AMD Slips Out Trinity ULV 3DMark Performance

[ValenOne]

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.

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?

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.

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]

It depends on the encoding pass.

http://m.hardocp.com/image_resize.p...s/1318034683VZqVQLiVuL_7_4.png&image_size=500

http://m.hardocp.com/image_resize.p...s/1318034683VZqVQLiVuL_7_5.png&image_size=500



What about the needs from mainstream H264 users?


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.



It's your decision.

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.

 

[ValenOne]

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.

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.

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]

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.


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.


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

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.

 

[ValenOne]

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]

"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.

 

[ValenOne]

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]

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.

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]

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?

 

[ValenOne]

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]

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.

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

Minimising IGP's progression is a double standard with Intel Haswell's improved IGP.

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]

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.

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.

 

[ValenOne]

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.

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 .

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.

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]

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

Wolfram Mathematica supports GPU compute with opencl : ]

 

[ValenOne]

Wolfram Mathematica supports GPU compute with opencl : ]

OpenCL can target AVX and GPU compute.

 

[Wile E]

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.

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?

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.

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

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]

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.

 

[ValenOne]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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]

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

 

[ValenOne]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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?

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?

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.

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.

 

[ValenOne]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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?

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.

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]

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.

 

[ValenOne]

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.
(SNIP)

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]

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

There are ultra-portables with rotating touch screens.

http://cn1.kaboodle.com/img/b/0/0/1...ista-oem-hp-image-with-recovery-partition.jpg

http://0.tqn.com/d/compreviews/1/G/W/O/HP-TouchSmart-tm2.jpg


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.

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.