# AMD Slips Out Trinity ULV 3DMark Performance



## btarunr (Feb 3, 2012)

In a footnote of a slide detailing AMD's Trinity A6 APU for Ultrathin notebooks at the company's Financial Analyst Day event, the new chip's 3DMark performance was revealed. The company was talking about the 17W ULV (ultra-low voltage) variant of the "Trinity" APU in the slide, that's designed for compact notebooks. The 3DMark Vantage performance of the APU was measured to be 2,355 points, in the same test, an Intel Core i5-2537M ULV 17W "Sandy Bridge" processor scored 1,158 points. The AMD chip, hence, emerged with a 103% graphics performance lead. 

The slide notes that with an assumed performance increase of 30% by the upcoming "Ivy Bridge" architecture, its 3DMark performance is projected to be 1,505 points. The 17W Trinity chip would still end up with a 56% performance lead. Moving on, AMD even revealed the performance of the high-performance A10 "Trinity" APU with 25W TDP, designed for slightly thicker notebooks. This chip scored 3,600 points in 3DMark, which would effectively make it 136% faster than Ivy Bridge at graphics.



As for CPU performance, it's noted that Intel will clearly have an edge with performance per core, and the upper hand with single-threaded applications, while Trinity could be competitive with multi-threaded applications, as its two-module/four-core APUs will be competitively priced to Intel's two-core/four-thread(HTT) ones. AMD has pulled the presentation off from the public page of AMD-FAD.

*View at TechPowerUp Main Site*


----------



## Wile E (Feb 3, 2012)

I don't ever plan to game on an ultra portable, so as long as the integrate graphics can handle outputting to 1920x1200 to my monitor, I don't care. CPU power and battery life is what matters to me in this segment.


----------



## cheesy999 (Feb 3, 2012)

btarunr said:


> In a footnote of a slide detailing AMD's Trinity A6 APU for Ultrathin notebooks at the company's Financial Analyst Day event, the new chip's 3DMark performance was revealed. The company was talking about the 17W ULV (ultra-low voltage) variant of the "Trinity" APU in the slide, that's designed for compact notebooks. The 3DMark performance of the APU was measured to be 2,355 points, in the same test, an Intel Core i5-2537M ULV 17W "Sandy Bridge" processor scored 1,158 points. The AMD chip, hence, emerged with a 103% graphics performance lead.
> 
> The slide notes that with an assumed performance increase of 30% by the upcoming "Ivy Bridge" architecture, its 3DMark performance is projected to be 1,505 points. The 17W Trinity chip would still end up with a 56% performance lead. Moving on, AMD even revealed the performance of the high-performance A10 "Trinity" APU with 25W TDP, designed for slightly thicker notebooks. This chip scored 3,600 points in 3DMark, which would effectively make it 136% faster than Ivy Bridge at graphics.
> 
> ...




You might want to mention that it's 3d Mark Vantage


----------



## RejZoR (Feb 3, 2012)

You don't have to strictly game on it to utilize GPU. You'd be surprised how many things use GPU these days. Browser, Adobe Flash player, video players (for HD decoding), video and image transcoders, image editors etc etc.
All this utilize GPU power as a general mean of computation.


----------



## Wile E (Feb 3, 2012)

I don't use GPU acceleration for any of that. CPU encoding and decoding have better quality, and there is no gpu acceleration for 10bit encodes. The only thing that matters to me is cpu power.


----------



## phanbuey (Feb 3, 2012)

Wile E said:


> I don't use GPU acceleration for any of that. CPU encoding and decoding have better quality, and there is no gpu acceleration for 10bit encodes. The only thing that matters to me is cpu power.



I agree with you, but you are also on the extreme side of the spectrum.  You're encoding HD movies to watch on your portable device and you are able to tell quality apart vs GPU encodes.  Most people cannot.

Also to credit the post above, more and more software functionality will begin to be taken on by the GPGPU as it is inherently more efficient (read: not necessarily 'better') than CPU at performing certain crunching tasks - so 'general computing' will become more GPU dependent as software evolves.


----------



## Zen_ (Feb 3, 2012)

Wile E said:


> I don't ever plan to game on an ultra portable, so as long as the integrate graphics can handle outputting to 1920x1200 to my monitor, I don't care. CPU power and battery life is what matters to me in this segment.



More applications and media are being GPU accelerated though, and it can be more efficient. AMD's UVD works really well, Chrome supports GPU acceleration, flash content can be accelerated, and there's going to be more support down the road. 

If AMD can get the manufacturing kinks hammered out and improve power efficiency over Llano there's no doubt in my mind that Trinity will be a home run.


----------



## eidairaman1 (Feb 3, 2012)

Zen_ said:


> More applications and media are being GPU accelerated though, and it can be more efficient. AMD's UVD works really well, Chrome supports GPU acceleration, flash content can be accelerated, and there's going to be more support down the road.
> 
> If AMD can get the manufacturing kinks hammered out and improve power efficiency over Llano there's no doubt in my mind that Trinity will be a home run.



I know most dont care about IE but its fact that the latest utilizes the GPUs today


----------



## Steevo (Feb 3, 2012)

Hardware accelerated text rendering, last I checked it was still the 90's when that was an issue?

Otherwise, flash, silverlight, and HTML5 is supported almost regardless of browser.

Is a game playable on it, a game that is worth playing? If not, doesn't matter, and then the only things that matter are price.


----------



## 15th Warlock (Feb 3, 2012)

I don't know about you guys, but I really hope Razer offers the option of going with a Trinity core instead of Ivy Bridge for its Fiona gaming tablet, that would make it much more desirable IMO, and give it an edge in graphics rendering.


----------



## TheLaughingMan (Feb 4, 2012)

15th Warlock said:


> I don't know about you guys, but I really hope Razer offers the option of going with a Trinity core instead of Ivy Bridge for its Fiona gaming tablet, that would make it much more desirable IMO, and give it an edge in graphics rendering.



Most likely they will. It has been clear since LLano that AMD has a distinct advantage in GPU power over Intel. The only hope Intel has for getting that contract over AMD is to get Nvidia to co-sign with them and that is not likely to happen.

Glad to see AMD learns from its mistakes here. Marketing the performance as 2 module/4 core with a comparison to the 2 core/ 4 thread design of Intel. They need to work out GF issues as stated and working on getting performance for Bulldozer Architecture to be consistent which I have said time and time again. Consistence AMD. Being just as good 70% of the time, better 10% of the time, and absolutely destroyed 20% of the time is bad because reviewers and fanboys will focus on one set of those results. Can you guess which one?


----------



## eidairaman1 (Feb 4, 2012)

Not ever since Intel shut out Nvidia from making a Glue Logic for their Motherboards...



TheLaughingMan said:


> Most likely they will. It has been clear since LLano that AMD has a distinct advantage in GPU power over Intel. The only hope Intel has for getting that contract over AMD is to get Nvidia to co-sign with them and that is not likely to happen.
> 
> Glad to see AMD learns from its mistakes here. Marketing the performance as 2 module/4 core with a comparison to the 2 core/ 4 thread design of Intel. They need to work out GF issues as stated and working on getting performance for Bulldozer Architecture to be consistent which I have said time and time again. Consistence AMD. Being just as good 70% of the time, better 10% of the time, and absolutely destroyed 20% of the time is bad because reviewers and fanboys will focus on one set of those results. Can you guess which one?


----------



## Super XP (Feb 4, 2012)

Now this is interesting. Will they be releasing Trinity for the desktop too?
Good to see AMD focusing on strategy. This should enable them to sort out its issues without slowing down production.


----------



## Wiselnvestor (Feb 4, 2012)

Finally. People will soon have a choice and don't have to rely on VLC player for gaming.


----------



## San_Lex (Feb 4, 2012)

*9600m gt*

my 9600m gt have 2200 points in 3dmark vantage


----------



## Dent1 (Feb 4, 2012)

San_Lex said:


> my 9600m gt have 2200 points in 3dmark vantage




So? Whats your point?


----------



## de.das.dude (Feb 4, 2012)

Wile E said:


> I don't ever plan to game on an ultra portable, so as long as the integrate graphics can handle outputting to 1920x1200 to my monitor, I don't care. CPU power and battery life is what matters to me in this segment.



you mean you will stick to intel no matter what crap they trow at you


----------



## MikeMurphy (Feb 4, 2012)

Super XP said:


> Now this is interesting. Will they be releasing Trinity for the desktop too?
> Good to see AMD focusing on strategy. This should enable them to sort out its issues without slowing down production.



Yes.  Desktop part should be quite exciting.


----------



## Yo_Wattup (Feb 4, 2012)

Well, imo, this is really cool.


----------



## bencrutz (Feb 4, 2012)

San_Lex said:


> my 9600m gt have 2200 points in 3dmark vantage



well, trinity A10 APU put your 9600m gt "discrete gpu" to shame


----------



## TheLaughingMan (Feb 4, 2012)

San_Lex said:


> my 9600m gt have 2200 points in 3dmark vantage



Now image a tablet like the Transformer or Motorola Atrix with enough power to actually play a game or two at say 1366 x 768. Now impressive for us, but to run that resolution for Bad Company 2 on medium/High at solid FPS under 25W is kinda ridiculous.



Super XP said:


> Now this is interesting. Will they be releasing Trinity for the desktop too?



Oh they most definitely will. This was actually one of th reasons a lot of people were pissed because AMD will have a distinct line drawn between consumer desktops/portable products and their high end stuff. Before you could get all the high end parts with an entry level CPU and then update just the CPU later. Now you have to make a distinct choice up front.

I hope the A8 Trinity APUs have enough muscle to run up to two mid-ranged cards in CrossfireX so those who chose that path don't have to start from scratch if they want a gaming setup.


----------



## Thefumigator (Feb 5, 2012)

The other day I was playing around with a core i5 laptop and it wasn't 100% smooth when playing certain youtube videos. I could notice it instantly. A variant of the same model sporting a discrete card solved the problem. No matter how small the discrete card is, its often a good choice to have it (at least if you are not satisfied with intel gfx)


----------



## eidairaman1 (Feb 5, 2012)

Honestly AMD should go back to the Athlon XP Modeling setup. You had Duron/Sempron, Athlon XP/XP-M and the Athlon MP, All Socket A/462. It would reduce overall costs but also Allow Improvements in the APU designs while reducing Package Complexities. Also the current A75Chipset supports 8x8 Crossfire or 16x4.



TheLaughingMan said:


> Now image a tablet like the Transformer or Motorola Atrix with enough power to actually play a game or two at say 1366 x 768. Now impressive for us, but to run that resolution for Bad Company 2 on medium/High at solid FPS under 25W is kinda ridiculous.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Wile E (Feb 5, 2012)

Zen_ said:


> More applications and media are being GPU accelerated though, and it can be more efficient. AMD's UVD works really well, Chrome supports GPU acceleration, flash content can be accelerated, and there's going to be more support down the road.
> 
> If AMD can get the manufacturing kinks hammered out and improve power efficiency over Llano there's no doubt in my mind that Trinity will be a home run.



Don't care. If the CPU can do it smoothly, the GPU does not concern me in the slightest, so long as it's capable of outputting to the resolutions I want.


de.das.dude said:


> you mean you will stick to intel no matter what crap they trow at you



No, I mean that in an ultraportable, I will always take more CPU power over more GPU power. I don't want to game on a laptop of this size, so GPU power is completely irrelevant when the CPU is already enough to do what is needed for me.

If I were to buy in this segment, I would take the one that gives me the best cpu power/battery life/cost ratio. Don't know who that is, and don't care, so long as it does what I want.

I'm sorry, but I don't buy lesser performing products for the sake of a brand name. I buy the best performance for my money, period. I am 100% unconcerned with the corporate angle of any of these competitors. I only care about the product and what it does for me.


----------



## TheGuruStud (Feb 5, 2012)

And that's why humans are in a continual downward spiral.

Who cares about the moral, legal or ethical implications of XYZ. IT'S ALL ABOUT ME GD IT!


----------



## TheLaughingMan (Feb 5, 2012)

Thefumigator said:


> The other day I was playing around with a core i5 laptop and it wasn't 100% smooth when playing certain youtube videos. I could notice it instantly. A variant of the same model sporting a discrete card solved the problem. No matter how small the discrete card is, its often a good choice to have it (at least if you are not satisfied with intel gfx)



You seem like you have not seen what an AMD APU can do. Most low end or entry level decrete GPU's can't stand toe to toe with the APU's IGP. Intel GFX was no even a fair comparison. APU verse current Intel IGPs is like have a street race between a Mustang and Prius.



Wile E said:


> No, I mean that in an ultraportable, I will always take more CPU power over more GPU power. I don't want to game on a laptop of this size, so GPU power is completely irrelevant when the CPU is already enough to do what is needed for me.
> 
> If I were to buy in this segment, I would take the one that gives me the best cpu power/battery life/cost ratio. Don't know who that is, and don't care, so long as it does what I want.
> 
> I'm sorry, but I don't buy lesser performing products for the sake of a brand name. I buy the best performance for my money, period. I am 100% unconcerned with the corporate angle of any of these competitors. I only care about the product and what it does for me.



While I can agree with you to a degree, there is a lot you could do with GPU acceleration in a tablet or ultraportable laptop. If you have used a Linux based OS like Ubuntu, you should know how awesome effects on a GPU accelerated desktop space can be. Not to mention being able to convert videos on the tablet to a format it supports without the need of another computer. Image correction via GPU acceleration to improve post processing on images taken with its 3 to 5 MP camera. And like someone said, it is nice when I can connect my tablet or ultra portable to a TV via HDMI and output 1080p with stutter or spikes in performance or without over heating a small device.

While CPU power is important, you pointed it out yourself. WTF do you do on something so small that would need a lot of CPU or GPU power? You browse the net, look at some photos, watch a video, listen to music, etc. What exactly would the addition CPU power be for?


----------



## newtekie1 (Feb 5, 2012)

1,100 or 2,300 either way they are still shit performance numbers.


----------



## eidairaman1 (Feb 5, 2012)

in a pitched benchmark lol


----------



## de.das.dude (Feb 5, 2012)

TheLaughingMan said:


> You seem like you have not seen what an AMD APU can do. Most low end or entry level decrete GPU's can't stand toe to toe with the APU's IGP. Intel GFX was no even a fair comparison. APU verse current Intel IGPs is like have a street race between a Mustang and Prius.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



true to some extent
as thefumigator said, its always a good idea to have something other than intel graphics. they give a hell and heaven difference.

and you have to be trolling to say i need only cpu power and not gpu power in my laptops. if that were the majority case, thn manufacturers would still be selling a lot of models with high end processors but no GPUs. that type of thing is suited for only one purpose. business class, and IMO that kinda contradicts the whole idea of being small and portable.


----------



## Yo_Wattup (Feb 5, 2012)

Yeah, if I were in the market for a non-gaming lappy, there's no way I wouldn't go with an AMD APU. Better graphics, ample CPU power, and they run a lot cooler and use less battery. If you're not gaming, and own a desktop, why the need for such CPU power?


----------



## Super XP (Feb 5, 2012)

newtekie1 said:


> 1,100 or 2,300 either way they are still shit performance numbers.


Yes if you are a benchmark junkie. For what they are designed for, they rock.


----------



## newtekie1 (Feb 5, 2012)

Super XP said:


> Yes if you are a benchmark junkie. For what they are designed for, they rock.



No, not really.  AMD is pushing them like they are great at gaming, and they aren't.  They aren't designed for gaming but AMD is marketing them like they are.  The simple fact of the matter is that they suck at gaming, so continuing to hype the gaming capabilities is stupid.  The extra GPU power isn't going to help anyone that will actually buy these.  If you are buying them for a basic "utility" computer, then you aren't going to use the GPU power beyond maybe watching an HD movie, and the Intel GPU does that without issue.  If you are buying it for gaming, then you'll be playing modern games at low settings and still be struggling.

Just to give you an idea of what a Vantage score of 2,300 is like, that is about what an 8600GT scores, and I don't think anyone wants to play anything modern with an 8600GT...  And that is assuming they are using the P preset, I wouldn't put it past them to use the E preset to get bigger scores(they are already using Vantage to make the scores look better).


----------



## de.das.dude (Feb 5, 2012)

newtekie1 said:


> No, not really.  *AMD is pushing them like they are great at gaming, and they aren't.  They aren't designed for gaming but AMD is marketing them like they are.  The simple fact of the matter is that they suck at gaming, so continuing to hype the gaming capabilities is stupid.*  The extra GPU power isn't going to help anyone that will actually buy these.  If you are buying them for a basic "utility" computer, then you aren't going to use the GPU power beyond maybe watching an HD movie, and the Intel GPU does that without issue.  If you are buying it for gaming, then you'll be playing modern games at low settings and still be struggling.
> 
> Just to give you an idea of what a Vantage score of 2,300 is like, that is about what an 8600GT scores, and I don't think anyone wants to play anything modern with an 8600GT...  And that is assuming they are using the P preset, I wouldn't put it past them to use the E preset to get bigger scores(they are already using Vantage to make the scores look better).




lets see.. they platy games pretty well.
but its true that they dont give a gazillion FPS. that doesnt mean they suck at gaming.


----------



## de.das.dude (Feb 5, 2012)

de.das.dude said:


> *The extra GPU power isn't going to help anyone that will actually buy these.*  If you are buying them for a basic "utility" computer, then you aren't going to use the GPU power beyond maybe watching an HD movie, and the Intel GPU does that without issue.  If you are buying it for gaming, then you'll be playing modern games at low settings and still be struggling.



i want what you been smoking 

if you want a utility computer, you would want one that consumes little power. for that you have to go AMD as well. and i have experienced atom.... it sucks at playing videos. moreover they with the APUs you get more performance for less money.


now.... just tell us how much intel is paying you.. 

did i mention intel lappy's get fuc**ng hot? no problem with AMD cuz they ca never go above 60C


----------



## newtekie1 (Feb 5, 2012)

de.das.dude said:


> lets see.. they platy games pretty well.
> but its true that they dont give a gazillion FPS. that doesnt mean they suck at gaming.



8600GT level performance is pretty good?  Low end 5 generations ago is pretty good?  Sorry, no.



de.das.dude said:


> i want what you been smoking
> 
> if you want a utility computer, you would want one that consumes little power. for that you have to go AMD as well. and i have experienced atom.... it sucks at playing videos. moreover they with the APUs you get more performance for less money.
> 
> ...



Read the news post.  We are talking about a 17w Trinity.  There is already a 17w i3 out, and the Ivy Bridge part that will fit into 17w will be even more powerful than the one AMD is using to compare that has been out for almost a year now.  They consume the same power, that is the point of this news post.  AMD was comparing two processor that use the same amount of power(and hence put out the same amount of heat). The Intel laptop isn't going to get any hotter than the AMD, and isn't going to use anymore power.

So most of your points in this post AMD already made invalid for you.  So it just comes down to the relative GPU power, which isn't helping anyone on the AMD side because twice the performance of utter shit is still utter shit.

And Atom has nothing to do with this, we are talking full blown processors.  If you want to talk Atom then you need to find something on the AMD side that is down in the 5w range, not 17w like Trinity.  Also, have you been paying attention to Atom recently, or just going by the first generation? The latest Atoms easily handle 1080p video.

So the fact that you've ignored the power being the same, and the heat being the same, and instead claim that Intel laptops get hot makes while talking about Intel processor Atoms processor that produce way less heat than Trinity and making false claims about them sucking with video me wonder how much AMD is paying _you_.


----------



## Wile E (Feb 5, 2012)

TheGuruStud said:


> And that's why humans are in a continual downward spiral.
> 
> Who cares about the moral, legal or ethical implications of XYZ. IT'S ALL ABOUT ME GD IT!



Yeah, because AMD is such the beacon of corporate sainthood.  Come back to reality.

Buying only AMD or Intel based purely on brand is like voting straight ticket republican or democrat.

You want to actually send a message? Don't buy any cpus. That's the only way you won't support crooks.



TheLaughingMan said:


> You seem like you have not seen what an AMD APU can do. Most low end or entry level decrete GPU's can't stand toe to toe with the APU's IGP. Intel GFX was no even a fair comparison. APU verse current Intel IGPs is like have a street race between a Mustang and Prius.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



If the cpu is powerful enough, there is no stuttering with 1080p content of any kind. All gpu acceleration of video are shut off on my computer as my preferred playback methods don't support it anyway, and for images, I don't do enough image editing for it to make a difference. I don't run linux, nor do I plan to, so that point is moot as well. Aero is as far as I need for gpu acceleration.

And I need cpu power to watch some of my high end encodes that cannot be accelerated by the gpu.

Once I achieve the cpu power needed to do what I want, the next consideration is battery life. If the 2 are equal on those fronts, the next consideration is price, and if they are equal there, then I'll consider gpu. But gpu performance in this formfactor is just not important with me. Brand of chip doesn't even come into consideration at all either.



de.das.dude said:


> true to some extent
> as thefumigator said, its always a good idea to have something other than intel graphics. they give a hell and heaven difference.
> 
> and you have to be trolling to say i need only cpu power and not gpu power in my laptops. if that were the majority case, thn manufacturers would still be selling a lot of models with high end processors but no GPUs. that type of thing is suited for only one purpose. business class, and IMO that kinda contradicts the whole idea of being small and portable.



It's not trolling if the cpu in question can't do what I want. Read my above statement. Lack of cpu power is actually why I do not have a netbook. Even the Intel/nvidia ION and AMD netbooks with their gpus can't do what I want.



de.das.dude said:


> i want what you been smoking
> 
> if you want a utility computer, you would want one that consumes little power. for that you have to go AMD as well. and i have experienced atom.... it sucks at playing videos. moreover they with the APUs you get more performance for less money.
> 
> ...



Except that if you actually read the op, you would know that this is not up against Atom.

And plenty of AMD laptops I have seen also go above 60c. That's just a lie. All laptops run hot for their power envelope, regardless who makes them. That's the disadvantage of tiny fans and heatsinks.


All that said, if the AMD cpu can do everything I want, has equal battery life, and cost the same or less, then it would get the nod. If the Intel is significantly faster in my tasks, it would get the nod. I'll take the one with more cpu power because even if both have the power to do what I want, the one with more cpu power will use less cycles to do it, therefore increasing battery life. Pretty cut and dry to me.

Why do AMD fanboys crawl out of the woodwork when somebody doesn't find AMD's integrated graphics performance relevant to their needs? Just because I don't find it important doesn't mean I'm anti-AMD.


----------



## de.das.dude (Feb 5, 2012)

newtekie1 said:


> 8600GT level performance is pretty good?  Low end 5 generations ago is pretty good?  Sorry, no.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



haha i3's suck as it is. the mobile ones hang a lot. most of my friends who bought an i3 one sold it and got a e350 or got one with a i5


----------



## newtekie1 (Feb 5, 2012)

de.das.dude said:


> haha i3's suck as it is. the mobile ones hang a lot. most of my friends who bought an i3 one sold it and got a e350 or got one with a i5



Sure they do...  Can I have some of what you are smoking?

Anyway, if that is the case then Trinity is in even more trouble.  Since we already know when looking at the basic architectures Intel's processor 2c/4t processors already outpace AMD's 4c/4t processors.  So if you aren't happy with an i3, then Trinity is going to really disappoint you.


----------



## TheLaughingMan (Feb 5, 2012)

Wile E said:


> If the cpu is powerful enough, there is no stuttering with 1080p content of any kind. All gpu acceleration of video are shut off on my computer as my preferred playback methods don't support it anyway, and for images, I don't do enough image editing for it to make a difference. I don't run linux, nor do I plan to, so that point is moot as well. Aero is as far as I need for gpu acceleration.
> 
> And I need cpu power to watch some of my high end encodes that cannot be accelerated by the gpu.
> 
> Once I achieve the cpu power needed to do what I want, the next consideration is battery life. If the 2 are equal on those fronts, the next consideration is price, and if they are equal there, then I'll consider gpu. But gpu performance in this formfactor is just not important with me. Brand of chip doesn't even come into consideration at all either.



I wasn't try to sell you on anything. I don't care what you want. I was merely using what you stated as a point to bring up some often overlooked benefits to a decent GPU that the SFF seem to have forgotten.

On a side note, you would not need that much CPU power if you did use the GPU acceleration for your "high end encodes". You said they cannot be accelerated, but that is because, as you stated, you voluntarily turned off the feature and use software that does not support it. Using a decent GPU in 2D mode (low power state) and 20% of the CPU for video playback would burn far less power than bringing a CPU to its full power state and running it at 100%. Just saying.


----------



## newtekie1 (Feb 5, 2012)

TheLaughingMan said:


> You seem like you have not seen what an AMD APU can do. Most low end or entry level decrete GPU's can't stand toe to toe with the APU's IGP. Intel GFX was no even a fair comparison. APU verse current Intel IGPs is like have a street race between a Mustang and Prius.



I missed this.  Are you serious?  It takes all of $40 to get a descrete GPU that outperforms this APU.  I've seen what they can do, the APUs are shit when it comes to graphical power.  And most low end descrete cards on the market today will outperform it toe to toe.  The only ones that won't are the extreme low end card like the 8400GS, G210, HD5450, but those all sell for like $25 and aren't worth the money unless you just need another display output.


----------



## TheLaughingMan (Feb 6, 2012)

newtekie1 said:


> I missed this.  Are you serious?  It takes all of $40 to get a descrete GPU that outperforms this APU.  I've seen what they can do, the APUs are shit when it comes to graphical power.  And most low end descrete cards on the market today will outperform it toe to toe.  The only ones that won't are the extreme low end card like the 8400GS, G210, HD5450, but those all sell for like $25 and aren't worth the money unless you just need another display output.



Actually it would take something like a $55 to $60 to get something that will out perform an A8 IGP with 1866 MHz RAM. The 6550D is nothing to brag about, but toping is not something any $25 card can do. I don't know what you are talking about. And amazingly we were talking about low power parts for tablet and netbook sized devices. No device that small will have the room to properly cool two chips. So we are talking about devices that will run a single chip with on-die graphs.


----------



## Wile E (Feb 6, 2012)

TheLaughingMan said:


> I wasn't try to sell you on anything. I don't care what you want. I was merely using what you stated as a point to bring up some often overlooked benefits to a decent GPU that the SFF seem to have forgotten.
> 
> On a side note, you would not need that much CPU power if you did use the GPU acceleration for your "high end encodes". You said they cannot be accelerated, but that is because, as you stated, you voluntarily turned off the feature and use software that does not support it. Using a decent GPU in 2D mode (low power state) and 20% of the CPU for video playback would burn far less power than bringing a CPU to its full power state and running it at 100%. Just saying.



Wrong. These encodes are not ABLE to be accelerated by the gpu at all. Even if I did turn on gpu acceleration, they still would not be accelerated, in any software combo. Not even CUDA on an nVidia card.


----------



## TheLaughingMan (Feb 6, 2012)

Wile E said:


> Wrong. These encodes are not ABLE to be accelerated by the gpu at all. Even if I did turn on gpu acceleration, they still would not be accelerated, in any software combo. Not even CUDA on an nVidia card.



I will have to take your word for that. I do know you can use the GPU post-processing while the CPU still handles the decoding itself. I could be wrong but I am fairly certain the file encoding format doesn't affect if it can be GPU accelerated or not.


----------



## newtekie1 (Feb 6, 2012)

TheLaughingMan said:


> Actually it would take something like a $55 to $60 to get something that will out perform an A8 IGP with 1866 MHz RAM. The 6550D is nothing to brag about, but toping is not something any $25 card can do. I don't know what you are talking about. And amazingly we were talking about low power parts for tablet and netbook sized devices. No device that small will have the room to properly cool two chips. So we are talking about devices that will run a single chip with on-die graphs.



Actually, the HD6450 comes very close to the HD6550D w/ 1333 RAM, and goes for $25.  The GT240 easily tops the HD6550D w/ 1866 RAM and goes for $35.  

And the gpu going into the tablets and netbook sized devices are nowhere near as powerful as the A8 GPU. So I don't know what you are talking about.


----------



## Wile E (Feb 6, 2012)

TheLaughingMan said:


> I will have to take your word for that. I do know you can use the GPU post-processing while the CPU still handles the decoding itself. I could be wrong but I am fairly certain the *file encoding format doesn't affect if it can be GPU accelerated or not.*



Yes it does. Nothing accelerates Hi10p as of yet. And DVXA is not always capable of accelerating things above level 4.1 with more than 4 ref frames (for 1080p) in 8bit H.264 encodes, iirc. Last I checked, .ass subtitles broke acceleration too. They may have worked that out by now though. I strongly suggest you read up on it before making any purchases in this segment based on gpu acceleration abilities, especially if you like anime. Anime groups tend to stay on the cutting edge of encoding techniques in an effort to maximize picture quality with the smallest file size possible. Meaning more decode power is generally needed.

And post-processing = not accurate. I don't use it. Which actually works to the advantage of less compute power needed anyway, so only make the job even easier, whether gpu or cpu.


----------



## Yo_Wattup (Feb 6, 2012)

newtekie1 said:


> 8600GT level performance is pretty good?  Low end 5 generations ago is pretty good?  Sorry, no.
> 
> 
> 
> Read the news post.  We are talking about a 17w Trinity.  There is already a 17w i3 out, and the Ivy Bridge part that will fit into 17w will be even more powerful than the one AMD is using to compare that has been out for almost a year now.  *They consume the same power, that is the point of this news post.  AMD was comparing two processor that use the same amount of power(and hence put out the same amount of heat). The Intel laptop isn't going to get any hotter than the AMD, and isn't going to use anymore power.*



Yes, you are correct. The mobile _APU's _ alone make the same amount of heat as intel's i3 _CPUs _alone. The point is that you need a discrete GPU on the intel to get the same amount of graphics processing, which is where all the heat comes from. The whole point of trinity is that you won't need a discrete GPU for *low-mid level* lappys, *where on an intel, you do*; cutting down on heat and power consumption. Gosh I don't know how many times I have to say this.



newtekie1 said:


> I missed this.  Are you serious?  It takes all of $40 to get a descrete GPU that outperforms this APU.  I've seen what they can do, the APUs are shit when it comes to graphical power.  And most low end descrete cards on the market today will outperform it toe to toe.  The only ones that won't are the extreme low end card like the 8400GS, G210, HD5450, but those all sell for like $25 and aren't worth the money unless you just need another display output.









Why are you comparing desktop GPU's to a mobile APU? The same amount of graphics processing power on a mobile setup costs twice as much when compared to the desktop version. AFAIK, there is no $40 laptop GPU that outperforms an AMD APU. 

All you intel fanboys ned to come back down to reality. Just because intel kick ass on a desktop platform (I will be the first to support that, in _every _budget level, for desktops, Intel is a better choice than AMD), doesn't mean they are the best selection for this specific category of computing.


----------



## Wile E (Feb 7, 2012)

Yo_Wattup said:


> Yes, you are correct. The mobile _APU's _ alone make the same amount of heat as intel's i3 _CPUs _alone. The point is that you need a discrete GPU on the intel to get the same amount of graphics processing, which is where all the heat comes from. The whole point of trinity is that you won't need a discrete GPU for *low-mid level* lappys, *where on an intel, you do*; cutting down on heat and power consumption. Gosh I don't know how many times I have to say this.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



They may very well be if you don't need the gpu power. Which is the point I've been trying to make. The Intel igpu does everything I need in this class of notebook, so the decision primarily comes down to cpu power and battery life. The extra gpu power is of no benefit to someone like me.


----------



## newtekie1 (Feb 7, 2012)

Yo_Wattup said:


> Yes, you are correct. The mobile _APU's _ alone make the same amount of heat as intel's i3 _CPUs _alone. The point is that you need a discrete GPU on the intel to get the same amount of graphics processing, which is where all the heat comes from. The whole point of trinity is that you won't need a discrete GPU for *low-mid level* lappys, *where on an intel, you do*; cutting down on heat and power consumption. Gosh I don't know how many times I have to say this.



Despite what you want to call it, AMD "APU" and Intel's i3 are the same thing.  CPU cores with a GPU.  APU is just a buzz word that stands for what Intel has been doing since the first Core i series.  So these power consumption numbers for the APU are for the CPU cores and the GPU core, just like the i3 power consumption numbers are for the CPU cores and the GPU.

So the point is that you _don't_ need a discrete GPU with Intel, and the slightly better performance of the Trinity integrated GPU isn't worth much over the Intel integrated GPU.  They are both shit.





Yo_Wattup said:


> http://cache.ohinternet.com/images/...dFacepalm.jpg/618px-JeanLucPicardFacepalm.jpg
> 
> Why are you comparing desktop GPU's to a mobile APU? The same amount of graphics processing power on a mobile setup costs twice as much when compared to the desktop version. AFAIK, there is no $40 laptop GPU that outperforms an AMD APU.
> 
> All you intel fanboys ned to come back down to reality. Just because intel kick ass on a desktop platform (I will be the first to support that, in _every _budget level, for desktops, Intel is a better choice than AMD), doesn't mean they are the best selection for this specific category of computing.




Because by that point in the conversation we were talking about _desktop_ APUs.  Try to keep up with the conversation, if you are finding it hard, try reading it multiple times.  The mobile Trinity APU is likely going to be even less powerful than the desktop version we currently have.


----------



## de.das.dude (Feb 7, 2012)

lulz... intel fanbois...


----------



## rvalencia (Feb 7, 2012)

newtekie1 said:


> 1,100 or 2,300 either way they are still shit performance numbers.



Well, 1100 score is worst than 2300. 

Geforce 9600M GT's 3DMark Vantage (P GPU no PhysX 1280x1024) scores around 1192 which is about the same as my old ASUS N80vn's Geforce 9650M GT and it can play Xbox 360 PC ports at 720p just fine.

Having 17 watt ultrathin notebook with twice the Vantage score would be nice.


----------



## Melvis (Feb 7, 2012)

Very nice, i cant wait to see these out in action, i think the APU's are just great, good enough CPU performance and a GPU that is unmatched (in there price point). Nice cheap low powered all round laptop/netbook with one of these APU's in it. Casual gaming, work, HD video play back and much more all at the same time if ya like, very good.

Shame they used that as a benchmark, games is where its at not 3Dmark.


----------



## rvalencia (Feb 7, 2012)

Wile E said:


> Yes it does. Nothing accelerates Hi10p as of yet. And DVXA is not always capable of accelerating things above level 4.1 with more than 4 ref frames (for 1080p) in 8bit H.264 encodes, iirc. Last I checked, .ass subtitles broke acceleration too. They may have worked that out by now though. I strongly suggest you read up on it before making any purchases in this segment based on gpu acceleration abilities, especially if you like anime. Anime groups tend to stay on the cutting edge of encoding techniques in an effort to maximize picture quality with the smallest file size possible. Meaning more decode power is generally needed.
> 
> And post-processing = not accurate. I don't use it. Which actually works to the advantage of less compute power needed anyway, so only make the job even easier, whether gpu or cpu.



AMD A6 mobile APUs can handle these latest anime mkvs.


----------



## rvalencia (Feb 7, 2012)

Wile E said:


> Wrong. These encodes are not ABLE to be accelerated by the gpu at all. Even if I did turn on gpu acceleration, they still would not be accelerated, in any software combo. Not even CUDA on an nVidia card.



The GpGPU can assist video decode/effects render/encode i.e. I have Cyberlink PowerDirector 10 software.


----------



## Yo_Wattup (Feb 7, 2012)

newtekie1 said:


> Despite what you want to call it, AMD "APU" and Intel's i3 are the same thing.  CPU cores with a GPU.  APU is just a buzz word that stands for what Intel has been doing since the first Core i series.  So these power consumption numbers for the APU are for the CPU cores and the GPU core, just like the i3 power consumption numbers are for the CPU cores and the GPU.
> 
> So the point is that you _don't_ need a discrete GPU with Intel, and the *slightly better performance* of the Trinity integrated GPU isn't worth much over the Intel integrated GPU.  They are both shit.



Slightly better performance? I'm.. I'm just not even going to bother with you.. believe what you will. Ignorance is bliss right?


----------



## phanbuey (Feb 7, 2012)

the performance is enough to run games at mid settings at 720p without issue.  They double the gaming speed of intel ultrabooks.  it is a well balanced machine, and much more competitive with intel than the Bulldozer to i7 on the high end.


----------



## de.das.dude (Feb 7, 2012)

rvalencia said:


> The GpGPU can assist video decode/effects render/encode i.e. I have Cyberlink PowerDirector 10 software.
> 
> http://www.cyberlink.com/prog/product/html/14015/10_GM3/img/truevelocity-parallel.jpg



dont bother wasting your energy with an intel fabuoy.


----------



## newtekie1 (Feb 7, 2012)

Yo_Wattup said:


> Slightly better performance? I'm.. I'm just not even going to bother with you.. believe what you will. Ignorance is bliss right?



Yes, slightly better performance.  1000 more 3DMark Vantage points isn't anything to talk about.  10MPH is twice as fast as 5MPH, but still slow as shit.  And 10MPH is only slightly faster than 5MPH when you look at the whole speedometer.  Get it?


----------



## eidairaman1 (Feb 7, 2012)

Smdh


----------



## rvalencia (Feb 7, 2012)

newtekie1 said:


> Yes, slightly better performance.  1000 more 3DMark Vantage points isn't anything to talk about.  10MPH is twice as fast as 5MPH, but still slow as shit.  And 10MPH is only slightly faster than 5MPH when you look at the whole speedometer.  Get it?



Vantage's 2300 scores is like my old Sony Vaio VGN-FW45's Radeon HD 4650M (15 to 19 watts) + 512MB GDDR3 VRAM scores.

My old Sony Vaio VGN-FW45's plays Mass Effect 2 at  720p and max settings.

PS; Sony Vaio VGN-FW45's Intel Core 2 Duo P8700 has 25 watts TDP.


----------



## newtekie1 (Feb 7, 2012)

rvalencia said:


> Vantage's 2300 scores is like my old Sony Vaio VGN-FW45's Radeon HD 4650M (15 to 19 watts) + 512MB GDDR3 VRAM scores.
> 
> My old Sony Vaio VGN-FW45's plays Mass Effect 2 at  720p and max settings.
> 
> PS; Sony Vaio VGN-FW45's Intel Core 2 Duo P8700 has 25 watts TDP.



So your benchmark for being a capable gaming GPU/APU is if it can play a game using a 5 year old engine.  Ok...

My TI-83 could play Mass Effect 2 at 720p and max settings...(and so can the Sandy Bridge iGPU FYI).

Try something a little more demanding, and a little more modern.


----------



## rvalencia (Feb 8, 2012)

newtekie1 said:


> So your benchmark for being a capable gaming GPU/APU is if it can play a game using a 5 year old engine.  Ok...
> 
> My TI-83 could play Mass Effect 2 at 720p and max settings...(and so can the Sandy Bridge iGPU FYI).
> 
> Try something a little more demanding, and a little more modern.


I'm sure you can use youtube for Radeon HD 4650M GDDR3 gameplay examples. Most Xbox 360 ports plays well on Radeon HD 4650M. 


Which Sandy Bridge IGP version i.e. ULV(17 watts, 350MHz**), LV, (500MHz**), desktop(850Mhz**)?
**base clock.


Click on my profile's "System Specs" link for my Silverstone SG07 Mini-ITX's LAN box specs i.e. it has Intel Core i5-2500K with active HD 3000 IGP (allocated 512MB shared memory from UEFI). 






To enable HD 3000 IGP, I have used ASUS P8H67-I Rev 3.0 motherboard. My tower PC has ASUS P8P67 Rev 3.0 motherboard i.e. I plan to swap the non-K Intel Core i7-2600 and Core i5-2500K later.


----------



## newtekie1 (Feb 8, 2012)

rvalencia said:


> I'm sure you can use youtube for Radeon HD 4650M GDDR3 gameplay examples. Most Xbox 360 ports plays well on Radeon HD 4650M.



If I wanted use that as a benchmark for performance, I'd just buy an Xbox...

Seriously, 5+ year old games engines are not what I call a stress on a GPU or really what I rush out to play on my brand new computer.  Which is why I don't buy anything with an iGPU/APU for gaming.


----------



## Frick (Feb 8, 2012)

newtekie1 said:


> Seriously, 5+ year old games engines are not what I call a stress on a GPU or really what I rush out to play on my brand new computer.  Which is why I don't buy anything with an iGPU/APU for gaming.



Nor will anyone else (for serious gaming anyway), the point is the APU stuff is faster than the Intel stuff.


----------



## newtekie1 (Feb 8, 2012)

Frick said:


> Nor will anyone else (for serious gaming anyway), the point is the APU stuff is faster than the Intel stuff.



Yes, but the point is it isn't fast enough to matter.


----------



## Frick (Feb 8, 2012)

newtekie1 said:


> Yes, but the point is it isn't fast enough to matter.


















Yeah right. Now this is a different model, but the A6 have simliar Vantage performance. And you don't do serious gaming on a small notebook anyway, but with these puppies you can do some light gaming even with modern titles.


----------



## rvalencia (Feb 8, 2012)

newtekie1 said:


> If I wanted use that as a benchmark for performance, I'd just buy an Xbox...
> 
> Seriously, 5+ year old games engines are not what I call a stress on a GPU or really what I rush out to play on my brand new computer.  Which is why I don't buy anything with an iGPU/APU for gaming.



Xbox 360 is not a mobile device.


----------



## Wile E (Feb 9, 2012)

rvalencia said:


> The GpGPU can assist video decode/effects render/encode i.e. I have Cyberlink PowerDirector 10 software.
> 
> http://www.cyberlink.com/prog/product/html/14015/10_GM3/img/truevelocity-parallel.jpg



It does not accelerate 1080p content when it's encoded with more than 4 ref frames the last I checked, but that one may have been remedied by now.

Nothing hardware decodes Hi10p yet. I do know that for sure. Even if the software could do it, supposedly the current crop of hardware isn't capable anyway. Not sure about all that, but all that matters is that it just doesn't work.

http://www.clubbleach.org/forums/showthread.php?96051-How-to-Play-10-bit-h264-(Hi10P)-video-files

So again, for someone like me, the graphics performance is irrelevent.



de.das.dude said:


> dont bother wasting your energy with an intel fabuoy.



How many time do you need to be told that I am a fan of no brands whatsoever? I am only a fan of the products that give me the most of what I want for my money. I want cpu power. I don't care who gives it to me.

Keep your fanboy claims to yourself.


----------



## rvalencia (Feb 10, 2012)

Wile E said:


> It does not accelerate 1080p content when it's encoded with more than 4 ref frames the last I checked, but that one may have been remedied by now.
> 
> Nothing hardware decodes Hi10p yet. I do know that for sure. Even if the software could do it, supposedly the current crop of hardware isn't capable anyway. Not sure about all that, but all that matters is that it just doesn't work.
> 
> ...


Hi10P breaks hardware H.264 acceleration with handheld devices. 

Atm, Intel Sandybridge and Ivybridge doesn't support FMA3. AMD Piledriver supports FMA3 and FMA4 instructions.

As for encoding videos on pure CPU, http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/fx-8150-zambezi-bulldozer-990fx,3043-17.html










This is using the *flawed* AMD Bulldozer. Atm, the old AMD Bulldozer has issues with the single threaded applications, while in multi-threaded applications it seems to be competitive.


----------



## Wile E (Feb 11, 2012)

rvalencia said:


> Hi10P breaks hardware H.264 acceleration with handheld devices.
> 
> Atm, Intel Sandybridge and Ivybridge doesn't support FMA3. AMD Piledriver supports FMA3 and FMA4 instructions.
> 
> ...



Hi10p breaks hardware acceleration on *ALL* platforms.

And I'm not exactly sure what point you are trying to make by showing that the Intel is faster in encoding thread for thread at a lower clock speed.


----------



## rvalencia (Feb 11, 2012)

Wile E said:


> Hi10p breaks hardware acceleration on *ALL* platforms.


Hi10P is a "so what" issue i.e. it has less player user base than mainstream H.264 players. 



Wile E said:


> And I'm not exactly sure what point you are trying to make by showing that the Intel is faster in encoding thread for thread at a lower clock speed.


It's more or less even i.e. the gap is not large.


----------



## Wile E (Feb 11, 2012)

That's roughly a 10% difference. that's significant when you are encoding entire movies instead of just clips.

And hi10p is a definite issue for me, thus the entire reason I have brought it up in the first place. It's an issue for anyone that follows anime subbing groups.


----------



## newtekie1 (Feb 11, 2012)

Frick said:


> http://www.nordichardware.se/images...hipset/amd.a6.3650/fullimages/crysis.1366.png
> 
> http://www.nordichardware.se/images...-Chipset/amd.a6.3650/fullimages/civ5.1366.png
> 
> ...



Awesome, so the desktop GPU, which is more powerful than the Trinity GPU we are talking about here, barely manages playable framerates in one game and not even close to playable framerates in two others.  I don't really see what point you were trying to make with that...


----------



## rvalencia (Feb 11, 2012)

Wile E said:


> That's roughly a 10% difference. that's significant when you are encoding entire movies instead of just clips.


The benchmarks refers to the older Bulldozer not Piledriver.

From http://m.hardocp.com/article/2011/10/11/amd_bulldozer_fx8150_desktop_performance_review/7

DVD movie to the iPhone4 





The stock 8120 slots between i7-2600K and i5-2500K.



Wile E said:


> And hi10p is a definite issue for me, thus the entire reason I have brought it up in the first place. It's an issue for anyone that follows anime subbing groups.


I don't see the sound logic to reduce the video player userbase.


----------



## rvalencia (Feb 11, 2012)

newtekie1 said:


> Awesome, so the desktop GPU, which is more powerful than the Trinity GPU we are talking about here, barely manages playable framerates in one game and not even close to playable framerates in two others.  I don't really see what point you were trying to make with that...



"but the A6 have simliar Vantage performance"


----------



## Wile E (Feb 11, 2012)

rvalencia said:


> From http://m.hardocp.com/article/2011/10/11/amd_bulldozer_fx8150_desktop_performance_review/7
> 
> 
> DVD movie above to the iPhone4
> http://m.hardocp.com/image_resize.p...s/1318034683VZqVQLiVuL_7_3.png&image_size=400



Only a 30 minute clip and different software than the last one you showed, and Intel still in the lead. 

I use handbrake, mediacoder and RipBot depending on what I'm trying to accomplish. All of them use official x.264 builds in their code, so that's all I'm interested in when it comes to encoding performance. Most commercial encoders are unoptimized piles of crap.

You are failing to make a point here. This entire time I've been talking about *my needs* in this class of notebook, and the needs of *users like me*. GPU performance serves us no purpose, and you just made me aware that the AMD chips are slower thread for thread in multithreaded apps than a hyperthreading Intel with half the number of real cores. I didn't know that. I thought that maybe the 4 core AMDs could take on a 2c/4t Intel. My mistake.

So, barring an extreme price or battery advantage with the AMD laptop, why would I even consider something other than the Intel setup?



rvalencia said:


> I don't see the sound logic to reduce the video player userbase.


Hi10p provides up to 25% better compression with no quality loss. More space for more shows. I don't see the sound logic in using an inferior compression algorithm just to gain gpu acceleration when the cpu is already powerful enough to handle it.


----------



## rvalencia (Feb 11, 2012)

Wile E said:


> Only a 30 minute clip and different software than the last one you showed, and Intel still in the lead.


It depends on the encoding pass.















Wile E said:


> You are failing to make a point here. This entire time I've been talking about *my needs* in this class of notebook, and the needs of *users like me*.


What about the needs from mainstream H264 users?



Wile E said:


> GPU performance serves us no purpose, and you just made me aware that the AMD chips are slower thread for thread in multithreaded apps than a hyperthreading Intel with half the number of real cores. I didn't know that. I thought that maybe the 4 core AMDs could take on a 2c/4t Intel. My mistake.


AMD's "core" marketing is just noise. 

Microsoft's latest Bulldozer hotfix treats AMD's Bulldozer module as 1 physical CPU count with 2 logical CPU threads aka hyperthreaded enabled CPU.




Wile E said:


> So, barring an extreme price or battery advantage with the AMD laptop, why would I even consider something other than the Intel setup?


It's your decision. I already have a 45 watts CPU heavy vs 26 watts GPU gaming laptop and I don't plan on buying another CPU heavy laptop.


----------



## Wile E (Feb 11, 2012)

rvalencia said:


> It depends on the encoding pass.
> 
> http://m.hardocp.com/image_resize.p...s/1318034683VZqVQLiVuL_7_4.png&image_size=500
> 
> ...


I was never speaking to the needs of the mainstream h.264 user. And even if I was, Intel can accelrate them too. So again, the additional gpu performance is moot.

And look again. Those benches are in frames per second. The 2600k is mopping the floor with AMD. Hell, the X6 is beating Bulldozer, and at a lower clock.

EDIT: Nix that. *I* was misreading the benches.

But why is the OCed 2600k slower than the stock one on the second pass? Something is not right here. That 2600k should be at around 50fps on the second pass @ 4.8Ghz.


----------



## rvalencia (Feb 11, 2012)

Wile E said:


> I was never speaking to the needs of the mainstream h.264 user. And even if I was, Intel can accelrate them too. So again, the additional gpu performance is moot.


It's moot for some users, but Intel's Atom netbook collapse indicates otherwise i.e. the ARM and AMD competition has decent ultra-mobile GPUs. I wouldn't complain if a decent (within TDP) GPU comes *free* with the CPU package.

Would you make the same statement with Intel Haswell (2013)?

Hi10 playback should be good enough on current fat Out-Of-Order CPUs. The problem is with ultra-portables that relies on current H.264 decode hardware. IF AMD and Intel improves ultra-portables Hi10 playback then it's good for the X86 market.



Wile E said:


> And look again. Those benches are in frames per second. The 2600k is mopping the floor with AMD. Hell, the X6 is beating Bulldozer, and at a lower clock.


Under Microsoft's Bulldozer hotfix, 8120 has 4 physical CPU cores with 8 logical threads.

The X6 has 6 physical CPU cores with 6 logical threads.

As for Core i7-2600 competition, AMD can't charge the same price as i7-2600.



Wile E said:


> But why is the OCed 2600k slower than the stock one on the second pass? Something is not right here. That 2600k should be at around 50fps on the second pass @ 4.8Ghz.


Other websites shows similar 1st pass vs 2nd pass issues.


----------



## Wile E (Feb 11, 2012)

rvalencia said:


> It's moot for some users, but Intel's Atom netbook collapse indicates otherwise i.e. the ARM and AMD competition has decent ultra-mobile GPUs. I wouldn't complain if a decent (within TDP) GPU comes *free* with the CPU package.
> 
> Would you make the same statement with Intel Haswell (2013)?
> 
> ...


This thread and article are not about Atom. They are about the SB based designs on the Intel front. So from an end user perspective, the gpu performance is still moot for everyone except those that really do plan to try gaming on these.


----------



## rvalencia (Feb 11, 2012)

Wile E said:


> This thread and article are not about Atom. They are about the SB based designs on the Intel front. So from an end user perspective, the gpu performance is still moot for everyone except those that really do plan to try gaming on these.


"Fat" Out-Of-Order CGPU @ 17 watts from Intel and AMD are in 11 inch netbook form factor range. AMD cancelled their next-gen ~18 watt Brazos and replace it with Trinity @ 17 watts. 

I bet $500 USD Trinity 17 watts notebooks are just AMD E-350/E-450 @ 18 watts netbook shells with Trinity @ 17 watts in them.

Everyone else would be using mainstream H.264 content.


----------



## Wile E (Feb 12, 2012)

rvalencia said:


> "Fat" Out-Of-Order CGPU @ 17 watts from Intel and AMD are in 11 inch netbook form factor range. AMD cancelled their next-gen ~18 watt Brazos and replace it with Trinity @ 17 watts.
> 
> I bet $500 USD Trinity 17 watts notebooks are just AMD E-350/E-450 @ 18 watts netbook shells with Trinity @ 17 watts in them.
> 
> *Everyone else would be using mainstream H.264 content.*



Doesn't matter. The Intel chips in question accelerates h.264 content as well. 

So given that both platforms already accelerate video, gaming is about the only thing the more powerful gpu is useful for, that I can see.


----------



## rvalencia (Feb 12, 2012)

Wile E said:


> Doesn't matter. The Intel chips in question accelerates h.264 content as well.
> 
> So given that both platforms already accelerate video, gaming is about the only thing the more powerful gpu is useful for, that I can see.


My "Everyone else would be using mainstream H.264 content" context was for your Hi10 niche playback requirement.

The GPU comes *free* with the CPU package.

From http://www.anandtech.com/show/5013/details-on-trinity-amds-next-gen-apu

"AMD will also compete with Intel's QuickSync by including Video Compression Engine (VCE) in Trinity". AMD's encoder side will have Radeon HD stream processors+VCE+AMD AVX(with FMA3/FMA4) compute resource.


----------



## newtekie1 (Feb 12, 2012)

rvalencia said:


> My "Everyone else would be using mainstream H.264 content" context was for your Hi10 niche playback requirement.
> 
> *The GPU comes *free* with the CPU package.*
> 
> ...



Correct, in both Intel and AMD's case, so what is your point?  They both accelerate H.264, so the only advantage is gaming, and the AMD GPU is faster, but not fast enough to really make a difference.


----------



## Yo_Wattup (Feb 12, 2012)

newtekie1 said:


> Correct, in both Intel and AMD's case, so what is your point?  They both accelerate H.264, so the only advantage is gaming, and the AMD GPU is faster, but not fast enough to really make a difference.



Say it's twice as fast (which it is), so (hypothetically) it allows you to play Crysis on low settings at 40fps, while the intel allows you to play at 20fps, how is that not a difference?


----------



## rvalencia (Feb 12, 2012)

newtekie1 said:


> Correct, in both Intel and AMD's case, so what is your point?  They both accelerate H.264, so the only advantage is gaming, and the AMD GPU is faster, but not fast enough to really make a difference.



Read Wile E's Hi10 niche anime playback user base statements.

Wile E is making a "doomsday" issue with one of Bulldozer's non-issue multi-treaded workloads.

As for "not fast enough to really make a difference", it depends on the game i.e. border line between non-playable vs playable.


With Intel Haswell's improved IGP, minimising IGP's progression is a double standard/hypocritical.


----------



## Wile E (Feb 12, 2012)

rvalencia said:


> Read Wile E's Hi10 niche anime playback user base statements.
> 
> Wile E is making "doomsday" issue with one of Bulldozer's non-issue multi-treaded workloads.
> 
> ...



AMD's gpu doesn't make a difference in mainstream h.264 playback. 

Read my posts again. Both Intel and AMD gpus accelerate mainstream H.264.

So, what benefit does the extra AMD gpu performance serve, other than gaming? And since you want to pull the mainstream users card, I'd like to point out that mainstream users don't game much at all, other than Facebook games that both gpus run the same. Especially not on this class of small screened notebooks.

So, short version = the extra gpu performance offered by AMD is completely useless for mainstream users. 

It is only useful for a very small niche that will play games on these mini notebooks. Just like Hi10p is a small niche. My concerns are no less valid than that of those that would game on these notebooks. Your posts are every bit as "doomsday" scenario as mine.

I'm all about IGP progression, but neither option will offer great gaming experience. Until they do, the point is moot for the majority of users. You buy whichever performs best at the tasks you plan to use it for. If your tasks are cpu dependent, extra gpu power is pointless. If your tasks are gpu dependent, then extra gpu power is what you want.


----------



## erocker (Feb 12, 2012)

Wile E said:


> AMD's gpu doesn't make a difference in mainstream h.264 playback.
> 
> Read my posts again. Both Intel and AMD gpus accelerate mainstream H.264.
> 
> ...



Laptops/notebooks/netbooks to me don't need to be powerful at all. Having a great GPU in it is a bonus for sure and a selling point to me, especially if the price is low. I liked my netbook but Intel's GPU solution is horrible. I'll be first in line to buy a beefed up AMD netbook.


----------



## rvalencia (Feb 13, 2012)

Wile E said:


> AMD's gpu doesn't make a difference in mainstream h.264 playback.
> 
> Read my posts again. Both Intel and AMD gpus accelerate mainstream H.264.
> 
> So, what benefit does the extra AMD gpu performance serve, other than gaming?


WinZip 16.5 OpenCL, Cyberlink PowerDirector 10's effects renderer OpenCL, Mathlab OpenCL, ...

PS; OpenCL runs on both CPU(e.g. AVX) and GpGPU i.e. use the entire compute resource on a given device.



Wile E said:


> And since you want to pull the mainstream users card, I'd like to point out that mainstream users don't game much at all, other than Facebook games that both gpus run the same. Especially not on this class of small screened notebooks.


Well, Intel Atom's IGP is junk and it doesn't deliver Sony Vita or Xbox 360 level gaming. The cheap product has to be offered first.

Intel GMA 3150 is slower than Apple's iPad 2 IGP (PowerVR 543MP2) or similar ARM Cortex A9 based tablet devices. 

PS; I have ASUS Eeepc 101MT (Intel Atom Nxxx) tablet and replaced it with Acer Iconia W500 tablet .



Wile E said:


> It is only useful for a very small niche that will play games on these mini notebooks.


Apple's iPad 2 IGP (PowerVR 543MP2)  says Hi.



Wile E said:


> Just like Hi10p is a small niche. My concerns are no less valid than that of those that would game on these notebooks. Your posts are every bit as "doomsday" scenario as mine.


I have posted benchmarks that countered your "doomsday" postings.


----------



## pantherx12 (Feb 13, 2012)

rvalencia said:


> WinZip 16.5 OpenCL, Cyberlink PowerDirector 10's effects renderer OpenCL, Mathlab OpenCL, ...
> .



Wolfram Mathematica supports GPU compute with opencl : ]


----------



## rvalencia (Feb 13, 2012)

pantherx12 said:


> Wolfram Mathematica supports GPU compute with opencl : ]



OpenCL can target AVX and GPU compute.


----------



## Wile E (Feb 13, 2012)

erocker said:


> Laptops/notebooks/netbooks to me don't need to be powerful at all. Having a great GPU in it is a bonus for sure and a selling point to me, especially if the price is low. I liked my netbook but Intel's GPU solution is horrible. I'll be first in line to buy a beefed up AMD netbook.



That's your choice, and you have your reasons. I'm not telling anyone not to buy these. I'm just telling why I find the gpu performance to be irrelevant to my needs and the needs of others like me, and how the mainstream user isn't likely to notice the difference in gpu performance, as they don't do much of anything that exploits it.

Doesn't mean that nobody has a use for it.


rvalencia said:


> WinZip 16.5 OpenCL, Cyberlink PowerDirector 10's effects renderer OpenCL, Mathlab OpenCL, ...
> 
> 
> PS; OpenCL runs on both CPU(e.g. AVX) and GpGPU i.e. use the entire compute resource on a given device.


Those are not mainstream users. You are the one that keeps pushing the mainstream argument, now it's biting you in the ass. Mainstream users watch videos, play music, surf the web and play browser or simple games that the Intel IGP handles just fine. They do not compress large files, render, or use Matlab on their ultra portable notebooks. Although I do owe you a thanks for reminding me of a niche that uses gpu other than gamers. but again, their niche is not any more valid than my niche. So, that's two niches that can get an honest to goodness boost from this gpu. Why are those niches suddenly more relevent than mine?



rvalencia said:


> Well, Intel Atom's IGP is junk and it doesn't deliver Sony Vita or Xbox 360 level gaming. The cheap product has to be offered first.
> 
> Intel GMA 3150 is slower than Apple's iPad 2 IGP (PowerVR 543MP2) or similar ARM Cortex A9 based tablet devices.
> 
> PS; I have ASUS Eeepc 101MT (Intel Atom Nxxx) tablet and replaced it with Acer Iconia W500 tablet .


This is not about the Atom cpus. Why do you keep missing that? It's about the low voltage Sandy Bridge cpus.



rvalencia said:


> Apple's iPad 2 IGP (PowerVR 543MP2)  says Hi.


iPad2 is NOT a notebook. It's a touchscreen tablet. Two entirely different markets. This entire thread is about the ultra slim notebooks, not tablets



rvalencia said:


> I have posted benchmarks that countered your "doomsday" postings.


Not really. Nothing you posted shows how the gpu is beneficial to the mainstream user. You are posting numbers that are flawed/bugged or shows Intel in the lead in cpu performance. That benefits my niche. Plenty of benches that have been posted show AMD's better gpu in action. Well guess what, the people that will actually put that extra power to good use, are also a niche market.

I bet a mainstream user couldn't tell the difference between either platform in day to day use. So again, your argument about mainstream users is completely moot.

And again, all of my comments have just been about what my needs are. I'm not sure why you are on a crusade to tell me my needs are wrong. I never once said that nobody should buy the better gpu, I just said I don't need it, and neither do mainstream users. In fairness, mainstream users likely aren't gonna need the exrta cpu power of the Intel either. The people that need the extra gpu or cpu power are both niche markets.


----------



## Yo_Wattup (Feb 13, 2012)

My mother in law has a SB pentium (maybe i3? Dunno but i know its a sandy dual core) system running from IGP and its a bit old, therefore it has a bunch of crap intsalled on it, and let me tell you, it doesn't handle Aero very well anymore. Tell me that's not 'mainstream'. 

As advanced users, we would never let our systems get clogged up with crap, but mainstream users do, you gotta take that into consideration also, Wile E.


----------



## rvalencia (Feb 13, 2012)

Wile E said:


> Doesn't mean that nobody has a use for it.
> Those are not mainstream users. You are the one that keeps pushing the mainstream argument, now it's biting you in the ass. Mainstream users watch videos, play music, surf the web and play browser or simple games that the Intel IGP handles just fine. They do not compress large files, render, or use Matlab on their ultra portable notebooks. Although I do owe you a thanks for reminding me of a niche that uses gpu other than gamers. but again, their niche is not any more valid than my niche. So, that's two niches that can get an honest to goodness boost from this gpu. Why are those niches suddenly more relevent than mine?


Matlab targets education, engineering and science sectors of our economy. Engineering and science are large fields in the economy. 

Also, you are not factoring mobile graphics workstation users e.g. marketing i.e. visual product demos to clients in the areas of industrial design, interior decoration, external decoration, house building and 'etc' .

What does Hi10 anime do for our economy? 

Also, MS C++ AMP framework builds on top of DX11's Compute Shaders 5.0.




Wile E said:


> iPad2 is NOT a notebook. It's a touchscreen tablet. Two entirely different markets. This entire thread is about the ultra slim notebooks, not tablets


They crossover in terms of basic computing usage e.g. internet, email, watch content.

Also, there's an Intel Core i5 Sandy ULV in a 11 inch tablet form factor.



Wile E said:


> Not really. Nothing you posted shows how the gpu is beneficial to the mainstream user. You are posting numbers that are flawed/bugged or shows Intel in the lead in cpu performance.


They are not bugged. Intel Sandybridge has it's own weak points, but it has less of them compared to AMD Bulldozer.



Wile E said:


> That benefits my niche. Plenty of benches that have been posted show AMD's better gpu in action. Well guess what, the people that will actually put that extra power to good use, are also a niche market.


Anime Hi10P playback doesn't do much for the wider economy. 



Wile E said:


> I bet a mainstream user couldn't tell the difference between either platform in day to day use. So again, your argument about mainstream users is completely moot.


If that's the case, tell Intel to not improve Intel Haswell's IGP i.e. stop adding IEUs  and let ARM based solutions catch up.


----------



## Wile E (Feb 14, 2012)

rvalencia said:


> Matlab targets education, engineering and science sectors of our economy. Engineering and science are large fields in the economy.
> 
> Also, you are not factoring mobile graphics workstation users e.g. marketing i.e. visual product demos to clients in the areas of industrial design, interior decoration, external decoration, house building and 'etc' .
> 
> ...


Most mobile workstations are not built from ultra portables. It is still a very small niche. More on society below.



rvalencia said:


> They crossover in terms of basic computing usage e.g. internet, email, watch content.
> 
> Also, there's an Intel Core i5 Sandy ULV in a 11 inch tablet form factor.


Again, read the first post. This is about notebooks, not tablets. There may be some crossover, but they are not the same. People don't generally buy ultraportable notebooks to game on, but tablets are a different story, and one I was never discussing. You keep trying to come out of the very narrow scope of this thread. This thread ONLY pertains to Ultraportable notebooks. 




rvalencia said:


> They are not bugged. Intel Sandybridge has it's own weak points, but it has less of them compared to AMD Bulldozer.


When the second pass on the overclocked SB is slower than the second pass on the stock cloked SB, there is clearly a bug involved.




rvalencia said:


> Anime Hi10P playback doesn't do much for the wider economy.


Irrelevant. All that's relevant is that there consumers that will consume based on that usage. This is about ultraportables, and the people that use them, not contributions to society. Why do you keep adding unrelated variables? What does the contributions of science and hi10p encoded anime to society have to do with the usefulness of the hardware to the end user? Their contributions to society are 100% irrelevant. The only thing relevant is how useful these products are to the person/entity that plans to buy and use it.


rvalencia said:


> If that's the case, tell Intel to not improve Intel Haswell's IGP i.e. stop adding IEUs  and let ARM based solutions catch up.


People still won't notice, but I'm still all for constant improvement. It brings other benefits besides gaming/gpgpu performance. Like better power savings, more features, etc., etc.

None of my non-tech head friends even notice the difference between my 580 and the Intel IGP on my public computer downstairs, let alone the difference between the AMD and Intel gpus on an ultraportable. Most mainstream users have no use for the extra gpu or cpu power, and will most likely buy based on cost, or some other metric like style or battery life or whatever.

That leaves small niches that do benefit. The ones you mentioned and gamers benefit from the added gpu power.

The others benefit from the added cpu power of the Intel platform.

Both are completely valid markets.


----------



## rvalencia (Feb 14, 2012)

Wile E said:


> Most mobile workstations are not built from ultra portables. It is still a very small niche. More on society below.


In relation to form factors, the market can change e.g. the X86 PC market is now dominated by mobile X86 PCs. 

Also, Intel is currently obtaining graphics application certifications for their HD 3000 IGP i.e. refer to http://www.techpowerup.com/159290/I...orkstation-Graphics-With-HD-P3000-Series.html. The motivation is business to business not some Hi10 anime mkvs users.

Your “very small niche” claims is laughable when Intel spending their 1st tier resources in this area.  
Intel is on the move and it’s NOT with your mindset. You want AMD to stand still? It seems you have some unhealthy fanboy mentality. 



Wile E said:


> Again, read the first post. This is about notebooks, not tablets. There may be some crossover, but they are not the same. People don't generally buy ultraportable notebooks to game on, but tablets are a different story, and one I was never discussing. You keep trying to come out of the very narrow scope of this thread. This thread ONLY pertains to Ultraportable notebooks.


Before Apple iPad/Samsung  Galaxy Tab hype, Tablet PCs are both tablet and notebook. HP even sells AMD Turion based Tablet PCs e.g. HP Pavilion TX2510US.

AMD Trinity and Intel Ivybridge ULVs would be good upgrades for x86 based Tablet PCs. 



Wile E said:


> When the second pass on the overclocked SB is slower than the second pass on the stock cloked SB, there is clearly a bug involved.


One could claim the software is not optimised for Bulldozer LOL. Please be consistent and avoid double standards.



Wile E said:


> Irrelevant. All that's relevant is that there consumers that will consume based on that usage. This is about ultraportables, and the people that use them, not contributions to society. Why do you keep adding unrelated variables? What does the contributions of science and hi10p encoded anime to society have to do with the usefulness of the hardware to the end user? Their contributions to society are 100% irrelevant. The only thing relevant is how useful these products are to the person/entity that plans to buy and use it.
> People still won't notice, but I'm still all for constant improvement. It brings other benefits besides gaming/gpgpu performance. Like better power savings, more features, etc., etc.


Please tell Intel to stop obtaining professional application certifications for their HD 3000 IGP. What’s irrelevant is your mindset vs Intel’s movements in the industry.

Intel’s IGP roadmap contradicts your minimisation of the GPU mentality.  



Wile E said:


> None of my non-tech head friends even notice the difference between my 580 and the Intel IGP on my public computer downstairs, let alone the difference between the AMD and Intel gpus on an ultraportable. Most mainstream users have no use for the extra gpu or cpu power, and will most likely buy based on cost, or some other metric like style or battery life or whatever.


AMD has its own Pepsi type test between AMD Bulldozer vs Intel Sandybridge. The bat can swing both ways.

AMD's aims is to undercut Intel Ultrabook on cost and replicate the sucess it had on netbooks  for ultra-thin PC segment. http://www.dailytech.com/AMD+Fusion...el+in+the+Notebook+MidMarket/article21763.htm

AMD Trinity ULV (17 watts) $500 "ultrathin" notebooks displaces AMD E-450 (18 watts) based netbooks.


----------



## Wile E (Feb 17, 2012)

rvalencia said:


> In relation to form factors, the market can change e.g. the X86 PC market is now dominated by mobile X86 PCs.


The market can change, but hasn't. Again, tablets are 100% irrelevant to this discussion. 




rvalencia said:


> Also, Intel is currently obtaining graphics application certifications for their HD 3000 IGP i.e. refer to http://www.techpowerup.com/159290/I...orkstation-Graphics-With-HD-P3000-Series.html. The motivation is business to business not some Hi10 anime mkvs users.
> 
> Your “very small niche” claims is laughable when Intel spending their 1st tier resources in this area.
> Intel is on the move and it’s NOT with your mindset.


Intel obtaining application certs is in reference to workstations, not ultraportables with the mobile ULV cpus. Also 100% irrelevant to this discussion.




rvalencia said:


> You want AMD to stand still? It seems you have some unhealthy fanboy mentality.


Having needs that don't benefit from extra gpu power =/= wanting no innovation. Having no use for AMD's current product =/= fanboy. Keep your fanboy claims to yourself.

In fact, I wasn't even sure who had the faster cpu until you showed me the benches yourself. I never mentioned choosing Intel over AMD prior to that. I only mentioned that the extra gpu power didn't benefit me. Talk about irony.



rvalencia said:


> Before Apple iPad/Samsung  Galaxy Tab hype, Tablet PCs are both tablet and notebook. HP even sells AMD Turion based Tablet PCs e.g. HP Pavilion TX2510US.
> 
> AMD Trinity and Intel Ivybridge ULVs would be good upgrades for x86 based Tablet PCs.


Still not relevant to the thread topic or in any way the parts I was referring to when I mentioned my own PERSONAL needs.




rvalencia said:


> One could claim the software is not optimised for Bulldozer LOL. Please be consistent and avoid double standards.


Even with optimizations, not much improvement.

http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/FX8150/8.html




rvalencia said:


> Please tell Intel to stop obtaining professional application certifications for their HD 3000 IGP. What’s irrelevant is your mindset vs Intel’s movements in the industry.


Again, that's workstation parts, not ULV ultra portable parts. How about keeping it in the scope of the thread?



rvalencia said:


> Intel’s IGP roadmap contradicts your minimisation of the GPU mentality.


I said it is not useful to my needs or those with similar needs as myself. Why do you have such a hard time understanding that?




rvalencia said:


> AMD has its own Pepsi type test between AMD Bulldozer vs Intel Sandybridge. *The bat can swing both ways.*


Funny. I don't recall suggesting otherwise.



rvalencia said:


> AMD's aims is to undercut Intel Ultrabook on cost and replicate the sucess it had on netbooks  for ultra-thin PC segment. http://www.dailytech.com/AMD+Fusion...el+in+the+Notebook+MidMarket/article21763.htm
> 
> AMD Trinity ULV (17 watts) $500 "ultrathin" notebooks displaces AMD E-450 (18 watts) based netbooks.


That's good. If the price is significantly lower than the SB based option, I would absolutely consider it, but if it's only a little lower, I'd still go with the more powerful cpu. I'm willing to pay some extra to get what I want in a product.



And still none of that makes my niche of the market less relevant. 

Let me simplify my market niche for you: 

People that require more cpu power. Why I require more cpu power doesn't actually matter at all. All that matters is that I need it. What benefit does the added gpu power have for someone that requires cpu power? Absolutely none.

I never once said that nobody has a use for more gpu power. So you can stop with your crusade already. I'm tired of defending my preferences.


----------



## rvalencia (Feb 17, 2012)

Wile E said:


> The market can change, but hasn't. Again, tablets are 100% irrelevant to this discussion.


LOL

http://www.inquisitr.com/76157/tablets-to-overtake-desktop-sales-by-2015-laptops-will-still-reign/






X86 PC market has changed from desktop to mostly mobile i.e. the market has changed.

Again, tablet PCs are 100% relevant i.e. Windows slates tablets typically use ULV CPU products.



Wile E said:


> Intel obtaining application certs is in reference to workstations, not ultraportables with the mobile ULV cpus. Also 100% irrelevant to this discussion.


Similar driver codebase and driver direction. They are relevant for Intel's GPU driver direction.



Wile E said:


> Having needs that don't benefit from extra gpu power =/= wanting no innovation. Having no use for AMD's current product =/= fanboy. Keep your fanboy claims to yourself.
> 
> In fact, I wasn't even sure who had the faster cpu until you showed me the benches yourself. I never mentioned choosing Intel over AMD prior to that. I only mentioned that the extra gpu power didn't benefit me. Talk about irony.



"I will always take more CPU power over more GPU power, *but I don't buy lesser performing products *for the sake of a brand name"

Since this topic is about AMD Trinity ULV, 
1. you have implied AMD Trinity to be "lesser performing products " with CPU's H.264 processing. 

2. We also know a certain CPU centric company and it's products i.e. refer to TC's 1st post for non-AMD product.

3. This topic is about Trinity ULV's 3DMarks scores.




Wile E said:


> Still not relevant to the thread topic or in any way the parts I was referring to when I mentioned my own PERSONAL needs.


You don't have to post into this topic if the product doesn't interest you. This topic is about Trinity ULV's 3DMarks scores.




Wile E said:


> Even with optimizations, not much improvement.
> http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/FX8150/8.html


Software optimizations are not limited to Windows scheduler hotfixes.





"In multithreading test a total of eight trailer copy's are converted in the same time, maximizing the multithreading workload. This part of test is new and is yet to be updated with Intel processors" (didn't show Intel's side).

Again, AMD BZ is competitive with multi-threading.



Wile E said:


> Again, that's workstation parts, not ULV ultra portable parts. How about keeping it in the scope of the thread?


The BZ vs SB H.264 benchmarks are only use for architecture performance indicators.

 If you read TC's post, it stated

"As for CPU performance, it's noted that Intel will clearly have an edge with performance per core, and the upper hand with single-threaded applications, while Trinity could be competitive with multi-threaded applications, as its two-module/four-core APUs will be competitively priced to Intel's two-core/four-thread(HTT) ones"

I have shown you a multi-threaded H.264 BZ vs SB H.264 benchmarks and the pattern is similar i.e. AMD's BZ architecture is competitive with this particular multi-threaded workload.

From http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/FX8150/9.html











Also from http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/FX8150/10.html






-------------------------
As for AMD Trinity's PileDriver core...

For AMD Bulldozer module's dual thread operations, AMD didn't double TLB L1 entries.

AMD's older K10 CPU's TLB L1 has 48 entries.

AMD's older K8 CPU's TLB L1 has 32 entries.

Intel Sandybridge core's TLB L1 has 64 entries(1).

Intel Clarkdale/Westmere's TLB L1 has 64 entries(2).







AMD stuff'ed up with Bulldozer i.e. K8's TLB L1 32 entries with added stress of 2 threads. Effectively has 16 entries per thread. 

Reference
1. Link, Intel Core i5-2400

2. Link, Intel Core i5-560

AMD Bulldozer vs AMD PileDriver








Wile E said:


> I said it is not useful to my needs or those with similar needs as myself. Why do you have such a hard time understanding that?


This topic is about Trinity ULV's 3DMarks scores. It's not about you.




Wile E said:


> Funny. I don't recall suggesting otherwise.
> 
> That's good. If the price is significantly lower than the SB based option, I would absolutely consider it, but if it's only a little lower, I'd still go with the more powerful cpu. I'm willing to pay some extra to get what I want in a product.


What happened to this statement "I wasn't even sure who had the faster cpu until you showed me the benches yourself"?

Did you read the rest of 
http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/FX8150/9.html
http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/FX8150/10.html links?



Wile E said:


> And still none of that makes my niche of the market less relevant.
> 
> Let me simplify my market niche for you:
> 
> ...


Did you read the rest of 
http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/FX8150/9.html
http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/FX8150/10.html links?


----------



## Wile E (Feb 19, 2012)

I'm not even going to bother going line for line.

Read the OP. 

The OP is about ultraportables. Not workstations, not tablets.

My comments are about said ultra portables. Not workstations, not tablets.

Workstations and tablets are 100% irrelevant to the scope of what I was discussing. I don't understand why you keep trying to change the scope of what I was discussing. My comments were never about anything other than ultraportables.

Tablets and workstations have different needs. My views of what is the better buy changes completely depending on intended usage and what software is to be primarily used. I never said more cpu power is better for every platform or intended usage. Stop assuming that's what I meant.

I can post my opinion on what I like and don't like in a products in any news thread I want so long as I am not being derogatory. It's called sharing an opinion. I was perfectly happy stating my opinion and why I have those needs, and leaving it at that. You seem to be on a crusade to tell me that my needs are wrong for some reason. Well, sorry to burst your bubble, my opinion was always about how this product pertains to me and others like me. You don't have to like it.  If you don't like my opinion, you don't have to read it. The door swings both ways here. But, If you are going to continue to come at me, I'm going to continue to defend my choices and opinions.

Originally, I never implied that AMD had less cpu power. I simply stated that I don't care about their gpu power in this formfactor for my intended usage. Again, it wasn't until you posted benches that I knew for sure Intel had the faster cpu. Saying I have no need for the gpu and will buy the platform with the most cpu power in no way implies which manufacturer has more cpu power. That's simply people reading more into a statement than what is really there.

That was a long post I was responding to, so if I missed anything, I apologize.


----------



## rvalencia (Feb 21, 2012)

Wile E said:


> I'm not even going to bother going line for line.
> 
> Read the OP.
> 
> ...


Again, they use the same driver codebase. I have shown you the PC market is changing.

There are ultra-portables with rotating touch screens.












For Windows 8's Metro UI, Intel plans to add touchscreens to Ultrabooks. http://www.pcworld.com/article/2475...th_touch_screens_and_marketed_like_crazy.html

"Intel's Ultrabook Plan: Cheaper, With Touch Screens, and Marketed Like Crazy".

http://www.digitimes.com/news/a20120217PD205.html
"Notebook vendors to offer transforming Ultrabooks with touch screens"


As for Intel's IGP direction, refer to the leaked Ivybridge 3DMarks Vantage benchmarks. AMD's marketing should not underestimate Intel.

Your dismissive about the GPU would be pointless with Intel Ivybridge HD 4000 IGP.


----------



## Wile E (Feb 22, 2012)

rvalencia said:


> Again, they use the same driver codebase. I have shown you the PC market is changing.
> 
> There are ultra-portables with rotating touch screens.
> 
> ...



Again, this article, nor my comments, are about tablets. I have entirely different needs for a tablet vs a regular ultraportable. My entire discussion about my opinion has been about nothing but ultra portables. No other form factor is relevant to the topic I was discussing. You showing me how tablets are taking over does not change what I was commenting on. You repeatedly keep trying to change the subject. I refuse to change the subject. I was only ever referring to ultraportables and my needs for them. Nothing more, nothing less. So stop this already, it's getting old typing the same thing over and over.

And hop over to the HD4000 IGP thread. I already commented on that and I'll refrain from discussing it here. Go to that thread if you want to discuss it. We already have this thread derailed enough.


----------



## sergionography (Feb 22, 2012)

Wile E said:


> Don't care. If the CPU can do it smoothly, the GPU does not concern me in the slightest, so long as it's capable of outputting to the resolutions I want.
> 
> 
> No, I mean that in an ultraportable, I will always take more CPU power over more GPU power. I don't want to game on a laptop of this size, so GPU power is completely irrelevant when the CPU is already enough to do what is needed for me.
> ...




you cant neglect graphics cards, they are being increasingly utilized.
your computer experience might be crippled if you dont have good graphics as most operating systems as well as software nowadays are pushing for more visuals and graphics.


----------



## Wile E (Feb 22, 2012)

sergionography said:


> you cant neglect graphics cards, they are being increasingly utilized.
> your computer experience might be crippled if you dont have good graphics as most operating systems as well as software nowadays are pushing for more visuals and graphics.



Both IGPs in question do everything I need in an ultraportable notebook.


----------



## sergionography (Feb 22, 2012)

Wile E said:


> Both IGPs in question do everything I need in an ultraportable notebook.



i agree, but what amd will miss out in cpu it will make up in gpu.


----------



## Wile E (Feb 22, 2012)

sergionography said:


> i agree, but what amd will miss out in cpu it will make up in gpu.



For many people and applications, yes. For me and the applications I want it for, no.


----------



## rvalencia (Feb 23, 2012)

Wile E said:


> I'm sorry, but I don't buy lesser performing products for the sake of a brand name. I buy the best performance for my money, period. I am 100% unconcerned with the corporate angle of any of these competitors. I only care about the product and what it does for me.


TC's subject is about AMD's Trinity product and it's not about you.




Wile E said:


> Again, this article, nor my comments, are about tablets. I have entirely different needs for a tablet vs a regular ultraportable. My entire discussion about my opinion has been about nothing but ultra portables. No other form factor is relevant to the topic I was discussing. You showing me how tablets are taking over does not change what I was commenting on. You repeatedly keep trying to change the subject.


No. I'm defining Intel Ivybridge era "Ultrabooks" competition by providing links on Intel's Ultrabook plans e.g. hybrid mobile devices. 

Intel's Ultrabook tablets covers touch centeric Windows 8's Metro UI.



Wile E said:


> I refuse to change the subject. I was only ever referring to ultraportables and my needs for them. Nothing more, nothing less. So stop this already, it's getting old typing the same thing over and over.


You refuse to see Intel's road map and plans. 

Intel Ivybridge "Ultrabooks" plan will cover both tablet PCs and ultra-thin devices. 

There's a primary reason why AMD aimed for "17 watts" instead of AMD Ontario's "18 watts" i.e. "17 watts" marketing matches Intel Ultrabook form-factors.


----------



## rvalencia (Feb 23, 2012)

Wile E said:


> Both IGPs in question do everything I need in an ultraportable notebook.


One can play that game i.e. "Both CPUs in question do everything I need in an ultraportable notebook". 

Both CPUs are powerfull enough for Hi10 h.264 MKV playback i.e. good enough for my 1st gen Intel Core i7-740 in restricted dual core** mode.

**Windows' boot process can restrict CPU core availability i.e. to  simulate a dual core Intel Core i5 with 4 threads.


----------



## Wile E (Feb 23, 2012)

rvalencia said:


> TC's subject is about AMD's Trinity product and it's not about you.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I never said this thread is about me, but that's also irrelevant. All of my comments are about my needs *based on* the topic of the thread.

Intel's roadmap is irrelevant to the scope of my discussion. Yes, they will be including tablet style devices in that class in the future, but the scope of my discussion never included those. The scope of my comments only ever referred to the current definition of ultrabook. I was pretty sure I made clear what devices I am referring to, and my needs for them. So, again, stop it. You are talking about something completely different than I am. 

My needs in a tablet device are completely different than my needs in a standard notebook style device. Thus the entire reason I'm being very specific about what devices my comments were about.



rvalencia said:


> One can play that game i.e. "Both CPUs in question do everything I need in an ultraportable notebook".
> 
> Both CPUs are powerfull enough for Hi10 h.264 MKV playback i.e. good enough for my 1st gen Intel Core i7-740 in restricted dual core** mode.
> 
> **Windows' boot process can restrict CPU core availability i.e. to  simulate a dual core Intel Core i5 with 4 threads.



The less cpu percentage used for playback, the less battery used. Extra cpu power will do me some good as long as both products are in the same power consumption category. Thus the reason I said battery life is also important. If the AMD has significantly better battery life during the tasks I perform most, then it would get the nomination despite having less raw cpu power. I haven't seen much on that topic though, so can't really say one way or the other which platform performs better in that area.


----------



## rvalencia (Feb 23, 2012)

Wile E said:


> I never said this thread is about me, but that's also irrelevant. All of my comments are about my needs *based on* the topic of the thread.
> 
> Intel's roadmap is irrelevant to the scope of my discussion.


It's relevant since this topic is about road maps i.e. projected performance for unreleased AMD Trinity and Intel Ivybridge products.




Wile E said:


> Yes, they will be including tablet style devices in that class in the future, but the scope of my discussion never included those. The scope of my comments only ever referred to the current definition of ultrabook. I was pretty sure I made clear what devices I am referring to, and my needs for them. So, again, stop it. You are talking about something completely different than I am.


There's very little point in discussing today's ecosystem when Intel is changing the current definition of "ultrabooks" with Intel Ivybridge. 




Wile E said:


> My needs in a tablet device are completely different than my needs in a standard notebook style device. Thus the entire reason I'm being very specific about what devices my comments were about.


Buy Intel Sandybridge ULV device if IGP is not important to you.


----------

