[P]

AMD has finally launched the "Llano" processor, for both desktop and mobile. Quite unexpectedly (at least to me), the mobile version is actually a contender. Review here, but the short version is:

* Power requirements down to be comparable to Sandy Bridge, both idle and load.
* Quadcore models roughly comparable in CPU performance to Arrandale (ie, what the 15" MBP had last year)
* The integrated GPU is theoretically roughly twice the power of the discrete GPU in the low-end 15" MBP. Assymetrical Crossfire (ie, running both a discrete and an integrated GPU together) is available. In the test above, all games were playable at medium quality at 1366*768=higher resolution than what the 13" MBP supports. EDIT: For comparison, graphics seem slightly better than the GT330M in the last gen 15" MBP.

So...completely ignoring the fact that Apple will never ever do this: Would you trade the current Sandy Bridge setup for a quadcore Llano?

[Big Mac]

Sure, it looks like a real winner especially in the graphics department. Not quite as strong as the Sandy Bridge CPU but much stronger than the Sandy Bridge integrated GPU, even rivaling discrete GPU performance. That's impressive. It would be nice if Apple would be bold and offer an AMD powered line. And actually, I don't think it's all that unlikely if AMD comes back in a big way in the next processor generations. Many thought Verizon would never get the iPhone, but after a long delay it eventually happened. Likewise, everyone thinks AMD will never go in a Mac, but after a long delay it may eventually happen.

[P]

I think that it would take a massively superior product for Apple to go to AMD, and this isn't it. This is pretty good - and would have been great a year ago, if GlobalFoundries had managed to get the 32nm process node up on schedule - but it's not impressively better. I could certainly see myself Hackintoshing this, however.

One more point that will be very interesting to see in future tests: The 400 shader cores in the GPU perform more or less like half as many cores ought to. The GPU has more than enough bandwidth to the memory controller, which leaves two possible explanations: lack of total system bandwidth, and latency issues due to the resource contention. Since GPUs are generally pretty insensitive to latency, the first explanation seems more likely. The tests were made with DDR3-1333 memory, but Llano supports DDR3-1600. I wonder what that 20% boost in system bandwidth will translate to in graphics performance?

Yes, a cheapo laptop based on this, upgraded with a hybrid or SSD drive and DDR3-1600 RAM...interesting.

[SierraDragon]

Sandy Bridge configurations so far seem to be very effective, maybe even synergistic, with real-world CPU, GPU, i/o challenges like Aperture. I would want to see head-to-head real-world comparisons before looking to move from the excellent Sandy Bridge chipsets, and would only move for a "massively superior product."

-Allen

[mduell]

I don't see the desire to trade CPU performance for GPU performance. GPU computing is neat and all, but not nearly widespread enough to accept the trade.

[P]

Fair enough, but at some point the CPU is "fast enough". Picking Llano today would be similar to picking Core 2+GF320M over Arrandale a year ago.

[SierraDragon]

IMO the CPUs have been "fast enough" for a while and what matters now is GPU strength and how well coordinated the OS/GPU/CPU/SSD are for challenging apps.

For non-challenging apps like browsers and office apps the thing that matters most is SSD.

-Allen