• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Just when you thought desktop PCs couldn't get slower. Along comes AMD...

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
This is a Beema Laptop APU at 10W, it is comparable to Intel Celeron N2810 found in Netops/Laptops but it has faster iGPU than the Celeron.

For $199 with Windows 8.1 its fine for light use like browsing and video playback. People do that with slower mobile phones for years.
 
You're better off assembling an intel celeron g1840-based box at a shop that provides free assembly service. It's literally 4 times the performance.
 
AtenRa said:
This is a Beema Laptop APU at 10W, it is comparable to Intel Celeron N2810 found in Netops/Laptops but it has faster iGPU than the Celeron.

For $199 with Windows 8.1 its fine for light use like browsing and video playback. People do that with slower mobile phones for years.
Click to expand...

Its used in desktops as the OP has linked and the performance is bad, laptop cpu or not. A faster igpu only sounds nice, what is it supposed to deliver? More fps?
 
ninaholic37 said:
Can you redirect the HTML5/Flash player to VLC when loading a Youtube video in your browser? I see a VLC plug-in in Firefox but it doesn't seem to do anything.

edit: Hmm, apparently it's easier to do it this way:
http://www.howtogeek.com/tips/how-to-watch-youtube-videos-in-vlc-media-player/
Click to expand...

Yes but not in-the-browser, firefox had that some years ago but the plugin developer quit or something and noone has picked it up since IIRC. (Wish it WAS possible though, flash would be OUT of my system in under 5 seconds flat..)
 
AtenRa said:
Web Browsing 1080p Video Work and Multitasking on AMD E1 6010 Laptop CPU.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T6zCUqGBvH0

For its price looks ok to me doing everyday tasks like browsing, e-mailing, video playback and light office work.
Click to expand...

35-95% CPU on basic browsing is not good.

1:17 9gag gif doesn't even play smoothly

In 3 years when websites get a lot more complex this notebook is going to choke. Or when the user loads up some real time antivirus and you get years worth of accumulated use.

http://www.notebookcheck.net/Lenovo-B50-45-MCD2GGE-Notebook-Review.130292.0.html

To be fair it looks a craptop regardless of the CPU but this is what they said.

Agonizing. Lenovo will not win any awards with the abysmal performance of the new AMD E-6010 dual-core and the integrated R2 graphics. But then, its price is cheap. To what extent the office snail exhausted the tester's patience, and whether multimedia and gaming is even remotely possible is revealed in our report.
Click to expand...

Processor
AMD's E-6010 Beema SoC introduced in April 2014, operates with a fixed clock of 2x 1.35 GHz, and does not have an increased per-MHz performance compared with the previous generation. The low TDP of 10 Watts predestines it for use in small laptops. We had to scroll to the very bottom of our benchmark chart of current office laptops to find the multi-core test score of Cinebench R11. Even the weak Intel Celeron N2815 in Lenovo's B50-30 has a lead of approximately 20%. The performance looks the same when only one core is loaded. Thus, the E-6010 belongs to the slowest of all computer units presently available. For example, the Celeron N2830 (2x 2.2 - 2.5 GHz; TDP: 7.5 Watts) in HP's 250 G3 achieved a 34% to 67% higher score.

Update 11/20/2014: Rerunning the Cinebench tests on the device displayed higher scores when the battery was removed. The Cinebench R11.5 single-rendering score climbed from 0.32 to 0.34 points (+6%), the multi-rendering score from 0.52 to 0.65 points (+25%), and the R15 multi-CPU from 39 to 49 points (+26%). Thus, the installed AMD E1-6010 APU can close in on Intel's N2815 or N2830. The reason for this cut in CPU performance when the battery is inserted is likely either a software or hardware problem linked with the device's voltage supply.
Click to expand...

System Performance
Above all, there was little joy in terms of system performance. The reason that the very low PCMark 8 scores are 13% to 51% higher than those of HP's 250 G3, is that the Radeon R2 graphics is still considerably faster than the Bay Trail GPU. Subjectively, the system sometimes only ran very sluggishly and was already overburdened with simple multitasking. Programs started slowly after initial opening, but they could be retrieved relatively fast when they were stored in the cache. Even the hard drive performance suffers under the slow CPU as will be seen in the next paragraph. Our Lenovo B50-45 (MCD2GGE) copes quite well with common office software so that nothing stands in the way of using it as a portable typewriter - except for the mediocre keyboard. The browsing speed does not immediately trigger the flight reflex either.
Click to expand...

Graphics Card
AMD has been trying to distinguish itself from Intel's counterparts with the rather stronger graphics units in its APUs or SoCs for years. The integrated, DirectX 11.2 compatible AMD Radeon R2 with 128 GCN Shader units is no exception here, and it has a 100% edge on the Bay Trail Graphics in HP's 250 G3 in 3DMark 11. The GPU and CPU have to share the single-channel memory. This, and the low clock rates of 266 to 350 MHz, result in a very low speed. The performance first starts to get interesting with the Radeon R4 in the other, more expensive Lenovo B50-45, which is 72% higher than that of the R2.
Click to expand...

Gaming Performance
There is not much to write when virtually nothing is possible. As can be seen in the example benchmarks in the chart below, the review sample even struggled with isometric oldies, such as StarCraft II or Diablo III - even at minimum, mostly unsightly settings. The only thing left to say is the much disliked (and sarcastic) note: Diablo II, Solitaire, and Minesweeper will run smoothly. On the other hand, if like the other B50-45, an R4 Graphics was under the hood, it would even be possible to still play the fairly up-to-date and graphically sophisticated Tomb Raider from 2013 almost lag-free - when all setting controls are set at the minimum. Our attempts to bench FIFA 15 were also sobering. The sound stuttered massively, the intro sequence with stadium and spectators were rendered with guesstimated 5 fps. We gave up.
Click to expand...

I think it can be inferred that the slow CPU annoyed the crap out of the reviewer.
 
AtenRa said:
Web Browsing 1080p Video Work and Multitasking on AMD E1 6010 Laptop CPU.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T6zCUqGBvH0

For its price looks ok to me doing everyday tasks like browsing, e-mailing, video playback and light office work.
Click to expand...

still, slower than a J1800 thats already a hell of a slow cpu, and thats kinda the point of the thread.

Techhog said:
Why is AMD getting the blame here?
Click to expand...

Probably because they redefined the low-end for desktop to a new low level with the AM1, this is just a side effect.
 
Last edited:
Shivansps said:
still, slower than a J1800 thats already a hell of a slow cpu, and thats kinda the point of the thread.
Click to expand...

The point of the thread sould include the price as well, if you can have something faster than this one at $199 please post the link.


Shivansps said:
Probably because they redefined the low-end for desktop to a new low level with the AM1, this is just a side effect.
Click to expand...

This APU is not an AM1 socket, it is a Laptop Beema BGA 10W SKU.
 
If Beema as whole architecture sucks, so Baytrail does too.

Truth is that this low power x86 chips are not suited for Windows comfortable use....
 
el etro said:
If Beema as whole architecture sucks, so Baytrail does too.

Truth is that this low power x86 chips are not suited for Windows comfortable use....
Click to expand...

To be clear here, i have never recommended a dual core AM1 or BayTrail but the Quad Cores are fine for Windows especially paired with SSDs.
 
For $200 you can buy an off lease E8600 machine AND a new GT 740. 4 times faster on every benchmark.
 
Shivansps said:
5W? really? a full 5W? woow.
Click to expand...

Im not talking about the consumption but 5W is 50% more over 10W, performance is increasing rapidly with 50% higher TDP. For example Beema A8-6410 at 15W TDP is faster than the Celeron 2957U both in CPU and iGPU.

Shivansps said:
Look, if you dont like the 2gb and the msata ssd it comes with you can always get the base model

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16856173102

place in a 2x2
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16820231470

and a 500gb drive.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16822236498

and still is just $197
Click to expand...

Yes but no Windows in that price.
 
sm625 said:
For $200 you can buy an off lease E8600 machine AND a new GT 740. 4 times faster on every benchmark.
Click to expand...

But not at walmart 🙂 lol


Really though, it's even better than I thought it would be.
http://laptoping.com/amd-e1-6010-with-radeon-r2-graphics-review-with-benchmarks-game-tests.html (same vid posted above)

PooPoo it sure, $200 WITH windows and it looks like it'll do all the BS browsing and FB and youtube your grandmother might want. I wouldn't want it (and neither would most forum hounds) but if my mom bought it she'd probly be content. There are better options, even in the same brand/line/price, but it's a 10w cpu, eh?
 
Unfortunately its not how its going to happen. Everyone will feel its way to slow and it will be replaced quite rapidly. The same goes for Atom based for that matter.

And its all something the companies calculate with. Because there is more money in use and throw away. Greatly inspired by phones and tablets.
 
Ramses said:
But not at walmart 🙂 lol


Really though, it's even better than I thought it would be.
http://laptoping.com/amd-e1-6010-with-radeon-r2-graphics-review-with-benchmarks-game-tests.html (same vid posted above)

PooPoo it sure, $200 WITH windows and it looks like it'll do all the BS browsing and FB and youtube your grandmother might want. I wouldn't want it (and neither would most forum hounds) but if my mom bought it she'd probly be content. There are better options, even in the same brand/line/price, but it's a 10w cpu, eh?
Click to expand...

If my wife had this, she'd complain. Browsing is becoming increasing complex these days, esp. if you don't turn off embedded ads.

On my dual-core Atom machine (Passmark 600) for example, the computer would basically become unusable for the duration of playback of embedded Flash ads. On my Pentium SU4100 (Passmark about 900 - similar to the one quoted in your post), it would also slow to a crawl. It's much more respectable on my Core 2 Duo 2.26 GHz P8400 (Passmark around 1500), but it's not exactly fast. On my Athlon II X3 435 though (Passmark 2500), it's decent, and on my Core i7-870 (Passmark 5500) I'd say it's very speedy.

Yes, the solution is to block those ads, and you'd want to do that anyway, but n00bs often don't know how to do this and I'm really just using that to give you an idea of the general usability of these machines. A Passmark score of 900 generally indicates that it sucks.

As I mentioned earlier, I think for a brand new main desktop machine in 2015, a minimum Passmark of around 2000 is recommended, esp. since CPUs like that are cheap and low power now. This kind of performance - 2000 Passmark - was mid-range for a laptop 5 years ago, so to expect this for a low end desktop in 2015 at a low price is not a stretch.
 
Last edited:
I don't disagree, but the market is full of those little BS machines. They are selling, just not to anyone with a clue.

And really, that's as it should be isn't it? The cyber equivalent of darwinism?
If you don't do your homework and become educated, at least to a degree, and especially in this age of having the world's information at one's fingertips, tuff nookie. I'm sympathetic to old folks that honestly can't get there heads around such stuff and would still get some life enrichment out of online access, but otherwise you get what you pay for and what your effort merretts. No different than buying a shitty car, or a shitty washing machine, TV, mattress, etc, etc.
 
I suspect a lot of these are secondary machines, and kids' machines. I have no doubt that some grandpas are buying these too to save $50, but I'd warn my relatives to stay away, except for kids' computers.

In my case, I bought my Passmark 600 and Passmark 900 machines purely as secondary machines.

My Passmark 600 machine is a SFF machine that I was using only for VPN, and it has been now repurposed as a guest machine, mounted on the back of a 19" monitor that also happens to be a guest TV. (Even as just a VPN machine with occasional surfing it was pissing me off, so I got the AMD Athlon II X3 435 to replace it.)

My Passmark 900 machine is a Windows 7 laptop that I got cheap, just so I had a Windows 7 laptop in the house. It is rarely used though, and again I got it because at the time I didn't have a Mac VPN client that was supported by my workplace. I tried to repurpose that as a kitchen laptop for my wife, but she hated it, not only because it wasn't a Mac, but also because it was so slow. Eventually I bought her a used Core 2 Duo 2.4 GHz T8300 MacBook (Passmark 1500) and she was happy with that.

So maybe Passmark 1500 is actually good enough, and indeed, my primary Mac laptop (until Skylake U arrives) is only about that speed. However, if you're going to get a desktop, and a slim tower no less, you may as well get something at Passmark 2000 or higher, esp. since it still will be cheap.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top