AMD Socket FM2 APU Preview

[PopcornMachine]

I'm just going to say I like this site and respect your guys knowledge and reviews, but I just disagree with your decision to do this. Don't see that it helps anyone here.

[cadaveca]

Originally Posted by PopcornMachine

I'm just going to say I like this site and respect your guys knowledge and reviews, but I just disagree with your decision to do this. Don't see that it helps anyone here.

I get that, and really I do value everyone's feedback. Not all content I produce is going to be for everyone, but with only 60,000 member, but like 1.5 million monthly viewers, forum posters aren't TPU's only audience.

I'll havea proper review for you guys soon...and I'll have had a TONNE of time to do it.

[brandonwh64]

From the benches I have seen around the web, it shows the 7660D beating the HD5770 and HD5830

[Tonim89]

Originally Posted by brandonwh64

From the benches I have seen around the web, it shows the 7660D beating the HD5770 and HD5830

I'd advise you to don't expect nothing close to them, or you will get disapointed.

A paired HD 6670 could do it, but then the scenario changes a little bit.

[OneCool]

So where are the dual socket boards so we can have 8 cores and Crossfire the gpus?

Come on AMD give us a chipset

[brandonwh64]

Originally Posted by Tonim89

I'd advise you to don't expect nothing close to them, or you will get disapointed.

A paired HD 6670 could do it, but then the scenario changes a little bit.

I dunno I guess we will see once the final review is done wont we.

[Tonim89]

Originally Posted by brandonwh64

I dunno I guess we will see once the final review is done wont we.

But that's where the preview shine. See what dave posted, you will get a parameter to measure the performance.

I'll repeat, don't expect that much from them, the chance of getting disapointed is high. The APUs are amazing, but they are still too imature to achieve this level.

[TRWOV]

Originally Posted by brandonwh64

From the benches I have seen around the web, it shows the 7660D beating the HD5770 and HD5830

I think that's far fetched at best. Beating an HD5670? sure. An HD6670? with some OCing I could believe so, but an HD5770?! 384 VLIW4 shaders @ 800Mhz vs 800 VLIW5 shaders @ 850Mhz?! I don't think so.

Had it been 384GCN shaders it would land between the 6670 and 6770 I think.

[HumanSmoke]

Originally Posted by cadaveca

ActuallyI can also post my other emails from AMD where all of TechReports claims would be pointed out as lies.

What lies would they be? I've been over Scott's editorial word-by-word, and unless the original email is incorrect (which I doubt) I don't see any lies. I see Scott given a set of parameters to work within, and his opinion on those. If you see a different set of parameters, maybe you should look to the second statement you made...

Originally Posted by cadaveca

I have permission to post all those things he does not. I chose not to.

And this pertains to Scott Wasson's position how ?

Originally Posted by cadaveca

Three things were requested to be held back, yes.

So leaving out Price, OC testing and CPU benchmarking was a request from AMD and not a violation of NDA- since NDA is less a request than an edict.

Originally Posted by cadaveca

CPU Benchmarks. Um, this is an APU, not a CPU, so really, what importance do CPU-related benchmarks have on a chip that was designed for other purposes?

OK. You lost me on that one. I'd actually consider that stance from a tech enthusiast to be complete bollocks....unless of course AMD are marketing Trinity APU's with box art featuring a warning: " THIS PRODUCT IS NOT COMPATIBLE WITH PRODUCTIVITY OR NON-DVXA MEDIA APPLICATIONS"

Originally Posted by jigar2speed

The author at TR is playing a bit of bias game here, he has done the preview for Intel [link] EDIT: Before you judge me, i am a long time reader at TR (2006) and have more than 4000+ post counts in their forum.

Mentioning your posting rate is immaterial. The link was prominently displayed a few comments above your own in jimbo75's post under the TR article. The fact that the only instance of something vaguely similar happening is a singular event 6+ years ago isn't that compelling.

I'd ask the question whether the AMD cheerleading squad would happily defend a similar stance if Intel were to allow "previews" of Ivy Bridge/Haswell's CPU's based on CPU computation only, with IGP performance embargoed (or requested held back as the case may be) until the CPU goes retail....NDA for CPU related benches expires on the same day as the SKU's go retail does it not?

[cadaveca]

Originally Posted by HumanSmoke

~snip~

Meh, I'm just saying that it isn't always the way it's construed. His opinion isn't wrong...but it might not apply to all people. It doesn't apply to me.

As to what I was requested to NOT post, I was also given TO post, but in AMD's own slides. I used AMD's images given outside those slides, but none of their marketing other than that.


He could have done a preview, and said whatever he wanted...if he had hardware. He's whining because to get the free hardware, he had to do a few things.


I didn't need AMD's hardware.




You're right though, I never mean my opinion to be the end-all, be-all. It's just MY opinion.

[HumanSmoke]

Originally Posted by cadaveca

He could have done a preview, and said whatever he wanted...if he had hardware. He's whining because to get the free hardware, he had to do a few things.

I'd probably see it as Scott wanting unfettered freedom to write the review in any way he see's fit. Personally I see it as more of an idealized concept-but it's his site, and I have no issues with the stance. IF you couldn't purchase a Trinity APU or FM2 board prior to all the information being out in the wild then the issue would be moot. The fact that you can pre-order both makes it somewhat of a grey area- and remember AMD had prior form with this type of manipulation with hyping Bulldozer and engaging in some very dubious guerrilla marketing practices in order to shift 990FX/X boards in the months prior to the CPU dropping.

Again, personally, I don't have any qualms about publishing the data. It would however, in the interest of full disclosure, present a more complete picture when the rationale for the reviews content-or lack of, is included. You can call these Trinity articles that appear all over the tech news previews to your hearts content, but they are for all intents and purposes reviews, albeit only the first installment. Anything else is pure semantics.

Originally Posted by cadaveca

I didn't need AMD's hardware.

Really. I could have sworn you said you were in need of A85 board to fully test the APU

[eidairaman1]

Originally Posted by BigMack70

Yeah I knew that Nvidia had done some sleazy stuff like that in the past - didn't know Intel had done it. Was that during the time of their netburst debacle?

Netburts/core 2. Threats, secret discounts, bribes, etc

[cadaveca]

Originally Posted by HumanSmoke

Anything else is pure semantics.

Actually, I'd just call it marketing. Because that's what it is. I jsut made sure that what was presented was true.

Originally Posted by HumanSmoke

Really. I could have sworn you said you were in need of A85 board to fully test the APU

For a launch review of the APU, yes, but since i review motherboards, I would have got one shortly after anyway. I could have used my A75 board and just said that same thing I did about that, anyway. To get teh big picture, you bet that trying out that chipset is required...it might make no difference at all...or it might. I don't know until I try.

Like, I dunno. Being a reviewer, to me, ain't a big deal, at all. Like really, I'm just some dude typing from his basement. I mean really...in the end, I just make sure that what I report in my reviews is the truth. I don't ever expect to be able to do any more than that.

Heck, I think I'm lucky these companies even send me stuff.

[symmetrical]

Originally Posted by BigMack70

Wish you guys had held out and not played ball with AMD's nonsense!
http://techreport.com/blog/23638/amd...elease-of-info

No wonder I didn't see CPU benchmarks.

But in a way I see the angle AMD is trying to force here with the APUs which is gaming, for which that is what most of the consumers who look to buy an APU will use it for.

However it is still sneaky and unnecessary for them to try and stranglehold the review process from tech websites.

It's even rather more stupid that it's only for a week.

Oh well. Corporations will act like corporations. Nothing new here, move along.

[eidairaman1]

Once NDA is lifted for both Trinity and Vishera ill start looking.

[jagd]

It has been done by asking testing with only certain programs with showing better than competitor , asking to tell certain things like multimedia extensions back in the day pentium 4 days while they performed bad vs AMD ,or closing eyes to problems etc etc ( intel had a problem with 1156 socket iirc last year only one site and afew forums talked about this etc etc.

Originally Posted by BigMack70

How so (honest question)? I'm not as well versed in CPUs as GPUs so I haven't followed them as closely over the years, but I can't remember seeing reviews of Intel CPUs where Intel only allowed some types of tests and not others.

[NHKS]

something I didn't see before..

AMD has a RAM Disk feature(software utility) that will be part of the Trinity APUs.. as expected, it allow the user to create a RAM partition with a capacity of up to 64 GB(not sure if one can find such dense module kits easily)... The user can copy its game directory onto this partition or any other program that he uses frequently and will benefit greatly from the faster data transfer.

the slide below suggests they have some pretty significant performance claims to make for this



not sure if it will be available from launch or support requirements.. Dave should know

[cadaveca]

Originally Posted by NHKS

Dave should know

AMD hasn't given more data about that other than that one slide to me. That press deck arrived after I had already written the preview, unfortunately.



Everything that is offered, together, is actually pretty interesting to me.

[HTC]

Originally Posted by NHKS

something I didn't see before..

AMD has a RAM Disk feature(software utility) that will be part of the Trinity APUs.. as expected, it allow the user to create a RAM partition with a capacity of up to 64 GB(not sure if one can find such dense module kits easily)... The user can copy its game directory onto this partition or any other program that he uses frequently and will benefit greatly from the faster data transfer.

the slide below suggests they have some pretty significant performance claims to make for this

http://i1-news.softpedia-static.com/...jpg?1348837723

not sure if it will be available from launch or support requirements.. Dave should know

Interesting.

[Rei86]

COME ON AMD

Daddy has an itch to build a new HTPC because the old rig is just old!@!@! GARAGAGAGAGAGAGARARRRRRRAGAG

Also some places have already posted prices anyways since someone at some retail store leaked a photo of the APUs listings.

[W1zzard]

Originally Posted by NHKS

AMD has a RAM Disk feature(software utility)

there is plenty free ramdisk software out there. my guess is amd got talked into spending some money and bought some external software

[gourygabriev]

I know I might asking too much specially since testing is so time consuming...

I just have a request if possible on the review.

I was wondering if it would be possible to also have the trinity with a premium GPU like the 7970 or 680 as one of the tests with low quality and ultra settings on games.

[xenocide]

Originally Posted by gourygabriev

I was wondering if it would be possible to also have the trinity with a premium GPU like the 7970 or 680 as one of the tests with low quality and ultra settings on games.

If Llano was any indicator with a high end GPU you're losing out. APU's are intended to be used with their included iGPU's, and operate optimally with them. Otherwise you're looking at a lower end FX CPU with (probably) higher power consumption and lacking greatly in Cache. I wish AMD would hurry up and consolidate APU's and CPU's to the same socket.

As for the whole review fiasco. I read a decent analysis of it; http://www.geek2eak.com/wordpress/20...iew-unethical/

I just don't necessarily agree with AMD shaping the way their products are reviewed. Regardless of how fantastic the iGPU portion of an APU is, the CPU side is still important, and very relevant since a good portion of day to day tasks still rely heavily on it.

[Absolution]

So much fuss over this. THG already had a preview of eng. samples. Everyone knows that in terms of raw CPU power AMD cannot match intel counterparts. I mean intel's range and amd's range are completely out of sync.

The only thing AMD got now is their discrete gpu flexing its muscles against Intel's HD series, and at the end of the day its only a certain / small segment that AMD is targeting and winning over.

The piledriver's 15-16% performance increase over the llano's top is disappointing, considering that the platform has to be changed and no new set of radeons it can be paired with.

And whats with the A10-A85 matching? Those three slides pairing chipsets with processor models is confusing. Hopefully there will be some comparison on an A10 with an A75/A85 chipset (with no overclocking intended).

[warpuck]

Amd makes 3 65 watt trinitys (locked)

Buy AMD ram and get amd unlimited ram disk included>>free

The trick is to get it to boot from the ram disk.

which i3 + GPUS give the same VIDEO performance as a10-5700 with hd 6670 & the a10without th hd 6670?

I am going put one these in my mATX case with the optional hd 6670.

It will probable that it be will a Asus board because the turboV is the neatest thing since sliced bread on a Sabertooth, IMO. Of couse it will be a K cpu


__________________________________________________

The ocean is blue unless you are coast guard, then it is green