• 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.

Temash A6-1450 review

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
AMD have stated 3.6-5.9W for Temash for a long time. Is it possible that we'll get a similar situation to Hondo, with reduced legacy and PCI-E and that is what will fit at 5.9W for the quad core?
 
maybe if acer decides to throw this in a power optimized tablet we will see 3-4W idle and 16W max load @1GHz, competitive with larger atom tablets with more performance.
 
The Temash die and Kabini die are the same (supposedly), so it's still carrying legacy crap, I/O and display outs (not to mention ECC memory support) that isn't needed in tablet form factor.

Surely there are some decent power savings to come from their removal? To be honest...I can't believe AMD didn't make two different APU's for their low power APU's - one tablet and one notebook.
 
monstercameron said:
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
Click to expand...

Except SB ULV i3 is EOL. And you have to look at the system price (which greatly dilutes cpu price differences).

Its a good system but being honest pretty much no recent x86 game is playable on it (the tested ones-and thats a 1024 x 768 not even native resolution) this is hugely disappointing IMHO as 128 GCN cores at 500 mhz would compete well with HD4000 ULV. Its at a good price but its still fairly weak for a notebook/netbook and quite power hungry for a tablet.

Maybe better drivers will fix some of the throttling and other SKUs won't be so cpu bottlenecked but this model is a bit of a disappointment.
 
Enigmoid said:
Except SB ULV i3 is EOL. And you have to look at the system price (which greatly dilutes cpu price differences).

Its a good system but being honest pretty much no recent x86 game is playable on it (the tested ones-and thats a 1024 x 768 not even native resolution) this is hugely disappointing IMHO as 128 GCN cores at 500 mhz would compete well with HD4000 ULV. Its at a good price but its still fairly weak for a notebook/netbook and quite power hungry for a tablet.

Maybe better drivers will fix some of the throttling and other SKUs won't be so cpu bottlenecked but this model is a bit of a disappointment.
Click to expand...

I dont think it makes sense to expect a ulv apu of this calibur to play recent games at full reso and quality, not even low end ivybridge does that. to be competitive, use less power, be cheaper and be in smaller package seems quite good.

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)
---------------------

those results seem pretty close.
 
its a normal HDD.. which means that idle can be <0.5W and when operational > 2.5W.
There is at least one fan running, which will probably run at different speeds... another 1W difference.

With a max difference of 11W between using powervirusses and idle considering the power draw is measured at the wall... Concluding it is running @ 15W TDP based on those data is complete nonsense.

That said, making assumptions about power usage from those numbers while measuring at the wall is pointless imo.
 
monstercameron said:
I dont think it makes sense to expect a ulv apu of this calibur to play recent games at full reso and quality, not even low end ivybridge does that. to be competitive, use less power, be cheaper and be in smaller package seems quite good.

[removed table]

those results seem pretty close.
Click to expand...

You picked the worst ultra book there was (horrible throttling issues, single channel ram).

Using a number of other reviews. (i3 ULV ivy)

http://www.notebookcheck.net/Review-Lenovo-ThinkPad-Edge-E130-NZUAXMB-Notebook.92125.0.html

http://www.notebookcheck.net/Review-Sony-Vaio-SV-T14124CXS-Notebook.91735.0.html

http://www.notebookcheck.net/Review-Lenovo-IdeaPad-U510-Ultrabook.87007.0.html

http://www.notebookcheck.net/Review-Asus-VivoBook-S300CA-Subnotebook.90864.0.html

On low

Anno 2070 -- 37.4 and 33 and 32.4
Fifa-- 74
SC2 HOTS-- 89
GW2-- 25
Tomb Raider-- 30
World of tanks-- 39
Sleeping Dogs-- 13
BF3-- 12.7
Diablo 3-- 40
Dead space 3-- 37

You can get a nice 11.6 inch touchscreen i3 notebook for $400. This laptop underperforms and is overpriced.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16834230874
 
Last edited:
monstercameron said:
also note how crappy the atom is in comparison, the dual core should be very competitive.
Click to expand...

Well, I see atom consumes between 2.7W to 6.2W at idle and up to 11.2W at load.
A6-1450 consumes between 5.3W to 10.3W at idle and up to 21.9W at load.
This means A6-1450 consume full 10W more than z2760 at load. For tablets this is huge difference.
 
LogOver said:
Well, I see atom consumes between 2.7W to 6.2W at idle and up to 11.2W at load.
A6-1450 consumes between 5.3W to 10.3W at idle and up to 21.9W at load.
This means A6-1450 consume full 10W more than z2760 at load. For tablets this is huge difference.
Click to expand...

Those Atoms are also ancient, on older and less SoC optimized processes and far less integrated.
 
Enigmoid said:
You picked the worst ultra book there was (horrible throttling issues, single channel ram).

Using a number of other reviews. (i3 ULV ivy)

http://www.notebookcheck.net/Review-Lenovo-ThinkPad-Edge-E130-NZUAXMB-Notebook.92125.0.html

http://www.notebookcheck.net/Review-Sony-Vaio-SV-T14124CXS-Notebook.91735.0.html

http://www.notebookcheck.net/Review-Lenovo-IdeaPad-U510-Ultrabook.87007.0.html

http://www.notebookcheck.net/Review-Asus-VivoBook-S300CA-Subnotebook.90864.0.html

On low

Anno 2070 -- 37.4 and 33 and 32.4
Fifa-- 74
SC2 HOTS-- 89
GW2-- 25
Tomb Raider-- 30
World of tanks-- 39
Sleeping Dogs-- 13
BF3-- 12.7
Diablo 3-- 40
Dead space 3-- 37
Click to expand...


2 things...if you look again you will see that the one I chose had the lowest power consumption and some of the game results come from the faster 3317U i3.

also note the screen size.
 
Last edited:
sontin said:
Tablet, 1080p IPS, ARM SoC with much better power consumption (= longer runtime), Android with dedicated Apps, docking station with extra battery etc.
Click to expand...

I will take real windows over dedicated android apps any day. That said, I still agree that the price is too high for this. Especially when you can get an 11.6 inch asus with win 8, 4gb, touchscreen and ULV i3 for the same price.

I am not sure yet about how good the chip will be, but I dont like this overall package much.
 
Modern games on a tablet and ultramobile centric APU running 1.4 GHz max on the x86 cores. At 500 MHz, the graphics array maxes at 128 GFLOPS theoretically, and shares a 64 bit memory bus with the CPU cores. Of course the performance will be piss poor relatively. At 2.0 GHz and 800 or so on the CUs, it would make for a much better experience, so I would wait for those higher TDP capable models.

But it sure is enough for many old classic games, which beg to be tested to really see how the single cores stand up in old games that were not coded for multicore.
 
found only models with 11.6 or lower screens.

Code: 
current clovertrail atom | Atom Z2760 SoC.  | Acer-Iconia-W510-Convertible
idle - 4.2W
max load - 9.7W
cinebench cpu - 0.5pts

link - http://www.notebookcheck.net/Review-Acer-Iconia-W510-Convertible.87097.0.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 | Lenovo-ThinkPad-Edge-E135-NZV5YGE
idle - 9.1W
max load - 29.5W
cinebench cpu - 0.59pts

link - http://www.notebookcheck.net/Review-Lenovo-ThinkPad-Edge-E135-NZV5YGE-Netbook.82848.0.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 847 | Acer-Aspire-One-756-B847X
idle - 9W
max load - 32.1W
cinebench cpu - 0.57pts

http://www.notebookcheck.net/Review-Acer-Aspire-One-756-B847X-Netbook.90833.0.html
---------------------
games-low    fps
battlefield 3    9.1(887 result)
fifa 12/13    43(887 result)
starcraft
masseffect    11.9
tombraider
codblops2
diablo3        24.1
skyrim        5.8
bioshock
left4dead    
C-S: GO        
---------------------



sandbridge | i3-2367m | Sony-Vaio-SVT-1111M1E-S
idle - 8W
max load - 36W
cinebench cpu - 1.34pts

link - http://www.notebookcheck.net/Review-Sony-Vaio-SVT-1111M1E-S-Ultrabook.83428.0.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)
---------------------


updated with only screen 11.6 or less
 
krumme said:
What a shitload of skewed BS guys - man up!

This is a tablet APU.

This cpu have 80% better ipc than Atom. Probably in the order of 200% better fpu performance. And in the order of 3-400% percent better gpu performance than Atom. And working drivers - Try to execute those games on Atom. All with southbridge integrated. All in a small and dirt cheap package that can compete with arm.

You want to prove this tablet can not play metro? LOL. Get serious, and keep the post and the link to the proper thread. There is no need to repeat yesterdays news here Enigmoid.
Click to expand...

People are totally ignorant, then they mix and comparing things totally wrong as usual it always goes like that through various forums.🙄

AMD Temash APU A6-1450 Quad Core/1ghz/6-8W TDP = Tablet APU in this Notebook/Ultrabook unit test

AMD Kabini APU A4-5000 Quad Core /1.5ghz/15W TDP = normal Notebook/Ultrabook APU

AMD Kabini APU A6-5200 Quad Core/2ghz/25W TDP = normal Notebook/Ultrabook APU
 
monstercameron said:
2 things...if you look again you will see that the one I chose had the lowest power consumption and some of the game results come from the faster 3317U i3.

also note the screen size.
Click to expand...

Your point? In its form factor as long as its capable of dissipating the heat it generates power consumption is pretty irrelevant (battery life however is--which it is bottom of its class). At equivalent power consumption the a6 does well but in its form factor a 17 watt tdp fits fine (And I expect its big brothers to perform better here--they should have been here not this a6-1450).

Screen size does not affect cpu/igp performance (or the power use of the cpu/igpu) so there is no reason to throw out models with a 15.6 inch screen.

The faster 3317 doesn't matter as long as its available at the same or similar price (which it is) having a very similar power consumption as well.

The fact of the matter is that this is a poorly designed product. Lower power consumption does nothing for the device (3 hours browsing battery life) and its price point is too high ($545) vs better performing i3 ULV alternatives (11.6 inch i3 touchscreen subnotebooks can be had for $400). This is the wrong SKU for this form factor and price tier. A stronger SKU is needed to compete in this segment of the market (kabini model such as the A4-5000).

(Yes power consumption matters but not that much in the way its being used in this device. If I put a 35 watt and a 10 watt cpu/igpu in a 15.6 inch laptop and they get the same battery life (for browsing and other light tasks) and cost the same and there are no problems with the 35 watt tdp which one will you take assuming that the 35 watt tdp cpu performs 3.5x better).

Its too early to say that the a6-1450 is a poor choice but we can at least write off this particular notebook and its implementation.
 
Enigmoid said:
Your point? In its form factor as long as its capable of dissipating the heat it generates power consumption is pretty irrelevant (battery life however is--which it is bottom of its class). At equivalent power consumption the a6 does well but in its form factor a 17 watt tdp fits fine (And I expect its big brothers to perform better here--they should have been here not this a6-1450).

Screen size does not affect cpu/igp performance (or the power use of the cpu/igpu) so there is no reason to throw out models with a 15.6 inch screen.

The faster 3317 doesn't matter as long as its available at the same or similar price (which it is) having a very similar power consumption as well.

The fact of the matter is that this is a poorly designed product. Lower power consumption does nothing for the device (3 hours browsing battery life) and its price point is too high ($545) vs better performing i3 ULV alternatives (11.6 inch i3 touchscreen subnotebooks can be had for $400). This is the wrong SKU for this form factor and price tier. A stronger SKU is needed to compete in this segment of the market (kabini model such as the A4-5000).

(Yes power consumption matters but not that much in the way its being used in this device. If I put a 35 watt and a 10 watt cpu/igpu in a 15.6 inch laptop and they get the same battery life (for browsing and other light tasks) and cost the same and there are no problems with the 35 watt tdp which one will you take assuming that the 35 watt tdp cpu performs 3.5x better).

Its too early to say that the a6-1450 is a poor choice but we can at least write off this particular notebook and its implementation.
Click to expand...
we definitely agree there.
 
Enigmoid said:
Your point? In its form factor as long as its capable of dissipating the heat it generates power consumption is pretty irrelevant (battery life however is--which it is bottom of its class). At equivalent power consumption the a6 does well but in its form factor a 17 watt tdp fits fine (And I expect its big brothers to perform better here--they should have been here not this a6-1450).

Screen size does not affect cpu/igp performance (or the power use of the cpu/igpu) so there is no reason to throw out models with a 15.6 inch screen.

The faster 3317 doesn't matter as long as its available at the same or similar price (which it is) having a very similar power consumption as well.

The fact of the matter is that this is a poorly designed product. Lower power consumption does nothing for the device (3 hours browsing battery life) and its price point is too high ($545) vs better performing i3 ULV alternatives (11.6 inch i3 touchscreen subnotebooks can be had for $400). This is the wrong SKU for this form factor and price tier. A stronger SKU is needed to compete in this segment of the market (kabini model such as the A4-5000).

(Yes power consumption matters but not that much in the way its being used in this device. If I put a 35 watt and a 10 watt cpu/igpu in a 15.6 inch laptop and they get the same battery life (for browsing and other light tasks) and cost the same and there are no problems with the 35 watt tdp which one will you take assuming that the 35 watt tdp cpu performs 3.5x better).

Its too early to say that the a6-1450 is a poor choice but we can at least write off this particular notebook and its implementation.
Click to expand...

It should be noted that the discounted ASUS X202E you are referencing in terms of $400 has a TN panel and not an IPS panel like the Acer unit. I'd wait for more A6-1450 models to come out before deciding where this particular reviewed unit stands.
 
Last edited:
monstercameron said:
current clovertrail atom | Atom Z2760 SoC. | Acer-Iconia-W510-Convertible
idle - 4.2W
max load - 9.7W
cinebench cpu - 0.5pts
Click to expand...

That kind of idle power usage won't happen for any sustained periods of time.

A general Z2760 Tablet will use only 1.6W in screen-on idle, while web-browsing scenarios will put it an average of 3W.

That's unlike the Core and AMD chip devices where 8-9W shown in idle isn't too far from their true idle(5-6W).
 
"In consideration of current software, it does not appear to be sensible to incorporate four relatively slow cores. This is not only true in applications. The weak CPU part also slows down the relatively powerful graphics unit."
"However, let us not forget about the positive aspects: The performance is remarkable compared to Intel's Atom and current ARM SoCs.''
Click to expand...

His Verdict makes me wonder to what he is comparing the Jaguar cores.
How can Jaguar suck, but be the better one? How is it correct(in bold, none of the less) to state that Jaguar is slow, yet it is the fastest in the category?

This review, I don't like it.
 
MightyMalus said:
His Verdict makes me wonder to what he is comparing the Jaguar cores.
How can Jaguar suck, but be the better one? How is it correct(in bold, none of the less) to state that Jaguar is slow, yet it is the fastest in the category?

This review, I don't like it.
Click to expand...
Reviewer is confused since he doesn't know how to classify this product.
 
inf64 said:
Reviewer is confused since he doesn't know how to classify this product.
Click to expand...

I dont really have that much problem with the comparisons. Current atom has been rightly criticized for the demise of netbooks, and ARM is even slower.

The problem is that this "laptop" is an in between product with all the performance disadvantages of a low power, low clocked chip, but with short battery life and a relatively high price.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top