When we first reviewed Llano we thought it was a fairly competent desktop part if you needed a solution that didn't rely on discrete graphics. My biggest issue with Llano on the desktop was its price, at $135 for the top end A8 it seemed a bit too high. Today AMD is using the normal process improvements you see with any design over time to deliver a slight frequency bump without increasing prices. The extra 100MHz you get at the $135 and $115 price points isn't really going to change much, however AMD is introducing two K-series parts (they are also known as Black Edition SKUs) into the Llano lineup:

AMD's Updated Llano Desktop Lineup
  GPU Total TDP (GPU + CPU) CPU Cores CPU Clock (Base/Turbo) GPU Cores GPU Clock Price
AMD A8-3870K Radeon HD 6550D 100W 4 3.0GHz (unlocked) 400 600MHz (unlocked) $135
AMD A8-3850 Radeon HD 6550D 100W 4 2.9GHz 400 600MHz $135
AMD A8-3820 Radeon HD 6550 65W 4 2.5/2.8GHz 400 600MHz $???
AMD A8-3800 Radeon HD 6550D 65W 4 2.4/2.7GHz 400 600MHz $129
AMD A8-3670K Radeon HD 6530D 100W 4 2.7GHz (unlocked) 320 444MHz (unlocked) $115
AMD A6-3650 Radeon HD 6530D 100W 4 2.6GHz 320 444MHz $115
AMD A6-3620 Radeon HD 6530D 65W 4 2.2/2.5GHz 320 444MHz $???
AMD A6-3600 Radeon HD 6530D 65W 4 2.1/2.4GHz 320 444MHz $109
AMD A6-3500 Radeon HD 6530D 65W 3 2.1/2.4GHz 320 444MHz $85
AMD A4-3420 Radeon HD 6410 65W 2 2.8GHz 160 600MHz $??
AMD A4-3400 Radeon HD 6410 65W 2 2.7GHz 160 600MHz $71
AMD A4-3300 Radeon HD 6410 65W 2 2.5GHz 160 444MHz $66

The A8-3870K and 3670K are fully unlocked (thanks to AMD for the clarification) partially unlocked parts allowing you to overclock an extra 500MHz on the CPU clock and an extra 200MHz on the GPU clock. Stock Llano parts are multiplier locked above their default multiplier and their GPU frequency isn't adjustable from what we've seen. AMD's new K-series SKUs give you another 5 multipliers above the default multiplier on the CPU side, and let you ramp up the GPU clock independently as well. In our original overclocking experiments we found that hitting 3.5 - 3.7GHz via bus overclocking on an A8-3850 wasn't too difficult, so these new K-series parts should let you reach close to what you could before without as much effort. In theory it should be pretty effortless to take a 3670K and turn it into something a bit faster than a 3870K, allowing you to pocket the $20 difference.

The 3x20 parts are new as well - these are mild speed bumps over their 3x00 predecessors. These parts are available starting today (err how about in the coming weeks):


There are also new mobile Llano parts being officially announced today, although we already reported on them earlier.

AMD Llano Mobile CPU refresh
Name Cores CPU Clock
(Max Turbo)
L2 Cache GPU GPU Cores GPU Clock TDP
A8-3550MX 4 2.0GHz (2.7GHz) 4MB HD 6620G 400 444MHz 45W
A8-3520M 4 1.6GHz (2.5GHz) 4MB HD 6620G 400 444MHz 35W
A6-3430MX 4 1.7GHz (2.4GHz) 4MB HD 6520G 320 400MHz 45W
A6-3420M 4 1.5GHz (2.4GHz) 4MB HD 6520G 320 400MHz 35W
A4-3330MX 2 2.2GHz (2.6GHz) 2MB HD 6480G 240 444MHz 45W
A4-3320M 2 2.0GHz (2.6GHz) 2MB HD 6480G 240 444MHz 35W
A4-3305M 2 1.9GHz (2.5GHz) 1MB HD 6480G 160 593MHz 35W


Comments Locked


View All Comments

  • gevorg - Tuesday, December 20, 2011 - link

    What an amazing naming convention! Good job AMD! The A8-3870K must be better than upcoming i7-3770K from Intel.
  • Ammaross - Tuesday, December 20, 2011 - link

    Troll much?

    At $130, it will in no way compete against an i7-3xxx chip in price bracket nor performance. I'm just glad they're making sensible number bumps and using a "common" naming convention (the "K" for unlocked). Although BE wasn't too confusing either.
  • euler007 - Tuesday, December 20, 2011 - link

    That's not a troll.

    Back in the Athlon days AMD started naming their CPUs using number to indicate that these chips were comparable (faster actually) with a pentium 4 of that frequency. The Athlon XP 2000+ was faster than a Pentium 4 2.0 MHz but only ran at 1.67 GHz.

    By matching the numbering scheme again (and using the K suffix for unlocked cpus) they are matching their previous strategy, except this time their product is of lower performance then the intel counterpart and they increment the number up.

    Say what you will, but it is an attempt at deception.
  • BSMonitor - Tuesday, December 20, 2011 - link

    On AMD's selected/preferred benchmarks, the XP####+ naming scheme worked. When SSE and newer Apps were involved, the XP showed it's age.
  • backy51 - Tuesday, December 20, 2011 - link

    When AMD released the Athlon64 chips they completely pwnd the P4's which forced Intel out of its complacency and led them to design the Core2Duo which was based on the PIII/Pentium M line.
  • JonnyDough - Tuesday, December 20, 2011 - link

    Yep. First to have on-die memory controller. People forget.
  • Qefxx - Wednesday, December 21, 2011 - link

    Actually IIRC Alpha and HP (PA) had them 1st. AMD was first to the x86 party only.
  • damianrobertjones - Tuesday, December 20, 2011 - link

    I though they released the Pentium D... then the Core duo... THEN core 2 duo?
  • jkostans - Tuesday, December 20, 2011 - link

    Nope. Pentium 4 and D were the same architecture (Netburst), Core 2 Solo/Duo/Quad/Extreme was the next step. There was no Core duo architecture....
  • Klinky1984 - Tuesday, December 20, 2011 - link

    There was a Core Duo, it was a mobile part & never released on desktops.

    Technically the Core lineage started with the Pentium M/Centrino.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now