Tuesday, October 25th 2011

AMD Trinity Detailed Further, Compatible with A75 Chipset

AMD detailed its upcoming "Virgo" PC platform that consists of next-generation "Trinity" APU (accelerated processing unit), and current-generation AMD A75 "Hudson-D" chipset. A notable revelation here is that the next-gen APUs will be compatible with AMD A75, although it will be designed for a new socket called FM2. It remains to be seen if FM1 and FM2 are pin-compatible.

"Trinity" packs four x86-64 cores based on the next-generation "Piledriver" architecture, arranged in two Piledriver modules. A module is a closely-knit group of two cores, with certain shared and dedicated resources. Each Piledriver module has 2 MB of L2 cache shared between the two cores. In all, Trinity, with its two modules, has 4 MB of L2 cache without any L3 cache.

AMD is talking about a 20% performance improvement over current-generation "Llano" APUs, which use K10 "Stars" architecture cores. Trinity will feature 3rd-generation TurboCore technology that adds a few new power-management and selective overclocking features.

The integrated memory controller will get an overhaul, too. Unlike with K10-based processors that have two independent 64-bit wide memory interfaces that can be configured to work ganged or unganged, Trinity will have a single 128-bit memory interface, the controller will support dual-channel DDR3-2133 MHz memory standard, with DRAM voltages of under 1.5V. Trinity will include a 24-lane PCI-Express root complex, it supports 2-way multi-GPU configurations.

Moving on to the integrated GPU component, AMD promises a 30% performance improvement over Llano's iGPU. The GPU component is DirectX 11 compliant, and features UVD 3 hardware HD video acceleration, with SAMU and native VCE. Featuring AMD Eyefinity technology, this integrated GPU will support up to three displays without needing a discrete graphics card. Eyefinity can be used to step up productivity.Source: DonanimHaber
Add your own comment

41 Comments on AMD Trinity Detailed Further, Compatible with A75 Chipset

#1
(FIH) The Don
will this be like a BD with integrated gpu ? bc then they might aswell not even release that thing
Posted on Reply
#2
damric
by: (FIH) The Don
will this be like a BD with integrated gpu ? bc then they might aswell not even release that thing
I'm sure it will be popular. FX 8150 and 8120 are sold out at the major etailers, and llano cannot keep up with demands.
Posted on Reply
#3
kajson
I can't wait for this to come to the market.

I think the future of AMD is staked at their capacity to succesfully mass produce this APU with proper yields.

While bulldozer isnt kicking I7 butt, piledriver with a 7xxx GPU will blow away anything intel has to offer as system on a chip. Thus any laptop with an intel GPU completely out of the water.

This could (and should) be the future of any low/medium end laptop at a very affordable price.

But again everything hangs on if they can succesfully mass produce it with nice profit margines. (and a decent TDP)
Posted on Reply
#4
Fx
this looks to be a good performer
Posted on Reply
#5
xenocide
by: damric
I'm sure it will be popular. FX 8150 and 8120 are sold out at the major etailers, and llano cannot keep up with demands.
Both situations exist because AMD cannot get enough chips out. They are actually that scarce. It's not like they are selling insane amounts of them, it's just AMD's supply is that limited due to bad yield from Glo-Fo, and their limited capacity.
Posted on Reply
#6
KooKKiK
BD's performance per core is really bad, even worse than Phenom II.


How can they bring Trinity to 20% improvement over Llano ???
Posted on Reply
#7
seronx
by: KooKKiK
BD's performance per core is really bad, even worse than Phenom II.


How can they bring Trinity to 20% improvement over Llano ???
Because Bulldozer is a 10% improvement over Phenom II but not in all workloads, the number is an average
Posted on Reply
#8
cheesy999
by: KooKKiK
BD's performance per core is really bad, even worse than Phenom II.


How can they bring Trinity to 20% improvement over Llano ???
your forgetting most of the transistors in bulldozer weren't the actual processing cores(somewhere near 40-50% were taken up with it's massive amounts of cache, and i think only a 1/4 in the end were actual processors cores, the rest were memory and IO ETC), with such low cache compared to the desktop version they should be able to reduce the the power consumption without reducing the clockspeed too much like they normally do in mobile processors

EG:Llano mobile quad core was 1.4GHZ,AMD dual core was 1.9GHZ, seeing as these don't use a full 2 cores, but 2 half cores in a module, i think these bulldozer cores will be closer to 2GHZ
Posted on Reply
#9
suraswami
another 'Look good on Paper'?

hmm may be AMD will improve with this like Phenom I to PII now?

AMD is just riding on the 'may be' factor!
Posted on Reply
#10
NC37
Yay thank you AMD for keeping some form of backwards compatibility!

Dunno how long it will last. But at least FM1 will have some upgrade options. MXM couldn't do it...couldn't make the upgradable GPU in a laptop popular, but AMD might be able to do it with APUs.
Posted on Reply
#11
Inceptor
by: KooKKiK
BD's performance per core is really bad, even worse than Phenom II.
How can they bring Trinity to 20% improvement over Llano ???
1) BD performance per core is equivalent to a Phenom II (fx-8150 vs x4 965)
2) They say that Piledriver will be a +10%/core boost over Bulldozer.
3) They say that the power efficiency problem will be fixed, so that the high clocks of the deep pipeline architecture can be taken advantage of more effectively. So, 4ghz+ stock clocks on Piledriver -- which also means higher per core performance.
4) Llano uses Athlon II cores.
5) It will have an updated, higher performance GPU
6) Llano uses an updated 5xxx GPU branded as an 65xx.

It's quite easy to see how they'll get a performance improvement. Since they don't give details on the comparisons, they can cherry pick whichever comparison they're making. Something vs some previous Llano configuration is a 20% improvement. OR In some particular benchmark, there is a 20% improvement.

If you don't get excruciating detail it's just an advertising statement with no references and no commitments.

[Assuming, of course, that the information from Donanimhaber is correct, and actually comes from AMD]
Posted on Reply
#12
repman244
by: (FIH) The Don
will this be like a BD with integrated gpu ? bc then they might aswell not even release that thing
This will be an APU based on the Piledriver core (revamped BD).

by: seronx
Because Bulldozer is a 10% improvement over Phenom II but not in all workloads, the number is an average
He was talking per core. Per core the Phenom II kills it (if there ever was an Phenom II X8 it would destroy the 8150. And let's not even start per clock...



by: Inceptor
1) BD performance per core is equivalent to a Phenom II (fx-8150 vs x4 965)
Per core it is not nearly the same, read above.
Posted on Reply
#13
pantherx12
by: (FIH) The Don
will this be like a BD with integrated gpu ? bc then they might aswell not even release that thing
Well if AMD gets there way the gpu in the APU will take care of bulldozers week point.

(gpus are great at floating point calculations, which bulldozer is week at)
Posted on Reply
#14
MikeMurphy
Who cares if the A75 chipset is reused if its not going to be pin-compatible with FM1?!?

I'm really happy I bought my A8-3850 CPU. My only want is for an unlocked multi.

No thx to BD.
Posted on Reply
#15
Benetanegia
by: Inceptor
1) BD performance per core is equivalent to a Phenom II (fx-8150 vs x4 965)
I want what you are smoking.

http://www.guru3d.com/article/amd-fx-8150--8120-6100-and-4100-performance-review/4

FX-4100 is on par with the PII X4 810 or A6-3650 at best, both 2.6 Ghz chips. Being a 3.6 Ghz chip it never gets close to the X4 975 BE of same clocks. Neither is close to the 3.4 Ghz X4 965 and even the FX-6100 often struggles to catch 3.6 Ghz ++ Phenom II's. Of course there's some niche tests where it gets close or even scores a pirric win, but those niche benchmarks are not the kind of tasks that a Fusion platform will ever be doing. BD is also a server chip, so server-like tasks it's where they don't completely suck, but there's no salvation for Trinity in that regards, so they really have to improve it over BD. Unless it's fast in home tasks, it will be fail from our perspective. They will still sell to the masses tho, probably, but that's because they are not concerned about efficiency, ROI, such things.

EDIT: I see that Piledriver is still going to use 2 MB of L2 per module. Am I the only one who thinks they would do much much better with a 1 MB, maybe even 512 KB L2 that is "a lot" (comnparatively) faster? Granted, we don't really know if BD cache is slow because of the massive amount of it or the cache size is what it is in order to try to compensate for the slow access. I really think it's the former, based on other AMD chips (and Intel's), but I'm not an enginner. Either way being things as they are for current BD, devoting almost 40% of die sze to cache seems like a total waste.
Posted on Reply
#16
Jizzler
Nice.

Put me down for three. The kids are getting older and tire of sharing a computer.
Posted on Reply
#17
3volvedcombat
by: (FIH) The Don
will this be like a BD with integrated gpu ? bc then they might aswell not even release that thing
To be honest, quiet frankly, there just releasing a new gen discrete graphics to fill up the new gen line.

Second of all, it gets VERY VERY VERY VERY VERY DEPRESSING to only see performance increase numbers of 10-20% right now.

Come on AMD, release something worth releasing, they could have had opportunity to get some serious competition with Intel after x6thuban ect ect....

Bullshit 10-20% increase in performance numbers, yeah the probably will meet those paper launch numbers, but they have also set them selves up for failure if they possible don't even meet those paper launch numbers(which could be possible.)

I just want AMD to release something worth while, and stop pushing necessarily deformed baby's right out of there colon, and trying to make market on them.
Posted on Reply
#18
Dent1
I would like to see AMD push out a 8 core Thuban and up the L2 to 2MB/core and L3 cache to 8MB shared. We are already seeing the Thubans on the heels of the i5 and i7 in certain benchmarks already wouldnt it be more logical just to increase the cache and core count until they revise the Bulldozer.
Posted on Reply
#19
nt300
AMD needs to stop designing server CPU's for desktop.
Posted on Reply
#20
laszlo
by: suraswami
another 'Look good on Paper'?

hmm may be AMD will improve with this like Phenom I to PII now?

AMD is just riding on the 'may be' factor!
m8 u don't read news? they have now "Papermaster" so it will be gooood
Posted on Reply
#21
TheLaughingMan
Why did everyone overlook the standard memory frequency of 2133 MHz. If the memory speed scales like going from 1333 MHz to 1600 MHz we could see 15% performance just from the memory controller.
Posted on Reply
#22
devguy
by: TheLaughingMan
Why did everyone overlook the standard memory frequency of 2133 MHz. If the memory speed scales like going from 1333 MHz to 1600 MHz we could see 15% performance just from the memory controller.
Well, when using the IMC, Llano greatly benefits from higher RAM speeds. But benchmarks run without the IMC don't tend to have much of a difference. Also, with Bulldozer higher RAM speeds don't seem to make a huge difference, but we'll see about Piledriver.
Posted on Reply
#23
Neuromancer
LOL I think you mean IGP. It would be pretty hard to run without hte Integrated Memory Controller :)

And yes that Graphics performance it waht improves most when running faster Mem.
Posted on Reply
#24
Atom_Anti
Will this also compatible with A70M laptop chipset?
Posted on Reply
#25
seronx
by: repman244

He was talking per core. Per core the Phenom II kills it (if there ever was an Phenom II X8 it would destroy the 8150. And let's not even start per clock...


Phenom II X8 about 2.7GHz

http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=amd_fx8150_bulldozer&num=1

2 x Opteron 2384 should be your Phenom II example

Bulldozer Family architecture was a do or die scenario K8 derived architectures are over bros
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment