Yes, a two times increase over HD3000 would get it quite close to Llano GPU. So far I'm not quite sure how intel will manage that, after all there aren't that many units more at presumably still similar clocks. One thing though I noticed is that the MRF (message register file) is gone in IB it's all GRF now - might eliminate some message passing overhead. One advantage of SB/IB is of course the use of the L3 - with things like hierarchical-Z (which intel also supports nowadays) this can potentially make the chip quite a bit less bandwidth-starved, so even if the gpu core would be quite a bit slower than Llano it could make up for this due to superior cache/memory hierarchy. I guess AMD will follow suit with GPU-enabled BD but that's still quite far ahead.
Llano IGP vs SNB IGP vs IVB IGP
- Thread starter AnarchX
- Start date
the big meh of the mobile llano :|
the turbo in the husky revision works on some core or on all?
And does it work when the GPU is being used?
Someone mentioned that the TDP is for the base CPU speed + GPU or the max CPU speed w/ no GPU. I can't wait for reviews.
I would think that is max TDP when all cores(at base speed) + GPU are being fully loaded. I dont see why it couldnt work when the GPU isnt being used. If the TDP is below what the chip is rated for, Turbo should activate regardless of what is being used. Another point of note in that slide is that nothing is mentioned about graphics turbo.
Those closks and TDP's are quite disappointing really. The current Phenom II P920/930 run at 1.6/1.7 ghz and are rated at 25 watts. And the Radeon HD 5650M (the equivalent of Llano's graphics) is rated at 15-19 watts. These are at 45nm and 40nm for the CPU and GPU respectively. GF's 32nm HKMG process was supposed to be far superior in power and performance. Given that both CPU and GPU are now built under 32nm i was expecting a lot better TBH
Last edited by a moderator:
Actually one of my friends is buyng a notebook with a Turion II P560 (2500 MHz 2MB 25W 45nm) and RS880 for ridicolous 350€
A llano that runs at 1900MHz all the time and overclocks one core (?) to 2500MHz has a tdp of 35W, even worst the base 2100MHz one that go up to 45W
I know that there's the gpu, but are only 240 cores :|
- from 32nm i was expecting something way better
- they are completely missing the 25W product range
and i was extremely interested in this cpu
A llano that runs at 1900MHz all the time and overclocks one core (?) to 2500MHz has a tdp of 35W, even worst the base 2100MHz one that go up to 45W
I know that there's the gpu, but are only 240 cores :|
- from 32nm i was expecting something way better
- they are completely missing the 25W product range
and i was extremely interested in this cpu
The point of Turbo is that it's not supposed to increase the TDP, but make better use of it when not all cores are active. So this is a little strange.
Like i said, afaik the TDP is the max power consumption when all cores are running at full load (at base speed) + GPU at full load. Turbo would up the core clocks when the GPU isnt being stressed and/or some cores are idle/lightly loaded, as long as power consumption stays within the design TDP.
So in this case 45W would be for 4 cores at 1.9 ghz and one redwood gpu at 444 mhz. Now considering current 4 core phenom's at 1.7 gigahertz consume 25 watts( on 45 nm) and Mobile redwood at 450 mhz consumes about 15-19W(on 40 nm). Add them up and you're looking at 40-44 watts. Now its disappointing that combining the two and shrinking to 32nm still consumes 45 watts, without much of an increase in clocks. (Llano also has a built in PCIE controller i think but that shouldnt have too much of an effect)
Thats desktop Redwood you're talking about, i.e. Radeon 5670 with a TDP of 60-70W. I was talking about mobile Redwood or Mobility Radeon 5650.
But yes could indicate a problem with the 32nm process. Not like its unprecedented, even when they transitioned from 90nm->65nm, the clocks were actually lower and they couldnt match the 90nm clocks for about a year and a half.
I think you are goign to see power savings just by the chips being combined there will be alot of complexity moved off the motherboard.
Also I can't find if the 5650 parts TDP (which all i can find is them saying the rumor points to those TDPs ) include the ram .
Anyway hopefully we get more info at e3 so we canform a more informed picture of Llano.
Kyle at hardocp is saying bulldozer wont come in june , which has pissed me off , i might buy a sandy bridge later today
Which is why I find these specs strange. Hopefully, they're not true.
I think you guys are expecting too much. New process tech allows ~20% increase in performance or 30% reduction in power.
1.7GHz = 25W
GPU = 20W
20% increase in clocks = 2-2.1GHz CPU
+Moving from 40nm TSMC which might be more optimized for power usage than 45nm for CPUs
+PCI Express integration
+Greater average utilization on the memory controller due to integrating the GPU
+Not accounting for TurboCore
You can of course look at the 3500M, with 1.5GHz base clocks and 2.4GHz Turbo clocks, it probably clocks similar in real world usage with TurboCore with the 1.7GHz Phenom II, and saves 10W power for combo.
That's vastly exaggerated. More like 2-3% on average, only exceeding 5% with L2-testing synthetics. And later revisions brought about half of that back (not for the synthetics, as it was due to memory controller tweaks, not because of L2 changes). It was indeed surprising however - even more so cause AMD at some point said this would enable larger L2 caches in the future, yet they had 1MB (per core) L2 90nm parts and we never saw more than 512KB (per core) on 65nm...
Blazkowicz
Legend
I had the AMD 65nm single core die and loved it. huge upgrade over an athlon XP, and the regulated fan would often stop.
that was the 1.9GHz 256K sempron, which I had slightly undervolted and 25% overclocked. bought it for 27 euros I believe! with an upgrade path to the athlon II X2 which is a great behaving 45nm core as well.
maybe AMD should have done a dual core llano a well, but we'll see how disabled models fare. the quad core has a cost with mobile, but it's the same as mobile core i7, with the need for underclocking when all cores are used.
base clock is with all cores loaded 100% so in typical gaming you will be not so much downclocked.
that was the 1.9GHz 256K sempron, which I had slightly undervolted and 25% overclocked. bought it for 27 euros I believe! with an upgrade path to the athlon II X2 which is a great behaving 45nm core as well.
maybe AMD should have done a dual core llano a well, but we'll see how disabled models fare. the quad core has a cost with mobile, but it's the same as mobile core i7, with the need for underclocking when all cores are used.
base clock is with all cores loaded 100% so in typical gaming you will be not so much downclocked.
Yes, comparing against the low-end platform isn't very impressive. Being better in the midrange than your own lowend isn't going to be enough... I don't see these numbers on that page though?
Oh and btw a Vantage P score (assuming that's overall) of 1625 isn't all that much, right in HD3000 territory, with some HD3000 notebooks easily outscoring it (though at least the 2842 score would be outside of reach of HD3000, and presumably could be boosted some more with ddr3-1600).
Last edited by a moderator:
E2, not E, meaning E2-3250, not E-350.
E2-3250 is Llano based with 2 K10.5-x64 cores and 160 SPs and has same 65W TDP as A4-3350
Mintmaster
Veteran