For those who want to "mildly game" with their htpc (since I keep on seeing that term), here's a video comparing Llano with Sandy Bridge when running a current gaming load:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s5VsEuWCBaM&feature=relatedThe i3-2105 is fairly rare locally, but it's essentially an i3-2100 with faster graphics (Intel HD 3000 vs. Intel HD 2000). An i5-2500k or higher should score just about the same, since it runs the same GPU.
Suffice to say, Intel's integrated solutions are not enough to run today's demanding 3D FPS games (unless you can live with eye-wateringly-low frame rates or very watered down video settings).
You can play older games or less demanding genres (RPGs and the like) with them just fine, however. To give you a comparison, Intel's integrated graphics is about as fast as the PS3's GPU, but a lot better because it integrates modern-day capability. Some may think: "That's not so bad then?" -- well, let's dig deeper. This hardware may be adequate in a console, but PC games are typically built with higher levels of physics and graphics complexity when compared to the console version of the same game, as this is to take advantage of the extra processing capability that's often available in a PC (and is demanded by PC gaming enthusiasts in general, as being on the leading edge is the main lure of PC gaming over console gaming). PC hardware moves forward all the time, and software advances to make something out of that potential. In the PC world, PS3 hardware was obsolete when it was launched. It was based on a scaled-down version of a PC GPU design from 2005. In terms of processing speed, it's about a twenty fifth of what's available now. In terms of capability, it's not even remotely comparable (it looks downright primitive).
The only reason game consoles work is because the software designers optimize their programs for that level of capability and they optimize it for a single type of hardware (since the same hardware will last for years, maybe in different packages of the same basic tech). It can be likened to a phone or a tablet application; it works despite the weak processing available because the program had been simplified and optimized to work with what's available. Console gamers put more focus on the actual gameplay in general, and care less about the technical aspects of things (or don't want to worry about upgrading to play the latest and greatest). A typical PC gamer is like an audiophile, audiophiles want to get the greatest rendition of a sound. A typical console gamer is more like a music lover, a music lover would enjoy his music even if it comes out of a megaphone.
Oops... this is getting too long. Time for a topic change...
Here's a quad-core Llano against a quad-core Sandy Bridge running 4 simultaneous loads:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qD3ScERWx5INotice that 3 of the 4 loads are graphics-intensive though (I wonder how many people really do that), but this is an AMD presentation. They're essentially highlighting the advantage of having better graphics processing available in a computer. The Llano does these things a lot faster and with better video and 3d quality, at a fraction of the price.
Intel excels on purely compute-type workloads (and they do these things better than AMD at the moment), but their current processors need the help of a dedicated GPU for heavy multimedia use. For the record, 3D BD movie playback does not count as anywhere near "heavy" and any up-to-date system should be able to handle that easily. This is why system power consumption is typically low during accelerated movie playback -- the PC is essentially idling its way through the task.
