Wednesday, April 4th 2012

Trinity Provides Up To 29% Faster Productivity, 56% Faster Visuals Than Llano: AMD

A marketing slide by AMD for industry partners, which sums up what the company's 2012 Mainstream Platform led by "Trinity" APUs will offer, got leaked to the web. In it, AMD claims its next-generation APUs to offer up to 29 percent higher productivity performance (read: CPU performance), and up to 56 percent higher visual performance, compared to current-generation (Llano). At least the graphics performance figures seem to be consistent with early test results.

Apart from these, the slide claims Trinity to be optimized for Windows 8 (with AVX, AES-NI, SSE4.2, and DirectX 11.1 graphics, it could very well be). The processor is said to feature third-generation auto-overclocking technology, TurboCore 3.0. The mobile version of the chip will be designed to offer over 12 hours of resting battery-life. Lastly, there's mention of new media-acceleration features. AMD is expected to launch its new line of APUs in this quarter (before July).

Source: SweClockers
Add your own comment

148 Comments on Trinity Provides Up To 29% Faster Productivity, 56% Faster Visuals Than Llano: AMD

#1
eidairaman1
Ya know instead of already passing judgement why dont we wait for it to be tested by users n wizzards crew here. I hate pessimists in this topic.
Posted on Reply
#2
HumanSmoke
Marketing Slide = best case scenario x ( 1 / marketshare expressed as decimal)

AMD slide deck "leaks" coincide with Intel product launch...what a novel approach. Nice to see the new management is bringing in the fresh ideas.

theoneandonlymrk said:
...and as ever your on the harsh side of negative and bringing the gtx680 in here tryin to wind some fanbois up , whats with you ,and bye:eek:
Might pay to check the previous posts. Check post #9 for who bought the GTX 680 into the discussion
Posted on Reply
#3
theoneandonlymrk
HumanSmoke said:
AMD slide deck "leaks" coincide with Intel product launch...what a novel approach. Nice to see the new management is bringing in the fresh ideas.
the old tricks never leave the hand of any Co, i was quite suprised by the lack of spoil from AMD whilst the 680 was released ,i expected some 7990 dual gpu news or something

do note, all companys do it
Posted on Reply
#4
jpierce55
In all honesty the gpu performance increase is drastic enough to make the processor interesting. IF this is true. If it is true, and has good power consumption, I could see an x-fire system being based off of this with good results.
Posted on Reply
#5
eidairaman1
jpierce55 said:
In all honesty the gpu performance increase is drastic enough to make the processor interesting. IF this is true. If it is true, and has good power consumption, I could see an x-fire system being based off of this with good results.
bear in mind the CPU portion has to feed both the IGPU and the DGPU, so it needs to be robust for driving strength
Posted on Reply
#6
HTC
Benetanegia said:
Yeah except the GTX680 uses a chip almost half the size. Compare it to the GTX560 Ti and in 2560x1600 is in fact twice as fast. And with a significantly smaller die.

A CPU is not the same, it does not scale like that, but it still holds true to the iGPU. 56% over Llano is far from impressive IMO. Especially when we are talking about a marketing slide. Real difference is not going to be more than 20% on the GPU and 10% on the CPU most probably atributable to higher clocks.
If true, i believe you're wrong because this isn't a dedicated card: it's an onboard GPU.

It's impressive because, unlike Intel's IGP offerings where a 56% increase is still crap, a 56% increase over Llano (which is already quite good for an IGP) is significant.
Posted on Reply
#7
OneCool
Mussels said:
first time around i missed the "all data based on projections" part, so this could be all crap.
I still choose not to read that part!!



Way to go AMD :rockout:
Posted on Reply
#8
Benetanegia
theoneandonlymrk said:
im not going to say they dont overstate ,but in the current climate AMD would be foolish to overstate what they can do, again, and they are being realistic imho as i stated

and anyway since when was 56% imrpovement in 1 year bad intel are calling their next wave a tock+ because of a similar massive improvement , get real

and as ever your on the harsh side of negative and bringing the gtx680 in here tryin to wind some fanbois up , whats with you ,and bye:eek:
I didn't bring the GTX680 in here, so I don't know wtf are you saying.

And regarding op, realistic? Hahaha. I've heard the same thing how many times about upcoming AMD products? Yeah, that's what I thought. I guess Bulldozer is the best thing ever. I guess the HD7970 is 60% faster than GTX580. And HD7870 is 40% faster than GTX570. Except oh yeah, not at all. These are marketing claims and as in the previous examples, they are most probably going to be far from the truth. If they said 56% and it's anything like the 61% they said about HD7970, then it's 20% being very optimistic.

HTC said:
If true, i believe you're wrong because this isn't a dedicated card: it's an onboard GPU.

It's impressive because, unlike Intel's IGP offerings where a 56% increase is still crap, a 56% increase over Llano (which is already quite good for an IGP) is significant.
Significant maybe, more like "that's what you'd expect"... it's far from dissapointing, maybe even on the good side, bur far from impressive. Impressive is something far better than a marketing inflated 56% increase over something that is not fast at all to begin with. I don't care it's integrated, I don't care how crappy Intel's offering are, you can't really play any modern game on it with satisfactory settings and a 56% improvement is not going to change that, as new more demanding games will be released too and make it as useless. It's still an order of magnitude slower than a modern performance class GPU. It's useful for what it is, but far, really really far from impressive, and once the marketing lies are translated into real performance, it's probably not going to be even close to what they promised.

As in the last 5+ releases people are already salivating for something that is surely going to dissapoint, once again. They will not get me into it one more time. This time they will surprise me if/when they release something good, until then I expect nothing, less than nothing, and the odds are my expectations are going to be confirmed.
Posted on Reply
#9
Dent1
Benetanegia said:
can't really play any modern game on it with satisfactory settings and a 56% improvement is not going to change that, as new more demanding games will be released too and make it as useless. It's useful for what it is, but far, really really far from impressive, and once the marketing lies are translated into real performance, it's probably not going to be even close to what they promised.
Why would anyone expect "demanding games" to be a priority on an APU. Any gamer, expecting mind blowing performance would be looking at AMD's enthusiast CPU range.
Posted on Reply
#10
suraswami
brandonwh64 said:
If it would perform well on BF3 at 720P then I would be all over this for a new laptop.
And add to that it runs on battery at full speed for 12 hrs! (yeah greedy!)
Posted on Reply
#11
Benetanegia
Dent1 said:
Why would anyone expect "demanding games" to a priority on an APU. Any gamer, expecting mind blowing performance would be looking at AMD's enthusiast CPU range.
Yes, exactly, that's why it's not impressive. Any gamer will look for a dedicated card, so why include such a GPU? It's far from good for gaming and overkill for anything else. It's a waste. On the CPU side they are goig to be murdered by Intel and a better GPU is not going to help them much IMO. I know a lot of people bought Llano and are very dissapointed because they expected it to be playable with their games, because that's the way they marketed.

So unless they at least double GPU performance, it's completely useless for gaming and a waste of silicon for anything else snd like I said a 56% - which is NOT going to be 56% in reality, try 20% - is far from impressive.
Posted on Reply
#12
eidairaman1
So. do you say the same thing about Intels iGPUs?


Because heres the deal there is a market for the use of the arch on these APUs, and last I recall performance increase is what matters

Benetanegia said:
Yes, exactly, that's why it's not impressive. Any gamer will look for a dedicated card, so why include such a GPU? It's far from good for gaming and overkill for anything else. It's a waste. On the CPU side they are goig to be murdered by Intel and a better GPU is not going to help them much IMO. I know a lot of people bought Llano and are very dissapointed because they expected it to be playable with their games, because that's the way they marketed.

So unless they at least double GPU performance, it's completely useless for gaming and a waste of silicon for anything else snd like I said a 56% - which is NOT going to be 56% in reality, try 20% - is far from impressive.
Posted on Reply
#13
theoneandonlymrk
Benetanegia said:
Yes, exactly, that's why it's not impressive. Any gamer will look for a dedicated card, so why include such a GPU? It's far from good for gaming and overkill for anything else. It's a waste. On the CPU side they are goig to be murdered by Intel and a better GPU is not going to help them much IMO. I know a lot of people bought Llano and are very dissapointed because they expected it to be playable with their games, because that's the way they marketed.

So unless they at least double GPU performance, it's completely useless for gaming and a waste of silicon for anything else snd like I said a 56% - which is NOT going to be 56% in reality, try 20% - is far from impressive.
like i said, you then ranted on about nvidia verses AMD ,disclosed your allready known opinion that these facts are wrong, which i beg to differ

but disclosed no new info other then your expanding lament of AMD ,and i dont see you in intel or nvidia threads mouthin off about their 56%increase (alleged each time).
and as for the 680 v 7970, despite the longwinded retort youll now concoct KNOW this, the gtx680 is not faster then a 7970 at everything and some PAY for compute power why do you believe there to be NO 5850 5870 to be bought new ,anywhere yet i can buy a 460 and some clearly see percentages different to others you more different then most
Posted on Reply
#14
Benetanegia
eidairaman1 said:
So. do you say the same thing about Intels iGPUs?


Because heres the deal there is a market for the use of the arch on these APUs, and last I recall performance increase is what matters
The same? No. Intel is not concentrating on GPUs and is not trying to sell their CPUs based on the fact that they can do something that the competition can't. Intel iGPUs are more than sufficient for anything other than gaming. AMD's iGPU is much better but still far from good for gaming, so that "advantage" they so keenly advertise is not a real advantage. Even a HD5750 is 5x times faster than Llano GPU and I don't think anyone would even buy that card in late 2012 with any hope of playing anything, really. So divide that by 5 or by 3 incase Trinity really is as "fast" as they claim and you'll still go nowhere.

So again, APUs are for what they are, never said they were useless, and improvements are nicely welcomed, also expected tho so keep that in mind, but these improvements are not impressive by any definition of the word. Plain and simple, that is all.

theoneandonlymrk said:
like i said, you then ranted on about nvidia verses AMD ,disclosed your allready known opinion that these facts are wrong, which i beg to differ

but disclosed no new info other then your expanding lament of AMD ,and i dont see you in intel or nvidia threads mouthin off about their 56%increase (alleged each time).
and as for the 680 v 7970, despite the longwinded retort youll now concoct KNOW this, the gtx680 is not faster then a 7970 at everything and some PAY for compute power why do you believe there to be NO 5850 5870 to be bought new ,anywhere yet i can buy a 460 and some clearly see percentages different to others you more different then most
Really, stop before you look any more stupid. I didn't bring GTX680 in here, and I certainly didn't mention it in regards to HD7970. I only mentioned the GTX680 because someone said that a doubling in performance should not be expected from new processes and said "look at 580 and 680". Period. So stfu. (I'm talking like this because I think it's the only language you might understand by the way you always write)
Posted on Reply
#15
theoneandonlymrk
Benetanegia said:
The same? No. Intel is not concentrating on GPUs and is not trying to sell their CPUs based on the fact that they can do something that the competition can't. Intel iGPUs are more than sufficient for anything other than gaming. AMD's iGPU is much better but still far from good for gaming, so that "advantage" they so keenly advertise is not a real advantage. Even a HD5750 is 5x times faster than Llano GPU and I don't think anyone would even buy that card in late 2012 with any hope of playing anything, really. So divide that by 5 or by 3 incase Trinity really is as "fast" as they claim and you'll still go nowhere.

So again, APUs are for what they are, never said they were useless, and improvements are nicely welcomed, also expected tho so keep that in mind, but these improvements are not impressive by any definition of the word. Plain and simple, that is all.
nicely welcome now eh you began unimpressed

your stupidity regarding APUs and cpu gpu future relations;);) and thinking them largely unimportant marks you out as a future blind fool ,ive a mind to save that comment to bite your ass with in 5 years

All(possibly)/lots deff software is going to be able to use gpu features( advanced math co pro anyone) and AMD will have the most powerfull and technically advanced gpu (HSA) intertied into its cpu ,eventually working effortlessly on the same and multiple tasks , wake up beni nvidia and intel have ,my 5870 has 1.6 Tflops of processing power and thats shit and old so have a word with yourself APU's have enormous processing potential eclipsing cpu only solutions

oh and im not bothered if your swareing at me , its all good ,its only words and debate etc your the one with the AMD axe to grind not me
Posted on Reply
#16
Benetanegia
theoneandonlymrk said:
nicely welcome now eh you began unimpressed

your stupidity regarding APUs and cpu gpu future relations;);) and thinking them largely unimportant marks you out as a future blind fool ,ive a mind to save that comment to bite your ass with in 5 years

All(possibly)/lots deff software is going to be able to use gpu features( advanced math co pro anyone) and AMD will have the most powerfull and technically advanced gpu (HSA) intertied into its cpu ,eventually working effortlessly on the same and multiple tasks , wake up beni nvidia and intel have ,my 5870 has 1.6 Tflops of processing power and thats shit and old so have a word with yourself APU's have enormous processing potential eclipsing cpu only solutions
Wow you are a real fanboy aren't you? :laugh:

Why the fuck are you discussing anything Nvidia if no one brought them here?

Maybe you should grow a little reading comprehension. When I mentioned the Nvidia GPUs it was for the sole intention of talking about previous AMD slides, and their blatant innacuracy (61% over GTX580, etc), which is on-topic. Nvidia is not. So maybe check your fanboyism. Saying something not-great about AMD does not mean someone is Nvidia and/or Intel fanboy.

EDIT: Spotting AMD fanboys is easy tho. They usually have 2x high-end AMD cards which together costed around $600, but then use a Phenom II because AMd CPUs are cheaper than Intel's. Oh but remember to pay $300 for the motherboard! ;)
Posted on Reply
#17
theoneandonlymrk
Benetanegia said:
Maybe you should grow a little reading comprehension. When I mentioned the Nvidia GPUs it was for the sole intention of talking about previous AMD slides, and their blatant innacuracy (61% over GTX580, etc), which is on-topic. Nvidia is not. So maybe check your fanboyism. Saying something not-great about AMD does not mean someone is Nvidia and/or Intel fanboy
fuck one thread idiot/troll, ive seen you in loads of AMD based threads trashing amd but never in an intel or nvidia one and they spread just as much bs as you and amd ,,,i believe none of you i listen to the wizz simples

im not assed what your opinion is and i dont mind reading in a thread ONCE , but you then go on to argue and rile against anyone who shows any positivity to AMD for pages , you just like arguin init

and your a dick, i went amd because A 5870 beat 480 when i got 1st big payday from my new job 2 years ago(value) i added a 5850 for 85 quid off a furom member so thats 390 quid for decent performance for the last two years and another one at least(value)

and the mobo came due to my q6600(intel) blowing up,i went 990FX because i had set money and wanted a DECENT cpu upgrade path and 4x pciex slots (xfire + ssd + hybrid physx(look nvidia))

i favour the best valu company at that time and last time intel was Not the one simples git i is mad now tut
Posted on Reply
#18
ensabrenoir
Mind blowing

Dent1 said:
Why would anyone expect "demanding games" to a priority on an APU. Any gamer, expecting mind blowing performance would be looking at AMD's enthusiast CPU range.
Enthusiast cpu range....

:roll::banghead::roll:
Posted on Reply
#19
Benetanegia
theoneandonlymrk said:
fuck one thread idiot/troll, ive seen you in loads of AMD based threads trashing amd but never in an intel or nvidia one and they spread just as much bs as you and amd ,,,i believe none of you i listen to the wizz simples

im not assed what your opinion is and i dont mind reading in a thread ONCE , but you then go on to argue and rile against anyone who shows any positivity to AMD for pages , you just like arguin init
Yeah show me a thread were Nvidia or Intel claimed something anything close to what AMD did with Faildozer, the 60% over GTX580, the 41% over GTX570 and we can start talking about why I "bitch" about AMD's slides and not about Nvidia/Intel ones. In preparation I'll make a resume for you: they have not even closely lied as much as AMD.


Posted on Reply
#20
Vulpesveritas
Benetanegia said:
The same? No. Intel is not concentrating on GPUs and is not trying to sell their CPUs based on the fact that they can do something that the competition can't. Intel iGPUs are more than sufficient for anything other than gaming. AMD's iGPU is much better but still far from good for gaming, so that "advantage" they so keenly advertise is not a real advantage. Even a HD5750 is 5x times faster than Llano GPU and I don't think anyone would even buy that card in late 2012 with any hope of playing anything, really. So divide that by 5 or by 3 incase Trinity really is as "fast" as they claim and you'll still go nowhere.

So again, APUs are for what they are, never said they were useless, and improvements are nicely welcomed, also expected tho so keep that in mind, but these improvements are not impressive by any definition of the word. Plain and simple, that is all.



Really, stop before you look any more stupid. I didn't bring GTX680 in here, and I certainly didn't mention it in regards to HD7970. I only mentioned the GTX680 because someone said that a doubling in performance should not be expected from new processes and said "look at 580 and 680". Period. So stfu. (I'm talking like this because I think it's the only language you might understand by the way you always write)
Umm... okay well first of all may i say that the 5750 is closer to 2/3 faster than llano, not 500% faster. Maybe the 7970 but definitely not a 5750.
second, there's nothing llano can't do that an intel cpu can, however there isn't any game out there to my knowledge that llano can't playably run at at least low settings. Which means a casual gamer(see: curious normal person or normal person's kid.) Is able to pick up a game and enjoy it, rather than complain about the wasted money because their intel cpu can't play it. So long as OEMs carry the APU, it is probably one of the better home use computers.
As to A-series quads vs Pentium dual. While faster for gaming, i would think that a quad-core would be more suitable for multi tasking anyhow.
Finally, take the press release with salt, but hope it's true for the sake of that way AMD releases a product which can at least compete well in the market vs ivy bridge. For the sake of prices and AMD's survival.
Posted on Reply
#21
erocker
This has nothing to do with discreet GPU's. Don't bother continuing on the subject. Please.
Posted on Reply
#22
Benetanegia
Vulpesveritas said:
Umm... okay well first of all may i say that the 5750 is closer to 2/3 faster than llano, not 500% faster. Maybe the 7970 but definitely not a 5750
Maybe I exagerated a bit but I don't think it's too far from that and the HD7970 is definitely much much more than 5x faster. From the reviews I remember Llano was between an HD6450 and HD6550, depending if DDR3 1333 Mhz or 2000+ Mhz was used. Since using fast RAM defeats the purpose of a cheap system the former is closer to what you'll find. SO in the chart I posted above, HD6450 10%, HD5750 35% (3.5X faster) and HD7970 130% (so 13x faster). In Q3-Q4 anyone wanting to game even slightly, will go with at least something like HD7770 which is a lot faster and along with a cheap i3 (or a cheap non APU AMD CPU if they still offer that) would not cost much more than a Llano based PC, considering the immense performance difference $50 more on a PC that costs $500 or so it's not too much.

Vulpesveritas said:
Is able to pick up a game and enjoy it, rather than complain about the wasted money because their intel cpu can't play it. So long as OEMs carry the APU, it is probably one of the better home use computers.
As to A-series quads vs Pentium dual. While faster for gaming, i would think that a quad-core would be more suitable for multi tasking anyhow.
I don't agree. IMO what people really need to understand is that iGPU is not suitable for gaming. What you describe is a minor patch to this problem that can help in very limited situations, not a cure. In the end they will try a different game and see it's not playable or that it's ugly (far worse than consoles) and that will only contribute to the typical meme that a several thousands $ PC is required for PC gaming. APUs and the way they market them only contributes to making it worse and worse. Unless they trully provide a iGPU that at least matches mid-range GPUs of 3 years ago, I'm not impressed at all and I think it's a really really bad thing for us PC gamers. With Intel at least everybody knows they are crappy and gaming is not suitable at all, at least the people I know.

EDIT: And really, the last thing we need are crappy console ports that have been ported to be suitable for APUs.
Posted on Reply
#23
Mussels
Moderprator
ladies, ladies. put your handbags down, and put on some fresh make up or something. at least look pretty while you tear each others faces off.
Posted on Reply
#24
theoneandonlymrk
What are you on about every intel laptops sold as games capable. Read a review then buy or your a tard simples and since when was any gpu unimportant to games

so my final op . Looks good:)
Posted on Reply
#25
BrooksyX
I am glad AMD is deciding to give up on the high end cpu market and concentrate more on the low end segment.
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment