bit-tech.net

AMD demo Llano on YouTube

AMD demo Llano on YouTube

What's clear from the video is that AMD's Llano APU's will have at least four cores

AMD has recently uploaded an interesting video to its YouTube channel showing a direct comparison between one of its forthcoming, mainstream targeted, Llano-based processors and a Sandy Bridge based Intel Core i7-2630QM.

The video show both systems working through a number of CPU and GPU intensive tasks and also shows power consumption figures throughout.

Unsurprisingly the AMD processor gives its Intel counterpart a reasonable beating in both the performance and power consumption stakes, but it’s always worth taking these kind of manufacturer videos with a pinch of salt.

Possibly the most interesting part of the video is the final few seconds where AMD list the technical specs of the two systems used for the test. This screen names the AMD processor on test as the quad-core A8-3510MX and the integrated GPU as the AMD Radeon HD 6620M. The board chipset is also named as the AMD A70M Fusion Controller Hub.

This little bit of information seems to lend weight to the rumour that the AMD will be dropping its current naming scheme for its new range of products. We’ve got to admit being a little dubious though about the stream of numbers and letters that appears to be their replacement for the current naming convention, as it doesn’t strike us as particularly easy to understand.

The only piece of information that seems to be missing in fact is the clock speed of the AMD processor used for the demonstration - and the price point, of course.

Do you think this marks the start of AMD’s fight back in the mainstream processor market or is it just a desperate attempt by AMD to build up some excitement about itself? Let us know your thoughts in the forums.

32 Comments

Discuss in the forums Reply
greigaitken 2nd March 2011, 17:31 Quote
I think it demonstrates how we have enough cores for now till software cathes up and the focus should be making those cores do more.
who renders while playing a game AND watches video all while working on excel? (all on a 14" screen)
completely unrealistic and just makes me question their credibility
when products get reviewed, i'll think back to this vid
Phalanx 2nd March 2011, 17:33 Quote
I'm losing more and more faith in AMD as each month passes tbh.
John_T 2nd March 2011, 17:49 Quote
Obviously AMD are going to be setting all the parameters for a demo like that to make their system look as good as possible, (while making Intel's look as bad as possible) so in that sense, yes, it should be taken with a pinch of salt. However. That doesn't necessarily mean there isn't any merit to it all.

AMD must be pretty confident in what they've got to now be making direct comparisons to SandyBridge, so as a complete neutral in the 'fanboy' stakes I'm interested in it. Hurry up and bring it to market and let us see it for real and know the price.
REMF 2nd March 2011, 17:53 Quote
looks like a magnificent chip for thin-n-light 12" laptops.
wuyanxu 2nd March 2011, 17:55 Quote
need to use more of that Fusion idea.

dump all floating point calculations to the on-die GPU, remove floating point units in CPU. in fact, make the whole CPU part to be a microcontroller wrapped around the on-die GPU, all calculations done on GPU, the CPU just process branching and task scheduling.


currently, it doesn't seem much different in terms of top level design from Sandy bridge..... too conservative, not as innovative as AMD marketing is making it to be.
Action_Parsnip 2nd March 2011, 18:08 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ph4lanx
I'm losing more and more faith in AMD as each month passes tbh.

In a neutral news piece like this, your words could do with an explanation tbh.
Phalanx 2nd March 2011, 18:09 Quote
Explanation? The video they made is just stupid. greigaitken has already said what I was thinking. Companies need to use real world scenarios. Not something noone will EVER do with the chip.
Kúsař 2nd March 2011, 18:21 Quote
Llano should easily beat Sandybridge in every application which can use it's SIMD cores - 300 ~ 500 GFlops is far beyond SB(~80 GFlops). Though situation might be different in apps which can't use Llano's stream cores - as it's x86 cores are updated K10...
frontline 2nd March 2011, 18:29 Quote
Llano looks like it will be an interesting addition to laptops and more mainstream desktop PCs, depending on price/performance.

Although the video told us what we already know, that Intel's GPU parts still struggle, just a bit less than they used to.

AMD's main challenge is to persuade more developers to exploit the compute power of the GPU in their apps.
leveller 2nd March 2011, 18:29 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by greigaitken
I think it demonstrates how we have enough cores for now till software cathes up and the focus should be making those cores do more.
who renders while playing a game AND watches video all while working on excel? (all on a 14" screen)
completely unrealistic and just makes me question their credibility
when products get reviewed, i'll think back to this vid

I don't understand your argument ... surely the point is that none of us really know anything until BT etc have benchmarked the stuff to see real-world results? In which case we can only take this video at face value, and at face value it looks good.

I don't know ... how about throwing folding in to the equation, and converting a video file to a mobile-friendly format and playing Crysis 2 while doing that? Sounds kinda useful to me ...
sandys 2nd March 2011, 18:39 Quote
It’s piqued my interest, I am currently running an Athlon X2 2Ghz Athlon with an HD3200 chipset in my HTPC and having recently upgraded to Freeview HD tuners I am finding my HTPC chugging a little much on playback for HD, my assumption was that UVD is not doing the business on FreeviewHD streams as I get a lot of CPU usage.

I’ve OC’d the CPU and allocated more GPU RAM which has improved things but its not as smooth as normal TV used to be, I have an LC19 case, no space for extra GPU, looking for better low power integrated solution, I was going to take a punt on Zacate which despite a poor CPU might do the business with UVD3 but this looks much more likely to be up for the job :cool: couldn’t trust an Intel GPU, drivers aren’t much cop, Linux compatibility is always poor too and I've discovered on my laptop :(
Goty 2nd March 2011, 18:44 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ph4lanx
Explanation? The video they made is just stupid. greigaitken has already said what I was thinking. Companies need to use real world scenarios. Not something noone will EVER do with the chip.

You mean like comparing a bunch of meaningless synthetic benchmarks? Yep, that's a MUCH more valid comparison.
schmidtbag 2nd March 2011, 18:57 Quote
i never pay attention to any videos like this. i like amd but anyone who actually buys a product based on a video made by the manufacturer is an idiot. if intel made this video and the results were switched around, i still wouldn't listen to it. if an unbiased company like asus or gigabyte made it, THEN i think thats something to take note of.
i'm sure this will be priced less than the SB, but i am curious what the frequency is. i would assume it'd be the same frequency because one amd officially releases this, if the frequency is notably higher, this demo won't convince anyone, unless of course theres a massive price difference.
i agree with the other comments saying that nobody would do all of those tasks at the same time, its just stupid.
l3v1ck 2nd March 2011, 19:40 Quote
It will be a fight back. AMD may even take the lead.
But if it takes them another eight years to come up with another new architecture (we've had k8 derivatives since 2003), it won't be long until Intel's tick tock strategy leaves them far behind again.
devdevil85 2nd March 2011, 20:07 Quote
I'm assuming Llano would allow people such as myself who stream video to other devices throughout the house at the same time via PlayOn while gaming (all on the same rig) to see a real world benefit?
Instagib 2nd March 2011, 20:15 Quote
This looks promising, but AMD should of gotten their act together ages ago. Intel potentially handed them the market last month with the Sandy Bridge shambles. It's been wasted though as AMD simply didn't have a competitive product to sell.
HourBeforeDawn 2nd March 2011, 21:02 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by greigaitken
I think it demonstrates how we have enough cores for now till software cathes up and the focus should be making those cores do more.
who renders while playing a game AND watches video all while working on excel? (all on a 14" screen)
completely unrealistic and just makes me question their credibility
when products get reviewed, i'll think back to this vid

I hope this is more accurate then their Zocat versus i5 video demo because as reviewers have shown the Zocat is just slightly better in terms of CPU power then an Intel ATOM and no where near as good as full bore CPUs. So ya I hope this isnt being overly the top as AMD really needs this.
Ross1 2nd March 2011, 21:05 Quote
promising, but i find it odd that you would use i7-2630QM without discrete graphics. I think we are all assuming that on pure cpu power llano isnt going to destroy sandybridge, and its the graphics which is making the difference here.
frontline 2nd March 2011, 22:18 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ross1
promising, but i find it odd that you would use i7-2630QM without discrete graphics. I think we are all assuming that on pure cpu power llano isnt going to destroy sandybridge, and its the graphics which is making the difference here.

Both come with a GPU and i would guess are aimed at the mid-range laptop market and the budget desktop market, where system builders are looking at the best option with limitations on the extra hardware fitted and relatively low power consumption. The GPU in the AMD APU looks like it might manage a bit of gaming, unlike the built in Intel option.

The key though is pricing and the amount of software available that will be optimised for the GPU rather than the CPU.
Eiffie 3rd March 2011, 00:30 Quote
This video doesn't really show me anything that I care about, maybe if it was a video of two computers side-by-side with their full specs listed and one person at each computer trying to load up the same software, proform the same tasks and play the same games it would be a bit more convincing but all I see is two images next to each other and one stutters while the other doesn't. I don't want to put AMD down, I've used their CPU's in the past and they work quite well to this day but this just looks like a glorified commercial with a few commentary track. Looking forward to seeing some benchmarks on bit-tech when the time comes. This video wrote a check that it better be able to cash!
ssj12 3rd March 2011, 01:08 Quote
bad example as for some reason the Final Fantasy 14 benchmark runs like crap on Nvidia GPUs so I expect that the Intel side had an Nvidia card underneath it. I wouldn't put it past AMD to pull something like this either.
javaman 3rd March 2011, 01:21 Quote
We do know AMD beats intel in the GPU arena but that we still very much doubt they beat them for CPU one too. Video work load and the gaming can be easily shifted to the GPU and with clever coding from programmers so can the 3D modelling. Was it even real time or another video which would be so much easier to demonstrate. Even the excel work load it was impossible to say who completed what and how was doing it quicker! Im still not convinced CPU wise they could touch sandybridge. Maybe their "HT" works alot better and was intels "HT" even turned on? The video did seem heavily GPU dependant which I don't think anyone doubts AMD leads intel in. Raw CPU wise......I'll wait for numbers rather than a video. AMD could genuinely have the advantage, but it really depends how well programmers balance load between CPU/GPU and how good both companies drivers are.
play_boy_2000 3rd March 2011, 01:37 Quote
This is still K10, so I think AMD deserves a bit of a break of the CPU side of things. Besides, lets face it, the crappiest part of laptops have always been the video card. If AMD can put out a fusion product that gives the same gfx power as a low to mid end discreet card, I think they are going to have a winner now and even more so when they can pack bulldozer under the hood.
azazel1024 3rd March 2011, 01:58 Quote
I am not suprised that the AMD would trounce the Intel processor if they were both using the integrated graphics cores.

Now if you used the same discrete GPU, and the CPUs on their own...frankly I don't think I'd take the AMD video with even a salt mine.

A kick ass integrated graphics core is certainly nice, but for the medium/high end, at least from all the rumors and from has been seen...matters not a fart in the wind. AMD though does look like it might be capturing the low and middle-low end of the market with their up coming chips. At least until Intel improves their integrated graphics, which with AMD's experience, I don't think Intel is ever going to catch up all the way.
Cool_CR 3rd March 2011, 02:09 Quote
I cannot see my self doing this on a train when is this scenario likey to happen in the office? Could this by why amd have been late the party recently all there tecs are watching movies while working (and there playing games im sure for driver update purposes)?
On the plus side this is AMD taking the game to intel at the high end 2630QM laptops are the £800+ end of the market.
So keep up the good work also i like the idear of a graphics card on the CPU for a laptop as the CPU can be changed while the GPU is almost always part of the motherboard meaning no upgrades are ever really worth it.
Bindibadgi 3rd March 2011, 03:20 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ph4lanx
Explanation? The video they made is just stupid. greigaitken has already said what I was thinking. Companies need to use real world scenarios. Not something noone will EVER do with the chip.

You're taking it FAR too literally. It's merely an example of diverse, multitasking workloads with real-world applications, not "look how fast we can superpi" or compute only tasks. OK, it's very graphics and video heavy - of course that's what AMD is going to push - but it's not invalid in any sense.
Bindibadgi 3rd March 2011, 03:25 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by azazel1024
kick ass integrated graphics core is certainly nice, but for the medium/high end, at least from all the rumors and from has been seen...matters not a fart in the wind. AMD though does look like it might be capturing the low and middle-low end of the market with their up coming chips. At least until Intel improves their integrated graphics, which with AMD's experience, I don't think Intel is ever going to catch up all the way.

AMD - as much as Intel - wants to own the low to middle end. It's where volume is. The high end is nice (for us) but it's minute until you get to 1-2 socket server, where the real profits are. Bulldozer will fill in the high end anyway, Llano will take on SB at its core markets in general consumer and business PCs and laptops. If business' and OEM PC makers can save $30 by not using a PCI-E graphics card - not to mention the fact it opens up different, smaller volume PC styles (which again save money as well as providing a unique angle) then they will jump on it!

We already know the CPUs are K10.5 derivatives so won't exactly blow our socks off, however for a thin, low power PC for the parents, business or HTPC, it should be highly competitive. Not to mention actually overclockable (hopefully) as the system isnt locked down like SB.
fluxtatic 3rd March 2011, 09:00 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bindibadgi


-snip- If business' and OEM PC makers can save $30 by not using a PCI-E graphics card -snip-

True, but how about how much they'll save buying AMD procs vs. Intel? A mid-level HP business desktop runs in the neighborhood of $800, with a Core i3. A competing AMD box would cost in the neighborhood of $100 less...and when businesses aren't paying attention, HP can lighten the discount on the AMD and pocket the difference. Everybody wins! Wait...
thelaw 3rd March 2011, 09:14 Quote
Hmm just missing the "it will also be competitive price wise" to sandybridge IE the same or cheaper as you state....looks expensive...i suspect AMD if its proven better than sandybridge will have to sell them more expensive to claw back some much needed funds.
FullThrottleRic 3rd March 2011, 14:23 Quote
What I'd like to know is how are they running a FCPGA988 mobile i7 in an LGA1155 m-atx motherboard as the specs at the end say...?!
azazel1024 3rd March 2011, 15:52 Quote
For anyone that isn't in to gaming at all, IE not even a casual gamer, I think the only thing AMD is going to have is price on its side, just like with the K10.5 series. In non-graphics related workloads utilizing the integrated graphics cores, the sandy bridge chips are almost deffinitely going to be clock for clock, and core for core much faster. Probably against Bulldozer as well.

For business use, speaking from personal experience, so long as the graphics are good enough for basic web use and office apps, architectual programs, CAD, spread sheets, etc...that is good enough. Sandy Bridge's graphics cover that just fine. Only place AMDs integrated graphics is going to be a plus is in the lower end mobile market for netbooks, maybe lower end laptops. For higher end laptops you are going to see a lot more discrete GPUs that are going to be more powerful than what it sounds like AMD is going to integrate.

With the chicanery that goes on with Laptops, it isn't a stretch to say that SB is going to be able to utilize its GPU for basic functions and once things get demanding switch to a high powered discrete GPU for the heavy lifting.

For desktops, casual gamers and maybe some non-gamers are going to be attracted by AMDs APU offerings with Llano, but just look at Intel's SB prices. The core i3s are in the low mid $100's, the i5 quad core parts are mid high $100's or low $200's. Sure AMD might be able to undercut them some...but probably not by much any more. As process sizes shrink, the price of the CPU does some as well. A 25% savings on a $300 part ain't bad. On a $200 or even $120 part, 25% savings isn't really all the much if performance isn't nearly as good. Especially if you are a person planning discrete graphics anyway. Just my 2 cents.
Yslen 3rd March 2011, 22:08 Quote
EDIT: Wow, epic fail on my part...
Log in

You are not logged in, please login with your forum account below. If you don't already have an account please register to start contributing.



Discuss in the forums