that kind of speed E-350/450 provides, it should have been selling the whole mobo+CPU combo within $50-75. Not >$130

 

[silverblue]

When you can get a quad core Piledriver plus GPU that murders the E-450 with similar TDP, you do have to wonder about the point of the E-series (unless AMD reduces its power levels, which is unlikely to be significant when they're staying on 40nm).

 

[blazorthon]

[citation][nom]Tomfreak[/nom]Maybe it is a reason why they cancelled the enhanced brazos. The pricing for the cheapest Llano + cheapest mobo is soo close to Brazos. Yet it offer a huge performance advantages. For that kind of speed E-350/450 provides, it should have been selling the whole mobo+CPU combo within $50-75. Not >$130[/citation]

Brazos is kinda outdated at this point. A lot of older stuff doesn't drop in price when it should, especially if it was originally something of a niche product.

 

[livebriand]

[citation][nom]greghome[/nom]IMO, AMD is not too slow. Intel is just too fast.If you actually use anything from an E450 to a Core i7QM, I don't think you'll feel any difference between them if they're all paired with SSDs and you were doing what the average jane/joe does....(farmville)[/citation]
Actually, I have an E350 machine, and the CPU IS a bottleneck at times. I think you'd want at least an A4/Athlon II x2/Pentium nowadays.

 

[blazorthon]

[citation][nom]livebriand[/nom]Actually, I have an E350 machine, and the CPU IS a bottleneck at times. I think you'd want at least an A4/Athlon II x2/Pentium nowadays.[/citation]

I won't say for sure that the same is true with an E350 machine because I don't have one, but with my older Atom netbook, it stopped being dirt slow when I simply tried it with an SSD. I also have a very old notebook with a mere 2.4GHz P4 and it is much faster simply with an SSD. The problem with such low end machines is generally more the storage than the processor so long as you don't do anything much more intensive than moderate web browsing or office work.

Sure, that can mean that anyone with even slightly heavy work would find it slow to a crawl on such a machine, but it can do very well with very basic usage. I'm fairly sure that my 1.6GHz Atom is quite a bit slower than an E350, yet it has no trouble with such light work unless I try watching video playback that the GPU can't handle and that shouldn't be an issue for the E-350's GPU.

 

[eddieroolz]

Probably just a way to use up the leftover Stars cores.

 

[blazorthon]

[citation][nom]eddieroolz[/nom]Probably just a way to use up the leftover Stars cores.[/citation]

Llano uses Husky cores, not Stars. Beyond that, that statement doesn't make much sense. They can try reducing inventory, maybe selling all, of the Llano chips, but the cores and other hardware on the APUs are on a single monolithic chip, so they can't be separated and sold individually. The cores can't be sold apart from the rest of the chip.

 

[uglynerdman]

Do any of you people realize im talking about MOBILE.... Jesus...say what you will a i7 laptop with a a high end gpu like the 580 675/ 680/ 7970m can out do a amd desktop in games. I dunno what everyones saying to me when i just mentioned MOBILE. theyre all talking about the desktops performance.. READ THIS ARTICLE. "The dual-core mobile processor runs at 2.5 GHz and integrates" and i see its just that intels too fast... Yeah fast enough to make a laptop a DTR for a fair price, allow one to play games that came out 4 years ago on high. a intel 2.3 ghz processor is about 200- 300 bucks. most botiques sell processors at cost. my point? In the MOBILE WORLD for people who like resolutions above 1360x720 etc. For people who buy a new game. AMD in the MOBILE WORLD.. is just not an option. sigh im not even going to argue with anyone here. they obvious dont know wtf. jump on eachothers bandwagons. im just expressing my dislike of the failure of trinity's performance in the MOBILE WORLD.

 

[blazorthon]

[citation][nom]uglynerdman[/nom]Do any of you people realize im talking about MOBILE.... Jesus...say what you will a i7 laptop with a a high end gpu like the 580 675/ 680/ 7970m can out do a amd desktop in games. I dunno what everyones saying to me when i just mentioned MOBILE. theyre all talking about the desktops performance.. READ THIS ARTICLE. "The dual-core mobile processor runs at 2.5 GHz and integrates" and i see its just that intels too fast... Yeah fast enough to make a laptop a DTR for a fair price, allow one to play games that came out 4 years ago on high. a intel 2.3 ghz processor is about 200- 300 bucks. most botiques sell processors at cost. my point? In the MOBILE WORLD for people who like resolutions above 1360x720 etc. For people who buy a new game. AMD in the MOBILE WORLD.. is just not an option. sigh im not even going to argue with anyone here. they obvious dont know wtf. jump on eachothers bandwagons. im just expressing my dislike of the failure of trinity's performance in the MOBILE WORLD.[/citation]

An AMD desktop can out-do a mobile i7 laptop in gaming performance too. FX-8120 or FX-8150. Disable one core per module and OC to 5GHz (an easy number to hit in this scenario). It won't win in highly threaded performance against a quad core mobile i7, but it can win in gaming performance even if the i7 is OCed to about 4GHz (an unlikely scenario in a laptop).

Also, AMD is an option in the mobile CPU markets. Is AMD a high end CPU option? No. However, AMD is an option for the lower end CPU markets that AMD is focusing on.

 

[tomfreak]

[citation][nom]blazorthon[/nom]I won't say for sure that the same is true with an E350 machine because I don't have one, but with my older Atom netbook, it stopped being dirt slow when I simply tried it with an SSD. I also have a very old notebook with a mere 2.4GHz P4 and it is much faster simply with an SSD. The problem with such low end machines is generally more the storage than the processor so long as you don't do anything much more intensive than moderate web browsing or office work.Sure, that can mean that anyone with even slightly heavy work would find it slow to a crawl on such a machine, but it can do very well with very basic usage. I'm fairly sure that my 1.6GHz Atom is quite a bit slower than an E350, yet it has no trouble with such light work unless I try watching video playback that the GPU can't handle and that shouldn't be an issue for the E-350's GPU.[/citation]I own a E-350 +4GB RAM, this has nothing to do with SSD as the stuff I do aint heavy on HDD, Youtube are still suffering on 1080p it wasnt perfectly smooth @ fullscreen, I have latest of flash/ATI driver and it still not completely smooth. Visiting website with heavy use of flash/html5 sloow the system. If u run some Java light web game it slow the system. I have run some webbase java stock market chart it wasnt really enough. This machine is only got for light web browsing. (youtube HD/flash/html5 heavy site excluded).

A low clock speed ULV Llano/Trinity can easily surpass E-350 with ease. I would personally welcome a 18w tdp Llano/Trinity over Brazos.

 

[blazorthon]

[citation][nom]Tomfreak[/nom]I own a E-350 +4GB RAM, this has nothing to do with SSD as the stuff I do aint heavy on HDD, Youtube are still suffering on 1080p it wasnt perfectly smooth @ fullscreen, I have latest of flash/ATI driver and it still not completely smooth. Visiting website with heavy use of flash/html5 sloow the system. If u run some Java light web game it slow the system. I have run some webbase java stock market chart it wasnt really enough. This machine is only got for light web browsing. (youtube HD/flash/html5 heavy site excluded).A low clock speed ULV Llano/Trinity can easily surpass E-350 with ease. I would personally welcome a 18w tdp Llano/Trinity over Brazos.[/citation]

It might seem like it has nothing to do with the CPU, but it actually can. Even if you had 1TB of RAM, Windows's inefficient paging would still e writing data to the paging file and the web browser's cache is also on the hard drive, among other things that the hard drive is being used for. Sure, heavy web sites can really hurt with that CPU in some cases even with an SSD, it really is a low end CPU and that can and would show when you tax it, but you are overestimating the impact of processor speed in a lot of stuff. Beyond that, it would probably do a lot better if you went through your running processes and made sure that you don't have anything running that shouldn't. A lot of stuff that runs on default (even parts of the OS) aren't stuff that you actually use, but bog down a slower CPU wastefully anyway. For example, you might have almost a dozen services running that you don't make any use of as well as other stuff that you don't need and probably don't use.

Regardless, my 2.4GHz P4 is fast enough for moderate browsing when an SSD is being used or even a higher end hard drive. Storage is much more of a bottle-neck than you might expect it to be. I guarantee that my Atom and my P4 are slower CPUs than the E-350 despite the fact that the computers that they're in seem to be much more capable than yours is. Some things would still be problematic, but an SSD truly helps incredibly with these computers.

Stil you're absolutely correct about how a ULV Llano/Trinity APU would be far better than a Brazos APU in pretty much every way, if not in every way.

 

[tomfreak]

when u run into a flash heavy sites, the infamous CPU hogging java web program. This E-350 is really showing its limit. Playing youtube @ 1080p yield a full 60-80 CPU usage. if was 2-5% if I left things idle. so this has nothing to do with background program. Flash are still not really well optimize on hardware acceration even on youtubes.

The way I see the pricing of Llano and its mobo now. Brazos system become irrelevant to exist. ULV base on Trinity would probably replace this easily without AMD to design another CPU for embended market. Perhaps this *might be the whole reason why they cancel the whole Bobcat/brazos enchance.

 

[sonofliberty08]

i test the E450 with tomb raider underworld, it run smoothly without lag, the color and graphic r awesome too, the i3 just not so good on handling it, when installing game or programs, the i3 r faster, but we don't install game and programs everyday after we setup it up well at the first time......

 

[blazorthon]

[citation][nom]blazorthon[/nom]Actually, I don't think that the E-450 APU is faster in graphics than an Intel Sandy Bridge or Ivy Bridge (when they come out) in graphics performance. It kills Atom in both CPU and especially GPU performance, but it is still just a netbook type processor. I'll definitely check that before saying that I'm sure, but I don't think that the E450 beats an i3, not even an i3 with HD 2000, in GPU performance. It might be close, but I don't think that it wins.EDIT: I fixed a grammar mistake that might have made the second to last sentence confusing. Also, I'm absolutely sure that no E series APU beats an i3 that has HD 3000 in graphics performance.[/citation]

People are thumbing this down, so I'll elaborate. HD 3000 on a mobile i3 is a around a desktop A4's Radeon 6370D in performance. The E-350 has a Radeon 6310M that has one half of the 6370D's shader cores. That it has an ~11% higher clock frequency is not going to make up for this. At best, it is maybe two thirds the performance of the 6370D. The E-350 does not beat a mobile i3 in raw graphics performance.

[citation][nom]sonofliberty08[/nom]i test the E450 with tomb raider underworld, it run smoothly without lag, the color and graphic r awesome too, the i3 just not so good on handling it, when installing game or programs, the i3 r faster, but we don't install game and programs everyday after we setup it up well at the first time......[/citation]

The E-450 might be able to beat the i3... However, the difference should be minimal even if it does win. If there is a very noticeable difference, then perhaps the i3 notebook has poor drivers. Intel lets the OEMs use customized drivers that are generally far worse than Intel's generic drivers, granted even those aren't excellent.