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

So, wait. Bulldozer was released after Phenom-II and delivered worse performance. Now Trinety will replace Llano and also delived worse performance!

AMD's upcoming "Trinity" family of desktop and mobile accelerated processing units (APUs) will use up to four x86-64 cores based on the company's newest CPU architecture, codenamed "Piledriver". AMD conservatively estimated performance/clock improvements over current-generation "Bulldozer" architecture, with Piledriver. Citavia put next-generation A10-5800K, and A8-4500M "Trinity" desktop and notebook APUs, and pitted them against several currently-launched processors, from both AMD and Intel.

It found integer and floating-point performance increases clock-for-clock, against Bulldozer-based FX-8150. The benchmark is not multi-threaded, and hence gives us a fair idea of the per core performance. On a rather disturbing note, the performance-per-GHz figures of Piledriver are trailing far behind K12 architecture (Llano, A8-3850), let alone competitive architectures from Intel.


9

Italy Atlas Rush says:

there are 2 A8-4500M, what's the second CPU?

Belgium leeghoofd says:

They retested apparently as the 2nd test was slightly different, hence why twice the same CPU sometimes... What bothers me is that IPC sucks monkeyballs compared to Llano, but apparently wattage draw is amasing... it all depends what you want the CPU or APU to do :p

TaPaKaH says:

I reckon better IPC in 2D apps in not AMD's top priority since their current Llano lineup can compete with i3-2xxx in 2D (because of having four real cores). Freqbump from 2.6-3GHz to ~3.5GHz should be sufficent to stay competitive with the upcoming i3-3xxx.

What they really need to work on is the integrated graphics (to make the whole APU thing worthy to buy, which it isn't now) and/or 3D performance with discrete GPU where they had no chance against Intel.

Belgium Massman says:

The IGP performance of the APU is pretty impressive, Sam. Why do they need to work on that?

India thebanik says:

Massman said: The IGP performance of the APU is pretty impressive, Sam. Why do they need to work on that?


Yup, QFT.....Its the CPU part which they need to work on....GPU is already much ahead of Intel onboard HDXXXX...

TaPaKaH says:

the IGPU of Llano is neither here nor there .. it's too overkill for office application but too weak to call it usable for gaming

Belgium Massman says:

It's good enough to power a media center and play games like Farmville and Angry Birds. Maybe not strong enough for Skyrim ... but it doesn't need to be.

Netherlands wesjuhdabomb says:

If the GPU will be used for more applications than only games, and more and more applications will make use of the computing power that lies in the GPU then it will become really interesting

United States I.M.O.G. says:

Massman said: It's good enough to power a media center and play games like Farmville and Angry Birds. Maybe not strong enough for Skyrim ... but it doesn't need to be.


But both chips can do this fine. Integrated graphics aren't taken seriously by our crowd unless they perform like discrete graphics, but our crowd tends to miss the point. That includes myself. I have a hard time grasping the point as well to be honest. I use an i3-2100 in my HTPC as I had one laying around. It extracts archives, transcodes HD video on the fly, does all the HTPC stuff - and plays angry birds and stuff fine. There is no difference there.

The price point is $130, pitting the i3-2100 against the A8-3850. The 3850 has a TDP of 100W, the i3-2100 has a TDP of 65W.

The integrated graphics is the one area where AMD is kicking Intel's butt, and Intel has tried but failed in this area repeatedly - probably because they haven't taken it that seriously either. An A8-3850 APU has an advantage in this area, as it can actually do DX11 - meaning it can run DX11 games without spending $50 on a discrete GPU. The i3-2100 cannot do that.

Where the A8-3850 makes sense, is any situation where you would buy a $50 video card for your needs. The A8-3850 would provide competitive performance. The A8-3850 could be better for gaming or 3D rendering (GPGPU) in this situation.

Where the A8-3850 falls short, is in everything else - the i3-2100 is faster at tasks other than those, and sometimes by a considerable amount.

If you don't game. The i3-2100 is best. If you game and don't want to spend more than $50 on a GPU (I don't know anyone like this, but I am sure they are out there), the A8-3850 is your best bet. I could see building a kiddie gaming machine on one. For cool games I want to play though, it isn't going to cut the mustard without compromising a lot on the quality settings.

Please log in or register to comment.

Leave a Reply: (BBCODE allowed: [B], [QUOTE], [I], [URL], [IMG],...)