Monday, November 21st 2011

AMD Trinity Internal Benchmarks Surface

"Trinity" is the codename of AMD's next-generation performance accelerated processing unit (APU) family. Based on the new socket FM2 package, these chips will take advantage of AMD's next-generation Piledriver processor core architecture and VLIW4 GPU stream processor architecture. Together, Trinity promises increased general, visual, and parallel compute performance. Some of the slides detailing AMD's own performance estimates were put up by DonanimHaber in their recent video bulletin. We screen-grabbed the performance graphs from the low-resolution video, hence the grainy images.

To begin with, AMD is promising noticeable performance improvements over the current "Llano" APU. It spread its benchmarks across three categories: visual performance (using 3DMark Vantage), general performance (using PCMark Vantage), and parallel compute (GPGPU) performance (calculated CTP SP GFLOPs). With 3DMark Vantage, Trinity A8 (quad-core), A6 (triple-core), and A4 (dual-core) APUs are seeing a roughly 32% improvement over their respective Llano-based counterparts; with general performance, the improvement is a candid 13.8% on average; but with GPGPU performance, the improvement is a massive 56.3% on average. This could be attributed to the VLIW4 architecture. Lastly, there are notable CrossFire dual-graphics performance improvements.


Source: DonanimHaber
Add your own comment

26 Comments on AMD Trinity Internal Benchmarks Surface

#1
the54thvoid
Looks promising if it's not bollocks.

I'm trying to build as cheap yet effective a budget PC for my mate that will play Civ V and Football Manager (the only games he plays). I'm aware Civ V is atrociously optimised. I had been looking at the Llano A8. This looks like a markedly better bet.

He will be using Photoshop CS 5 though which i think is CUDA optimised?
Posted on Reply
#2
NC37
Blurry AMD internal benches mean pigeon poo...but, this does show kinda what I was expecting Trinity to be. Gonna be a bit more impressive than Llano, but not totally mature.

Is nice to see they got the dual GPU working better. But I am curious to see the real world benches. So many of those had dual GPU slower than single.
Posted on Reply
#3
de.das.dude
Pro Indian Modder
i dont always trust rumors, but when i do they are from donanimhaber
LOL.
i hope these arent like the bulldozer ones.
Posted on Reply
#4
Cuzza
actually these ones seem quite realistic and believable. compared to bulldozer anyway.
Posted on Reply
#5
entropy13
So the Llano A8 is around 6670 performance GPU-wise, so the Trinity one is now 6790 I guess?
Posted on Reply
#6
Sihastru
Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice...
Posted on Reply
#7
Dj-ElectriC
by: entropy13
So the Llano A8 is around 6670 performance GPU-wise, so the Trinity one is now 6790 I guess?
Huh... you can only wish the A8's GPU erformance would be close to those of the HD6670.
Posted on Reply
#8
LAN_deRf_HA
It will be close to a 5570. When it hits 5670 I'll be impressed.
Posted on Reply
#9
glitch
by: entropy13
So the Llano A8 is around 6670 performance GPU-wise, so the Trinity one is now 6790 I guess?
You (and I) wish... Llano A8 is more like a HD5570. Next gen will probably be the equivalent of HD6650. HD6670 has GDR5 instead of DDR3 than apu will work with, so it will be better. Hope they will do some tweaks and pilledrive apu will be faster than HD6550 but i don't think it will better than HD6670.
Posted on Reply
#10
erek
by: Sihastru
Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice...
what if it happens thrice?
Posted on Reply
#12
phanbuey
by: erek
what if it happens thrice?
Fool me can't get fooled again.
Posted on Reply
#13
MikeMurphy
Fake.

I'm thrilled I bought my A8-3850 instead of waiting like a sucker for a bulldozer-based FM2 part. I would be willing to bet that it will be a turd, apart from the GPU improvements.

And guys, its marketed at a 6550 discrete part.
Posted on Reply
#14
Over_Lord
News Editor
I guess 2013 will be the first proper BALANCED Fusion, with what? SteamRoller by then? CPU + probably HD79xx series's CU architecture in the GPU combined with 22nm process(HOPEFULLY)
Posted on Reply
#15
devguy
So the A6 is exclusively triple core now? If that's the case, then triple core Trinity is beating the pants off quad core Llano (unless they're comparing against the one triple core Llano). Very impressive.
Posted on Reply
#16
Lionheart
Looks promising, but when these APU's have at least 800 stream processing units and Phenom II CPU performance, I will be definitely interested ;), but that might be awhile :(
Posted on Reply
#17
Damn_Smooth
by: Lionheart
Looks promising, but when these APU's have at least 800 stream processing units and Phenom II CPU performance, I will be definitely interested ;), but that might be awhile :(
Llano already has comparable CPU performance to Phenom II. You only need to wait for stream processors.
Posted on Reply
#18
cadaveca
My name is Dave
I looked at the pics, saw the word "ESTIMATED", and decided that this is nothing more than hot air.


These are DESIGN TARGETS, not actual perforamnce.

Thanks.

:D
Posted on Reply
#19
subhendu
any news about price ?
which would be a good choice
amd trinity + 6750
or
i3 2100+6750 ?
Posted on Reply
#20
xenocide
now with 60% more blurriness!!!
Posted on Reply
#21
Inceptor
by: devguy
So the A6 is exclusively triple core now? If that's the case, then triple core Trinity is beating the pants off quad core Llano (unless they're comparing against the one triple core Llano). Very impressive.
No triple cores after Llano; unless they disable ONE integer core in the second cpu module.
That doesn't sound right to me... 1 module, 2 integer cores. 2 modules, 4 integer cores. 3 integer cores? weird.
This sounds fake to me.
Posted on Reply
#22
MikeMurphy
by: Lionheart
Looks promising, but when these APU's have at least 800 stream processing units and Phenom II CPU performance, I will be definitely interested ;), but that might be awhile :(
High-end Llano doesn't make sense. You won't see it anytime soon.

Problems:
-Huge price
-Too much heat to dissipate
-Huge die
-Memory bandwidth couldn't feed 800sp

mo problems
Posted on Reply
#23
devguy
by: Inceptor
No triple cores after Llano; unless they disable ONE integer core in the second cpu module.
That doesn't sound right to me... 1 module, 2 integer cores. 2 modules, 4 integer cores. 3 integer cores? weird.
This sounds fake to me.
Yeah, it's kinda weird, but you can disable one of the cores in a module on an FX processor. An 8 core FX processor with only four enabled cores (exactly one per module), not only works, but usually performs better in single threaded tasks than if all cores were enabled. This is because a non bulldozer-privy scheduler might put another thread (maybe some background thread, or what not) on the other core of the same module that has a core running the single-threaded task. Then, resources become shared, and slow things down. Such worse case scheduling doesn't always happen, but when it does, it's not all bad, as power consumption will be theoretically lower in such case. Just a little extra info for those who think a magical Windows 8 scheduler will make FX chips much faster - it'll help minimize the occurrence of the worse case listed above, and for the most part, that's it.
Posted on Reply
#24
xenocide
by: devguy
Yeah, it's kinda weird, but you can disable one of the cores in a module on an FX processor. An 8 core FX processor with only four enabled cores (exactly one per module), not only works, but usually performs better in single threaded tasks than if all cores were enabled. This is because a non bulldozer-privy scheduler might put another thread (maybe some background thread, or what not) on the other core of the same module that has a core running the single-threaded task. Then, resources become shared, and slow things down. Such worse case scheduling doesn't always happen, but when it does, it's not all bad, as power consumption will be theoretically lower in such case. Just a little extra info for those who think a magical Windows 8 scheduler will make FX chips much faster - it'll help minimize the occurrence of the worse case listed above, and for the most part, that's it.
Hyper-Threading Plus. 8 "Core" FX CPU's are just Quad-Cores with 50% more resources and bottlenecks. You can claim it's a full core because it has enough individual resources, but the bottom line is 2 threads move through 1 coremoduleunitbanana-phone at a time. I find it humerous that a 8-"Core" FX CPU with half it's "Core"s disabled performs on par or better in tasks that only utilize up to 4 threads.
Posted on Reply
#25
Inceptor
by: devguy
Yeah, it's kinda weird, but you can disable one of the cores in a module on an FX processor. An 8 core FX processor with only four enabled cores (exactly one per module), not only works, but usually performs better in single threaded tasks than if all cores were enabled. This is because a non bulldozer-privy scheduler might put another thread (maybe some background thread, or what not) on the other core of the same module that has a core running the single-threaded task. Then, resources become shared, and slow things down. Such worse case scheduling doesn't always happen, but when it does, it's not all bad, as power consumption will be theoretically lower in such case. Just a little extra info for those who think a magical Windows 8 scheduler will make FX chips much faster - it'll help minimize the occurrence of the worse case listed above, and for the most part, that's it.
I know. But a '3 core' bulldozer architecture on an APU seems like something that would only be done with defective silicon, not something that would be rolled out at release, but later on, maybe, to salvage silicon and squeeze out a bit more profit. The point is that it's bad PR, highlighting poor silicon yields. AMD just got rid of its old marketing people.
Bad PR because artificially fusing one core in one module is going to piss off the people who will buy it thinking they can unlock, because it won't be a simple unlock if its bad silicon, that would be a loss of profit to AMD. APUs make money for AMD. It's not the same situation as the Phenom x2 and x3.
Fake.
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment