Logo   Banner   TopRight
AMD A8-3850 Llano APU and Lynx Platform Preview
Date: Jun 30, 2011
Author: Marco Chiappetta
Introduction and Specifications

A couple of weeks back, we took a look at AMD's Llano mobile platform, with a mainstream notebook from Compal, and we came away impressed. If you're unfamiliar with Llano, be sure to check out our launch coverage (available here). But to quickly recap, Llano is the codename for AMD's latest Fusion-based product, that combines a CPU and GPU on a single piece of silicon. In the mobile space, Llano offers a capable quad-core CPU, with excellent DX11-class integrated graphics, in a very low power-envelope. Those things translate into good performance and solid battery life in a notebook, two highly desirable traits of mobile system.

AMD is now ready with Llano-based products for the desktop. On the desktop, Llano offers similar things. In fact, the underlying technology is identical. But the desktop landscape is very different from the mobile space. Desktops aren't constrained by the limited form-factors and thermal requirements of mobile systems, and as such, Llano has to compete with a much broader range of options and architectures.

AMD Llano Die Shot...

AMD thinks they have struck the right balance between CPU and GPU performance though, and at some very budget-friendly price points. Ultimately, consumers will decide if AMD is on target. In the meantime, we've got the first AMD Llano-based desktop APU, the A8-3850, in the lab, complete with a quartet of A75-chipset based motherboards. Pairing an A-Series APU and A-Series chipset results in what AMD is calling their "Lynx" platform. Cool codenames aside, there's lots of tech to discuss here, so take a gander at the features and specifications below and join as as we find out if Llano is as desirable on the desktop as it is in a notebook...

AMD A8-3850 "Llano" APU
Specifications & Features
Tech / Package 32nm / FM1 905-pin lidded μPGA, 40x40 mm, 1.27 mm pitch
TDP Configurations 65W and 100W configurations
Processor Core “Stars” 32nm HKMG process core (up to 4 cores), 128 KB L1 Cache(64 KB Instruction, 64 KB Data) 1 MB L2/Core, 128-bit FPUs
Memory Up to DDR3 1866
Graphics Core Up to 400 Radeon Cores, DirectX 11 capable, UVD3
Displays Digital Display I/F DP0: Display Port, HDMI, DVI
Digital Display I/F DP1: Display Port, HDMI, DVI
Graphics Features AMD Dual Graphics
Blu-ray 3D
AMD Steady Video
AMD Perfect Picture
DisplayPort 1.1a, HDMI 1.4a
Power Management Multiple low-power states
32-nm process for decreased power consumption
PCIe core power gating
PCIe speed power policy
GPU power gating of Radeon Cores and video decode (UVD3)
AMD Turbo Core technology on select models
Tech/Package 65nm / FC BGA, 605-Ball, 23x23mm, .8mm pitch
TDP Configurations A75: 7.8W, A55: 7.6W
UMI x4 Gen 2
SATA A75: 6 ports at 6 Gb/s, A55: 6 ports at 3 Gb/s
RAID 0,1,10
USB A75: 4 USB 3.0 Ports, 10 USB 2.0 Ports, 2 USB 1.1 Internal Ports A55: 14 USB 2.0 Ports, 2 USB 1.1 Internal Ports
PCIe GPPs 4x1 Gen2
FIS Support A75 only
CIR CIR Receiver
Clock Gen Integrated
Power Rails SVID for VDDCR_CPU & VDDR_NB, fixed voltage for other rails
Software Drivers: Windows 7, Windows Vista, Windows XP, Linux

Click to Enlarge

The specifications above give a glimpse into what makes Llano tick, but the slide pictured here tells more of the story. With Llano, AMD has taken the position that GPU performance is more important than CPU performance, when said CPU is "fast enough" for the vast majority of workloads. To illustrate, the slide above compares a Llano die with a Sandy Bridge die. Although they're of roughly similar size (228mm2 vs. 216mm2), AMD has devoted much more real estate to Llano's integrated GPU core, whereas Intel's x86 cores cover a larger area. There are far more technical details at play here, and we're simplifying the explanation, but the moral of the story is that Intel's architecture will offer better general compute / x86 performance, while AMD's will offer better graphics and multimedia performance. Which aspect of system performance is more important is up to the application workload, of course, but the diverging philosophies are interesting to say the least.

Llano and Lynx Explained

We have already stepped through many of the technical details of Llano in our coverage of the mobile platform, but we’ll touch on some of the high level details again here.

Llano APU Die Map

Llano, in its current form, consists of four AMD “Stars” class CPU cores fused with a “Redwood” class, Radeon HD 6000-series GPU core, with up to 400 stream processors. Although based on similar CPU cores, the L3 cache used on current Phenom II processors has been eliminated, but the L2 cache per core has been increased from 512K to 1MB. Llano-based APUs are manufactured using Global Foundries’ 32nm HKMG process and consist of roughly 1 Billion transistors. In addition to the CPU and GPU cores, a northbridge and dual-channel DDR3 memory controller reside on-die, along with AMD’s UVD video engine, 24 lanes of PCI Express Gen 2 connectivity, and various digital display interfaces.

Llano's "Sumo" Integrated APU

As we’ve mentioned, the graphics core used in Llano is derived from existing DirectX 11-class Radeon GPUs, so the above block diagram should look familiar to regular HotHardware readers. In the A8-3850 APU we’ll be looking at today, 400 shader or Radeon cores are present. They’re arranged in five SIMDs, with texture units and L1 caches attached. Other A-Series APUs will be offered with 320 Radeon cores as well, which means one of the integrated GPU’s SIMDs will be disabled. The command processor, graphics engine, and dispatch processor, as well as the UVD 3 video engine and display controller configurations found in discrete Radeon GPUs are all present here. In fact, the GPU core in Llano (which itself if codenamed “Sumo”) is very similar to the “Redwood” GPU at the heart of the Radeon HD 5670. The GPU is linked to the APU's northbridge and ultimately the CPU cores through the Radeon Memory Bus and a new Fusion Compute Link, but AMD is keeping details of said link quiet for now.

To connect Llano to the rest of a system AMD is also readying a couple of new desktop chipsets, the A75 and the A55. The combination of a Llano APU with A-Series chipset-based motherboard is what AMD is calling the “Lynx” platform.

AMD A75 Chipset Diagram

We’ve got a block diagram of the A75 chipset for you here, but the A55 is very similar. The A75 offers six SATA 6GB/s ports, with RAID 0,1,10 support and FIS based switching, HD Audio, 4x1 PCI Express Gen 2 lanes, 4 USB 3.0 ports, 10 USB 2.0 ports, and 2 USB 1.1 ports. In addition there are SD and IR controllers present, PCI support (for up to three slots), and mSATA support. The A55 is similar except that its SATA ports are of the 3GB/s variety and it doesn’t offer FIS based switching or native USB 3.0 support, so 14 of its ports are USB 2.0. The chipset connects to the APU using AMD’s Unified Media Interface (UMI), which offers 2GB/s of bandwidth.

Vital Signs and APU Details

Desktop Llano APUs, like the A8-3850 we’ll be looking at here, will use AMD’s FM1, 40mm x 40mm, lidded packaging as opposed to the FS1, 35mm x 35mm, lidless packaging of the mobile variants.

AMD A8-3850 APU In The Flesh

While the APUs look very similar to current Phenom II and Athlon II processors from the top, thanks to the similar lid / integrated heat spreader, they use a completely different pin configuration and also a different socket. Desktop Llano APUs have 905 pins on their underside; socket AM3 Phenom II and Athlon II processors have 939 pins.

AMD A8-3850 CPU-Z and GPU-Z Details

The AMD A8-3850 APU has a default CPU clock speed of 2.9GHz. As we’ve mentioned, it is four x86 cores each with 128 KB L1 Cache (64KB Instruction, 64KB Data) and 1MB of L2 per core—no L3 cache is present. Current Phenom II processors have similar L1 configurations, but only half the L2, plus a large 6MB L3. The larger L2 should help mitigate the loss of the L3, along with some other improvements to the cores. The 32mn “Stars” derived cores in Llano have improved schedulers and branch predictions units, along with some other low-level tweaks that result in an approximate 6% improvement in IPC performance over current-gen Phenom II processors.

There’s not much to see with regard to the integrated Radeon HD 6550D GPU core in the GPU-Z screenshot that we haven’t already talked about. To reiterate, the GPU core runs at 600MHz and has 400 shader ALUs arranged in 5 SIMDs.

A75 Motherboards: MSI and ASUS

For the purposes of this article, we acquired a handful of A75-based motherboards to give you all an idea as to what type of boards would be hitting the scene when AMD A-Series APUs are first made available.



First up, we have the MSI A75MA-G55. Like the other A75-based motherboards featured here, all of the chipset’s features are available on the A75MA-G55, but MSI works a bit of their own magic as well. The MSI A75MA-G55 features a mouse-friendly EFI BIOS that’s much easier to navigate than traditional text-only based BIOS menus, although it does look rather plain compared to some of the other boards (Asus in particular). The board is also in MSI’s “Military Class II” family and features super ferrite chokes, highly conductive polymer capacitors and / or solid capacitors throughout, which should offer increases stability and longevity.

The MSI A75MA-G55 also supports all of the overclocker-friendly features we’ve come to expect from MSI for manual performance tweaking.

Other features of the MSI A75MA-G55 include USB3.0 and CrossFire support, along with “i-Charger” which allows users to more quickly charge USB devices. We found the layout of the MSI A75MA-G55 to be quite good despite its micro-ATX form factor and also like the dark blue and black features on the board.


Asus F1A75-V PRO

Next, we have the Asus F1A75-V PRO. The Asus F1A75-V PRO is one of the more feature rich motherboards featured here. In addition to exploiting all of the features inherent to the A75 chipset, this board P8Z68-V PRO offers what Asus calls its “Dual Intelligent Processors 2”. The Dual Intelligent Processors consist of Asus’ EPU unit, which we’ve covered in the past, and the TurboV processing unit. The processors work together with the F1A75-V PRO’s digital VRM (DIGI+ VRM) and give users the ability to monitor and adjust power delivery. According to Asus, the combination of the programmable digital VRM and Dual Intelligent Processors 2 results in superior efficiency and longevity.

The Asus F1A75-V PRO also supports CrossFireX and Asus includes a copy of their AI Suite II, which gives users easy access to all of the Asus-proprietary features mentioned here in a single software package. In addition to the aforementioned features, the F1A75-V PRO also sports an UEFI BIOS with one-click overclocking and tuning that’s navigable using a mouse. The UEFI BIOS on this board is one of the cleanest and easiest to navigate that we have come across.

A75 Motherboards: Gigabyte and ASRock

Next up we have the Gigabyte A75-UD4H and ASRock A75 Pro 4 Socket FM1 motherboards for AMD’s A-Series desktop APUs.


Gigabyte A75-UD4H

Like the other boards we have shown you, the Gigabyte A75-UD4H makes use of all of the features available in AMD’s A75 chipset. In addition, this Gigabyte board offers a fairly extensive set of overclocking tools—as we’ve come to expect from the company. The board is a member of Gigabyte’s Ultra Durable class of products and sports the company’s traditional blue and white color scheme, with fairly heavy-duty heatsinks on the VRM (8+2 phase power) and chipset. Gigabyte boasts of the board’s 108db SNR integrated sound solutions as well, which pairs a Realtek 7.1 channel HD controller with a proprietary converter for increased sound quality, although we didn’t do any extensive testing to prove out that point in the limited time we had with the board.


ASRock A75 Pro4

The ASRock A75 Pro4 is a somewhat less-flashy board with a handful of nice features. Like the others, it exploits all of the features inherent to the A75 chipset (USB 3.0, SATA 6GB/s, CrossFire, Dual Graphics, etc.), but ASRock also included some useful additions like an on-board POST code reported, integrated Power and Reset switches, and an external Clean CMOS switch. For what it’s worth, this was also the board AMD shipped with the A8-3850 APU, which is a testament to its stability and performance. If AMD was willing to use the board as foundation of their review platform that has to say something about it. ASRock is also known for their value, so expect the A75 Pro4 to be very competitively priced when it hits the streets in the coming weeks.

Test Systems and SiSoft SANDRA

Test System Configuration Notes: When configuring our test systems for this article, we first entered their respective system BIOSes and set each board to its "Optimized" or "High performance Defaults". We then saved the settings, re-entered the BIOS and set the memory frequency to DDR3-1600 and IGP frame buffer size to 512MB (where applicable). The hard drives were then formatted, and Windows 7 Ultimate x64 was installed. When the Windows installation was complete, we updated the OS, and installed the drivers necessary for our components. Auto-Updating and Windows Defender were then disabled and we installed all of our benchmarking software, performed a disk clean-up, defragged the hard drives, and ran the tests.

G.SKILL RipJawsX 8GB DDR-1866 Memory Kit

G.Skill supplied is with a dual-channel, 8GB (4GB x 2) DDR3-1866 memory kit for the purposes of this review. The kit was tested for compatibility with Llano / Lynx and Sandy Bridge, so it was a perfect match for our test systems here. Please note, while this kit is capable of 1866MHz, it ran at 1600MHz by default, in dual-channel mode, which is how we ran it on all of the test systems.

HotHardware's Test Systems
Intel and AMD - Head To Head

System 1:
AMD A8-3850
(2.9GHz - Quad-Core)

Asus F1A75-V Pro
Gigabyte A75-UD4H
ASRock A75 Pro4
(AMDA75 Chipset)

2x4GB G.SKILL DDR3-1866
(@ 1600MHz)

Radeon HD 6550D IGP
On-Board Ethernet
On-board Audio

WD150 "Raptor" HD
10,000 RPM SATA

Windows 7 x64

System 2:
Intel Core i3-2100T
(2.5GHz - Dual-Core)
Intel Core i3-2120
(3.3GGHz - Dual-Core)
Intel Core i5-2500
(3.3GHz - Quad-Core)

Asus P8Z68-A Pro
(Z68 Express Chipset)

2x4GB G.SKILL DDR3-1866
(@ 1600MHz)

Intel HD Graphics
On-Board Ethernet
On-board Audio

WD150 "Raptor" HD
10,000 RPM SATA

Windows 7 x64

System 3:
AMD Phenom II X4 980
(3.7GHz Quad-Core)

Asus CrossHair V Formula
(AMD 990FX Chipset)

2x4GB G.SKILL DDR3-1866
(@ 1600MHz)

Radeon HD 6570
On-Board Ethernet
On-board Audio

WD150 "Raptor" HD
10,000 RPM SATA

Windows 7 x64

Preliminary Testing with SiSoft SANDRA 2011
Synthetic Benchmarks

We began our testing with SiSoftware's SANDRA 2011, the System ANalyzer, Diagnostic and Reporting Assistant. We ran three of the built-in subsystem tests that partially comprise the SANDRA 2011 suite with AMD's Llano APU (CPU Arithmetic, Multimedia, and Memory Bandwidth). All of the scores reported below were taken with the APU running at its default clock speeds of 2.9GHz with 8GB of DDR3-1600 RAM running in dual-channel mode on the ASRock A75 Pro4 motherboard.

AMD A8-3850 APU @2.9GHz
Processor Arithmetic

AMD A8-3850 APU @2.9GHz
Processor Multimedia

AMD A8-3850 APU @2.9GHz
Memory Bandwidth

The SANDRA CPU test shows the AMD A8-3850 offering up just shy of 33GFLOPS, which puts it just behind an Intel Core i3. In the Multimedia tests, the APU finished right about on-par with similarly clocked Phenoms, which is to be expected considering they use similar CPU execution cores. And in the memory bandwidth tests, the A8-3850 offered about 14.8GB/s of peak bandwidth.

Futuremark PCMark Vantage
Next up, we ran our test systems through Futuremark’s total-system performance evaluation tool, PCMark Vantage. PCMark Vantage runs through a host of different usage scenarios to simulate different types of workloads including High Definition TV and movie playback and manipulation, gaming, image editing and manipulation, music compression, communications, and productivity.

Preliminary Testing with PCMark Vantage
Synthetic Benchmarks

Most of the sub-tests used to come up with the final scores in each category are multi-threaded as well, so the tests can exploit the additional resources offered by a multi-core CPU.

PCMark Vantage shows the AMD A8-3850 APU powered configurations mostly trailing even the Core i3 dual-core Sandy Bridge based systems in the majority of tests. Intel clearly has stronger x86 performance at this time, but in tests that are more GPU dependent, the story is significantly different.

Futuremark PCMark 7
Futuremark's PCMark 7 is the latest version of the PCMark suite, recently released this spring. It has updated application performance measurements targeted for a Windows 7 environment. Here's what Futuremark says is incorporated in the base PCMark suite and the Entertainment suite, the two modules we have benchmark scores for you here.

Futuremark PCMark 7
General Application and Multimedia Performance
The PCMark test is a collection of workloads that measure system performance during typical desktop usage. This is the most important test since it returns the official PCMark score for the system
  • Windows Defender
  • Importing pictures
  • Gaming

Video Playback and transcoding

  • DirectX 9

Image manipulation
Web browsing and decrypting

The Entertainment test is a collection of workloads that measure system performance in entertainment scenarios using mostly application workloads. Individual tests include recording, viewing, streaming and transcoding TV shows and movies, importing, organizing and browsing new music and several gaming related workloads. If the target system is not capable of running DirectX 10 workloads then those tests are skipped. At the end of the benchmark run the system is given an Entertainment test score.

The two PCMark7 modules we ran illustrate the difference between AMD's and Intel's design philosophies. As you can see, the AMD-powered rigs offer better performance in the Entertainment module--which relies more on the GPU--than they do in the overall PCMark test. The trend is reversed on the Intel-based systems due to their relatively powerful x86 cores, but lower-performing graphics cores. Ultimately though, the A8-3850 trails even the dual-core Core i3-2120 here in both tests.

HD Media Playback and Encoding
On the video decode side of the equation, we viewed an assortment of HD movie trailer clips and monitored CPU utilization. With a relatively powerful chip like the AMD A8-3850, we didn't expect HD video playback to be an issue but regardless, we looked at CPU utilization playing back the 1080p Flash video clip pictured below. We also fired up an I am Legend movie trailer .mov file with Windows Media Player, an used PowerDVD to play other various formats, while taking note of thread activity in Windows Task Manager Performance Monitor.

Core i5-2500: 1080p Flash Video

Core i3-2120: 1080p Flash Video

AMD A8-3850 APU: 1080p Flash Video

All of the video clips we played back worked flawlessly and exhibited very low CPU utilization in the single-digits or low double-digits. Full-screen 1080p Flash video is notorious for high CPU utilization when using older drivers or Flash Players, but the situation looks good today.  All of the platforms represented here performed very well in our HD Media playback tests, although AMD does offer some video enhancements that Intel does not.

HD Video Encoding Performance
Testing With and Without Intel Quick Sync

Cyberlink's Media Show Espresso is a video conversion tool that imports various video media files types and converts them to other standard video formats for publication, distribution and / or streaming. In this test, we take a 184MB high definition 1080p AVCHD video clip and compress and convert it to a iPhone 4 H.264-encoded .MP4 file. Times are measured in minutes:seconds with lower times representing faster throughput in the video conversion process.

We ran this test both with an without hardware acceleration on all of the platforms and the differences in performance were huge. To put it simply, Intel's Quick-Sync technology rocks. With it enabled, all of the second-gen Core processors ripped though the video in 10 seconds. But even without Quick-Sync though, the Intel chips put up good numbers.  Intel's dual-cores only slightly trailed AMD's quads. What's interesting to note is that the A8-3850's GPU is actually slower to encode video than the CPU cores--at least with the latest version of MediaShow Espresso.

LAME MT Audio Encoding and Cinebench R11.5

In our custom LAME MT MP3 encoding test, we convert a large WAV file to the MP3 format, which is a popular scenario that many end users work with on a day-to-day basis to provide portability and storage of their digital audio content. LAME is an open-source mid to high bit-rate and VBR (variable bit rate) MP3 audio encoder that is used widely around the world in a multitude of third party applications.

Audio Conversion and Encoding

In this test, we created our own 223MB WAV file (a hallucinogenic-induced Grateful Dead jam) and converted it to the MP3 format using the multi-thread capable LAME MT application in single and multi-thread modes. Processing times are recorded below, listed in seconds. Shorter times equate to better performance.

Audio encoding is most certainly not a strong point for the AMD A8-3850. This test only exercises two cores, so half of the APU's resources remain idle, but even against Intel's dual-core processors, it's not pretty for AMD. 

Cinebench R11.5
3D Rendering

Cinebench R11.5 is an OpenGL 3D rendering performance test based on Cinema 4D from Maxon. Cinema 4D is a 3D rendering and animation tool suite used by 3D animation houses and producers like Sony Animation and many others. It's very demanding of system processor resources and is an excellent gauge of pure computational throughput. This is a multi-threaded, multi-processor aware benchmark that renders and animates 3D scenes and tracks the length of the entire process. The rate at which each test system was able to render the entire scene is represented in the graph below.

Cinebench R11.5 is somewhat analogous of AMD's design vision with Llano. Here, the A8-3850 is able to pull ahead of Intel's dual-core processors in the CPU test, but trails the Core i5 quad-core by a considerable margin. In the OpenGL test though, which taxes the integrated GPU, the A8-3850 simply smokes the Intel-based competition.

Low-Res Gaming: Crysis and ET:QW

For our next set of tests, we moved on to some in-game benchmarking with Crysis and Enemy Territory: Quake Wars. When testing processors with Crysis or ET:QW, we drop the resolution to 1024x768, and reduce all of the in-game graphical options to their minimum values to isolate CPU and memory performance as much as possible. However, the in-game effects, which control the level of detail for the games' physics engines and particle systems, are left at their maximum values, since these actually do place some load on the CPU rather than GPU.

Low-Resolution Gaming: Crysis and ET: Quake Wars
Taking the GPU out of the Equation (Well, trying to at least)

The much more capable GPU integrated into the AMD A8-3850 gives is a huge advantage in even these low-res, low-quality games tests. Due to the lackluster performance of the Intel HD graphics cores integrated into the Core i3 and i5 processors tested here, they are held back considerably and the A8-3850 ultimately offers more than double the performance.

Gaming: APU and Dual Graphics - 3DMark 06 and FarCry 2
FutureMark states that, "3DMark's score is an overall measure of your system’s 3D gaming capabilities, based on comprehensive real-time 3D graphics and processor tests. By comparing your score with those submitted by millions of other gamers you can see how your gaming rig performs, making it easier to choose the most effective upgrades or finding other ways to optimize your system. 3DMark06 has been downloaded more than any other 3D benchmark and the ORB database now contains over 8.5 million 3DMark06 benchmark scores from around the world."

Futuremark 3DMark06
Synthatic DirectX Tests

3DMark06 tells the whole story of AMD's design philosophy with Llano. The AMD A8-3850-based systems offered strong graphics performance with relatively low CPU scores that trailed Intel's Core i3-2120 dual-core, while the Intel-based rigs had relatively good CPU scores, with much lower GPU-related scores. Also note the Core i3-2100T couldn't even finish the HDR/SM3.0 test.

FarCry 2
DirectX Gaming Performance

FarCry 2
Like the original, FarCry 2 is one of the more visually impressive games to be released on the PC to date. Courtesy of the Dunia game engine developed by Ubisoft, FarCry 2's game-play is enhanced by advanced environment physics, destructible terrain, high resolution textures, complex shaders, realistic dynamic lighting, and motion-captured animations. We benchmarked the systems in this article with a fully patched version of FarCry 2, using one of the built-in demo runs recorded in the "Ranch" map.

FarCry 2 shows the stark contrast in GPU performance between AMD's and Intel's platforms. The A8-3850 offered playable framerates at 1600x900, while the second-gen Core processors did not. Also note that running the A8-3850 in dual-graphics mode with the Radeon HD 6670 installed in the system almost doubled the framerate.
Gaming: APU and Dual Graphics - Metro 2033 and ET:QW
Next, we turned up the graphics workload a notch or two, with Metro 2033, a 3D graphics stress test if we ever saw one, albeit using more relaxed settings.

Metro 2033
DirectX Gaming Performance

Metro 2033

Metro 2033 is your basic post-apocalyptic first person shooter game with a few rather unconventional twists. Unlike most FPS titles, there is no health meter to measure your level of ailment, but rather you’re left to deal with life, or lack there-of more akin to the real world with blood spatter on your visor and your heart rate and respiration level as indicators. The game is loosely based on a novel by Russian Author Dmitry Glukhovsky. Metro 2003 boasts some of the best 3D visuals on the PC platform currently including a DX11 rendering mode that makes use of advanced depth of field effects and character model tessellation for increased realism. Since Intel's HD Graphics core only supports up to DX10.1 rendering, we tested the game set to medium quality using the game's DX10 rendering mode with 4X Anisotropic Filtering enabled.

AMD's A8-3850 APU offered about 75% better performance than the Intel processors here, due to the APU's much more powerful integrated GPU. Once again, we also see excellent scaling with the A8-3850 running in dual-graphics CrossFire mode with a companion Radeon HD 6670 installed in the test system.

Enemy Territory: Quake Wars
OpenGL Gaming Performance

Enemy Territory:
Quake Wars

Enemy Territory: Quake Wars is Based on a radically enhanced version of id's Doom 3 engine and viewed by many as Battlefield 2 meets the Strogg, and then some. In fact, we'd venture to say that id took EA's team-based warfare genre up a notch or two. ET: Quake Wars also marks the introduction of John Carmack's "Megatexture" technology that employs large environment and terrain textures that cover vast areas of maps without the need to repeat and tile many smaller textures. The beauty of megatexture technology is that each unit only takes up a maximum of 8MB of frame buffer memory. Add to that HDR-like bloom lighting and leading edge shadowing effects and Enemy Territory: Quake Wars looks great, plays well and works high end graphics cards vigorously. The game was tested using its "High" quality preset with 4x anisotropic filtering.

Once again, the AMD A8-3850 APU with its integrated Radeon HD 6650D graphics core decimates the Intel HD graphics integrated into the second gen Core processors. The A8-3850 offered roughly double the performance of Intel's HD graphics. Interestingly, though, dual-graphics mode didn't work in this game, hence the lack of performance scaling when a companion GPU was added to the system.

Total System Power Consumption

Before bringing this article to a close, we'll take a look at power consumption of the AMD A8-3850 and some competing platforms. Throughout all of our benchmarking and testing, we monitored how much power this new APU was consuming with a power meter, versus other test systems we used for benchmarks in the previous pages. Our goal was to give you an idea as to how much power each configuration used while idling on the desktop and while under a heavy workload Keep in mind, this is total system power consumption being measured at the outlet and not the the individual CPUs or GPUs alone.

Total System Power Consumption
Tested at the Outlet

The A8-3850's power consumption characteristics when paired with an A75-based motherboard are fairly impressive. Idle power consumption is simply minuscule--we're talking about a quad-core processor here with 400 Radeon cores (plus RAM, drives, a PSU, fans, etc.) sucking down only 51-55 watts at idle. And under load (where we taxed both the CPU and GPU with concurrent runs of Cinebench and LAME) total system power consumption hovered right around 150W, which is competitive with the Core i5-2500.
Performance Summary and Conclusion

Performance Summary: We have a few performance-related metrics to summarize here, namely the AMD A8-3850 APU's performance versus competing offerings form Intel and the performance of all of the A75-based motherboards we tested compared to each other. Let's get the motherboards out of the way first. To put it bluntly, all of the motherboards we tested performed similarly. Because the northbridge, GPU, and some PCIe connectivity all reside on the APU, there is very little that can be tweaked at the motherboard / chipset level to affect overall performance, hence the similar benchmarks scores throughout.

Comparing the A8-3850 to Intel's offerings is a bit more complicated. Clearly, Intel's x86 cores offers better general compute performance. In many cases a dual-core Core i3-2120 was able to outpace a quad-core A8-3850 and the quad-core Core i5-2500 was simply in another class. Factor in integrated GPU performance, however, and the scales tip the other way. The Radeon HD 6550D integrated into the A8-3850 APU is far more powerful than Intel's HD graphics core. In some instances, the A8-3850's integrated Radeon HD 6550D offered more than double the performance of Intels' HD graphics.

There will initially be two Llano-based desktop APUs hitting the market, the A8-3850 we showed you here and a lower-end A6-3650. The AMD A8-3850 (2.9GHz CPU, 600MHz GPU with 400 Radeon Cores, 4MB of L2 cache, 100W TDP) will be priced at $135. The AMD A6-3650 APU (2.6GHz CPU, 443MHz GPU with 320 Radeon Cores, 4MB of L2 cache, 100W TDP) will be priced at $115. Two other APUs will follow shortly thereafter...

The A8-3800 and A6-3600 are lower-clocked, lower-power versions of their counterparts, that support AMD's Turbo Core technology, so their cores can dynamically clock up or down on the fly. Pricing for these two chips wasn't available just yet, but it's not like there's very much guess work to do since only $20 separates the A8-3850 from the A6-3650. Also note that even more affordable dual-core variants are planned, but AMD's not making any official announcements just yet.

At those price points, and the expected affordable price points of A75-based motherboards, AMD's Llano and Lynx platform presents an interesting value proposition. When these parts eventually hit the streets in the coming week(s), a user could score a decent performing quad-core CPU, with very good DX11-class graphics, and a full featured motherboard with bleeding edge tech for right around $200. That's pretty darn cool if you ask us.

Unfortunately, there is just so much to choose from in the desktop space at the moment, that a higher performing system with faster CPU and more powerful GPU can be had for only slightly more money (think $20 to $50). The system won't have the same high level of integration as Llano, or have power consumption as low, but it will offer more performance and a similar user experience. Consumers shopping for an entry level system will have more choices than ever once AMD's A-Series desktop Llano parts arrive, which is great, but that also means doing even more homework to ensure you're buying the "right" components for your budget.

With that said, AMD's A-Series desktop APUs seem well suited to low-power, small form factor applications and would make an excellent foundation for a HTPC or casual gaming rig. The performance offered by the A8-3850's quad-cores is plenty good for the vast majority of users out there and its integrated Radeon HD 6550D core is exponentially better than any other integrated solution. Price points are affordable and A75-based motherboards offer cutting edge feature sets. And the value proposition of the platform will only get better as more OpenCL or heterogenous apps that can level all of the APUs compute performance hit the scene.


  • Low Power
  • Affordable
  • Dual-Graphics Support
  • Integrated DX11 GPU Core

  • General Compute Performance Well Below Intel
  • More Performance Available For Minimal Additional Investment

Content Property of HotHardware.com