Temash A6-1450 review

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
S

SPBHM

Diamond Member
Sep 12, 2012
5,068
423
126
SiliconWars said:
Double the power usage. The ULV's are running at 17W without southbridge and this is probably running ~9W maximum with turbo operating.
Click to expand...

right, I probably mixed the entire system with CPU only results,

but this is still no quite on the ARM tablet territory yet (but can probably be improved with the other parts of the notebook-tablet a little)

Cinebench R11.5 Single (~1.4 GHz CPU): 13.7 Watt
Cinebench R11.5 Multi (~1.1 GHz CPU): 14.9 Watt
Prime95 large FFTs (~1.0 GHz CPU): 16.9 Watt
FurMark (~1.2 GHz CPU): 21.2 Watt
Prime95 + FurMark (~0.85 GHz CPU): 21.9 Watt
3DMark06: 19.5 Watt

the surface pro can go a little over 30w, so "double" is not accurate I guess.

so, not to bad, and price is going to be the decisive factor...
 
I

insertcarehere

Senior member
Jan 17, 2013
712
701
136
SiliconWars said:
Double the power usage. The ULV's are running at 17W without southbridge and this is probably running ~9W maximum with turbo operating.
Click to expand...

How do you explain 9.2W delta from 3Dmark06 then? Not to mention the even higher power consumption in furmark and prime95, I think notebookcheck's estimation of 8-15W TDP seems pretty accurate with regards to its power consumption.
 
S

SiliconWars

Platinum Member
Dec 29, 2012
2,346
0
0
insertcarehere said:
How do you explain 9.2W delta from 3Dmark06 then? Not to mention the even higher power consumption in furmark and prime95, I think notebookcheck's estimation of 8-15W TDP seems pretty accurate with regards to its power consumption.
Click to expand...

3dmark 06 is a good system benchmark that'll be hitting the cpu and gpu hard, as well as the memory. How much is the memory and the whole mobo being lit up using? That could easily be over 2 Watts.

How can 15W be accurate when the highest delta is just over 11W using Furmark and Prime95? You can't hit the entire system any harder than that so where is this 15W coming from?
 
Last edited:
E

Exophase

Diamond Member
Apr 19, 2012
4,439
9
81
SiliconWars said:
How can 15W be accurate when the highest delta is just over 11W using Furmark and Prime95? You can't hit the entire system any harder than that so where is this 15W coming from?
Click to expand...

You're assuming that the SoC uses nearly 0W when idle in maximum performance mode. In reality it's likely that most of the delta between idle in balanced mode and idle in maximum performance is due to the SoC - what else would it be? And even idle in balanced mode is not necessarily nearly 0W. It gets values similar to idling i7 laptops which don't idle at nearly 0W.
 
I

insertcarehere

Senior member
Jan 17, 2013
712
701
136
SiliconWars said:
3dmark 06 is a good system benchmark that'll be hitting the cpu and gpu hard, as well as the memory. How much is the memory and the whole mobo being lit up using? That could easily be over 2 Watts.

How can 15W be accurate when the highest delta is just over 11W using Furmark and Prime95? You can't hit the entire system any harder than that so where is this 15W coming from?
Click to expand...

This assumes that the apu is not consuming any power at all even with maximum performance profile, look at the 3.5W difference between the "balanced profile, wifi off and the "max perf profile, wi-fi on" in idle, are you saying that this significant difference in power consumption can be attributed to the wi-fi alone?
 
S

SiliconWars

Platinum Member
Dec 29, 2012
2,346
0
0
Exophase said:
You're assuming that the SoC uses nearly 0W when idle in maximum performance mode. In reality it's likely that most of the delta between idle in balanced mode and idle in maximum performance is due to the SoC - what else would it be? And even idle in balanced mode is not necessarily nearly 0W. It gets values similar to idling i7 laptops which don't idle at nearly 0W.
Click to expand...

I would say the Wifi is the majority of the delta between idle in balanced and idle in maximum. In fact I'd say that is probably the only real difference between the two.

What else would it be?
 
E

Exophase

Diamond Member
Apr 19, 2012
4,439
9
81
SiliconWars said:
I would say the Wifi is the majority of the delta between idle in balanced and idle in maximum. In fact I'd say that is probably the only real difference between the two.

What else would it be?
Click to expand...

There's been a long discussion about all of this so far on the Kabini rumors thread. Since you've posted in that thread I'm kind of surprised you didn't see it.

The delta is 3.5W. Anything resembling a modern wi-fi module won't use 3.5W while idle, where it's not transmitting anything and only intermittently powering the receiver. If it used anywhere close to 3.5W while idling the impact would have been much bigger than it is for the many wifi enabled mobile devices. According to this:

http://www.umpcportal.com/2013/05/acer-aspire-v5-122p-system-idle-power-and-temash-tablet-thoughts/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+carrypadfullfeed+%28UMPCPortal+Full+Feed%29

Turning wifi on causes a difference of 0.5W in power consumption.

The rest of the 3.5W is most likely the SoC not running the CPU cores in the lowest power states possible.
 
S

SiliconWars

Platinum Member
Dec 29, 2012
2,346
0
0
That doesn't make a lot of sense as idle would be running at the lowest P state regardless of performance mode? Surely that's the case, idle is idle so why would they run a higher clocked idle in any mode?

I do agree that 3.5W seems a lot for the Wifi though.
 
S

sontin

Diamond Member
Sep 12, 2011
3,273
149
106
Tablet, 1080p IPS, ARM SoC with much better power consumption (= longer runtime), Android with dedicated Apps, docking station with extra battery etc.
 
S

SiliconWars

Platinum Member
Dec 29, 2012
2,346
0
0
Please share your power consumption numbers - I can't help but think that if it is so good this wouldn't need two batteries?

Last time I checked Android was not a plus over Windows for the majority of people.

We can come back in August and do a price comparison by the way.
 
E

Exophase

Diamond Member
Apr 19, 2012
4,439
9
81
SiliconWars said:
That doesn't make a lot of sense as idle would be running at the lowest P state regardless of performance mode? Surely that's the case, idle is idle so why would they run a higher clocked idle in any mode?

I do agree that 3.5W seems a lot for the Wifi though.
Click to expand...

The reason why you'd avoid the lowest power states is because it can add time switching between states. I don't know what Jaguar's latency numbers are like so I don't know whether it makes sense or not.

But it's not like the power management makes great sense on this laptop anyway. No reason why it should only allow one core to be clocked at 1.4GHz when the 3D part of the GPU isn't running, but allow the GPU to use far more power than this. But that's what it does.
 
K

krumme

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 2009
5,956
1,596
136
2013_core_sizes_768.jpg


By Hans de Vries - chip-architect.com

When Jaguar can get about 80% better ipc than atom, that is relatively larger, there is a reason and sideeffects. TSMC obviously have higher density. It was quite evident at 40nm compared to Intels 45nm. And here, i have no doubt, the density of TSMC must play a big role. The "sideeffects" is that performance suffers; probably more leaking and probably less headroom.

For the highend tablets - 2 cores - low voltage parts, density is less important compared to fx. 25W Kabinis. We have yet to see if its viable for a tablet platform because of the idling usage. Looking by few reviews so far it looks borderline, but the performance is there in spades - we got 20% ipc increace to bobcat, twice the cores, - all for less TDP.

Its the same problem that bobcat had, because TSMC 40nm was very leaking, the 28nm beeing a huge step forward. But still Intell process is far superior here, and we can add the far superior powermanagement.
 
E

Enigmoid

Platinum Member
Sep 27, 2012
2,907
31
91
SiliconWars said:
3dmark 06 is a good system benchmark that'll be hitting the cpu and gpu hard, as well as the memory. How much is the memory and the whole mobo being lit up using? That could easily be over 2 Watts.

How can 15W be accurate when the highest delta is just over 11W using Furmark and Prime95? You can't hit the entire system any harder than that so where is this 15W coming from?
Click to expand...

Its throttling the cpu (850 mhz). I think notebookcheck's tdp was for nominal clocks on furmark and prime.

Plus its not idling at 0W.

9-11 watts + idle power use + nonthrottle = ~15 watt tdp.
 
S

SiliconWars

Platinum Member
Dec 29, 2012
2,346
0
0
I see what you are saying Exophase and I think I need to revise my maximum up a little, however I would put it at closer to 12W than 15W. The rest of the system is drawing more power under full load so memory and mobo can't be discounted.

I do think it's unlikely that a 5.9W SoC will draw an extra 3.5W on maximum performance mode at idle - I just can't see how that is possible - but sure it might be.
 
M

mikk

Diamond Member
May 15, 2012
4,311
2,395
136
The gaming performance seems to be horrible. Even with stable 1.4 Ghz in turbo dock mode the CPU is simply not fast enough for most games. For a Notebook this is not a good choice. Different story for a tablet but its power consumption doesn't look nice for a tablet.
 
M

mikk

Diamond Member
May 15, 2012
4,311
2,395
136
SiliconWars said:
I do think it's unlikely that a 5.9W SoC will draw an extra 3.5W on maximum performance mode at idle - I just can't see how that is possible - but sure it might be.
Click to expand...


It isn't a 5.9W chip. It is a 8W chip in nominal mode and (not confirmed yet) 15W in durbo dock mode.
 
E

Exophase

Diamond Member
Apr 19, 2012
4,439
9
81
That 5.9W number isn't exactly AMD official. Other sources have said 8W. Even if AMD did say the number I'm not prepared to give them the benefit of the doubt that it really correlates with maximum power consumption under reasonable environmental conditions. Not like FX-8350 is limited to 125W under stock settings, stock cooler, and a normal ambient temperature. I also could see AMD considering Prime95 + Furmark to be more pathological than the rating dictates, and so long as there's thermal and power throttling to prevent going past safe limits they ultimately rely on that.

But let's say it really is 5.9W with all of the cores at 1GHz running fully loaded and the GPU at 300MHz, also fully loaded. It's not impossible that the number could be 2-3W if you keep it at 1GHz and don't power gate anything. Also keep in mind that the idle figures reported came with a note that they were actually using 7% CPU time, so not really totally idle.

The only other parts of the system that should be drawing more under full load are the RAM and power regulators. Prime95 + Furmark isn't supposed to be ramping up the harddrive, wifi, or display anymore than they are in idle. The RAM should be using under 2W at full load, vs maybe 100-200mW idle.

We at least know AMD can do better than 4x1.4GHz + 500MHz 2CU at 15W, since GX-415GA is at least specified as 4x1.5GHz.
 
S

sontin

Diamond Member
Sep 12, 2011
3,273
149
106
M

mikk

Diamond Member
May 15, 2012
4,311
2,395
136
This is comparable to Intels SDP if they do this. From the power tests we have no way this can be a 5.9W chip.
 
B

beginner99

Diamond Member
Jun 2, 2009
5,320
1,768
136
sontin said:
I'm the only one who find $450 for such a netbook to much when you can get for example a SlateBook x2 with 1080p, Tegra 4, 2GB, 64GB and docking station for $479?

http://www.android-feed.com/2013/hp-announces-slatebook-10-x2-a-convertible-tablet-with-tegra-4/
Click to expand...

Not to mention I good a convertible netbook (eg. usable as tablet or laptop) fro the same price...like 3.5 years ago. Ok, cpu and GPU performance is a lot worse but still.

That price is just too high. 3 hours of battery life is not mobile so your better of getting a a similar priced celeron powered notebook.

I admit the whole tablet market is mystery to me. The convertible I mentioned above, i basically never used it as tablet. I actually realized pretty quickly it was a waste of money and a normal netbook would have worked just as well. IMHO the will disappear as quickly as netbooks did.
 
K

krumme

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 2009
5,956
1,596
136
mikk said:
The gaming performance seems to be horrible. Even with stable 1.4 Ghz in turbo dock mode the CPU is simply not fast enough for most games. For a Notebook this is not a good choice. Different story for a tablet but its power consumption doesn't look nice for a tablet.
Click to expand...

What is your insight that acer does not have? - so your analysis is this cheap 11.6 ips touchscreen is not not a gaming notebook? Great.

I dont know if people want that. I dont. But i will let the sales numbers be the judge. There is enough opinions on the net.
 
M

monstercameron

Diamond Member
Feb 12, 2013
3,818
1
0
Code: 
current clovertrail atom | Atom Z2760 SoC.  | Dell-Latitude-10
idle - 6W
max load - 11.1W
cinebench cpu - 0.55pts

link - http://www.notebookcheck.net/Review-Dell-Latitude-10-

Tablet.88933.0.html
---------------------
games-low	fps
battlefield 3
fifa 12/13	9.7
starcraft2	11
masseffect	1.7
tombraider
codblops2
diablo3		3.3
skyrim
bioshock
left4dead	14.3
C-S: GO		
---------------------


high clock bobcat | e2-1800 | Asus-X55U-SX052H
idle - 11.5W
max load - 31W
cinebench cpu - 0.64pts

link - http://www.notebookcheck.net/Review-Asus-X55U-SX052H-

Notebook.92218.0.html
---------------------
games-low	fps
battlefield 3	10.3
fifa 12/13	35.6
starcraft	53
masseffect3	12.8
tombraider
codblops2
diablo3		29.2
skyrim		15
bioshock inf
left4dead	36.5
C-S: GO		
note: to fill list grabbed some results from e-450(6320),e1-1200
---------------------


lower end sandybridge | celeron 887 | Acer-Aspire-V5-431
idle - 11.1W
max load - 32.4W
cinebench cpu - 1.14pts

link - http://www.notebookcheck.net/Review-Acer-Aspire-V5-431-

Notebook.83411.0.html
---------------------
games-low	fps
battlefield 3	9.1
fifa 12/13	43
starcraft
masseffect	16.7
tombraider
codblops2
diablo3
skyrim		5.8(847 result)
bioshock
left4dead	
C-S: GO		
---------------------



sandbridge | i3-2367m | Asus-UX32A-R3001V
idle - 11.9W
max load - 41W
cinebench cpu - 1.32pts

link - http://www.notebookcheck.net/Review-Asus-UX32A-R3001V-

Ultrabook.82014.0.html
---------------------
games-low	fps
battlefield 3	
fifa 12/13	49.9/21
starcraft	48.3(2357m)
masseffect	
tombraider	
codblops2	16.4(2637m)
diablo3		31.3(samsung 2637m)
skyrim		17
bioshock	22.8(2637m)
left4dead	
C-S: GO		
---------------------




ivybridge | i3-3217u | Asus-VivoBook-S200E
idle - 8.3
max load - 20.7
cinebench cpu - 1.64pts

note - "The power consumption under load is also exceptionally low (20 

Watts) - but the throttling and the mediocre performance make a comparison 

with competing systems next to impossible." I have included the faster 

3317U in the gaming results, the 3217U should perform lower for the given 

power drain.

link - http://www.notebookcheck.net/Review-Asus-VivoBook-S200E-

Subnotebook.85787.0.html
---------------------
games-low	fps
battlefield 3	3.5
fifa 12/13	59.1(3317u)
starcraft	110(3317u heart of the swarm)
masseffect	15.9
tombraider	35.8(3317U)
codblops2	
diablo3		14.2
skyrim		17(3317u ideapad u3100)
bioshock	15.9(3317u)
left4dead	
C-S: GO		77.7?(3317u envu spectre xt)	
---------------------




temash | a6-1450 | acer Aspire V5-122
idle - 6.8W
max load - 21.9W
cinebench cpu -1.02-1.3pts [clocks? 0.85GHz-1.4GHz]

link - http://www.notebookcheck.net/Review-AMD-A6-1450-APU-

Temash.92264.0.html
---------------------
games-low	fps
battlefield 3	10.3
fifa 12/13	
starcraft	
masseffect	
tombraider	20
codblops2	20.2
diablo3		26.1
skyrim		14.4
bioshock	19
left4dead	
C-S: GO		17.4
note - unsure of gpu clock speed(300-500MHz)
---------------------
thats pretty good imo. this thing trades blows with snb ulv i3, very competitive with snb ulv celeron and has lower power draw, the 3217U was throttled so that is why the draw is relatively low. I blame the abnormally high power draw on acer, although the soc eats up a bit too much power itself. also note how crappy the atom is in comparison, the dual core should be very competitive.

if we add up the value of costs(3-5x less than i3s, 1-3x less than celerons), board space saving(single chip soc package) and powerdraw(6W idle[i believe this could idle around 3-4W on a decent machine] and allows smaller batteries), we can see this has a decent value compared to celerons and lowend ulv i3s
 
Last edited:
K

krumme

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 2009
5,956
1,596
136
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom