AMD to Release Two New Llano APUs: A8-3870K, A6-3670K

Any info about their GPU parts? Most people who buys LLano are more interested in their GPU capability..

Am I the only person posting who instantly thought "Lawsuit" when they read the model numbers?
I mean.. Intel has similar numbering schemes with their newer CPU's.

Anyway..
I know this might seem biased towards AMD but it's just my thoughts so I expect thumbs down lol

I'm honestly surprised OEM's don't strongly consider using these chips in their desktops.
I mean sure there are desktops and laptops out there with them but wherever I go and look around the $500-$1000 PC's have SB Pentiums or i3's or even i5's but mostly with the horrendous Intel IGP's.

I think it would be a MUCH better deal for the customer if they stuck these Llano CPU's into those systems, less things nowdays are limited by CPU power, and these Llano CPU's perform almost identically to their Phenom II brothers and think about it that kind of CPU power is already enough for most consumers.

The GPU on those Llano CPU's also trounces anything Intel has and everybody knows it including OEM's.
They are the perfect all-in-one CPU..

I know if I was to start my own OEM brand I would use them and leave the more expensive space to Intel and a dedicated GPU, or a Llano matched with a dedicated GPU for Crossfire.


My two cents. :\

I just get a news that amd has cut about 800 million transisters from the new bulldozer production in future. That is the bulldozer will be of 1.2 billion transister instead of 2.0. But the architecture will remain the same i.e 8 core/4 module. Why amd is doing such bad things i don't know.Amd is trying to make more profit from it like the llano.

For $500 to $1000 i can have an i5 or i7 with descrete GPU that will run around Llano in any benchmarks.. Llano will only be sellable below $300 PC's.. More than $300? Its not practical to use Llano anymore..

Just got onto online chat with a Dell sales assistant, who recommended me their Intel IGP based systems for "mid-range gaming", their 785G based systems for "low-end gaming" and their XPS systems (discrete cards + SB) for "high-end gaming".

Yeah but you forget, that's if you build the system. Most systems don't include a discrete GPU for those prices, maybe after $700 you start to see dedicated graphics in systems with decent CPU's but not really below that.

Remember.. With Llano you can just dump another GPU in and crossfire with the graphics on the CPU for an extra $50.

You can't trademark numbers so AMD is safe.




The problem with AMD is supply. Globalfoundries has production problems and can not keep up with demand. It's not that OEM's don't like AMD chips, it just that AMD is having a hard time supplying chips to OEMs so they tend to stick with Intel because Intel does not suffer from production problems at this time.

finally, new llanos. with the amd forcing the old 45 nm cpus to eol (T_T), llano productions should go up. i'd love to see those become more widely available. these apus are great for cheap pcs. especially the a8 3870k finally getting to the 3 ghz mark.
llano's model numbers are too similar to intel's sbe (and ivb) model numbers. the overclockable cpus even have the k-suffix just like intel's. and yet amd said that they are not focussing on rivalry anymore.
most people don't need a discreet gfx card for everyday tasks. llanos provide all that capability and a very capable igpu in the same package.
@joytech22: glofo hasn't been able to produce llanos fast enough to sustain supply. amd's rumored to have lost an apple deal for llano macbook air for this reason, despite having the most powerful igpu in an apu.
hopefully glofo gets better with trinity.

You aren't the only one. Adding of K isn't something AMD does usually - so it's obviously modelled after what Intel does.

Still no reason to upgrade.

The K-suffix seems to be a strange move, doesn't AMD usually call its OC-able parts Black Edition CPUs? Or have Intel and AMD agreed to a similar naming scheme for the benefit of consumers? Seems unlikely...

This will be cool

if the architecture truly remains the same and they pull this off its actually a very good thing. less transistors means lower power consumption as well as a lower probability that one or two transistors will limit your OC. will also make them cheaper to produce

The K stands for it being unlocked. It's probably AMD trying to confuse SB-E adopters.

Here's a picture of the lineup:

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-nSZfH8jZ [...] -3670K.jpg

K for UNLOC[K]ED already used by Intel.

If they went for [UK] for [U]NLOC[K]ED an entire state might think it was made just for them.

Personally, I'd go for [OC] for UNL[OC]KED for the double entendre.

I'm thinking my next HTPC upgrade will be based on one of these. Hope these take off.

Thumbs down? No bro, that's a really reasonable doubt IMO. And to give my thoughts, I'd say that Intel actually benefits from that as much as AMD does.

Llanos are very good CPUs/GPUs combos, and all tech savvy people (that I know of) recommends them to build low power desktop PCs with media capabilities, so if AMD gives them that "K" at the end, when Ivy comes out, Intel's K models will have insta-good reputation among non-savvy folks. If they notice that a "K" means a "good product", both segments will get customers, since Intel puts the "K" on the mid/high end and Llano is not aimed to those markets.

That's a somewhat naive POV, but I really think both actually get benefit from using close naming schemes, as long as they DO represent in close scales. Numbering though, not sure xD

Cheers!

The biggest eyebrow-raiser, of course, is that AMD has switched from the "Black Edition" terminology to using the "K" suffix that has become popular with Intel's Sandy Bridge. If we see some reasonable similarities in model number terminology, it COULD help... But that could make the smaller differences harder for consumers to tell apart, possibly creating more confusion.

Going from the model numbers and the way they're sequenced, the 3670K will likely sport the 6530D, which is 320/16/8 (SPs/TMUs/ROPs) @443 MHz, while the 3870K will have the 6550D, which has 400/20/8 @600 MHz. In terms of total texture/shader throughput (and FP performance) the latter is almost exactly 69.3% more powerful. (Of course, memory performance is the primary factor for Llano graphics capability)



It's been solidly ruled that one cannot hold IP over model numbers. That's why the name "Pentium" was invented in the first place: the US courts told Intel they couldn't trademark their various x86 names, (i.e, "80286" being their last attempt) they had to and an "i" in front of 386 and 486, and invented "Pentium" to replace 586 with something more solid.

After all, AMD didn't sue nVidia when they put out a 9800-series card.



If the architecture remains the same, then the transistor savings would come from actually making the design more efficient: it DOES happen. The most prominent example was the RV770, where AMD managed to make the stream processors every bit as capable as those of RV670, but slash them nearly to half the size.

If Bulldozer manages to get cut to 60% the size, then it'd actually start to be a serious threat: their top-end ones currently would cost less than now, meaning that it wouldn't matter that an 8-core Zambezei couldn't beat an i7, when it'd be priced below an i3... And while gaming and mainstream users might not benefit from a 12/16-core, single-die CPU in the near term, it'd still be a frightening thought that it could be gotten for $200US when getting just 6 cores from Intel still requires over $600US.

That, and on the server-side market, that means 16-core Interlagos could quickly give way to a 24-core CPU without a process shrink.



Not from an OEM. That price range, if you get an i5, will typically still come with integrated graphics. (oh, and don't expect an i5 2500K; those pretty much never show up in OEM systems no matter what) Remember that Intel's graphics have always been, and likely always WILL be, a complete joke. This, combined with the fact that AMD's CPUs beat the ever-loving crap out of virtually anything Intel's got under $200US or so, make it a stark contrast.

Can it OC past 3.6GHz? If not the older version is just as good. We need testing please.

core i5 2400, 2300, 2320, 2310 all cost under $200. imo they're more capable than amd's sub $200 cpus. their igp is less powerful compared to llano though.

hmmm A8-3870K vs I5-2700K? The A8 has a bigger number! Lets get that!

"mid-range gaming" = "Angry Birds"

If people see AMD and Intel parts sporting a K at the end, the Intel ones are most likely going to be premium products at a much higher price, and because the AMD parts also feature four cores, it's very likely to confuse consumers into going for the much cheaper AMD alternatives because they don't look any different.

Ivy Bridge's graphics will be a large improvement on before; enough to bring them close to, if not equal to, the higher end of the Llanos we have now. Trouble is, you'll be paying more. In addition, if Trinity is really a good 50% improvement over Llano, Intel are going to find themselves behind again, however it does mean we're getting excellent competition and lower prices.

This 1.2 billion transistor figure as regards Bulldozer is somewhat confusing. AMD are saying that's how many it actually has, however there's been a few comments on Anandtech about this saying that there's no way it can be that few... and in any case, as we've found out before:

http://www.anandtech.com/show/4818 [...] th-correct

...one number might be totally different to another. Bulldozer might be 1.2b transistors on the schematic, whereas close to 2b might have been laid down at the fab. A module is 213m transistors, therefore 852m before we even get to L3 cache, the IMC and so on. AMD hasn't mentioned anything about reducing the transistor count, only that the 2b figure they gave out before is incorrect, so theuniquegamer is jumping the gun somewhat.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/5176 [...] 12b-not-2b

The only way they're going to reduce transistor count is to cut the L3 cache size or redesign it completely so it doesn't require so many transistors, though I'm not sure as to how that would be achieved.

and I guess high end is two windows of cafeworld.

100Mhz bump seems purely down to better quality silicon process. I feel its unwarranted for a name change for the sake of 100Mhz, though, there is the 2600K vs the 2700K.

As for the K, it's confusing to say the least, I'm not sure what it is supposed to represent.

OC is short for overclocked

I7 not I5

BTW i find the naming by amd strange (intel) i3, i5, i7, (AMD) A4, A6, A8

great they can't sue them

Yes, because it would be ironic in the extreme for Intel to sue over a suffix letter after being sued for anticompetitive practices.

I remember when this processors were announce that the K is a short way to name the Black Edition, and it made sense, but still think that AMD made it on purpose.

Sorry, but I need CPU performance over GPU performance. Almost everything I do uses the CPU a great deal more than the GPU. While GPU performance is great, you only see it during gaming. You won't notice a difference in GPU for most other products so bragging about GPU performance is a bit lame. Both do 2D performance the same and low end 3D performance is similar. High end 3D performance is for gaming almost strictly except for some engineering applications like CAD which still won't be that different. Basically, high end GPU is a niche market. It just so happens that the people who post on this page are gamers. 90% of the rest of population simply isn't a high end PC gamer. This is why Intel is winning and why Dell still recommends Intel for the non high end gamer and Intel + desktop GPU for the high end gamer.

@silverblue

I highly doubt AMD is laying down more transistor then needed, that's a costly exercise in pointlessness, AMD has always been good at getting more bang out of less transistors and i was surprised the transistor count for the FX was so high, sounds like marketing just got their numbers all wrong thats all

i have no doubt IB graphics will be a real improvement over their existing offering but i think you must be masochistically optimistic to believe intel can come close to AMDs offering, HD3k is a feeble gfx solution at the best of times it's not really hard to improve feeble, to get it to compete requires more then just improving, it requires an overhaul

but will it play Battlefield 3