A8-3870K FM1 vs. A8-7650K FM2+ core technology difference...

[waltchan]

Was introduced to the $10 A4-3300 I found on eBay today, and predicting long-term the A8-3870K will follow this path. The more I read about A8-3870K, I'm unsure if I read correctly if the cores in it are better technology than A8-7650K, despite it's slower clock speed.

The Llanos were based on K10 cores, which indicates A8-3870K is a full, native quad-core processor. It requires overclocking up to 4.5 GHz and a bump in voltage to keep up with FM2+ single-thread speed. Boards may be scarce to find, but I will hunt for one if native quad-cores do rule here.

However, on A8-7650K, which originally came from Bulldozer but improved as Kaveri, it only has two cores with four threads. Sure, A8-7650K may be much faster in single-thread speed, but isn't multi-tasking a little suspicious here?

I don't care about the graphics in APU. Certainly, Kaveri wins.

Help me out here? Which one has superior core technology?

 

[deasd]

Streamroller outperform K10.5 by around 15%. K10.5 is hard to overclock. But quad core K10.5 might have a bit more perf than 2M4C Streamroller at same clock.

 

[waltchan]

But quad core K10.5 might have a bit more perf than 2M4C Streamroller at same clock.

I like what I'm hearing. Price is terrific, only $61 shipped on eBay if this is indeed a true, native quad-core, and it's the highest-end. Can some experts point out here, and is it better performance despite K10's lower single-thread speed?

 

[Madpacket]

A8-7650K is faster.

 

[SPBHM]

for overclocking, the FM1 CPUs hit a wall at around 3.6GHz as far as I can remember.

 

[waltchan]

for overclocking, the FM1 CPUs hit a wall at around 3.6GHz as far as I can remember.

Interestingly, a lot of AM3 K10 CPUs I tested in past seem to run up to 3.6-3.7 GHz max. I still think it's not enough. Single-thread speed is around 1200 but can go up to 1500 if it can be bus-overclocked to 4.3 GHz, which I know is difficult to achieve depending on CPU's die-quality. I did own a Athlon 650 X4 before that ran up to 4.10 GHz on stock voltage, but sold it for $100 2 years ago so I don't hit with depreciation, and I just repurchased a 650 again for $40 shipped 2 years later. Haven't tested yet.

Right now, the fastest I have is one Athlon 220 that can be unlocked as quad-core. If I disable three cores and run it as single-core on stock voltage, it runs up to 4.10 GHz with no problem. Enabling all 4 cores drop it down to 3.70 GHz.

 

[Soulkeeper]

My 3870K has been holding up relatively well.
Keep in mind these are ~2011 products.
One of my favorite articles, from a theoretical peak performance perspective, is this one from anandtech http://www.anandtech.com/show/7711/...f-kaveri-and-other-recent-amd-and-intel-chips

Given the right software mix, llano holds up well against the fm2/fm2+ and X4 CPUs.
Although very few people could overclock them over 3.6GHz due to platform and process tech limitations, which have been largely addressed with the more recent socket/APUs.

 

[Abwx]

Perfs wise a Llano has 6% better IPC than the K10 based Athlon X4 but frequency wise it doesnt clock better, let alone compared to a 7650K, this latter is better generaly set apart eventualy in Cinebench 11.5 where Llano has strong perf with a 3.45 score for the 3850.

 

[waltchan]

What does it mean "CPU floating-point peak performance?" I'm surprised to see Llano doubles the SSE cycle numbers, and that's at base frequency.

 

[Soulkeeper]

What does it mean "CPU floating-point peak performance?" I'm surprised to see Llano doubles the SSE cycle numbers, and that's at base frequency.

If all clocked at 3Ghz:
Kaveri Trinity Llano Haswell Ivy Bridge
sse32: 48.00 48.00 96.00 96.00 96.00
sse64: 24.00 24.00 48.00 48.00 48.00
avx32: 48.00 48.00 0.00 192.00 192.00
avx64: 24.00 24.00 0.00 96.00 96.00
avxfma32: 96.00 96.00 0.00 384.00 0.00
avxfma64: 48.00 48.00 0.00 192.00 0.00

If you run an older os or older sse2 optimized code, llano does well. Otherwise the newer stuff is better in most every regard.

 

[VirtualLarry]

Shrug. I had a quad-core unlocked 2.7Ghz Llano chip. It made a pretty decent HTPC.

 

[NTMBK]

Interestingly, a lot of AM3 K10 CPUs I tested in past seem to run up to 3.6-3.7 GHz max.

Different semiconductor process. AMD had a lot of trouble with Llano on the 32nm process (the reason they were so hard to get hold of back in the day), especially with integrating the GPU into the same die.

I mean, go ahead and try it, but don't be too disappointed when it doesn't hit the speeds of the 45nm parts.

Regarding peak performance- Llano will do better on multithreaded code than Bulldozer-derived APUs, but it loses on single-threaded workloads. 2 bigger modules beat 4 small cores. Check out this page from the Anandtech Trinity review: http://www.anandtech.com/show/6347/amd-a10-5800k-a8-5600k-review-trinity-on-the-desktop-part-2/2

 

[itsmydamnation]

the cores in llano are "bigger", its all the the stuff STARS doesn't have that BD does that makes the difference. Thats' even with BD's horrible L1 size, L2 latency and miss predict penalty.

also on the FP side, LLano will find it harder to hit peak throughput compared to BD

 

[waltchan]

The quad-cores in Llano were borrowed from Athlon II X4 Propus in new 32nm process, and called it K10.5. What's the difference between K10 and K10.5?

 

[Abwx]

The quad-cores in Llano came from Athlon II X4 Propus, and it's called K10.5. What's the difference between K10 and K10.5?

That s not the same cores, as said K10.5 has better IPC by 6%, you can check AT review here :

http://www.anandtech.com/show/4476/amd-a83850-review

 

[waltchan]

That s not the same cores, as said K10.5 has better IPC by 6%, you can check AT review here :

http://www.anandtech.com/show/4476/amd-a83850-review

Or maybe something similar. Only difference I see here Propus was 45nm while Llano was 32nm, but both retained K10 microarchitecture. Maybe the K10.5 is the mild-upgrade refresh from K10. If Bulldozer was cancelled, AMD would continue AM3 with K10.5 refresh.

 

[Abwx]

Or maybe something similar. Only difference I see here Propus was 45nm while Llano was 32nm, but both retained K10 microarchitecture. Maybe the K10.5 is the mild-upgrade refresh from K10. If Bulldozer was cancelled, AMD would continue AM3 with K10.5 refresh.

That s not a refresh, improvement is higher than what Intel got from SB to IB, this is possible only with uarchitectural evolution, the Athlon 635 in the review is also 2.9GHz, in FP you cant get this with a refresh :

 

[Madpacket]

A8-7650K can hit 4.4/4.6 GHz with a $25.00 cooler. The GPU can also be overclocked to at least 900Mhz (sometimes much higher but no point due to memory bandwidth) and paired with fast 2133 or if you have a good chip, 2400Mhz it'll blow past an overclocked A8-3870 both in CPU and GPU performance. It'll likely use less power as well in the process.

I like the old Llano APU's and they still make for a solid HTPC but the latest Godvari chips are a few steps ahead.

 

[nismotigerwvu]

I've got a similar chip in my HTPC (A8-3850, stock clocks) and a Phenom II X4 955BE (mild OC to 3.6ghz core, 2.6ghz NB). I could do some benchmarks on both if it would help you out. Honestly, outside of really heavy tasks (which I never really do on the HTPC) I can't notice a difference between the performance of the two systems (or my 2500K at my office). If you could save a bit of cash on the cpu/mobo running a llano based build and squeeze an SSD in your budget you'll see a nice improvement in usability.

 

[SPBHM]

A8-7650K can hit 4.4/4.6 GHz with a $25.00 cooler. The GPU can also be overclocked to at least 900Mhz (sometimes much higher but no point due to memory bandwidth) and paired with fast 2133 or if you have a good chip, 2400Mhz it'll blow past an overclocked A8-3870 both in CPU and GPU performance. It'll likely use less power as well in the process.

I like the old Llano APU's and they still make for a solid HTPC but the latest Godvari chips are a few steps ahead.

I think things are not that simple, a lot of the fm2+ boards have throttling problems, even at stock settings

 

[Yuriman]

That s not a refresh, improvement is higher than what Intel got from SB to IB, this is possible only with uarchitectural evolution, the Athlon 635 in the review is also 2.9GHz, in FP you cant get this with a refresh :

I know I'm derailing, but that the Core2Quad linked there is 2.4GHz. Performance per clock is similar between the 65nm 2007 first-generation Core2Quad and the 2011 32nm Llano APU (small advantage to AMD's chip - it should be around even with the 2008 45nm chips). The big advantages with AMD's offering are lower power consumption and the inclusion of integrated graphics, though that no longer receives current drivers.

You can pick up a C2Q on eBay for ~$20.

I'd rather have Llano than C2Q by far, but I'd like to point out that first-gen i5 and i7 products have basically hit the bottom of their depreciation, and I know how much waltchan likes that. You can get a first-gen Core i5 (1156) for ~$30 on eBay, which will slaughter either of these, and an i7 920 (1366) for ~$20-25, which, when overclocked, can match the chips AMD is selling in 2016. The catch is finding a reasonably priced motherboard.

 

[waltchan]

I'd rather have Llano than C2Q by far, but I'd like to point out that first-gen i5 and i7 products have basically hit the bottom of their depreciation, and I know how much waltchan likes that. You can get a first-gen Core i5 (1156) for ~$30 on eBay, which will slaughter either of these, and an i7 920 (1366) for ~$20-25, which, when overclocked, can match the chips AMD is selling in 2016. The catch is finding a reasonably priced motherboard.

I believe the FM1s compete with LGA1156 at the same time. There's more boards in FM1 than LGA1156 I'm seeing here at reasonable price. So, I guess I'm down to order one of A8-3870Ks. Thanks, everyone here.

 

[Yuriman]

I believe the FM1s compete with LGA1156 at the same time. There's more boards in FM1 than LGA1156 I'm seeing here at reasonable price. So, I guess I'm down to order one of A8-3870Ks. Thanks, everyone here.

In terms of performance, no, they don't compare to LGA1156, they're a hair faster than 775 chips. They were sold at the same time, but AMD was already falling behind Intel in terms of performance in 2011.