Tuesday, April 10th 2012

Trinity (Piledriver) Integer/FP Performance Higher Than Bulldozer, Clock-for-Clock

AMD's upcoming "Trinity" family of desktop and mobile accelerated processing units (APUs) will use up to four x86-64 cores based on the company's newest CPU architecture, codenamed "Piledriver". AMD conservatively estimated performance/clock improvements over current-generation "Bulldozer" architecture, with Piledriver. Citavia put next-generation A10-5800K, and A8-4500M "Trinity" desktop and notebook APUs, and pitted them against several currently-launched processors, from both AMD and Intel.

It found integer and floating-point performance increases clock-for-clock, against Bulldozer-based FX-8150. The benchmark is not multi-threaded, and hence gives us a fair idea of the per core performance. On a rather disturbing note, the performance-per-GHz figures of Piledriver are trailing far behind K12 architecture (Llano, A8-3850), let alone competitive architectures from Intel.


Source: Expreview
Add your own comment

115 Comments on Trinity (Piledriver) Integer/FP Performance Higher Than Bulldozer, Clock-for-Clock

#1
faramir
by: Dent1
IMO this article is fail.

Trying to compare a budget laptop quadcore Trinity APU to a high end desktop octocore Bulldozer is utter fail.
Why ? Both mobile and desktop Trinity seem to perform the same as far as IPC rate is concerned, as is to be expected. This means the desktop part, running at higher frequency, will obviously be faster but both mobile and desktop parts enjoy same ~5% IPC improvement over desktop Bulldozer. The test itself is not multi-threaded ad the article refers do IPC improvements only.

Coudl it be that you "are fail", reading comprehension problems ?
Posted on Reply
#2
Dent1
by: Hustler
So what...that will just bring them up to Phenom II levels of performance (maybe slightly faster)...still an utter fail.
Your attempt at being slick is utter fail, because Phenom II isn't 25% faster than Bulldozer.

by: faramir
Why ? Both mobile and desktop Trinity seem to perform the same as far as IPC rate is concerned, as is to be expected. This means the desktop part, running at higher frequency, will obviously be faster but both mobile and desktop parts enjoy same ~5% IPC improvement over desktop Bulldozer. The test itself is not multi-threaded ad the article refers do IPC improvements only.

Coudl it be that you "are fail", reading comprehension problems ?
Nope. The person with reading comprehension fail is you? Because I was referring to the unreleased high end desktop Vishera not the low end desktop Trinity.
Posted on Reply
#3
Super XP
Complete nonesense. Nobody really knows how Piledriver is going to perform. All we can do is speculate at this time. I did hear the Piledriver will perform better CLOCK 4 CLOCK versus Bulldozer. All we can do now is wait. :D
Posted on Reply
#4
Kreij
Senior Monkey Moderator
Keep it on topic gents.
Posted on Reply
#5
Aquinus
Resident Wat-man
I'm hoping to see some reasonable gains by putting GCN on an APU. Putting piledriver with fewer cores makes more room for the iGPU. You don't need a power house to play games as a casual gamer. Also think about what AMD is doing. Bulldozer's integer performance is pretty awesome, and the floating point performance of a GPU is also pretty awesome. AMD has a plan, just think about the phrase, "the future is fusion." Llano was step 1.
Posted on Reply
#6
theoneandonlymrk
by: Aquinus
Also think about what AMD is doing. Bulldozer's integer performance is pretty awesome, and the floating point performance of a GPU is also pretty awesome. AMD has a plan, just think about the phrase, "the future is fusion." Llano was step 1
+1 thats what ive been saying , maths co processors revolutionised cpu's year dot +4(memory fades) and every cpu that couldnt keep up isnt around anymore , the gpu on die intergrated further then it is (its still very very useable) could enhance the Cpu beyond present cpu's entirely

yes yes ,be time yet tho:rolleyes:
Posted on Reply
#7
ensabrenoir
[QUOTE= snip. AMD has a plan, just think about the phrase, "the future is fusion." Llano was step 1.[/quote]YES IVE SEEN THIS It stars Michael j Fox .....:roll:

But seriously if amd gets it out in time.... no .....a lot sooner intel releases wont make their advances seem ..... so last generation.
Posted on Reply
#8
xenocide
by: Aquinus
...but that is what you pay for when you get a CPU + GPU for 100 USD. For how much you're paying, it's a good bargain, not a high-end solution.
Well only the highest end Trinity APU's will come with the 7660D iGPU, and those will be around $140-160 if the current line of Llano pricing sticks. I expect the 7660D to be about as good as an HD5670, but no better than an HD6670. It will be decent, and still better than HD4000, but not a clean replacement for a Discrete GPU just yet.

by: Aquinus
I'm hoping to see some reasonable gains by putting GCN on an APU. Putting piledriver with fewer cores makes more room for the iGPU. You don't need a power house to play games as a casual gamer. Also think about what AMD is doing. Bulldozer's integer performance is pretty awesome, and the floating point performance of a GPU is also pretty awesome. AMD has a plan, just think about the phrase, "the future is fusion." Llano was step 1.
BD's Integer Performance is alright, but I wouldn't say it's awesome. The FX-8150 on that chart sits around 2050 Int/GHz, compared to the A8-3870 which sits at about 2475 Int/GHz. Obviously the 8150 is better for more cores and better overall performance, but the per core performance of BD is still lacking, and that's the problem, since so many day to day tasks only use a handful of threads, having a ton of cores when you only need 2-4 with good per core performance isn't optimal.
Posted on Reply
#9
Vulpesveritas
by: xenocide
Well only the highest end Trinity APU's will come with the 7660D iGPU, and those will be around $140-160 if the current line of Llano pricing sticks. I expect the 7660D to be about as good as an HD5670, but no better than an HD6670. It will be decent, and still better than HD4000, but not a clean replacement for a Discrete GPU just yet.
Well, if it has about the performance of a 6670 it will be a fairly clean replacement for an entry level GPU. Because right above that you have the 7750 XD.
Posted on Reply
#10
xenocide
by: Vulpesveritas
Well, if it has about the performance of a 6670 it will be a fairly clean replacement for an entry level GPU. Because right above that you have the 7750 XD.
And that is the ideal situation. AMD has nothing to gain by selling CPU'sAPU's which have iGPU's that can compete with the discrete ones they are trying to sell. The best they can do from a business perspective is to make it so the iGPU's on their APU's end right where their discrete solutions begin.
Posted on Reply
#11
Vulpesveritas
by: xenocide
And that is the ideal situation. AMD has nothing to gain by selling CPU'sAPU's which have iGPU's that can compete with the discrete ones they are trying to sell. The best they can do from a business perspective is to make it so the iGPU's on their APU's end right where their discrete solutions begin.
exactly, and with a reasonable quad core packaged with it with an unlocked multi, it may turn out to be a decent budget gaming solution.
And the 65w version will be a great chip for the general public, especially when GPU acceleration becomes more common.
Posted on Reply
#12
Kantastic
by: Dent1
Your attempt at being slick is utter fail, because Phenom II isn't 25% faster than Bulldozer.



Nope. The person with reading comprehension fail is you? Because I was referring to the unreleased high end desktop Vishera not the low end desktop Trinity.
Stop talking out of your ass about unreleased products.
Posted on Reply
#13
Aquinus
Resident Wat-man
by: Kantastic
Stop talking out of your ass about unreleased products.
I don't recommend trolling. Might want to stay on topic and only post if you have something to contribute.
Posted on Reply
#14
sergionography
ok 25% sounds all good, but it still barely catches up with phenom II
and im talking mobile here, an amd phenom II n660 from 2010 is faster than any dual core llano from 2011 by a mile, it runs at 3ghz on 35watt, thats just amazing
idk what amd was thinking but they sure should do some models with better cpu and less gpu for cases were discrete are to be used
and idk what is the case with amd but it almost seems like 32nm didnt bring any improvements other than smaller die size, amds 45nm seems by far superior if they can do 35watt with 3ghz on a mobile chip
Posted on Reply
#15
Kantastic
by: Aquinus
I don't recommend trolling. Might want to stay on topic and only post if you have something to contribute.
Okay, I hear the unreleased, unbenched, never-before-seen by my own eyes Vishera will be 58.2323% faster than BD.
Posted on Reply
#16
btarunr
Editor & Senior Moderator
by: Dent1
Trying to compare a budget laptop quadcore Trinity APU to a high end desktop octocore Bulldozer is utter fail.
Yet "high end desktop octocore Bulldozer" fails in these tests vs. "budget laptop quadcore Trinity APU".

by: Dent1
Until I see a desktop Piledriver, without any gimps with full cache I'm not passing any judgement.
You missed the part where we were talking about single core performance. So Trinity's single-core performance won't differ from Vishera's. In fact, if K10 Thuban vs. Llano single-threaded math performance is any indicator (where Llano is equal or faster than K10 clock-for-clock, at math tests), Trinity's single-core performance can be safely taken as a marker of Piledriver architecture's performance.

by: Dent1
Also, its great that a low end Trinity is spanking the Bulldozer, which is promising for the full blown desktop Piledriver.
Again, this is a single-thread integer/FP performance test. Also, I wouldn't classify -1% to +8% as "spanking".

The ~1.5 year old Core i5-2500K is "spanking" yet unreleased A10-5800K.

by: Super XP
Complete nonesense. Nobody really knows how Piledriver is going to perform.
If you read the article and not just the title, we really do know how Piledriver is going to perform (-1% to +8% that of Bulldozer, at single-threaded tests).
Posted on Reply
#17
Dent1
by: Kantastic
Stop talking out of your ass about unreleased products.
Elaborate.

by: btarunr
Yet "high end desktop octocore Bulldozer" fails in these tests vs. "budget laptop quadcore Trinity APU".
Exactly, which was my original point, 4 core Trinity APU based on Piledriver isnt bad if its beating the desktop an 8 core Bulldozer. The highend desktop Vishera Piledriver can only improve things further.
Posted on Reply
#18
Inceptor
As has been said already, all you can take away from this little bit of unconfirmed information is that a Piledriver core is, apparently, on average, performing a few percent better than a Llano core, and by extension better than a Bulldozer Zambezi core with access to L3 cache.
Extending it further, we can possibly add a few percent more once L3 cache is included, and higher clocks are applied, in a Vishera CPU. That's all that was ever going to happen here boys and girls; that's enough to push overall performance into the overclocked i5-2500K range or stock i7-2600 range.
Maybe add another 2-5% increase if Vishera uses quad channel memory.

As for the usual trolling and troll-ish comments:
I understand that you all want to feel important and sound like you're being very expert and knowledgeable by repeating incendiary comments that you've read elsewhere either written by people you think are intelligent or because you thought it sounded cool and made you sound cool. But what's the point of the useless 'fail' textual noise? You're referencing a fail based on the work and decisions of many people who were fired, and no longer work for AMD. Quit it with all the false hurt, and overblown outrage at a cpu that you wouldn't have bought even if it had originally matched Intel.

As Aquinas said, the real question is how future iterations of this core will perform once the integer cores and iGPU are fully integrated with each other. AMD chose, for better or worse, a long term plan, that may or may not be fruitful for them, but it looks very promising, even if it didn't turn out promising for the careers of many of the people responsible.
Posted on Reply
#19
Atom_Anti
by: Fourstaff
That would be a pointless argument, since that we expected Llano to be able to run newer games at decent quality, whereas if we are getting Intel's chip we know that we must get a discrete. I think 3rd gen APUs will be powerful enough to be considered an alternative to discrete, but as of now APUs are only powerful enough to run counter strike and farmville, with Trinity powerful enough to run everything on low.
Well, I'm nut sure what you are talking about, but I enjoyed to play with GTA4 and NFS RUN in high settings with my AMD Llano laptop. With core I5 520 I could not even play GTA San Andreas in low settings.... Yeah only CPU power is the king:laugh:.
Posted on Reply
#20
xenocide
by: Atom_Anti
Well, I'm nut sure what you are talking about, but I enjoyed to play with GTA4 and NFS RUN in high settings with my AMD Llano laptop. With core I5 520 I could not even play GTA San Andreas in low settings.... Yeah only CPU power is the king:laugh:.
Considering that i5-520m came out over a year and a half earlier than any Llano APU, that's not overly impressive. That i5 was still a lot more powerful on the CPU side than your Llano APU, the saving grace is the GPU. Nobody is (or should at least) be arguing that the iGPU on LlanoTrinity is nice, and makes gaming possible on entry level CPU's without the extra cost a discrete GPU. The discussion (and News Post) is more about the performance of the CPU side of the equation, which is very lacking, and in real need of improvement.

I will say this again, APU's are excellent for Laptops, but they are just not that great for PC's. Once you remove the need for the iGPU, you're just left with an underperforming CPU.
Posted on Reply
#21
ensabrenoir
If amd releases anything comparable to an i5......and not just in naming with graphics built in and at current price points.....in the next few months....they would own the market. If it takes two years its irrelevant.
Posted on Reply
#22
Atom_Anti
by: xenocide

I will say this again, APU's are excellent for Laptops, but they are just not that great for PC's. Once you remove the need for the iGPU, you're just left with an underperforming CPU.
Yes, I agree AMD Llano and Trinity is not for desktop, but definitely for laptops. However how cares desktops any more when the World is changing to mobile / protible devices??
So what I mean whatever is the CPU performance that means nothing without GPU power. If you add GPU near Intel, that will results thicker and warmer case with louder cooling and cost more.
Posted on Reply
#23
xenocide
by: Atom_Anti
Yes, I agree AMD Llano and Trinity is not for desktop, but definitely for laptops. However how cares desktops any more when the World is changing to mobile / protible devices??
So what I mean whatever is the CPU performance that means nothing without GPU power. If you add GPU near Intel, that will results thicker and warmer case with louder cooling and cost more.
People who think desktop PC's are the way of the dinosaur are a little delusional. MobilePortable devices will always be heavily restricted by batteries and size. Until Quantum Computers become the norm, there will always be a need for desktops. Also, until GPGPU becomes the norm, CPU's will still be very necessary. Most users run programs that only rely on the CPU, so having a CPU with great performance is generally more beneficial. Something like an Ultrabook gives the illusion of super high performance, even if it's lacking in certain categories, and people love that.
Posted on Reply
#24
Aquinus
Resident Wat-man
by: xenocide
Until Quantum Computers become the norm
Didn't you get the memo that quantum computers are a hoax?
Posted on Reply
#25
OneMoar
k I am unsubbing from this thread until a mod hands out bans to the flamers here
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment