Friday, February 3rd 2012
AMD Slips Out Trinity ULV 3DMark Performance
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.
Source:
VR-Zone
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.
107 Comments on AMD Slips Out Trinity ULV 3DMark Performance
All this utilize GPU power as a general mean of computation.
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.
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.
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.
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?
Good to see AMD focusing on strategy. This should enable them to sort out its issues without slowing down production.
my 9600m gt have 2200 points in 3dmark vantage :)
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.
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.
Who cares about the moral, legal or ethical implications of XYZ. IT'S ALL ABOUT ME GD IT!
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?