# Trinity Provides Up To 29% Faster Productivity, 56% Faster Visuals Than Llano: AMD



## btarunr (Apr 4, 2012)

A marketing slide by AMD for industry partners, which sums up what the company's 2012 Mainstream Platform led by "Trinity" APUs will offer, got leaked to the web. In it, AMD claims its next-generation APUs to offer up to 29 percent higher productivity performance (read: CPU performance), and up to 56 percent higher visual performance, compared to current-generation (Llano). At least the graphics performance figures seem to be consistent with early test results.

Apart from these, the slide claims Trinity to be optimized for Windows 8 (with AVX, AES-NI, SSE4.2, and DirectX 11.1 graphics, it could very well be). The processor is said to feature third-generation auto-overclocking technology, TurboCore 3.0. The mobile version of the chip will be designed to offer over 12 hours of resting battery-life. Lastly, there's mention of new media-acceleration features. AMD is expected to launch its new line of APUs in this quarter (before July). 





*View at TechPowerUp Main Site*


----------



## reverze (Apr 4, 2012)

no need to consider anything else anymore for office PCs


----------



## robal (Apr 4, 2012)

Thanks for heads up !

Well done AMD. Now give me my Vishera


----------



## NC37 (Apr 4, 2012)

12hr battery life. Yikes! Even if it is under controlled environment, I'd like to get me some of that. Theres the battery life I want + the graphics performance I need. Now give me it in a Mac and I'll return to the platform . If not, i7 Qosmio ftw!


----------



## phanbuey (Apr 4, 2012)

NC37 said:


> 12hr battery life. Yikes! Even if it is under controlled environment, I'd like to get me some of that. Theres the battery life I want + the graphics performance I need. Now give me it in a Mac and I'll return to the platform . If not, i7 Qosmio ftw!



this


----------



## HillBeast (Apr 4, 2012)

I'm not actually that impressed by these figures. The chip will be 28/22nm, so of course it's going to be faster. Where is the impressive part? In fact I'm actually ashamed of these numbers. With 28nm, these numbers should be more like '100% faster'. Fail.


----------



## kasp1js (Apr 4, 2012)

HillBeast said:


> I'm not actually that impressed by these figures. The chip will be 28/22nm, so of course it's going to be faster. Where is the impressive part? In fact I'm actually ashamed of these numbers. With 28nm, these numbers should be more like '100% faster'. Fail.



Trinity is still 32nm. And if the performance increase is this big in general usage not just in some specific tasks, then this will be the biggest jump in performance for the desktop CPU industry in quite a while.


----------



## xenocide (Apr 4, 2012)

HillBeast said:


> I'm not actually that impressed by these figures. The chip will be 28/22nm, so of course it's going to be faster. Where is the impressive part? In fact I'm actually ashamed of these numbers. With 28nm, these numbers should be more like '100% faster'. Fail.



It's 32nm still.  They just took Llano and incrementally improved it.  Swapped Stars (I believe) for Piledriver-based cores, and upgraded the integrated GPU.  I expected more, but it is a decent upgrade.


----------



## THE_EGG (Apr 4, 2012)

HillBeast said:


> I'm not actually that impressed by these figures. The chip will be 28/22nm, so of course it's going to be faster. Where is the impressive part? In fact I'm actually ashamed of these numbers. With 28nm, these numbers should be more like '100% faster'. Fail.



just look at the gtx 580 transition to the 680. It certainly wasn't 100%, not even 50% faster.


----------



## DarkOCean (Apr 4, 2012)

Being made on the same node 32nm as llano any kind of performance gain is good.


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (Apr 4, 2012)

HillBeast said:


> I'm not actually that impressed by these figures. The chip will be 28/22nm, so of course it's going to be faster. Where is the impressive part? In fact I'm actually ashamed of these numbers. With 28nm, these numbers should be more like '100% faster'. Fail.



even if it had a die shrink ,100% is in retard land of expectations, from any company, intel inclusive


----------



## brandonwh64 (Apr 4, 2012)

If it would perform well on BF3 at 720P then I would be all over this for a new laptop.


----------



## reverze (Apr 4, 2012)

hoping to see these in ultrathins asap, since ultrabooks are way too expensive


----------



## alienstorexxx (Apr 4, 2012)

THE_EGG said:


> just look at the gtx 580 transition to the 680. It certainly wasn't 100%, not even 50% faster.



and that is really a lot considering past generation steps.. the problem is that amd is really behind intel on cpu's so, that ~25% maybe isn't enough.

on igp's side, it pretty good, 50% more than something that was already fast competing with intel, is good news.


----------



## Steevo (Apr 4, 2012)

No mention of clock speed to achieve the increase?


----------



## Mussels (Apr 4, 2012)

my llano laptop already kicks ass, improvements to performance AND battery life at the same time? how the hell can anyone not love that?


----------



## THE_EGG (Apr 4, 2012)

alienstorexxx said:


> and that is really a lot considering past generation steps.. the problem is that amd is really behind intel on cpu's so, that ~25% maybe isn't enough.
> 
> on igp's side, it pretty good, 50% more than something that was already fast competing with intel, is good news.



agreed, an OCed 480 could almost compete with a 580 and so on. I usually wait for new architecture before upgrading even though it is on the risky side (achem, fermi). But yes i want more competition because usually that translates into lower prices for us


----------



## Kärlekstrollet (Apr 4, 2012)

An overall improvement by ~42% with the same 32nm process is a pretty damn good job.


----------



## sergionography (Apr 4, 2012)

THE_EGG said:


> just look at the gtx 580 transition to the 680. It certainly wasn't 100%, not even 50% faster.



and gtx680 was a new architecture + new process node
trinity uses the same 32nm process as llano so getting these numbers in the same power envelope is pretty impressive.
however we do have to mention that llano was a step down in cpu performance than previous laptop cpus due to the lower clock speeds to meet the tdp when integrated with graphics
so overall amd will need this much increase per generation if they plan to catch up with intel or atleast close the gap a bit, so if amd can do 30% now and 30% next gen with the 28nm node they will pretty much become on par, tho that is very unlikely


----------



## ensabrenoir (Apr 4, 2012)

Was hoping that someone got a hold of one and benched it.....however after reading the words  marketing slide ....well u know...here come the mini(plausible...maybe) salt trucks .Marketing tends to add that one in a million best case scenario magic to situation.


----------



## Mussels (Apr 4, 2012)

first time around i missed the "all data based on projections" part, so this could be all crap.


----------



## Vulpesveritas (Apr 4, 2012)

Steevo said:


> No mention of clock speed to achieve the increase?



Quite honestly, clock speeds don't matter, whether they're up or down.  What matters is performance / price and performance / watt.  If it is more power efficent than Llano, and is the same price, and performs faster, then I believe that is a win no matter what.  
Unless you're hoping for the IPC gains we're all hoping for.  Well, everyone who wants AMD to survive for the long haul hopes for.


----------



## happita (Apr 4, 2012)

Give me a reason enough to buy you AMD!! I wanted to get a laptop in recent years, but want a semi-powerful system that plays all the latest games with decent battery life. This thing gives both it seems. However, I'm still looking to upgrade my sandy to ivy first anyway....so, 1 thing at a time


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (Apr 4, 2012)

Steevo said:


> No mention of clock speed to achieve the increase?



upto and beyond 4Ghz according to the rumour mill, and this is helped due to the resonant clock mesh tech they have bought in to spruce their chip up

eg of rumour mill
http://www.engadget.com/2012/02/22/amd-piledriver-cores-will-employ-resonant-clock-mesh/

looking good in a realistic kind of way too

being realistic also means that in swapping from stars arch to piledriver arch they might have run into trouble since BD was a bit frequency happy, i am expecting some extreme Ocin results with these ,no comment on pciex allocation ever though, that to me could be the deal breaker , 1 or 2 pciex3 slots would be v nice


----------



## Benetanegia (Apr 4, 2012)

THE_EGG said:


> just look at the gtx 580 transition to the 680. It certainly wasn't 100%, not even 50% faster.



Yeah except the GTX680 uses a chip almost half the size. Compare it to the GTX560 Ti and in 2560x1600 is in fact twice as fast. And with a significantly smaller die.

A CPU is not the same, it does not scale like that, but it still holds true to the iGPU. 56% over Llano is far from impressive IMO. Especially when we are talking about a marketing slide. Real difference is not going to be more than 20% on the GPU and 10% on the CPU most probably atributable to higher clocks.


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (Apr 4, 2012)

Benetanegia said:


> Real difference is not going to be more than 20% on the GPU and 10% on the CPU most probably atributable to higher clocks.



im not going to say they dont overstate ,but in the current climate AMD would be foolish to overstate what they can do, again, and they are being realistic imho as i stated

and anyway since when was 56% imrpovement in 1 year bad intel are calling their next wave a tock+ because of a similar massive improvement , get real 

and as ever your on the harsh side of negative and bringing the gtx680 in here tryin to wind some fanbois up , whats with you ,and bye


----------



## eidairaman1 (Apr 4, 2012)

Ya know instead of already passing judgement why dont we wait for it to be tested by users n wizzards crew here. I hate pessimists in this topic.


----------



## HumanSmoke (Apr 4, 2012)

Marketing Slide = best case scenario x ( 1 / marketshare expressed as decimal)

AMD slide deck "leaks" coincide with Intel product launch...what a novel approach. Nice to see the new management is bringing in the fresh ideas.



theoneandonlymrk said:


> ...and as ever your on the harsh side of negative and bringing the gtx680 in here tryin to wind some fanbois up , whats with you ,and bye



Might pay to check the previous posts. Check post #9 for who bought the GTX 680 into the discussion


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (Apr 4, 2012)

HumanSmoke said:


> AMD slide deck "leaks" coincide with Intel product launch...what a novel approach. Nice to see the new management is bringing in the fresh ideas.



the old tricks never leave the hand of any Co, i was quite suprised by the lack of spoil from AMD whilst the 680 was released ,i expected some 7990 dual gpu news or something

do note, all companys do it


----------



## jpierce55 (Apr 4, 2012)

In all honesty the gpu performance increase is drastic enough to make the processor interesting. IF this is true. If it is true, and has good power consumption, I could see an x-fire system being based off of this with good results.


----------



## eidairaman1 (Apr 4, 2012)

jpierce55 said:


> In all honesty the gpu performance increase is drastic enough to make the processor interesting. IF this is true. If it is true, and has good power consumption, I could see an x-fire system being based off of this with good results.



bear in mind the CPU portion has to feed both the IGPU and the DGPU, so it needs to be robust for driving strength


----------



## HTC (Apr 4, 2012)

Benetanegia said:


> Yeah except the GTX680 uses a chip almost half the size. Compare it to the GTX560 Ti and in 2560x1600 is in fact twice as fast. And with a significantly smaller die.
> 
> A CPU is not the same, it does not scale like that, but it still holds true to the iGPU. *56% over Llano is far from impressive IMO.* Especially when we are talking about a marketing slide. Real difference is not going to be more than 20% on the GPU and 10% on the CPU most probably atributable to higher clocks.



*If true*, i believe you're wrong because this isn't a dedicated card: it's an onboard GPU.

It's impressive because, unlike Intel's IGP offerings where a 56% increase is still crap, a 56% increase over Llano (which is already quite good for an IGP) is significant.


----------



## OneCool (Apr 4, 2012)

Mussels said:


> first time around i missed the "all data based on projections" part, so this could be all crap.




I still choose not to read that part!!



Way to go AMD


----------



## Benetanegia (Apr 4, 2012)

theoneandonlymrk said:


> im not going to say they dont overstate ,but in the current climate AMD would be foolish to overstate what they can do, again, and they are being realistic imho as i stated
> 
> and anyway since when was 56% imrpovement in 1 year bad intel are calling their next wave a tock+ because of a similar massive improvement , get real
> 
> and as ever your on the harsh side of negative and bringing the gtx680 in here tryin to wind some fanbois up , whats with you ,and bye



I didn't bring the GTX680 in here, so I don't know wtf are you saying.

And regarding op, realistic? Hahaha. I've heard the same thing how many times about upcoming AMD products? Yeah, that's what I thought. I guess Bulldozer is the best thing ever. I guess the HD7970 is 60% faster than GTX580. And HD7870 is 40% faster than GTX570. Except oh yeah, not at all. These are marketing claims and as in the previous examples, they are most probably going to be far from the truth. If they said 56% and it's anything like the 61% they said about HD7970, then it's 20% being very optimistic.



HTC said:


> *If true*, i believe you're wrong because this isn't a dedicated card: it's an onboard GPU.
> 
> It's impressive because, unlike Intel's IGP offerings where a 56% increase is still crap, a 56% increase over Llano (which is already quite good for an IGP) is significant.



Significant maybe, more like "that's what you'd expect"... it's far from dissapointing, maybe even on the good side, bur far from impressive. Impressive is something far better than a marketing inflated 56% increase over something that is not fast at all to begin with. I don't care it's integrated, I don't care how crappy Intel's offering are, you can't really play any modern game on it with satisfactory settings and a 56% improvement is not going to change that, as new more demanding games will be released too and make it as useless. It's still an order of magnitude slower than a modern performance class GPU. It's useful for what it is, but far, really really far from impressive, and once the marketing lies are translated into real performance, it's probably not going to be even close to what they promised.

As in the last 5+ releases people are already salivating for something that is surely going to dissapoint, once again. They will not get me into it one more time. This time they will surprise me if/when they release something good, until then I expect nothing, less than nothing, and the odds are my expectations are going to be confirmed.


----------



## Dent1 (Apr 4, 2012)

Benetanegia said:


> can't really play any modern game on it with satisfactory settings and a 56% improvement is not going to change that, as new more demanding games will be released too and make it as useless. It's useful for what it is, but far, really really far from impressive, and once the marketing lies are translated into real performance, it's probably not going to be even close to what they promised.



Why would anyone expect "demanding games" to be a priority on an APU. Any gamer, expecting mind blowing performance would be looking at AMD's enthusiast CPU range.


----------



## suraswami (Apr 4, 2012)

brandonwh64 said:


> If it would perform well on BF3 at 720P then I would be all over this for a new laptop.



And add to that it runs on battery at full speed for 12 hrs! (yeah greedy!)


----------



## Benetanegia (Apr 4, 2012)

Dent1 said:


> Why would anyone expect "demanding games" to a priority on an APU. Any gamer, expecting mind blowing performance would be looking at AMD's enthusiast CPU range.



Yes, exactly, that's why it's not impressive. Any gamer will look for a dedicated card, so why include such a GPU? It's far from good for gaming and overkill for anything else. It's a waste. On the CPU side they are goig to be murdered by Intel and a better GPU is not going to help them much IMO. I know a lot of people bought Llano and are very dissapointed because they expected it to be playable with their games, because that's the way they marketed.

So unless they at least double GPU performance, it's completely useless for gaming and a waste of silicon for anything else snd like I said a 56% - which is NOT going to be 56% in reality, try 20% - is far from impressive.


----------



## eidairaman1 (Apr 5, 2012)

So. do you say the same thing about Intels iGPUs?


Because heres the deal there is a market for the use of the arch on these APUs, and last I recall performance increase is what matters



Benetanegia said:


> Yes, exactly, that's why it's not impressive. Any gamer will look for a dedicated card, so why include such a GPU? It's far from good for gaming and overkill for anything else. It's a waste. On the CPU side they are goig to be murdered by Intel and a better GPU is not going to help them much IMO. I know a lot of people bought Llano and are very dissapointed because they expected it to be playable with their games, because that's the way they marketed.
> 
> So unless they at least double GPU performance, it's completely useless for gaming and a waste of silicon for anything else snd like I said a 56% - which is NOT going to be 56% in reality, try 20% - is far from impressive.


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (Apr 5, 2012)

Benetanegia said:


> Yes, exactly, that's why it's not impressive. Any gamer will look for a dedicated card, so why include such a GPU? It's far from good for gaming and overkill for anything else. It's a waste. On the CPU side they are goig to be murdered by Intel and a better GPU is not going to help them much IMO. I know a lot of people bought Llano and are very dissapointed because they expected it to be playable with their games, because that's the way they marketed.
> 
> So unless they at least double GPU performance, it's completely useless for gaming and a waste of silicon for anything else snd like I said a 56% - which is NOT going to be 56% in reality, try 20% - is far from impressive.



like i said, you then ranted on about nvidia verses AMD ,disclosed your allready known opinion that these facts are wrong, which i beg to differ

but disclosed no new info other then your expanding lament of AMD ,and i dont see you in intel or nvidia threads mouthin off about their 56%increase (alleged each time).
and as for the 680 v 7970,  despite the longwinded retort youll now concoct KNOW this, the gtx680 is not faster then a 7970 at everything and some PAY for compute power why do you believe there to be NO 5850 5870 to be bought new ,anywhere yet i can buy a 460 and some clearly see percentages different to others you more different then most


----------



## Benetanegia (Apr 5, 2012)

eidairaman1 said:


> So. do you say the same thing about Intels iGPUs?
> 
> 
> Because heres the deal there is a market for the use of the arch on these APUs, and last I recall performance increase is what matters



The same? No. Intel is not concentrating on GPUs and is not trying to sell their CPUs based on the fact that they can do something that the competition can't. Intel iGPUs are more than sufficient for anything other than gaming. AMD's iGPU is much better but still far from good for gaming, so that "advantage" they so keenly advertise is not a real advantage. Even a HD5750 is 5x times faster than Llano GPU and I don't think anyone would even buy that card in late 2012 with any hope of playing anything, really. So divide that by 5 or by 3 incase Trinity really is as "fast" as they claim and you'll still go nowhere.

So again, APUs are for what they are, never said they were useless, and improvements are nicely welcomed, also expected tho so keep that in mind, but these improvements are not impressive by any definition of the word. Plain and simple, that is all.



theoneandonlymrk said:


> like i said, you then ranted on about nvidia verses AMD ,disclosed your allready known opinion that these facts are wrong, which i beg to differ
> 
> but disclosed no new info other then your expanding lament of AMD ,and i dont see you in intel or nvidia threads mouthin off about their 56%increase (alleged each time).
> and as for the 680 v 7970,  despite the longwinded retort youll now concoct KNOW this, the gtx680 is not faster then a 7970 at everything and some PAY for compute power why do you believe there to be NO 5850 5870 to be bought new ,anywhere yet i can buy a 460 and some clearly see percentages different to others you more different then most



Really, stop before you look any more stupid. I didn't bring GTX680 in here, and I certainly didn't mention it in regards to HD7970. I only mentioned the GTX680 because someone said that a doubling in performance should not be expected from new processes and said "look at 580 and 680". Period. So stfu. (I'm talking like this because I think it's the only language you might understand by the way you always write)


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (Apr 5, 2012)

Benetanegia said:


> The same? No. Intel is not concentrating on GPUs and is not trying to sell their CPUs based on the fact that they can do something that the competition can't. Intel iGPUs are more than sufficient for anything other than gaming. AMD's iGPU is much better but still far from good for gaming, so that "advantage" they so keenly advertise is not a real advantage. Even a HD5750 is 5x times faster than Llano GPU and I don't think anyone would even buy that card in late 2012 with any hope of playing anything, really. So divide that by 5 or by 3 incase Trinity really is as "fast" as they claim and you'll still go nowhere.
> 
> So again, APUs are for what they are, never said they were useless, and improvements are nicely welcomed, also expected tho so keep that in mind, but these improvements are not impressive by any definition of the word. Plain and simple, that is all.



nicely welcome now eh you began unimpressed

 your stupidity regarding APUs and cpu gpu future relations  and thinking them largely unimportant marks you out as a future blind fool ,ive a mind to save that comment to bite your ass with in 5 years 

All(possibly)/lots deff software is going to be able to use gpu features( advanced math co pro anyone) and AMD will have the most powerfull and technically advanced gpu (HSA) intertied into its cpu ,eventually working effortlessly on the same and multiple tasks , wake up beni nvidia and intel have ,my 5870 has 1.6 Tflops of processing power and thats shit and old so have a word with yourself APU's have enormous processing potential eclipsing cpu only solutions

oh and im not bothered if your swareing at me , its all good ,its only words and debate etc your the one with the AMD axe to grind  not me


----------



## Benetanegia (Apr 5, 2012)

theoneandonlymrk said:


> nicely welcome now eh you began unimpressed
> 
> your stupidity regarding APUs and cpu gpu future relations  and thinking them largely unimportant marks you out as a future blind fool ,ive a mind to save that comment to bite your ass with in 5 years
> 
> All(possibly)/lots deff software is going to be able to use gpu features( advanced math co pro anyone) and AMD will have the most powerfull and technically advanced gpu (HSA) intertied into its cpu ,eventually working effortlessly on the same and multiple tasks , wake up beni nvidia and intel have ,my 5870 has 1.6 Tflops of processing power and thats shit and old so have a word with yourself APU's have enormous processing potential eclipsing cpu only solutions



Wow you are a real fanboy aren't you? 

Why the fuck are you discussing anything Nvidia if no one brought them here?

Maybe you should grow a little reading comprehension. When I mentioned the Nvidia GPUs it was for the sole intention of talking about *previous AMD slides*, and their blatant innacuracy (61% over GTX580, etc), which is on-topic. Nvidia is not. So maybe check your fanboyism. Saying something not-great about AMD does not mean someone is Nvidia and/or Intel fanboy.

EDIT: Spotting AMD fanboys is easy tho. They usually have 2x high-end AMD cards which together costed around $600, but then use a Phenom II because AMd CPUs are cheaper than Intel's. Oh but remember to pay $300 for the motherboard!


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (Apr 5, 2012)

Benetanegia said:


> Maybe you should grow a little reading comprehension. When I mentioned the Nvidia GPUs it was for the sole intention of talking about previous AMD slides, and their blatant innacuracy (61% over GTX580, etc), which is on-topic. Nvidia is not. So maybe check your fanboyism. Saying something not-great about AMD does not mean someone is Nvidia and/or Intel fanboy



fuck one thread idiot/troll, ive seen you in loads of AMD based threads trashing amd but never in an intel or nvidia one and they spread just as much bs as you and amd ,,,i believe none of you i listen to the wizz simples

im not assed what your opinion is and i dont mind reading in a thread ONCE , but you then go on to argue and rile against anyone who shows any positivity to AMD for pages , you just like arguin init

and your a dick, i went amd because A 5870 beat 480 when i got 1st big payday from my new job 2 years ago(value) i added a 5850 for 85 quid off a furom member so thats 390 quid for decent performance for the last two years and another one at least(value)

and the mobo came due to my q6600(intel) blowing up,i went  990FX because i had set money and wanted a DECENT cpu upgrade path and 4x pciex slots (xfire + ssd + hybrid physx(look nvidia))

i favour the best valu company at that time and last time intel was Not the one simples   git i is mad now tut


----------



## ensabrenoir (Apr 5, 2012)

*Mind blowing*



Dent1 said:


> Why would anyone expect "demanding games" to a priority on an APU. Any gamer, expecting mind blowing performance would be looking at AMD's enthusiast CPU range.



Enthusiast cpu range....


----------



## Benetanegia (Apr 5, 2012)

theoneandonlymrk said:


> fuck one thread idiot/troll, ive seen you in loads of AMD based threads trashing amd but never in an intel or nvidia one and they spread just as much bs as you and amd ,,,i believe none of you i listen to the wizz simples
> 
> im not assed what your opinion is and i dont mind reading in a thread ONCE , but you then go on to argue and rile against anyone who shows any positivity to AMD for pages , you just like arguin init



Yeah show me a thread were Nvidia or Intel claimed something anything close to what AMD did with Faildozer, the 60% over GTX580, the 41% over GTX570 and we can start talking about why I "bitch" about AMD's slides and not about Nvidia/Intel ones. In preparation I'll make a resume for you: they have not even closely lied as much as AMD.


----------



## Vulpesveritas (Apr 5, 2012)

Benetanegia said:


> The same? No. Intel is not concentrating on GPUs and is not trying to sell their CPUs based on the fact that they can do something that the competition can't. Intel iGPUs are more than sufficient for anything other than gaming. AMD's iGPU is much better but still far from good for gaming, so that "advantage" they so keenly advertise is not a real advantage. Even a HD5750 is 5x times faster than Llano GPU and I don't think anyone would even buy that card in late 2012 with any hope of playing anything, really. So divide that by 5 or by 3 incase Trinity really is as "fast" as they claim and you'll still go nowhere.
> 
> So again, APUs are for what they are, never said they were useless, and improvements are nicely welcomed, also expected tho so keep that in mind, but these improvements are not impressive by any definition of the word. Plain and simple, that is all.
> 
> ...



Umm... okay well first of all may i say that the 5750 is closer to 2/3 faster than llano, not 500% faster.  Maybe the 7970 but definitely not a 5750.
second, there's nothing llano can't do that an intel cpu can, however there isn't any game out there to my knowledge that llano can't playably run at at least low settings.  Which means a casual gamer(see: curious normal person or normal person's kid.)  Is able to pick up a game and enjoy it, rather than complain about the wasted money because their intel cpu can't  play it.  So long as OEMs carry the APU, it is probably one of the better home use computers.
As to A-series quads vs Pentium dual.  While faster for gaming, i would think that a quad-core would be more suitable for multi tasking anyhow.
Finally, take the press release with salt, but hope it's true for the sake of that way AMD releases a product which can at least compete well in the market vs ivy bridge. For the sake of prices and AMD's survival.


----------



## erocker (Apr 5, 2012)

This has nothing to do with discreet GPU's. Don't bother continuing on the subject. Please.


----------



## Benetanegia (Apr 5, 2012)

Vulpesveritas said:


> Umm... okay well first of all may i say that the 5750 is closer to 2/3 faster than llano, not 500% faster.  Maybe the 7970 but definitely not a 5750



Maybe I exagerated a bit but I don't think it's too far from that and the HD7970 is definitely much much more than 5x faster. From the reviews I remember Llano was between an HD6450 and HD6550, depending if DDR3 1333 Mhz or 2000+ Mhz was used. Since using fast RAM defeats the purpose of a cheap system the former is closer to what you'll find. SO in the chart I posted above, HD6450 10%, HD5750 35% (3.5X faster) and HD7970 130% (so 13x faster). In Q3-Q4 anyone wanting to game even slightly, will go with at least something like HD7770 which is a lot faster and along with a cheap i3 (or a cheap non APU AMD CPU if they still offer that) would not cost much more than a Llano based PC, considering the immense performance difference $50 more on a PC that costs $500 or so it's not too much.



Vulpesveritas said:


> Is able to pick up a game and enjoy it, rather than complain about the wasted money because their intel cpu can't  play it.  So long as OEMs carry the APU, it is probably one of the better home use computers.
> As to A-series quads vs Pentium dual.  While faster for gaming, i would think that a quad-core would be more suitable for multi tasking anyhow.



I don't agree. IMO what people really need to understand is that iGPU is not suitable for gaming. What you describe is a minor patch to this problem that can help in very limited situations, not a cure. In the end they will try a different game and see it's not playable or that it's ugly (far worse than consoles) and that will only contribute to the typical meme that a several thousands $ PC is required for PC gaming. APUs and the way they market them only contributes to making it worse and worse. Unless they trully provide a iGPU that at least matches mid-range GPUs of 3 years ago, I'm not impressed at all and I think it's a really really bad thing for us PC gamers. With Intel at least everybody knows they are crappy and gaming is not suitable at all, at least the people I know.

EDIT: And really, the last thing we need are crappy console ports that have been ported to be suitable for APUs.


----------



## Mussels (Apr 5, 2012)

ladies, ladies. put your handbags down, and put on some fresh make up or something. at least look pretty while you tear each others faces off.


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (Apr 5, 2012)

What are you on about every intel laptops sold as games capable. Read a review then buy or your a tard simples and since when was any gpu unimportant to games

so my final op . Looks good


----------



## BrooksyX (Apr 5, 2012)

I am glad AMD is deciding to give up on the high end cpu market and concentrate more on the low end segment.


----------



## BeepBeep2 (Apr 5, 2012)

Benetanegia said:


> Yeah except the GTX680 uses a chip almost half the size. Compare it to the GTX560 Ti and in 2560x1600 is in fact twice as fast. And with a significantly smaller die.
> 
> A CPU is not the same, it does not scale like that, but it still holds true to the iGPU. 56% over Llano is far from impressive IMO. Especially when we are talking about a marketing slide. Real difference is not going to be more than 20% on the GPU and 10% on the CPU most probably atributable to higher clocks.


EDIT: I'm sorry for picking up the GPU thing again, didn't see page 2 until after the fact...but I wanted to point this out to Benetanegia.
...
You are kidding right?
294 vs 520mm... 28nm vs 40nm...

28nm from 40nm is a 102% shrink. The surface area of a GF110 die assuming perfect shrink is going to be 260mm^2. Already your logic is a bit flawed.

You're right, a CPU is not the same as a GPU, it is a CPU.

However Llano is a 32nm product and so is Trinity. You need to be looking at GTX480 vs GTX580... 

29% + 56% in same TDP (realistically I see 10-15% and 30%) is EXTREMELY impressive on the same node.


----------



## sergionography (Apr 5, 2012)

Benetanegia said:


> Yeah show me a thread were Nvidia or Intel claimed something anything close to what AMD did with Faildozer, the 60% over GTX580, the 41% over GTX570 and we can start talking about why I "bitch" about AMD's slides and not about Nvidia/Intel ones. In preparation I'll make a resume for you: they have not even closely lied as much as AMD.
> 
> http://imgur.com/L5v7H.jpghttp://assets.vr-zone.net/14296/amd_hd7970_performance.png
> http://tpucdn.com/reviews/AMD/HD_7850_HD_7870/images/perfrel_2560.gif



you are comparing up to "1.6x" to average performance all around from TP
i have a llano laptop with a 720p screen(asus k53ta), and i have a hd6650m alone with it for dual graphics
so far i played every game with full fps perfectly, and i get better fps than my friend who has the same laptop but with i5 and gt540 even tho my laptop cost me half the bill he payed
this is were the APU rocks




BeepBeep2 said:


> EDIT: I'm sorry for picking up the GPU thing again, didn't see page 2 until after the fact...but I wanted to point this out to Benetanegia.
> ...
> You are kidding right?
> 294 vs 520mm... 28nm vs 40nm...
> ...



also lets not forget that 30% over stars is light years ahead of Bulldozer! so its all good progress


----------



## Nihilus (Apr 5, 2012)

theoneandonlymrk said:


> even if it had a die shrink ,100% is in retard land of expectations, from any company, intel inclusive



+1


----------



## Benetanegia (Apr 5, 2012)

BeepBeep2 said:


> EDIT: I'm sorry for picking up the GPU thing again, didn't see page 2 until after the fact...but I wanted to point this out to Benetanegia.
> ...
> You are kidding right?
> 294 vs 520mm... 28nm vs 40nm...
> ...





And who is comparing both things?

My GTX680 vs GTX580 argument was directed at who said that process shrink does not mean a big performance increase. He said "look at GTX580 vs GTX680". I said apples to oranges, it's nearly half the size. Learn to read ffs and this way we can avoid stupid posts like yours and I don't have to explain the same thing for the 3rd time in another post.

Secondly, "assuming linear scaling"? Really? You are pretending to teach me a lesson about die sizes and you start by saying "assuming perfect scaling"? Perfect scaling does not exist, GK104 is goddamn close to the size that GF110 would have at 28nm process.

And third, regardless of how much increases over Llano it's not impressive at all, because Llano's TDP is far from good, when the competition has nearly 40w lower power consumption on the "same process" and is faster. It's like looking at the GTX570 and claiming it's impressive, because it has a 33% higher perf/w than GTX480 and same performance.



sergionography said:


> you are comparing up to "1.6x" to average performance all around from TP



The average is about 40% there, which is false nevertheless. And so is the 41% of the HD7870, that's a far worse a lie actually.



> i have a llano laptop with a 720p screen(asus k53ta), and i have a hd6650m alone with it for dual graphics
> so far i played every game with full fps perfectly, and i get better fps than my friend who has the same laptop but with i5 and gt540 even tho my laptop cost me half the bill he payed
> this is were the APU rocks



That only reinforces my point. You need a dedicated GPU. You are needing a HD6650 to play at a dreadful resolution that I have not used in 12+ years. Yeah that's certainly impressive... NOT. You'd be much better off with a CPU that is equal to the APU without the iGPU (that is, a very cheap quad) and a dedicated GPU like an HD6750. That would cost the same, consume the same and destroy your setup in performance. The comparison with the 540m is meaningless, low-end Fermis are awful, especially on laptops were their TDP really limits them. AMD cards fare better there and so does the Kepler parts from Nvidia. Much better. For anyone wanting to game even the slightest, a IvyBridge+Kepler GK107 with Optimus (660M or 650M, 640M not so much) or IB+HD76xx/77xx is a much much better option. An AMD CPU would do fine too, but I think they are only going to offer Trinity on the low end so Intel it is (plus Intel is superior).

An APU is OK if you find niche uses for it, like "I want to play these select games that are 2 years old at low resolution and reduced graphics settings". In that scenario you can certainly find games where the APU will be able to play them and SB/IB won't, but opening the spectrum and expecting to play ALL games and new games at decent quality settings and 1080p which is the standard now and the APU is not going to be able to handle them, plain and simple. When you buy a PC, especially those who buy cheap setups where an APu is going to get used expect their PCs to last at least 3 years. An APu will simply not be able to handle games in 2 years, hell they don't even handle them today by most gamers standards. 

A 56% increase in GPU performance is not going to change that, because discrete GPUs are improving more than that and hence it's far from impressive. Like I said an increase like that is adecuate, also what you'd expect from a product that is pretending to stay relevant, but it's far far from being impressive.


----------



## THE_EGG (Apr 5, 2012)

hmm I probably shouldn't have mentioned about the GPU thing. I suppose a better comparison would have been a 480 and 580. Now I have derailed the thread


----------



## Vulpesveritas (Apr 5, 2012)

Benetanegia said:


> And third, regardless of how much increases over Llano it's not impressive at all, because Llano's TDP is far from good, when the competition has nearly 40w lower power consumption on the "same process" and is faster.
> 
> 
> That only reinforces my point. You need a dedicated GPU. You are needing a HD6650 to play at a dreadful resolution that I have not used in 12+ years. Yeah that's certainly impressive... NOT. You'd be much better off with a CPU that is equal to the APU without the iGPU (that is, a very cheap quad) and a dedicated GPU like an HD6750. That would cost the same, consume the same and destroy your setup in performance. The comparison with the 540m is meaningless, low-end Fermis are awful, especially on laptops were their TDP really limits them. AMD cards fare better there and so does the Kepler parts from Nvidia. Much better. For anyone wanting to game even the slightest, a IvyBridge+Kepler GK107 with Optimus (660M or 650M, 640M not so much) or IB+HD76xx/77xx is a much much better option. An AMD CPU would do fine too, but I think they are only going to offer Trinity on the low end so Intel it is (plus Intel is superior).
> ...


okay a few things.  One, llano is made for a long term strategy by AMD, and even right now it makes sense to the .ain profit market for computers right now, namely sub-$600 computers and mainly laptops.  Sure a discrete gpu and faster cpu are going to be faster, but it will also cost more and consume more power.  Kepler mobiles shouldnt even be compared until trinity  is out anyhow.
Second, AMD is moving to heterpgeneous computing, hence the fusion nomenclature.  Did i already say it?  Because its AMD's plan to survive, given how intel is dominating the x86 market.  Moving floating point onto the gpu as well as any computing tasks it can.  If AMDfollows through we'll see that next year.  For now, trinity if AMD is telling the truth, will be great for students, kids, and normal people who aren't looking to spend much on a PC, and do expect it to last 4 years.  Most people i have sold to(see people who buy at retail)  find it nuts to pay more than $750 on a PC. If they have kids who play games, or if they are casual gamers looking to say, play a few mmos, which is going to make more sense  for four years of light gaming, videos, music, multitasking, and web browsing at $600, an APU with a GPU more than twice as fast, or a Pentium or i3 with just it's intel 3000/4000 graphics?  Oh and let's not forget drivers for games and gpu acceleration in flash for browser based games.


----------



## ensabrenoir (Apr 5, 2012)

BrooksyX said:


> I am glad AMD is deciding to give up on the high end cpu market and concentrate more on the low end segment.



Me too.....that is where their strength is.   Now if we can only get the hardcore amd fanatics  to stop posting how low to mid range product are gonna best  the competitions high end stuff and rile everyone  up we can.all enjoy thier advancements.


----------



## dzero (Apr 5, 2012)

I am probably going to pick up a trinity laptop for myself and build a desktop variant for the parents.


----------



## Dent1 (Apr 5, 2012)

Benetanegia said:


> Yes, exactly, that's why it's not impressive. Any gamer will look for a dedicated card, so why include such a GPU? It's far from good for gaming and overkill for anything else.  It's a waste.




So what do you propose? You want AMD to integrate SLOWER GPU into the APU?



Benetanegia said:


> I know a lot of people bought Llano and are very disappointed because they expected it to be playable with their games, because that's the way they marketed.




That isn't AMDs fault. If your friends wanted to play games they shouldn't be looking at an APU. Or they should have paired the Llano with a dedicated card. AMD offers consumers a range of tools and your friends bought the wrong tool. Whos fault is that?




Benetanegia said:


> So unless they at least double GPU performance, it's completely useless for gaming and a waste of silicon for anything else and like I said a 56% - which is NOT going to be 56% in reality, try 20% - is far from impressive.



But the slide says "56% increase in visual performance" - AMD didn't say gaming. Visual performance can be any moving 2D or 3D effect. You jumped to the conclusion that they meant gaming.


--------------------------------------


BrooksyX said:


> I am glad AMD is deciding to give up on the high end cpu market and concentrate more on the low end segment.






ensabrenoir said:


> Me too.....that is where their strength is.



urrrm. Who said they have given up on high end CPU market. I can remember seeing high end CPUs on the 2012 roadmap.


----------



## ensabrenoir (Apr 5, 2012)

High end amd = mid range in reality so the answer is both yes and no


----------



## Benetanegia (Apr 5, 2012)

Vulpesveritas said:


> okay a few things.  One, llano is made for a long term strategy by AMD, and even right now it makes sense to the .ain profit market for computers right now, namely sub-$600 computers and mainly laptops.  Sure a discrete gpu and faster cpu are going to be faster, but it will also cost more and consume more power.  Kepler mobiles shouldnt even be compared until trinity  is out anyhow.
> Second, AMD is moving to heterpgeneous computing, hence the fusion nomenclature.  Did i already say it?  Because its AMD's plan to survive, given how intel is dominating the x86 market.  Moving floating point onto the gpu as well as any computing tasks it can.  If AMDfollows through we'll see that next year.  For now, trinity if AMD is telling the truth, will be great for students, kids, and normal people who aren't looking to spend much on a PC, and do expect it to last 4 years.  Most people i have sold to(see people who buy at retail)  find it nuts to pay more than $750 on a PC. If they have kids who play games, or if they are casual gamers looking to say, play a few mmos, which is going to make more sense  for four years of light gaming, videos, music, multitasking, and web browsing at $600, an APU with a GPU more than twice as fast, or a Pentium or i3 with just it's intel 3000/4000 graphics?  Oh and let's not forget drivers for games and gpu acceleration in flash for browser based games.



What makes more sense? Since gaming was mentioned, a dedicated GPU always, even for light gaming and MMOs like you say. How many people upgraded their cards for the WoW update? A lot. 

An APU based system is NOT much cheaper than a system based on an Athlon II and even many PhenomII are also substantially chepaer. Intel's cheap Pentium line from what I can see and something like G840 is still faster in most everyday tasks, except on number crunching things like video conversion and the like and it's $50 cheaper. With little more you can get a decent dedicated card that is much better than Llano iGPU, MUCH better, we are not talking about a few percents here we are talking about 3x faster. Something that can actually play games.

Again you are describing a very limited situation in which you pretend that X number of games can be played. But what about Conan MMO (don't remember the name) for example? You need a fast GPU and like that there's many many others. What about SWTOR? Llano just does not handle it period. It's a complete falacy to say that a Llano GPU will handle MMOs or games in general and SB can't do it. Old games both can handle them more or less right, in general (Llano is 1.5-2x faster not 10x faster). About newer games, neither handle most of games, and the fact that Llano can play some more games, does not make it any more suitable for gaming, unless you know *exactly* which games are going to be played and those are indeed handled. Like I said a very limited situation that affects a very very limited amount of people. In best case it's a complete gamble: knowing if a certain game will be handled by the 2-3 year old mid-range GPU (i.e. HD5770) of his son's PC is already difficult for most parents, it's a completely ridiculos task to know that with something like a Llano iGPU (actually no lol, you can assume that it won't and be right 95% of times). It is NOT a gaming solution, far from it, so any judgement based on that assumption is just flawed.

It's simple if you don't want to game, *any* iGPU will do it, choose the best CPU as CPU is what is going to give you the best results. You want to game with at least a little security of being able to play any game that you/your children will play in the next couple years? Dedicated GPU, always. Like I said any $80 dedicated GPU crushes LLano. I would agree to the general usefulness of APUs if they didn't cost on average $40 more than similar performing Pentium, Athlon II's and the like. But they do cost more so it's easy, gaming involved in any form, dedicated GPU, pay $40 more than you  would with Llano, knowing you are getting 3x more GPU performance, 5x if you go for aftermarket cards like HD4870, GTS250 and the like which I've seen selling for $50.

EDIT: And about heterogeneous computing. When AMD trully integrates CPU and GPU, then let's talk about it. Until then it's more than proven that a dedicated GPU is much faster than integrated GPU, because Llano and Trinity (and SB) are nothing but separate entities slapped together. If heterogeneous computing takes off, once again dediceted GPU >>>>>>>> iGPU. And video conversion, by far the most common of heavy duty tasks performed by the average joe is much faster on dedicated hardware like Quicksyic or the thingy that GTX680 has anyway.


----------



## Dent1 (Apr 5, 2012)

ensabrenoir said:


> High end amd = mid range in reality so the answer is both yes and no



That is just silly, its like saying a Sempron was high end because it beat out a high end Pentium 4. Or a Pentium 4 was lowend because it had midrange performance.


----------



## Vulpesveritas (Apr 5, 2012)

Benetanegia said:


> What makes more sense? Since gaming was mentioned, a dedicated GPU always, even for light gaming and MMOs like you say. How many people upgraded their cards for the WoW update? A lot.
> 
> An APU based system is NOT much cheaper than a system based on an Athlon II and even many PhenomII are also substantially chepaer. Intel's cheap Pentium line from what I can see and something like G840 is still faster in most everyday tasks, except on number crunching things like video conversion and the like and it's $50 cheaper. With little more you can get a decent dedicated card that is much better than Llano iGPU, MUCH better, we are not talking about a few percents here we are talking about 3x faster. Something that can actually play games.
> 
> ...



"llano can't handle swtor?"  seriously?  you're joking me.  I have two coworkers with llano laptops who play swtor on them all the time and play on high settings at 720p.  I beleive you aren't looking at things from the perspective of normal (i.e. not enthusiasts / eyecandy-obsessed / hardcore gamer) people, who have no issue whatsoever at playing at lowered settings. 
My point is that an average person won't be just gaming, perhaps their kid will be playing games, and they will want to use the same computer for multitasking.  Unless I'm incorrect, even though it's not going to be faster for each individual application, through multitasking, say running an antivirus, all the bloatware that comes with an average PC, a few browser tabs, and say a media player at the same time is what I know "normal" people to do.  And if they play a game, they'll leave most of it running too.  So real world experience isn't going to be that much difference.  
And I am thinking more along what you'll find in an OEM route.  They're unlikely to have in a retail model a discrete GPU in a sub $600 PC.  They'll be running whatever integrated graphics come with it.  Wherein an AMD APU has an advantage over an Intel processor in the same price range for an average user.  
While it is true that say, a discrete radeon HD 6750m (6670)will be about 75% faster on the GPU end, you should also remember this is adding another 30-50w to the heat in the computer and power drain on a battery in a laptop.  And if you want more performance, you have the dual graphics option, which pushes it again at a higher graphics level than say a dedicated CPU and discrete GPU of the same price bracket.  
Honestly, go into say, bestbuy and see how many laptops in the sub-$600 bracket can actually run newer games.  The only ones which can even play say, Crysis on lowered settings are the Llano-based laptops.  
If you can find a new laptop in retail with a discrete GPU than is in Llano with 5-6 hours battery life, and is as fast or faster CPU-wise when all cores are in use, then let me know.  Sure any $80 desktop GPU is going to be better in most cases in a desktop, in small form factor desktops and in laptops the AMD APU will generally be a better low budget solution. 
Am I wrong?
here's the newegg list;
 PCs & Laptops, Laptops / Notebooks, Intel Core Du...
and Bestbuy intel laptops at $500-600
http://www.bestbuy.com/site/olstemp...id&list=y&iht=n&st=processingtime:>1900-01-01
and A8 powered in the same price range: 
http://www.bestbuy.com/site/olstemp...id&list=y&iht=n&st=processingtime:>1900-01-01

Have fun trying to even run a game on those intel PC's.  
Shall I list the retail desktops too?
newegg: 
 PCs & Laptops, Desktop PCs, Pentium D, Core 2 Duo...

So yeah.  Have fun finding an OEM build one with such a setup.  

Also, I'm just pointing out that is AMD's strategy, calling every bit of this a fail is certainly nothing but hate in my opinion.  AMD showing an overall 15-30% increase in performance is getting called a complete failure, when that is a significant increase given that this is still on a 32nm node.  And like before, I say take AMD's statements with salt, however I do expect it will increase performance to at least some extent.  

Honestly, I know that Intel gives a better price / performance CPU-wise, especially on higher end builds.  However, that doesn't mean that with the way that computing is going, especially in a budget-retail-light user end, where graphics acceleration is becoming more common, light gaming is becoming more common, and bloatware is becoming more and more rampant, AMD has if nothing else, a means to compete.  

And I'm hoping, and I believe for the sake for competition, you should at least hope that AMD delivers on it's claimed performance gains.  A leap of perfomance / watt of that high, if they keep their costs as they are right now, will be significant and give them an edge in lower end builds, and would be the first iGPU to give decent enough performance levels to consider for a budget gaming PC over say, that pentium + 6670, as the GPU performance would only be 10-20% lower, and CPU performance would not only be superior for multi-thread, but for real life use, and single thread wouldn't be nearly as horribly trounced by the pentium.

That is of course, if AMD delivers on their statements, which I do hope they do.

Oh, and Trinity is expected to incorperate a competitor for quicksync, I belive it's called VCE.  Which is already in the discrete Radeon HD 7000 series GPUs.


----------



## Benetanegia (Apr 5, 2012)

Vulpesveritas said:


> ...



We should just agree to disagree. IMO either you can play or not. And with Llano you can't, 30 fps, 720p, is not gaming... it's blurslideshow. If you are going to play like that to me is just 1000x times to play gems from the past like Starcraft, Diablo, Sins of a Solar Empire, Counter-Strike, COD1/2, and those will play on a SB too. I don't know, there's a bazillion games that I would play on max settings rather than playing new games on lowest settings posible. And same goes with kids. I don't personally have kids, but if I had, I'd rather give them quality games of the past and a quality experience regarding resolution, AA and in-game settings. In fact every gamer/enthusiast should do that to teach their kids some culture, before they fall prey to the COD brainwashing.

And please don't pretend that SWTOR plays nicely on anything but the absolute minimum on Llano because I've seen it in a wide range of computers and NO it's not playable by the standards of most people, with a lowe end GPU much less an iGPU. In fact I don't know a single person who expects anything less than 1080p. They don't expect mroe either, but 1080 is on Bluray, it's on the TV, it's on the consoles (so they believe at least), so it MUST be on computers too. For different reasons, but I agree with them. I have refrained from buying a laptop lately, because it seems that every single one comes with 1300x768 or whatever is the crappy resolution*.

And like I said, if you have such low standards, you may as well go with Ivy/Sandy and play on even lower settings in some games or play games that it can handle. It's 30-40% slower than Llano, not more, it's not like it's a different world kind of performance, discrete GPUs on the other hand are. IMO you are taking one situation and generalising over it. There's only a handful of games that Llano can handle nicely that Sandy Bridge won't (and difference will be even smaller with Ivy vs Trinity). Of course if you play those all day long, it's perfect for you, but otherwise there's a thousands games that it won't handle just like Intel's offerings so why even bother.

Regarding power consumption, what a mid-range dedicated card consumes is more or less the power consumption difference between Llano and competing SB so that is not a problem at all.

* So I know about what laptops are available because I've been looking for them and there's like a million of them for less than 600 € (remember 1€ == $1 here) and a "nice" dedicated GPU along with even i5's. That is not the problem at all, crappy resolution is.


----------



## Vulpesveritas (Apr 5, 2012)

I'm sorry but once again, you're only looking at things from your perspective, not an average joe on the streets.  And I'd love to see a sub $600 laptop with a faster gpu than is in an a8 at a respected retailor available in physical stores at non-sale/clearance prices here in the usa, if you know of one point me that way.

In the end, youve already stated you wouldnt pay so little and vye for performance, in disregard for my "normal people who are still impressed by 720p and buy a sub-$750 pc every 4-6 years or until it dies." Which is the majority who buy retail in my experience anyhow.   Worked at two retail stores thusfar and that's what I've seen.  Oh, and my two co-workers, one has an asus with an a6 and dual graphics i found on a $360 deal for him on newegg, and the other has an hp with an a8-3500m, and both play swtor on a daily basis.


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (Apr 5, 2012)

Benetanegia said:


> It's simple if you don't want to game, any iGPU will do it, choose the best CPU as CPU is what is going to give you the best results. You want to game with at least a little security of being able to play any game that you/your children will play in the next couple years? Dedicated GPU, always. Like I said any $80 dedicated GPU crushes LLano. I would agree to the general usefulness of APUs if they didn't cost on average $40 more than similar performing Pentium, Athlon II's and the like. But they do cost more so it's easy, gaming involved in any form, dedicated GPU, pay $40 more than you would with Llano, knowing you are getting 3x more GPU performance, 5x if you go for aftermarket cards like HD4870, GTS250 and the like which I've seen selling for $50.



still here ay ,rileing the same shit

ive a p4 dual core with HD3000 integrated gfx that says an average user needs a better igpu then intel provide ,,, just to play movies ,SB is better but still not good enough for me ,nice to see your dedication ,odd though it is


----------



## Benetanegia (Apr 5, 2012)

Vulpesveritas said:


> I'm sorry but once again, you're only looking at things from your perspective, not an average joe on the streets.  And I'd love to see a sub $600 laptop with a faster gpu than is in an a8 at a respected retailor available in physical stores at non-sale/clearance prices here in the usa, if you know of one point me that way.
> 
> In the end, youve already stated you wouldnt pay so little and vye for performance, in disregard for my "normal people who are still impressed by 720p and buy a sub-$750 pc every 4-6 years or until it dies." Which is the majority who buy retail in my experience anyhow.   Worked at two retail stores thusfar and that's what I've seen.  Oh, and my two co-workers, one has an asus with an a6 and dual graphics i found on a $360 deal for him on newegg, and the other has an hp with an a8-3500m, *and both play swtor on a daily basis*.



Yeah a lot of people do stupid things and that still doesn't make Trinity impressive in any way.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/star-wars-gaming-tests-review,3087-4.html

Look there's no way I'm going to believe they play it nicely even on ultra low resoution. I've seen it in GPUs like GTS450 and HD4870 myself and it does not run so well on those, much less on lower end cards. And the review above shows that not even on the lowest settings would llano play it nicely so that's a no no no.

I find it amusing to even be talking about this here anyway. Lol. 1) Playing on a laptop? 2) 720p? 3) 30 fps

Come on...

I don't care if llano is enough for the lowest of the lowest expecting crowd. They can expect to play on SB or better yet IB too. This whole argument of yours that SB can't play games, but llano on the other hand can somehow be enough for thegrand mayority of people, is just blatantly stupid. See the SWTOR link above? So HD6450- HD5570 it's playable no? So what about this one:

http://www.anandtech.com/show/4444/amd-llano-notebook-review-a-series-fusion-apu-a8-3500m/11

In 7 out of 9 of the titles the SB is capable of playing to the same performance level than a Llano would in SWTOR (it's also 30% slower on average or so). So basically SB CAN play games by your standard definition. And only in 2 out of 9, 3 out of 10 counting SWTOR the Llano setup is a real advantage for this average joe guy you so desperately want to vindicate. My point has been clear all along and this data, plus your definition of what's playable, has settled this all along. For the average guy 7 out of 10 times with modern games (much more if we include older games) SB iGPU is enough. Llano is thus a niche product for those who want to play the those other 3 out of 10 games on the cheap, intead of paying a measly $50 for a real gaming experience. GREAT!

EDIT: And yeah call me elitist  but I would pay $700 for a laptop instead of $600 if that is going to offer me a real gaming experience. These people who want to buy cheap PCs with crappy graphics and expect to be able to play something, is the same people as always. Uneducated people who can't understand that on PC gaming a measly extra $50 is the difference between playable and blurslideshow. The answer for this people is to teach them, not APUs. APUs just make it worse.


----------



## Vulpesveritas (Apr 5, 2012)

So let's see at this price point, llano is just as energy efficient, costs 10% less, is between 20-50% faster in graphics intensive tasks, and is more or less just as fast while multitasking, although is ~20% slower for Microsoft excell.  Yeah it's a real "niche" product.  Oh lets ignore the extras too.


----------



## Vulpesveritas (Apr 5, 2012)

So let's see at this price point, llano is just as energy efficient, costs 10% less, is between 20-50% faster in graphics intensive tasks, and is more or less just as fast while multitasking, although is ~20% slower for Microsoft excell.  Yeah it's a real "niche" product.  Oh lets ignore the extras too.  Like usb 3.0, or that at $600 you start to find blue ray drives bundled in some laptops.   Let's not forget this is mainstream we're talking about, not us.


----------



## Benetanegia (Apr 5, 2012)

Vulpesveritas said:


> So let's see at this price point, llano is just as energy efficient, costs 10% less, is between 20-50% faster in graphics intensive tasks, and is more or less just as fast while multitasking, although is ~20% slower for Microsoft excell.  Yeah it's a real "niche" product.  Oh lets ignore the extras too.



Just as fast, the CPU... 

And 20-50% faster on dreadful gaming settings. Wow I'm impressed. The point that you are trying to avoid desperately, is that Sandy Bridge is more than enough by your own definition. Llano being faster is meaningless, because SB is enough and isn that what this average joe (who you do know, but I don't, apparently) wants. Same argument you have been making for Llano vs a real GPU. If something is enough it is enough, or it is not. plain and simple. You draw the line not me. And on the CPU side SB is just light years ahead, so my point stands. For real gaming: dedicated GPU. For the rest whichever is the best CPU. It happens to be SB and IB in the future. I didn't make the rules,I let you make them, so please don't try to change them on the fly.

EDIT: BTW I'm extremely curious as to why this average joe wants a Blu-ray drive if it's only going to use a 720p screen. Just curiosity.


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (Apr 5, 2012)

Benetanegia said:


> And 20-50% faster on dreadful gaming settings. Wow I'm impressed. The point that you are trying to avoid desperately, is that Sandy Bridge is more than enough by your own definition. Llano being faster is meaningless, because SB is enough and isn that what this average joe (who you do know, but I don't, apparently) wants. Same argument you have been making for Llano vs a real GPU. If something is enough it is enough, or it is not. plain and simple. You draw the line not me. And on the CPU side SB is just light years ahead, so my point stands. For real gaming: dedicated GPU. For the rest whichever is the best CPU. It happens to be SB and IB in the future. I didn't make the rules,I let you make them, so please don't try to change them on the fly.



I could try screamin HSA at you, it might sink in i spose , have you used any gpu accelerated soft yet? ,and your scaleing is dubious light years is a step beyond as pile driver is not that far behind  SB in the guestimate world were in ,either way this is fantasy land at the min, wind it in ,their isnt a wizz review of it yet


----------



## copenhagen69 (Apr 5, 2012)

so when will we start seeing these in laptops?


----------



## Benetanegia (Apr 5, 2012)

theoneandonlymrk said:


> I could try screamin HSA at you, it might sink in i spose , have you used any gpu accelerated soft yet? ,and your scaleing is dubious light years is a step beyond as pile driver is not that far behind  SB in the guestimate world were in ,either way this is fantasy land at the min, wind it in ,their isnt a wizz review of it yet



Yeah, scream it, and call me in 2014 when HSA will really become true. Until then it's a moot point, so don't bother me with your pointless posts. I don't appreciate them personally, they are annoying and contribute zero to the point at hand.

And FYI Intel is working on something similar, with a similar release date and so is Nvidia, and apparently Qualcomm and Apple and and and, so yeah.... whatever...


----------



## Dent1 (Apr 5, 2012)

Benetanegia said:


> Just as fast, the CPU...
> 
> And 20-50% faster on dreadful gaming settings. Wow I'm impressed.



I love how you deliberately ignored my previous post which was aimed directly at you. My arguments were too water tight for you

Again I say: The slide says "56% increase in visual performance" - AMD didn't say gaming. Visual performance can be any moving 2D or 3D effect. You jumped to the conclusion that they meant gaming.


----------



## Vulpesveritas (Apr 5, 2012)

Apparently you don't get many people don't see a difference between 720p and 1080p. I do, probably you do, but I've learned color quality sells more.

In the end, im saying it's more or less as fast given gpu acceleration and bloatware pushing threads.  And you get more for the price in general. So it's less niche, more general competition.


----------



## Benetanegia (Apr 5, 2012)

Dent1 said:


> I love how you deliberately ignored my previous post which was aimed directly at you. My arguments were too water tight for you
> 
> Again I say: The slide says "56% increase in visual performance" - AMD didn't say gaming. Visual performance can be any moving 2D or 3D effect. You jumped to the conclusion that they meant gaming.



No I ignored it because it was stupid. First of all you almost insult my friends, great. And second yes, they probably mean that Llano plays movies 56% faster. Yeah I was thinking about that. pff please...


----------



## Dent1 (Apr 5, 2012)

Benetanegia said:


> No I ignored it because it was stupid. First of all you almost insult my friends, great.



No. You ignored me because you had no defence against my logic.

Firstly, I never insulted your friend. I just stated that your friend should take accountability for a bad purchase decision. He bought an low end APU thinking it was enthusiast grade. His fault!




Benetanegia said:


> And second yes, they probably mean that Llano plays movies 56% faster. Yeah I was thinking about that. pff please...



Not all 2D and 3D visual visuals are games and movies. Duh


----------



## ERazer (Apr 5, 2012)

ahhh love it AMD! now wheres my cheap ultrabook? 

need to replace my APU Bobcat


----------



## Benetanegia (Apr 5, 2012)

Dent1 said:


> No. You ignored me because you had no defence against my logic.



Keep dreaming.



> Firstly, I never insulted your friend. I just stated that your friend should take accountability for a bad purchase decision. He bought an low end APU thinking it was enthusiast grade. His fault!



Not at all. AMD has marketed their APUs as gaming capable and they also heard from people like Vulpesveritas. Did you even read this thread? Almost everyone is telling me it can play games, even though I know that's a stretch, because at the settings that it can a SB can too, so it's a moot point. But thing is they were expecting it to play some of the games they had, not the latest and greatest, but at least on decent settings and 1080p. Not even expecting to use AA. They had HD3870 and 8800 GTS (G80) and based on what people say, and the fact that it has 400 SPs vs 320 on HD3870, they thought that Llano would be better. Not a chance.


> Not all 2D and 3D visual visuals are games and movies. Duh



So what is it? lol come on explain what exactly requires the superior AMD GPU that is not gaming or video acceleration. Enlighten me. I guess it's 56% on DirectDraw? OH because if that's the case, it's a must have!!


----------



## ensabrenoir (Apr 5, 2012)

I sure hope amf delivets on their performance claims because im tired of explainjng to folks that there is nothing wrong with their laptop.  Yes after,just installing an antivirus program and office and a program or 2 your new machine crawls because that great bargin is at its limits.  Weak cpu skimpy memory and tiny hdd full of photos.:shadedshu


----------



## Dent1 (Apr 5, 2012)

Benetanegia said:


> So what is it? lol come on explain what exactly requires the superior AMD GPU that is not gaming or video acceleration. Enlighten me. I guess it's 56% on DirectDraw? OH because if that's the case, it's a must have!!



CAD, 3D Modelling software. Studio Max, Maya, Softimage etc

It could be 56% on any visual task; if you want the answer please email AMD and one of their representatives will tell you specifically. But "visual performance" doesn't necessarily mean gaming otherwise the word "gaming" would have been used in the slide. It could very well be gaming, but we dont know for sure, so stop making assumptions.


----------



## Vulpesveritas (Apr 5, 2012)

Benetanegia said:


> Keep dreaming.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Well, one of llano's biggest issues is, as we all probably know, memory bandwidth
  That aside, visual/ flash heavy websites may benefit.


----------



## eidairaman1 (Apr 6, 2012)

Dent1 said:


> It could very well be gaming, but we dont know for sure, so stop making assumptions.



dont tell him to do that. I find it quite amusing how much of an ass he makes out of himself when he thread craps in any news topic that has to do with AMD.

That right there is the epitome of a democRATicextreemist


----------



## Benetanegia (Apr 6, 2012)

eidairaman1 said:


> dont tell him to do that. I find it quite amusing how much of an ass he makes out of himself when he thread craps in any news topic that has to do with AMD.
> 
> That right there is the epitome of a democRATicextreemist



Yeah sorry to break the bubble for you fanboys. It's fun to see how AMD and Apple fanboys have come to be of the same type.

Meanwhile, somewhere in the real world:

http://www.anandtech.com/show/5626/ivy-bridge-preview-core-i7-3770k

It's simple, 3/4 of people just don't game so they don't need a GPU. Of the rest of people, the gamers, use dedicated GPUs. 

http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey/videocard/ 

I don't see many iGPUs there.

And the rest of people with very low gaming standards and/or requirements are served mostly equally by Llano/Trinity and SB/IB. Maybe SB was too slow in some situations, IB just isn't.

And the bottom line is that in most of the cases when someone is looking for a CPU the CPU that is faster wins. When someone is looking for a GPU, the fastest GPU wins, and this one is always of the discrete kind, either AMD or Nvidia. It's simple.

In the meantime Llano and Trinity have their purpose and their user base, and a market segment where they do a better job than the competition, I never denied that, but this market, as much as it hurts to the poor AMD fanboy, is small and it does not represent a circusntance in which AMD is superior in any form or way in the large picture. For the average joe, for most of them, Intel is still a much better option right now. Granted better prices from Intel would be nice, but from their perspective and the retailers why should they lower the price when they face so little competition? So here's hoping that AMD brings something good eventually, Trinity IMO, based on AMD's marketing slide is not. Why? Because I've come to know them and I know perfectly that their 29% and 56% figures mean that real performance will be much much worse.

So that is all and please by all means keep taking it personal with me, because I find it extremely amusing how deluded AMD fanboys are, expecting miracles after every turn, and being angry at anything or anyone who dares bringing in some chunk of reality. I was an AMD fanboy back in the days BTW, but after two strikes (Core2, Phenom) I came back to reality, that wonderful place where people actually get the best CPU that they can buy, without having to resort to wet dreams and rainbows and unicorns to pretend that their CPU is the best.


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (Apr 6, 2012)

you make me laugh with your fanboy chat ,and the fact your in a trinity thread bashing AMD in your free time so much, as is obvious to everyone on this forum, ie AMD thread posted youll be in their pissing on amd all day , effin looser ,get a life ,their ya go thats just aimed at you, take that personal

no one is so deluded ,besides your friends(who get advice from? u) so as to think a lano or trinity system does all a high end pc gamer wants but then again add a cheap, not dear discrete gfx in xfire and it will play anything. tell your mates that , give them some of your good advice intsead of us lot that way they wont be disapointed with what they get ,id advise anyone asking you anything to look at wizzs review from now on though as you chat shit too much



Benetanegia said:


> I was an AMD fanboy back in the days BTW



now you switched to the dark side eh, so you have allways been a fanboi tard then, i favour none of em ,im quite happy the arm powered future is on the horizon more cpu vendors means more competition ,lower prices etc and hopefully less fanboi tards

oh and from an earlier snipe my rigs listed faggot ,yours aint ,too shit??? mines amd biased due to the time i bought and rescources only not because i believe a phenomII is better in any way then anything intel make ,but for 96 quid they didnt have a competeing chip(intel) simples


----------



## Benetanegia (Apr 6, 2012)

theoneandonlymrk said:


> no one is so deluded ,besides your friends(who get advice from? u) so as to think a lano or trinity system does all a high end pc gamer wants but then again add a cheap, not dear discrete gfx in xfire and it will play anything. tell your mates that , give them some of your good advice intsead of us lot that way they wont be disapointed with what they get ,id advise anyone asking you anything to look at wizzs review from now on though as you chat shit too much



Yeah I am not going to be so retard to tell my friends to buy a crappy CPU with decent low end iGPU, just to tell them to buy a dedicated GPU afterwards or along with it. That is the most stupid thing I've ever seen. Did you just lost your second neuron or your red tinted glasses are blinding you too much?

I never told them to buy Llano, I'm not stupid and if you had pay any attention instead of trying to insult me in every turn because you don't like the reality that your beloved AMD has to face, you'd have noticed that when someone wants to game, even the slightest, my ONLY recommendation is going with discrete.

I reccomend you read before posting and like I said, really, refrain from replying with posts that make no sense and are so stupid.

Now regarding reviews, Wizzard's reviews in particular, if you actually read them instead of being an asshole and a little badmouthed boy, you would have noticed that Llano+dedicated GPU is only marginally better than the GPU alone and often times the dedicated GPU alone is better.










(And this is with Llano as the base system btw, if the dedicated GPU had been used along with SB, it would probably match or exceed the LLano+GPU result)

So for the nth time. For anything related to gaming dedicated GPU all the way. Scrap intermediary iGPUs that are useless in any real gaming situation and go for what it's best for you*.

Eagerly awayting the next insult and failed attempt at a reply.

* And what is this best thing? Well if you can't afford SB because your local retailers rapes you with Intel prices, then the best is an Athlon II and maybe even Phenom II is suitable on your price range. But don't buy overpriced (as a CPU) APU if you intend to game, buy the $50 cheaper CPU that is exactly just as fast and then buy a dedicated GPU.


----------



## Vulpesveritas (Apr 6, 2012)

Oookay quick point back to reality, A: theoneandonlymrk while I do feel ben has a slight bias against AMD, I do agree with him you have to take this with salt given AMD's marketing department lately.  He backs up most things with facts, and therefore holds at least some credibility for his words, and insults are juvenile. 
@ben in the end, most people don't need the power of a core 2 duo.  Or the igpu of llano.  Llano 's IPC is actually quite close to a core 2 as well.
And with web browsers becoming GPU accelerated, the main part of what most people do will be just as fast on AMD or Intel.  If you really want to make someone see a faster computer for a "normal person " give them an SSD instead of a HDD.


----------



## xenocide (Apr 6, 2012)

I am a huge fan of H61+Pentium G840 for ultra low-end solutions.  I am not entirely sold on Llano for anything but HTPC's and standard desktop use (not really gaming per say).  The CPU-side of Llano is very, very, weak, and the GPU is only good for light tasks.


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (Apr 6, 2012)

Benetanegia said:


> Eagerly awayting the next insult and failed attempt at a reply.




because your an arguement loveing troll


your entitled to your opinions ,as am i, and my main advice to you is to not advise your mates
your not seeing the whole picture by all accounts HSA again, an average joe buying a shit prebuilt over the last few years has ended up with an intel GMA system 9 out of 10 times, they may now end up with a lano or trinity one, you and i both know which is going to seem the better system to these  begewled playing muppets and its not intels, simples.

anyone who knows whats what, wont buy one i agree and i understand your point that an intel with a discrete can do the same job for a bit more money ,but stateing that these are not needed and useless is over the top ,they will play 99% of games on a laptop at playable levels to most, they may be stepping up from an exbox or a shitter pc ,so for the money they dont seem so bad, 
again im no fanboy ,that be you, though your not a perm fanboi ,you move around co's yes


----------



## Benetanegia (Apr 6, 2012)

Vulpesveritas said:


> I do feel ben has a slight bias against AMD



I have a bias against AMD fanboys and ther retarded hive mind. It reminds me so much of Apple fanboys lately. If AMD has to succeed it has to do it on its own, not because of the fanboyism of some and the charity of others. I'm not going to suggest slower and more power thirsty AMD CPUs just for the sole purpose of helping AMD.



> @ben in the end, most people don't need the power of a core 2 duo.  Or the igpu of llano.  Llano 's IPC is actually quite close to a core 2 as well.
> And with web browsers becoming GPU accelerated, the main part of what most people do will be just as fast on AMD or Intel.  If you really want to make someone see a faster computer for a "normal person " give them an SSD instead of a HDD.



I've never said that Llano would be useless, and for the average guy both will do the job, but if Intel is offering a better option at the same price or lower, it's just biased not to head your recomendations that way. Llano is anough and so is a SB based Pentium G CPU and the latter is way cheaper in most cases. So why not say it? Well because AMD fanboys will jump at you I guess, but I never back up from a challenge.

And yes my main point in this thread has always been that these slides are probably extremely exagerated, not to mention they are based on estimates and not actual performance data. So the fact they said 29% and 56% and not something like 100%-200% is quite revealing. Of course we can also assume tey made a U turn and AMD marketing team is being honest, but unicorn hunting season does not start until November so...



theoneandonlymrk said:


> prebuilt over the last few years has ended up with an intel GMA system 9 out of 10 times, they may now end up with a lano or trinity one, you and i both know which is going to seem the better system to these  begewled playing muppets and its not intels, simples.



Most of them will probably end up with a SB system and they will love it, because they don't need GPU grunt and the CPU is much faster. 

And if you are really comparing Intel's old GMA's to Sandy or better yet, Ivy Bridge and putting them in the same bag in any kind of form, really, get yourself informed ok? This is not 2008.


----------



## dzero (Apr 6, 2012)

For a mobile solution at a decent price point Trinity doesn't seem bad at all considering the 720p resolution that will dominate that landscape.  I wouldn't recommend a desktop Trinity product for a guy (or gal) that wants to max everything out but for media and basic tasks an APU isn't a terrible choice.  A lot of what I'm reading here is basically stating "under no circumstances is Llano/Trinity a reasonable choice".  Yeah a Pentium and gt 440 will work for most people but that isn't the only end all solution.


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (Apr 6, 2012)

Benetanegia said:


> Originally Posted by Vulpesveritas
> I do feel ben has a slight bias against AMD
> 
> I have a bias against AMD fanboys and ther retarded hive mind. It reminds me so much of Apple fanboys lately. If AMD has to succeed it has to do it on its own, not because of the fanboyism of some and the charity of others. I'm not going to suggest slower and more power thirsty AMD CPUs just for the sole purpose of helping AMD.
> ...



and my main point to you is stop being so extreme , you stated intel as light years ahead of amd in cpu design ,not true

and slightly unimportant my AMD system, ultras all games ,and ive not had to wait around for something to happen since dual cores died out(for main use)

and also your drumming down projections on a slide ,and makeing purchaseing descisions based off them , this is stupid get what the reviews says is best now for the money you can afford, ie hold off the mega harsh criticism of a product untill the things out ,and even then what makes you the expert to tell all whats best to buy, thats wizz's job , judeging by the my mates comments you have passed out your not the Source for top tips.

if you arent a troll try and be more constructive and realistic, and if i were a fanboi why havent you and all, seen me trashing intel and nvidia, you wont ill pick and choose sku's, to not like not companys, thats stupid a company cares not for me, i care not for it and even now ive an Intel and AMD system and i use both at the same time all, the time and do note from my honestly listed Sig rigs that the onbaord gmahd300 on my intel pc is so bad you cant even watch films on it(yeh its from  the dark past)so has a GT240 in it(oh no its nvidia ill burn)


----------



## Benetanegia (Apr 6, 2012)

dzero said:


> A lot of what I'm reading here is basically stating "under no circumstances is Llano/Trinity a reasonable choice".



Nope, that's not the point being made. In most circunstances users buying low end systems will benefit a lot more from the 50% faster CPU than they will from the 50-100% faster GPU. The ones that would benefit from the faster GPU, most of them, if they were properly informed, they would buy a dedicated GPU. The only crsunstances in which LLano is a better option is:

1- Enthusiasts or very informed people who know exactly the use that is going to be given to it. That is, they want it for light gaming and they know exactly which games are going to be run on them. A controlled situation where no surprises are going to happen in the form of "Oh it doesn't run this game and it's the only one I bought the system for".

2- As a very last resort parachute, in which the completely uninformed buyer, buys a system with iGPU, but still intends to use it for gaming, in which case with Llano they would end up with a lightly better, yet still dull situation for what PC gaming is, and would have been much better off if someone informed them properly.

And that's it, as enthusiast we will be much more helpful to others if we recommend the fastest CPU to the ones who are going to benefit more from it, and recommending the best GPU for those who are going to use them. And better GPU is always dedicated.

@theonearonlymrk

Intel is 50% faster than AMD when comaring chips of same size, FFS, come back to reality, that's certainly being light years ahead.





http://www.anandtech.com/show/5626/ivy-bridge-preview-core-i7-3770k/5

How can I not claim you're a fanboy when you constantly tell me that Llano or AMD CPU in general is equal to Intel when there's no much clear evidence against it? Don't you see it smells of blind fanboy?

Sorry Mussels I'm just trying to explain myself, this is all.


----------



## Mussels (Apr 6, 2012)

sigh... just stop. we'll have to resort to infractions or deletions if this continues.


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (Apr 6, 2012)

Benetanegia said:


> Intel is 50% faster than AMD when comaring chips of same size, FFS, come back to reality, that's certainly being light years ahead.



no thats not light years fella, if intel were selling quantum computers ,that would be light years, set your scale to that deffinition

and back in the real world joe blogs has two new bought laptops one a lano based apu system ,one an intel dual core ivy with HD3000/or 4000 , guy(probably lady) presses load page ,to play bejewled , which cpu looks faster /better to her , neither she'll not notice.

as someone else said an ssd put in the lano or the SB/ivy lapy would be the only thing that would change her experience.

now the same girl as does many plays sims, not a heavy gfx game , which is she going to think is the best lapy, if neither had ssd and the lano was trinity v IB then the trinity wins hands down imho based on speculative nonesense but also commen sense

ps i know this lady and her daughter and her daughters mate ,theyre all sims mad



Benetanegia said:


> How can I not claim you're a fanboy when you constantly tell me that Llano or AMD CPU in general is equal to Intel when there's no much clear evidence against it? Don't you see it smells of blind fanboy?



not once have i said amd's cpu element or any sku is equal to intels,  what i have said is that in this price bracket trinity will make a better experience for the end user all round and i have repeatedly said that AMD is not That far behind intel in cpu performance, ie in everyday use the average man can do all he wants on amd or intel sufficiently and i count my own rig as quite capable for the money spent ,i could have gone intel this round but i simply couldnt get enough pciex lanes out of intel for the money,

you need to understand that not all of us need/want the same things, im not out for the absolute fastest cpu, i simply could not afford it ,hardly anyone can as itll be an intel
all i needed was all my games maxed at 1080P, and for 96 quid ,despite what your saying intel had NO quad chip for that money and HT makes not a QUAD


----------



## Benetanegia (Apr 6, 2012)

theoneandonlymrk said:


> now the same girl as does many plays sims, not a heavy gfx game , which is she going to think is the best lapy



Both, since SB will handle it perfectly.

However she will later try to compress many files, she will try to run some macros or compile a few things and then she will see a 50% faster experience on the SB/IB. Tadda. Case closed.


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (Apr 6, 2012)

Benetanegia said:


> However she will later try to compress many files, she will try to run some macros or compile a few things and then she will see a 50% faster experience on the SB/IB. Tadda. Case closed.



no not at all , in the HSA future the AMD chip will destroy the intel in compresion etc 
but till then she'll probably do what she has done for the last 10 years and go and make a brew whilst it finishes compressing

no one gives a shit about compression speeds when they go pc world and grab the shiniest lapy fool  

and no IB is not as capable in the Gfx department as trinity/lano and no it isnt as feature rich in its gfx department , IB has no steady video etc etc and in gpgpu terms IB gpu is incredibally poor , a long time ago maths co proccessors came out , do you remember that, i remember maths co pro cards  well a gpu in the next Couple of years will make them look pretty poor at maths and AMD's is way ,way more advanced then intels HSA, HSA HSA hSA
google HSA and this isnt something AMD are moveing towards on their own Nvidia Arm even intel are stepping down this GPGPU path that you cant see and havent apparently used

you not used cuda , i mean bringing up compresion , my shit phenomII could equally use winrar GPGPU accelerated version and beat an IB in compression speed


----------



## Vulpesveritas (Apr 6, 2012)

@ben when an A6 and a Pentium powered laptops are the same price, yes I'll sell the A6 over the pentium as the better decision, and i do have a preference for AMD over Intel. as i feel its both a better buy much of the time with budget products and they dont have the criminal record intel has.
Also@ ben do you feel that makes me a fanboy? r rather,  in your opinion am i part of that 'hive mind?'


----------



## xenocide (Apr 6, 2012)

theoneandonlymrk said:


> and no IB is not as capable in the Gfx department as trinity/lano and no it isnt as feature rich in its gfx department , IB has no steady video etc etc and in gpgpu terms IB gpu is incredibally poor



How does a normal user, the every day "joe blogs" you were talking about, benefit from GPGPU functionality?  Exactly.  HD2/3/4000 is fine for most users, sure, the GPU in Llano is faster (although not by much) but at the cost of the CPU being maybe half as capable.



theoneandonlymrk said:


> you not used cuda , i mean bringing up compresion , my shit phenomII could equally use winrar GPGPU accelerated version and beat an IB in compression speed


----------



## Dent1 (Apr 6, 2012)

Benetanegia said:


> Yeah sorry to break the bubble for you fanboys. It's fun to see how AMD and Apple fanboys have come to be of the same type.



So pointing out that you misread, misunderstood or misconstrued the fact that "visual performance" doesn't mean gaming necessarily makes us a fanboy? 

Had the slide been about an Intel processor, we would have said the same thing "visual performance" doesn't necessarily mean gaming regardless of whom makes the processor.
*
I guess I'm an Intel fanboy now?*

Edit: on a serious note. I would agree for gaming and APU's don't mix. A dedicated card is required for any level of performance and longevity if one intends on gaming, Trinity probably won't satisfy the needs of a real gamer. But on balance "visual performance" still doesnt mean gaming necessarily. So lets wait it out.


----------



## Steevo (Apr 6, 2012)

Laptops......laptops.



What laptop has higher than 1920 resolution?


Mine has 1366 X 768 and games play fine on it, I am more concerned with IPC increase than clockspeed increase. 



Look at the steam hardware survey.


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (Apr 6, 2012)

xenocide said:


> How does a normal user, the every day "joe blogs" you were talking about, benefit from GPGPU functionality? Exactly. HD2/3/4000 is fine for most users, sure, the GPU in Llano is faster (although not by much) but at the cost of the CPU being maybe half as capable.





come on guy they didnt cut bits out of stars, they work as good if not better due to a better IMC then an am3 athlon or phenom

View attachment 46554

HSA , on the way as is gpgpu file compression and when this kind of thing becomes OS led and invisble to the user ,thats when everyman will be benefiting from HSA/ gpgpu ,,,  FUTURE ,my ass  its a godam repeat of the past , maths co pro's had to be written into the OS kernal before they became usefull to the many and a gpgpu is just a many headed maths co pro to a cpu with dsp properties , the future is not yet in stone but its deffinately going to be different from this present PC model and intel ,AMD and any come lately's place in the future is far from certain , this is especially true of tech companies, if that caustic ray tracer card had been 1000 times better then it was ,we would probably be all chaseing the next best ray traceing card now instead of a rasterizing fake box that modern gpu's are


----------



## Vulpesveritas (Apr 6, 2012)

Kay a few things@ xeno, gpgpu can be used to accelerate all programming theoretically, and gpu acceleration is becoming normal in web browsers.
@steevo, I'm more concerned about performance/ watt than IPC.  You could have great ipc, but without decent clocks it will still be a crappy chip.
And yes, stars is the highest ipc core design amd has yet made.


----------



## Steevo (Apr 6, 2012)

Very few processors clock lower than 2Ghz anymore unless you are talking about smartphone and other chips, and even they are getting close if not there. 


Quad core at 2.8Ghz with 25% higher IPC is much better than a quad at 3.4Ghz, and will consume less power on average as shown by the industry.


We have been promised hardware accelerated everything for years, and while flash, and a few very specific things work now, the problem is the driving force behind it. Unless the majority of users support it, it won't happen.


----------



## Vulpesveritas (Apr 6, 2012)

Steevo said:


> Very few processors clock lower than 2Ghz anymore unless you are talking about smartphone and other chips, and even they are getting close if not there.
> 
> 
> Quad core at 2.8Ghz with 25% higher IPC is much better than a quad at 3.4Ghz, and will consume less power on average as shown by the industry.
> ...




See ie9 and google chrome.
That aside,such a case is not exactly the rule when it comes to processors, though it has been the trend.  

On topic and hopefully ending all this, if Trinity is half the improvement AMD is claiming, it will still be a significant improvement on the 32nm node, and will give more or less just under SB or just at SB i3 performance, and have a GPU faster than a Radeon HD 6570, support for a number of extras for visuals, and allow for 3 screen productivity without a discrete GPU.  So it should be nice.


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (Apr 6, 2012)

Steevo said:


> We have been promised hardware accelerated everything for years, and while flash, and a few very specific things work now, the problem is the driving force behind it. Unless the majority of users support it, it won't happen.



your not wrong, the problem has and is that the hardware and software need to be right for the job ,only now are both those criteria being filled, imho their will be an explosion on gpgpu software in comeing years as the fastest way to do some things becomes by gpu, but importantly this needs to be implemented better into the OS's kernal so it becomes less invasive( special software and drivers etc) and more invisible to the user


----------



## Benetanegia (Apr 6, 2012)

First of all not only AMD will benefit from GPGPU. For example check this:







I wouldn't say the HD4000 is in a disadvantage there. 

And really stop using HSA as an argument because it will not be made real until 2014 according to AMD's roadmap. For Trinity that's absolutely irrelevant. And Trinity is a separate GPU and CPU, so no HSA architecture.

And in the very same minute that GPGPU becomes a reality a discrete GPU will be the way to go fro great performance anyway, not an iGPU.



Vulpesveritas said:


> @ben when an A6 and a Pentium powered laptops are the same price, yes I'll sell the A6 over the pentium as the better decision, and i do have a preference for AMD over Intel. as i feel its both a better buy much of the time with budget products and they dont have the criminal record intel has.
> Also@ ben do you feel that makes me a fanboy? r rather,  in your opinion am i part of that 'hive mind?'



Yes if you do it by default, as in recommending it to everyone instead of in a case by case basis, yes, to me that does represent some kind of fanboyism. An A6 is extrememly inferior to Intel equivalents in almost everything except graphics, so I don't see how recommending an A6 can be the default option other than from the hive mind recommendation. So that's what I think yes. Sorry if you don't like my opinion on that.



Dent1 said:


> So pointing out that you misread, misunderstood or misconstrued the fact that "visual performance" doesn't mean gaming necessarily makes us a fanboy?



Wow you really are arrogant aren't you? It's the second time that you talk as if everything was about you. Wow.

And now you have misconstrued as visual does not mean gaming when in 99% it probably does, because this is a low end consumer product. I didn't even replied to your post about 3dsmax, Maya and whatnot because I thought it was futile. Those programs on a low end CPU like the ones found on APUs? Really are you crazy?? You think they would try to market them as such? Come on...


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (Apr 6, 2012)

Benetanegia said:


> I wouldn't say the HD4000 is in a disadvantage there.



dya see a lot off people folding on a HD4000????

and ive pointed out many times they are all on the gpgpu bandwaggon and the softwares started arriveing ,amd's is just further along and better performing in the Igpu area

and when HSA does roll into town a discrete wont be the way as the shorter APU interconnects , higher bandwidth and  lack of interface chips will null its large gpu advantage and you wont have to wait till HSA before some software benefits

currently on aria 3870k APU = 105 pounds nearest intel i5 2500k hd3000gfx not 4000 and its 143 pound the intel may process better but my average joe mate would be richer and happier with the AMD cpu

i do like that you used intels topline consumer chip chart verses an APU though the price difference between them chips would buy you the whole godam AMD setup ha haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa i7 3770K compareing that to an APU

and that slides trustworthy cos its your intel brothers ha haaa, the more i think bout it the funnier it gets


----------



## Vulpesveritas (Apr 6, 2012)

@ben, when 95% of those I'm selling to are buying a computer for Facebook and are buying a bloatware infested OEM computer, and it's a slow quad+ faster GPU and an hour longer rated battery life, vs a Pentium dual core, yes that 95% of the time I'm suggesting the A6.  Perhaps I should have explained more.  

And visuals - all images, video, graphics effects, screen animations, games, GUI, etc.  Even if not all of it is hardware accelerated now, where do you think we'll be with the current push for it, say 3-4 years from now when 75% of my customers will still be using either a pre-SB Pentium(which is most of what I have to sell at 300-400, with intel 2000 graphics. Blame corperate.  )  or an A6.  Then i have at 500-600 an A8 with 6GB RAM, a 640 GB 7200rpm HDD, blueray player,and external speaker grill vs an i3 with 4GB RAM, a 500gb 5400rpm HDD, and all the same bloatware.  

Yeah for the most part AMD is an easier sell and probably better in the long run for most of my customers


----------



## Benetanegia (Apr 6, 2012)

> and ive pointed out many times they are all on the gpgpu bandwaggon and the softwares started arriveing ,amd's is just further along and better performing in the Igpu area
> 
> and when HSA does roll into town a discrete wont be the way as the shorter APU interconnects , higher bandwidth and  lack of interface chips will null its large gpu advantage and you wont have to wait till HSA before some software benefits



You've missed the part were Tahiti is far more advanced in the HSA edpartment than Trinity which is going to be VLIW4. Discrete GPUs are at least one step ahead of iGPUs and will remain like that for many generations. Until after 2014 like I said.



> currently on aria 3870k APU = 105 pounds nearest intel i5 2500k hd3000gfx not 4000 and its 143 pound the intel may process better but my average joe mate would be richer and happier with the AMD cpu



Erm it's not an i5 that you should be comparing with. An i5 murders any APU and eats it for breakfast along with some chips and salad. lol see you are a fanboy, talk about price disregarding performance and even claim everyone would be happier with a CPU that is 50% slower. Sure.


----------



## Vulpesveritas (Apr 6, 2012)

@everyone, may we cease all this Intel vs AMD fanboyism and simply wait for more news, and just for now say that if AMD actually comes out with improvements on this scale, it will be a huge improvement, and may alow for no AA 1080p gaming(hopefully?) and that at least will give AMD something which competes with/beats SB parts and will allow them to at least compete on the low end, and in the end we don't know right now one way or another.


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (Apr 6, 2012)

no comment on your use of a 3770K as refference then 

and your last point is opinion based ,the buying sheep public wont care for your opinion , they will see four cores ,about the same speed , a better gpu and most importantly the right price and i brought up the aria thing as your saying intels gpu are as good as lano's on a chart but not compareing similar chips    you pulled an i73770k into the debate a chip thats not out and hence benches are not wizz's and hence void

but again their slides right isnt it haha


----------



## Benetanegia (Apr 6, 2012)

theoneandonlymrk said:


> no comment on your use of a 3770K as refference then
> 
> and your last point is opinion based ,the buying sheep public wont care for your opinion , they will see four cores ,about the same speed , a better gpu and most importantly the right price and i brought up the aria thing as your saying intels gpu are as good as lano's on a chart but not compareing similar chips    you pulled an i73770k into the debate a chip thats not out and hence benches are not wizz's and hence void
> 
> but again their slides right isnt it haha



A little knowledge would help you a lot mate. The iGPU is the same in a 2500k and a 2105 and more or less the same will happen with Ivy. So compute performance will be the same. Now on the CPU front it's the i3 that you have to compare with not an 2500k which is twice as fast. In most cases that the average guy will encounter even the Pentiums are on par with the APU and they cost half as much. Only in rendering and encoding tasks they fall behind and that os not something a guy buying $500 laptops would care about. The 2100 keeps up with the quad core APU even in those test tho, so there you have it.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/4524/...-review-pentium-g850-g840-g620-g620t-tested/3


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (Apr 6, 2012)

hd3000 is not the same as hd4000 and you know it ,anyway im done with you ,your borein me your either paid by intel ,75 years old or a bit strange, as soon as i fugur out the mute button ,your gone

yet again your on about a full gamers usage profile in budget terms not ya typical surfer/ cod player and  the extra discretes going to cost money too  shh and shh


----------



## dzero (Apr 6, 2012)

But the thing is average consumer Joe or Jane isn't going to care if their son's new computer compiles faster then the competition.  They will go to an electronics big box store and shop for a laptop or desktop that can play the newest COD game for the lowest price. When Trinity is released the staff will either push for SB/IB i3 with a low end OEM only gpu or a Trinity apu that will probably come in at a lower price point. I just think the parents would not notice a difference unless someone starts running some benchmarks.


----------



## Benetanegia (Apr 6, 2012)

theoneandonlymrk said:


> hd3000 is not the same as hd4000 and you know it ,anyway im done with you ,your borein me your either paid by intel ,75 years old or a bit strange, as soon as i fugur out the mute button ,your gone
> 
> yet again your on about a full gamers usage profile in budget terms not ya typical surfer/ cod player and  the extra discretes going to cost money too  shh and shh



Lol but nearly all of Ivy Bridge CPUs will use HD4000, just like HD3000 is available in nearly all segments in SB. The reviews speak for themselves, on the CPU side SB/IB is far superior so the ONLY recomendation you can honestly make for someone seeking for a CPU is, well there's many choices from both Intel and AMD, APUs are not one of them. plain and simple.

Now if we look at certain very specific scenarios, yes the APU might be a better choice. Otherwise in 80% of the casess you are just cheating the poor guy to benefit one company that you love.


----------



## erocker (Apr 6, 2012)

Keep the discussion civil, or I'll be handing out infractions. I won't ask again.

Thank you.


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (Apr 6, 2012)

Benetanegia said:


> Now if we look at certain very specific scenarios, yes the APU might be a better choice. Otherwise in 80% of the casess you are just cheating the poor guy to benefit one company that you love.



ive not recomended anyone buy anything brother , go back and check , you have
and in any case this is a thread about an APU,s projected performance not a debate about its relevance to intel thread as your slanting it

i have recomended anyone buying to wait till wizz reviews it then decide, and ive not recomended a lano to anyone who it didnt suit perfectly,(thats just the 1 mate then)

so in all wait till wizz reviews it four foot snake, then i might join you in slateing it

im a glass is half full man myself, bene is clearly a glass half empty man ,Amd may be chatting rubbish ,they may not well see

ps i take all slides from nvidia an intel with optimism and doubt too


----------



## Benetanegia (Apr 6, 2012)

No you are just saying that an APU is better than a 2500k, roflmao.

I'm not pessimist, I've just been around long enough to know that their slides are lies. Specially after recent ones which I already posted here.


----------



## erocker (Apr 6, 2012)

Benetanegia said:


> No you are just saying that an APU is better than a 2500k, roflmao.



So what? Who cares? Do both of you really need to go back and forth here? You both sound ridiculous.


----------



## Benetanegia (Apr 6, 2012)

erocker said:


> So what? Who cares? Do both of you really need to go back and forth here? You both sound ridiculous.



As an enthusiast and knowledgeable (to an enxtent) person I consider my responsability in a public forum to tell the truth about things. So that people who read are informed and can make the right decisions.

Saying that an APU is better than an 2500k is a complete irresponsability, someone may actually end up believing it and get a subpar (in comparison) CPU.


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (Apr 6, 2012)

erocker said:


> So what? Who cares? Do both of you really need to go back and forth here? You both sound ridiculous.



agreed ,sorry ,it was him 

dude jus stop man i never said the apu was better


----------



## Steevo (Apr 7, 2012)

$200 for a 2500

$100 for a APU

Memory costs the same.

$60 FM1 board

$ 50 1155 board

All else being equal if I were to build a basic box with light weight gaming needs the APU would win. An extra $90 to spend on a GPU would get you more bang for the buck than the CPU's 10-15% increased efficiency.


----------



## sergionography (Apr 7, 2012)

Benetanegia said:


> You've missed the part were Tahiti is far more advanced in the HSA edpartment than Trinity which is going to be VLIW4. Discrete GPUs are at least one step ahead of iGPUs and will remain like that for many generations. Until after 2014 like I said.
> 
> 
> 
> Erm it's not an i5 that you should be comparing with. An i5 murders any APU and eats it for breakfast along with some chips and salad. lol see you are a fanboy, talk about price disregarding performance and even claim everyone would be happier with a CPU that is 50% slower. Sure.



true about the i5 murdering apus mostly because sb has atleast 30%-40% better ipc than phenom II/stars cores
but if amd can finaly make piledriver like it was officialy intended to be(match phenom II ipc but clock higher)then you have a very interesting cpu in hand, in such case a quad core(dual module) piledriver clocked at  4.2ghz should atleast match a sb bridge at 3.0ghz (assuming 40% is the ipc difference)
and knowing that bulldozer was able to hit 4.2ghz i have no doubt that piledriver will hit even better frequencies. (4.5ghz is very much likely) 
that plus 4 extra cores can make the desktop piledriver a very  competitive cpu, sure it will still be slower in single thread than ivy bridge(which almost hits the 4ghz barrier) but will have an edge in multitasking unlike bulldozer that barely matched sb in multithread, but totaly lost in single thread.  

So if all this comes into reality I expect piledriver to be 20% behind ivy bridge in single thread, and lik 10% better in multithread compared to quad core intels with ht CPUs.


----------



## xenocide (Apr 8, 2012)

Steevo said:


> All else being equal if I were to build a basic box with light weight gaming needs the APU would win. An extra $90 to spend on a GPU would get you more bang for the buck than the CPU's 10-15% increased efficiency.



If you think the difference between a 2500 and even the best APU is only 10-15%, I hate to say it, but you're misinformed.  The CPU side of Quad-Core SB's is upwards of 50% faster than Llano;

http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/foru...2-amd-a8-3870k-unlocked-llano-apu-review.html

Even with a 20% overclock, Llano wasn't really even close to the i5-2400.  In games where the CPU plays any role, the i5's crush the Llano offerings, with the same discrete GPU.  That's also comparing the $140 A8-3870K, the i5-2400 is currently $190, and you could even get an i5-2300 for $180, both of which are better than that CPU in every way (sans iGPU).  If you look at the charts and see the ~$100 APU's, they are far worse.

Saying a Llano-based solution is as good as a Quad-Core SB solution, for anything short of day to day use, is dishonest at best.


----------



## sergionography (Apr 8, 2012)

xenocide said:


> If you think the difference between a 2500 and even the best APU is only 10-15%, I hate to say it, but you're misinformed.  The CPU side of Quad-Core SB's is upwards of 50% faster than Llano;
> 
> http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/foru...2-amd-a8-3870k-unlocked-llano-apu-review.html
> 
> ...



yea that kinda worries me, i just looked up llano benchmarks and they are a good deal slower than a phenom II 980
and even when looking at 3dmbark vantage results(i heard this is were amd based its 29%increase) adding 30% more to llano makes it match phenom II 980
which is a great deal slower than sb
but knowing that a10 5600k will have 3.8 ghz similar to phenom II 980 only strengthens my assumption that amd might have finaly matched phenom II ipc with piledriver XD lol

edit: the sad part is, this is what bulldozer shouldve been, piledriver is supposed 2 be 10% better than this


----------



## xenocide (Apr 8, 2012)

sergionography said:


> yea that kinda worries me, i just looked up llano benchmarks and they are a good deal slower than a phenom II 980
> and even when looking at 3dmbark vantage results(i heard this is were amd based its 29%increase) adding 30% more to llano makes it match phenom II 980
> which is a great deal slower than sb
> but knowing that a10 5600k will have 3.8 ghz similar to phenom II 980 only strengthens my assumption that amd might have finaly matched phenom II ipc with piledriver XD lol
> ...



I'm only really interested in Trinity for a decent "Light-Gaming" Laptop.  I just don't see a place for it outside of a day-to-day use PC.  I'd rather take a low-end SB offering and a good discrete GPU than an APU.


----------



## HTC (Apr 8, 2012)

*This is taken from Hardware Canucks review of 3850.*








How about the CPU section:

WOW!!! Look @ that SuperPI: 117% better for the I3 2120.
WOW!!! Look @ that WinRAR: 84% better for the I3 2120.

Obviously, this makes this E2120 @ least 84% better then A-3850, right?


But wait: something's not right. What's this?

Interesting! That cinebench R10: they're almost dead even.
Interesting! That Cinebench R11.5: 7% better for the A-3850.
Interesting! That POV-Ray: 15% better for the A-3850.

Does this mean the CPU portion of A-3850 is better then I3 2120? See how a few hand picked results can skew performance? *I have zero doubts them 29% faster productivity come from such "handpicked" applications.*


How about the graphics section:

WOW!!! Look @ that L4D: 123% better for the A-3850.
WOW!!! Look @ that 3DMark Vantage: 109% better for the A-3850.
WOW!!! Look @ that Crisys: 109% better for the A-3850.

Obviously, this makes this A-3850 @ least 109% better then I3 E2120, right?


But wait: something's not right. What's this?

Interesting! That World in Confict: 56% better for the A-3850.
Interesting! That X3 Terran Conflict: 54% better for the A-3850.


Does this mean the GPU portion of A-3850 is only 54% better then I3 2120? See how a few hand picked results can skew performance? *I have zero doubts them 56% faster visuals come from such "handpicked" applications.*



Check this pic: notice anything? I'll give you a hint: "reversed".






With any of Intel's depicted (exception being I5 2400), the GPU portion is always smaller meaning it's the CPU that's the best. With A-3850, it's the other way around: it's the GPU that's the best of the 2.

It would have been interesting to see the associated CPU results from this test, IMO.




> There's no reason to beat around the bush here, the "Stars" K10.5 cores simply cannot compete with the newer Sandy Bridge microarchitecture when it comes to lightly threaded applications. The Llano chip does occasionally score the odd victory thanks to its four native cores, but even those victories are often by a very slight amount. To make matters worse, in all of our gaming benchmarks it was a slaughter in favour of the Sandy Bridge processor, but only when using a discrete GPU.
> 
> When we benchmarked the integrated GPU's, Llano's raison d'être became crystal clear. The Radeon HD 6550D graphics solution that AMD have embedded in the A8-series leaves in the dust anything that Intel have produced so far in the IGP realm. *The A8-3850 had on average 80% higher frame rates than the Core i3-2120. If we increased the Llano's memory frequency from DDR3-1333 to DDR3-1866, we could have easily realized a further 15% framerate improvement.* This synergy between the GPU and CPU that has been personified in AMD's APUs is becomingly increasingly important as software manufacturers begin harnessing the parallel processing horsepower of modern graphics architectures. *While there was once only a handful of GPU-accelerated programs available, now everyday programs like Microsoft Word, Internet Explorer and Flash can benefit from GPU acceleration.*




Sources: pics 1, 2, text, pic 3.


----------



## Vulpesveritas (Apr 8, 2012)

@ben, learn math.  35% faster is 1.35 times faster.


----------



## sergionography (Apr 8, 2012)

HTC said:


> *This is taken from Hardware Canucks review of 3850.*
> 
> http://images.hardwarecanucks.com/image/mac/reviews/amd/Llano/Llano_A83850_98.jpg
> 
> ...



nah it won't be to this extreme, overall a quad core apu has more processing power than a dual core sb, so in multithread its only normal the apu is 7% faster, and cinebench is multithread friendly, now if u look at cinebench single thread then u will see i3 way better
First things first is that AMD are comparing with their last Gen not against competition, and that 30% is most likely something like 3d mark or so that checks for general performance


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (Apr 8, 2012)

i think HTC was just trying to point out that by picking and choosing the benches ,you want to show off, you can make something look better or worse then it is , i think there is little point compareing such benches as trinity will have a new arch ,and some new tech to wave about the place (resonant clock mesh ,PD etc) so its performance and ipc and oc ability arent known yet.


----------



## HTC (Apr 8, 2012)

theoneandonlymrk said:


> *i think HTC was just trying to point out that by picking and choosing the benches ,you want to show off, you can make something look better or worse then it is* , i think there is little point compareing such benches as trinity will have a new arch ,and some new tech to wave about the place (resonant clock mesh ,PD etc) so its performance and ipc and oc ability arent known yet.



That's exactly what i was trying to get across.


----------



## Steevo (Apr 8, 2012)

xenocide said:


> If you think the difference between a 2500 and even the best APU is only 10-15%, I hate to say it, but you're misinformed.  The CPU side of Quad-Core SB's is upwards of 50% faster than Llano;
> 
> http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/foru...2-amd-a8-3870k-unlocked-llano-apu-review.html
> 
> ...



Thanks, but honestly users don't run Super PI all day. So back in the real world it will still be the better overall buy, as again. 


Even another $40 makes the difference between a 6770 and a 6850, and that is a large enough increase in performance the CPU will never be able to make up the difference. 


Users care about

Boot speed. 
Can it play "X" 
How many jiggawatts does it have. 

All those factors users can't tell the difference between AMD and Intel if they don't know at the desktop, most actually choosing AMD, and once a game turns to a slideshow on a equally priced Intel rig they will go for the AMD. 


I have both at work, and have been building both, but the AMD wins overall as the price/performance for running non-cpu dependent software means the GPU needs to be able to do more than basics. Horribly optimized web based training videos means a C2D at work needed an additional graphics card a few years ago. video conferencing with a clean install using large TV's in the conference rooms means we needed HDMI with audio. AMD won that when comparing, plus the ability to hardware upscale the video was a bonus. 


There is the enthusiast segment where price/performance doesn't mean the same thing as it does to the rest of the world. We are it, we choose what is going to give us the best performance in the 2 sigma, the rest of the world if fine with 1.


----------



## sergionography (Apr 9, 2012)

xenocide said:


> I'm only really interested in Trinity for a decent "Light-Gaming" Laptop.  I just don't see a place for it outside of a day-to-day use PC.  I'd rather take a low-end SB offering and a good discrete GPU than an APU.



that is very true, at 720p the apus do very well in medium high settings. Getting Intel with discrete costs 700+
With an apu for that much u get apu + discrete witch beats the Intel in fps and gaming in general, I got my Asus k53ta for 450$ and don't think I can be happier, and I doubt I can get the same fps in games elsewhere


----------



## xenocide (Apr 9, 2012)

sergionography said:


> that is very true, at 720p the apus do very well in medium high settings. Getting Intel with discrete costs 700+
> With an apu for that much u get apu + discrete witch beats the Intel in fps and gaming in general, I got my Asus k53ta for 450$ and don't think I can be happier, and I doubt I can get the same fps in games elsewhere



You can build an acceptable Intel system for $450/500, it won't be an i5 with a GTX680 by any means, but it will get the job done.

@Steveo

The i5 beats Llano in every single application by at least 10-20%, and when it comes to CPU demanding games the difference grows to an astounding 50%.  How is that niche benchmarks and unrealistic applications?  Who cares if it can beat it in SuperPi?  I never said it was the only thing, I said that the i5 is greatly superior to the APU's when you're looking at the CPU side of the equation.  The GPU is noticably more powerful, and nobody can deny that, but your statement was that the APU was just as good on a CPU level, which is simply false.

If Trinity can improve on Llano, then it's a huge advancement, but I still think the only place for APU's is in Laptops and barebones day to day systems (Office work and Grandmas).


----------



## Vulpesveritas (Apr 9, 2012)

@xeno  so if AMD came out with an APU this year with say a CPU on the level of  a SB i5, and had an iGPU that was as fast as a radeon hd 6670 with 1866+ RAM, and could overclock reasonably well under air, had an unlocked multiplier, and cost less than $150, would it still be truly niche in your mind? 

That is, of course a best case scenario for Trinity, and likely won't happen that way.  But it would be interesting if it did.


----------



## bencrutz (Apr 9, 2012)

sergionography said:


> that is very true, at 720p the apus do very well in medium high settings. Getting Intel with discrete costs 700+
> With an apu for that much u get apu + discrete witch beats the Intel in fps and gaming in general, I got my *Asus k53ta* for 450$ and don't think I can be happier, and I doubt I can get the same fps in games elsewhere





xenocide said:


> You can build an acceptable Intel system for $450/500, it won't be an i5 with a GTX680 by any means, but it will get the job done.



am pretty sure sergio there meant laptop, unless youre talking bout building your own laptop, of course


----------



## ensabrenoir (Apr 9, 2012)

Vulpesveritas said:


> @xeno  so if AMD came out with an APU this year with say a CPU on the level of  a SB i5, and had an iGPU that was as fast as a radeon hd 6670 with 1866+ RAM, and could overclock reasonably well under air, had an unlocked multiplier, and cost less than $150, would it still be truly niche in your mind?
> 
> That is, of course a best case scenario for Trinity, and likely won't happen that way.  But it would be interesting if it did.



If amd could have they wouldve already....i like their apus but jeeez these super apu fantasies are just plain silly


----------



## Super XP (Apr 9, 2012)

Can't wait to Trinity in real action. I am confident Piledriver will perform the way it is meant to.


----------



## Vulpesveritas (Apr 9, 2012)

ensabrenoir said:


> If amd could have they wouldve already....i like their apus but jeeez these super apu fantasies are just plain silly



Main point is I'm hoping for something as fast as an i3 on the CPU end, with an acceptable iGPU for entry-level gaming, and priced about the same as current generation APUs.  Lol.
Not impossible...  i hope.


----------



## Mussels (Apr 9, 2012)

just one q: are the people bashing APU performance aware of how well and how easy they are to OC? my laptops APU (1.4GHz quad core) runs at 2.4GHz just fine, and on models with better cooling, 3GHz is possible.


----------



## ensabrenoir (Apr 9, 2012)

Vulpesveritas said:


> Main point is I'm hoping for something as fast as an i3 on the CPU end, with an acceptable iGPU for entry-level gaming, and priced about the same as current generation APUs.  Lol.
> Not impossible...  i hope.



Very possible...would be great to see tbat come to light.   My pipe dream is an i5 with an amd igp mow thats a.more perfect world. but thats impossible.


----------



## xenocide (Apr 9, 2012)

Vulpesveritas said:


> @xeno  so if AMD came out with an APU this year with say a CPU on the level of  a SB i5, and had an iGPU that was as fast as a radeon hd 6670 with 1866+ RAM, and could overclock reasonably well under air, had an unlocked multiplier, and cost less than $150, would it still be truly niche in your mind?
> 
> That is, of course a best case scenario for Trinity, and likely won't happen that way.  But it would be interesting if it did.



I would say it was an incredible bargain and advise anyone who wants a CPU in that price range to get one, but the fact is, AMD doesn't--and can't--make such a product.  I refuse to give praise where it isn't necessarily deserved, but if AMD did create an APU that were that good, they would deserve mountains of it.

I'm not saying the concept is incredibly niche, I'm saying the current offerings are.  They only seem good for Laptops, because on desktops the CPU's are just too underwhelming.  Maybe if GPU-acceleration where standard in all software it would be amazing, but we're still years from that.



Mussels said:


> just one q: are the people bashing APU performance aware of how well and how easy they are to OC? my laptops APU (1.4GHz quad core) runs at 2.4GHz just fine, and on models with better cooling, 3GHz is possible.



Which is impressive, but if the cores themselves are really weak having a really high clock rate means next to nothing, and that's the issue I see.  The CPU's themselves (devoid of the iGPU) are just too weak.  It's kind of like with current FX Quad-Cores, where you can overclock them very well, but at the end of the day they are still very lackluster.


----------



## Vulpesveritas (Apr 9, 2012)

well, if AMD is telling the truth somehow with this, and the supposed leak from before is true, then piledriver will have about the same IPC as llano, and be able to clock higher, and be more power efficient than llano.  

But for at least a couple months we wont know for certain and we wait for wiz's review.

everything else till then are speculation, dreams, hopes, and fanboyism.


----------



## sergionography (Apr 9, 2012)

Vulpesveritas said:


> well, if AMD is telling the truth somehow with this, and the supposed leak from before is true, then piledriver will have about the same IPC as llano, and be able to clock higher, and be more power efficient than llano.
> 
> But for at least a couple months we wont know for certain and we wait for wiz's review.
> 
> everything else till then are speculation, dreams, hopes, and fanboyism.



well there is one thing thats really interesting if amds claims are true
and thats bulldozer is fixed and sharing resources no longer cripples performance(4 core bulldozers could barely catch up to 4core phenom II even with much higher frequency) so in other words smt scaling is much higher

however one thing is for sure, when amd claims 30% increase in performance, is that comparing the top llano with the top trinity? or in general ? because different tdps lead to different results, and if frequency is the factor here well lets just say that is more effective on lower tdps as the higher u move up, tdp and performance dont nessesarly increase/scale at a constant rate, that explains how amd is claiming 35watt llano performance at 17watts

and another thing to note is that amds 35watt apus have a mediocre 1.4ghz, and honostly its really annoying unless the turbo is kicking in, and overclocking the whole time isnt really the best thing for a laptop, i only oc if needed for gaming or so
but my point is here, 30% increase over 1.4 ghz performance is still very bad and way behind intel, and if that is what amd is basing its numbers on then i would be worried


----------



## Steevo (Apr 9, 2012)

xenocide said:


> I would say it was an incredible bargain and advise anyone who wants a CPU in that price range to get one, but the fact is, AMD doesn't--and can't--make such a product.  I refuse to give praise where it isn't necessarily deserved, but if AMD did create an APU that were that good, they would deserve mountains of it.
> 
> I'm not saying the concept is incredibly niche, I'm saying the current offerings are.  They only seem good for Laptops, because on desktops the CPU's are just too underwhelming.  Maybe if GPU-acceleration where standard in all software it would be amazing, but we're still years from that.
> 
> ...




I never said it was equal, but when all you do is run 10% of your CPU time there is no way to tell a difference from a user standpoint other than how much they paid. 

Once you start demanding more of your system it shows.


And lastly, if it takes AMD 3Ghz to equal a 2.4 Ghz Intel, but my laptop overclocked with stock voltage to over 3Ghz and it cost $200 less than the closest Intel equivalent I think I won. And i can game on it.


----------



## xenocide (Apr 9, 2012)

Steevo said:


> And lastly, if it takes AMD 3Ghz to equal a 2.4 Ghz Intel, but my laptop overclocked with stock voltage to over 3Ghz and it cost $200 less than the closest Intel equivalent I think I won. And i can game on it.



It takes a hell of a lot more than 600Mhz to be equivalent.  It would take like a 200% overclock for it to be on par for Intel Quad-Cores...


----------



## sergionography (Apr 9, 2012)

Steevo said:


> I never said it was equal, but when all you do is run 10% of your CPU time there is no way to tell a difference from a user standpoint other than how much they paid.
> 
> Once you start demanding more of your system it shows.
> 
> ...



with phenom II it needs atleast a 40% higher clock to match intel, so around 3.4ghz matches 2.4 sb  
Edit: that's taking into account typical cpu applications, k10 architecture lacks real bad in newer instruction sets like AES and others, bulldozer closed that gap tho and did well, and also fpu dependant applications shows a different story, so that being said its really hard to generalize how much frequency is needed and be right on the point


----------

