Monday, September 3rd 2012

AMD "Trinity" A-Series APUs Competitive with Desktop Core i3 "Ivy Bridge"

If the prices trickling in from leading distributors such as BLT are anything to go by, AMD's next-generation A-Series "Trinity" APUs will occupy price-points competitive with Intel's Core i3 and Pentium chips based on the "Ivy Bridge" silicon. AMD thinks its quad-core (two module) Piledriver architecture cores, coupled with VLIW4-based graphics cores have a fair shot against dual-core Ivy Bridge Core i3 chips, with triple- and dual-core A-series "Trinity" chips going up against Pentium "Ivy Bridge." Two of the chips leading AMD's lot will be the A10-5700 (quad-core, 3.40 GHz, 384 SP), and A10-5800K (unlocked multiplier, quad-core, 3.80 GHz, 384 SP).

Source: Engadget
Add your own comment

26 Comments on AMD "Trinity" A-Series APUs Competitive with Desktop Core i3 "Ivy Bridge"

#1
Lionheart
Can't wait for the reviews for these :rockout:
Posted on Reply
#2
cdawall
where the hell are my stars
Hopefully they perform well :)
Posted on Reply
#4
alienstorexxx
nice target. next acquisition A10-5700/5800k depending on prices. if "K" goes too far, 5700 will be.
Posted on Reply
#5
rpsgc
That can't be right...

Same price for A8-5500 and 5600K?
Same price for A10-5700 and 5800K?
Posted on Reply
#6
cdawall
where the hell are my stars
by: rpsgc
That can't be right...

Same price for A8-5500 and 5600K?
Same price for A10-5700 and 5800K?
65W vs 100W people pay for low power
Posted on Reply
#7
No_Asylum
Given AMD's recent track record, I wont hold my breath that they are even close to competitive with Intel's equivalent.

Atleast not until Steam Roller.
Posted on Reply
#8
Rei86
Chucking out the old Core 2 Celeron and Silverstone GD05 HTPC; for the new BitFenix Prodigy with a APU Trinity.

Come on AMD start releasing them!
Posted on Reply
#9
mastrdrver
by: Lionheart
Can't wait for the reviews for these :rockout:
Tom's already did a review a while ago. link
Posted on Reply
#10
MxPhenom 216
Corsair Fanboy
These are going to be some nice chips. I think I would choose these over intel i3s, I hope they do well in reviews.
Posted on Reply
#11
Rei86
by: MxPhenom 216
These are going to be some nice chips. I think I would choose these over intel i3s, I hope they do well in reviews.
For a light HTPC AIO solution this is it for me.

To damn bad AMD is taking forever releasing these chips to retail:rolleyes:
Posted on Reply
#12
Dent1
by: No_Asylum
Given AMD's recent track record, I wont hold my breath that they are even close to competitive with Intel's equivalent.

Atleast not until Steam Roller.
What track record? AMD only once was uncompetitive - Bulldozer.

In total, Intel has had a worse track record for behind uncompetitive.

As much as I've been waiting for Piledriver. Now it's almost here I'm having second thoughts. My Athlon II x4 is still doing the job. Think I've grown out of the constantly spending money on component stage.
Posted on Reply
#13
Disruptor4
I know what I'll be using for my NAS/HTPC/whatever else box!
Posted on Reply
#14
ensabrenoir
Graphic wise....amd will compete and win. Total overall performance will be the deciding factor for consumers.....not just raw compute or best graphics. Enthusiast will take booth via separate vga.
Posted on Reply
#16
xBruce88x
I think I know what I'll get so my room mate can play SW:KOR without using my pc... unless its somehow more powerful than my 8800GT lol, which I doubt.
Posted on Reply
#17
Absolution
"quad-core (two module) "

by: THG
A pair of Piledriver modules technically makes this a quad-core APU, though, as we know, each module shares certain resources.
dont like the sound of that... are there truly quad cores left? Or is it a forgotten issue now because Intel parts are the same (cores sharing resources)
Posted on Reply
#19
Rei86
Ugh wish intel would toss out HD graphics in K series chips and sell it for cheaper and give the HD high end IGPU to the lower end cards instead.

Most of us that'll purchase a unlocked intel won't be using on the IGPU anyways.
Posted on Reply
#20
theoneandonlymrk
by: Dent1
As much as I've been waiting for Piledriver. Now it's almost here I'm having second thoughts. My Athlon II x4 is still doing the job. Think I've grown out of the constantly spending money on component stage.
happens to us all, im hopein on a mid life crysis pc tho soon :D
Posted on Reply
#21
Steevo
by: Dent1
What track record? AMD only once was uncompetitive - Bulldozer.

In total, Intel has had a worse track record for behind uncompetitive.

As much as I've been waiting for Piledriver. Now it's almost here I'm having second thoughts. My Athlon II x4 is still doing the job. Think I've grown out of the constantly spending money on component stage.
LOL wut? All the early designs were ripoffs of Intel, which meant AMD was always a generation behind Intel, up till the original athlon cores, and then only due to Intel making a Mhz mistake, they had a architecture that scaled with frequency, and unfortunately it made too much heat, and the process(s) were just not ready for it. They learned and C2D started raping Phenom, which was a flop, and the moderately better Phenom II, which was still slower than Intel, and now Bulldozer, which is slower at most things than Phenom II clock for clock.


AMD was cheaper, and sometimes managed to be faster by tweaking the design between Intel's new processes and designs, and or by exceeding the power and thermal design. But that is where the speed wars came from, and why AMD had to start naming processors by their frequency equal instead of actual speed.
Posted on Reply
#22
Dent1
by: Steevo
LOL wut? All the early designs were ripoffs of Intel, which meant AMD was always a generation behind Intel, up till the original athlon cores, and then only due to Intel making a Mhz mistake, they had a architecture that scaled with frequency, and unfortunately it made too much heat, and the process(s) were just not ready for it. They learned and C2D started raping Phenom, which was a flop, and the moderately better Phenom II, which was still slower than Intel, and now Bulldozer, which is slower at most things than Phenom II clock for clock.
The original C2D conroe wasn't that fast, in actuality even the Athlon X2 could keep up with it. The Phenom I could even keep up with the original Core 2 Quad Kentfield. People only opted for the original Core 2 series because they overclocked like a beast! Whereas the Athlon X2 and Phenom I could barely break 3.4GHz without blue screening. But at stock they held their own.

It was only when C2D went through lots of stepping and revision, predominately the last Wolfdale and Yorkfield iteration was significantly better in raw performance and overclocking. It was only at this point the Athlon X2 and Phenom I became uncompetitive and couldn't compete.

Phenom II however was able to compete with C2D Wolfdale and Yorkfield just fine though and could overclock just as well.



by: Steevo


AMD was cheaper, and sometimes managed to be faster by tweaking the design between Intel's new processes and designs, and or by exceeding the power and thermal design. But that is where the speed wars came from, and why AMD had to start naming processors by their frequency equal instead of actual speed.
Who cares how AMD did it. All I know is my Duron was spanking the P4 back in the day and my Sempron raped the Pentium 4 and the Intel Celerons were only good as coasters lol


From 1999 to about 2006 AMD had a lot of success in performance and price. Intel had nothing to offer until the late core family - present.
Posted on Reply
#23
Steevo
by: Dent1
The original C2D conroe wasn't that fast, in actuality even the Athlon X2 could keep up with it. The Phenom I could even keep up with the original Core 2 Quad Kentfield. People only opted for the original Core 2 series because they overclocked like a beast! Whereas the Athlon X2 and Phenom I could barely break 3.4GHz without blue screening. But at stock they held their own.

It was only when C2D went through lots of stepping and revision, predominately the last Wolfdale and Yorkfield iteration was significantly better in raw performance and overclocking. It was only at this point the Athlon X2 and Phenom I became uncompetitive and couldn't compete.

Phenom II however was able to compete with C2D Wolfdale and Yorkfield just fine though and could overclock just as well.





Who cares how AMD did it. All I know is my Duron was spanking the P4 back in the day and my Sempron raped the Pentium 4 and the Intel Celerons were only good as coasters lol


From 1999 to about 2006 AMD had a lot of success in performance and price. Intel had nothing to offer until the late core family - present.
I don't know what you are smoking but the 9850 I owned sucked compared to the C2D system I put together out of the early conroes and kentfields.

http://www.legitreviews.com/article/682/12/ And this was a late B3 stepping.

And once you started overclocking the Intel's they really raped the Phenom.

You are talking about a window for AMD of about 6 years where they had a superior product, and partially due to Intel and their size, and poor marketing they failed to capitalize. Sucked for them that few of the majority knew what was going on, but those who did used them. I started with some Athlon socket A boards and tweaked and played with pencils too. I also owned a prescott, and Athlon X64, and X64 DC, and many others.

I was there, did it and still do. Since the launch of C2D AMD has been back in second place, and unfortunately they have had a mediocre showing of late chips with issues.
Posted on Reply
#24
Dent1
by: Steevo
I don't know what you are smoking but the 9850 I owned sucked compared to the C2D system I put together out of the early conroes and kentfields.

http://www.legitreviews.com/article/682/12/ And this was a late B3 stepping.

And once you started overclocking the Intel's they really raped the Phenom.
But that is what I said above. I said people opted for Intel's C2D mainly because they overclocked like beasts - Did you not read anything I wrote above?


by: Steevo


You are talking about a window for AMD of about 6 years where they had a superior product, and partially due to Intel and their size, and poor marketing they failed to capitalize. Sucked for them that few of the majority knew what was going on, but those who did used them. I started with some Athlon socket A boards and tweaked and played with pencils too. I also owned a prescott, and Athlon X64, and X64 DC, and many others.
Who cares the reasons. I'm just pointing out that Intel had uncompetitive products in the past too.



by: Steevo


I was there, did it and still do. Since the launch of C2D AMD has been back in second place, and unfortunately they have had a mediocre showing of late chips with issues.
You obviously didnt read my post above, because I actually AGREED that since C2D Intel became competitive performance wise. Why repeat what I already said?
Posted on Reply
#25
Steevo
The original steppings with the TLB issues and even worse overclocking performance we no where near what a C2D could do at stock, and we are on a site dedicated to pushing hardware to the maximum, who cares about what stock does.

Pinto VS Evo.
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment