全球首曝！AMD Llano A8-3800與技嘉GA-A75-UD4H測試

[a398942]

寧願用AM3
內顯強有啥用

 

[soothepain]

Hi all.
As I don't speak Chinese ,I will write in English so I hope you understand me :).

First of all your Llano is not working at 5.4Ghz,there is a bug in bios.Actual clock speed is around 3Ghz (when you see 5.4GHz in CPUz). The ratio between REAL clock and what you see is around 1.75x. So when you saw 2.4Ghz it was actually locked at 1.4GHz,when you saw 4.7GHz it was performing tests at actual clock of ~2.68Ghz.. You get the picture :). It is evident from your 3dmark06 CPU test,CPUmark99,superpi and ESPECIALLY AIDA64 results which are all in line with Phenom II @ ~3GHz.

So this Llano sample has some "brake" in BIOS that is limiting your multiplier to 15 or 15.5x,even if you manually select 54x.
So to recap everything:
-Llano's turbo mode is broken on your sample,
-real clock is 1.75x lower than what CPUz reports(2.4Ghz->1.4GHz,4.7Ghz->2.68Ghz,5.4Ghz->3.05Ghz)
-results are in line with Phenom II ,clock per clock,give or take a few percent.

Just wanted to point out this obvious thing to all of you,so you all don't think Llano is slower than K7 at the same clock speed :D.

Cheers!

wow
thank you for your information. :MMM:

 

[hitoe]

沒意外的話 Sample的版本 通常CPU-Z get到的Frequency都不一定是正確的 不過 如果你有AMD的Tool - AMD CpuInfo的話 沒意外應該是有辦法去get到正確的速度. 之前的經驗 給您參考看看.

 

[wowcs]

wow
thank you for your information. :MMM:

他的意思重點是?

 

[ddt0918]

還蠻不錯的，可惜這平台做成大板比較詭異一點，大概是搶上網影片機的市場吧
CPU超頻性這麼高，不過到時鎖頻的話，怕所有的效能都卡在CPU
不過這個製成真的不能要求太多
不然想做成4C有X4-640水準，然後GPU又要有HD5670的水準的話
電晶體數量就已經遠超過I7-990X...
目前的水準來看真的比較難，不過這個玩意的前景個人蠻看好他的

這樣以後的小筆電大概也能擁有不錯的3D效能
明年開戰的平板電腦，估計NV的TEGRE3會被打趴
未來這個技術再微型化加強一點的話，手機的市場大概也會改寫

 

[soothepain]

沒意外的話 Sample的版本 通常CPU-Z get到的Frequency都不一定是正確的 不過 如果你有AMD的Tool - AMD CpuInfo的話 沒意外應該是有辦法去get到正確的速度. 之前的經驗 給您參考看看.

a8-3800預設2.4GHz其實是正確的,只是沒抓到倍頻跟外頻
cpuinfo跟cpuz一樣都需要更新才會抓到新產品的資訊
謝謝你的分享！

 

[soothepain]

3Dmark11 Entry：1950（1764）

CINEBENCH R10
1 CPU：3541（1556）
x CPU：12973（10393）
Open GL：6112（4793）

CINEBENCH R11.5
OpenGL：30.49 fps（28.94 fps）
CPU：3.68 pts（2.89 pts）

 

[FlyingForever]

Hi all.
As I don't speak Chinese ,I will write in English so I hope you understand me :).

First of all your Llano is not working at 5.4Ghz,there is a bug in bios.Actual clock speed is around 3Ghz (when you see 5.4GHz in CPUz). The ratio between REAL clock and what you see is around 1.75x. So when you saw 2.4Ghz it was actually locked at 1.4GHz,when you saw 4.7GHz it was performing tests at actual clock of ~2.68Ghz.. You get the picture :). It is evident from your 3dmark06 CPU test,CPUmark99,superpi and ESPECIALLY AIDA64 results which are all in line with Phenom II @ ~3GHz.

So this Llano sample has some "brake" in BIOS that is limiting your multiplier to 15 or 15.5x,even if you manually select 54x.
So to recap everything:
-Llano's turbo mode is broken on your sample,
-real clock is 1.75x lower than what CPUz reports(2.4Ghz->1.4GHz,4.7Ghz->2.68Ghz,5.4Ghz->3.05Ghz)
-results are in line with Phenom II ,clock per clock,give or take a few percent.

Just wanted to point out this obvious thing to all of you,so you all don't think Llano is slower than K7 at the same clock speed :D.

Cheers!

Thanks for your explanation! ;face0;
This can reasonably explain the results...

 

[FlanK3r]

soothepain:
Try pls open this softwware for detecting clocks

HWINFO could be optimized for AMD 12h and 15h Family CPUs. Thx.

 

[FlyingForever]

他的意思重點是?

嘗試翻譯一下：

Hi all.
As I don't speak Chinese ,I will write in English so I hope you understand me .
哈囉大家好。我不懂得說中文，所以我會用英文，希望你們看得懂。

First of all your Llano is not working at 5.4Ghz,there is a bug in bios.Actual clock speed is around 3Ghz (when you see 5.4GHz in CPUz). The ratio between REAL clock and what you see is around 1.75x. So when you saw 2.4Ghz it was actually locked at 1.4GHz,when you saw 4.7GHz it was performing tests at actual clock of ~2.68Ghz.. You get the picture . It is evident from your 3dmark06 CPU test,CPUmark99,superpi and ESPECIALLY AIDA64 results which are all in line with Phenom II @ ~3GHz.
首先，Llano並沒有真的在運行5.4Ghz，這是BIOS的一個bug。當你在CPUz看到5.4Ghz時，實際的頻率大概是3Ghz。你看到的頻率大概是實際頻率的1.75倍。所以當你看到2.4Ghz時，實際上是1.4Ghz；當你看到4.7Ghz時實際上是大概2.68Ghz…圖片中3dmark06 CPU、CPUmark99、SuperPi以及最重要的AIDA64測試結果都清楚顯示，實際運行速度大概在Phenom II 3Ghz的級數。

So this Llano sample has some "brake" in BIOS that is limiting your multiplier to 15 or 15.5x,even if you manually select 54x.
So to recap everything:
-Llano's turbo mode is broken on your sample,
-real clock is 1.75x lower than what CPUz reports(2.4Ghz->1.4GHz,4.7Ghz->2.68Ghz,5.4Ghz->3.05Ghz)
-results are in line with Phenom II ,clock per clock,give or take a few percent.
可以看到，這個Llano樣本的BIOS裡有個「控制器」("brake")，它把倍頻限制在15x或者是15.5x，就算選54x也無濟於事。
概括地說：
-這Llano樣本的的turbo mode壞掉了
-在CPUz看到的頻率是實際頻率的1.75倍
(2.4Ghz->1.4GHz,4.7Ghz->2.68Ghz,5.4Ghz->3.05Ghz)
-實際結果大概與同頻的PhenomII差不多，可能有幾個%的升跌

Just wanted to point out this obvious thing to all of you,so you all don't think Llano is slower than K7 at the same clock speed .
我只是想向你們指出這個明顯的事實，所以請你們不要認為Llano比同頻的K7還慢。

Cheers!



翻譯得不太好，不過意思大致上應該沒錯……