# AMD Trinity FM2 APU Preview



## cadaveca (Sep 24, 2012)

Today we've got an early look at what AMD's latest and greatest desktop products, namely AMD FM2 APUs. Soon to launch into the retail space, we take an early look at what's coming from AMD, in the form of the AMD A10-5800K processor.

*Show full review*


----------



## TRWOV (Sep 27, 2012)

Excellent. I'll take a look at the A10s for some thin gaming PC.






> So the GPU side of the APU has undergone much more drastic changes, now adopting the VLIW 4 shader design. Previous Llano chips saw 400 shader cores and a VLIW 5 shader design, while these new chips see just 384 shader cores. This change is very similar in going from a 5-series AMD Desktop GPU, to a 6-series AMD Desktop GPU. Also added is the ability to clock the GPU via AMD OverDrive, a feature that was sorely missing from previous FM1 parts.



VLIW4 was used only in Barts (HD6900 series). The rest of the 6-series were VLIW5.


----------



## cadaveca (Sep 27, 2012)

TRWOV said:


> VLIW4 was used only in Barts (HD6900 series). The rest of the 6-series were VLIW5.




..um  Barts was 6800. Cayman is 6900's.


----------



## TRWOV (Sep 27, 2012)

brain fart


----------



## DannibusX (Sep 27, 2012)

Thanks for the preview, Dave.  I look forward to the full review.


----------



## mypg0306 (Sep 27, 2012)

DannibusX said:


> Thanks for the preview, Dave.  I look forward to the full review.



Yes, great review. Waiting for the full review especially on A10-5800K in terms of gaming.


----------



## HumanSmoke (Sep 27, 2012)

Strange that you're saddled with an A75 board and preview, yet Anand has an A85 and review...you forget to send Christmas cards to Sunnyvale ?

"AMD let us know that we could go ahead and post a preview"

Didn't happen to get the same email as Scott Wasson by any chance ?


----------



## HammerON (Sep 27, 2012)

Thanks Dave for the preview
Look forward to the full reviews/


----------



## qubit (Sep 27, 2012)

Nice preview. Look forward to AMD saying "yes" and letting you loose with the full review.


----------



## dj-electric (Sep 27, 2012)

AMD will say yes to the whole wide world at the same second 
OB 3D Performance seem great.


----------



## Hustler (Sep 27, 2012)

Well given just how much the FM1 CPU's gaming scores increased when using faster memory, I'd expect a similar improvement with these FM2 ones, scores of 2000+ should be possible in 3dMark11

But...as usual for CPU limited tasks, these CPU's,whilst an improvement over Bulldozer, still suck. For a supposedly '4' core (lol) CPU, Intel's dual core i3 will still most likely outperform them.

And I still HATE the idea of not having any L3 Cache.


----------



## BigMack70 (Sep 27, 2012)

Wish you guys had held out and not played ball with AMD's nonsense!
http://techreport.com/blog/23638/amd-attempts-to-shape-review-content-with-staged-release-of-info


----------



## Dent1 (Sep 27, 2012)

BigMack70 said:


> Wish you guys had held out and not played ball with AMD's nonsense!
> http://techreport.com/blog/23638/amd-attempts-to-shape-review-content-with-staged-release-of-info



Like if Intel hasn't been doing the same thing for YEEEARRRS.


----------



## BigMack70 (Sep 27, 2012)

Dent1 said:


> Like if Intel hasn't been doing the same thing for YEEEARRRS.



If intel did this I'd hope the site would hold out from that as well... review sites shouldn't let companies hide the weaknesses of their product - half the point of the review is to find/expose weaknesses.


----------



## W1zzard (Sep 27, 2012)

BigMack70 said:


> review sites shouldn't let companies hide the weaknesses of their product - half the point of the review is to find/expose weaknesses.



we did a preview today, giving you a rough idea about the product.

a proper review will follow later, you may choose to not read the preview and wait till the review is up


----------



## BigMack70 (Sep 27, 2012)

W1zzard said:


> we did a preview today, giving you a rough idea about the product.
> 
> a proper review will follow later, you may choose to not read the preview and wait till the review is up



TPU comes before techreport on my daily routine of checking tech sites - already read the preview before I knew AMD was trying to hide their x86 performance .

I know you guys gotta do what you gotta do it just bugs me when companies try to unduly manipulate things in their favor.


----------



## eidairaman1 (Sep 27, 2012)

BigMack70 said:


> TPU comes before techreport on my daily routine of checking tech sites - already read the preview before I knew AMD was trying to hide their x86 performance .
> 
> I know you guys gotta do what you gotta do it just bugs me when companies try to unduly manipulate things in their favor.



Intel has been doing it for years


----------



## BigMack70 (Sep 27, 2012)

eidairaman1 said:


> Intel has been doing it for years



How so (honest question)? I'm not as well versed in CPUs as GPUs so I haven't followed them as closely over the years, but I can't remember seeing reviews of Intel CPUs where Intel only allowed some types of tests and not others.


----------



## Dent1 (Sep 27, 2012)

BigMack70 said:


> How so (honest question)? I'm not as well versed in CPUs as GPUs so I haven't followed them as closely over the years, but I can't remember seeing reviews of Intel CPUs where Intel only allowed some types of tests and not others.



I've read the past, Nvidia and Intel would refuse to give reviewers engineering samples or access to samples in general if the review wasn't bias in their favour. I can remember one tech website was banned from the sample list for refusing to fix the review. I can't remember the name of the tech site. I'm sure someone here will remember and post a link or two.

Back in the day all the reviewer fixing we common. I can remember seeing Nvidia reviews where every page was a Phyx supported game. Obviously the reviewer knows that AMD products will be unfairly handicapped.


----------



## BigMack70 (Sep 27, 2012)

Yeah I knew that Nvidia had done some sleazy stuff like that in the past - didn't know Intel had done it. Was that during the time of their netburst debacle?


----------



## DannibusX (Sep 27, 2012)

BigMack70 said:


> How so (honest question)? I'm not as well versed in CPUs as GPUs so I haven't followed them as closely over the years, but I can't remember seeing reviews of Intel CPUs where Intel only allowed some types of tests and not others.



That post at TR is red-herring.  AMD is allowing some information about their product to be released early.  The NDA's for the full product performance review are still in effect.  They will not limit any information from being included on product reviews.

Wording is key here.  AMD is allowing a "preview"; TPU is posting this information in accordance with AMD's wishes.  They could have chosen not to.  I'm glad they did.

It's no different then when information used to "leak" out of AMD.  I'm pretty sure this practice isn't exclusive to AMD either.


----------



## W1zzard (Sep 27, 2012)

Dent1 said:


> banned from the sample list for refusing to fix the review



if that is true (which i dont know), then what did they do wrong by banning someone incompetent from working with their products, who'd otherwise give them a bad reputation.. especially if the author is not willing to fix his mistake?

if you come to me and say "look w1zz, x in your review is wrong, here is my data showing y. i suspect that z is happening" i'd be the first to start investigating, solving such puzzles is lots of fun, you'll learn something and if you can go to the vendor and tell him "here is my data, now i know what went wrong, actually the underlying issue is here, maybe look into this suggested improvement for the future", you will instantly gain tons of credibility with companies and they might send you stuff earlier than anyone else because they value your feedback.


----------



## Mathragh (Sep 27, 2012)

Apart from all the buzz about it being a dirty move from AMD(which I think is really not a big deal at all, since everything is out in the open about the reasonings for this decision), I think this is actually a good sign. It shows that there is finally something happening in the AMD marketing department.

I'm not saying they should actually start manipulating the press, but compared to the Nvidia and Intel (and actually a lot of the other companies), they can use a bit more ingenuity and agression in the marketing department.


----------



## Dent1 (Sep 27, 2012)

W1zzard said:


> if that is true (which i dont know), then what did they do wrong by banning someone incompetent from working with their products, who'd otherwise give them a bad reputation.. especially if the author is not willing to fix his mistake?



Sorry. I'm an English native so I forget that others here it's their second language.

When I said fix I meant "to rig" or "falsify" the reviews.

There was a few situations in the past a few reviewers confessed to Intel or Nvidia blackmailing them. Saying no samples if you don't falsify the benchmarks in their favour.

It's ashame I can't find any links, this is going back maybe 5-12 years so the Google links are removed and broken.


----------



## jigar2speed (Sep 27, 2012)

BigMack70 said:


> If intel did this I'd hope the site would hold out from that as well... review sites shouldn't let companies hide the weaknesses of their product - half the point of the review is to find/expose weaknesses.



The author at TR is playing a bit of bias game here, he has done the preview for Intel -

http://techreport.com/review/9538/intel-conroe-performance-previewed/1 

Plus they were not even given the permission to touch the system. :shadedshu

EDIT: Before you judge me, i am a long time reader at TR (2006) and have more than 4000+ post counts in their forum.


----------



## mechtech (Sep 27, 2012)

Nice preview.

I read the AMD embargo here
http://techreport.com/blog/23638/amd-attempts-to-shape-review-content-with-staged-release-of-info

Are you allowed to post undervolting tests at least?


----------



## Benetanegia (Sep 27, 2012)

Dent1 said:


> Sorry. I'm an English native so I forget that others here it's their second language.
> 
> When I said fix I meant "to rig" or "falsify" the reviews.
> 
> ...



It was ONE site that got backlisted and it was far from being one of the big ones, influence zero, which means that it's stupid to try to "influence" this site alone. So are you suggesting that every other site (including TPU) "fixed" their reviews? From what I read, you're suggesting that ALL sites (again including TPU) have been doing this for 12 years and have said nothing...

tsk tsk W1zz, bad guy. <- sarcasm


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Sep 27, 2012)

Nice preview Dave. Look forward to a full review.



Dent1 said:


> Sorry. I'm an English native so I forget that others here it's their second language.
> 
> When I said fix I meant "to rig" or "falsify" the reviews.
> 
> ...



I know Dave and a few members outside the forum and Ill be the first to tell you Dave isn't blackmailed by anyone. He will put a chopper in the ground the second someone demands anything AT ALL. Blackmail Dave and the review will get tanked. Ill put money on it. TPU reviews are 100% honest as far as the writter knows. If they make a mistake they "fix" it ASAP.


----------



## brandonwh64 (Sep 27, 2012)

I am thinking about going FM1 or FM2 ITX for my next HTPC build.


----------



## cadaveca (Sep 27, 2012)

BigMack70 said:


> TPU comes before techreport on my daily routine of checking tech sites - already read the preview before I knew AMD was trying to hide their x86 performance .
> 
> I know you guys gotta do what you gotta do it just bugs me when companies try to unduly manipulate things in their favor.



Actually, I had my chip in July, long before TechReport was contacted.


I can also post my other emails from AMD where all of TechReports claims would be pointed out as lies.


I have permission to post all those things he does not. I chose not to.


And I'll just leave it at that, except for four points:


I got my APU in July, and was given free reign to post whatever I wanted. I posted nothing.

Three things were requested to be held back, yes.  Price, which i wouldn't post anyway since these chips aren't listed.

OC...OC is luck of the draw anyway. 


CPU Benchmarks. Um, this is an APU, not a CPU, so really, what importance do CPU-related benchmarks have on a chip that was designed for other purposes?


----------



## cdawall (Sep 27, 2012)

cadaveca said:


> OC...OC is luck of the draw anyway.



Luck of the draw especially with a chip as old as your particular unit is. It is very well documented than later model AMD chips typically overclock better. AMD wanting to keep Piledriver OC's under the mat is very understandable.



cadaveca said:


> CPU Benchmarks. Um, this is an APU, not a CPU, so really, what importance do CPU-related benchmarks have on a chip that was designed for other purposes?



I am personally curious about the performance of it in itself. It would be nice to start knocking some of the high power draw Phenom's I own out with some 65W chips with similar performance all around. Especially with A85 offering 8x/8x crossfire.


----------



## cadaveca (Sep 27, 2012)

I included three game benchmarks that should tell you all. 


Prices...I can give those as well...TechReport's writer must have just got his big boy pants.


----------



## TRWOV (Sep 27, 2012)

HumanSmoke said:


> Strange that you're saddled with an A75 board and preview, yet Anand has an A85 and review...you forget to send Christmas cards to Sunnyvale ?
> 
> "AMD let us know that we could go ahead and post a preview"
> 
> Didn't happen to get the same email as Scott Wasson by any chance ?




That's a preview. Anadtech just choose to call it "Review Part 1":



> Today we have the first half of the Trinity desktop launch. Widespread APU availability won't be until next month, *but AMD gave us the green light to begin sharing some details including GPU performance starting today.*



I'm pretty sure the review (Review Part 2 in Anand's case) will go live when the NDA lifts.







BigMack70 said:


> TPU comes before techreport on my daily routine of checking tech sites - already read the preview before I knew AMD was trying to hide their x86 performance .
> 
> I know you guys gotta do what you gotta do it just bugs me when companies try to unduly manipulate things in their favor.



How are they manipulating things in their favor? The NDA states that reviews will be posted on October XX and AMD allowed reviewers to post an early preview with some details. Where's the manipulation? And TR can choose to not post the preview and that'll be the end of it. If anything TR is taking advantage of the favor AMD is doing them (allowing for an early preview) by trying to create a mountain out of a molehill and drive some traffic towards them.

If they are against previews so much, why did they run a Conroe preview?

http://techreport.com/review/9538/intel-conroe-performance-previewed/1


> We were not allowed to look inside of the case of either PC, and the scope of the benchmarks we were allowed to run was defined by Intel.


----------



## cdawall (Sep 27, 2012)

cadaveca said:


> I included three game benchmarks that should tell you all.
> 
> 
> Prices...I can give those as well...TechReport's writer must have just got his big boy pants.



Yup I know and so far it looks like stick with the power hungry Phenom II's.


----------



## cadaveca (Sep 27, 2012)

cdawall said:


> Yup I know and so far it looks like stick with the power hungry Phenom II's.



Well, I got say, that the 3D performance is actually pretty good. Eyefinity on a APU? Yeah, you can do it. Not wit hevery titles, but quite a few remain more than playable.


Honestly, I don't see what all the fuss is, anyway. AMD said "We're not competing with Intel".



So, uh, why does everyone expect them to?


----------



## Super XP (Sep 27, 2012)

Trinity looks good. 


> This is great. Trinity clock for clock vs. Bulldozer blows it away by as much as 15%. Piledriver will have the L3 cache and larger L2 cache including other desktop design improvements. This in reality sounds like desktop Piledriver clock for clock should be about 20% to 30% faster than Bulldozer. NICE......


----------



## cadaveca (Sep 27, 2012)

Super XP said:


> Trinity looks good.



And who posted that? 

I'd say more, but I'm bound by 3 different contracts to not say anything.



And, I would totally NOT be saying what you're expecting I would, too.


----------



## cdawall (Sep 27, 2012)

cadaveca said:


> Well, I got say, that the 3D performance is actually pretty good. Eyefinity on a APU? Yeah, you can do it. Not wit hevery titles, but quite a few remain more than playable.
> 
> 
> Honestly, I don't see what all the fuss is, anyway. AMD said "We're not competing with Intel".
> ...



It still looses to the A8@2.9ghz the phenom and athlon I want to replace at @3.4 and 3.8ghz respectfully and would appear to smoke said chip. Now with overclocking in the picture that _may_ change only time will tell.


----------



## Tonim89 (Sep 27, 2012)

TRWOV said:


> How are they manipulating things in their favor? The NDA states that reviews will be posted on October XX and AMD allowed reviewers to post an early preview with some details. Where's the manipulation? And TR can choose to not post the preview and that'll be the end of it. If anything TR is taking advantage of the favor AMD is doing them (allowing for an early preview) by trying to create a mountain out of a molehill and drive some traffic towards them.
> 
> If they are against previews so much, why did they run a Conroe preview?
> 
> http://techreport.com/review/9538/in...ce-previewed/1



I totally agree. AMD isn't pressuring anyone to shape the results, since the NDA is still up. The conditions are clear and it's up to the reviewer to post or not.

NDA is a normal posture in this market, and any tech-entusiast should know it.

Nvidia always shows some P scores on 3D Mark, but never shows the GPU score until the card is out... so they are manipulating results too?

The purpose of previews is tease the consumer, and it seems they are acomplishing the mission very well


----------



## Ferrum Master (Sep 27, 2012)

I am reading this review, and Metallicas Too Late Too Late is ringing in my ears.


----------



## PopcornMachine (Sep 27, 2012)

I think it would have been better to present this information in the context of a complete review instead of just the parts AMD wants people to see.

People will for the most part not be fooled by this apparently desperate ploy by AMD, but I don't get why a partial review is necessary.


----------



## cadaveca (Sep 27, 2012)

PopcornMachine said:


> People will for the most part not be fooled by this apparently desperate ploy by AMD, but I don't get why a partial review is necessary.



Very few sites actually have info early. I surmise that like myself, these are the sites that have had hardware for months, and have had the opportunity to provide either AMD or AMD's partners with feedback on these products prior to launch.


If you cannot understand why I'd want to reelase as much as possible, as early as possible, with AMD's blessing, well...I'm not EVER going to be able to explain it. Nah, I don't want to be able to post exclusive info, nah, never!

Fact of the matter is that I was given like 4 days to write this, make the pictures I needed to, decide what to say, and then, as you can see by the OP< on September 24th, I began working on it.



Frankly, I think that any site that does not have content, simply either does not have enough traffic, pissed AMD off in the past by leaking info, or was too lazy to write up a preview over the weekend, like I did.


----------



## Dent1 (Sep 27, 2012)

Benetanegia said:


> So are you suggesting that every other site (including TPU) "fixed" their reviews? From what I read, you're suggesting that ALL sites (again including TPU) have been doing this for 12 years and have said nothing...
> 
> tsk tsk W1zz, bad guy. <- sarcasm



No the article I read  was between 5-12 years ago. 

The reviewers  wrote articles in their forum and blog about the being approached by Intel and Nvidia. I never said they did it.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Sep 27, 2012)

Dent1 said:


> No the article I read  was between 5-12 years ago.
> 
> The reviewers  wrote articles in their forum and blog about the being approached by Intel and Nvidia. I never said they did it.



Knowing the reviewers on TPU I would love to hear that conversation go down.


----------



## cadaveca (Sep 27, 2012)

TheMailMan78 said:


> Knowing the reviewers on TPU I would love to hear that conversation go down.



I could probably post chat logs and emails, but I won't. 


I love the whoel "BIAS" arguement, too. It seems most people do not understand how much work goes into doing reviews.

I mean, I work TPU like a full time job. And not becuase I'm getting paid...but because I love doing it.


W1zz, man, that dude has some dedication, let me tell you.

And not once...has W1zz told me what to say. Nor, actually, has any OEM. I still manage to sign NDAs from time to time, and I still manage to get parts that should have an NDA, without one being signed...those items, it's simply an verbal agreement that certain products can not have reviews published until a certain date.


If any company wants me to review specific things, I tell them no. However, in my books, a preview and a review are two different things, and previews will always have a decent amount of marketing material in them.


My actual APU reviews will probably take a slightly different slant than what other reviewers do.

In the end, I'm surprised that more sites don't have previews...


----------



## Solaris17 (Sep 27, 2012)

what happened to our last CPU reviewer?


----------



## HTC (Sep 27, 2012)

mechtech said:


> Are you allowed to post undervolting tests at least?



Wondering this myself.


----------



## PopcornMachine (Sep 27, 2012)

cadaveca said:


> If you cannot understand why I'd want to reelase as much as possible, as early as possible, with AMD's blessing, well...I'm not EVER going to be able to explain it. Nah, I don't want to be able to post exclusive info, nah, never!



If you can't understand my question to wait, 1 or even 2 weeks, to present a complete review instead catering to AMD's desire for a censored, partial review, then I will never be able to explain it to you.

Further, the result is that these chips have a good IGP.  I would be surprised if 5% of the readers here use the IGP on a desktop system.  What real value is this info?

Again, if you don't get that, I can't explain it any better.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Sep 27, 2012)

PopcornMachine said:


> If you can't understand my question to wait, 1 or even 2 weeks, to present a complete review instead catering to AMD's desire for a censored, partial review, then I will never be able to explain it to you.
> 
> Further, the result is that these chips have a good IGP.  I would be surprised if 5% of the readers here use the IGP on a desktop system.  What real value is this info?
> 
> Again, if you don't get that, I can't explain it any better.



Do you know how much traffic a PREVIEW brings in? Also do you know the difference between a REVIEW and a PREVIEW?


----------



## cadaveca (Sep 27, 2012)

PopcornMachine said:


> Again, if you don't get that, I can't explain it any better.






Seriously though, you're wrong. About 80% of PC users think the HDD is the case. There is far more to the market than just "enthusiasts", and the preview is for them, who want the details, but don't put oo much into benchmarks. TPU is one of the world's sources for tech info, period, thanks to W1zz and his wonderful GPU tools, and the network of sites that have previews live today and earlier, form the base of educating those other media outlets with information about these products. You don't find "TPU" or "WiFi PowerUp!" on ASUS motherboards for no reason.  


BTW, I did NOT sign an NDA with AMD. You're assuming that what TechReport has posted applies to me, and really, it doesn't. I posted a pic of my APU in July, and that pic is still there in the Sexy Hardware thread. I've been free to post whatever I want from day one, and although AMD did ask me to do a preview covering certain topics only, that's because I requested the ability to post early from them.


----------



## PopcornMachine (Sep 27, 2012)

I'm just going to say I like this site and respect your guys knowledge and reviews, but I just disagree with your decision to do this.  Don't see that it helps anyone here.


----------



## cadaveca (Sep 27, 2012)

PopcornMachine said:


> I'm just going to say I like this site and respect your guys knowledge and reviews, but I just disagree with your decision to do this.  Don't see that it helps anyone here.



I get that, and really I do value everyone's feedback. Not all content I produce is going to be for everyone, but with only 60,000 member, but like 1.5 million monthly viewers, forum posters aren't TPU's only audience. 

I'll havea proper review for you guys soon...and I'll have had a TONNE of time to do it.


----------



## brandonwh64 (Sep 27, 2012)

From the benches I have seen around the web, it shows the 7660D beating the HD5770 and HD5830


----------



## Tonim89 (Sep 27, 2012)

brandonwh64 said:


> From the benches I have seen around the web, it shows the 7660D beating the HD5770 and HD5830



I'd advise you to don't expect nothing close to them, or you will get disapointed.

A paired HD 6670 could do it, but then the scenario changes a little bit.


----------



## OneCool (Sep 27, 2012)

So where are the dual socket boards so we can have 8 cores and Crossfire the gpus?

Come on AMD give us a chipset


----------



## brandonwh64 (Sep 27, 2012)

Tonim89 said:


> I'd advise you to don't expect nothing close to them, or you will get disapointed.
> 
> A paired HD 6670 could do it, but then the scenario changes a little bit.



I dunno I guess we will see once the final review is done wont we.


----------



## Tonim89 (Sep 27, 2012)

brandonwh64 said:


> I dunno I guess we will see once the final review is done wont we.



But that's where the preview shine. See what dave posted, you will get a parameter to measure the performance.

I'll repeat, don't expect that much from them, the chance of getting disapointed is high. The APUs are amazing, but they are still too imature to achieve this level.


----------



## TRWOV (Sep 27, 2012)

brandonwh64 said:


> From the benches I have seen around the web, it shows the 7660D beating the HD5770 and HD5830



I think that's far fetched at best. Beating an HD5670? sure. An HD6670? with some OCing I could believe so, but an HD5770?! 384 VLIW4 shaders @ 800Mhz  vs 800 VLIW5 shaders @ 850Mhz?! I don't think so.  

Had it been 384GCN shaders it would land between the 6670 and 6770 I think.


----------



## HumanSmoke (Sep 27, 2012)

cadaveca said:


> ActuallyI can also post my other emails from AMD where all of TechReports claims would be pointed out as lies.


What lies would they be? I've been over Scott's editorial word-by-word, and unless the original email is incorrect (which I doubt) I don't see any lies. I see Scott given a set of parameters to work within, and his opinion on those. If you see a different set of parameters, maybe you should look to the second statement you made...


cadaveca said:


> *I have permission to post all those things he does not*. I chose not to.


And this pertains to Scott Wasson's position how ?


cadaveca said:


> Three things were* requested *to be held back, yes.


So leaving out Price, OC testing and CPU benchmarking was a *request *from AMD and not a violation of NDA- since NDA is less a request than an edict. 


cadaveca said:


> CPU Benchmarks. Um, this is an APU, not a CPU, so really, what importance do CPU-related benchmarks have on a chip that was designed for other purposes?


OK. You lost me on that one. I'd actually consider that stance from a tech enthusiast to be complete bollocks....unless of course AMD are marketing Trinity APU's with box art featuring a warning: " THIS PRODUCT IS NOT COMPATIBLE WITH PRODUCTIVITY OR NON-DVXA MEDIA APPLICATIONS"


jigar2speed said:


> The author at TR is playing a bit of bias game here, he has done the preview for Intel [link] EDIT: Before you judge me, i am a long time reader at TR (2006) and have more than 4000+ post counts in their forum.


Mentioning your posting rate is immaterial. The link was prominently displayed a few comments above your own in jimbo75's post under the TR article. The fact that the only instance of something vaguely similar happening is a singular event 6+ years ago isn't that compelling.

I'd ask the question whether the AMD cheerleading squad would happily defend a similar stance if Intel were to allow "previews" of Ivy Bridge/Haswell's CPU's based on CPU computation only, with IGP performance embargoed (or _requested_ held back as the case may be) until the CPU goes retail....NDA for CPU related benches expires on the same day as the SKU's go retail does it not?


----------



## cadaveca (Sep 27, 2012)

HumanSmoke said:


> ~snip~



Meh, I'm just saying that it isn't always the way it's construed. His opinion isn't wrong...but it might not apply to all people. It doesn't apply to me.

As to what I was requested to NOT post, I was also given TO post, but in AMD's own slides. I used AMD's images given outside those slides, but none of their marketing other than that.


He could have done a preview, and said whatever he wanted...if he had hardware. He's whining because to get the free hardware, he had to do a few things.


I didn't need AMD's hardware.




You're right though, I never mean my opinion to be the end-all, be-all. It's just MY opinion.


----------



## HumanSmoke (Sep 27, 2012)

cadaveca said:


> He could have done a preview, and said whatever he wanted...if he had hardware. He's whining because to get the free hardware, he had to do a few things.


I'd probably see it as Scott wanting unfettered freedom to write the review in any way he see's fit. Personally I see it as more of an idealized concept-but it's his site, and I have no issues with the stance. IF you couldn't purchase a Trinity APU or FM2 board prior to all the information being out in the wild then the issue would be moot. The fact that you can pre-order both makes it somewhat of a grey area- and remember AMD had prior form with this type of manipulation with hyping Bulldozer and engaging in some very dubious guerrilla marketing practices in order to shift 990FX/X boards in the months prior to the CPU dropping.

Again, personally, I don't have any qualms about publishing the data. It would however, in the interest of full disclosure, present a more complete picture when the rationale for the reviews content-or lack of, is included. You can call these Trinity articles that appear all over the tech news previews to your hearts content, but they are for all intents and purposes reviews, albeit only the first installment. Anything else is pure semantics.



cadaveca said:


> I didn't need AMD's hardware.


Really. I could have sworn you said you were in need of A85 board to fully test the APU


----------



## eidairaman1 (Sep 27, 2012)

BigMack70 said:


> Yeah I knew that Nvidia had done some sleazy stuff like that in the past - didn't know Intel had done it. Was that during the time of their netburst debacle?



Netburts/core 2. Threats, secret discounts, bribes, etc


----------



## cadaveca (Sep 27, 2012)

HumanSmoke said:


> Anything else is pure semantics.




Actually, I'd just call it marketing. Because that's what it is. I jsut made sure that what was presented was true.




HumanSmoke said:


> Really. I could have sworn you said you were in need of A85 board to fully test the APU



For a launch review of the APU, yes, but since i review motherboards, I would have got one shortly after anyway. I could have used my A75 board and just said that same thing I did about that, anyway. To get teh big picture, you bet that trying out that chipset is required...it might make no difference at all...or it might. I don't know until I try.

Like, I dunno. Being a reviewer, to me, ain't a big deal, at all. Like really, I'm just some dude typing from his basement. I mean really...in the end, I just make sure that what I report in my reviews is the truth. I don't ever expect to be able to do any more than that.

Heck, I think I'm lucky these companies even send me stuff.


----------



## symmetrical (Sep 28, 2012)

BigMack70 said:


> Wish you guys had held out and not played ball with AMD's nonsense!
> http://techreport.com/blog/23638/amd-attempts-to-shape-review-content-with-staged-release-of-info



No wonder I didn't see CPU benchmarks.

But in a way I see the angle AMD is trying to force here with the APUs which is gaming, for which that is what most of the consumers who look to buy an APU will use it for.

However it is still sneaky and unnecessary for them to try and stranglehold the review process from tech websites.

It's even rather more stupid that it's only for a week.

Oh well. Corporations will act like corporations. Nothing new here, move along. :shadedshu


----------



## eidairaman1 (Sep 28, 2012)

Once NDA is lifted for both Trinity and Vishera ill start looking.


----------



## jagd (Sep 28, 2012)

It has been done by asking testing with only certain  programs  with showing better than competitor , asking to tell certain things like multimedia extensions back in the day pentium 4 days while they performed bad vs AMD    ,or closing eyes to problems etc etc ( intel had a  problem with 1156 socket iirc last year only one site and afew forums talked about this etc etc.



BigMack70 said:


> How so (honest question)? I'm not as well versed in CPUs as GPUs so I haven't followed them as closely over the years, but I can't remember seeing reviews of Intel CPUs where Intel only allowed some types of tests and not others.


----------



## NHKS (Sep 28, 2012)

something I didn't see before.. 

AMD has a RAM Disk feature(software utility) that will be part of the Trinity APUs.. as expected, it allow the user to create a RAM partition with a capacity of up to 64 GB(not sure if one can find such dense module kits easily)... The user can copy its game directory onto this partition or any other program that he uses frequently and will benefit greatly from the faster data transfer.

the slide below suggests they have some pretty significant performance claims to make for this 







not sure if it will be available from launch or support requirements.. Dave should know


----------



## cadaveca (Sep 28, 2012)

NHKS said:


> Dave should know



AMD hasn't given more data about that other than that one slide to me. That press deck arrived after I had already written the preview, unfortunately.



Everything that is offered, together, is actually pretty interesting to me.


----------



## HTC (Sep 28, 2012)

NHKS said:


> something I didn't see before..
> 
> AMD has a RAM Disk feature(software utility) that will be part of the Trinity APUs.. as expected, it allow the user to create a RAM partition with a capacity of up to 64 GB(not sure if one can find such dense module kits easily)... The user can copy its game directory onto this partition or any other program that he uses frequently and will benefit greatly from the faster data transfer.
> 
> ...



Interesting.


----------



## Rei86 (Sep 28, 2012)

COME ON AMD

Daddy has an itch to build a new HTPC because the old rig is just old!@!@! GARAGAGAGAGAGAGARARRRRRRAGAG

Also some places have already posted prices anyways since someone at some retail store leaked a photo of the APUs listings.


----------



## W1zzard (Sep 28, 2012)

NHKS said:


> AMD has a RAM Disk feature(software utility)



there is plenty free ramdisk software out there. my guess is amd got talked into spending some money and bought some external software


----------



## gourygabriev (Sep 28, 2012)

I know I might asking too much specially since testing is so time consuming...

I just have a request if possible on the review.

I was wondering if it would be possible to also have the trinity with a premium GPU like the 7970 or 680 as one of the tests with low quality and ultra settings on games.


----------



## xenocide (Sep 28, 2012)

gourygabriev said:


> I was wondering if it would be possible to also have the trinity with a premium GPU like the 7970 or 680 as one of the tests with low quality and ultra settings on games.



If Llano was any indicator with a high end GPU you're losing out.  APU's are intended to be used with their included iGPU's, and operate optimally with them.  Otherwise you're looking at a lower end FX CPU with (probably) higher power consumption and lacking greatly in Cache.  I wish AMD would hurry up and consolidate APU's and CPU's to the same socket.

As for the whole review fiasco.  I read a decent analysis of it; http://www.geek2eak.com/wordpress/2012/09/amd-preview-unethical/

I just don't necessarily agree with AMD shaping the way their products are reviewed.  Regardless of how fantastic the iGPU portion of an APU is, the CPU side is still important, and very relevant since a good portion of day to day tasks still rely heavily on it.


----------



## Absolution (Sep 29, 2012)

So much fuss over this. THG already had a preview of eng. samples. Everyone knows that in terms of raw CPU power AMD cannot match intel counterparts. I mean intel's range and amd's range are completely out of sync.

The only thing AMD got now is their discrete gpu flexing its muscles against Intel's HD series, and at the end of the day its only a certain / small segment that AMD is targeting and winning over.

The piledriver's 15-16% performance increase over the llano's top is disappointing, considering that the platform has to be changed and no new set of radeons it can be paired with.

And whats with the A10-A85 matching? Those three slides pairing chipsets with processor models is confusing. Hopefully there will be some comparison on an A10 with an A75/A85 chipset (with no overclocking intended).


----------



## warpuck (Nov 12, 2012)

*what no i3 k models?*

Amd makes 3 65 watt trinitys (locked) 

Buy AMD ram and get amd unlimited ram disk included>>free

The trick is to get it to boot from the ram disk.

which i3 + GPUS give the same VIDEO performance as a10-5700 with hd 6670 & the a10without th hd 6670? 

I am going put one these in my mATX case with the optional hd 6670.

It will probable that it be will a Asus board because the turboV is the neatest thing since sliced bread on a Sabertooth, IMO. Of couse it will be a K cpu


__________________________________________________

The ocean is blue unless you are coast guard, then it is green


----------



## eidairaman1 (Nov 13, 2012)

no Video processor on any core iCPU is up to the performance level of the APUs.



warpuck said:


> Amd makes 3 65 watt trinitys (locked)
> 
> Buy AMD ram and get amd unlimited ram disk included>>free
> 
> ...


----------



## warpuck (Nov 13, 2012)

*what I ment*

i3 + gpu X = Trinity + O gpu

or

i3 + gpu X = Trinity + hd6670

Trying to figure that out gave me a headache

BTW 960T@4.0Ghz + 7870 beats the i3 + 7850, for most video games. It may not do as well with single thread but I get 60fps @1080p with all the goodys maxed with Mass Effect 1. I am not sure how many cores that game uses. The CPU has to phyicsX with that game also.

Remember there aint no i3K! 

The 960T is getting replaced Thursday by a FX-8350.

I was going to go i5 last July but I decided do 7870 instead. Was not disappointed. As for the things the 8350 does not do so well, I just go pour a cup of coffee and sip for a few seconds as the results come in. The trick is pouring the coffee real fast without spilling it.


----------

