AMD A8-3850 Review: Llano Rocks Entry-Level Desktops

Earlier this month we previewed AMD's Llano architecture in a notebook environment. Now we have the desktop version with a 100 W TDP. How much additional performance can the company procure with a loftier thermal ceiling and higher clocks?

Editor's Note: As we've done so many times before, we're partnering up with CyberPower to give away one of the first Llano-based desktop machines, which the builder calls its Gamer Ultra, to one of our readers. Flip through our review and, on the last page, enter to win a brand new PC, compliments of CyberPower!

A8-3850 Makes Its Desktop Debut

Don Woligroski did an absolutely killer job on our first look at AMD’s Llano architecture. If you haven’t yet read that story and you want to know more about the plumbing inside the company’s first mainstream APU, you really owe it to yourself to check out The AMD A8-3500M APU Review: Llano Is Unleashed before diving into this piece.

Because Don covered the underlying architecture so well, I’m going to use our first experiences with AMD’s Llano-based desktop platform, code-named Lynx, to dive deeper into the stuff I know you guys love: benchmark results and analysis. What kind of performance can you expect out of Dual Graphics? How does Sandy Bridge with discrete graphics compare? What effect does memory performance have on gaming frame rates? How does integrated USB 3.0 support measure up to some of the add-on controllers we’ve seen? I’ll answer all of that.

But first let’s go over the basics of AMD’s first desktop-class Llano-based APUs.

Llano: The Recession-Friendly APU

Oh, Audi would be so proud (or maybe not, given the entry-level pedigree of these processors). AMD is using the same A8 and A6 designators to distinguish between the perceived performance levels of its four launch SKUs.

There are two A8s and two A6s. The Llano-based flagship is A8-3850, a 100 W part with Radeon HD 6550D graphics, four execution cores with 1 MB L2 cache each, and a 2.9 GHz clock rate. That part does not offer Turbo Core support—the only way to get it running faster than 2.9 GHz is through overclocking. AMD says to expect pricing around $135.

The A6-3650 is also rated at 100 W, even though it’s armed with Radeon HD 6530D graphics and a more conservative 2.6 GHz clock rate (again, Turbo Core isn’t available). The -3650 boasts four cores as well, includes the same 4 MB of L2 cache, and support DDR3-1866 data rates, just like the other three models. That one is expected to run $115.

Model
GPU
TDP
Cores
Base CPU Clock
Max. Turbo
L2 Cache
Shaders
GPU Clock
Turbo Core

Interestingly, dipping down to the 65 W level doesn’t seem to sacrifice much in the way of functionality. AMD’s A8-3800 includes the capable Radeon HD 6550D engine, quad-core Stars architecture, and 4 MB L2 repository. However, Turbo Core helps compensate for a fairly severe drop to 2.4 GHz, kicking frequency up to 2.7 GHz in situations where thermal headroom allows for it. Unfortunately, AMD didn’t send over any Turbo Core-equipped processors for testing, so it’s impossible to gauge how much time this four-core part spends at its elevated setting.

Finally, the A6-3600 is also a 65 W component. It scales way back, though, giving up not only processor clock rate—its four cores running at 2.1 GHz by default and up to 2.4 GHz with Turbo Core—but also graphics performance via the less-complex Radeon HD 6530D engine. Is still includes 4 MB of L2 cache though, complementing each core with 1 MB.

What's the difference, exactly, between the Radeon HD 6550D and Radeon HD 6530D GPU engines? One SIMD engine, for the most part.

Graphics Processor Classification
Radeon HD 6550D (A8-Series APUs)
Radeon HD 6530D (A6-Series APUs)

When you look at a block diagram of the Llano's GPU component, it's easy to see how AMD differentiates these two lineups. Each SIMD hosts 80 ALUs and is associated with four texture units. Turning one SIMD off yields the 320 shaders and 16 texture units offered by Radeon HD 6530D.

A Small Launch Gets Smaller

With four SKUs in the initial Llano-based desktop portfolio, a zero-hour revelation that the 65 W A8-3800 and A6-3600 won't be available until an undisclosed date narrows the family down to two models: A8-3850 and A6-3650, both 100 W parts. As a result, it won't be possible to test Turbo Core functionality on Llano until AMD addresses the availability of its lower-power offerings.

View the original article here

Read More

Build Or Buy? Five Sub-$500 Store-Bought Systems Compared

Have you ever claimed you could build a faster machine than top-tier vendors, but needed proof? We dig into five off-the-shelf sub-$500 configurations to figure out what they can and cannot do. The results probably won't surprise Tom's Hardware regulars.

Occasionally, someone asks us to recommend a desktop gaming system. A pre-built gaming system. That tends to catch us off-guard because it cuts against our natural instinct as enthusiasts who construct platforms piece by piece. We're always on the hunt for better performance, but that means we need the freedom to pick and choose parts that work well together. When you buy a pre-built system, you largely give up customization in favor of convenience (or, at the very least, a price premium).

To be fair, there are some benefits to buying a system built by someone else. There’s a certain attraction to not getting your hands dirty, and there's no arguing that the price tags you see at retail stores have been dropping in recent years. However, buying a system, even at today’s discounted prices, doesn’t necessarily mean you’re getting the most out of your money. Cheap isn’t the same thing as value. A computer’s worth is just as much about performance as it is about cost.

It doesn’t take a lot of effort to buy a pre-built machine. You only need two minutes, a credit card, and a device with Internet access. Building requires significantly more effort: time spent shopping for each part, plus you need to know which component combinations deliver the best experience. And then there's the build process itself. Generally that goes well, but we'll all had our share of run-ins with compatibility issues and hardware that lands dead on arrival.

Really, this is what separates the enthusiast willing to do some homework and his mom or dad, who oftentimes don't have the patience, time, or interest to learn what cards plug into what slots. There's an in-between approach, too. Buy a complete system for convenience's sake, and as it gets older add upgrades here and there to suit. Is that any more worthwhile for keeping a machine gaming-worthy?

Today we're pitting building against buying in the entry-level space in order to gauge the difference. We gave ourselves a $500 budget and bought five pre-configured desktop PCs in our quest for cheap performance. Using our recent $500 Gaming PC as a reference point, we're curious to see how five builders measure up to the configuration picked by Tom's Hardware writer Paul Henningsen.

View the original article here

Read More

Can You Get More Space Or Speed From Your SSD?

With the market for solid-state drives continually expanding, we wanted to explore some of the most popular tweaks enthusiasts use to purportedly improve performance and free up capacity. We break out the benchmarks and put them to the test.

Solid-state storage is generally faster than mechanical disks. Sure, once you get down into the 40 GB boot drives, write performance really suffers. But for the most part, SSDs rule. However, they're also much more expensive. Every gigabyte of capacity on your SSD is precious space. And while SSDs are very fast inherently, there are plenty of folks online who'll try to convince you that they can be made even faster with simple adjustments.

Today's story is the product of our own efforts to maximize the amount of useful space you can squeeze from your valuable SSD. We also want to put some of those performance claims to the test using a couple of different drives in order to gauge whether performance-oriented optimizations are specific to a certain vendor's hardware, or if they're universally-applicable. Or, maybe they're entirely untrue, and there's no way to make an SSD any faster.

We'll launch our exploration into the potential of solid-state drive tweaking by testing nine of the most commonly-recommended optimizations we see tossed around once an SSD is up and running with Microsoft's Windows operating system. These include the following:

Disable System RestoreDisable drive indexing Disable the page fileDisable HibernationDisable prefetching in the registryDisable Windows' write cachingDisable the SuperFetch and Windows Search servicesDisable ClearPageFileAtShutdown and LargeSystemCacheAdjust power settings

View the original article here

Read More

Harden Up: Can We Break Your Password With Our GPUs?

Do you think your passwords are keeping your data nice and safe? Do you have archived files you don't want anyone to see? Let's see how fast we can crack your lock using our graphics cards. If anything, this is a wake-up call to lock down your valuables!

Locking your keys in the car is never fun. The last time that happened, I spent the better part of my day waiting for a locksmith. Happily, I can say that's one of those mistakes that I only made once; I haven't lost sight of my keys since.

The funny thing is that, for all of my deliberate effort, I simply cannot keep track of my digital keys (passwords) when I sit down at a computer. There are just so many of them, and we're trained to not use the same one on every site. Physical keys are just easier to keep track of. Even when you lose them, they're still somewhere. It's all a matter of retracing your steps. Besides, at least there are specialists (like locksmiths) to help lower that security barrier, if you really need them.

That's also true when it comes to passwords, at least to a certain extent. Whether it's your email or bank account, online password recovery is generally a painless process. There's usually some sort of a "Forgot Your Password?" link that allows you to reclaim access. However, the prospects for digital files are usually more forlorn. I recently discovered this while I was trying to access an old encrypted WinZip archive.

Before we dive too deep into password recovery, we should point out that there are many ways to protect your data. If you're looking for a more comprehensive solution, we would suggest something like TrueCrypt (check out Protect Your Data! TrueCrypt 7.0a's Performance, Analyzed), which is even more attractive now that it supports AES-NI instructions. Yet, archive encryption remains the most ubiquitous way to secure data. Whether you're someone in HR emailing the weekly payroll or Blake Lively trying to keep those personal iPhone photos a little more personal, encrypting an archive is fast and easy.

There is, however, a bit of a misunderstanding on just how secure your data can really be. If you're paranoid about security, you're naturally going to favor the strongest encryption scheme possible. The presumption is that a stronger encryption scheme is more difficult to break, suggesting that AES-256 is better than AES-128. That's not the whole truth. Think of encryption like a big vault. The thicker the armor, the harder it is to penetrate the safe. However, the security of a vault is only as good as the lock that secures it. That is what a password does. It's the vault's key. The longer your password, the more complicated the lock and the more secure your data is.

Most people assume that an eight-character-long password is good enough to keep hackers at bay. That's not exactly true either, and we're about to show you why.

View the original article here

Read More

Apple's iPad 2 Review: Tom's Goes Down The Tablet Rabbit Hole

I bought the 16 GB WiFi-equipped iPad when it first came out. Like many others, I returned it a month later.

As much as I liked Apple’s latest gizmo, I just couldn’t find a way to consistently use it. Sure, the iPad was more portable than a notebook, but it doesn’t run OS X. Instead, Apple decided that the iPad should run on iOS, the mobile version of its desktop operating system.

And therein lies my problem. OS X applications don't run on iOS. That means I can't run Microsoft Office or Adobe Photoshop, the two tools that I need to stay productive. There are applications in Apple’s App Store that serve as quasi-substitutes, but paying more for a program that I already have (with fewer functions) isn’t what I need.

Whatever I gained in portability, I lost in productivity. The iPad is a solid content consumption device; it's not nearly as suited to creation. If you want to be productive, you still need a computer.

The next time you’re at an airport, watch the professionals in suits. If they’re typing a Word document, editing a spreadsheet, or uploading a file to the corporate VPN, they’re still using a notebook to do it. Meanwhile, tablet users are working on crossword puzzles, writing email, playing Cut the Rope, or browsing the Web. That’s the limitation of a tablet; it’s really more about passing time.

To be fair, there are people who can be productive with a tablet (even in the office here, there are Tom's Hardware staff who do most of their communication on an iPad). But that group is eclipsed by the number of people using tablets for entertainment. We admit it: sharing photos at a party is more fun (and easier) on an iPad compared to a notebook. If you work all day in front of a computer, plopping down in front of the TV with an iPad to surf the Web somehow feels relaxing. Pulling out the notebook and balancing it on your lap still feels like a remnant of work. 

However, “fun” only stays fun if you color within the lines. As they exist today, tablets suffer a number of shortcomings, including limited Adobe Flash and multitasking support. Performance is nothing to write home about, either. Fortunately, tablets are constantly evolving. The tablets we see today are going to be followed by many more. But if you want the latest and greatest now, let’s see how far this development segment has come with an extremely in-depth look at Apple’s iPad 2.

View the original article here

Read More

The OCZ RevoDrive 3 X2 Preview: Second-Gen SandForce Goes PCIe

Solid-state tech marches on, and we're already approaching SATA's 6 Gb/s ceiling. OCZ is once again stepping in with a PCIe-based solution with speed in reserve. The company's RevoDrive 3 X2 promises sequential transfers in excess of 1 GB/s.

SSDs are still one of those line-in-the-sand inflection points that change everything. But if you're accustomed to the throughput and responsiveness of a mechanical hard drive, there's very little reason to look beyond familiar SATA-based SSDs for a significantly better computing experience. The latest offerings from Crucial and OCZ deliver speeds often exceeding the limits of 3 Gb/s signaling, and if you have to have the best, it's hard for us not to recommend OCZ's Vertex 3.

The latest SandForce SF-2200-based drives are starting to roll out in greater volume, and they promise to serve as the performance benchmark by which other SSDs are measured (after the bugs are worked out, of course). Crucial's m4 is arguably a cheaper alternative for those that want higher performance, but either way, it's clear that nobody is going to be handicapped by SATA 6Gb/s on the desktop any time soon.

That's not to say there aren't enthusiasts interested in pushing the boundaries of storage performance. But if today's 2.5" SSDs aren't fast enough for your workload, you need to look beyond SATA's 600 MB/s limit. If you're an enthusiast and have the cash to spare, you may have your eye on a PCI Express-based SSD. Or, you're considering slinging several SATA-based drives together in a RAID configuration; either way, you sacrifice TRIM support in Windows. OCZ's RevoDrive and RevoDrive X2 are two of the most well-known workstation-oriented offerings, since they're bootable.

But those two products are centered on the controller at the heart of OCZ's last-gen Vertex 2 family. Today we have Vertex 3, which employs SandForce's second-generation controller and is capable of surpassing the performance of even those PCI Express-based boards when you harness a couple of them in RAID. It's only natural, then, that the company would follow up with an SF-2200-equipped RevoDrive 3 X2 to redefine enthusiast-class workstation storage performance.

Vertex 2 E
RevoDrive X2
Vertex 3
RevoDrive 3 X2

OCZ's newest PCI Express-based SSD claims impressive performance thanks to a PCIe-to-SAS controller (remember, the RevoDrive X2 employed PCI-X-to-SATA) and four second-gen SandForce controllers.

No doubt, the RevoDrive 3 X2 is to Vertex 3 as the RevoDrive X2 was to the Vertex 2. The names make more sense when you consider that the original Vertex was Indilinx-based. So, the Vertex 2/RevoDrive center on first-gen SandForce logic, and the Vertex 3/RevoDrive 3 simply put both devices on the same generational level.

If you're a storage nut, it's hard not to get excited. If you've seen the video by our friends at Engadget, the RevoDrive X3 is the first enthusiast drive (don't count the LSI or Fusion-io products destined for enterprise installs) claiming speeds beyond 1 GB/s.

But if you're a price-conscious storage nut, you're also probably painfully aware that the fastest devices are the most expensive. And if a Vertex 3 SSD is pricey, the equivalent of multiple Vertex 3s on a PCI Express card are naturally even more so. The name of the game here is performance, and you're going to pay dearly for access to it.

With that understanding, the only questions that remain are: How does this drive achieve those bold claims? What are the real-world performance numbers look like? And does the RevoDrive 3 solve the compatibility issues Chris Angelini discussed at the beginning of OCZ’s RevoDrive X2: When A Fast PCIe SSD Isn’t Fast Enough?

OCZ RevoDrive 3 X2
Capacity
Price
Price Per GB

View the original article here

Read More

SPONSORED BY Intel - Intel Inside, Including the Motherboard?

The market is brimming with motherboard options, and businesses of all sizes face the unenviable task of trying to decide which vendor to place at the heart of their productivity desktops. One vendor will offer more features. Another might offer better power efficiency while a third touts superior performance.

To some degree, these factors are all icing on the cake. At the end of the day, a work system only must do one thing: work. Stability is king. Once that has been assured, then it makes sense to consider secondary concerns, such as features, form factors, and (in business settings) manageability.

The key to a motherboard’s stability and performance lies in its processor and chipset. Intel has led the market in both of these components for many years. According to Mercury Research, Intel held 81% of the processor field at the end of this year’s first quarter, a position the company retains in large part from its unmatched R&D, which allows it to stay ahead of competitors. This R&D not only helps Intel to create the most advanced product architectures, it also gives the company more time to dovetail those architectures with complementary products, especially motherboards.

This only makes sense: when you need to test a new processor and chipset, you need a motherboard on which to test them. The longer and more thorough learning gained in this process gives Intel an immediate advantage on motherboard quality and reliability as well as the ability to refine motherboard architectures to better mesh with the latest chip developments. An example of this is the new LGA1155 socket designed for the latest generation of “Sandy Bridge” 2nd generation Intel Core processors. Another might be the new Smart Response Technology (SRT) method of using an SSD (such as the newly launched 20 GB SLC Intel 311 drive) as hard drive cache under an Intel Z68 chipset.

The end result of this cooperative development cycle is that businesses and consumers alike get the most stable, reliable motherboards available when they buy Intel. In the following pages, we’ll get a closer look at why this is the case along with some of the secondary benefits Intel offers.

Intel In The Motherboard Business

Back in March 2009, Tom’s Hardware ran an article showcasing 16 years of Intel motherboard development. In it, you can see Intel’s first commercial motherboard, the “Batman” model from 1993, designed for Pentium 60 and 66 processors. Prior to this, the company had only produced reference boards for manufacturing partners. By the mid-‘90s, though, Intel had cemented its place in the commercial motherboard market. This may have had something to do with the rise of Intel’s 430FX chipset as the most popular core logic of its day.

Another Intel makes sure that its motherboards are at the forefront of innovation and reliability is through helping to pioneer and ratify industry standards. Today, Intel works with over 250 standards and industry groups across a wide range of computing-related fields. Sometimes, Intel develops technologies internally and then turns them over to industry bodies. For instance, Intel started development on the Peripheral Component Interconnect (PCI) bus in 1990 within its own Architecture Development Lab. Two years later, the PCI specification migrated to the newly formed Peripheral Component Interconnect Special Interest Group (PCI-SIG). Intel still sits on the PCI-SIG’s Board of Directors, but the non-profit now boasts more than 800 member companies. In a similar way, Intel was one of seven companies, principally led by Intel’s Ajay Bhatt, that started work on the Universal Serial Bus (USB) in 1994. Now, USB is governed by the USB Implementers Forum. Intel did much the same with AGP and PCI Express. To drop just a few more names, Intel is deeply involved with the Digital Living Network Alliance (DLNA), DVD Forum, The Linux Foundation, Serial ATA International Organization, and the UPnP Forum.

All of this industry involvement and innovation translates into a wealth of new technologies for Intel to tie into its motherboard efforts. But exactly how these technologies become productized depends on a wide array of considerations. For starters, there are form factor concerns. How big should a motherboard be, and how much expansion capability should it offer? Options range from the slot-loaded Extended ATX down to the almost fully integrated Mini-ITX. Intel has been instrumental in helping design many of the industry’s form factor standards, as you can see at the company’s FormFactors.org site.

Then there’s the issue of target audience and application. Intel now offers six desktop motherboard families, never mind server, workstation, or embedded platform models. These start with the entry-level Essential Series SKUs (mostly based on G41chipset and integrated Atom processor models) and move all the way up to the top-end Extreme Series, supporting the latest LGA1366 processors alongside the X58 chipset. Businesses often opt for the Executive Series, preferring the management features found in Intel’s Q-series core logic.

Get the latest updates on Intel Desktop Boards here.

View the original article here

Read More