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

in a pitched benchmark lol

TheLaughingManYou 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.



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?

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.

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?

newtekie11,100 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.

Super XPYes 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).

newtekie1No, 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.dudeThe 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 :p

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.. :cool:

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

de.das.dudelets 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.dudei want what you been smoking :p

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.. :cool:

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

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.

TheGuruStudAnd 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. :rolleyes: 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.

TheLaughingManYou 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.



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?

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.dudetrue 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.dudei want what you been smoking :p

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.. :cool:

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

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.

newtekie18600GT 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.

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.

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

de.das.dudehaha 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?:laugh:

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.

Wile EIf 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.

TheLaughingManYou 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.

newtekie1I 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.

TheLaughingManI 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.

Wile EWrong. 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.

TheLaughingManActually 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.

TheLaughingManI 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.

newtekie18600GT 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.

newtekie1I 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.

Yo_WattupYes, 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.



cache.ohinternet.com/images/thumb/7/73/JeanLucPicardFacepalm.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.

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.

Yo_WattupYes, 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_Wattupcache.ohinternet.com/images/thumb/7/73/JeanLucPicardFacepalm.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.

lulz... intel fanbois...

newtekie11,100 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.

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.