Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Closed

AMD A8-3850 Review: Llano Rocks Entry-Level Desktops

Tags:
  • Desktops
  • AMD
  • Product
Last response: in Reviews comments
Share
June 30, 2011 4:00:03 AM

Earlier this month we previewed AMD's Llano architecture in a notebook environment. Now we have the desktop version with a 100 W TDP. How much additional performance can the company procure with a loftier thermal ceiling and higher clocks?

AMD A8-3850 Review: Llano Rocks Entry-Level Desktops : Read more

More about : amd 3850 review llano rocks entry level desktops

June 30, 2011 4:06:26 AM

Great review! Thanks Toms
Score
14
June 30, 2011 4:21:26 AM

Another win for AMD!
Score
13
Related resources
June 30, 2011 4:24:23 AM

So then what's the point of getting the Turbo Core versions when they are going to be Turbo Clocked slower then the none Turbo Clocked versions...
Score
1
June 30, 2011 4:29:36 AM

SteelCity1981So then what's the point of getting the Turbo Core versions when they are going to be Turbo Clocked slower then the none Turbo Clocked versions...


They don't want you to see better performance from a cheaper APU in single-threaded apps by pushing Turbo Core further ;-)
Score
15
June 30, 2011 4:35:57 AM

i really wanted see some amazing gains in the content creation department what with all that gpu power on chip... oh well games are fun too!
Score
1
June 30, 2011 4:41:10 AM

I think this would be good for a young kid's PC. It would be enough to run educational software and a web browser. When he grows up to be a gamer it would be time to replace the whole machine anyway.
Score
12
June 30, 2011 4:52:27 AM

... it's may be not the greatest APU for desktop... but it will be a powerful thingy in a laptop... the review was nice... but in the gaming department... would be nice to see a standard 15,x'' laptop resolution tests @ 1366x768... or something like that...
Score
5
June 30, 2011 5:00:07 AM

Actually if you want good DDR3 1600 with aggressive timings, the Ripjaws X series memory that I have does DDR3 1600 at 7-8-7-24 at 1.5v, not all that expensive when it comes down to it either.
Score
3
June 30, 2011 5:04:22 AM

This makes little sense. An Athlon II X3 445 ($75) and a HD 5570 ($60, on a good day you can get a 5670 for the same price) would provide better performance for the same price ($135) and not have to worry about the RAM you use.

So is AM3+ going to be retired in favor of FM1 in the near future? Why are there chipset at all? Why isn't everything SOC by now?

Otherwise this is a very good CPU. If AMD has used 1 MB level 2 caches in their quads when they came out with the Deneb Propus die, they would be much more competitive.
Score
-2
June 30, 2011 5:37:38 AM

stardude82This makes little sense. An Athlon II X3 445 ($75) and a HD 5570 ($60, on a good day you can get a 5670 for the same price) would provide better performance for the same price ($135) and not have to worry about the RAM you use.

what about power consumption?
Score
9
June 30, 2011 5:46:10 AM

crisan_tiberiuwhat about power consumption?

That's about all the sense it makes then, for mobile and all-in-one units, but for cheap desktops... eh.
Score
-7
June 30, 2011 5:54:10 AM

stardude82That's about all the sense it makes then.


Actually Llano on the Desktop is (IMO) aimed at HTPC a 100% and, off course, notebooks.

I would really, really like to see more media features with the Llano parts you guys have if it can be done 8)

Great article as usual!

Cheers!
Score
17
June 30, 2011 5:54:31 AM

not bad but can you overclock the graphics core
Score
-4
June 30, 2011 6:11:09 AM

I completely agree with Yuka and was thinking the whole way through how amazing these would be (especially the low TDP versions) in a HTPC.
Score
10
June 30, 2011 6:17:14 AM

In regards to dual graphics, the only game that it seemed to work on was WoW Cataclysm. What was the cause, drivers? CAPS?

And I think you guys may have gotten the min and avg FPS scores for the CoD:MW benchmark backwards... How can the min be higher than the average? Maybe you were actually comparing No AA to 4x AA or something, not min and avg FPS?
Score
2
June 30, 2011 6:30:31 AM

This review need IGP OC. The Llano GPU overclocks like hell.

600Mhz to 840/900Mhz? No problem at all.
Score
3
June 30, 2011 6:34:38 AM

On the COD graphs, the minimum and average FPS bars have to be switched...it's impossible to have a "minimum" data point greater than the average.
Score
3
June 30, 2011 6:38:33 AM

Since when does a 100W CPU and a 6530 need a 850W power supply???

Anyway, The real show should be bulldozer-based APU's. If they could just get the graphics up to a 5750 level...
Score
9
June 30, 2011 6:45:04 AM

Great article. This really helps me out since I need to replace 2 laptops in the near future.
As for a higher end desktop, I am waiting for BD and how it affects the market. That will determine which parts I keep and which parts get put into an HTPC.
Score
7
June 30, 2011 7:08:47 AM

Definitely looks like a stopgap measure, a product with good execution but no market. Basically, the only people who will buy this are casual/lazy PC gamers - the serious guys would come to sites like this very one to find out that they can get way more for their money than buying Llano. Thing is, at this price point, most people don't even care about games. Like I said on a previous post, any serious, smart PC gamer will build their own or look higher in terms of pricing to get a genuinely strong system.
Score
-4
June 30, 2011 7:17:26 AM

I don't want to be rude, but can somebody explain to me why anyone would spend $135 on this CPU when for $70 more you can get the 2500K - it just doesn't make sense to me.
Score
-14
June 30, 2011 7:45:06 AM

I would be more interested in this for HTPC. not a whole lot of coverage in this review for that matter. Id probably go with the better motherboard setup rather than specific cpu. eyeing the gigabyte board currently.
Score
4
June 30, 2011 7:49:50 AM

Great write-up. Made my head swim and my heart sink (just a little). From what I've read both this and BD are stopgap products. The real stuff is Trinity and Komodo. I am looking forward to Trinity since that may be in my price range.

@flong, Someone would buy Llano if they didn't have the money for and /or didn't want to bother with discrete graphics cards. Average Joe. Exactly who it is aimed at. AMD hit their target.
Score
6
June 30, 2011 8:02:32 AM

RazberyBanditIn regards to dual graphics, the only game that it seemed to work on was WoW Cataclysm. What was the cause, drivers? CAPS?And I think you guys may have gotten the min and avg FPS scores for the CoD:MW benchmark backwards... How can the min be higher than the average? Maybe you were actually comparing No AA to 4x AA or something, not min and avg FPS?


Good call Raz--those were supposed to be NoAA/4xAA to match the graph headers--they're fixed now!
Score
0
June 30, 2011 8:03:17 AM

ChiefTexas_82Since when does a 100W CPU and a 6530 need a 850W power supply???Anyway, The real show should be bulldozer-based APU's. If they could just get the graphics up to a 5750 level...


They don't--I used a 500 W PSU :) 
Chris
Score
1
June 30, 2011 8:04:31 AM

flongI don't want to be rude, but can somebody explain to me why anyone would spend $135 on this CPU when for $70 more you can get the 2500K - it just doesn't make sense to me.


Because you'd also need a discrete graphics card for any sort of reasonable 3D performance. So, it's much more than $70.
Score
13
June 30, 2011 8:15:20 AM

cangeliniBecause you'd also need a discrete graphics card for any sort of reasonable 3D performance. So, it's much more than $70.


Agreed, but still this CPU's performance is anemic. Couple the 2500K and a $75 - $100 discrete graphics card and you will be in a world of performance that this CPU could never even dream of.

So for an extra $150 - $200 you can actually play every game at very high settings (not the highest with a cheaper GPU). Nowadays, $150 - $200 is nothing when a GTX 580 is going for $530.

I understand that an uninformed person might choose this, but still it makes no sense to me. I can't imagine settling for this CPU/graphics card setup when for $150 more you actually have a real gaming computer that gives the $1000 I-7 990 a run for its money.
Score
-10
June 30, 2011 9:08:12 AM

Ahh, an interesting quality review. I was looking forward to how Llano would perform on the desktop. It's very pertinent information if I or my budget-constrained friends need a new PC.

One thing that caused major confusion for me was that in the Test Setup page it's written that AMD 890FX/SB850 is used on the Asus M4A89GTD Pro/USB3. It should be 890GX. I know the 890FX doesn't have integrated graphics so it took me awhile to realize what you were talking about when you were referring to the Radeon HD 4290.
Score
1
June 30, 2011 9:13:05 AM

Might be nice to have good gaming on a laptop that isn't 2 inches thick and has a car battery.
Score
13
June 30, 2011 9:22:40 AM

Pricing?
Score
-5
June 30, 2011 9:34:05 AM

Do they have a proper set of SSE4 instructions now ?
Score
-1
June 30, 2011 9:34:56 AM

I can't wait to see llano sporting a bulldozer architecture core.
Score
6
June 30, 2011 9:37:12 AM

SteelCity1981 said:
So then what's the point of getting the Turbo Core versions when they are going to be Turbo Clocked slower then the none Turbo Clocked versions...
Much better performance vs price and power consumption!
I find the A8-3800 to be the most interesting CPU in the entire A-line.

Mathos said:
Actually if you want good DDR3 1600 with aggressive timings, the Ripjaws X series ... not all that expensive...
It's still 30% ($15) more than CAS9 equivalents.

I think the entire idea of using anything but "value" RAM (typically with CAS9) for this CPU seems futile, since it will eat up most of the price advantage.

Score
5
June 30, 2011 9:47:02 AM

nevertellDo they have a proper set of SSE4 instructions now ?

Not on Llano, as it's still using the Stars architecture. As such, they employ SSE4a but not .1 or .2. Bulldozer will support these plus AVX and XOP, CVT16 and FMA4, the three of which used to be part of the SSE5 spec.
Score
0
Anonymous
June 30, 2011 10:33:44 AM

Little disappointed !! Cpu performance is quite bad.
Score
-5
June 30, 2011 10:41:13 AM

flongAgreed, but still this CPU's performance is anemic. Couple the 2500K and a $75 - $100 discrete graphics card and you will be in a world of performance that this CPU could never even dream of. So for an extra $150 - $200 you can actually play every game at very high settings (not the highest with a cheaper GPU). Nowadays, $150 - $200 is nothing when a GTX 580 is going for $530. I understand that an uninformed person might choose this, but still it makes no sense to me. I can't imagine settling for this CPU/graphics card setup when for $150 more you actually have a real gaming computer that gives the $1000 I-7 990 a run for its money.


Oh no doubt. The CPU is far weaker than a Core i5. That's why I am saying that if you only have $135 to spend on a processor and graphics, Llano can't be beat. At any price point higher, you can easily do better with a better CPU and discrete graphics.
Score
14
June 30, 2011 10:43:28 AM

weatherdudeAhh, an interesting quality review. I was looking forward to how Llano would perform on the desktop. It's very pertinent information if I or my budget-constrained friends need a new PC.One thing that caused major confusion for me was that in the Test Setup page it's written that AMD 890FX/SB850 is used on the Asus M4A89GTD Pro/USB3. It should be 890GX. I know the 890FX doesn't have integrated graphics so it took me awhile to realize what you were talking about when you were referring to the Radeon HD 4290.


Thanks Weather, you're right--fixed the typo!
Score
4
June 30, 2011 11:20:13 AM

What does one need to know about maximum addressable memory with these APUs? Could I install, say, 6GB, and use a 32-bit OS, and expect both halves of the APU to be happy?
Score
-2
June 30, 2011 11:23:13 AM

flongI don't want to be rude, but can somebody explain to me why anyone would spend $135 on this CPU when for $70 more you can get the 2500K - it just doesn't make sense to me.


When you don't have $200+ to spend on your CPU (AKA a budget build)...
Score
9
June 30, 2011 11:26:01 AM

I'd probably stick with the usual AM3+/Bulldozer - these don't add a *ton* of fuctionality for the same price as some of the Phenom II quad cores. I'd absolutely love to see the laptop APUs in netbooks and midsized laptops (11-13") though - graphics performance is the biggest hangup on those.
Score
2
June 30, 2011 11:29:51 AM

Why is everyone constantly complaining about not seeing the point as a more powerful chip is only a bit more??

I work in a computer shop, and I can imagine these things selling like hotcakes, there are soooo many more people building a budget desktop system than you might think!
Score
12
June 30, 2011 11:39:28 AM

When the A75 Chipset benchmark reviewed?
Score
0
June 30, 2011 12:44:17 PM

Another useless release by AMD
Score
-12
June 30, 2011 1:34:45 PM

Nice but what occurs if we install a 6670 or 6850 on each system? Does the A8-3850 plus a 6850 beat the phenom 965 with a 6850 in games?
Score
-5
June 30, 2011 1:49:36 PM

I personally think the power draw figures are a huge win for AMD.

It has suffered for a long time as the hotter, more power-hungry processor of the two - and to a degree, it is still true in the Phenom II generation. But I was seriously impressed at the power consumption figures for both variants of Llano.

Of course it doesn't pull too many decisive victories, but for an APU full of tough compromises and a rather old architecture, it's brilliant.
Score
4
June 30, 2011 1:53:41 PM

SteelCity1981So then what's the point of getting the Turbo Core versions when they are going to be Turbo Clocked slower then the none Turbo Clocked versions...


Price and the TDP

Score
3
June 30, 2011 2:12:20 PM

A few thoughts:

I think the reason that memory makes such a big difference in a Llano build is because the integrated graphics steal from the RAM. Common integrated graphics behavior, but at least it's doing something meaningful with the theft.

Looks like AMD has been trying to capitalize on their acquisition of ATI with these new chips. A bit of a gamble, and I don't think it paid off. I'm much more impressed by the innovations they made - like the native usb3, support for six sataIII's, and software RAID - rather than the radical graphics architecture.

I really don't understand the theory here. Computers have been utilizing separate CPU and GPU chips for a decade now and it is obviously the most powerful way to go. This integrated graphics improvement is nice, but I don't think it was worth years of investment and loss of market share. Maybe they are going for the console market. I could see the appeal of using something like this in a new Xbox.
Score
-10
June 30, 2011 2:33:44 PM

great article but why would i spend money into those computer ? Cpu power is bad graphic is not powerfull enough to play for good experience gaming. may want to continue play xbox or playstation... for 80$ more you have a 2400 cpu for cpu application wich beat down the 3850. only the mobile version is worth a buy for his many feature benefit against competition.
Score
-11
June 30, 2011 2:37:02 PM

Good lord reading the comments some of you people are really dense. Do you not understand the target market for these and can take the review in context????? Not everything should be looked at as though you are a custom power cpu/game builder.

Great review Chris. For the target market AMD is doing a pretty good job here with an old CPU architecture and once they pair this with Bulldozer they should have a killer product.
Score
16
      • 1 / 3
      • 2
      • 3
      • Newest
!