AMD Slips Out Trinity ULV 3DMark Performance

[sergionography]

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.

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.

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]

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]

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]

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.

 

[ValenOne]

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.

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.

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.

 

[ValenOne]

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]

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



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.


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.

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.

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.

 

[ValenOne]

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.

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.

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.