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 on Article:
AMD Trinity for Desktops. Part 2: Socket FM2 Platform and AMD A10-5800K Processor Review
As far as 3770K goes against FX8150, it leads on average by about 30%:
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:
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:
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.
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?
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).
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.
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.
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.
Its time to compare apples with apples.
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.
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.
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
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?
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?
What is the best 4 core processor (CPU),stating its clock speed,that it supports?.please let me know.
Add your Comment
Enter your username and e-mail address. Password will be sent to you.