Information

Dear forum members,
We are delighted to inform you that our forums are back online. Every single topic and post are now on their places and everything works just as before, only better. Welcome back!



Discussion

Discussion on Article:
AMD Trinity for Desktops. Part 2: Socket FM2 Platform and AMD A10-5800K Processor Review

Started by: ratdoghippy | Date 10/01/12 10:18:21 PM
Comments: 61 | Last Comment:  02/07/14 03:29:00 AM

Expand all threads | Collapse all threads

[1-20]

1. 
show the post
4 12 [Posted by: ratdoghippy  | Date: 10/01/12 10:18:21 PM]
Reply
- collapse thread

 
Your post is either trolling or you have failed at simple mathematics. No way in the world is a Core i7 3770 250% faster than a Q9450.

As far as 3770K goes against FX8150, it leads on average by about 30%:
http://www.computerbase.d...test-intel-ivy-bridge/14/

Is 3770K worth it over the FX8150? In my eyes yes, but your math increases in your post are made out of thin air as Core i7 2600K is about 77% faster on average over Q9550:
http://www.computerbase.d...st-intel-sandy-bridge/46/

In regard to Trinity, it competes against Core i3 or so and speed wise, the CPU is not much slower, while offering a far superior GPU. For those on a budget or aiming to build a power efficient HTPC, the A10-5800K sounds like a superior choice over the i3 3220:
http://www.anandtech.com/...y-on-the-desktop-part-2/4

For those who are gamers with discrete GPUs, of course the i3 is preferably but to get Trinity APU level of GPU performance to be able to play Diablo 3, SC2, WOW, Portal 2, Left 4 Dead 2, XCOM: Enemy Unknown, one would have to spend at least $70 for a discrete GPU on top of the i3 3220 (but GT640 is $90-100 and HD7750 is at least $80 now since the sub-$100 dGPU market is dying).

Trinity seems like a price/performance winner as MSRP for A10-5800K is just $122. That's good value for the budget consumer and offers 1 more generation upgrade path to Kaveri while Socket 1155 is completely dead next year.
5 7 [Posted by: BestJinjo  | Date: 10/01/12 10:56:09 PM]
Reply
 
Seriously right?. How did he get his certification with below average math skills. If it is 250% percent faster you are probably talking about Xeon processor speeds which even then see small speed updates when newer ones are made.
2 3 [Posted by: the_file  | Date: 10/02/12 12:07:35 AM]
Reply
 
show the post
0 5 [Posted by: cosminmcm  | Date: 10/02/12 01:46:32 AM]
Reply
 
"beating" a 3770k is not AMD's goal due to the sole fact you are comparing a enthusiast class cpu to a mainstream entertainment cpu /facepalm.

Guess not, so the upgrade path argument is wrong.


Wut? the point of the upgrade path is that you won't have to buy another mobo when the next gen fusion core comes out because AMD is planning on using the FM2 socket at least in the near future. How is this wrong?
5 3 [Posted by: veli05  | Date: 10/02/12 01:40:35 PM]
Reply
 
show the post
1 4 [Posted by: cosminmcm  | Date: 10/03/12 01:47:08 AM]
Reply
 
lol this story is so damn fake, I've noticed a lot of these popping up lately. No one who spends time on pages like this, or who claims to be a A+ certified tech(Really? xD, I'm a Data Technician and I haven't heard anyone use that to describe themselves), would not know about Bulldozers issues, that said you obviously throw around numbers that aren't true, and more obvious you've never actually used a Bulldozer CPU, as using it it feels just as fast as any other CPU, and at multitasking it has more overhead than current Quad cores, it's certainly not perfect, but no one would buy it for 100$ less than an I7-3770 and feel cheated.
6 3 [Posted by: Medallish  | Date: 10/02/12 10:35:27 AM]
Reply

2. 
Ilya,
we have been hearing many times from AMD that iGPU inside APU are so powerful that they would kill off cheap dGPU. That what I have expected to see in the review: Pentium+cheap dGPU vs. APU(w/o dGPU).
With your choice of very expensive dGPU I see no usefulness in the review. The configs are simply out of real life. Nobody being in his right mind would buy an expensive dGPU + cheap cpu (or APU, it doesn't matter).

5 5 [Posted by: Azazel  | Date: 10/01/12 10:20:31 PM]
Reply

3. 
Most of the benchmark software used on windows have been proven to be tweaked towards Intel hardware. Its one of the biggest frauds in the industry, add to that code sabotage that Nvidia has been cough doing many times in various games, which makes it run better on Nvidia hardware than on AMD hardware.

You can't trust closed source software for any benchmarks. Many of them have been proven in using Intels compiler, ICC. This is a big fraud in the industry. The only legit bencharkings that are done are here: http://openbenchmarking.org/ but most of the windows retards won't even know how to use it. Let alone know what a compiler is, or how the hardware works.
4 3 [Posted by: the_file  | Date: 10/02/12 12:03:42 AM]
Reply

4. 
Sadly, another disappointment from AMD

No doubt, the GPU is superior, but the applications just aren't there to utilise the power, except games, and perhaps for graphics/video editors.

For the rest of us, the CPU performance is pathetic and disastrous!

Intel have the right synergy, a gpu which is more than enough capable at graphics/video editing, light gaming, and other apps that can utilise the power of GPU (browsers).
And a CPU which can crunch through any data at tremendous speeds, perfect for everything.

Quite sad how badly reliant AMD are on ATI's graphics technology, without which they're basically irrelevant.

I'm still stuck on a Pentium 4(!) and was looking forward to moving to Bulldozer, but the power usage is unbelievable and no integrated GPU. So waited a bit longer in the hope that perhaps Trinity might be a hope, but sadly not.

I'm going with Intel's i5-3570k with HD4000 which is more than enough as an application developer.


.
7 7 [Posted by: disappointed_amd_fan  | Date: 10/02/12 03:05:05 AM]
Reply
- collapse thread

 
I can understand that AMD cpu are not the fastest in compiling programs. And GPU power isn't really needed in this situation. But I think most normal consumers use their PC for normal office work (most of the time CPU is idle waiting for user input), web browsing (limited to user input and internet bandwidth), minor photo and video editing, ed/decoding (GPU can help greatly with hardware decoding and OpenCL). So, powerful CPU isn't really needed to improve usability. Great idle power consumption is good (for laptop) as lots of time the CPU is idle. Adobe now has many of their popular programs supporting OpenCL. The list of OpenCL-supported apps will only get longer in the future.

I found the gaming benchmarks of the review a bit strange: top of the line GPU running at relatively low resolution.

I think people who may consider Trinity will likely also consider mid to low-end GPU with a non-APU or intel APU. And I guess the gaming experience will be more influenced by the GPU performance. Hmm, what I have said makes the part 1 of the Trinity review seem more relevant to potential users (majority of consumers who are not hardcore gamers).

I think it is good for consumers to have a choice to either have good CPU and slower GPU (i3) or good GPU with slower CPU (Trinity). Not everyone want one or the other. But the trend of the future is that we NEED more and more GPU power.
4 2 [Posted by: gjcjan  | Date: 10/02/12 06:50:55 AM]
Reply
 
show the post
0 3 [Posted by: disappointed_amd_fan  | Date: 10/03/12 06:27:47 PM]
Reply
 
Another fake story.. No "AMD fan" would still be stuck with a Pentium 4 and complain about Bulldozers power use.., Bulldozer would destroy that Pentium 4 in any way imaginable, in power use it would be 10 times more efficient, and for developing it would again completely destroy it.. Are you guys even trying? Bulldozers power use is decent, once you overclock it though it goes through the roof, it's a problem, but it's hardly something a Pentium 4 stuck software developer would care about.
6 6 [Posted by: Medallish  | Date: 10/02/12 10:44:30 AM]
Reply
 
show the post
0 4 [Posted by: disappointed_amd_fan  | Date: 10/03/12 06:49:52 PM]
Reply
 
Actually it can be very useful for OpenCL utilization. Which is becoming the industry standard very soon.
3 5 [Posted by: the_file  | Date: 10/02/12 05:18:45 PM]
Reply

5. 
Why have a dedicated graphic card in your tests. The design is to do away with the need for a graphic card. If a dedicated graphic is to used it is only right that it be an ATI card with crossfire enabled. If you major advertisers don't want to see this happen it is understandable as they have much deeper pockets to buy advertising and line the pockets of the bean counters. Do a test with comparing the two makes without using a dedicated graphics card, or will this will embarrass to many people?
Its time to compare apples with apples.
3 4 [Posted by: tedstoy  | Date: 10/02/12 03:44:21 AM]
Reply

6. 
In order to conduct a right review, a reviewer must compare product from the SAME price category. In a case of cpu, it's not only cpu itself but also motherboard and RAM. RAM is of importance because APU, unlike cpu+d.GPU, demands higher (and pricey) RAM modules to get more from their GPU performance.
And I suspect that if we take Pentium+dGPU+motherboard+RAM(say 1600MHz) vs. APU AMD A10-5800K+motherboard+RAM(say 1866MHz), we'd get better game experience for Pentium system than for APU one.
2 3 [Posted by: Azazel  | Date: 10/02/12 05:27:53 AM]
Reply
- collapse thread

 
show the post
2 6 [Posted by: BestJinjo  | Date: 10/04/12 07:32:10 AM]
Reply

7. 
Actually Trinity desktop looks very good. It's CPU power is more than sufficient and it's graphics performance is outstanding. AnandTech and Tom's both agreed that Trinity is a good APU and it can compete with the i3/i5 series and in most cases exceeds their system performance.

For those who missed the memo, AMD's desktop APUs are an entry-to mid-level all-in-one solution at a great price point. They are not intended to replace highend discrete CPU/GPU systems just yet. That will come a few years down the road. For now AMD is offering an excellent desktop solution with Trinity for those who want great performance at a modest price.

Haters need not respond as the above conclusions has already been agreed on by most PC hardware review sites. Hating ain't gonna change reality. It never does.
8 7 [Posted by: beenthere  | Date: 10/02/12 07:07:58 AM]
Reply

8. 
It says Piledriver, 4cores, 3.0ghz on Page 4. It should be 4.0 ghz I guess, pls fix it.
0 0 [Posted by: kukreknecmi  | Date: 10/02/12 07:31:45 AM]
Reply
- collapse thread

 
thank you! corrected.
0 0 [Posted by: Anna  | Date: 10/02/12 01:44:45 PM]
Reply

9. 
Xbit Reviewer/Benchmarking Team,

I formally request you do the mobile versions of the Trinity Chips if at all possible. Like my comment if other's agree with this sentiment
2 1 [Posted by: veli05  | Date: 10/02/12 02:22:48 PM]
Reply

10. 
Ordinary users , should not need more than Trinity (can play all the games with them).I hope that Intel will strengthen GPU unit on die ,so we will not have to buy a discreete graphics card.
1 0 [Posted by: Blackcode  | Date: 10/03/12 12:22:12 PM]
Reply

11. 
What you want is an APU with the CPU performance of intel, but the GPU performance of trinity!
0 0 [Posted by: inoculation  | Date: 10/03/12 07:50:53 PM]
Reply

12. 
ITS COMEDY GOLD

However, far not everyone was happy about this outcome therefore three quarters after the first versions of Bulldozer processor shit the streets.

"Buldozer processor shit the streets"

Maybe you guys need a new proof reader. Or was this a joke nobody else got?
3 1 [Posted by: oldengineer  | Date: 10/03/12 08:18:02 PM]
Reply

13. 
It's still a shame that most gamers are still better off with a 1100t x6 core CPU then this pile of crap ... Amd should somehow try and go back to the much faster gaming product they used to have and give up this pentimento 4 copy cat while they still can
4 1 [Posted by: vid_ghost  | Date: 10/04/12 05:09:35 AM]
Reply

14. 
And needs to find a replacement to the 1100t x6 fore gaming it's still better then anything they have out to date ..
4 1 [Posted by: vid_ghost  | Date: 10/04/12 05:11:13 AM]
Reply

15. 
I do like Xbitlabs and the reviews that they carry out. BUT I am gobsmacked that they are reviewing the new APU from amd whilst reviewing it against intel cpu's and with both processors using a graphics card in the system. If Xbvitlabs wanted a truly relevant review they would use the graphics in the cpu's ONLY.If this were to happen then its likely that the AMD apu's would have trounced intel. Didnt ever think this but I am now beginning to think that Xbitlabs is biased towards Intel. If reviews continue to shape out like this Xbitlabs will be going downhill in my opinion.........
1 1 [Posted by: raysmith1971  | Date: 10/05/12 11:53:04 AM]
Reply

16. 
AMD is way down in the bottom of x86 performance with the a10 still fall behind the weakest series of INTEL i3. i know AMD will try it´s normal price cutting tactics to make the performance per $ to be a better favor for AMD but for someone who needs all of the power a apu/cpu could offer will not likely to get into AMD apu camp until a faster/higher x86 performance apu is out. i was hoping the new generation would get AMD back to a competitor to Intel´s champion of x86 but AMD fail again this time around. maybe my old i7 920 will last several more years so the waiting continue...

2 2 [Posted by: idonotknow  | Date: 10/06/12 02:24:23 PM]
Reply
- collapse thread

 
show the post
0 3 [Posted by: tedstoy  | Date: 10/06/12 06:39:56 PM]
Reply

17. 
is a10-5800k the top of the line for AMD? if so too bad i´ll kep my old i7 920 +16gb RAM for several more years or if the need for cpu speed arise beyond this oldy i would likely throw my $ at the INTEL I7 camp since i already got the discrete GPU so there is no more $ needed for APU with built-in GPU.
1 2 [Posted by: idonotknow  | Date: 10/07/12 02:21:28 PM]
Reply
- collapse thread

 
Wut?

The product they reviewed here (the A10) is priced at ~110 Euros. How could you possibly compare it to an i7 with a dGPU? You don't go comparing a Ford to a Ferrari, do you?
2 0 [Posted by: Nightgawk  | Date: 10/09/12 02:15:03 AM]
Reply
 
I know! Why would someone not get it that the review is about a low cost CPU series? I guess they are too used to intel's cpu systems - if it is an APU, then it is to compete with the i7 which also is APU.
0 0 [Posted by: gjcjan  | Date: 10/14/12 01:42:30 PM]
Reply

18. 
I'm particularly sad about the fact that they rolled out a new socket with this APU. I understand that the GPU side of the APU is strongly influenced by memory speeds, but I believe it would have been a great opportunity to upgrade for people who bought an inexpensive AMx platform way back. Imagine the situation some of us are in: you have a 5+ years old platform that AMD more less keeps alive and when they finally release a new relatively great inexpensive solution you need to pull out twice to three times the amount of $ to afford it. (Migrate the mobo from AMx to FM2, migrate the memory from DDR2 to DDR3 and buy a new APU.) A lot of people will buy a used, but more powerful AMx CPU to get the extra performance than a completely new platform. (Again you needed at least some dGPU several years back.)
0 0 [Posted by: solearis  | Date: 10/18/12 06:14:34 AM]
Reply

19. 
hi,

What is the best 4 core processor (CPU),stating its clock speed,that it supports?.please let me know.

thanks
Aj
0 0 [Posted by: dsrnet  | Date: 04/14/13 08:49:10 PM]
Reply

20. 
yes , amd trinity processor are very well made and those performance is best level performance other processor trinity processor are crafted in such a way that process the sata with core , graphical part is handle by graphical unit , the marvel is well performance series ,, good luck fm2 socket team
0 0 [Posted by: Harshil Mehta  | Date: 10/10/13 05:23:34 PM]
Reply

[1-20]

Back to the Article

Add your Comment