Poll: Where does Llano have the best chance against Sandy Bridge?

Earlier this week, AMD revealed that it has begun production shipments of 32-nm Llano APUs. This second wave of Fusion APUs combines integrated Radeon graphics with four Phenom-derived CPU cores. That sounds like a potent pairing, but Sandy Bridge looms large on desktop and in notebooks. For this week’s poll, we’re curious where you think Llano has the best shot at unseating its competition. Is Llano better equipped to make inroads in the mobile market, or will Sandy Bridge face more pressure on the desktop? You can vote below or in the middle column on our front page.

In last week’s poll, we asked you to weigh in on the spat between AMD and Nvidia over which offers the world’s fastest graphics card. The vast majority (78%) looked at the numbers and correctly realized that the Radeon HD 6990 is indeed faster than the GeForce GTX 590. 15% appear to be in denial about the GTX 590’s lower frame rates, or maybe they’re just really enamored with the fact that the card is quieter than the 6990. The remainder don’t think either offering can lay rightful claim to the world’s fastest crown. Yes, they remember BitBoys.

Comments closed
    • mackintire
    • 9 years ago

    What’s up with all the AMD Llano bashing. The point is, Llano is a Athlon II core, tweaked and slightly improved on 32nm. What this means is clock for clock it is comparable to the Core2 duo series processors. AND will get totally blown away on a clock per clock basis against any i5, i7, or sandy bridge processor. BUT lets not forget dynamic clock gating and the Turbo core feature. IF AMD aims Llano at the i3 processors in both the desktop and mobile markets, AMD will probably beat all of intel’s offerings. The older i5 processors with integrated graphics will have a hard time competing again a high end Llano at the same price point. The newer i5 “2400K?” is probably higher up in the market than what Llano is aimed at. But remember AMD does not have to beat Intel to take market share from them. There is something to be said about having enough power in all the right places.

      • swaaye
      • 9 years ago

      actually the Phenom II is their CPU that is generally competitive with Core 2. The AII is a bit slower. I am definitely curious about how they’ve improved the cores with this iteration but I’m not going to hold my breath because the competition isn’t exactly sitting still either…

    • swaaye
    • 9 years ago

    I’m guessing that Llano will be on a new socket right? Or are they going to run the video output down through the HT link somehow? This would probably need new chipsets anyway.

    If it is a new socket, will it be compatible with BD? Or will we be looking at AMD having two sockets for awhile and the Llano socket potentially being very short lived?

    I’m not really convinced that this chip will sell better than the current line up unless it’s priced at the same levels. But a integrated 5670-like GPU seems to me like something that would kick costs up a bit.

    • swaaye
    • 9 years ago

    It’ll certainly make a much more interesting product than Brazos in those 11.6-inch “netbooks”.

    But otherwise it’s just gonna be another Phenom-class processor but with a GPU that is somewhat faster. A integrated 5670-like GPU is cool, but I think it’s going to end up very RAM bandwidth limited.

    • Sam125
    • 9 years ago

    Definitely in the mobile space. If the power usage low and the graphics are sufficiently powerful enough, it should be a great value proposition, especially compared to Sandy Bridge.

    • maroon1
    • 9 years ago

    Why compare Llano to Sandy-bridge, when Llano is coming out on Q3/Q4 2011 ?

    According to the latest news, Quad core Llano will be out on Q3 2011, while the dual core models are going to be out on Q4 2011
    [url<]http://www.makenoise.co.za/amds-quad-core-llano-apus-pegged-for-q3-2011-release-computex-unveiling/[/url<] I think it is more fair to compare it to ivy bridge than sandy, because ivy is supposed to be out on CES 2012 (january 2012). So the launch date of Llano is closer to ivy than sandy

      • OneArmedScissor
      • 9 years ago

      Laptops may show up this month.

      They are talking about the desktop parts there, where it has little significance and is less of a priority. Even so, if they show up June/July, as intended, that’s still about 6 months before Ivy Bridge and only a few months after Sandy Bridge was released as originally intended.

      • NeelyCam
      • 9 years ago

      That’s not the latest news. The latest news are saying Llano is shipping already – I’d be surprised if the products aren’t available by end of Q2.

    • Silus
    • 9 years ago

    I voted neither.

    The current winning choice is “mobile” and I think that if Llano has any chance, it certainly isn’t in the mobile space, mostly because of battery life. Llano will only be superior to Sandy Bridge in graphics power, but to put that to good use, battery life is going to suffer a lot and that is a big problem in the mobile space.

    If anything it will have a chance in desktop, but it’s doubtful that it will be anything significant. Maybe 1-2 points in market share, but not much more. Looking at the HD 6450 review, at best one can expect the sort of performance the GT 430 showed in that review out of the graphics core in Llano, which obviously isn’t bad (certainly much better than what Sandy Bridge graphics core offers), but not enough to serve anyone with gaming needs. And given the much better CPU performance, Sandy Bridge will be a much better buy, for any task, other than gaming (office tasks, web browsing, etc).

    • neon
    • 9 years ago

    ten cuidado, hay [s<]llamas[/s<] llanos

    • hoohoo
    • 9 years ago

    I’ve not seen power consumption numbers for Llano. If it has low pow consumption it could do well on notebooks. If it has high power consumption then it’s a desktop chip.

    • NotParker
    • 9 years ago

    My next PC will be as small as possible and as quiet as possible with an SSD and maybe a Llano processor depending on price/performance.

    I’ll do USB 3.0 for the big drives.

    I have a Q6600 and 4670 don’t need anything more. Its quiet and small I want .

    • ronch
    • 9 years ago

    I’ve always been looking forward to replacing my aging Turion 64 X2-based Acer laptop with one that has Llano in it. Not that I need to, because I’m only running office apps on it and for gaming I use my Phenom II-based desktop with an HD5670.

    But if Llano is gonna sport Phenom II cores and 400 stream processors in a tiny package for mobile, it would mean I’d be practically tugging along a laptop with the same (depending on Llano’s clocks and architectural improvements) performance as my desktop. That’d be great.

    As for desktop use, Llano would be good too, but it would essentially kill off an AMD user’s desire to buy a midrange card. AMD had better expect that it would sell midrange cards mostly to Intel users if they’re gonna spread Llano far and wide.

      • hoohoo
      • 9 years ago

      AMD *will* sell video cards to Intel users because Intel does not have very strong integrated or on-die graphics. I am sure AMD knows this.

      And to the degree this is true AMD puts more pressure on NV, because AMD can sell the APU, or the CPU+videocard but NV can only sell the video card.

      It took AMD far too long to get it’s sh*t together, but the competitive position/model is just as valid in 2011 as it was in 2006.

    • abw
    • 9 years ago

    Both being integrated GFX only, a Llano based laptop will have way longer life cycle than a SB.
    And it s not a guess but a certainity…

    • abw
    • 9 years ago
    • HisDivineOrder
    • 9 years ago

    I think Llano is a stopgap until they can get Bulldozer low enough in power utilization and heat production to make it widespread across product lines where performance takes precedence over efficiency. Where efficiency matters, Bobcat will be superior, if not just skipping AMD and going ARM instead.

    So I see Llano for what it is. It was intended to be ahead of Bulldozer and not be launched at nearly the same time. It uses the old school Phenom architecture with a GPU that’s better than Sandy Bridge’s. Phenom was inferior to Core 2, it was inferior to the i7’s, and it’s inferior to the SB-based i7’s, too. It’s been getting worse and worse to compare to the Intel designs and AMD keeps recycling it every few years in smaller and smaller iterations.

    So no, Llano is nothing but a prayer that AMD is reciting in the hope that they can price it low enough and make the GPU better enough that they’ll hang on until Bulldozer can make it into laptops. AMD should have canned Llano and went straight to Bulldozer.

      • Voldenuit
      • 9 years ago

      [quote<] AMD should have canned Llano and went straight to Bulldozer.[/quote<] Remember the Geforce FX? nvidia got burned because they went for a new process and anew architecture at the same time. By analogy Bulldozer is a brand new architecture and Llano is a new process (it will be their first GPU on SOI). As compelling as BD cores on an APU may be to the enthusiast, it might have just been too great a risk for AMD to take at the time. If all goes according to plan, Trinity (BD + APU) is just a year away, though of course intel isn't standing still the whole time. But they needed something out the gate now, and Llano is it.

      • Theolendras
      • 9 years ago

      I still think it put AMD on a better position for a significant segment of the market. The move to 32nm can roughly expect a 20% on the power efficiency front, if they can get another 20% on the power gating tech they’ve added and implement a turbo mode of some sort, it can do reasonnably well.

      It still won’t match Sandy brigde CPU, but the GPU is suppose to be in the 5600 series range. If true it suddenly not the most powerful, but the cheapest versatile laptop. Powerful enough for most need, and the sole one with the capabitity to play something a little more graphic heavy than casual games.

      So on consumer front it might perform quite well…

      • hoohoo
      • 9 years ago

      Gotta agree about stopgap.

      • stmok
      • 9 years ago

      [quote<]I think Llano is a stopgap until they can get Bulldozer low enough in power utilization and heat production to make it widespread across product lines where performance takes precedence over efficiency.[/quote<] You're just figuring this out now? => AMD clearly hinted this when they talked about their 2012 roadmap with "Trinity" back in January from CES 2011. [quote<]AMD should have canned Llano and went straight to Bulldozer.[/quote<] Llano IS a stopgap for a reason. But to understand why, you need to look back from 2007. The basic gist is this... Mid-2006: AMD buys ATI. Mid-2007: AMD announces "Falcon" series. (Two APU lines) => Bulldozer-based; covering 10W to 100W and => Bobcat-based; covering 1 to 10W End of 2007: AMD announces "Swift". The Bulldozer-based "Falcon" is canned. => Bulldozer core replaced by K10-based because the former proved unfeasible with manufacturing technology at the time. (It wouldn't work well under 45nm process.) End of 2008: "Swift" is also scrapped due to extremely poor yields produced from the prototype run. (It still didn't work under 45nm process!) AMD changes their roadmap to what we have today... => Zambezi (Bulldozer) => Llano (modified K10.5) => Ontario/Zacate (Bobcat lines) Llano was created because AMD needed an initial testbed for a commercially feasible mainstream APU under 32nm process. K10.5-based cores are used because its mature/proven/stable. (You want to minimise the variables before incorporating something as complex as an GPU on the same silicon die!) Even then, it still had to work out yield issues! Mid-June 2010 => Llano prototypes from GlobalFoundries didn't come out as AMD wanted. So they delayed it for another 6 months to work out the yield problem. This is why Ontario/Zacate was released ahead of Llano. The original plan was supposed to be the other way! (Intel found out about Llano's original release period, and pushed out LGA1155 Sandy Bridge to meet it.) AMD will not achieve its 2007-mainstream-APU goal until 2012 with "Trinity"...And that will be using the 2nd generation Bulldozer design. The whole point of an APU is to get rid of the bandwidth bottleneck between the GPU and CPU. (Its holding back GPGPU performance.)

    • Voldenuit
    • 9 years ago

    [quote<]The vast majority (78%) looked at the numbers and correctly realized that the Radeon HD 6990 is indeed faster than the GeForce GTX 590.[/quote<] Ah, but TR's numbers are not necessarily the only numbers readers look at. Quoting from the Anandtech review: [quote<]The crux of the matter is that NVIDIA and AMD have significantly different architectures, and once again this has resulted in cards that are quite equal on average but are all over the place in individual games and applications. If we just look at the mean performance lead/loss for all games at 2560, the GTX 590 is within 1% of the 6990.[/quote<] And from xbitlabs: [quote<]Neither card can boast overwhelming advantage over the other.[/quote<] and [quote<]each card has 9 wins and the rest of the games/benchmarks are draws.[/quote<] For the record, I voted for the 6990 as the quickest card, but I can understand if someone voted for the 590, especially if they play Civ V, Starcraft 2, Mafia 2, etc. Interestingly, xbitlabs and Anandtech found opposite results to each other in their Civ V performance, so there is definitely room for interpretation based on testing methodology, system configuration and in-game settings.

      • NeelyCam
      • 9 years ago

      Fixed that -1.

        • NeelyCam
        • 9 years ago

        So funny. As soon as there is an AMD article, the crazed AMD fanbois come out of the woods and from under the bridges and start thumbing down everything I say.

        Just watch your beloved Zacate getting destroyed by the next-gen Atom, Llano getting pulverized by SB and Bulldozer getting bulldozed by IvyBridge.

        Entertainment for the whole family.

          • helboy
          • 9 years ago

          “So funny. As soon as there is an AMD article, the crazed AMD fanbois come out of the woods and from under the bridges and start thumbing down everything I say.”

          look whos talking…:-)

            • NeelyCam
            • 9 years ago

            Yeah, except I rarely thumb anyone down. More often I thumb people up, especially when they slap me silly in a debate

      • spigzone
      • 9 years ago

      Except 6990 o/c = HOT, 590 o/c = NOT. In a $700 card overclocking potential is vital. The 6990 is a clear winner.

    • indeego
    • 9 years ago

    [quote<]"The vast majority (78%) looked at the numbers and correctly realized that the Radeon HD 6990 is indeed faster than the GeForce GTX 590. 15% appear to be in denial about the GTX 590's lower frame rates, or maybe they're just really enamored with the fact that the card is quieter than the 6990. The remainder don't think either offering can lay rightful claim to the world's fastest crown. Yes, they remember BitBoys."[/quote<] In other words, the "opinion" of your readers is off by at least 22%, giving pause to even the slightest weight to any of these polls...

    • jjj
    • 9 years ago

    Llano’s big asset should be that it offers ok gaming at 1366×768 in sub 1k $ notebooks. CPU perf is more or less known(and good enough for most users) and GPU perf should be enough for such a scenario.What i do wonder about is power consumption,the CPU if it’s not clocked too high should not be too power hungry because of the die shrink but i got no idea what power saving features the GPU has,if they are doing any power gating/clock gating or not.
    Also curious if and how AMD will do xfire with Llano+discrete,could be an interesting option for higher end gaming laptops.

    • barich
    • 9 years ago

    AMD has been uncompetitive since Conroe, and it sure doesn’t look like this will help. I didn’t own an Intel CPU from the Slot A Athlon days until my E6300, and now I haven’t had an AMD CPU since. Intel CPUs are competitive on price/performance, usually use less power and generate less heat, and are paired with chipsets with good peripheral performance. Why can’t AMD get USB, SATA, and PCI up to snuff? And if I want a high-end system, AMD simply isn’t there anymore.

      • shank15217
      • 9 years ago

      Off topic, and just plain wrong, try again.

        • Airmantharp
        • 9 years ago

        On topic, and I share the same opinion. AMD has been at least a generation behind in performance since the Core 2 was released, and has never caught up, while being less power efficient at the same time. And Intel has generally kept prices in line with performance.

        Right now Intel is graciously competing with themselves; they could easily gouge us for far more than we are paying today.

          • Skrying
          • 9 years ago

          Uncompetitive in what sense? Have they gotten close to the performance crown? Nope. But from a consumer perspective I would say the Phenom II has been a decent success. It was a great budget choice for a decent amount of time.

          • Voldenuit
          • 9 years ago

          Have you looked at SPCR? They’ve been testing midrange AMD systems (mostly Ahtlon IIs, which do well because they omit the L3), and have found their idle power draw to be [i<]very[/i<] low, as low or lower than intel's. Now if you're cinebenching or encoding lots of video, the intel solutions will pull ahead massively on both performance and performance/watt, but for the average user, AMD systems are very power efficient these days. Now if only AMD will fix that annoyingly loud and whiny stock heatsink fan.

            • insulin_junkie72
            • 9 years ago

            [quote<] Have you looked at SPCR? They've been testing midrange AMD systems (mostly Ahtlon IIs, which do well because they omit the L3), and have found their idle power draw to be very low, as low or lower than intel's. [/quote<] ? That hasn't really been true of the SPCR reviews I've seen. Their most recent CPU review certainly doesn't show that, where even a dual-core Athlon II can't hold up to a quad-core SB: [url<]http://www.silentpcreview.com/article1179-page3.html[/url<]

            • NeelyCam
            • 9 years ago

            And that’s with discrete graphics and a non-pico PSU. Fix those two and Athlon II has no chance of touching SB idle power (and that’s even with a less-than-efficient mobo… Intel’s mobo would make the gap even wider)

            • Voldenuit
            • 9 years ago

            Weird. Their AII X2-X4 reviews from last year had idle system power consumption in the 43-50W range

            [url<]http://www.silentpcreview.com/article1056-page2.html[/url<]

            • NeelyCam
            • 9 years ago

            The servers are down so I can’t check what’s going on with the system behind your link… but 40-50W range for an idle system is an awful lot these days.. My dual core Clarkdale is idling below 25W, and once I get an SB system online, I expect it to be below that.

            • NeelyCam
            • 9 years ago

            too late – insulin_junkie beat me to it

          • helboy
          • 9 years ago

          Power efficient??? and Intel?? last time i checked ,any laptop with core i-5 does not cross 3 hours on normal use.same in the case of core i-7.maybe i am wrong.but i noticed that only the cut down core i-3 based laptops had anything to show above 5 hours.so my guess is the claims by intel that its core i series are ALL power efficient is just an eyewash.isnt it? nowadays i am ot sure what claims to beleive.

          NB:I have a core i-3 inspiron 14R @ 3 hours backup and an AMD Turion 64 X2 aspire 4520 @ 2.5 – 3 hours backup.

            • NeelyCam
            • 9 years ago

            I don’t have an Arrandale lappy, but I’ve heard the reports of their bad battery life. Chipset is probably bad, or maybe power management drivers?

            I have a Core2Duo CULV laptop, and its battery life is fantastic. I have a Clarkdale desktop, and it’s idling very well (compared to other desktops). So, I honestly don’t know what the deal is with the Arrandale CULV family… a failed experiment? But traditionally, Intel laptops have been very power efficient, and SB seems to continue that trend – the Arrandale ones might have been the exception to the rule..?

            • helboy
            • 9 years ago

            true.generally Intel used to get its power efficiency figured out exceptionally well.

            • OneArmedScissor
            • 9 years ago

            Generally? Only Core 2 accomplished anything truly noteworthy for laptops. It’s been smoke and mirrors ever since.

            At least you don’t have to dump a squillion dollars into a CULV model anymore, but they have not even caught up to Core 2, despite all these power innovations they claim. The trouble is that even though Sandy Bridge is good enough to outright replace Core 2, it doesn’t really change the way you can use a laptop, so why all the fuss, money and time spent?

            If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it. It would have been nice if they’d just made a “Core 3” with the most obvious updates, instead of going to all those lengths to make multiple new architectures that are “faster” and “more efficient” mostly just on paper.

            And that’s only relating to laptops. They haven’t done squat with desktops after they conditioned everyone to accept absurd power levels with the Pentium 4, and they’re still doing their best to force 3+ GHz CPUs with turbo boost on the majority of the multi-socket server market.

            Intel has a history of being the worst offender of wasted power. I’ll give credit where credit is due, but that’s still limited solely to Core 2 in laptops. They’re blowing their potential everywhere else, even in the face of very direct competition. Most of their R&D capacity and “process advantages” are being squandered on marketing bullet points they want to force on the world.

            Case in point: x86 Atom smartphones, or rather, their continued absence, despite Intel’s years of claiming superiority and trying to get people to warm up to their idea of a smartphone. If ever there were a cut and dry example of their underlying modus operandi, this game they’re playing is it.

            • bimmerlovere39
            • 9 years ago

            This is the reason I sought out a Penryn-based laptop (ThinkPad T400) instead of an Arrandale one. Having been issued a CULV Arrandale laptop (X201t) for school, I can say it certainly seems like the Penryn machine is far more efficient. And doesn’t seem much slower, honestly.

            I’ve loved the battery life on the T400, but, well, the battery is probably as much to thank for that as the CPU (9-cell FTW!). Seven hours is pretty normal. 8 hours was doable under light loads a while ago – I haven’t put the laptop in that situation much recently.

            Sandy Bridge seems to be a legitimate step up in performance/watt, though – it looks like the quads are now doing what the higher-clocked duals would do, from a battery life point of view. 10+ hours is doable, with a good enough battery.

      • Krogoth
      • 9 years ago

      Uncompetitive in what way?

      Intel only wins if you want CPU performance and power efficiency above all else. Otherwise, it is pretty much dead even. If you doubt this, take a look at selection of your mainstream OEM systems. You will notice that only the higher-end models have Intel platforms. While the mid to lower stuff tends to be build with AMD platforms. There is Intel stuff here as well, but it is hardly dominating the field.

      You would have never seen this a decade ago.

      • Kurotetsu
      • 9 years ago

      AMD has been ‘uncompetitive’ in exactly two areas as far as consumers are concerned:

      1). Completely synthetic benchmarks that don’t represent real world usage at all.

      2). Gaming benchmarks done at resolutions nobody games at.

      In terms of actually using your computer (and not running benchmarks 24/7) AMD is just as fast as Intel, and has been for a while. If you can seriously perceive the difference in the time it takes for <insert_application_of_choice_here> to open between an Intel and AMD processor, then I seriously suggest you stop dicking around with your computer and submit yourself for scientific study.

        • NeelyCam
        • 9 years ago

        3) Battery life

          • alphadogg
          • 9 years ago

          Please point to a bench that illustrates this in real-world usage and watt/$.

            • NeelyCam
            • 9 years ago

            Ok, I’ll try, although I worry that you’re just going to dismiss these benchmarks as “not real life”, “not apples/apples” or something else:

            [url<]http://www.anandtech.com/show/4218/amds-brazo-e350-msi-x370-sony-vaio-yb/7[/url<] Note, that we're talking about "has been". Brazos is energy efficient - no doubt about that. But historically AMD has been well behind Intel in battery life.

      • Theolendras
      • 9 years ago

      Wouldn’t say they couldn’t compete until Nehalem. They never could get the performance crown, but that doesn’t say the compagny as a whole wasn’t competitive. I agree with the high end thing tough, AMD simply didn’t have something compelling on that front for 4-5 years.

    • moshpit
    • 9 years ago

    I pick Gouda has a better chance then Llano.

    • anotherengineer
    • 9 years ago

    Hopefully it does well. Hard to compete with the Intel name even with you had something better, add the fact that Dell’s amd product pricing is way too high doesnt help any either.

      • hoohoo
      • 9 years ago

      WRT “intel”: can you say “Athlon”, “Athlon MP”, “Athlon64” and “Opteron”?

        • mcnabney
        • 9 years ago

        I think that was the point. At the time when those chips were new AMD had the superior product and at better prices, but everyone still went with Intel. Well, not me.

    • PRIME1
    • 9 years ago

    Where are the benchmarks?

      • jthh
      • 9 years ago

      Where is the chip?

        • indeego
        • 9 years ago

        Where is the salsa?

          • dpaus
          • 9 years ago

          Add the Gouda and we’ve got nachos…

            • indeego
            • 9 years ago

            Add the Badda and we have pancakes.[sub<]Sorry.[/sub<]

            • dpaus
            • 9 years ago

            You should be!

      • Game_boy
      • 9 years ago

      For mobile, take the performance of a 3GHz Athlon II X4 (~2.5GHz stock plus turbo, I actually expect higher), add 5% for IPC improvements, and an HD 5670 worth of GPU minus a bit for shared memory.

      Seriously, how could it differ much from that?

    • glynor
    • 9 years ago

    I voted mobile because that’s where the “real” sales are, but I also think Llano has a lot of opportunities for HTPC boxes. Of course, that’s a pretty small niche.

    • flip-mode
    • 9 years ago

    I don’t think it’s going to be the form-factor (desktop, mobile, etc.) that will be the decisive factor. It will be price. There’s no chance (in my mind) that Llano will perform on par with Sandy in non-graphics applications, and that is going to matter to the majority of people. Power consumption will also matter and I am not going to believe Llano will win there until I see some benchmarks.

    My prediction is that Sandy will be faster in CPU benches and have better power consumption. Llano will have equal or better gaming performance and still really decent power consumption, but lag in CPU performance.

    So where does it have the “best chance”? Probably mobile and small form factor computers.

    To be honest I’m really looking forward to seeing the benchmarks. I hope it brings some renewed competition to the CPU market.

      • shank15217
      • 9 years ago

      Business workstations, business laptops, small form factor desktops, htpc, newer gaming platforms, kiosk type games, casino machines, low cost compute clusters, budget laptops. Llano’s integrated gpu puts it at the same class or better than every console out there and you are gonna have a lot of curious platform integrators interested in the power of this cpu. Its uvd3 decode engine alone is one of the best out there.

        • flip-mode
        • 9 years ago

        More than 50% of computers have Intel graphics in them. I’m just saying, I don’t expect that to change.

          • Bauxite
          • 9 years ago

          “graphics” being defined rather loosely in terms of any meaningful improvement

          I’d wager more than 50% of the “more than 50%” slice have none.

    • CheetoPet
    • 9 years ago

    I like cheese. Hope I’m wrong as a high end cpu price war would be badass.

      • NeelyCam
      • 9 years ago

      Won’t happen. If Llano delivers, it delivers big dollars in AMD executives’ pockets through prices that are set to match SB’s price/performance ratios. Ditto for Bulldozer.

        • OneArmedScissor
        • 9 years ago

        Uh…it’s the Athlon II replacement.

          • NeelyCam
          • 9 years ago

          Uh… related how?

            • OneArmedScissor
            • 9 years ago

            Have you ever seen even a $200 Athlon II?

            What are you suggesting could possibly happen? They’ll debut these at $50-100, then if they are doing well a few months later, they’ll triple the price?

            • NeelyCam
            • 9 years ago

            Ok, I guess I was mostly talking about BD. But if Llano is better than expected because of turbo, higher clocks from 32nm SOI etc., it won’t be priced dirt cheap like the current crap AMD has. It’ll be priced based on its price/performance, compared to SB’s.

            And if they perform like $200 SB’s, they won’t be debuted at $50-100… that would be stupid, and a CEO doing that would get fired.

            People are rooting for AMD’s success, not realizing that it’ll actually increase the prices instead of decrease them… when low-performance chips are replaced with high-performance ones, they come with high-performance prices.

            An alternative is what Intel has been doing, “crippling” their CPUs. This has pissed everyone off, but this is a cost-effective way for a company to protect their higher-end prices while offering something in the low end at lower prices. AMD might start doing this too… (actually, X3 are essentially in line with this – one core taken off-line “artificially”).

          • shank15217
          • 9 years ago

          No it’s not, it doesn’t replace anything. Its a new platform AMD will push to all sorts of oems, use your imagination.. lets see a quad core cpu with a powerful video decode engine, a dx11 capable gpu and a built in north bridge. Thats a system on a chip… AMD is gonna sell these things all over.

            • OneArmedScissor
            • 9 years ago

            Yeah…in place of Athlon IIs, which will no longer serve any purpose. It’s cheaper to manufacture, faster, and uses less power. I don’t have to use my imagination to see that means bye bye Athlon II platform, just like Sandy Bridge finally meant bye bye Core 2.

            • hoohoo
            • 9 years ago

            However there is a market for sub $100 CPUs. AMD could serve it to good effect with Brazos and Intel would bruit Atom?

            But I agree the cost of fair performance will rise.

            • OneArmedScissor
            • 9 years ago

            The cost isn’t going up. Athlon IIs go down to about $30-40 and they are still making dual-cores with Llano. It is a directly comparable replacement to the way they do Sempron/Athlon II X2s and Athlon II X3/X4s with decent integrated graphics on the motherboard, but with one cheaper and significantly improved chip.

            Again, it is just like dropping the 45nm Core 2 CPUs and northbridges and moving to one 32nm CPU/GPU Sandy Bridge as the standard, at the exact same price points, from the bottom up through the midrange.

            • shank15217
            • 9 years ago

            AMD would refresh athlon II with 1 or 2 module bulldozer cores and call it something else so I don’t know why you think there isn’t going to be a lower end gpuless cpu. Amd has removed athlon/phenom/sempron branding from all their future products. At this point amd will have fusion products and discrete cpus ranging from the very low end to the high end with an overlap of 2 module bulldozers and high end llano chips.

            • OneArmedScissor
            • 9 years ago

            I didn’t say there aren’t going to be cheaper CPUs with no GPU, now did I?

            What you are describing with Bulldozer is exactly what they do right now with Phenom II X2, X3, X4, and X6s, which go from $100+ and exist solely for pricier desktops. Nothing is changing there.

            The Athlon IIs are even cheaper yet and intended for general purpose $500-ish desktops [b<] and laptops[/b<], which primarly use integrated graphics. This is AMD's bread and butter in the PC market. Go look up almost any AMD laptop from the past year or so. Barring the few even cheaper Bobcat models, they're universally Athlon II + 880G, and even with a graphics card, they still have the IGP for switching. Llano > Athlon II - for laptops and low end desktops Bulldozer > Phenom II - for higher end desktops with graphics cards I think this wins the, "most pointlessly nerdy thread of all time," award. *face palm*

            • shank15217
            • 9 years ago

            Llano created a new product segment for AMD, it didn’t displace any existing product.

            • JMccovery
            • 9 years ago

            Technically, Llano is the replacement for the Sempron & Athlon II lines in notebooks and desktops. Bulldozer goes to a minimum of 2 modules/4 cores, and it is placed in the upper Mainstream segment. AMD is going on a similar route as Intel: APUs for Value and Mainstream systems, and CPUs for Performance and Enthusiast systems. Dual and Quad-core Athlon IIs [b<]may[/b<] still be produced for oems. The Sempron/Athlon II/Turion/Phenom names more than likely will die by June.

            • flip-mode
            • 9 years ago

            Brazos is a new platform too, with DX11. Just because it’s new doesn’t mean it’s high end.

        • NeelyCam
        • 9 years ago

        I sense a “Was NeelyCam right?” moment coming… can’t wait – it’s been a while since the last one.

          • dpaus
          • 9 years ago

          Promise to hold your breath until it happens?

            • NeelyCam
            • 9 years ago

            I just might.

            • NeelyCam
            • 9 years ago

            I guess the -1 means people don’t want me to die after all..?

            • dpaus
            • 9 years ago

            No, it’s because you didn’t commit to doing it.

      • derFunkenstein
      • 9 years ago

      Not with Llano, maybe with Bulldozer you’ll get your high end competition.

        • NeelyCam
        • 9 years ago

        Yeah, that’s what I meant, but it didn’t translate into text. Sorry about that.

        My point regarding Llano was that if it works well, the time of $99 quad cores is over.

          • derFunkenstein
          • 9 years ago

          Yeah, that’s probably true. If Llano clocks sufficiently high and performs sufficiently well compared to the slower Sandy Bridge quads as a result, then we’ll be back to $150+ quad-cores.

          edit: but if 400 Radeon cores is sufficiently fast using shared memory (ick), you won’t need a GPU for even midrange gaming, either. Your typical WoW box (or other MMO) won’t need a GPU.

            • SonicSilicon
            • 9 years ago

            Shared memory for on-die graphics may spur the use of highest speed RAM,. I can’t recall that ever being benchmarked, though.

            It would be interesting to be able to dedicate a full gigabyte to the Radeon cores, though. Four gigs total of RAM with one to graphics and the other three to system. Sounds great for 32-bit operating systems. (-p

    • kamikaziechameleon
    • 9 years ago

    I don’t think the phenom architecture can compete in the mobile market because of energy efficiency dominance by intel. I’d say that cheap desktops its a potent mix of utility and price. If I was building my parents a new desktop in the next six months I’d do a lano assuming they’ll have a competitively priced quad core option in the 100-120 dollars mark.

      • shank15217
      • 9 years ago

      You have power efficiency info about the llano i gather.

        • dpaus
        • 9 years ago

        Yeah, when they can make a 5W SoC (and apparently with a 3W on its way), I don’t think they’re out of the power efficiency game by a long shot…

      • ew
      • 9 years ago

      What on earth do you parents need a quad core desktop for?

        • dpaus
        • 9 years ago

        Granny plays a mean WoW while she Facebooks with the grandkids.

    • wingless
    • 9 years ago

    Llano is perfect for cheap desktops. With 400 shader cores, 80 more than a Radeon HD3870, it should be able to handle some console-quality PC games just fine. It’ll make a helluva minimum system requirement benchmark for games.

    • Deanjo
    • 9 years ago

    Laptops, the I/O (pci-e for example) is too crippled for any expansion possibilities that would be expected on a desktop machine.

      • Theolendras
      • 9 years ago

      PCI-E I/O too crippled for desktop ? Try servers, but even then. Sure there have been the sata performance issue of the 700 series and the suspect performance of the 600 series, but somthing that does affect real world usage on the 800 series in a meaningful way for desktop ? I might be igorant, lease share some specifics

    • reeltrouble
    • 9 years ago

    Cost is the obvious unknown but assuming a good price/pref ratio, it will compete best in the mobile space. That said, I’m really looking forward to seeing the pref, power, and price numbers for llano as it looks like a fun little sff chip as it’s graphics may make it usable without having to buy a discrete card (which is not the case with Sandy Bridge).

    • derFunkenstein
    • 9 years ago

    The CPU is a dog. The integrated graphics may save it somewhat, but even then, the Intel HD 2000/3000 is plenty to handle what most mainstream users need. The only way to compete is by being significantly cheaper. There’s more room for that in the mobile market, as the sub-$600 market is mostly flooded with 2010’s stuff. It needs to come out pronto with a bunch of design wins to do it, though.

      • anotherengineer
      • 9 years ago

      You have benchies already so you know its a dog??

      My dad and many others are still running PC’s with a single core from 5 yrs ago, now those are dogs compared to anything today.

        • moshpit
        • 9 years ago

        It’s based on the same core processing as Phenom II. It can’t be anything other then a dog by today’s standards.

          • [SDG]Mantis
          • 9 years ago

          Dog is a relative term. There isn’t much a Athlon II x4 can’t do in real practical terms, including gaming with the right graphics card. And “right” graphics card for a single screen is just fine in all but a handful of games with a 3-year-old graphics card like the 8800GT.

          Am I personally running either? No. I have a C2Q and a GTX460. Do I need a lot more than that? Not right now.

          It depends entirely on what is “good enough” performance for an individual. For instance, I just replaced an 8-year-old file-server with an E-350-based system that will bay for itself in power use alone inside a couple of years. Good enough. And lower power usage than anything that I had lying around.

          I don’t have any pressing plans to upgrade my folk’s C2D E6300 either for that matter. It does everything that is needed. And I expect that the Llano would be an upgrade to that system.

            • anotherengineer
            • 9 years ago

            Exactly.

            Last I checked a quad core (any quad core) wouldn’t be called a dog since it has NO problem running things today.

            Maybe comparing it to the fastest sandy bridge it looks slow on benchies, but with the same mech hdd boot times, IE9 load times, and 95% of things what 95% of what most people do benchmarks don’t mean much.

            If someone is replacing a 3 or 4 yr old pc then Llano would be a very nice upgrade.

            If someone has a c2Q9650 with a 6870 then there is no point.

        • derFunkenstein
        • 9 years ago

        It’s a Phenom II. You don’t need “benchies” to know it’s a dog.

          • shank15217
          • 9 years ago

          Actually its not a Phenom II, it’s an Athlon II with tweaks and turbo-core and a larger l2 cache.

            • sweatshopking
            • 9 years ago

            and additional core power management. it’s not JUST a athlon 2. it’s a pretty heavily tweaked athlon 2.

            • derFunkenstein
            • 9 years ago

            Tweaked for lower idle power consumption, not for faster-per-clock performance. People have put high hopes on this CPU to win AMD back the high-end, and it’s just not going to happen.

            • Theolendras
            • 9 years ago

            Some models are rumored to use TurboCore tech to scale up as well. It can’t come soon enough cause ever since Nehalem AMD can’t compete on poorly threaded apps even on price efficiency per dollar.

            • shank15217
            • 9 years ago

            It has a tweaked core, it is faster per clock and it has a different cache configuration than Athlon II. I tihnk you are confusing Bulldozer with Llano.

          • Game_boy
          • 9 years ago

          Not if they clock it REALLY high on mobile. Like 3.5GHz Turbo high. Not out of the question.

          • FuturePastNow
          • 9 years ago

          Funny, my desktop feels pretty damn fast.

            • NeelyCam
            • 9 years ago

            Maybe that’s because you haven’t tried the other guy’s desktop.

            • bimmerlovere39
            • 9 years ago

            Nah, that’s not it – unless a Phenom II X3 720 and an i7 950 isn’t a big enough performance gap.

            The i7 [i<]was[/i<] faster. Just. I'm sure there are places that would become quite apparent - things that benchmarks are based off of. But for most uses, including gaming, I don't think there's much of a significant bottleneck there. Some tasks (the one that pops to mind for me is RAW -> JPEG conversions) definitely benefit, but most other things are more bottlenecked by storage or network. The gap between a desktop and a laptop costing twice is much larger than the gap between two desktops with the same price ratio. Pretty much any desktop with $100 worth of CPU is going to be fast enough for things you don't view in a time-is-money context, IMO. Above that, you're either in it because of a gluttony for power, you're doing something professionally, or you wish you were. Yay prosumers? 😀

            • NeelyCam
            • 9 years ago

            Agreed.

        • derFunkenstein
        • 9 years ago

        Also, your 5 year old PCs aren’t something you’d buy new today, either, so your story is irrelevant to today’s processor performance.

          • anotherengineer
          • 9 years ago

          But a 5yr PC is something that you would replace with a new one today and there is a big selection to chose from, soon to be including Llano.

      • Krogoth
      • 9 years ago

      You are not its targeted market.

      Llano has been a mainstream product from the get go. If you thought that it had a chance against the Nehalem dynasty in terms of CPU performance. You are delusional.

      Platform cost is the decisive factor. If Llano platforms prove to be cheaper than their Sandy Bridge counterparts. OEMs are going to be over all it.

      • Theolendras
      • 9 years ago

      I think you overview some features here, even on the cpu front. Not to say Llano can beat Sandy bridge on that front, I’m sure it won’t, but it might figure better than you think if they do not screw on the 32nm process and have implemented that rumored Turbocore improvement. That’s a big if, because the rumor seems to have been quiet for some time. Still the Turboboost account for a fair amount of the Intel advantage on benchmark. If AMD does well on that front, they may be up for a fair amount of the mainstream segment.

      The IPC of Intel architechture will still be higher and the 32nm process will be much more mature so it can ramp things up a notch if needed (it won’t).

      As for the HD3000 it is probably much slower than a 5600 Radeon which seems to be a realistic target for Llano. It won’t stay king on that front very long tough Ivy bridge might take it’s lunch as fast as this fall.

    • Krogoth
    • 9 years ago

    Platform cost is everything.

    If Llano is cheaper to OEM types. It has a very good shot.

    The game in the mainstream market is no longer about having the fastest CPU. It has been this way since the depute of cheap dual-core CPUs that can effortlessly handle mainstream stuff.

      • ImSpartacus
      • 9 years ago

      To be honest, Llano is [i<]the[/i<] OEM chip. With Llano, the OEM can advertise four cores and they don't need to add any discrete graphics. I think Llano could sneak up on everyone and find its way into a lot of budget desktops. On the same coin, Llano will probably see success in laptops, specifically ultraportables that cannot support discrete graphics. I'll be interested to see its battery life. That will decide if it will see the light of day in ultraportables. Otherwise, it might find moderate success in cheap laptops as well.

        • spigzone
        • 9 years ago

        Why wouldn’t it have the chops to find success in ALL laptop segments except high end gaming laptops.

          • NeelyCam
          • 9 years ago

          Because a battery big enough to give it 8+ hours of battery life is literally as big and heavy as a brick.

      • hoohoo
      • 9 years ago

      GPU performance – outside the office Excel/Word world that is – has become as important as CPU performance. So I’d say the company that offers the best price on good GPU/CPU balance with as much of the NB+SB moved on the ‘APU’ (excuse me) die will have the competitive advantage.

      It’s a fairly mature industry. We are moving to systems on a chip that meet most people’s need, but with enough outboard PCIe lanes to let gamers add a high end video card to their system.

    • ssidbroadcast
    • 9 years ago

    Originally, I was going to vote “Neither” since I was thinking of which outcome would likely result, but then I realized the question was [i<]Where does Llano have the best [u<]chance[/u<][/i<] and figured that, well, if anything a Radeon-pedigree IGP has a better chance against an intel IGP (though intel has been catching up). So I voted mobile.

      • shank15217
      • 9 years ago

      This is insulting to AMD, Intel’s gpu is nowhere close to Llano’s gpu, infact it’s gonna make most of AMDs discrete gpus under $70 obsolete.

        • dpaus
        • 9 years ago

        Unless you’re using them to perform a major upgrade on an Intel system 🙂

    • Buzzard44
    • 9 years ago

    Eh, it’ll compete in both. How successful or competitive it is is meh. It’ll probably be a slightly slower and moderatively cheaper competitor, so each will have their own space. I’m abstaining from voting, because I’m expecting them to generally fill different price ranges, and be about on parity with each other on $/performance where they overlap. Right or wrong, that’s my two cents.

    • evilpaul
    • 9 years ago

    I voted Mobile.

    On the desktop even some 3.7Ghz quad-core Phenom II action won’t best Sandy Bridge. But in the mobile space Llano will likely again be less than competitive in performance, but in the bang for buck, and probably TR’s $$$/performance plot point graph, I think Llano will do nicely. I’m most interested to see how it fares against the dual-core Sandy Bridge chips.

    It’s nice to see AMD finally get a 32nm product out there. It seems like Intel has been holding back because they didn’t feel much competitive pressure. Hopefully with additional clockspeed headroom and Bulldozer in July things will get (even more) interesting.

    P.S. I don’t get the joke vote option this time. To Google!

    P.P.S. The Xbox 360 GPU is actually pretty similar to the BitBoys vaporware (well, kind of shaders didn’t exist at the time).

      • DancinJack
      • 9 years ago

      You don’t get the cheese vote?

      • ImSpartacus
      • 9 years ago

      Gouda is a cheese. Llano Estacado is a region in Texas that has a nice winery. Wine and cheese? Ehh, I don’t know. Am I trying too hard? .(

        • sydbot
        • 9 years ago

        You could have always gone with the Chips and Cheese argument, although Gouda is much better by itself.

    • StuG
    • 9 years ago

    Llano has a chance on the laptop front, in offering better integrated graphics and around the same CPU performance as Sandy Bridge. Hopefully it delivers, though since its ~Phenom II performance (from what I’ve gathered) the power will have to be leaps and bounds ahead of what it has been previously to make an impact in this market.

      • srg86
      • 9 years ago

      The integrated graphics will be very competitive, but the CPU performance as it’s based on Phenom II, won’t be great compared to Sandy Bridge, probably still forcing it into the lower price brackets (the higher ones are for bulldozer anyway). All in all any competition is good, but my oppinion of Llano is a bit meh.

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This