AMD Trinity news (looks, its near to launch?)

next 2 reviews:
http://www.trustedreviews.com/amd-tr...mponent_review
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/...iver,3202.html

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by informal

Well when IB matches Trinity's GPU it does it usually in a few CPU bound games in low quality modes. Where it loses ,it does so by a very large margin. Worst case scenario for Trinity is to lose more in those few titles where IB is competitive against fully fledged A8/A10 and come close(r) in those titles where it trailed it by a large margin before.

I'm interested in 45W Trinity parts. I see no reason for AMD not to make those(we have IB,SB and Llano in this power band). It would be interesting to see how much the iGPU can scale with those 10 additional watts.

---

u right...with higher details settings is HD76xx better in scaling against HD4000 Intel. Only some bugs seems in Metro and new Batman. I think, there is is drivers problem actually.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Manicdan

considering how long amd has been using 32nm its not quite as simple as saying, bad for margins. contracts and yields and other factors, could make its cost them less to produce some of the last 32nm with a bigger chip vs early 22nm parts as a smaller chip.

for A6 vs i3 your still limited by tdp when it comes to such things. a full 4000 could be running at lower clocks to maintain 25w or less tdp
in anands test the battery life of trinity vs hd4000 was about equal for their gaming (it was only mentioned in the text briefly, but it would be good to see how it really performs per watt in gaming)

---

Dual core IB run full speed HD4000, only the U (17W) models run at 350mhz, but still 1050/1150mhz turbo. the Dualcore IBs are the real contender for trinity. I doubt someone who really considers buying a quadcore for a a leptop wants to be ultra mobile with it and also only pairs it with only a HD4000...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hornet331

Dual core IB run full speed HD4000, only the U (17W) models run at 350mhz, but still 1050/1150mhz turbo. the Dualcore IBs are the real contender for trinity. I doubt someone who really considers buying a quadcore for a a leptop wants to be ultra mobile with it and also only pairs it with only a HD4000...

---

according to wiki for IB, the TDPs are 35w, 45w or 17w. we already saw what 45w can do, and 35w will have the same base clocks with slightly lower turbo clocks. the 17w get drastically reduced base gpu clocks for a reason. even if turbo can go up to 1100mhz, that does not mean it might even come close to that. if the 45w chip was able to get incredible battery life when it gamed, then that would be an indicator that it ran at max clocks and still came no where near its tdp. but since it didnt, its very safe to assume that a 17w chip will probably get 1/3 the gaming performance, give or take cpu dependent titles.

theres a reason i wanted to see performance per watt of gaming. just cause something says it can turbo to infinity, does not mean it actually ever does.

Attachment 126793
http://media.bestofmicro.com/A/R/337...%20-%20Web.png
http://media.bestofmicro.com/A/P/337...0-%20Video.png

looks awesome this!

I heard that Intels HD 4000 sacrifices image quality for better FPS...if this is true, then it would explain HD 4000 beating trinity in certain cases. im sure an AMD updated driver will squash this.

would be interested to see techreports frame per time analysis approach

power consumption is pretty surprising against ivy bridge, but well have to see how lower tdp ivy bridge parts compare.

amd's quick stream technology also looks cool, would like to see this

im totally getting a trinity mobile part and see what OC potential it has, since llano mobile parts OC'd quite well, should be interesting.

glad that hybrid crossfire now supports DX9 and also would be interested in AMD's new ENDURO system and how it works/compares (suppose to be just like Nvidia's Optimus)

just waiting for the retail trinity laptops to start appearing!!!

I think the graphic part of trinity isn't performing that well considering Intel's part is that they are simply underclocking it. The power savings has to come from somewhere and with AMD still on 32nm, I think it is graphics clocks. The biggest difference between battery consumptions seems to be during gaming compared to IB, and although the performance isn't leagues better, it consumes less power.

But then again, at least on desktop, Ivy Bridge uses about the same amount of power as 32nm Sandy Bridge with ~5% performance benefit at stock. (I haven't looked at mobile power consumption)

The ivy review platform everyones using is a 45w tdp cpu, so its going to boost higher than its 35w counterparts. (theoretical 1.25GHz vs 1.1GHz

Sent from my GT-I9100 using Tapatalk 2

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by informal

Well when IB matches Trinity's GPU it does it usually in a few CPU bound games in low quality modes. Where it loses ,it does so by a very large margin. Worst case scenario for Trinity is to lose more in those few titles where IB is competitive against fully fledged A8/A10 and come close(r) in those titles where it trailed it by a large margin before.

I'm interested in 45W Trinity parts. I see no reason for AMD not to make those(we have IB,SB and Llano in this power band). It would be interesting to see how much the iGPU can scale with those 10 additional watts.

---

Even if trinity scales better with resolution, it doesn't matter to much because at higher resolution in these titles they most probably will both became unplayable, trinity and IB. Also trinity is much more sensitive to memory speed then HD4000 and the laptop provided by AMD for review was equipped with DDR-1600. I know that prices for mobile DDR-1600 modules are not that high, but I'm pretty much sure that most of trinity laptops will go with DDR-1333.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tbone8ty

I heard that Intels HD 4000 sacrifices image quality for better FPS...if this is true, then it would explain HD 4000 beating trinity in certain cases. im sure an AMD updated driver will squash this.

---

That's not true. In fact one German site did deeper testing of HD4000 and found that HD4000 has better AF quality then Llano, and better tessellation implementation.

http://translate.google.com/translat...nd-2500%2F4%2F

trinity is not as fast as intel + nvidia. trinity is not as low power as intel. there is a thin band of application for what amd is offering. it is big enough for them to empty their supply and do well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kl0012

Even if trinity scales better with resolution, it doesn't matter to much because at higher resolution in these titles they most probably will both became unplayable, trinity and IB. Also trinity is much more sensitive to memory speed then HD4000 and the laptop provided by AMD for review was equipped with DDR-1600. I know that prices for mobile DDR-1600 modules are not that high, but I'm pretty much sure that most of trinity laptops will go with DDR-1333.


That's not true. In fact one German site did deeper testing of HD4000 and found that HD4000 has better AF quality then Llano, and better tessellation implementation.

http://translate.google.com/translat...nd-2500%2F4%2F

---

i forgot how intel this forum is, thx for reminding me..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kl0012

That's not true. In fact one German site did deeper testing of HD4000 and found that HD4000 has better AF quality then Llano, and better tessellation implementation.

http://translate.google.com/translat...nd-2500%2F4%2F

---

From your link.
Ivy
http://www.computerbase.de/bildstrecke/40725/46/
Llano
http://www.computerbase.de/bildstrecke/40725/49/
GF110
http://www.computerbase.de/bildstrecke/40725/52/

Another one for Skyrim. Again, Ivy got the weird looks, Llano and GF110 is practically the same.

Ivy
http://pics.computerbase.de/4/0/7/2/5/35.jpg
Llano
http://pics.computerbase.de/4/0/7/2/5/24.jpg
GF110
http://pics.computerbase.de/4/0/7/2/5/21.jpg

Came from your link too. http://translate.google.com/translat...nd-2500%2F4%2F

I never realised how shockingly bad Ivy actually is! going through those pics, you would think reviewers would be telling the world more about the awful image quality of the Ivy chips.

stop troll and flame guys! We can read review, but not flame about e-penis. Simply, A6-46xxM is the highest model of Trinity now with TDP35W. So, real battery life looks good. We will se some 25W and 17W version too (of course not A10 models)

....wow i am surprised this thread has not been crapped on more? usually if amd gets a win (no matter how small), some forum members come along, unzip and pull down their pants, and :banana::banana::banana::banana: diarrhea style all over the place.

What suprises me is that only the graphics performance of the APU is being benchmarked , while AMD has this new thing going on where the APU gets teamed up with an onboard discrete graphic card (sort of like a hybrid crossfire) .
I saw tests of that before the launch , but now ... none ??

So looks like I'll finally be able to buy a competitive CPU from AMD, the wait has been far too long but I'm glad intel has a little competition now :up:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CrimInalA

What suprises me is that only the graphics performance of the APU is being benchmarked , while AMD has this new thing going on where the APU gets teamed up with an onboard discrete graphic card (sort of like a hybrid crossfire) .
I saw tests of that before the launch , but now ... none ??

---

This. Almost all the Llano laptops (maybe ALL) that I've seen had a discrete card coming with it so there's always hybrid crossfire. It really helps in giving playable framerates in games.

Since i need overclockable iGPU i had almost settled on "3570k with ASUS P8Z68-M PRO" but the May release of trinity kept me back. Sadly the desktop has still not been outed and my 24/7 system is far from being started.

I am very interested in the A10 5800k because of the longevity that will come with FM2 compared to the EOL of the LGA1155 and the fact that the combo may be cheaper and sport better graphics. Laptop trinity < Desktop trinity in GPU matters whereas IVB Mobile = IVB Desktop in GPU matters.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BeepBeep2

But then again, at least on desktop, Ivy Bridge uses about the same amount of power as 32nm Sandy Bridge with ~5% performance benefit at stock.

---

From what I've seen, SB uses about 20% more, here, here and here.

Edit: Under load.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blindbox

This. Almost all the Llano laptops (maybe ALL) that I've seen had a discrete card coming with it so there's always hybrid crossfire. It really helps in giving playable framerates in games.

---

there are plenty of llano laptops without a dGPU, also hybrid CF doesn't work well in many cases... and now the CF is between different gen of AMD gpus (7600 discrete = VLIW5, APU VLIW4), but I guess the main reason for it not being present in many reviews is simple, AMD sent mostly notebooks without a dGPU to be reviewed...

this reviews shows some hybrid CF action, but unfortunately they had the 256sps APU version and not the full 384.
http://www.computerbase.de/artikel/n...0m-trinity/17/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Manicdan

according to wiki for IB, the TDPs are 35w, 45w or 17w. we already saw what 45w can do, and 35w will have the same base clocks with slightly lower turbo clocks. the 17w get drastically reduced base gpu clocks for a reason. even if turbo can go up to 1100mhz, that does not mean it might even come close to that. if the 45w chip was able to get incredible battery life when it gamed, then that would be an indicator that it ran at max clocks and still came no where near its tdp. but since it didnt, its very safe to assume that a 17w chip will probably get 1/3 the gaming performance, give or take cpu dependent titles.

theres a reason i wanted to see performance per watt of gaming. just cause something says it can turbo to infinity, does not mean it actually ever does.

---

Dualcore SB parts are also classified as 35W, and beat the 25W amd part... I think by now it would be clear how amd and intel classified there TDP, that is determined by SKU and not actual consumption.
Also I like how everyone blames ivybrdige for the bad power cosumption, when its actually the platform (the asus N56V). Someone tested actual power consumption without monitor:
Attachment 126818
http://www.notebookcheck.com/Trinity...U.74604.0.html (its german so use a translator if needed)

While under worse case gaming scenario (furmark) the HD4000 consumes more then the APU on the A10, in actual games they are somewhat comparable and not much worse then the HD3000. The APU still takes the crown in fps delivered, but no one disputed or was even surprised by that.

Also why are we again focusing only on gaming with battery? I don't see whats the point of that, even the A10 can barely get more then 1:30 out under load... What really counts is reading/surfing/light office work/dvd/streaming. And trinity did a good job there catching up with the intel based books and even beating them depending on what configuration they run.

Here's the English version, a bit shorter tho.

http://www.notebookcheck.net/Trinity...U.74852.0.html

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CrimInalA

What suprises me is that only the graphics performance of the APU is being benchmarked , while AMD has this new thing going on where the APU gets teamed up with an onboard discrete graphic card (sort of like a hybrid crossfire) .
I saw tests of that before the launch , but now ... none ??

---

Because AMD's Trinity test system didn't ship with a discrete graphics chip. ;)