AMD Launches the Second-Generation A-Series APUs

[Vulpesveritas]

1. Hard to find anywhere but online? What? I can get an Intel+Nvidia laptop like the one on Newegg pretty easily in Sweden at about the same price. You seriously make no valid points with the discounts which makes me believe I'd wasting my time trying to explain price points any further.
http://www.engadget.com/2012/05/08/hp-envy-spectre-xt-ultrabooks-sleekbooks/
The difference between the HP AMD and Intel 'sleekbooks' as they call them is 100$, not 300+$ as you wrote above.
An average consumer probably won't need a mid range GPU so they can get a 400$ Intel i3 or maybe even an AMD E350.

2. Drivers aren't going to turn a mid range GPU into a beast, most you can expect are a couple % here and there. And if you want to play things on high settings better stay away from laptops or be prepared to fork out over 1000$.




Call of Duty isn't really all that relevant considering they use the same engine for the past several games. Like I've said above, if people want to play games on high settings, they better stay away from <1000$ laptops.




So voicing my opinion that the new generation isn't such a major improvement over the old one is bashing? If they price laptops at around 500$ or less, then it's going to be pretty popular, otherwise, not so much.

1: I wish prices were like that here, but no. In retail stores you're lucky to find an i3 at anything below $550. Considering I have a $500 Acer laptop sitting in the display case at work... yeah... even at bestbuy here, the fastest laptop under $700 I've seen is an i5 + Radeon hd 7470m for $699.99.

2: Drivers won't make it a beast, but let's face it, some games just need decent drivers to run well. And it will expand the gap between the chips farther on the graphics end.

 

[Over_Lord]

Your post is complete joke :shadedshu

- Who cares?

- No idea yet

- False

- False

You have such a good sense of humor, not

Check the reviews again.

The only place where Trinity scores outright win is 3D Mark and 1 or 2 games. Despite AMD's chip being a GPU based chip, it doesn't make that big an impact as Llano did last year.

Check the ANANDTech review will you

 

[Casecutter]

Cheap Ivy Bridge Dual Core Laptops with HD4000

I hadn't heard Intel was putting HD4000 on a lot of "their lower cost chips" or yet destined it across the board with mobile, while isn't a i7 3720QM the only mobile part. While I would have you check this article.

http://hothardware.com/Reviews/AMD-Trinity-A104600M-Processor-Review/?page=1

600$ range, where you can just put maybe 100$ more and get a lot more performance

So, if you spend 18% more your positive you'll gain 18% more gaming performance and that translate to a "seat of the pants" worth. Doubtful.

 

[naoan]

Can this APU be hybrid crossfired with AMD GPU when HD7670M is a 6760M rebranded?

 

[Benetanegia]

So, if you spend 18% more your positive you'll gain 18% more gaming performance and that translate to a "seat of the pants" worth. Doubtful.

Actually sometimes if you spend $100 or 18% more you actually gain over 50% extra performance.

But I don't want to enter a discussion like in a previous Trinity related thread. In that one I said the GPU would be at most 20% faster in average at that¡s what it is and same for the CPU. As always realty is far far far from AMD's marketing numbers. 29% CPU (productivity) and 56% GPU... sure.

PS: Fun to see it's the exact same people as in the other thread defending Trinity, as if it were the second coming. AndreiD is just speaking the truth, Trinity is barely a decent evolution over Llano and hardly impressive in any way. It belongs to the $500 laptop segment where it could be somewhat successful and that's it. Below and above that price range Intel simply owns.

 

[ERazer]

sweet just waiting on new HP sleekbook line up with this puppies

 

[Vulpesveritas]

Actually sometimes if you spend $100 or 18% more you actually gain over 50% extra performance.

But I don't want to enter a discussion like in a previous Trinity related thread. In that one I said the GPU would be at most 20% faster in average at that¡s what it is and same for the CPU. As always realty is far far far from AMD's marketing numbers. 29% CPU (productivity) and 56% GPU... sure.

PS: Fun to see it's the exact same people as in the other thread defending Trinity, as if it were the second coming. AndreiD is just speaking the truth, Trinity is barely a decent evolution over Llano and hardly impressive in any way. It belongs to the $500 laptop segment where it could be somewhat successful and that's it. Below and above that price range Intel simply owns.

So given that Trinity is matching Llano's IPC in single thread, takes a hit for floating point unit sharin in multithread, clocks 30% higher, uses less power, and the GPU is 30% faster on average, better in tesselation, has immature drivers (which means it could get better in the future, with no guarantees.), and supports three monitors... Umm... you're joking right?

That it cleanly beats SB i3's as well in CPU, and obliterates it in GPU, while consuming the same power, and occupying the same price range... umm.. yeah. Little bit behind an i5 on CPU, faster in GPU, still same TDP, $100 less. Okay. Oh, and for $50 more on top of that you can add a GPU which will double your power consumption i.e. make your battery last half as long if you are going to use it, heat your laptop up more, and you'll only see at most a 20% higher gaming performance... for :O 20% higher cost... yeah great deal. Oh, and at higher resolution and detail settings the difference is smaller in performance and all too.

AMD is now in the advantage in low cost systems and ultrathins, if for the reason they're affordable ultrathins and therfore easier to market and sell to an average person. Laptop wise they beat the i3's in their price range in every concieveable way and compete with more expensive i5 systems so... yeah...

 

[Casecutter]

Actually sometimes if you spend $100 or 18% more you actually gain over 50% extra performance.

Well, HotHardware isn't backing that conculsion on a i7 3720QM laptop and how much are those?

"Trinity showed a decisive lead on the order of 30 - 50+% over Intel's HD 4000 integrated graphics in the Ivy Bridge Core i7 chip we pit it against."

Sure against mature SB with discrete the current pricing is still askew, and probably will be because Intel is probably saturating the market with price conscience budget books with discrete to keep a thumb on Trinity till they make a move with more IB's a HD4000 for mobiles. I'll wait to pass any judgment on prices till we see some true OEM offerings to match it up against.

Here's another review with a i5's with discrete but XPS and ASUS N55SF which aren't $600-700 laptop either... They're saying "It takes a mid-class GeForce GT 555M mGPU to outdistance the performance exhibited by Trinity's integrated graphics."

http://hexus.net/tech/reviews/cpu/39333-amd-a10-4600m-trinity-apu/

 

[v12dock]

Remember these are mobile APUs not desktop. Do not compare them to desktop APUs

 

[sergionography]

Actually sometimes if you spend $100 or 18% more you actually gain over 50% extra performance.

But I don't want to enter a discussion like in a previous Trinity related thread. In that one I said the GPU would be at most 20% faster in average at that¡s what it is and same for the CPU. As always realty is far far far from AMD's marketing numbers. 29% CPU (productivity) and 56% GPU... sure.

PS: Fun to see it's the exact same people as in the other thread defending Trinity, as if it were the second coming. AndreiD is just speaking the truth, Trinity is barely a decent evolution over Llano and hardly impressive in any way. It belongs to the $500 laptop segment where it could be somewhat successful and that's it. Below and above that price range Intel simply owns.

how could you say so when in almost every benchmark trinity sits in the middle between the a8 and the i5
and remember the i5 has turbo up to 2.9ghz so there is no way trinity can beat that with 3.2. but it sure closes the gap as llano was up to 2.4ghz
at 2,4ghz the i5 in single thread is more than twice as fast as llano, but now were talking about 25-30% which if you ask me is pretty impressive as its a step forward however it sure wont take intel out of the game and amd never claimed to do so
and with the accelerated apps trinity can sometimes beat intel but in general it matches it
i think the 29% marketing is rather much more accurate than any previous amd marketing ive seen

http://uk.hardware.info/reviews/2735/9/amd-a10-trinity-apu-reviewed-benchmarksn3dmark06--vantage--11
that looks like 50% increase to me
and you know very well that when you wanna test graphic cards you use high settings and usualy the same bench system, in this case it itsnt like that, intel has a cpu advantage which enhances fps, especialy in low settings thats exactly when the cpu does more work, if you put higher settings it will get more gpu dependant. im sure thats were the gap will get bigger and you will see something closer to 50%
also higher resolutions change things up. i would wait for retail laptops to show up then things will be more realistic
not to mention these are the first batch of trinity chips, we can always expect future models with higher clocks at the same tdp that also will be interesting
overall AMD is still very much in the game and thats the good news, no1 said or even expected that trinity will knock intel out, but it sure will compete in price, even if an amd apu is priced the same as a more powerful intel cpu the amd will still perform better in gaming and graphical tasks, the intel computer would require a discrete gpu to compete, and thats were these apus can be cost affective
ever since llano, AMD has had the graphics advantage over intel, even with similarly priced laptops, amd always had the better graphics either because intel had no discrete, or because when intel has a discrete gpu then that price range allows the amd rig to have other upgraded features like a second gpu or so

here is an interesting read
http://news.softpedia.com/news/AMD-Trinity-Trounces-Ivy-Bridge-in-Diablo-III-270029.shtml
note that amd is 40-48% faster despite having much slower x86cores, now compare the trinity to a mid range i5 with hd4000 and the difference will get even bigger

 

[Benetanegia]

Bla bla bla. IMO you guys are way too much interested in demostrating how sellable Trinity is over Intel, even for an AMD fan. This is a tech forum, not an economics class. Such a dedication suggests another thing, something that AMD is very well known for and is related to forums... and I don't want to discuss this further.

So on Trinity:

I said it already, Trinity GPU is faster than Intel offerings, no one ever denied that, but it's not so much faster anymore and it certinly does not deliver on it's promises of being 56%. For the very very limited amount of people who want to game but do not have any performance and/or quality standards (no dedicated GPU), Trinity is obviously better, but for the grand majority of those people Ivy Bridge GPU is probably just as good. So it's just about emphasis, do you want 50% faster CPU or up to 50% faster GPU. Most people will benefit more from the CPU, while gamers will benefit much much more by getting a laptop with a dedicated GPU. Trinity is on average 25% faster than Ivy Bridge, a dedicated GPU will get you 200%, 300% and even 500% more performance, the scale is way out here, 25% difference is nothing in comparison, especially if you are going to play at 720p anyway (you have really low standards).

And that's it, for non-gamers which is 90% of people the faster CPU wins hands down and that's Ivy Bridge, and if it's anything like SB vs Llano, it's going to be actually cheaper than comparable Trinity laptops as long as they are iGPU based.

In the other 10%, 8% will benefit from ANY modern (modern defined as contemporary to Trinity) dedicated GPU with only a small $50-100 increase in price and will get performance that is 5x higher. That is they will get actually playable performance. And honestly, to me, people who want to game but are not willing to pay $50 or $100 more have a name, PIRATES. There's no way you are going to cheap out $50 when that will give you 3x more gaming performance if you actually are a gamer and thus spend $100-$200 in games. No way, there's no logic there.

So what's left for Trinity? A 2%? Yes, a 2% where it is clearly superior. For the rest it has a chance of snatching a sizable portion of the 90% of people for which nearly anything is "enough", but for that they have to price them in the $500 range, because in that range there's plenty of i3 and some i5 that will cream Trinity in efficiency. SandyB i3's and i5's can be had for cheaper than A8 and even some A6 based laptops so it's like I said, at $500 it has an oportunity and that's it. If you don't like it because you are such an AMD fan (or employee), sorry to hear that. End of story.

 

[Melvis]

You have such a good sense of humor, not

Check the reviews again.

The only place where Trinity scores outright win is 3D Mark and 1 or 2 games. Despite AMD's chip being a GPU based chip, it doesn't make that big an impact as Llano did last year.

Check the ANANDTech review will you

You have such a large brain, not

bla bla bla bla bla we all know ya wrong go have alook at reviews hell the one above will do^

anyone that uses ANANDTech for reviews is a moron its so bi-est it isnt funny.

Bla bla bla again we all know Trinity beats sandy and ivy (GPU) wise hell even the old APU's beat ivy?

 

[acerace]

Yeah yeah, unless AMD use new good architecture, Intel >>> AMD.

Are you happy now???

 

[sergionography]

Bla bla bla. IMO you guys are way too much interested in demostrating how sellable Trinity is over Intel, even for an AMD fan. This is a tech forum, not an economics class. Such a dedication suggests another thing, something that AMD is very well known for and is related to forums... and I don't want to discuss this further.

So on Trinity:

http://img.techpowerup.org/120517/trinity-vs-llano-gaming-new.png
http://img.techpowerup.org/120517/trinity-vs-ivybridge-gaming-new.png

I said it already, Trinity GPU is faster than Intel offerings, no one ever denied that, but it's not so much faster anymore and it certinly does not deliver on it's promises of being 56%. For the very very limited amount of people who want to game but do not have any performance and/or quality standards (no dedicated GPU), Trinity is obviously better, but for the grand majority of those people Ivy Bridge GPU is probably just as good. So it's just about emphasis, do you want 50% faster CPU or up to 50% faster GPU. Most people will benefit more from the CPU, while gamers will benefit much much more by getting a laptop with a dedicated GPU. Trinity is on average 25% faster than Ivy Bridge, a dedicated GPU will get you 200%, 300% and even 500% more performance, the scale is way out here, 25% difference is nothing in comparison, especially if you are going to play at 720p anyway (you have really low standards).

And that's it, for non-gamers which is 90% of people the faster CPU wins hands down and that's Ivy Bridge, and if it's anything like SB vs Llano, it's going to be actually cheaper than comparable Trinity laptops as long as they are iGPU based.

In the other 10%, 8% will benefit from ANY modern (modern defined as contemporary to Trinity) dedicated GPU with only a small $50-100 increase in price and will get performance that is 5x higher. That is they will get actually playable performance. And honestly, to me, people who want to game but are not willing to pay $50 or $100 more have a name, PIRATES. There's no way you are going to cheap out $50 when that will give you 3x more gaming performance if you actually are a gamer and thus spend $100-$200 in games. No way, there's no logic there.

So what's left for Trinity? A 2%? Yes, a 2% where it is clearly superior. For the rest it has a chance of snatching a sizable portion of the 90% of people for which nearly anything is "enough", but for that they have to price them in the $500 range, because in that range there's plenty of i3 and some i5 that will cream Trinity in efficiency. SandyB i3's and i5's can be had for cheaper than A8 and even some A6 based laptops so it's like I said, at $500 it has an oportunity and that's it. If you don't like it because you are such an AMD fan (or employee), sorry to hear that. End of story.

500% better performance than trinity igpu? Thats impossible unless ur laptop is hd7800m+/hd6800m+ or gt560m+/650m+ which i doubt such laptops will cost less than 1000$, and while an intel with hd7670 is faster than a trinity with its igpu, a trinity with hd7670m is even faster, so its a win-win for gamers

 

[TheoneandonlyMrK]

Actually sometimes if you spend $100 or 18% more you actually gain over 50% extra performance.

But I don't want to enter a discussion like in a previous Trinity related thread. In that one I said the GPU would be at most 20% faster in average at that¡s what it is and same for the CPU. As always realty is far far far from AMD's marketing numbers. 29% CPU (productivity) and 56% GPU... sure.

PS: Fun to see it's the exact same people as in the other thread defending Trinity, as if it were the second coming. AndreiD is just speaking the truth, Trinity is barely a decent evolution over Llano and hardly impressive in any way. It belongs to the $500 laptop segment where it could be somewhat successful and that's it. Below and above that price range Intel simply owns.

fun to see the same guys in an AMD thread trolling up the world and winding up all they can, you got much Bad to say in any intel or nvidia related thread, No

your waffle of this being underwelming is largely irelivant as your type wouldnt even look at one in reality anyway.

I built a K3870 + Hd6670 pc for my uncle , who was on his way to PC world to get slapped to the tune of 600 ukp for an i3 based Hd3000 intel system, he spent 450 with my help, tho he gave me thirty quid hes still up, and my cousins, his sons are beside themself with joy aged 10-14, it plays any game they want on medium settings with no issues and looks smooth and pretty ( i obv loaded some games for em and tried them, and i didnt OC it(ive learned its not worth the phonecalls) all in shh,,,, you know nowt , fuck figures try one then know , not guess how they play games.

trinity with + 20% cpu performance , plus the extra gpu oomph is well worth a look to Anybody looking to buy a mobile ,light gameing platform


http://semiaccurate.com/2012/05/17/is-amds-trinity-much-better-than-it-appears/ is Amd's trinity better then first appears

editorial but worth a read, looking forward to q3-4

 

[sergionography]

fun to see the same guys in an AMD thread trolling up the world and winding up all they can, you got much Bad to say in any intel or nvidia related thread, No

your waffle of this being underwelming is largely irelivant as your type wouldnt even look at one in reality anyway.

I built a K3870 + Hd6670 pc for my uncle , who was on his way to PC world to get slapped to the tune of 600 ukp for an i3 based Hd3000 intel system, he spent 450 with my help, tho he gave me thirty quid hes still up, and my cousins, his sons are beside themself with joy aged 10-14, it plays any game they want on medium settings with no issues and looks smooth and pretty ( i obv loaded some games for em and tried them, and i didnt OC it(ive learned its not worth the phonecalls) all in shh,,,, you know nowt , fuck figures try one then know , not guess how they play games.

trinity with + 20% cpu performance , plus the extra gpu oomph is well worth a look to Anybody looking to buy a mobile ,light gameing platform


http://semiaccurate.com/2012/05/17/is-amds-trinity-much-better-than-it-appears/ is Amd's trinity better then first appears

editorial but worth a read, looking forward to q3-4

well i guess most people dont see the big picture, for most users any cpu from the past 3-4 years is overkill, whether they are web browsing, doing word, excel, powerpoint, or whatever it is
heck even if you are using photoshop, ive used photoshop on a phenom II 955 and on an I5 2500k and honostly i hardly notice any experience difference, however when i use my llano a6 T 1.4ghz-2.3ghz it does get a bit laggy sometimes but overclocking with k10stats gets it were it should be in my case, however my point is you only need a certain amount of cpu grunt to be good all around and it seems trinity definitely meets that requirement and is almost the sweetspot in mobile cpu performance, and with added opencl support for cs6 thats even better news for me XD
in graphics however it is always noticeable when u get low fps, bad image quality and so on because it is something "visual" that you can see