*HP dv6z AMD Llano (6XXX series) Owners Lounge*

Maybe it has something to do with the BIOS update?

 

New benchmarks from the german version of the DV6-6110sg (6755g2) were published:

AMD Radeon HD 6755G2 - Notebookcheck.com Technik/FAQ

 

Those benchmarks are terrible...

 

Notebookcheck apparently has a dv6 with A6-3410mx and 6755g2 in house. Looks like they have some benchmarks of the A6-3410mx up as well.

AMD A-Series A6-3410MX Notebook Prozessor - Notebookcheck.com Technik/FAQ

Seems like Turbo Core isn't doing much, if anything, more than it does in the A8-3500m. Very disappointing but it seems like Turbo Core is all but useless right now.

 

2429 3DMark06? you've got to be kidding me...

I mean for a portable laptop it's not bad but ugh...those numbers.

 

About what you would expect with all 4 cores running at 1.6GHz. Why AMD even included, and advertised, Turbo Core is looking more and more like a mystery. Even with only 1 core active, it looks like not even the 45W APU's can turbo more often than their 35W counterparts, which is almost not at all in the benchmarks.

 

The 6755G2 number of 7380 is good but that other one....wow.

 

A few of them don't even make sense, even accounting for the ACF problems right now. The 3dMark Vantage score, for example, is lol worthy. Honestly, given the gaming numbers on the 6755g2 they gave, I am not sure how much stock to put into the numbers right now.

@kinetik - Did you get a chance to run Passmark yet?

 

Yeah I was looking over those numbers...some of them really don't make sense. I don't put too much faith in benchmarks anyway. Too many different variables.

 

Notebookcheck isn't an end-all-be-all. It's fairly inaccurate and should only be considered with other sources too.

But with that said I still don't think anyone should expect the kind of performance gains that have been thrown around in this thread (20% better than the 6770m, really?).

 

See, I told you notebookcheck doesn't always make sense. We got better results in this forum. They probably need to update some drivers or something.

If you read that sentence again, you'll find that there is no mystery at all: they included it for the sake of advertising. In fact, they've been very aggressive about it: if you look at HP's page, you'll see that unlike Intel's speeds (which are listed as Normal w/Turbo up to...), Llano CPU clocks are listed as Turbo/Normal (i.e. with the Turbo speed first). Best Buy went even further and dropped the Normal speed altogether.

The reason is pretty obvious. Very few people know that Sandy Bridge is 30+% more efficient than Llano clock for clock, but they assume that a 1.5GHz CPU is decidedly low end (in this case, it happens to be true). And hey, you can't sue them for deceptive advertising: it does hit the Turbo speed under certain circumstances.

 

I still wouldn't say that is out of the question. The hardware power to do so is there, the software just needs to catch up.

There is deceptive advertising from all companies, but this is ridiculous.

 

meh...why you like amd so much abbadon?

you paid $750 for that thing in your sig....i would've gone with i5 2410m at that price and gotten the 6770m too

 

Well if you would have taken a few minutes to actually read the thread you would have seen that I posted several times answering your question to the best of my ability at the time....

@abaddon4180

I've not run passmark yet but I'll give it a shot sometime this evening.

 

The 6775g2 doesn't even need to get close to reaching the potential of its hardware to match the 6770m. The 6750m and 6620g would only need to combine with 70% efficiency or, in other words, the IGP only needs to add about 30% of its performance in order to match the 6770m.

I prefer AMD because my experiences with them have been good while my experiences with Intel have been bad, by and large. Given two notebooks at the same price that have the same performance, at least as far as what I am doing is concerned, I prefer to buy AMD.

Don't get me wrong, if my dv6z comes and the battery life isn't what I expected or it has a cooling problem or its performance is slower than I need, I will definitely return it. Even with the disappointing non-turbo, though, the CPU performance should be enough for me.

 

So I got the dv6-6135dx from the BB deal...and wow the CPU performance is pretty poor. Even when doing something simple as web browsing it just seems slow. For example in Opera if I open a few tabs; one is loading a random site another one is loading a heavy picture...the browser will freeze for a second or two till one of the tabs finishes loading.

And its not just Opera, its the same with other browsers too. And if you're installing a program in the background and web surfing...you'll get the same thing, a few second of freeze till the processor finishes its task. Opening programs is slow, opening Steam or ATI CC takes too long. This is on a clean Win 7 install.

My previous laptop had a Core 2 Duo...did not suffer from this issue.

 

What was the clock speed of your C2D? I'm guessing 2Ghz or more, correct? Did you also have similar hard drives and you didn't go back from a 7200 rpm to 5400 rpm I hope?

Thank you for vindicating what I was saying all along. Is it a big problem that you wait a few seconds more? Of course not.
But you'd rather not wait in the brand new laptop you bought, don't you? You bought a laptop that has worse CPU performance than your old laptop. The reason for the Turbo Core operation is simple, AMD can't make something power efficient at high clocks like Intel.

 

So you're saying that it's likely the fact that the single threaded, single core clock speed of his new laptop is lower than his old laptop? That makes sense. The real performance of the new laptop should come when it gets to fire up additional cores or Turbo.

Still, a pokey "basic" experience is no fun. I still have high hopes for Llano as a good value performer. My wife will need a new laptop soon, and she has absolutely zero need for an i7, or i5. Wouldn't mind something cheap that had "enough" GPU power to be fun if I needed a backup machine.

 

I did not suffer from any of these problems on mine. None of the early reviewers reported anything of the sort, either. A few even said that they didn't feel the difference between it and the SB processors they compared it to.

None of that even happens on my dm1. I can install programs in the background, have music playing and still surf multiple tabs with no slowdowns, let alone freezing.

@soguxu - I don't know if AMD couldn't make a processor closer to SB, they just didn't. They could have used less room on the IGP and put in more cache or increased the clock speeds. They really believe that the CPU performance of Llano is enough for their target market

 

I would invest not in high-end specs but good build quality, portability, and screen quality. For casual computer users these are the most important things.

 

It's very interesting that you blamed the CPU maker for your notebook problems instead of the notebook vendor like almost everyone else would.

 

It has happened to me with 4 different manufacturers and the problem has always been with the CPU.

 

I presume these were all cheap laptops?

 

Depends on your definition of cheap, I suppose. The Studio 15 (P8600) cost me $750 used, the T500 (P8600) was $1000 new, the m11x (SU7300) was $750 used and the U30JC (i3-350m) was $900 new. Then there was my neighbors dv6 (i5-430m) that was $700 after BCB. Two of them, the dv6 and T500, throttled regularly and the others were hot enough to hurt my lap.

My tm2t (SU7300), UL80vt (SU7300), dm4t (i5-430m) and two Acers (T3200) were all cheaper and had none of the problems.

 

There's really no point in arguing. There's going to be Turbo Core (300Mhz) just not the maximum as I have expected, AMD pulled a fast one on the mobile segment.

If you look at the CineBench NoteBookCheck has for the A6-3410MX, the CPU looks to be running at 1.9Ghz with all and 2.3Ghz with one core just not sustained.

AMD's flagship A8-3530MX would only be as good as a i3-2310m in dual core and almost as good as a i5-2410m is multi-core.

The thing that makes the package look so good is really only IGP, and Dual Graphics. I still have hopes for Dual Graphics but it'll only be a pretty long wait as others have suggested for drivers to get worked out.

If I've offended anyone in the process for hopes a better mobile computing without a price tag, then I take it back.

Peace,

 

Hi to all.

Well, I just expecting a Llano A8-3530MX performing just at the level of a I5-2410M in regular CPU aplications (of course, using four cores).
But at the dual core things, it shoud stay between I3-2310M and I5-2410.
Anything below that would be a complete failure to AMD.
I expect these minimal values because we are talking about the BEST Llano Sabine APU.
Well, there are the need to see the real differences between 6775G2/6755G2 and Intel "equivalents".

And, at last, it's very bad, AMD, very bad and sad that you guys launched drivers that just doesn't working how should be.
I will wait a while, but not for long time.
Just one, maybe two or three months.

 

Even if the A8-3530MX we're to run two cores at maximum 2.6Ghz it'll only be as fast as a i3-2310m not faster. This is something already expected, just think of it as you're getting a i3-2310m in dual core and single core application and more than half way between a i3-2310m and i5-2410m in quad core applications.

Coupled with a really good IGP, Dual Graphics and native USB 3.0 and there' you have the whole package under the AMD logo.

It's not a bad or inferior choice to Intel's offering just different needs for the rest who do not need pure CPU power.

 

The failure of turbo is a big blow to Llano but it still doesn't mean it is bad. In the $400-500 price range the A4's will lose to Pentium's in processor performance by 20%+ but win in graphics performance by at least the same about. In the $500-600 range the A6's will be pretty close to the i3's in multi-threaded performance and likely have twice the graphics power.

Then there is the $600-700 range where AMD still doesn't lose by a lot. Sure, i5's are going to beat A8's in single-threaded performance by 2x but multi-threaded performance should be close. And, of course, AMD's graphics are going to win by at least that much as well. With working Turbo Core Llano would have been a home run everywhere from $400-700, imo. As it stands it is more of an off-the-wall double from $400-600 and an infield single from $600-700.

AMD's marketing seems terrible to us but to your average buyer it makes sense. They advertise the CPU's with the turbo speed, which is rarely ever hit, and make heavy mentions of the discrete class graphics. The average buyer buys one because he sees the quad-core with a high clock speed, not knowing it won't run at that, and assumes that beats a dual-core with similar clock speeds. It runs fine for him, because he doesn't do anything intensive, and it plays games that even Intel IGP's would play, but he doesn't know that. He tells all his friends that he got a sweet gaming laptop with a quad core CPU for $600 and, voila, they want one too.

 

Abbadon hit it right on the nose. You have to realize that the average NBR user is A LOT more computer savvy than the average consumer.

 

LOl... if only I can sell my Y570 without loss then I'll willing and ready to take a plunge into AMD's mobile Llano offerings. But because I bought a Y570 before any news or release dates from retailers were seen online thus I cannot take the loss on a Y570 for the change to AMD. I'll pretty much be paying for i7-2630QM on the Y570 if I were to take loss and change over to AMD.

Looks like I'm a Intel guy this round...still looking for forward to benches from you're A83530MX.

 

Anyone know the battery life of a quad A8 compared to a quad i7? The intel dv6t gets like 4-5 hrs. Past AMD machines were known to have worse battery life. I wonder if they've changed.

 

They've changed. Llano is the first mainstream AMD processor in years that gets about the same battery life as its Intel counterpart. Some usage patterns give you a bit more with the i7, some a bit less, but it's basically equal.

 

Llano quads get about the same battery life as SB, maybe a little worse than duals and a little better than quads. Though Danube wasn't too far behind last-gen Intel, althernai. Danube quads were much better than Clarksfield on battery, if only because Clarksfield had no IGP, and Danube duals were only slightly behind Arrandale.

You guys can definitely expect a full, almost Notebookcheck-like in-depth review when I get mine

 

Abaddon, interesting...
But, when you think you will receive the dvzQE that you listed in your signature?
Thanks!

 

If my personal experience with HP holds true it should ship on the 8th at the earliest, all 5 CTO notebooks I have ordered from them have shipped exactly 1 week after I placed the order. The average delivery time for those 5 notebooks has been 2 days. So, hopefully I will have it in my hands by the 10th or 11th. Given what others users are currently experiencing with the dv6t, though, I am just hoping to have it by the 14th.

 

You receive postage delivery on the weekend in the US?

 

I have gotten laptops from HP on Saturday without paying for Saturday delivery, yeah. I didn't realize that the 10th was Sunday when I estimated up there, I was just estimating based on date. Seeing as it is a Sunday the 11th or 12th would be when I get it based on past experience.

 

Of course you'd expect a Ford Focus to get better mileage than a Porsche 911. However, with SB, you have a Porsche 911 that gets the same mileage as a Focus, and with llano you have a Focus that gets the same mileage as a Focus (as it should).

 

Whatchu smokin'?

 

The difference in power between a Porsche 911 and Focus is a little different than that between the A8-3530mx and i5-2410m, though.

 

Haaah, nice analogy. It makes sense. And Nemix? Everything.

 

I'll need to take what I said back, I believe the cause of the slow down was a bad Win 7 installation. I did a factory restore...and now its running way smoother.

Not sure exactly what went wrong on the clean install, might've been a driver issue...but I used the drivers from HP

 

Hah, it was probobly all the HP bloatware.

 

I was gonna suggest you try that but I did not want you to think I was implying you messed up the clean install.

 

Nope, it's about the same. IPC and clock speeds are still the most important things in a processor that matter in day to day usage besides power consumption. Most things don't use more than 2 threads to begin with.

 

HP drivers are the worst. HP printers have 300MB driver downloads while my Canon only has a 30MB driver and a simple 5MB application for scanning.

 

HP printer full drivers are huge cause it supports a huge list of printers (even those undocumented) plus it comes with other software to take full advantage of the features of installed printer.

The only difference with the basic driver and the full is that it only contains the drivers which is around 100MB.

HP make great hardware for cheap but their software/driver support is something left desired or nonexistent.

 

In terms of horsepower, no. IIRC, the Focus is at around 150 and the 911 is at 350 minimum. Even in single-core performance the i5-2410m isn't twice as powerful as the A8-3530mx, let alone more than twice as powerful. Now, if you want to argue the i7-2630qm is the 911 to the A8-3530mx's Focus that would make more sense as the i7-2630qm can beat it by about 100% in multi-core performance

 

Anyone with this laptop having this issue...

When I plug headphones in I hear nothing from headphones but the laptop speakers play very quietly...

 

There are sporty versions of the Focus with 200-220hp. The i5 is about 80% faster than the 3530mx in anything with 2 threads or less, and I'm sure you can find a 911 with about 360-380hp. Besides the i5 is 35W while the MX cpu is 45W, so it's actually like a 911 that's faster than a focus hot hatch while using less fuel.