Amd Llano Benchmarks

Some user at coolaler.com has managed to get hold of the llano a8-3800 processor and has benchmarked it.

It is running at a stock core of 2.4Ghz turbo upto 2.7Ghz. It has a 6650D apu along with it. Looks promising.

Check out the complete review
here:
First AMD Llano "A8-3800" Pictures and Benchmarks Exposed, Overclocked to 5.4Ghz on 1.2V

and
here:
?????AMD Llano A8-3800???GA-A75-UD4H?? - ????

Edit:There seems to be a bios error which shows the cpu at 5.4Ghz, but the actual clock speeds have been given as 2.4Ghz to 2.7Ghz.

Edit: These are the benchmark scores
3Dmark06: 6616 (stock) / 7278 (3Ghz)
3Dmark Vantage: 4019 (stock) / 4366 (3Ghz)
3Dmark 11 Extreme Preset: E1764 (Stock) / E1950 (3Ghz)

 

This is a desktop processor, though. The fastest mobile runs at 1.9GHz with 2.6GHz turbo. I know AMD's Turbo Core allows all the cores to OC at the same time but I don't know if the 2.6GHz label means that it the fastest they all can go at once or the fastest a single one can go with the other ones disabled. I wish the reviewer had tested this.

Either way, we can still get a rough estimate of how fast the mobiles will be since they have the same L2 cache. If all 4 cores can go up to 2.6GHz, then A8-3530MX should perform pretty close to the benchmarked A8-3800 at 2.7GHz. That would put it around the top of SB i5's in heavily threaded performance. If it can only get all cores to 2.4GHz then it will be around the middle of them.

 

A8-3800 isn't a Llano model number I've seen a leak of before....could be a desktop part....or a fake.

 

I think around next Wednesday we'll have benchmarks for mobile Llano's. I Turbo core is only going to get the CPU at 2.4Ghz max with all cores and 2.6Ghz with 2 cores.

 

I didn't know about the desktop part but it still looks promising enough. Not as bad as i thought it to be

As abaddon pointed out, it seems to be a desktop processor.

Well I am waiting for the "official" benchmarks as well. Next Wednesday seems good.

So if it does compare to the i5's of the intel, amd sure has done a better job than I expected.
Also I have seen no word on the hybrid crossfire capabilities?

 

It is a desktop part but it doesn't seem fake. If it is, the user went through a lot of trouble to do it.

 

Don't put me on quote, 2.6Ghz with 2 cores on Llano is equivalent to a Phenom mobile @ 3.2Ghz (2 cores). Currently the Phenom N660 is only 3Ghz and is equivalent to a i3-370M and i3-2310M (Sandy). If true the Llano with 2 cores @ 2.6Ghz would be faster than i3-2310M (Sandy) and is used for most games.

Also if true no quote please, 2.4Ghz with all cores on Llano is equivalent to a Athlon X4 640 desktop @ 3Ghz (4 cores) or 2.2Ghz with all cores on Llano is equivalent to a Athlon X4 desktop @ 2.7Ghz (4 cores) . Currently the fastest Phenom Quad mobile is the N970 @ 2.2Ghz which is equivalent to a i5-430M in multi-core applications. If correct, Llano @ 2.6Ghz with all cores would be a bit faster than a i5-460M and at 2.4Ghz with all cores as fast as i5-450M.

Edit: To my knowledge no quote please, Hybrid CrossFire only works with A6 and A8 Llano mobile models. No one has confirmed a HD 6770M working with Hybrid CrossFire, I think Hybrid CrossFire is possible but only with GDDR3 version of HD 6770M. In Hybrid CorssFire expect up to 30% gain on the discrete graphics card is games that support CrossFire.

 

Seems good enough for gaming.

Really what I see here is not intel loosing, but Nvidia.

This really puts up their low and mid range cards in a state of trouble.

Edit: If that's really the case, it would be a disappointment. The 6770M is preferred only because of it's GDDR5 memory.

 

Based on AMD's philosophy of not exceeding the TDP, I think they might be able to go up to 2.6GHz all at the same time, but not if the GPU is also being stressed. So if you're playing games without a discreet card, you're probably stuck with 2GHz or so. That said, while the above philosophy is definitely applicable to Bulldozer, I don't know how true it is of Llano.

More than 20% performance per clock improvement out of a die shrink is not even remotely plausible. They'd have to have made significant changes to the architecture and I don't think they've done that.

 

I said not to quote me.

But we'll see when benchmarks show up. 2.6Ghz being equal to a N660 sounds off because the fastest A4 (Dual Core) is only 2.5Ghz. The architecture hasn't changed but AMD has done something with memory controller which benefits both the CPU and GPU.

 

They sure have made some changes to the memory of the die.

The worst that could happen is, that when the gpu is stressed, it would hog all the memory bandwidth of the cpu bringing it down to I don't know what?
1.6Ghz or something

 

We don't know what they have done. All I can find is that it uses "upgraded/improved" K10 architecture. I agree that a 20% performance increase per clock is implausible as well without a major architecture change. I just wish I could find some information on what exactly they have done.

I think I remember seeing something about the IGP having its own bus set aside? Even when the GPU is being stressed, I think that 1.9GHz is probably the lowest it will go.

 

That's sounds reassuring atleast.
Do you know of any notebook scheduled to launch with llano?

 

We'll know soon enough. Comparing the Cinebench scores from the link in the initial post to what is on notebookcheck, there appears to be some improvement, but it is around 7-9%, not 20%.

The lowest the CPU will perform under load is 1.9GHz, but access to the memory is set by the RAM chips themselves so there is nothing to be done about it at the CPU or chipset level. If Llano is put into a situation where both CPU and GPU need a lot of memory bandwidth, it's going to fail miserably -- but outside of benchmarks and maybe some games, such scenarios are rare.

 

June 14, 2011 (Tuesday) from this source: AMD Llano mobile to launch on 14th of June

 

I don't think it would be hard for AMD to design the APU in such a way that the IGP can't access more than a certain amount of memory or at least program it that way.

If all 4 cores did turbo to 2.7GHz then it is closer to 5%. If the benchmarks were run all at 2.4GHz then it is around 15%.

 

Sure. But if they do that, then the IGP will not work well in situations constrained by memory bandwidth. They're fine as long as no GPU use is required and they're also fine as long as the GPU used, but not much bandwidth is needed by the CPU or GPU, but if you're bandwidth constrained, something has to give.

Because of this uncertainty, I was looking at the 3.0GHz results and scaling the clock speeds. It can't turbo if it's overclocked.

 

15% makes sense, the the A8-3530MX @ 1.9Ghz with all cores would pretty much equal the current Phenom N970 @ 2.2Ghz and A8-3530MX @ 2.6Ghz dual-core would pretty much equal a N660 @ 3Ghz. I think that's the least AMD should be aiming for their top tier mobile quad-core, if not AMD did something terribly wrong.

Please do not quote.

I just hoping for the above performance if true then that's like getting a N970 and N660 all in one CPU depending on the core/temperature load. Paired with a HD 6620G + HD 6770M(?) in Hybrid CrossFire would be a killer gaming/desktop performance laptop.

 

It depends on how much bandwidth the IGP actually needs, which shouldn't be much.

Even if they AMD did design the APU without even realizing there might be a bandwidth problem, though, I can't imagine a situation where lack of bandwidth would come into play with modern memory.

/facepalm. Don't know why I didn't think of that. So, yeah, looks like almost a 10% performance per clock increase. Not bad, I suppose. That puts it right around C2D/Arrandale in terms of performance per clock. Still a good way behind SB.

 

Well, there are no performance improvements over a Phenom II as I expected, so probably they just improved idle power consumption and added better clock gating/clock speed control.
???? - ?????? - ?????AMD Llano A8-3800???GA-A75-UD4H??

Not even going to be close to Sandy Bridge CPU performance or efficiency, but I guess the IGP is nice for the tiny minority who still cares about PC gaming and too cheap to spend a bit more for a real CPU and a real GPU.

 

Just some quick looks at benchmarks will show you that when the user reports that Llano is no faster than Phenom II, he means desktop Phenom II with L3 cache not mobile Phenom II (Danube) with no L3 cache. Desktop Phenom II is about 10-20% faster than Danube. So Llano, if the benchmarks and the post you linked to are to be believed, is clock for clock, as fast as desktop Phenom II. It is still not close to Sandy Bridge, sure, but it is slightly higher than C2D and almost Arrandale in performance per clock. If anything, these benchmarks make Llano more desirable. So, if AMD delivers on the battery life, we are looking at

- Close to Arrandale clock for clock performance
- ULV battery life
- Up to 2.5-3 times SB graphics performance
- Price tag under $700

Thanks a lot for pointing that post out. After seeing those benchmarks I was incredibly disappointed but now they make a lot more sense. I can't wait for Llano now.

 

The suspense is killing me. I can't wait to see actual tests & notebooks released! Not that there are any SB laptops available I'd put money into at this point, but if these features you list turn out accurate, that would be a spectacular package in a slim ultraportable.

 

The Llano tested is also a monster 65-90W desktop variant so it's compared to a desktop Phenom II, so no performance improvement there. ~3 Ghz desktop Llano = 3 Ghz Desktop Phenom II.

Haven't seen a non-ULV arrandale that's clocked less than 2 Ghz, while the highest clocked mobile Llano is 1.9, and that's a 45W part. I shudder to think the clocks of ULV Llano's, sub-Ghz anyone? My 2.66 Ghz (3.3 with Turbo) dual-core SB consumes only 25W without the graphics, beats any quad-core AMD cpu in most tasks, and AMD makes pretty good 20W mobile GPU's to pair with the superior Intel CPU's. AMD can't make things fast and low power like Intel, they just can't.

AMD marketing department would like you to believe so. The real world says that's BS until we see tests by Tom or Anand.

Like it matters, and it's closer to 2X not 3X.

For the lowly 1.6 Ghz part that's slow as pants. Of course you might see faster chips for cheaper when the market decides that AMD can't command the price premiums that Intel can. Vaio CA with i5 + 6630M starts at $820, and the HP quad core + 6750M was around that price too a few weeks ago. Both those machines are way faster than any Llano laptop will ever be.

 

Well for me, the llano is a significantly better option than a sb.

The sb's have power no doubt, but I don't have that kind of programs that needs that kind of power. A quad running at 2.0 Ghz is enough for gaming, and since hybrid crossfire may be coming, it'll offer more than what the intel gpu can ever achieve.

Now what remains to be seen is the heat output, and official benchmarks

 

If the release of Llano drives prices down for SB then Intel is still a viable option for me.

 

But the architecture for desktop Llano (Lynx) and mobile Llano (Sabine) is exactly the same, as opposed to mobile Phenom II and desktop Phenom II. I don't care about whether Lynx offers a performance increase over desktop Phenom II because I don't plan on buying a Lynx desktop. Sabine will have the same performance per clock of the processor in the benchmarks, which is up to a 20% performance increase over Danube and puts it right around Arrandale in performance per clock.

Even though it has slightly lower performance per clock, you do realize that the 1.9GHz processor, because all 4 cores can go to 2.6GHz, is going to have similar or better multicore performance to Arrandale quads, right? And, again because of Turbo Core, it will have single core performance around Arrandale i3/low end i5?

What evidence do you have that says it is BS?

The benchmarks we have seen so far range anywhere from 2x to 3x, which is a big difference. Actually, it is bigger than the difference between Llano CPU and SB. SB is about 1.25-1.5x times faster, clock for clock.

Once again, because of Turbo Core, even the lowest Sabine quads can OC all 4 cores to at least 2.3GHz. Based on the benchmarks we have seen, at 2.3GHz it will have basically the same overall multithread performance as the i7-720qm.

And the Llano listed is including a 19% VAT. Without said VAT, it is around $700.

 

That's what I had calculated too, Llano pretty much equal Arrandale clock for clock.

So Samsung getting 30nm DDR3 for Llano or something? Cause I know Llano support 1.35v DDR3L-1333/1666.

 

Phenom II (meaning, the desktop one with L3 cache) is nowhere close to Arrandale in clock-for-clock performance. It's a little hard to find a comparison of desktop CPUs to laptop CPUs, but Clarkdale is the the same Westmere architecture as Arrandale and it beats Phenom II by a large margin. Here is a review which unfortunately does not feature any Phenom II X2s, but it does have the Phenom II X4 965 (at 3.4GHz) and the Core i3-530 (at 2.93GHz, no Turbo Boost). Note that in the single-threaded test, the lower clocked i3-530 still beats the X4 265. The per-clock difference is around 20%.

 

I am getting a ~10% performance for clock difference between Phenom II and Arrandale and around 20% between Phenom II and Nehalem/Westmere. 10% isn't really that much to me. Unless you are using the computer for seriously processor intensive tasks, you are not going to notice a 10% difference in performance per clock.

 

I do not know how reliable this is but Wikipedia says Llano mobile is available June 16, 2011 and Llano desktop is available June 20, 2011.

AMD Fusion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

First of all, Danube is a platform not a chip, and the only difference between it and the desktop Phenom II is L3 cache and clock/bus speeds. So, this thing won't be any faster than desktop Phenom II, which is still behind Arrandale/Clarkdale and Sandy Bridge. If there were any notebook K10 chips with L3 cache, Llano wouldn't be any faster than them. So it's just a K10 with some cache, still way behind Arrandale and Sandy Bridge.

Intels can go to 3+ Ghz with turbo as well. Also, where is your proof that the 2.6Ghz turbo speed applies to all 4 cores and it's not just the single core max turbo?

i5's can turbo too, you know. How is the archaic K10 architecture going to catch up to Intel if the Intel chip can also boost its performance by turbo? Not to mention in situations where actual work is being done and turbo mode is necessitated, Intel will be more efficient, do more computation per watt.

Not independently verified and only perpetrated by AMD marketing and AMD fans to the Nth degree who bought POS Danube laptops instead of the superior Intel products. When Anand benchmarks it, we'll see that it's behind Sandy Bridge or even Arrandale in terms of power consumption.

Except that the gaming performance is only appreciated by a select few who game, where the CPU performance effects every single task you do with a laptop. Again, I'll wait for AT tests, I doubt Llano is going to be more than 2x graphics performance of HD3000.

Proof? How do you know it's all 4 and not just a single one? Also, turbo speeds are not that relevant since Intel quads can always turbo, and to much higher speeds as well, so it's not closing the performance gap by turboing.

Here's a test of a K10 at 3.3 Ghz with 6MB L3 cache (more than any Llano will have) vs. a Clarkdale at 2.93 Ghz, 4MB cache (same as arrandale i7). The crippled i3 without turbo still wins. http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/187?vs=118

Well, I'd rather get a much better CPU and GPU for $100 more.

 

I not too sure that you'll get a better GPU for $100 more but a better CPU is certainty.

I'm in the middle and don't really care which I get between Intel, AMD and NVIDIA but for everyday tasks anything in between a i3 and i5 Sandy Bridge is good for my use.

If AMD can offer a CPU that fits the above criteria plus add a great GPU to the package at low price then I'd don't see why I wouldn't go AMD.

Currently a Y570 i3-2310M with GT 555M goes for $720 + tax in Canada and there's no i5 version available in Canada but that's not the point. If AMD can offer a A8-3830MX with HD 6750/6770M Hybrid Crossfire for the $700 or less than it's AMD for me, assuming the A8-3830MX beats the i3-2310M (Sandy Bridge) in performance and is is par with a i5-460M (Arrandale).

Please do not mention the HP DV6T i3/i5 with HD 6770M cause its not available in Canada (so disappointed, else I would already have a laptop).

Besides if Llano can indeed to Hybrid CrossFire, a HD 6750/6770M in Hybrid CrossFire is still faster than a HD 6770M alone on the HP and GT 555M on the Lenovo.

 

6630M or 6770M are better than any Llano IGP, and they're available in i5/i7 laptops for $800 or so.

Because we all know Canada is such a huge market compared to the US. Why should we go by what's available in Canada, seriously?

People who have the patience for "Hybrid crossfire" are a niche within a niche. I'm sure people love when half of their games don't work at all and the half of the ones that work do not benefit from extra performance.

 

Up here in Canada we do get screwed on price and selection with laptops. I like buying crap like laptops from big box stores because if there's a problem with it , it takes me half an hour to throw it back at them and say "give me another one."

I have to admit its going to be nice to have a laptop where I can play games with more intensive graphics at a price point I really like.

 

But the 6770M with intel would not be better than a hybrid crossfire with the llano cpu's IGP

Seriously, isn't this getting a little too harsh on non US residents. What do you really mean to imply with the above statement? That guy was just putting up his opinion.

Even crossfire now is better than what Nvidia's sli is capable of. And about hybrid crossfire, it will take time to mature, but I really don't see "gamers" going for something else when they get affordable performance from amd.

I am not saying that the SB's do not perform, but most of us general users have a GPU as a bottleneck and not the CPU.

 

@ soguxu

I've already mentioned the prices in Canada and the GT 555M is the best card at under $800. Please do read before you post.

There's no HD 6770M option in Canada with a i5 and please leave i7's out of the topic cause most who are going for Llano laptops do not need a i7, besides the fact anything i7 + GT 555M in Canada is $900 at least so I do not know where you get $800 from (no DV6T in Canada).

The HP Llano laptop mentioned for $700 is with a HD 6520G + 6750M, so I don't know what you're blabbing about a HD 6630 or HD 6770M being faster than a Llano IGP.

I clearly sense a Intel fanboy here not to mentioned the disrespect for non US residents and I've already stated it does not matter which I go for as long a price/performance and most importantly availability fits my asking criteria.

 

More games benefit from a faster CPU than hybrid crossfire. Non hybrid crossfire has a lot of problems working with many games or doesn't improve performance. Hybrid crossfire is only going to be worse.

Then, Llano is good when you don't have any decent SB laptops available in your area. This also assumes that Llano availability will be better, which I doubt with AMD's manufacturing capacity and that they don't own their own foundries anymore. However, for the largest market out there, availability is not an issue.

Most of us general users have a Xbox 360 or a PS3 to play games on and couldn't care less about gaming on a laptop. Especially with MS now giving away a 360 with a PC purchase.

 

It depends on what you consider way behind. Desktop Phenom II is about 10% behind Arrandale in performance per clock. Like I said, that is not noticeable except in processor intensive tasks.

Clarksfield can't get all 4 cores to 3.0GHz+ and only a couple of Arrandale can. I know Turbo Core for Bulldozer is going to be able to OC all 4 cores to the turbo speed but I am not sure about Llano. If it does, then Llano will offer multithreaded performance on the level Clarksfield and mobile SB duals and Arrandale i3/lower i5 single core performance.

I am taking Intel's turbo into account when I give the numbers for performance and performance per clock.

So right now your argument for why Sabine will have worse battery life than Arrandale/SB is what, exactly? You do realize that Danube had basically the same battery life as Arrandale, right? Danube quad cores beat Clarksfield and Danube duals were only slightly behind Arrandale. And the performance per clock difference between Danube and Arrandale is more than twice of that between Sabine and Arrandale and Danube did not have the power gating that Sabine has. All the evidence points to Sabine at least getting battery life similar to Arrandale, most likely more.

http://images.anandtech.com/graphs/graph4210/35835.png

We have already seen benchmarks that show it is up to 3x times faster. Once again, a 10% increase in performance per clock is not going to be noticeable in the overwhelming majority of what anyone does. Even 20% in performance per clock is not really noticeable.

No one is denying that. Westmere/Nehalem ranges from 10%(mobile i3/5) to 20%(mobile i7/desktop) faster, clock for clock, than Phenom II; about 12% in the link you gave. I don't know what you are arguing.

Where can you find a much better GPU than the AMD 6750 for $800, even not including the crossfire capability of the IGP?

Sabine will also be better than SB duals, quads aren't in the $800 price range, in anything that can take advantage of all 4 cores while offering close to the performance to similarly clocked Arrandale in anything else.

 

Just to sum up everything that has been said, using what benchmarks and information we currently have,

- Desktop Phenom II ranges from 10%(Arrandale i3/5) to 20%(Arrandale i7/desktop) slower than Westmere in performance per clock
- Danube, mobile Phenom II without L3 cache, is 10% to 20% slower clock for clock than its desktop counterparts
- Llano, desktop and mobile, will offer similar performance per clock to desktop Phenom II
- Mobile Llano, Sabine, offers about a 10% clock for clock performance boost over mobile Phenom II with basically the architecture
- Sabine will be about 10% slower per clock than Arrandale
- Because of Llano's ability to OC all 4 cores, or so we believe, the lowest Sabine quads will perform similar to Clarksfield/high-end Arrandale SB duals in heavily threaded applications
- In lightly threaded applications, Sabine will perform about as well as Arrandale processors with 10% lower clock speeds. So Sabine running at 2.6GHz will be similar to Arrandale running at 2.3
- The price of the highest Sabine quad notebooks will start under $700
- The highest Sabine IGP offers from 2 to 3 times the graphics performance of mobile SB IGP

What we don't know,

- Battery life. The only information we have is the 10.5h idle number from AMD
- How well hybrid crossfire works

 

I would be very careful with this kind of reasoning. It's true that the GPU is more likely to be the bottleneck of laptop gaming... but the reason it is true is that laptops typically had far worse GPUs than they did CPUs (when compared to desktops). If you pair a decent GPU with a CPU that is more than a factor of 2 worse than the state-of-the-art, you will have problems, even in some games. For example, AMD's last generation of quad-core CPUs is known to bottleneck games. Llano will be somewhat better because AMD has finally implemented Turbo, but depending on how it works, you may still have problems (particularly with anything less than the best model).

I think there is some confusion here. Arrandale is Westmere. It's the same chip as Clarkdale, but with lower clocks, slightly less cache and lower TDP. Unless you've found an application where having 3MB of cache rather than 4MB is important, its performance is practically identical.

Say what? The benchmarks in the original post show slightly less than 10%...

Well, it may be able to Turbo all cores, but we don't know to what extent. And I highly doubt it can do that and have the GPU do anything meaningful at the same time. We actually know practically nothing about the Turbo except the min and max speeds -- it could be anywhere from the original Nehalem (where it was little more than a novelty) to mobile Sandy Bridge (where it makes even approximate benchmarks very, very difficult).

 

I know. When I say Westmere or Nehalem I am referring to desktop processors, because I don't know the codenames for them off the top of my head, and Arrandale is referring to mobile obviously. Mobile i7 quads have 6MB of L3 cache, as opposed to 3MB for Arrandale i5's. The difference in L3 cache makes some difference because in benchmarks, Cinebench R10 single for example, the i7's are around 10% faster clock for clock.

I must have been doing something wrong when I was doing the calculations earlier. I could have sworn there was a 20% increase per clock in one of the benchmarks but I just did it again and I am getting around 10% as well. My mistake

Agreed. For now I am just assuming it can turbo all 4 cores to the max clock speed until we learn otherwise.

 

Well the fanboys have been heard obviously. Honestly, I just compare with price/performance. The sb quad i7s are good enough to beat anything llano throws at them, so amd has sacrificed the high end market yet another year. But it seems they will provide some stiff competition in the mainstream consumer market, the core i5 market, where the majority of users buy a laptop.

Can someone explain this hybrid crossfire? and also, llano may be able to turbo all 4 cores, but it isn't going to get its max turbo speed with all 4 cores active.

 

Liano was not meant to go up against Intel's higher end SB's anyway.
I think Trinity was designed for that particular function (and it will be released early 2012).

 

By then, ivy bridge will be out...

AMD needs to stop competing with last generation, and work to catch up to intel current/future offerings.

 

They don't have the resources to compete with Intel's high-end or develop new architectures as often. That's why they use their ATI products to make money while their CPUs are 'good enough' to compete on the low-end and mainstream to stay in business

 

Not if they aren't aiming to compete in the high-end notebook market

 

Lets not get ahead of ourselves here.

Even if you can pair it up with an HD6550 or something for around a doubling of performance (of the integrated solution) we are talking 6770 performance levels.

Now the l3 cache helps a LOT with games. Bump that up with a frequency of around 2.2->2.3ghz and thats going to saturate the graphics capability just fine.

One thing's for sure, if this takes off Kingston have a whole new market for their fastest ram because you are going to see serious scaling of performance with ram clocks.

 

The price has to be right first.
Lately all the Phenom Laptops I have seen have the same price point as their superior Intel counterpart, only people who do not better will get suckered in buying them.

 

I've noticed that as well. It seems like Danube's price has not dropped much since it came out while Arrandale has dropped to meet it. That wasn't the case when it was first released, though. When it first came out, I bought a N950 dv6 with 62 WHr for $50 cheaper than the i5-430m version with a 55 WHr battery. Still, the N660/AMD 6650 combo for $550 is probably a really good deal.

 

Well I thought Llano's target market was the mid range which DOES sell more than the high end (900+). Zacate dominates Atom so unless Intel starts outputting ULV Core i series in their netbooks, Fusion APU for the netbook/cheapo laptop market is going to continue the trend.