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
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.
115 Comments on Trinity (Piledriver) Integer/FP Performance Higher Than Bulldozer, Clock-for-Clock
Trying to compare a budget laptop quadcore Trinity APU to a high end desktop octocore Bulldozer is utter fail.
Until I see a desktop Piledriver, without any gimps with full cache I'm not passing any judgement.
Edit:
Also, its great that a low end Trinity is spanking the Bulldozer, which is promising for the full blown desktop Piledriver.
It's not so much comparing Laptop APU's to Desktop CPU's, as it is comparing what's under the hood and what it could mean for Desktop CPU's in the future from AMD.
15-25% is definitely a better than nothing gain considering BD-FX patching for win 7 didnt do anything. BD-FX being a server chip under the hood. Piledriver and Trinity may verywell be totally aimed at the desktop user and not a workstation/server environment like BD-FX and Opteron 3200,4200,6200 are. (Despite 3200 apparently being faster than BD-FX)
In the end does Trinity outperform Llano and draw less power, mission well done AMD.
And if ya ask have i ever played with Bulldozer then the answer is yes a 8120, so i know how they work and perform.
Bring it up to par with what the 2600K is in most benchmarks/games etc then id be happy, thats all im asking for, is that to much?
What I don't like is how you try to spread it like a wet gremlin. :eek:
Then I was like: Man makes a very valid point.
Even with these new refined PD cores @ 4.5Ghz, i would only be looking at about a 25% overall improvement over my Phenom II , whereas a 2500k @ 4.5Ghz would be nearer 40-50% faster than my Phenom II.
see if you get anything more from the source... either way performance is nice for APU...especially without L3...
translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=zh-CN&u=http://www.expreview.com/19073.html&ei=gT2ET53xMIeg9QTSv4nUCA&sa=X&oi=translate&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCYQ7gEwAA&prev=/search%3Fq%3Dhttp://www.expreview.com/19073.html%26hl%3Den%26safe%3Dactive%26client%3Dfirefox-a%26hs%3DO8H%26rls%3Dorg.mozilla:en-US:official%26prmd%3Dimvns