Trinity desktop is already out!

[frostedflakes]

One cool thing is that you could actually overclock the Llano mobiles with software like FusionTweaker. No idea if this will be possible with Trinity as well, but if it is you could bump up the CPU speeds. Mobile Llano APUs were pretty fair OCers.

 

[borisvodofsky]

One cool thing is that you could actually overclock the Llano mobiles with software like FusionTweaker. No idea if this will be possible with Trinity as well, but if it is you could bump up the CPU speeds. Mobile Llano APUs were pretty fair OCers.

this will be nice for some older games,

but llano's cpu side is still too weak for mainstream titles such as starcraft 2 and battlefield 3. :whiste:

 

[Don Karnage]

this will be nice for some older games,

but llano's cpu side is still too weak for mainstream titles such as starcraft 2 and battlefield 3. :whiste:

You never stop pointing out amd's flaw's do you? :biggrin:

 

[Olikan]

rumors about the clocks of FX trinity (aka vishera) are out...

an increase of 11% overrall...

Vishera might be 30% faster than bulldozer

http://www.coolaler.com/content.php/1187-AMD-Vishera-FX%E8%99%95%E7%90%86%E5%99%A8%E9%A0%90%E8%A8%AD%E6%99%82%E8%84%884GHz%E4%BB%A5%E4%B8%8A

 

[Rvenger]

If true then AMD deserves some credit. Thats if the power consumption is good too. Might be a good time for me to jump on a nice piledriver/8000 series setup.

 

[T_Yamamoto]

If true then AMD deserves some credit. Thats if the power consumption is good too. Might be a good time for me to jump on a nice piledriver/8000 series setup.

If its better than fsildozer.

Its good that piledriver isn't being hyped up

 

[ShintaiDK]

Let see when it releases. If there is any improvements besides a possible 400Mhz speedbin. Instead of already going to the "30%" hopes.

 

[Olikan]

Let see when it releases. If there is any improvements besides a possible 400Mhz speedbin. Instead of already going to the "30%" hopes.

well, we have 15% better ipc from the benches of tom's hardware...add 11% clock increase...that's 26%

4% from L3 cache and core tweaks is, IMO, realistic....

 

[ShintaiDK]

well, we have 15% better ipc from the benches of tom's hardware...add 11% clock increase...that's 26%

4% from L3 cache and core tweaks is, IMO, realistic....

You do know those 2 tests are flawed. Same reason the 1C/2T was faster than the 2C/4T at the same clock. Or even with the 2C/4T having higher clocks.

Wait and see, instead of the usual letdown when the product releases.

 

[inf64]

Let's take AMD's more conservative 10% from vishera slide (for IPC) even though L3 cache-less PD in Trinity does exceptionally well in single thread tasks against same-clocked FX8150 (~15% faster in 2 different workloads than 2M/4C 8150). Then we have 4Ghz stock clock which sounds about right since 16C Opterons will receive 200Mhz uplift (2x less cores is bound to get >200Mhz). In total we should have: 4Ghz/3.6Ghz x 1.1~=1.22 or 22% uplift from FX8150. From pure application performance ,Vishera should be able to outperform 2600K and maybe even 3770K (if it lands close to 22% faster than 8150):

On average 3770K is 21% faster than 8150. It looks like AMD targeted that particular clock just to be able to challenge 3770K since at this clock Vishera should be equaling its performance.

 

[ShintaiDK]

In the same bench you get your numbers from this happens:

Please explain that one first before you claim a certain IPC advantage.

And if you want to digg deeper then look at this:

Original Bulldozer review:

Vs the new one used:

3.6Ghz FX8150 is 1.42, a 3.8Ghz FX8150 is 1.48. See the problem again?

 

[Olikan]

3.6Ghz FX8150 is 1.42, a 3.8Ghz FX8150 is 1.48. See the problem again?

nop... it's turbo vs fixed clocks

 

[Kalessian]

I think this has all been explained before. If I'm not mistaken then the 1:42 @ 3.6ghz test was with turbo (up to 3.9ghz) and the 1:48 @ 3.8ghz was without turbo enabled.

^^ ahh beaten, still curious about the 3.8ghz turbo 5400k beating the solid clocked 5800k 3.8ghz by 6 seconds, was that ever explained?

 

[ShintaiDK]

nop... it's turbo vs fixed clocks

That doesnt explain the Trinity test. Unless the 3.6Ghz 5600K Trinity didnt turbo at all vs the 5400K.

Problem is the numbers is all over the place. Most likely due to core jumping, since why lower amount of cores win.

 

[inf64]

It's easy. In first chart, 1M/2T 5400K scores a bit faster than 2M/4T 5800K due to the fact that 1 thread from itunes(and Lame) is bounced on 2 frontends in 5800K vs 1 frontend of 5400. It's easy to grasp. 5400 obviously has no problem with 1 thread as 1 frontend is involved with fetching,decoding and scheduling ops. 5800K has 2 modules and 1 thread bounces on two separate frontends of these modules(and thus on 2 FlexFP units instead of being all done on one FlexFP unit like in the case of 5400 model). Turbo clock difference between 5400K and 5800K is exactly 10%,penalty difference due to inefficient scheduling varies it's around 10% or sometimes even more. The fact that 5800K and 5400K were neck and neck(3% difference) fits perfectly with the thread bouncing on 2 modules explanation.

On to the second chart. Original bulldozer review uses FX8150 which has 4.2Ghz Turbo clock. Score is 102 seconds. Newest A10 review has 8150 locked @ 3.8Ghz with all modules running (it says 8C/8T in the chart). So we have a single thread benchmark running on 4C/4T and 8C/8T CPUs which both run at locked 3.8Ghz frequency. In new test 3.8Ghz 8150 scored 108 seconds. How much is 4.2Ghz (old review Turbo clock since iTunes is monothread) divided with 3.8Ghz (new test with locked to 3.8Ghz 8150)? 4.2/3.8=1.1 or 10% clock difference. Time difference is ~6% and that is about what you should expect with variable Turbo if thread jumps from core to core. 4.2Ghz is applied to whatever core the itunes thread jumps to but efficiency is lost and that the 3% loss you see (or non-perfect scaling from 3.8Ghz fixed clock to stock clocked 3.6-4.2Ghz FX8150 in old test).

It all very easy if you use logic .

As for the IPC of Piledriver we have 2 tests that THG ran. First is itunes at both chips locked @ 3.8ghz. This I explained already. Difference is ~15%, you can't go around this . It's a fact.
Second test they ran just confirms that 1st test (itunes ) was not a fluke. We see 15% difference in 3dstudio which is FP heavy workload.
I will do a 3rd test comparison just for you. Take THG's Ivy Bridge review and Lame results(single thread,was not included in original FX8150 review for some reason). FX8150 scored 2:10 or 130s . Lame is single threaded workload and FX8150 runs at 4.2Ghz ,just like in the case of itunes in original FX8150 review by THG. 5800K that has the same 4.2Ghz single core Turbo as FX8150 scores 1:58s or 118s . Here we again see 5400K is able to pull ahead due to its single module nature(no penalty for 1 thread bouncing,another proof my claim about itunes is correct ).
So 118s for 5800K @ 4.2ghz Vs 130s for FX8150 @ 4.2Ghz. 118/130=0.9 or 10% faster than 8150 at same clock. Even Lame shows 10% IPC improvement and Lame is an old integer benchmark.


edit: Just to add,check stock 5800K and 8150 results in single thread itunes benchmark. Both chips have the sharing penalty and both have 4.2Ghz Turbo for these single thread benchmarks . Voila,same 15% figure appears as in "locked to 3.8Ghz" THG test,what a surprise
itunes(1 thread)
5800K-1:27 or 87s
8150 -1:42 or 102s
Difference is 87/102=0.85 or 15%

I also mentioned Lame numbers before but here they are for reference purposes:
Lame(1 thread)
5800K-1:58 or 118s
8150 -2:10 or 130s
Difference is 118/130=0.9 or 10%

Trinity has no L3 cache. Whether it helps or not is debatable but it's more costly to go to slower RAM (when upper caches miss) than to go to much faster L3.

 

[Olikan]

I think this has all been explained before. If I'm not mistaken then the 1:42 @ 3.6ghz test was with turbo (up to 3.9ghz) and the 1:48 @ 3.8ghz was without turbo enabled.

^^ ahh beaten, still curious about the 3.8ghz turbo 5400k beating the solid clocked 5800k 3.8ghz by 6 seconds, was that ever explained?

i got ninja'd and owned by the post above

 

[Homeles]

Trinity has no L3 cache. Whether it helps or not is debatable but it's more costly to go to slower RAM (when upper caches miss) then to go to much faster L3.

FTFY

 

[inf64]

Thanks for correction,I made an error. I meant Trinity of course .

 

[Misplaced]

All I really want to know is how long til this causes the FX8150 price tag to drop, cause I'm cheap and would wait a month to build a new pc to save $20 on the cpu. Or will it not be til after Piledriver?

 

[lifeblood]

All I really want to know is how long til this causes the FX8150 price tag to drop, cause I'm cheap and would wait a month to build a new pc to save $20 on the cpu. Or will it not be til after Piledriver?

An FX8150 is now below $200 on newegg. Depending on your use case that is actually a competitive price (unless your a pure gamer than its still too high). I really doubt its going to go down any more until Piledriver.

 

[Misplaced]

An FX8150 is now below $200 on newegg. Depending on your use case that is actually a competitive price (unless your a pure gamer than its still too high). I really doubt its going to go down any more until Piledriver.

Nothing too demanding just wanted to throw together a little ~500$ rig to play Sc2 and/while maybe multi-box wow/diablo3 @ 1920x1200.

 

[blckgrffn]

Nothing too demanding just wanted to throw together a little ~500$ rig to play Sc2 and/while maybe multi-box wow/diablo3 @ 1920x1200.

8120 would do you just as well then and save you that $20 easily

I would think an i3 IVB might do it better, though.

 

[moonbogg]

I'm sorry, but what is Trinity and why is it exciting?

 

[blckgrffn]

I'm sorry, but what is Trinity and why is it exciting?

Refined AMD architecture + reigned in power consumption + reasonably good graphics + reasonable prices + capable chipset.

Not winning any CPU speed awards, but reasonably efficient and "good enough" for many, for whatever that is worth.

Based on your BF3 thread, not exciting for you in the least unless you are building an HTPC or something

 

[moonbogg]

Refined AMD architecture + reigned in power consumption + reasonably good graphics + reasonable prices + capable chipset.

Not winning any CPU speed awards, but reasonably efficient and "good enough" for many, for whatever that is worth.

Oh, so its just another way underpowered AMD deal. Got it.