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

[HumanSmoke]

Originally Posted by eidairaman1

instead of trying to pass judgement on something why dont we wait till it comes out instead of bashing it ya know. Reviews here are legit

Yup. Hate all that passing-judgement-before-the-launch bs...

Originally Posted by eidairaman1

Unbeatbly tired and yawning at the talks of how great kepler is. Reminds me of how effective the POTUS talks are of spurring the economy which are lies.

/amazing what 90 seconds of search brings up

Personally I won't believe a word about about Trinity/Piledriver core performance until I hear it from John Fruehe....oh wait

Originally Posted by eidairaman1

your post here is offtopic

Happy now?

[eidairaman1]

your post here is offtopic

[Tatty_One]

Originally Posted by OneMoar

that is a little late
personally at this stage I think we(the consumer) need to make it VERY CLEAR to AMD that son is disappoint and they need to step it up or step out
AMD kept a fairly tight lid on bulldozer probably because they knew they where not gonna be able to keep up with there hype and it backfired ...
when a manufacturer doesn't talk to you about there product's in development it means one of two things
either they are making some really great and don't want to let the competition in on it
OR more often then not they are having trouble and are hoping you wont notice
the problem here is the majority of AMD's consumer base happen to know what the fuck they are talking about and wont have the wool pulled over there eyes very easily

I agree with much of what you have said here, however surprisingly AMD's market share since Bulldozer was released has actually increased (Q4 2011), more so in the server market (although full year figures show a slight decrease in Intel's Market share with a slight increase to AMD's.... across the whole form factors), albeit not by much interestingly though, intels dominance was reduced by the same amount as AMD's gain, suggesting at least that AMD is managing to appeal to some OEM's, if only a minority.

[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.

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.

[xenocide]

Originally Posted 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.

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 more or less to allow a frame of reference. Trinity APU's are going to use the same Piledriver cores as the FX line, just without the L3 Cache, and minor tweaks, as I understand it. So assuming you can get a nice 5% bump from the tweaks, you can say that if the PD cores in APU's are 10-20% faster than BD cores, then the PD Cores in desktops should be 15-25% faster than the BD cores in desktops.

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.

[eidairaman1]

Originally Posted by xenocide

It's more or less to allow a frame of reference. Trinity APU's are going to use the same Piledriver cores as the FX line, just without the L3 Cache, and minor tweaks, as I understand it. So assuming you can get a nice 5% bump from the tweaks, you can say that if the PD cores in APU's are 10-20% faster than BD cores, then the PD Cores in desktops should be 15-25% faster than the BD cores in desktops.

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.

Your post makes sense!

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)

[joyman]

The improvements look ok, I just hope the price will be improved also in the right direction So finally I can replace my 960T with some nice Piledriver chip.

[Hustler]

Originally Posted by xenocide

then the PD Cores in desktops should be 15-25% faster than the BD cores in desktops.

So what...that will just bring them up to Phenom II levels of performance (maybe slightly faster)...still an utter fail.

[ensabrenoir]

Anyfhing bd related = flame war ...those words should not be used together . Hoping pd is actually better...pipe dream at most because itll make intel release something even more awesome. I figure they have several aces they havent played because...well u know ..no reason to no comp. Anyway carry on with the other worldly performance increase fantasies.

[xenocide]

Originally Posted by Hustler

So what...that will just bring them up to Phenom II levels of performance (maybe slightly faster)...still an utter fail.

Phenom II level per thread performance, with substantially better overclocking, a greatly improved IMC, and support for tons of new Instruction Sets makes for a pretty solid chip, especially if the price stays low and they can get the power consumption under control. It means the AMD FX line is no longer 13 junk CPU's and the FX-8120 which is a steal.

[Fourstaff]

Still waiting for AMD to improve performance per thread and power consumption, without these two Intel will almost certainly get my custom instead.

[Kärlekstrollet]

A high IPC isn't always that great, a good IPC that's energy effective and scales well with overclocking.
In the end does Trinity outperform Llano and draw less power, mission well done AMD.

[Melvis]

Originally Posted by seronx

, It's like you don't even know how FX eight cores even score...

Ummm i think i do, and the 50 benchmarks around on the web show it losses 95% against the 2600k so i don't know what ya trying to say here sorry?

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?

[zenlaserman]

Originally Posted by seronx

I like how everyone lies...

I like how you constantly delude yourself.

What I don't like is how you try to spread it like a wet gremlin.

[Atom_Anti]

Guys, good balanced CPU / GPU performance is more important than just a very fast CPU.

[Fourstaff]

Originally Posted by Atom_Anti

Guys, good balanced CPU / GPU performance is more important than just a very fast CPU.

Which is why you get a fast cpu coupled with a fast gpu rather than caring about APUs

[wiak]

well the reason trinity and liano uses more power is because they have real graphics, that can be compared to a mid range radeon hd

[xenocide]

Originally Posted by wiak

well the reason trinity and liano uses more power is because they have real graphics, that can be compared to a mid range radeon hd

Llano didn't have any "mid-range" level iGPU's. If I recall the best iGPU was on par for about an HD6450 or under best circumstances a 5570. That's entry-level at best. The Trinity APU's have a 7660D, which means it should be substantially better, but still nothing compared to what most people classify as "mid-range".

[Aquinus]

Originally Posted by xenocide

Llano didn't have any "mid-range" level iGPU's. If I recall the best iGPU was on par for about an HD6450 or under best circumstances a 5570. That's entry-level at best. The Trinity APU's have a 7660D, which means it should be substantially better, but still nothing compared to what most people classify as "mid-range".

It's better than an Intel HD 3000 iGPU.

[Fourstaff]

Originally Posted by Aquinus

It's better than an Intel HD 3000 iGPU.

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.

[Aquinus]

Originally Posted 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.

...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.

[alwayssts]

Originally Posted by OneMoar

...more often then not they are having trouble and are hoping you wont notice the problem here is the majority of AMD's consumer base happen to know what the fuck they are talking about and wont have the wool pulled over there eyes very easily

First I was like: Holy fuck, punctuation rape Batman.

Then I was like: Man makes a very valid point.

[Hustler]

Originally Posted by xenocide

Phenom II level per thread performance, with substantially better overclocking

Well seeing as a Bulldozer has to run at about 4.2Ghz just to match my Phenom II at 3.8Ghz, the fact that the average Bulldozer only goes up to about 4.5Ghz (with non exotic cooling methods) will still only make them about 10% faster, whilst at the same time using loads more power for very little return.

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.

[Vulpesveritas]

Originally Posted by Hustler

Well seeing as a Bulldozer has to run at about 4.2Ghz just to match my Phenom II at 3.8Ghz, the fact that the average Bulldozer only goes up to about 4.5Ghz (with non exotic cooling methods) will still only make them about 10% faster, whilst at the same time using loads more power for very little return.

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.

And we don't know how high they can go yet. And on a bright side, this may mean AMD sees the BD architecture as having higher max IPC if it does match PII, seeing as K12 STARS only had what, a 5% IPC boost at 32nm?

[faramir]

Originally Posted by HumanSmoke

Personally I won't believe a word about about Trinity/Piledriver core performance until I hear it from John Fruehe....oh wait

Joke Fruehe