AMD's Trinity

[Deleted]

Have you guys seen this?
http://www.engadget.com/2012/09/03/a...ty-price-leak/
What is your opinion on these new processors?

[Hellfury]

Strong competition makes intel move they asses and lower they prices.

[Deleted]

That graph is based on the iGPU. cpu wise intel is a big step ahead.

But for low end systems the apus are awesome. Good cpu power, and a decent gpu

[Korgoth]

It's not strong competition though. Intel integrated graphics is not good. But then Trinity integrated graphics is not really good either. If you want to play games then you get a graphics card. This has not changed because of Trinity, it being 40% faster then HD4000 still makes it shit compared to most graphics cards. So then it comes down to actual CPU performance, and Intel is ahead by a significant margin now, and even providing better CPU performance for gaming at the low end.

If you are broke and can only spend $300 on a PC then Trinity is a good idea, or possibly for a $400-500 laptop. But if you want to actually play games well, you need dedicated graphics, and once you have dedicated graphics no AMD CPU is competitive.

My Computer history for any AMD Fanboys out there: AMD Athlon XP 1800+, AMD Athlon 64 3500+, AMD Athlon 64x2 5200+, AMD Phenom 9950 (which really should have been a core 2!), Intel 2600k.

[Deleted]

Yeah I'm hoping this will cause Intel to drop there prices or possibly look into how fast these CPU's will preform not just the Integrated Graphics.

[vesseblah]

Those are meant for computers with no graphics card at all. If you plug in graphics card and use the A10's as a CPU only, the graphs turn other way around. Current A8's are already better than Intel processors at the extreme cheap-ass pricerange where computer has only integrated graphics and no card of any kind.

[Rennadrel]

Well, the upcoming chips are slated to be on par with Sandy Bridge for performance all around, though some areas Sandy Bridge will probably still be a bit better. I think it all depends on the price, AMD has a lot of catching up to do to be quite honest.

[Enhshamanlol]

I'm wondering if you can plug in a 7770 and double it up like the old APU and a 6770. If you can hook up a 7770 i wonder what the benchmarks will be like.

[lloose]

Edit: ignore this post. Discuss the op.

[Deleted]

I did a test myself of the processing power of my i7 2700k with no integrated graphics vs even the slowest A4 APU. The results blew my mind.

i7 @ 1920x1080 World of Warcraft patch 5.0.4: 0 fps. Black screen. Not even sure if the computer was turned on.
A4 @ 1920x1080 World of Warcraft patch 5.0.4: 33fps

i7 @ 1920x1080 Skyrim: 0 fps again. Black screen. Very let down by Intel's performance.
A4 @ 1920x1080 Skyrim: 22fps

i7 @ 1920x1080 Guild Wars 2: 0 fps. What was intel thinking?
A4 @ 1920x1080: 27fps

As you can see, despite the AMD cpu being inferior in every spec possible, it still out performs the i7 by a huge amount. I think it might have to do with the 2700k not having graphics available where the A4 has the power of Dx11 graphics built right on the chip. The A4 is clearly the winner in this contest.

These results are very interesting.Depending how the processor preforms and when overclocked I could look into one for a new build and if these prices are right it seems like a steal.Hopefully with this competition Intel will drop prices too.

[Mythricia]

I did a test myself of the processing power of my i7 2700k with no integrated graphics vs even the slowest A4 APU. The results blew my mind.

i7 @ 1920x1080 World of Warcraft patch 5.0.4: 0 fps. Black screen. Not even sure if the computer was turned on.
A4 @ 1920x1080 World of Warcraft patch 5.0.4: 33fps

i7 @ 1920x1080 Skyrim: 0 fps again. Black screen. Very let down by Intel's performance.
A4 @ 1920x1080 Skyrim: 22fps

i7 @ 1920x1080 Guild Wars 2: 0 fps. What was intel thinking?
A4 @ 1920x1080: 27fps

As you can see, despite the AMD cpu being inferior in every spec possible, it still out performs the i7 by a huge amount. I think it might have to do with the 2700k not having graphics available where the A4 has the power of Dx11 graphics built right on the chip. The A4 is clearly the winner in this contest.

.... I'm lost on what the purpose of this test was. A CPU without integrated graphics capability could not run GPU-reliant software, and a CPU with integrated graphics capability, could run GPU-reliant software.

Nor will a 9mm handgun fire 8ga shells.

No shit sherlock! The i7 wasn't doing anything, because it was never told to do anything, by the software. Because, it's not a GPU. It is literally architecturally incapable of doing it. There's a difference between a GPU and a CPU for a reason, they do not function the same way, they do not do the same thing... The i7 2700k is a pure-bred CPU, and has absolutely no graphics processing capability. Because, you know, it's a CPU.

Not sure if I'm missing some kind of joke here.

[Snorkle]

I did a test myself of the processing power of my i7 2700k with no integrated graphics vs even the slowest A4 APU. The results blew my mind.

i7 @ 1920x1080 World of Warcraft patch 5.0.4: 0 fps. Black screen. Not even sure if the computer was turned on.
A4 @ 1920x1080 World of Warcraft patch 5.0.4: 33fps

i7 @ 1920x1080 Skyrim: 0 fps again. Black screen. Very let down by Intel's performance.
A4 @ 1920x1080 Skyrim: 22fps

i7 @ 1920x1080 Guild Wars 2: 0 fps. What was intel thinking?
A4 @ 1920x1080: 27fps

As you can see, despite the AMD cpu being inferior in every spec possible, it still out performs the i7 by a huge amount. I think it might have to do with the 2700k not having graphics available where the A4 has the power of Dx11 graphics built right on the chip. The A4 is clearly the winner in this contest.

It would be nice if you, before wasting other people's time, warn people that the test you made has no relevance whatsoever. And if you don't understand why it is not relevant, then I suggest researching a bit. Thank you.

To everyone that does not understand the meaning of this test and might be deceived: don't. A4 has a decent graphics capability. The i7 2700k does not. It's obvious that the results would be this way. Expecting anything different would be folly.

[vesseblah]

Well, the upcoming chips are slated to be on par with Sandy Bridge for performance all around,

That's also what they claimed with Bulldozers. Don't believe everything you hear from marketing bullshit generators.

.... I'm lost on what the purpose of this test was.

Sarcasm towards AMD's charts of A10 performance.

[lloose]

Edit: discuss the op. ignore this post.

[vesseblah]

What the A10 and AMD's new APUs are doing is pushing under $100 shit graphics cards like Radeon series 7600 and lower, and Nvidia cards below 550ti totally out of market when the integrated GPU works at that level.

It's great for extreme budget builders, but useless for those who are willing to spend $200 or more on a proper graphics card.

[Deleted]

Just like the article linked in the OP right? AMD is trying to say their new A10 is a better CPU than intel's offerings by comparing graphic performance.

Except its not and i lose all hope in humanity when people get tricked so easily.


The comparison charts are for the i7 WITHOUT integrated graphics versus the A4 WITH integrated graphics.

[lloose]

Edit: going off topic. Keep it to the op.

[Deleted]

How is it not? The title of the graph is "Trinity gaming performance vs the competition". There is not a single thing on the graph saying the gpu was the same. What gpu was used, because I see NO metion of it in the article or the graph. The only information provided says that the A10 with 7660d outperforms the intel core i7 3770k with (some random) gpu.

Its exactly the same as comparing the standard i7 to an i3 with integrated graphics.

The i3 will win fps tests every time.


If you cant see how and why that is retarded, i lose all hope in you too.

[lloose]

Edit: it shouldn't have been this hard to get my point around. Ignore this and discuss the op.

[Deleted]

Wait wait wait. You are impying that a computer would somehow work..... without some kind of gpu (be it onboard of discrete). I just want to get my facts strait before you "lose hope in me".

Im saying thats the exact reason why you got 0 fps in your tests with the i7 because you retardedly compared a processor with no gpu to a processor with an inbuilt gpu in fps tests.


Im baffled as to why you would even bother trying this when the results are obvious.