lol. No, this is AnandTech, a fantasy land where everyone has their i7-2600Ks and CrossFired 6990s at 100% load 24/7.
Not to mention just plain stupid.
The vast majority of consumers use either years-old systems or modern budget systems. Most of the people who buy mid- to high-end systems don't even utilize what their computers are capable of, they're either buying high-end stuff because of prestige or to avoid having to buy a computer more than twice per decade.
Llano is meant to do one thing: provide a more compelling all-around computing experience for the average consumer. Not the average AnandTech forum participant. I think it does that admirably. Intel's second-gen i3 CPUs are far, far more CPU muscle than the average user needs, and no, that's not going to change anytime soon. I've put together scores and scores of Stars-CPU systems and no one - no one - complains that they're too slow. I regularly ask people if they can tell the difference between an i3 and an Athlon II system and let them try them out side by side. They usually can't.
lol. No shit!
what if i only have like $300 and i really, really want to play some video games?
define real world gaming.
360
yea i know i know pc is much better but at that budget just get a console.
On one hand you are saying these people dont care or wont use the power given to them. In other words not care. Then you turn around and say Llano gives them a better experience. Which is it? Will they notice or not? You seem to think they wont by your current experiences and I agree. And that is the point I am making. These low end machines are bought by people who play farmville and solitaire. It addresses a problem that isnt there.
360
yea i know i know pc is much better but at that budget just get a console.
On its own, Llano is obviously not for gaming and it really should not be presented as a contender as that sets false expectations.
The platform though, which supports xfire, can be augmented to produce a potent gaming system if desired.
The top desktop SKU doesn't even have turbo and is only clocked at 2.9Ghz, what makes you think they will overclock to 3.7Ghz? Just because a Phenom II will hit 3.7Ghz with ease does not mean that Llano will, it has the extra heat of the GPU to deal without any more surface area to cool it.
Also no one has a 1280 or 1440 monitor anymore, almost all new LCD monitors are 1080P. And the scaling of most monitors especially cheap ones is very bad, when gaming on a LCD doing it at native res is always the best option.
"here is my setting
CPU: AMD APU A8-8350 @3.77GHz aircooling
MB: Gigabyte A75M-UD2H
DDR OC 2320MHz
FSB: 145 MHz ( Stock is 100MHz, oc 45%
iGPU: 870 MHz, (stock is 600 MHz)"
Pathetic, and completely out of consideration for anyone wanting to play something more complicated than minesweeper.
For ~$600, I can get an i5 HP with BluRay, 6GB DDR3, 750GB HDD, 17.3" LED HD, and a discrete HD5650M 1GB that will blow this turkey out of the water. For a tiny bit more, I can get one with a discrete HD5850M. That's not bad really, and is probably the cheapest way to get a notebook with passable gaming performance. For a desktop, basically *any* $50 discrete card hands this its own ass.
I bet the next one will be considerably better though. Remember Phenom I? It was terrible, whereas PhII was pretty darned good considering.
Link to this $600 laptop deal and the 5850M one? A bit large on the screen but that price is pretty killer.
I mostly agree with everything else you said except this - and I strongly disagree with your statement that Llano is not for gaming. If you look at the benchmarks on the AnandTech review, you get these comparisons between the A8-3500M APU (with the HD 6620G on-die GPU) vs. the most powerful Core i7 (with HD 3000) laptop:
BFBC2: 48 vs 35
Civ 5: 29 vs 18
DiRT 2: 68 vs 51
L4D2: 67 vs 53
Mafia 2: 34 vs 18
Mass Effect 2: 52 vs 42
Metro 2033: 29 vs 18
Stalker Pripyat: 62 vs 38
TW Shogun 2: 79 vs 66
Those are all at low settings in 1333 x 768, which for a laptop is very realistic and a good yardstick. You can see from those games that the difference between Llano's GPU and HD 3000 is striking. BFBC2 with Llano is fine vs acceptable with HD 3000. Civ 5 with Llano is acceptable vs unacceptable with HD 3000. Dirt 2 and L4D2 will look better on Llano. Mafia 2 is acceptable with Llano vs unacceptable with HD 3000. Mass Effect will look better on Llano. Metro 2033 is acceptable on Llano vs unacceptable on HD 3000. Stalker looks much better on Llano. TW Shogun is moot, I doubt anyone can really differentiate 79 vs 66 FPS.
Keep in mind this is the top end Llano vs the top end i7. Llano laptops will be cheaper. They will have equal to if not better than battery life. They offer a remarkably better mobile gaming experience than even the highest-end non-discrete Intel offering - in some cases, they turn an unplayable game into a playable game. Yes, the CPU itself is underwhelming compared to the Core series, but so what? A 911 Turbo is hella faster than a Corolla, but if you're not racing, a Corolla makes more sense because it's cheaper. Most people are not racing their CPUs.
The above points are why I will be heartily recommended Llano laptops to gamers who simply can't afford a discrete card solution, or whose budget doesn't permit a discrete card.
On its own, Llano is obviously not for gaming and it really should not be presented as a contender as that sets false expectations.
just... get sandybridge+ discrete.
really, if you're gonna game, stay away from Llano
I felt the same way about SSDs. They were faster, sure, but they weren't quite like sticking an afterburner on your ass.I'm underwhelmed,
Am I the only one that feels like these IGPs aren't as revolutionary as everyone is making them out to be? Everything is 30% increase here, 50% increase there.
I think the bigger problem is that you can get a laptop with faster GPU performance and CPU performance for $700-750 on the Intel side (and these are regular prices, not even deals):
i5 480 + HD5730 for $700:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16834246003
i5 480 + GT 540M (which beat 6620 in almost every gaming benchmark in AT's review) for $700:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16834115987
i5 480 + HD6550M for $700:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16834215095
i5 2410 + GT 540M for $750:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16834215110
Every single one of these laptops provides faster CPU & GPU performance (than either the 6620G or the 6630M GPUs) (http://www.notebookcheck.net/Mobile-Graphics-Cards-Benchmark-List.844.0.html)
So Llano A-8 based laptop would need to be less than $700. So imho, AMD is going to make the most significant market share gains in the $400 to $600 laptop space by attracting users who aren't willing to spend $700 on a laptop but still want some acceptable budget gaming GPU for WoW and Sims. To me CPU performance from 2007 isn't acceptable when I would generally use a laptop for at least 2 years. So that extra $100-200 amortized over 2 years isn't a lot for something you use 5+ days a week. Then again, in this economy there is a great opportunity to market $400-600 laptops.
Improved battery life is probably the most impressive to me on this new platform. This gives me hope that Bulldozer might actually be competitive with SB in terms of power consumption on the desktop at 32nm.
Also, on this will force Intel to continue to improve CPU graphics now that they have a better competitor. I bet once AMD adds an 800SP GPU core + Bulldozer in 2013 or so, it will become a very strong contender. For now this is a good first step.
Link to this $600 laptop deal and the 5850M one? A bit large on the screen but that price is pretty killer.
I raised my eyebrow on that claim. I would be very surprised if such a link is actually produced.![]()