Trinity review

[LOL_Wut_Axel]

http://fudzilla.com/home/item/27258-core-i5-3365m-and-core-i5-3325m-in-q3-2012

Granted it's fudzilla, but not like there is a lot of reason to overspeculate on something like this. If confirmed, this shows that Intel is not as willing as LOL_Wut_Axel to rely on their brand strength. Intel seems very aware of how much of a threat AMD is to their mobile cash cow.

That proves what exactly? That article proves nothing at all, other than Intel will be using better Ivy Bridge yields and lower leakage in Q3 to give slightly higher IGP performance at the same price and power envelope.

Nice try at making a big argument over nothing, though.

 

[frozentundra123456]

Is that so?



http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/a10-4600m-trinity-piledriver,3202-16.html





Drivers, huh? Is that why the older hardware falls behind? Purely drivers although they're both updated?


Hell, here's Rory Read admitting the same thing.[/URL] Intel hasn't said as much, but if you look at the CPU "improvements" on Ivy Bridge and upcoming Haswell you'll see they're also doing the same. "Good enough" refers to CPU improvement and not GPU improvement, particularly where budget gaming laptops are concerned (or laptops in general. over 3/4s of new PCs sold in the US now are laptops and not desktops so graphical performance has taken the front wheel along with perf-per-watt and CPU performance sits in the back). Improving CPU performance will only help by a few FPS max when you're GPU limited by the on-die graphics. Improving on-die graphics by a significant amount and providing good enough CPU performance means you get far more substantial gains.

So you are redefining the English language so that "good enough" only applies to AMD. "Good enough" only refers to AMD cpu performance because that is how AMD fans have coined it to excuse AMDs weakness in that area.

 

[LOL_Wut_Axel]

http://techreport.com/articles.x/22932/8
QuickSync is faster, but VCE gives a better file size.....IMO a tie


actually, it seems that VCE give amd a tecnology similar to intel's WIDI...

If you love AMD and hate Intel, sure it is. If you have some decent reasoning skills, though, you'd see the bigger file size is a non-issue since most mainstream laptops ship with a 500GB HDD and budget-oriented ones ship with 320GB.

 

[pelov]

So really the only people I'm seeing AMD are targeting are budget gamers and travelers, along with AMD fans. Doesn't surprise me too much that Intel has more than 80% of the laptop market.

While that's true, a majority of laptops sales are in the $400-$800 area and that's the area AMD is focusing on. They did very well with Llano there and will probably do very well with Trinity as well.

udget laptop gamers can go either way--the HD 4000 is good enough for gaming at Medium settings. Budget desktop gamers can go for a dual-core IB and discrete graphics for the same price as Trinity and get higher performance.

Again, we know nothing about i3 IBs but assuming you meant SB + discrete you have to consider Trinity/Llanos at the same price with discrete options as well. Price being equal, you will still get better gaming performance from an AMD laptop because of the availability of crossfire. On-die graphics the choice is easy and AMD wins that one, whether Llano (cheap) or Trinity (more expensive). Yea, you probably do need the 7760G, it's still somewhere ~$600. Unfortunately we can't compare the IB i3's or even i5's until they come out and they're priced.

Business/enterprise will go with Intel because of higher CPU performance at AMD's price points and the fact AMD doesn't have high-performance CPUs not to mention power consumption difference between both is a wash in mobile, and in Intel's favor in desktop/server. In both cases, performance/watt is higher with Intel.

That's desktop, though. On the laptop end it really doesn't matter whether it's an Intel or AMD CPU as most business users won't notice unless they're spending over $900 for an i7 IB/SB quad and they need the extra processing power in which case they're not your average business user and are not more CPU compute work related. Generally speaking, your average business user is almost always limited by the hard disk than they are by the CPU or GPU. The Intel brand name matters here more than anywhere else though, but oddly enough it actually makes the least sense here as well.

Intel has a 80%> laptop market share because AMD never made a single laptop chip since the company was founded. They've always focused on the desktop/server and embedded after the ATI acquisition. Considering that Llano/Brazos were genuinely AMD's first ever laptop chips, I'd say they did a pretty damn good job and the sales figures reflected that. Gaining close to 2-3% total market share in a single year while being bogged down by yield issues for at least a quarter is nothing to scoff at.

So you are redefining the English language so that "good enough" only applies to AMD. "Good enough" only refers to AMD cpu performance because that is how AMD fans have coined it to excuse AMDs weakness in that area.

No. If you don't want AMD's word then take a look at Intel's architecture for both Haswell and Ivy Bridge tick-tock which are both GPU focused. If people wanted more CPU performance then we'd have had increased desktop market share over laptop but instead it's been the other way around. People are quite content with their desktops and laptop CPU performance and as a result both AMD and Intel are improving on graphics and perf-per-watt. Why bother with ULVs if people want CPU performance? It's because they'd rather have something light and thin to carry around than a power-hungry number cruncher. You think people buy Apple crap for it's amazing processors? Please...

 

[Nemesis 1]

If you look at the Zenbook review the relative battery life going from the 17W Sandy Bridge to the 17W Ivy Bridge improved by... nothing. They both have the same run time and battery capacity, but Ivy Bridge is faster so at least efficiency did improve somewhat.

You are like onto a bulldog . Go get em fella. Oh! reading comprehension. Ya best reread the part I quoted above . What monitor was on the zen 2 . I would say that screen uses more energy than the old crap ones like what will be on most all trinity systems. Anand does point this out . read all the words or you miss the point.Why are you debating APU vs IGP. Look trinity isn't good enough nor is ivb. Also this debate isn't real its a put on. If the folks debating Are REAL gamers and they will use TrinityAPU for gaming . These are not . NOT! Intel customers.Intel doesn't ebven want there money . AMD would be better off without their money . Some seem to be AMD fanbois who will game on trinity rather than buy an AMD graphics card to help out the very company they defend without forthought . Good enough graphics on the cpu takes money out of someones pocket and we know it isn't intels. Besides years ago you can be winning an NV ATI debate and the wildcard would be played or the racecard if you like . Yep the NV guys would always bring up ATis crappy drivers. The driver card is the last defense of a losing debate.

 

[podspi]

If you love AMD and hate Intel, sure it is. If you have some decent reasoning skills, though, you'd see the bigger file size is a non-issue since most mainstream laptops ship with a 500GB HDD and budget-oriented ones ship with 320GB.

Isn't it the point of these technologies to allow you to quickly sync video to your mobile devices (hence the name QuickSync)? If that is the intended use-case, file size is pretty important.


Anyway, I think AMD has a pretty impressive chip in Trinity. Compare perf/watt for AMD and Intel pre-Llano and now. AMD has caught up a ton. If they sold those mobile Phenoms (and they did, I know a few people with them), they'll sell even more of these...

 

[Skurge]

I see LOLwutAXEL is ignoring the A10-4655M. Its got the same specs as the A10-4600M, just slightly lower clocks, but at 25W. So if it were to use 20% less power, that would make it pretty potent in ultrabooks and pretty much almost twice as fast as intel's 17W ultrabooks CPUs and still hold it's 20% advantage against 25W ultrabook CPUs.

Not bad for a 32nm CPU vs a 22nm one.

 

[Vesku]

That Intel, despite their process advantage and brand dominance are taking the threat from Llano and now Trinity very seriously. A SKU with same TDP same cores just a higher turbo IGP, if it materializes do you think it will be because they just "felt like it"?

That proves what exactly? That article proves nothing at all, other than Intel will be using better Ivy Bridge yields and lower leakage in Q3 to give slightly higher IGP performance at the same price and power envelope.

Nice try at making a big argument over nothing, though.

 

[Skurge]

Isn't it the point of these technologies to allow you to quickly sync video to your mobile devices (hence the name QuickSync)? If that is the intended use-case, file size is pretty important.


Anyway, I think AMD has a pretty impressive chip in Trinity. Compare perf/watt for AMD and Intel pre-Llano and now. AMD has caught up a ton. If they sold those mobile Phenoms (and they did, I know a few people with them), they'll sell even more of these...

Exactly, I don't know about you, but I would wait a minute longer if I could halve the file size for the videos that go onto my phone or tablet. Space on mobile devices is not very abundant. Unless you have a 128GB galaxy S3

 

[LOL_Wut_Axel]

I see LOLwutAXEL is ignoring the A10-4655M. Its got the same specs as the A10-4600M, just slightly lower clocks, but at 25W. So if it were to use 20% less power, that would make it pretty potent in ultrabooks and pretty much almost twice as fast as intel's 17W ultrabooks CPUs and still hold it's 20% advantage against 25W ultrabook CPUs.

Not bad for a 32nm CPU vs a 22nm one.

Manufacturers can release LV 25W Ivy Bridge parts at relatively high clock speeds with the configurable TDP of the ULV 17W chips, too. The problem is, they won't make it into Ultrabooks. Likewise, AMD's 25W part won't make it into Ultra-thins/Sleekbooks because they'd need a bigger chassis. It could have a chance in sub-notebooks, though.

 

[Olikan]

If you love AMD and hate Intel, sure it is. If you have some decent reasoning skills, though, you'd see the bigger file size is a non-issue since most mainstream laptops ship with a 500GB HDD and budget-oriented ones ship with 320GB.

well, that's true...didn't really thought about that...

hehe...i have to work with a 80Gb HDD, so file sizes is a real problem to me

 

[LOL_Wut_Axel]

That Intel, despite their process advantage and brand dominance are taking the threat from Llano and now Trinity very seriously. A SKU with same TDP same cores just a higher turbo IGP, if it materializes do you think it will be because they just "felt like it"?

That proves no such thing.

The i7-2630QM was updated to the i7-2670QM for the same price last year. Does that mean Intel was "afraid and pressured" by AMD to make a faster version? This is the most nonsensical argument I've heard in this thread.

well, that's true...didn't really thought about that...

hehe...i have to work with a 80Gb HDD, so file sizes is a real problem to me

Some people mentioned it being a bigger problem for mobile devices, and it is, but admittedly no deal-breaker. Most smartphones come with the ability to expand storage using a MicroSD card, and even Class 6 and 10 32GB cards can be had relatively cheap. People typically don't watch full-length movies on their smartphones, but I have seen some people do it on their tablets. For TV shows and average duration clips (5 minutes) the bigger file size shouldn't pose much of an issue, but for movies it could be a problem.

 

[IntelUser2000]

Intel will release LV 25W Ivy Bridge parts at relatively high clock speeds, too. The problem is, they won't make it into Ultrabooks.

Actually, there's no 25W SKUs for Ivy Bridge chips. The improved power management reduced the differences that in Sandy Bridge, no 25W chips were being sold.

In Ivy Bridge they bring Configurable TDP to fill the gap. The 17W version can be fixed to 25W if needed with corresponding clock increases.

Also regarding transcoding and file sizes. Bigger file sizes are naturally an indication of better quality. Which is why the CPU based transcode is the largest.

Drivers, huh? Is that why the older hardware falls behind? Purely drivers although they're both updated?

Perhaps its not big as hardware, but drivers improve things too. For example in here: http://www.anandtech.com/show/5771/the-intel-ivy-bridge-core-i7-3770k-review/8

There's a low precision issue in DirectX 9 currently which results in the imperfect image above, that has already been fixed in a later driver revision awaiting validation. The issue also doesn't exist under DX10/DX11.

That's for Ivy Bridge.

 

[LOL_Wut_Axel]

While that's true, a majority of laptops sales are in the $400-$800 area and that's the area AMD is focusing on. They did very well with Llano there and will probably do very well with Trinity as well.



Again, we know nothing about i3 IBs but assuming you meant SB + discrete you have to consider Trinity/Llanos at the same price with discrete options as well. Price being equal, you will still get better gaming performance from an AMD laptop because of the availability of crossfire. On-die graphics the choice is easy and AMD wins that one, whether Llano (cheap) or Trinity (more expensive). Yea, you probably do need the 7760G, it's still somewhere ~$600. Unfortunately we can't compare the IB i3's or even i5's until they come out and they're priced.



That's desktop, though. On the laptop end it really doesn't matter whether it's an Intel or AMD CPU as most business users won't notice unless they're spending over $900 for an i7 IB/SB quad and they need the extra processing power in which case they're not your average business user and are not more CPU compute work related. Generally speaking, your average business user is almost always limited by the hard disk than they are by the CPU or GPU. The Intel brand name matters here more than anywhere else though, but oddly enough it actually makes the least sense here as well.

Intel has a 80%> laptop market share because AMD never made a single laptop chip since the company was founded. They've always focused on the desktop/server and embedded after the ATI acquisition. Considering that Llano/Brazos were genuinely AMD's first ever laptop chips, I'd say they did a pretty damn good job and the sales figures reflected that. Gaining close to 2-3% total market share in a single year while being bogged down by yield issues for at least a quarter is nothing to scoff at.



No. If you don't want AMD's word then take a look at Intel's architecture for both Haswell and Ivy Bridge tick-tock which are both GPU focused. If people wanted more CPU performance then we'd have had increased desktop market share over laptop but instead it's been the other way around. People are quite content with their desktops and laptop CPU performance and as a result both AMD and Intel are improving on graphics and perf-per-watt. Why bother with ULVs if people want CPU performance? It's because they'd rather have something light and thin to carry around than a power-hungry number cruncher. You think people buy Apple crap for it's amazing processors? Please...

Apple is a very small niche of the overall computer market. They have what, 5% market share? Most people don't buy Apple products because they're too expensive.

And like I said before, Intel didn't have any problems before with maintaining their huge market share even though they had bad IGPs. Intel is still improving CPU performance with Haswell, but like I said earlier, they've hit a wall when it comes to getting more CPU performance with currently existing technology and they could easily improve IGP performance while raising performace/watt, so that's what they did.

In the end, Intel will stay with their >80% laptop market share because that's what the market will go with by default given AMD isn't either catering to most of the market or they are but are no better than Intel in relevant areas.

 

[Nemesis 1]

Intel has a 80%> laptop market share because AMD never made a single laptop chip since the company was founded. They've always focused on the desktop/server and embedded after the ATI acquisition. Considering that Llano/Brazos were genuinely AMD's first ever laptop chips, I'd say they did a pretty damn good job and the sales figures reflected that. Gaining close to 2-3% total market share in a single year while being bogged down by yield issues for at least a quarter is nothing to scoff at

This is a bad argument. Intel got 80% of the sales in this class . BUT! 100% of the cream . AMD got 20% of the toilet sales. Barely breakeven end of the spectrum Intels all shook up.

 

[N4g4rok]

If you love AMD and hate Intel, sure it is. If you have some decent reasoning skills, though, you'd see the bigger file size is a non-issue since most mainstream laptops ship with a 500GB HDD and budget-oriented ones ship with 320GB.

Well, hang on, it isn't that black and white. It comes down to the needs of the user. It's pretty easy to fill a 500GB hard drive with video encoding work on a mobile workstation. If space isn't an issue, QuickSync is the way to go, but on limited storage, 40 - 80 extra seconds isn't necessarily a deal breaker for the space it will save.

 

[LOL_Wut_Axel]

Actually, there's no 25W SKUs for Ivy Bridge chips. The improved power management reduced the differences that in Sandy Bridge, no 25W chips were being sold.

In Ivy Bridge they bring Configurable TDP to fill the gap. The 17W version can be fixed to 25W if needed with corresponding clock increases.

Also regarding transcoding and file sizes. Bigger file sizes are naturally an indication of better quality. Which is why the CPU based transcode is the largest.



Perhaps its not big as hardware, but drivers improve things too. For example in here: http://www.anandtech.com/show/5771/the-intel-ivy-bridge-core-i7-3770k-review/8



That's for Ivy Bridge.

I checked that out and it's true. Manufacturers will either be able to increase voltage and clock speed of a 17W chip to hit 25W and sell it that way and give you the option to go back down to 17W, or offer a chip at the default voltage and clock speed and let the user set 25W or 17W.

A lot of it will have to do with the ability of the chassis to dissipate heat, so LV specs will only be able to be hit if the system is up to it.

In any case, like I said earlier, Ultra-thins won't feature the 25W APU.

When it comes to Quick Sync, it depends on whether most people want higher quality and fast speed or lower file size. But the fact that it delivers on both quality and performance makes it a winner.

 

[IntelUser2000]

Because Intel's driver team is terrible.
Can you show us an example of an Intel GPU driver update actually improving gaming performance the way AMD and nV's updates do?

Certainly.

http://newsroom.intel.com/community...ot-new-hd-graphics-driver-keeps-the-fun-going
http://ht4u.net/reviews/2011/treibervergleich_intel_2361/index7.php

 

[Phynaz]

Well, hang on, it isn't that black and white. It comes down to the needs of the user. It's pretty easy to fill a 500GB hard drive with video encoding work on a mobile workstation. If space isn't an issue, QuickSync is the way to go, but on limited storage, 40 - 80 extra seconds isn't necessarily a deal breaker for the space it will save.

So why wouldn't you just reduce the bitrate when using Quicksync?

You know that's what the file size difference is about, right?

Oh, and if you are doing encodes that are only a minute long, well...

 

[Nemesis 1]

I checked that out and it's true. Manufacturers will either be able to increase voltage and clock speed of a 17W chip to hit 25W and sell it that way and give you the option to go back down to 17W, or offer a chip at the default voltage and clock speed and let the user set 25W or 17W.

AND! Is there also a 13 watt configuration?!

 

[IntelUser2000]

Also there's one more thing about battery life for the Trinity review. Anand mentions that the Samsung 830 SSD offers nearly 10% gain in both idle and internet scenarios while h.264 offered 3% over the Intel SSD 520. The Sandy Bridge reference and the Dell Vostro uses the Intel SSD 520.

Generally the Samsung and Intel controller SSDs offer the best battery life.

AND! Is there also a 13 watt configeration?!

It's actually 14W according to Intel's Datasheets(I know, a nitpick ).

 

[grimpr]

Well, Trinity spoiled the cherry of Diablo III's launch for superior Intel graphics blurps and marketing, sorry, try harder next time.

http://www.legitreviews.com/article/1928/2/

 

[Olikan]

So why wouldn't you just reduce the bitrate when using Quicksync?

You know that's what the file size difference is about, right?

Oh, and if you are doing encodes that are only a minute long, well...

man, we so need a QuickSynck vs VCE review

actually, all the reviews are very poor for trinity...
there is no IPC comparison, there is no turbo comparison, no overclock\undervolt (llanos can), VCE quality..nothing

 

[Joseph F]

LOL at people praising AMD's driver team when you have threads here with people complaining about issues with the HD 7000 series.

You do realize in the Anandtech review they did not mention having any issues with the drivers, right?

And you do realize the GMA 950 is a 6-year-old IGP, right? If we were to make arguments here making reference to issues with 6-year-old products everyone here would be complaining about the horrible driver support for the Radeon HD 2000 and 3000 series and how that means AMD has horrible driver support.

First off, I am not praising AMD's driver team, I am just saying that they are (AFAIK) far better than Intel's. I acknowledge that they are notorious for having buggy drivers.
Second, I openly mentioned that I may not be up to date regarding Intel's driver team. You don't have to be so hostile about correcting me if they have gotten better.
Third, can you show me an Intel driver update that improved gaming performance over the previous driver version? That's all I asked of you in the first place.

 

[LOL_Wut_Axel]

Also there's one more thing about battery life for the Trinity review. Anand mentions that the Samsung 830 SSD offers nearly 10% gain in both idle and internet scenarios while h.264 offered 3% over the Intel SSD 520. The Sandy Bridge reference and the Dell Vostro uses the Intel SSD 520.

Generally the Samsung and Intel controller SSDs offer the best battery life.



It's actually 14W according to Intel's Datasheets(I know, a nitpick ).

That could actually mean the Sandy Bridge laptop would have slightly higher relative battery life than the Trinity prototype. The SSD 520 and SSD 830 are pretty different when it comes to efficiency and power usage, especially since during web browsing both drives will be idle for the most part.

A difference of half a watt in the most typical usage scenario is very significant, especially given it's a single component that's making that difference.