CeBIT 2011: AMD Demos Llano Behind Closed Doors

AMD Shows Off APU Power And Performance

The final test was meant to put performance and power consumption in perspective. Step one was to establish a baseline by looking at idle power. The Intel system was sitting at about 12.5 W, while the AMD machine was more power-hungry at 26 W. John was quick to remind us that this was not a final product, and that power should come down significantly with BIOS tweaks and other improvements (though we're honestly not sure how much more AMD can cut power so close to launch).

Latest Videos FromTom's Hardware
TOPICS
  • nforce4max
    Not bad but still wanting more.
    Reply
  • amk09
    APU's are cool especially for cheap mobile gaming but I'm still looking forward to the more powerful CPU's AMD will be offering WITHOUT integrated graphics.
    Reply
  • Cool, me i encode a lot.. so what about ENCODING... with handbrake ?! can't wait to see the results.

    gj AMD... i was losing hope but its back now!
    Reply
  • sabot00
    Seems to be pretty good, but the price matters dramatically, for a $600-700 laptop this would be very good performance, but if the Phenom cores have not changed much then the clock speed really does need to go up to say 2.4GHz at least, with 2.8GHz+ being more ideal.
    For a quad-core 2 GHz will probably be OK, but not that many applications really benefit, and for multitasking AMD will need to pull through with the software.

    For the GPU, I would say 200SP's should be the minimum, and from the HD 3000 to Llano comparison I would peg the GPU at that. At 200 SP's it would be very decent for mainstream gaming at lower resolutions, playing most games quite smoothly at low-mid settings. However Llano could take a larger and higher chunk out if it gets a few versions with 300 or 400SP's.

    All-in-all, this current 4 core, 1.8GHz, ~200SP version is very respectable and has a lot of potential, but AMD needs marketing, deals with OEMs, and more marketing.

    What would I prefer? A 2 core, 2.6Ghz over this CPU, and maybe just a bit more SP's.
    Oh! And overclocking support.
    Reply
  • epdark
    In regards to your guys request for information about how we are using our systems. I am probably a horrible case...


    I almost always choose to run games in windowed mode (FFXIV for example) and am often surfing the fan sites, youtube, etc while I am also running the game in the background and quickly switching back and forth. I've also began using Office to write papers at the same time and as well sometimes have a 1080p or 720p movie playing pinned to top while I'm doing so...

    So yes, those sort of uses are growing increasingly appealing to me. I find that we don't even realize it sometimes but as the technology allows we are beginning to multitask with it in a natural and almost unconscious manner.

    I don't do those things because I know I can and I should. I do those things because I now can and they seem natural progressions for my usage.
    Reply
  • cangelini
    I'm with you epdark. Even when I'm playing WoW, I'm often looking at YouTube to research upcoming fights and WoWwiki for info on various abilities. You're not a horrible case at all :)

    Chris
    Reply
  • bugo30
    I sometimes render an animation in Blender, listen to music, have Firefox open on one monitor and a full screen game open on the other. This doesn't work very well on my Athlon X2 4800. I'd be interested to see how it would work on a modern CPU.
    Reply
  • drakefyre
    What does Quick Sync do for HD vid playback? Shouldn't it almost eliminate processor and graphics workload, or do I misunderstand it?
    Reply
  • joytech22
    I normally play RS in resizeable mode while watching youtube video's, RS is very CPU-intensive (Grand Exchange) as well as quite graphics hungry in some areas.

    GPU does the rendering (RS graphics and Youtube video processing) while the CPU cores also do rendering for RS, as well as animation processing.

    Can be quite taxing on a system, especially my laptop with a Radeon 4530 and a C2D 2.2GHz.
    Reply
  • dmytty
    Idle power consumption is once again dominated by Intel...why?

    My priorities for laptops are such:
    1. As light and durable as possible for the given size
    2. Good Screen (non-glossy, high resolution, outdoor viewable, high gamut)
    3. Long battery life - 8 hrs seems a reasonable compromise

    If I'm doing something resource-intensive, I'll sit behind a desktop.

    Given that most multi-tasking still results in an idle state most of the time, I can't see how AMD is competitive on point #3 while having double the idle power consumption of Intel.

    2x more idle?...AMD is really doing something wrong.
    Reply