Monday, June 13th 2011

AMD A-Series APU Smashes IGP Performance Records...Surprise

Armed with a Radeon HD 6550D graphics core that has 400 stream processors, 8 ROPs, and full DirectX 11 support, AMD A-Series "Llano" accelerated processing unit (APU) was tested to be the fastest integrated graphics solution to date. The tests was run by a forum-member of TweakTown community with early access to engineering samples. On the test-bed was AMD A8-3850 APU, which has four x86-64 cores clocked at 2.90 GHz, and the Radeon HD 6550D IGP with engine clock of 600 MHz. Standard dual-channel DDR3-1333 MHz memory was used, even though the APU supports faster DDR3-1866 MHz. To seat the test bed, Gigabyte A75M-UD2H was used. It's important to note here that the CPU cores were overclocked to 3.773 GHz (145.13 MHz x 26.0), with an insane core voltage of 1.52V.

The setup was put though three generations of 3DMark benchmark, covering DirectX 9.0c, DirectX 10, and DirectX 11 performance. In 3DMark 06, the setup scores 10,492 points. In 3DMark Vantage, it scored P6160 (performance preset, validation). In 3DMark 11, it scored P1591 (performance preset, validation). More details can be read in the screenshots.

Source: TweakTown Forums
Add your own comment

85 Comments on AMD A-Series APU Smashes IGP Performance Records...Surprise

#1
1Kurgan1
The Knife in your Back
Yeah, thats mighty impressive, I remember seeing 10k scores on ATI 4870's, this is pretty crazy.
Posted on Reply
#2
rangerone766
what about dual socketed MB's,and x-fire the cpu's is it possible?

but excited to see these performing so well.
Posted on Reply
#3
scazbala86
Trackr said:
This is great.. for people who are allergic to graphics cards..

To me it seems like having two perfectly good baskets, and then placing all your eggs in one of them.

Even to OEMs.. does it matter if you have a CPU and a Graphics Card instead of a CPU that has a GPU inside of it?

It's actually worse, because the user would have to replace both the CPU and GPU if one of them died, since they are in the same package.


I think that instead of creating more powerful Integrated GPUs, for the "We don't know what a graphics card is" crowd..

You should educate people that a graphics card is better.
You have to remember,it cost more to have them separate, it takes more power to have them separate. While I agree having a discrete graphics card is better for enthusiasts and gamers, we are the minority of computer users. This will save money for OEMs and people who buy pre-built computers, which is just about everyone, allowing them to do alot more with a computer that costs alot less. Think about the applications for this in the mobile market, getting a laptop with even the lowest end discrete graphics card cost at least $100 more than a similarly configured laptop without the discrete card. Now everyone can get discrete level performance for less while using less battery power as well. AMD has created the perfect solution for almost everyone. Consider yourself educated about how, while yes graphics cards are better, chips like these are better for the majority of users.
Posted on Reply
#4
sparkyar
1.52v to reach 3.77ghz:(
thats too much voltaje for less than 3.8ghz
Posted on Reply
#5
TheMailMan78
Big Member
sparkyar said:
1.52v to reach 3.77ghz:(
thats too much voltaje for less than 3.8ghz
You need a new board man.
Posted on Reply
#6
MikeMurphy
If anyone bothers to read the source they will quickly realize that the story is not reported correctly.

GPU was overclocked, from 600mhz to 870mhz.
Memory at 2320mhz, not 1333mhz.

So, 10,492 in 3dMark06 overclocked
and, 7,650 in 3dMark06 with stock CPU and GPU

"here is my setting
CPU: AMD APU A8-8350 @3.77GHz aircooling
MB: Gigabyte A75M-UD2H
DDR OC 2320MHz
FSB: 145 MHz ( Stock is 100MHz, oc 45%)
iGPU: 870 MHz, (stock is 600 MHz)"

Impressive nonetheless, but lets get this reported correctly.
Posted on Reply
#7
Thatguy
f22a4bandit said:
Except that most people don't care what's in their computer as long as it works. This saves OEMs money on their bottom line, which is about as far as they care. It's a smart move by AMD, especially since these APUs will provide stellar performance in the tablet market, which is where everything is moving.
The market isn't moving, its just getting bigger.
Posted on Reply
#9
Trackr
f22a4bandit said:
Except that most people don't care what's in their computer as long as it works. This saves OEMs money on their bottom line, which is about as far as they care. It's a smart move by AMD, especially since these APUs will provide stellar performance in the tablet market, which is where everything is moving.
scazbala86 said:
You have to remember,it cost more to have them separate, it takes more power to have them separate. While I agree having a discrete graphics card is better for enthusiasts and gamers, we are the minority of computer users. This will save money for OEMs and people who buy pre-built computers, which is just about everyone, allowing them to do alot more with a computer that costs alot less. Think about the applications for this in the mobile market, getting a laptop with even the lowest end discrete graphics card cost at least $100 more than a similarly configured laptop without the discrete card. Now everyone can get discrete level performance for less while using less battery power as well. AMD has created the perfect solution for almost everyone. Consider yourself educated about how, while yes graphics cards are better, chips like these are better for the majority of users.
Here are my thoughts:

1.) I don't think it will cost more. An HD 6550-equivalent card costs less than 50$.
2.) You're sacrificing CPU performance with an AMD CPU.
3.) I don't see how it will take less power. They just placed the GPU inside the CPU.

The ONLY positive thing that I can think of in regards to this, is that in a laptop, it's easier to work with one chip.

I also really don't think this will fit in a tablet.
Posted on Reply
#10
xBruce88x
ok now i know i need a new gfx card whan an igp is faster than what's in my desktop.

Can't wait to start seeing these in laptops!
Posted on Reply
#11
Jonap_1st
MikeMurphy said:
If anyone bothers to read the source they will quickly realize that the story is not reported correctly.

GPU was overclocked, from 600mhz to 870mhz.
Memory at 2320mhz, not 1333mhz.

So, 10,492 in 3dMark06 overclocked
and, 7,650 in 3dMark06 with stock CPU and GPU

"here is my setting
CPU: AMD APU A8-8350 @3.77GHz aircooling
MB: Gigabyte A75M-UD2H
DDR OC 2320MHz
FSB: 145 MHz ( Stock is 100MHz, oc 45%)
iGPU: 870 MHz, (stock is 600 MHz)"

Impressive nonetheless, but lets get this reported correctly.
yeah, you're right..
maybe this means if you overclock the cpu, the gpu itself will get overclocked as well..

btw, looking at the temp. it got nothing higher than 40C,
thats very impressive consider it has been overclocked 20% more than stock speed with just aircooling,,
Posted on Reply
#13
Delta6326
well thats sweet. Any idea when we will see these in laptops? as im looking to buy a new one.
Posted on Reply
#14
Thatguy
Trackr said:
Here are my thoughts:

1.) I don't think it will cost more. An HD 6550-equivalent card costs less than 50$.
2.) You're sacrificing CPU performance with an AMD CPU.
3.) I don't see how it will take less power. They just placed the GPU inside the CPU.

The ONLY positive thing that I can think of in regards to this, is that in a laptop, it's easier to work with one chip.

I also really don't think this will fit in a tablet.
Does intel/nvidia sign the front of your check ?


1.) how many chips can you yield out of one wafer ?
2.) yeah so much CPU performance "seriously?" yeah its not a gapping chasm.
3.) just becuase your ignorant, doesn't make it less true.


to adress 1. Packaging, boards,chipsets,engineering, etc. All add costs. If the gpu is in the cpu package, its nearly fucking free minus the cost of the silicone.

2. sure intel beat amd in some benchmarks, ones where very shallow pipelined shitty applications don't really use the cpu to its full extent. When things get heavy on workload, those disparity become far less obvious. Please STFU

3.yes it uses less power, less vrm's, less resistors, less outboard support hardware, less traces on the board disapating power. Yeah it uses alot less power actually.

So to sum it up, your just ignorant.
Posted on Reply
#15
Thatguy
Delta6326 said:
well thats sweet. Any idea when we will see these in laptops? as im looking to buy a new one.
I would think by august at the worst.
Posted on Reply
#16
Funtoss
Wow! amazing i gotta get me one!
Posted on Reply
#17
rem82
Desktop and mobile Llanos IGP (6550 & 6620) make HYBRID CROSSFIRE with discrete ΑΜD ΗD 6670, 6570, 6770M +++++ !!!
That is impressive because one small & cheap GPU with Llanos IGP together in crossfire, make a big graphics performance !!

HYBRID CROSSFIRE is DEFFERENT crossfire !!!! -->
You can see this video for hybrid crossfire in old AM3 socket !

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D0hYMzIFfMU

For laptops



Posted on Reply
#18
Frick
Fishfaced Nincompoop
Thatguy said:
Does intel/nvidia sign the front of your check ?


1.) how many chips can you yield out of one wafer ?
2.) yeah so much CPU performance "seriously?" yeah its not a gapping chasm.
3.) just becuase your ignorant, doesn't make it less true.


to adress 1. Packaging, boards,chipsets,engineering, etc. All add costs. If the gpu is in the cpu package, its nearly fucking free minus the cost of the silicone.

2. sure intel beat amd in some benchmarks, ones where very shallow pipelined shitty applications don't really use the cpu to its full extent. When things get heavy on workload, those disparity become far less obvious. Please STFU

3.yes it uses less power, less vrm's, less resistors, less outboard support hardware, less traces on the board disapating power. Yeah it uses alot less power actually.

So to sum it up, your just ignorant.
2. It still is true that Intel CPU's are faster. Pick you benchmark, and in pretty much every single one Intel will be faster. They are also more expensive, so it does not really matter. You get what you pay for, as always. If I was a mean person I would ask if AMD pay your paycheks. But that is a comment that is pretty much the opposite of constructive.

3. Do we have any power numbers BTW?
Posted on Reply
#19
Heavy_MG
Frick said:
2. It still is true that Intel CPU's are faster. Pick you benchmark, and in pretty much every single one Intel will be faster. They are also more expensive, so it does not really matter. You get what you pay for, as always. If I was a mean person I would ask if AMD pay your paycheks. But that is a comment that is pretty much the opposite of constructive.

3. Do we have any power numbers BTW?
Of course the Intel is faster in a benchmark,many benchmarks are optimized for a Intel processor. Also,the SB chip has hardware optimizations to boost benchmark scores that the AMD Llano does not.
In day to day usage ( which is what Llano is made for) most users don't care,they will see that the GPU runs programs better than the Intel "HD" graphics.
Check out the mobile power use here- http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/a8-3500m-llano-apu,review-32207.html
It has better power consumption than the Intel,yet has a better GPU,and still good CPU power.
Posted on Reply
#20
rem82
Frick said:
2. It still is true that Intel CPU's are faster. Pick you benchmark, and in pretty much every single one Intel will be faster. They are also more expensive, so it does not really matter. You get what you pay for, as always. If I was a mean person I would ask if AMD pay your paycheks. But that is a comment that is pretty much the opposite of constructive.

3. Do we have any power numbers BTW?
Llano & sandy are not only cpu !!! They have IGP inside !!!

Τhe total force of processor and graphic card (CPU+IGP = APU) in Lianos is bigger than the total force of processor and graphic card (igp) in sandy!!!! This is the correct comparison !!
Posted on Reply
#21
Jonap_1st
rem82 said:
Desktop and mobile Llanos IGP (6550 & 6620) make HYBRID CROSSFIRE with discrete ΑΜD ΗD 6670, 6570, 6770M +++++ !!!
That is impressive because one small & cheap GPU with Llanos IGP together in crossfire, make a big graphics performance !!

HYBRID CROSSFIRE is DEFFERENT crossfire !!!! -->
You can see this video for hybrid crossfire in old AM3 socket !

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D0hYMzIFfMU

For laptops
now everyone can play crysis with *bling-bling* enabled on their laptops without spending more than $1000..
Posted on Reply
#22
Bundy
MikeMurphy said:
If anyone bothers to read the source they will quickly realize that the story is not reported correctly.

GPU was overclocked, from 600mhz to 870mhz.
Memory at 2320mhz, not 1333mhz.

So, 10,492 in 3dMark06 overclocked
and, 7,650 in 3dMark06 with stock CPU and GPU

"here is my setting
CPU: AMD APU A8-8350 @3.77GHz aircooling
MB: Gigabyte A75M-UD2H
DDR OC 2320MHz
FSB: 145 MHz ( Stock is 100MHz, oc 45%)
iGPU: 870 MHz, (stock is 600 MHz)"

Impressive nonetheless, but lets get this reported correctly.
Thanks for bring sanity to the thread. There is little chance that these CPU will be sold OC in a laptop.

Heavy_MG said:
Of course the Intel is faster in a benchmark,many benchmarks are optimized for a Intel processor.
What ones are they?
Posted on Reply
#23
mixa
WOW, wtf performance @_@
This thing is really eating the sh1t out of Intel, seriously.I wonder if you can do Hybrid CF-X with a discreet 66xx/65xx desktop card.....

rem82 said:
Llano & sandy are not only cpu !!! They have IGP inside !!!

Τhe total force of processor and graphic card (CPU+IGP = APU) in Lianos is bigger than the total force of processor and graphic card (igp) in sandy!!!! This is the correct comparison !!
True indeed.
Do we have to mention that Llano can be OCed even in the lower models, where SB simply can't.Another chop off the intel`s cake :D
Posted on Reply
#24
MikeMurphy
Lets not get our panties in a twist.

SB has amazing single-threaded performance, far superior to AMD's. To suggest that this is wrong is ignorant.

AMD offers better pricing on more cores to make up for the deficit, and now much better graphics performance compared to the majority of the SB lineup that sports the lowly HD2000 IGP.

Both solutions are quite competitive in their own way.

I'm really looking forward the BD refresh of Llano later this year to close the CPU gap (a little). Until then the overclocking will help against the locked Intel chips of which Llano competes.
Posted on Reply
#25
Nesters
MikeMurphy said:
I'm really looking forward the BD refresh of Llano later this year to close the CPU gap (a little). Until then the overclocking will help against the locked Intel chips of which Llano competes.
Is it really coming this year?
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment