AMD Trinity released - Mobile version

Status
Not open for further replies.
D

Dark Star

Innovator
ENnEn.jpg

AMD) today announced the widely anticipated launch of its 2nd-Generation AMD A-Series Accelerated Processing Units (APUs) for mainstream and ultrathin notebooks, All-in-One and traditional desktops, home theater PCs and embedded designs.The 2nd-Generation A-Series APU, codenamed “Trinity”, is a grounds-up improved design over the previous generation, enabling a best-in-class PC mobility, entertainment, and gaming experience. New features of the product design include:
AgXCo.png

  • The AMD HD Media Accelerator with a unique set of technologies designed to optimize video quality available with premium and Internet video content, and accelerate video file conversion;
  • An increase in CPU performance of up to 29 percent3 with higher processor speeds thanks to the next-generation AMD “Piledriver” CPU core with 3rd-Generation AMD Turbo Core technology, where power is dynamically shifted between the CPU and GPU depending on application needs, effectively providing a more responsive experience that can boost CPU frequencies to up to 3.2 GHz;
  • AMD Radeonâ„¢ HD 7000 Series graphics for an increase of graphics performance up to 56% over the previous generation.4 Combined, the CPU and GPU cores deliver more than 700 gigaflops of computing performance5 – several times more than the fastest x86 CPUs – to boost performance of hundreds of applications;
  • “The latest OEM notebooks, ultrathins, All-in-Ones and desktops based on the new AMD A-Series APU enable the best video and gaming experiences, highly responsive performance with AMD Turbo CORE, and accelerate an ever-increasing range of productivity and multimedia applications -- in sleek, stylish designs at price points that make sense,” said Chris Cloran, corporate vice president and General Manager, AMD Client Business Unit. “Our 2nd-Generation AMD A-Series APU is a major step forward in every performance and power dimension, allowing users to enjoy a stunning experience without having to give up the things that matter to them most. This experience doesn’t stop at mainstream notebooks. It carries over into affordable ultrathin form factors featuring the latest in AMD Radeonâ„¢ graphics.”



With more than 12 hours of ‘resting’ battery life, AMD is now an industry leader in notebook battery-life performance. The 2nd-Generation AMD A-Series APU delivers increased levels of performance, while consuming half the power as its predecessor.

ho5Pol.jpg


These gains can be attributed to the new power-optimized “Piledriver” CPU core, as well as to AMD Start Now technology, which is designed to maximize system responsiveness by quickly entering and exiting low power states. With AMD Start Now, the computer resumes from sleep mode in as few as two seconds and boots to the desktop in as few as 10 seconds.7

vWVWsl.jpg


In ultrathin form factors, AMD enables an uncompromised visual experience thanks to a power-efficient and premium AMD Radeon graphics engine. Consumers can expect to see ultrathin notebooks based on dual-core 17-watt and quad-core 25-watt AMD A-Series APUs. These products will be easily identifiable by aluminum-styled VISION Technology stickers at a range of competitive price points.

Reviews -

Anandtech - AnandTech - The AMD Trinity Review (A10-4600M): A New Hope

, Trinity is AMD’s continued journey down the path they started with Llano. Both CPU and GPU performance have improved over Llano. The general purpose CPU performance gap vs. Intel is somewhere in the 20—25% range, while the GPU advantage continues to be significantly in AMD's favor.
For those who are interested in more than just the bottom line, as usual the best laptop for you may not be the best laptop for everyone. Trinity in a 14” form factor like our prototype would make for a great laptop to lug around campus for a few years. It would be fast enough for most tasks, small enough to not break your back, battery life would be long enough to last through a full day of classes, and the price would be low enough to not break your bank.
Click to expand...

Hot Hardware - AMD Trinity A10-4600M Processor Review - HotHardware

AMDs' new A10-4600M Trinity APU did well in the benchmarks with respect to gaming, as expected, though it did have a few performance anomalies under DX11 (Batman and Metro 2033). We suspect driver maturity in these two game engines or possibly with DX11 in general could be an issue at this point. In many gaming tests, Trinity showed a decisive lead on the order of 30 - 50+% over Intel's HD 4000 integrated graphics in the Ivy Bridge Core i7 chip we pit it against. In terms of general CPU performance, AMD's new Piledriver-based Trinity offers respectable performance for a low power 35 Watt architecture, but it got blown out of the water by Intel's current generation Ivy Bridge Core i7 mobile CPU and it didn't even compete all that well versus Intel's previous generation dual-core Core i5 Sandy Bridge chip

The answer to that question remains to be seen, but there's also a bright spot for AMD relative to power consumption. Notebooks driven by AMD's new Trinity A-Series APUs will undoubtedly offer solid battery life performance, along with balanced CPU and Multimedia/Gaming performance, all at a price point that will again be attractive on retail shelves. ​
Click to expand...

pfwoyl.jpg

Expect systems based on Trinity to hit market from June onwards. Loads of launch happening in computex and afds.

Release Notes - Second-Generation AMD A-Series APUs Enable Best-in-Class PC Mobility, Entertainment, and Gaming Experience in Single Chip
Trinity Page - Trinity Press Landing Page
 
CPU performance & battery life is good but GPU is not definitely upto expectations. Its not disappointing but not also good. I expected Trinity to at least beat HD4000 by a good margin. :(
 
comp@ddict said:
Disappointing performance.

Even the Graphics Part is disappointing.
Click to expand...

comp@ddict said:
Disappointing performance. I wasn't even expecting in the CPU department, but GPU is a letdown.
Click to expand...

You are looking at a wrong side. The chip that was compared at anandtech is top of the line mobile chip with 45-55W TDP which has substantially more power budget and much higher clock speed. So from that POV trinity is a winner.

Plus that i7 3720QM is top of the line ultra high price mobile CPU which will not come in mainstream notebook. Clearly indicating that lower end IVY mobile chips for budget laptops don't stand a chance in 3d performance

Given Trinity shares the same 32nm I'll say the improvements are decent, though CPU performance could have been a bit more better (better than Llano atleast)

trinity still outpace the QX model in most of graphical benchmarks. for the price point the performance is exceptional, I hope some OEMs release a 13" ultrathing with trinity.

The most disappointing review was from vr-zone they downscale desktop ivy bridge to compare it with trinity . Seriously :|

Other than that I'll say wait for drivers to mature, its mostly a paper launch with ES class APUs used in the whitebox notebook thats not even a complete design. Hopefully retail version will be a bit better.
 
6pack said:
hoping that notebooks or netbooks with these chips should release in the 20-25k range.
Click to expand...

Will be difficult Sire, as most AMD Llano based laptops with dual-core APU's loiter there. Maybe ~35000/- -->45000/- will be a more accurate price band me thinks.

Just my views on the rather speculative matter of pricing which can be afflicted by vagaries of various colours and creations such as middle men, Rupee depreciation, lack of supply, OEM bias... too many to list. Pardon me for being a cynic.
 
^You're correct @ALPHA17 . But 45k is too much for trinity. Top of the line may go something around 35-38k. But 17w ULV are surely supposed to be within 30k otherwise it won't be a success.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
JuGGa said:
^You're correct ALPHA17. But 45k is too much for trinity. Top of the line may go something around 35-38k. But 17w ULV are surely supposed to be within 30k otherwise it won't be a success.
Click to expand...

Depends on how much the vendors are going to push this platform. Also how strong the sales are.

The idea is most pragmatic products diverge into two groups --
  1. Functional products with a good feature set, but considerably cut down advanced features like HDMI-OUT port.
  2. Lifestyle products with a superficially improved construct quality and all the latest trend setting connectors / features, these often under-perform due to the lack of powerful enough hardware.

Examples of early functional products turning into lifestyle icons -- ASUS's EEePC [the intial Linux netbook] --> Sony Vaio P.

Now the thing is Trinity will have to compete with Sandy-Bridge and Ivy-Bridge from Intel and older stocks of AMD Llano, so this further narrows the chance of Trinity becoming a break-out success.

All is dependent on the pricing and overall value the product offers to the end user.

Hope this clarifies my point of view on this subject, Cheerio!!
 
. The chip that was compared at anandtech is top of the line mobile chip with 45-55W TDP which has substantially more power budget and much higher clock speed. So from that POV trinity is a winner.
Click to expand...

No, I know about that LOL i kept that in mind

What I have is, this QUAD CORE(whatever module) can't match INTEL's previous year dual cores, YET, which are lower clocked too, forget clock-for-clock).

Also, GPU was the part AMD was pushing for in the APUs. I maen AMDs GPU makes their APU so good. But INTEL, without making a proper GPU like HD4000, still trumps AMD, what with Quick Sync 15 times FASTER, I can see the gap widening(and I say this because there will be dual core IVY Bridge CPUs with HD4000 GPU as well)
 
^^first of all be a bit clear, understanding the statements above is hard and seems vague.

1. You talking abut CPU performance or GPU ?

Because Hd400 only gets above in 2-3 test (gaming) other than that not able to match, add to that the Intel chip tested was the premium offering making it clear that lower end IVYB won't posses such graphic prowess leaving cpu aside.

2. Most of the Intel CPUs are still higher clocked atleast in mobile when compared to A10 4600M, plus both are different architecture so judging them on clock for clock is idiotic.

3. Quick Sync is fast but except for one or 2 paid apps none of the apps available take advantage of it. VCE is an open cl driver, able to churn out from many apps. But nonetheless Quick Sync is fast no doubt there.

But answer this question will you wait for few seconds or sacrifice gaming performance ? :P
 
Dark Star said:
^^first of all be a bit clear, understanding the statements above is hard and seems vague.

1. You talking abut CPU performance or GPU ?

Because Hd400 only gets above in 2-3 test (gaming) other than that not able to match, add to that the Intel chip tested was the premium offering making it clear that lower end IVYB won't posses such graphic prowess leaving cpu aside.

2. Most of the Intel CPUs are still higher clocked atleast in mobile when compared to A10 4600M, plus both are different architecture so judging them on clock for clock is idiotic.

3. Quick Sync is fast but except for one or 2 paid apps none of the apps available take advantage of it. VCE is an open cl driver, able to churn out from many apps. But nonetheless Quick Sync is fast no doubt there.

But answer this question will you wait for few seconds or sacrifice gaming performance ? :P
Click to expand...

1. I seriously don't get you. I was talking about the CPUs in the beginning, if u read "QUAD CORES", and I happened to mention "Clock-for-clock"

And of course I know they are separate architectures. Don't you think what I implied was that AMD's architecture is still wayy behind INTEL's? Your comment totally made it seem you';re some AMD fanboi, I'm sorry.

2. I mentioned about Ivy Bridge Dual Cores wiping the floor with Trinity Quad Cores across almost everything(if not, everything). I think I am completely correct about that. I will ignore your remark "idiotic", super mod

3. Yes, correct. Thankfully, those 2 apps are pretty good.
Anyways, back to point number 1

1. The gaming performance will more or less remain same, as the HD4000 is no HD7970, that the performance is going to get limited by the powerful Intel CPUs. Even the INTEL Dual Cores(to be launched) with the HD4000 will perform the same under similar scenarios. Heck, look at Sandy Bridge doing that.

Anyways, in the end, I am actually, and in-fact in full support of AMD, and the last line of your post, gaming performance, is something I have used in the past (LOL YES!) and I would pick Gaming performance anyday! But just that, I think I'm a disgruntled fan, who was hoping/expecting too much. Darn
 
comp@ddict said:
1. I seriously don't get you. I was talking about the CPUs in the beginning, if u read "QUAD CORES", and I happened to mention "Clock-for-clock"

And of course I know they are separate architectures. Don't you think what I implied was that AMD's architecture is still wayy behind INTEL's? Your comment totally made it seem you';re some AMD fanboi, I'm sorry.

2. I mentioned about Ivy Bridge Dual Cores wiping the floor with Trinity Quad Cores across almost everything(if not, everything). I think I am completely correct about that. I will ignore your remark "idiotic", super mod

3. Yes, correct. Thankfully, those 2 apps are pretty good.
Anyways, back to point number 1

1. The gaming performance will more or less remain same, as the HD4000 is no HD7970, that the performance is going to get limited by the powerful Intel CPUs. Even the INTEL Dual Cores(to be launched) with the HD4000 will perform the same under similar scenarios. Heck, look at Sandy Bridge doing that.

Anyways, in the end, I am actually, and in-fact in full support of AMD, and the last line of your post, gaming performance, is something I have used in the past (LOL YES!) and I would pick Gaming performance anyday! But just that, I think I'm a disgruntled fan, who was hoping/expecting too much. Darn
Click to expand...

Vague comment was made for your language not on the content. I was not able to correlate, some text seems ambiguous :P

1. Lol at AMD fanboi, I am no fanboi nor I favor any company, its just the APU are more bang for buck + more efficient in saving power (specially trinity), I clearly know that Intel has a lead over AMD in both market and cpu performance. I have more intel machines that AMD :P

2. Just like AMD cuts cores and lessen the shaders in lower end, Intel does the same, so a quad core trinity will easily best dual core IVY in graphics not too mention it will trail behind IVB significantly in x86 performance.

Well hoping too much for a chip on built on same manufacturing process I guess it just too much :P

Edit - Techreport review is out . http://techreport.com/articles.x/22932
 
Thanks for the steady flow of reviews and hand-on Dark Star.

And for you Mr. comp@ddict a gist of what was written in techreport, before you lambaste me for being a 'fanboi' --

In pitching Trinity to the press, AMD repeatedly emphasized the subjective user experience and downplayed the importance of benchmarks. Take a look at our CPU performance results—even keeping in mind the 10W handicap the A10 had to deal with—and you'll understand why they might not want to see that comparison emphasized too much. Still, it is a fair point to note that one can't always perceive differences in CPU performance these days. During our time with the Trinity laptop, we found its snappiness for everyday web browsing and such to be virtually indistinguishable from our two Intel quad-core laptops. Of course, running heavier-duty applications is where our CPU tests and perception collide; there's little arguing with a photo stitching result where the A10 takes 12 seconds longer than Sandy Bridge to complete the same task. Whether one will regularly notice the difference between the two will depend on how one uses the system.

AMD is doing some good work in helping to push heavy-duty desktop applications like the GIMP and WinZip toward GPU acceleration via OpenCL. Many others, including the x264 video encoder, are purportedly slated to get OpenCL support soon. Further adoption of OpenCL and GPU acceleration could transform some of the stickiest parts of the desktop usage model by making key applications more GPU-dependent than CPU-dependent. That's huge. Presumably, AMD and its APUs would benefit from this change. However, the early returns from WinZip and LuxMark have shown four of Intel's x86 CPU cores to be even faster than Trinity's CPU-and-IGP tag team. AMD still has a lot of work to before it can credibly claim to be fulfilling its vision of a better user experience via converged computing.

For now, the choice between AMD's Trinity and the Intel competition is very much about priorities. If you value desktop application performance above all else, then Trinity probably isn't for you. If you care about graphics and gaming, well, then Trinity may hold some interest. We don't think that's a minor point in the grand scheme of things. Laptops are rapidly becoming the most popular consumer PCs, and a great many consumers will want to play games on them at least some of the time. We've noted that one can't always tell CPUs apart from the seat-of-the-pants experience. The results of our latency-focused gaming tests will tell you IGP performance deltas are much easier to perceive, at least in graphically intensive titles like the ones we tested. All of these IGPs are relatively wimpy graphics solutions, so you really want the best one possible. That's one of the reasons we liked Llano, and Trinity gives us no reason to change our tune. Yes, Ivy Bridge's IGP is much improved, but Trinity's is enough better to erase any questions of supremacy on that front.
Click to expand...

Stop bashing people up. It is not your prerogative to decide whether Trinity is good enough, if you want to purchase it, go right ahead. If you feel that AMD dashed your 'high' expectations, no one is forcing you to blow Trinity's strumpet.

Sorry for loosing my cool, but what you had posted earlier was derogatory towards certain parties.

Another addition here --
ivy_bridge_mobile.png


The ultra-books Intel HD 4000 IGP's have a rather tight leash on their clocks. This will be detrimental to the overall performance for the same. Let us wait and see what Trinity puts on the table.
 
And for you Mr. comp@ddict a gist of what was written in techreport, before you lambaste me for being a 'fanboi' --
Click to expand...

I seriously don't get the inclusion of me into the comment. Seriously?

Anyways, yes I read the techreport review.

And, before anyone says anything else, I AM THE AMD FANBOI(admittedly a disappointed one now). .. (there you go)

I'm particularly excited about the 25W Quad Core with 384 Shaders APU. I wonder if the 17W will also have the same specification(albeit a lesser clock speed) and match Llano

At that point, in an ultraboo/sleekbook it would be really cool. Also, the 25W one would be a nice proposition in the 27-29k range(like current HP and ASUS ones at that price range)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom