Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

More Linux Benchmarks Of The AMD A8-3500M Fusion APU

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by renkin View Post
    Very nice

    Very... very nice.
    Depends on which part are you reading.
    E.g. "Intel?s processor dips into a low power state more often. This mode-switching results in very similar power numbers. The Core i5-2520M averaged 12.8 watts during Web browsing, 17 watts during office tasks, and 19.4 watts in movie playback. In contrast, the A8-3500M averages 15.2 watts, 16.3 watts, and 19.5 watts, respectively."

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by Qaridarium
      you just do the wrong cpu benchmark because only OLD ones... use a openCL CPU benchmark or use Pathscale-Enzo then the amd system wins every benchmark...

      just because AMD-Fusion is NOT build for winning old "intel" software the Fusion is build to Win OpenCL/Pathscale-Enzo benchmarks.
      Just curious, what OpenCL/Pathscale-Enzo software are you using yourself?

      For me, I'm using exactly zero OpenCL/Pathscale-Enzo apps. That's right, like most people I'm still using "old Intel" software. Benchmarks that leverage the GPU to do some traditional CPU tasks are irrelevant for most use cases, as most software is not designed to do so.

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by bug77 View Post
        Depends on which part are you reading.
        E.g. "Intel?s processor dips into a low power state more often."
        True, but that looks like something that perhaps AMD can 'fix' (or at least improve) with software/BIOS updates..

        Comment


        • #34
          I don't think so, the faster processor will do the same amount of work in less time, hence 'dips in to low power state' in longer time. For this instance, AMD's CPU is slower, so it have to spend more time in C0 state running code, that's where the inferior power savings come from. Single core performance is still the king.

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by not.sure View Post
            True, but that looks like something that perhaps AMD can 'fix' (or at least improve) with software/BIOS updates..
            A lot of things could,eventually, sometime, perhaps happen. But I'm talking about what happens now.
            And look at those prices: http://www.techpowerup.com/146236/AM...g-Surface.html
            That's a lot of cash for a weaker CPU with a better GPU. And while a more powerful GPU is always desirable, the fact remains that intel's HD2000/3000 is still good enough for office work and web surfing. Llano's GPU will only cater to those that must game on a laptop. But only to those that are not very demanding of their games.

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by bug77 View Post
              And while a more powerful GPU is always desirable, the fact remains that intel's HD2000/3000 is still good enough for office work and web surfing.
              The sentence is still true if you replace "GPU" with "CPU" and "intel's HD2000/3000" with "AMD's Athlon/Phenom II".
              Really, what is it you think that Llano lacks for the usage cases at the platform's price point? It's a balanced architecture: it'll do everything well, instead of having both very strong points and trade-offs.

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by PsynoKhi0 View Post
                The sentence is still true if you replace "GPU" with "CPU" and "intel's HD2000/3000" with "AMD's Athlon/Phenom II".
                Really, what is it you think that Llano lacks for the usage cases at the platform's price point? It's a balanced architecture: it'll do everything well, instead of having both very strong points and trade-offs.
                The thing is, I don't see Llano as balanced. To me, it looks like a rather crappy CPU, with an ancient architecture, paired with an oversized GPU that still needs replacing if you're serious about graphics. It doesn't eat much less power than Sandy Bridge and doesn't cost significantly less.
                If I still have to throw away the embedded GPU, I'd much rather it's a smaller one and I get to keep the more capable CPU. I do a lot of programming on my machine and when I have the time I also like to game at 1920x1200 with 16xAA and 16xAF.
                I know other people will have different uses for their machine, but the target market of Llano still seems like a niche to me.
                Brazos sold incredibly well, since it kicked Atom's butt. Bur Llano isn't beating anything.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by chithanh View Post
                  Also, Anandtech was heavily criticized for doing everything to make Llano look bad in their review. For example, they initially used DDR3-1333 memory and withheld DDR3-1866 results, until they were called out on it by their readers. Then they used low resolutions in some benchmarks (while even the mobile Llano is capable of running modern games at 1366x768).
                  This is true for almost every review I've seen, they pair up an i3 or i5 in the same price range, but with an Nvidia GPU, which prices it well above the A8. Intel DOES NOT want people seeing how pathetic their GPU is.

                  The A8-3850 performs extremely well when OCd a little:



                  Cleaned up a little for spelling.
                  Originally posted by radeonfanboy of TweakTown
                  CPU: AMD APU A8-3850 @3.77GHz on aircooling
                  MB: Gigabyte A75M-UD2H
                  DDR3 OC 2320MHz
                  FSB: 145 MHz ( Stock is 100MHz, oc 45%)
                  iGPU: 870 MHz, (stock is 594 MHz)
                  Yeah yeah yeah, I may as well OC since I never use the stock heatsink, I always get a giant down blower like a Scythe Kabuto since its quieter and cools allot better then the copper based heatpipe heatsinks that AMD uses on their 140w CPUs.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by bug77 View Post
                    I do a lot of programming on my machine and when I have the time I also like to game at 1920x1200 with 16xAA and 16xAF. I know other people will have different uses for their machine, but the target market of Llano still seems like a niche to me.
                    Let's just agree to disagree...

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by PsynoKhi0 View Post
                      Let's just agree to disagree...
                      Fair enough. I wasn't actually trying to convince anyone, I was just stating my point of view: Llano is not for me. I think not many people will buy it, but that's just my opinion.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X