The AMD A8-3850 Review: Llano on the Desktop
by Anand Lal Shimpi on June 30, 2011 3:11 AM ESTCPU Performance
For the full breakdown of x86 CPU performance head over to Bench and compare away. As I mentioned in our preview of the A8-3850 a couple of weeks ago, general purpose performance isn't that great. Although AMD has tweaked the A8's cores, the 2.9GHz 3850 performs a lot like a 3.1GHz Athlon II X4. You are getting more performance at a lower clock frequency, but not a lot more.
Compared to the Core i3-2100/2105 the A8-3850 really doesn't change the current state of AMD vs. Intel. If you're running lightly threaded apps, the Core i3 just has much better performance. Look at our single-threaded Cinebench scores below and you'll see a 50% performance advantage.
CPU bound gaming performance is also an area where the A8 falls behind the i3. Here you're looking at a 25 - 50% advantage for the i3-2100/2105:
Applications that are a mix of one or more CPU intensive threads still favor the Core i3 as you can see from the Photoshop performance results:
Go to the other end of the spectrum and load the A8-3850 up with CPU intensive threads, and it'll actually hold its own. As strong as the Core i3 is, there's no replacement for more cores when it comes to these thread heavy workloads. I should add that despite the A8's core count advantage, it's biggest victory in these heavily threaded tests is still only 9%:
There's not much more to be said here. The A8-3850 isn't going to set any records for general use performance. If your primary use for your PC is going to be gaming however, Llano has something to offer you...
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
99 Comments
View All Comments
zac05 - Thursday, June 30, 2011 - link
was waitting for this reviw very badily......probabily amd llano desktop version is just a beafed up amd apu mobile version, it has a clear winnig point on its mobile platform ( added advantage of batterylife and graphics performance for relatively lower price than the intel counter part )
but for desktop its a mixed review....i think the bulldozer family apu..which is the real desktop apu variant must come into picture, for a face to face comparison with the intel counter part ...phew we have to wait another 4-5 months for that i guess.
a8-3850 would be good for casula gamers....else i3 will provide more performance and lower tdp for others
Musafir_86 - Thursday, June 30, 2011 - link
Hi Anand,-Thank you for the nice review, but would you add image quality (IQ) comparison as well? From what I found around the internet, Intel HD 2000/3000 still lacking competitive/comparable quality of the rendered images. So, it would be better to show what's the actual IQ the user will see even when the frame rate (FPS) looks like it's playable.
Thanks again.
ganeshts - Thursday, June 30, 2011 - link
Yes, that is coming up in a separate review. Give me a couple of hours.Musafir_86 - Thursday, June 30, 2011 - link
-Wow, what a quick reply, thanks!-Hmm, Anand said you're covering HTPC scenarios, right? So would that mean video (output) quality only? Or that will include 3D games as well?
Regards.
StormyParis - Thursday, June 30, 2011 - link
Thanks. very much looking forward to that t, being gaming or video.AnandThenMan - Thursday, June 30, 2011 - link
Seconded, a comparison of image quality would be nice. I'd also like to see 1024x768 dropped from testing, who runs that resolution? Looking at a couple of other reviews, the tests were done@ 1680x1050 with good frame rates on Llano. If a game has to be dropped down to 1024 to play then why bother, it's going to look ugly anyway.Musafir_86 - Thursday, June 30, 2011 - link
-In my place, budget/value systems often bundle with second-hand 15" or 17" CRT (sometimes LCD too) to reduce the sale price. So, I think 1024x768 (and 1280x1024) resolutions are still relevant. :)Regards.
L. - Thursday, June 30, 2011 - link
The third world is a dreadful place indeed...17 inches *shivers*
ppeterka - Thursday, June 30, 2011 - link
Hey, you dissin' me? My home rig is 17", my work rig is 2x17", and not gonna change soon. I don't want to. I enjoy life even at sub-HD resolutions too...L. - Thursday, June 30, 2011 - link
Just kiddin', my laptop is 17" too ... 17" of eye-killing 1920*1200 madness.No reason to change, except you can get LED pannels for like 130 euros now .. and damn it's good for the movies.