Temash A6-1450 (4 Jaguar cores @ 1-1.4GHz, 128 GCN 8280G GPU) review @ notebookcheck

P

pxc

Extremely [H]
Joined
Oct 22, 2000
Messages
33,063
http://www.notebookcheck.net/Review-AMD-A6-1450-APU-Temash.92264.0.html

Maybe not the best platform for the APU (due to the small, non-replaceable battery, light usage is around 3 hours with the brightness turned down), but at least you can see how the lower power quad core chip performs.

The graphics side is very disappointing. Even the 6EU version of the stripped down "HD Graphics" in the Celeron 1000M beats the 128 GCN-based 8280G GPU in Temash. CPU performance is pretty much as expected: it still kills the old Atom SoC, and single threaded performance is still abysmal.
 
isnt this suppose to be in tablets?

edit: nevermind. i remember i got a laptop with E-350 for $299 brand new and i was pretty impressed with it. this would have to better then an e350, but i wouldnt want to drop $500 on it... If you look closer at the benchmarks you see the gpu side is held back by the CPU. at higher resolutions it does beat the intel i3 fps...but slightly loses to the i5 hd 4000
 
Last edited:
the chip is aimed at intels atom comparing it to anything else is just bad journalism on their part its mostly a mobile low cost part meant for the very low end of the notebook range and middle of the pack tablets
 
buttons said:
at higher resolutions it does beat the intel i3 fps...but slightly loses to the i5 hd 4000
Click to expand...
I typically ignore "special olympics" framerates (what you're referencing in Dirt: Showdown and table above it results):
1366x768 High Preset AA:2xMS 11.5(8280G) 9.5 (HD 3000) 12.8 (HD 4000)

Only the HD 4000 in ultra low preset @ 1024x768 is even able to play that game at all between those 3 processors with integrated graphics.

I didn't want to compare the Jaguar CPU performance to regular SB/IB models, since it's really made to compete against Atom in price and segment. But the really poor CPU performance does limit gaming options as pointed out in the review.

The laptop's nearly $600 price (calculated by exchange rate) may not match what that model would sell for in the US, but around $600 would be in the lower end of similar i3-3227u based touch screen laptops, which have nearly 2x better CPU performance, and faster GPU performance. It's not a good value at all.
 
pxc said:
I typically ignore "special olympics" framerates (what you're referencing in Dirt: Showdown and table above it results):
1366x768 High Preset AA:2xMS 11.5(8280G) 9.5 (HD 3000) 12.8 (HD 4000)

Only the HD 4000 in ultra low preset @ 1024x768 is even able to play that game at all between those 3 processors with integrated graphics.

I didn't want to compare the Jaguar CPU performance to regular SB/IB models, since it's really made to compete against Atom in price and segment. But the really poor CPU performance does limit gaming options as pointed out in the review.

The laptop's nearly $600 price (calculated by exchange rate) may not match what that model would sell for in the US, but around $600 would be in the lower end of similar i3-3227u based touch screen laptops, which have nearly 2x better CPU performance, and faster GPU performance. It's not a good value at all.
Click to expand...

Agreed just cause this cpu core shares some silicon with the ps4 apu and 720 apu thst does not make it a good priced apu for a segment of the market it was not designed for
 
In technology, euros are usually replaced straight with the dollar sign for the US. So this laptop would probably market around $450 in the US.
 
Pieter3dnow said:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z8OJTZGdVq4

oh look someone got it an SSD ;) .

Btw there is an option to allow an external battery .

Now it gets interresting it shows you the improvement over certain "faster" ultrabook scores with an SSD http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=z8OJTZGdVq4#t=103s
Click to expand...

Also noticed it's using a single SODIMM, it's possible that with dual SODIMMs you'd see some improvement to performance, although probably not much if it's actually CPU limited.
 
Tsumi said:
In technology, euros are usually replaced straight with the dollar sign for the US. So this laptop would probably market around $450 in the US.
Click to expand...
That heap of shit is not worth $450.
1. It's an Acer, already the low end of notebooks, in general not the best build quality
2. It's got a super low end processor and other bare minimum specs
3. not super thin
4. nothing really about it stands out or makes it unique

It's one redeeming value is the touchscreen, but that shouldn't inflate the cost more than $50 than a similar laptop without a touchscreen, especially since it doesn't have some special hinge to make it more like a tablet. I could go down to Wal-Mart right now and find a better laptop for $300.
 
It has DX11 and runs rather low voltage and has nothing on the market to match that performance. Unless you pay alot more money.
 
The cost probably comes from the touch screen + ips panel, and it seems Acer is going for an overall improved quality with this. Still not worth the cost.
 
I want to like this, but I can't justify the lack of performance over the SB Celeron 11.6" they put out at $200 cheaper or the Asus X202 for the same $450 with the i3 3217.
 
2013050607520682849.jpg



Looking at the marketing material from Acer that was posted, it looks like they are aiming to sell to business women. Since AMD is pricing the Temash and low end Kabinis at or below Intel Atoms while having performance that approaches i3 level is an amazing accomplishment.

As the previous posters have pointed out, the Acer V122P has a high quality and high angle visibility IPS touchscreen display and others are trying to compare systems with washed out TN displays. Just comparing displays on Youtube, the Acer V122P is superior.

The display is one of the most important aspects of a PC/laptop and if anyone values their eyesight, then compare systems with equal displays.

The recent SSD benchmarks also shows the AMD Temash has very good throughput that exceeds many $700-$1000+ ultrabooks. By comparison, the Atom Z2760 is crippled with DDR2 and eMMC and yet Intel is trying to peddle this chip in systems that cost over $500!

The Atom may have longer battery life, but what good is a longer life if you are looking at a spinning wheel while waiting for programs to extract, load and run?
 
But that's just it...from the review, it doesn't approach i3 levels. So essentially you're getting something that's above Atom levels of performance. I'm ok with that, but not at $450 when I can get the Asus X202 for sub $450 with the i3 3217 and HD4000. If this was $300, I'd think about it. Like I said earlier. I can get a dual core SB based Celeron in their 11.6" variety @1.4Ghz and HD2500 for $239. I have one. I put a SSD and 8GB of RAM and the whole thing only cost me $350 fully upgraded. That likely will be on par performance wise at $200 less (no touch screen).
 
kirbyrj said:
But that's just it...from the review, it doesn't approach i3 levels. So essentially you're getting something that's above Atom levels of performance. I'm ok with that, but not at $450 when I can get the Asus X202 for sub $450 with the i3 3217 and HD4000. If this was $300, I'd think about it. Like I said earlier. I can get a dual core SB based Celeron in their 11.6" variety @1.4Ghz and HD2500 for $239. I have one. I put a SSD and 8GB of RAM and the whole thing only cost me $350 fully upgraded. That likely will be on par performance wise at $200 less (no touch screen).
Click to expand...

As I've said on a related discussion, you can't compare the price of a discounted current product to the inflated price of a brand new product. Give it 2-3 weeks, it'll come down, or there will be other models that will come out cheaper.
 
kirbyrj said:
But that's just it...from the review, it doesn't approach i3 levels. So essentially you're getting something that's above Atom levels of performance. I'm ok with that, but not at $450 when I can get the Asus X202 for sub $450 with the i3 3217 and HD4000. If this was $300, I'd think about it. Like I said earlier. I can get a dual core SB based Celeron in their 11.6" variety @1.4Ghz and HD2500 for $239. I have one. I put a SSD and 8GB of RAM and the whole thing only cost me $350 fully upgraded. That likely will be on par performance wise at $200 less (no touch screen).
Click to expand...

The Asus X202e does not have a wide angle IPS LED-backlight touchscreen display and from looking at the same notebookcheck website the average of review scores is 63.3% or a score of D to D+ where A is the highest score. So to cram a $200 i3 into a notebook that initially was priced at $599 you have to account for lower quality display and components among other compromises.

http://www.notebookcheck.net/Asus-VivoBook-X202E.85761.0.html

You also can check the updated review scores of the Acer V5-122P from the non-German reviewer who has covered it extensively. In Cinebench 11.5 the Temash A6-1450 scores 1.3 and he estimates without other background processes, it scores around 1.39 @ 1.4 Ghz which is close to Ivy Bridge i3 performance.

The reviewer also compared a wide range of benchmarks against the i3-2377m SB (costing about $200+) and the AMD A6-1450 benchs within 5 to 6% and outperforms a number of times.

http://www.umpcportal.com/2013/05/amd-temash-a6-1450-performance-acer-aspire-v5/



Cinebench-1.4ghz-batt-with-5-to-10-background-cpu-usage-.jpg
 
Last edited:
Tsumi said:
As I've said on a related discussion, you can't compare the price of a discounted current product to the inflated price of a brand new product. Give it 2-3 weeks, it'll come down, or there will be other models that will come out cheaper.
Click to expand...

I hope so. Like I said, priced right, I'd be interested.
 
pxc said:
I typically ignore "special olympics" framerates (what you're referencing in Dirt: Showdown and table above it results):
1366x768 High Preset AA:2xMS 11.5(8280G) 9.5 (HD 3000) 12.8 (HD 4000)

Only the HD 4000 in ultra low preset @ 1024x768 is even able to play that game at all between those 3 processors with integrated graphics.
Click to expand...

The Dirt benchmark is the only benchmark they ran that pushes the GPU side of it. The others are bottlenecked by the CPU -- my point was simply that the GPU portion of this chip isnt that bad. Its better then an E-350 by quite a bit, which ran World of warcraft 30-35FPS for me. I just wish the CPU had a better turbo or higher frequency, i dont care about battery life though.
 
the 3d scores will look a lot better on a 25W chip with cores running at twice the speed.
 
Runningflame570 said:
Also noticed it's using a single SODIMM, it's possible that with dual SODIMMs you'd see some improvement to performance, although probably not much if it's actually CPU limited.
Click to expand...

Single channel incarnation:
http://www.notebookcheck.net/Review-AMD-A6-1450-APU-Temash.92264.0.html

But yeah on an apu flavor with dual channel memory, gfx performance would definitely go up. It doubled on my A10 with a second stick. Can't believe they sell 'em with one stick of memory.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top