[Erinyes]

Looks like Trinity has been delayed by at least a quarter. Afaik back in Q3'11 AMD stated that it would be out in "early" 2011. The revised mid year launch date indicates that they maybe needed another spin.

[ToTTenTranz]

Originally Posted by Albuquerque

I saw one place claim it was 17W, and a bunch of others parrot that claim. I've seen no confirmation of that anywhere (ie, measurement of power draw from the unit in some definable way.)
(...)
I am saying that nothing we have to go on today indicates that it will be a 'fully featured' part.

Then watch the laptop-inside-a-desktop case video, where the AMD rep. clearly states it is the 17W model running and it is a quad-core.

Originally Posted by Albuquerque

I can take a picture of a 17W Sandy Bridge package and a 45W Sandy Bridge package and you will never be able to tell the difference. You know why they will look the same? Because they are the same.

WTF?
Trinity - Top to bottom: desktop socket, laptop socket, subnotebook BGA


Ivy Bridge

Originally Posted by Albuquerque

Showing a picture of a CPU die is meaningless to power consumption, so when you come back with your double-confirmed proof, please be aware that a picture of a BGA package isn't part of that proof.

Oooooh I get it now.. this is a conspiracy drama after all.
So AMD openly tells the world+dog they have a 2-module, 17W Trinity up and running but you think they may be blatantly lying to everyone, hence the "there's no proof" argument.

And when was the last time AMD lied about a CPU's power consumption?

Originally Posted by Albuquerque

Nowhere am I saying that AMD cannot accomplish a 17W Trinity

And this is the safeguard, just in case you're wrong.
Okay.

[Albuquerque]

Here is the video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lsmTDb-Mlws

Nowhere does he say 17W. Interestingly, he specifically mentions "almost half the power" -- if the processor was truly 17W, he wouldn't say "almost half", he'd say "less than half!" as any good PR parrot should. His choice of wording insinuates that it's actually above half the power, and the lowest powered offering AMD currently has is the 35W Llano. Does that mean 18W, or does it mean 20W, or does it mean even more and the origin point for "half" was a higher model?

You're welcome to call my bluff, watch the video, and point out the timestamp where the AMD rep calls out the 17W rating.

He mentions quad core, which means two modules. He mentions that it can play video games, watch a video, and encode video simultaneously. We have no performance data on the game (what rez? what settings? what features are enabled?), we have no performance data on the encoding videos (what video rez? what bitrate? audio format? what source media? how fast is it actually encoding? I can encode video on one core of my Q9550 and continue to play games without issues just as easily as he could, it will just go slowly...) and no performance data on the video that is actually playing (video rez? bitrate? audio stream?)

You have shown me nothing that I didn't already know, and further have shown no proof of 17W.

Rather than attacking ME, why don't you focus your effort on supporting your argument with details and facts that would either answer some of my (very sorely obvious) misgivings and questions about your statements, or else stop making blatent statements without any factual support.

If you theorize that Trinity 17W is fully capable of doing all of this, it is your prerogative. Keep in mind that it is not my prerogative to see things in the same way you do.

[no-X]

What's your point? That a PR manager didn't mention exact value during a 120s shot? There are official AMD slides stating 17W TDP for FP2 BGA Trinity. AMD can achieve it quite easilly - they can adjust GPU's TDP by PowerTune to whatever value they need. I think they'll do some kind of CPU/GPU TDP balancing, too (like Intel does).

I believe you missed the point of the demonstration. Movie playback is performed by UVD processor, media encoding is performed by VCE processor and game runs on 3D core (racing games aren't CPU-demanding, there's very simple AI and very simple physics). Low CPU utilization is quite a proof of that. You don't need a fast CPU for such demonstration, because all these tasks are performed by dedicated hardware.

[Albuquerque]

Originally Posted by no-X

What's your point? That a PR manager didn't mention exact value during a 120s shot? There are official AMD slides stating 17W TDP for FP2 BGA Trinity. AMD can achieve it quite easilly - they can adjust GPU's TDP by PowerTune to whatever value they need. I think they'll do some kind of CPU/GPU TDP balancing, too (like Intel does).

My point is twofold: One, while there is certainly a 17W Trinity, I do not believe that specific part was the demo model shown in that video. Two, claims of "I TOLD YOU IT WAS SEVENTEEN WATTS DIDNT YOU SEE THE VIDEO AND ALL THE PEOPLE CONFIRMING IT VIA THE VIDEO?!?!?!?" are obviously bunk as no so claim was made in the video. On a tangent to that last point, that guy in the video being PR or not, someone who is showing off that part during CES will absolutely know exactly the sales pitch. And the sales pitch absolutely included power consumption, as it was a large portion of the sell of ultrathin laptop doing ALL of this awesomesauce... He was quite purposefully mentioning "almost" half power, so that he's not lying when it isn't half power.

Originally Posted by no-X

I believe you missed the point of the demonstration. Movie playback is performed by UVD processor, media encoding is performed by VCE processor and game runs on 3D core (racing games aren't CPU-demanding,

No, I got all of that. Nowhere did I claim tomfoolery or shenanigans on the part of that demonstration; I am reasonably convinced all three of those items were indeed happening in parallel and on the laptop device.

What I'm not convinced of is whether this is a great way to demonstrate the "power of Trinity." Given what you described (dedicated hardware for basically all of it), you might reasonably expect Ivy Bridge to pull off the same capabilities. Hell, I would reasonably expect Llano to be able to pull off that same stunt, given a bit of 'tweaking' to the various data streams going in and coming out of that box. Of course, Llano would be doing it at 35W or more...

Again, we have NO data on:

• Power consumption of that box
• Performance or quality data on the video encoding
• Performance or quality data on the video playback
• Performance or quality data on the game being played

If I'm encoding 640x480 video from my smartphone, while playing a DX11 (on paper? what makes it a full DX11 implementation?) racing game at 800x600 with no AA and limited AF, while playing back an NTSC DVD that was ripped to the local drive, I would expect a Llano (or gasp, even a Sandy Bridge) to get away with that pretty easily. I might be able to get my i5-520m to almost get away with it, depending on how 'truly' DX11 that video game is.

None of that ultimately matters. My initial point that still stands: given what we know about AMD's current CPU and GPU architectures and what they've told us is going into Trinity, I have no reason to expect the 17W version of Trinity to be doing ALL of that work at quality levels that are meaningful. It's surely a 'cool' demo, but not really a meaningful one.

[Paran]

Originally Posted by Albuquerque

Here is the video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lsmTDb-Mlws

Nowhere does he say 17W.

It was a Mainstream Trinity used in the demo system, means 35W or 45W APU according to AMD.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=agJxehoSBmY

[Albuquerque]

Originally Posted by Paran

It was a Mainstream Trinity used in the demo system, means 35W or 45W APU according to AMD.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=agJxehoSBmY

See, now that is entirely believable given AMD's current architectural and lithography capabilities. Modest gains in CPU processing power, even better gains in GPU processing power, but on a smaller lithography node so they're able to keep the power profile flat. No real imagination-stretching required to get to that conceptual point...

Edit: and at least we have slightly more detail on the video transcode and playback -- they're "high def" (whatever that means, hehe)

[dkanter]

Originally Posted by Albuquerque

See, now that is entirely believable given AMD's current architectural and lithography capabilities. Modest gains in CPU processing power, even better gains in GPU processing power, but on a smaller lithography node so they're able to keep the power profile flat. No real imagination-stretching required to get to that conceptual point...

Edit: and at least we have slightly more detail on the video transcode and playback -- they're "high def" (whatever that means, hehe)

Trinity is 32nm. So you're getting better performance on the same process. AMD doesn't have the resources to migrate Bulldozer to 28nm bulk, and there's probably not a lot of motivation if GF's pricing is good.

I suspect that Trinity's encode/decode will be good enough. They should be able to match SNB if they choose.

David

[itsmydamnation]

Originally Posted by dkanter

Trinity is 32nm. So you're getting better performance on the same process. AMD doesn't have the resources to migrate Bulldozer to 28nm bulk, and there's probably not a lot of motivation if GF's pricing is good.

I suspect that Trinity's encode/decode will be good enough. They should be able to match SNB if they choose.

David

23.976 fps playback???

[Albuquerque]

Interesting, for some reason I had it in my head that Trinity was a shrink. Given this, I'm a bit skeptical again about the total performance being brought to the table alongside the fat power reduction, but I see no reason to doubt a 35W or 45W package performing that CES demo.

It was the 17W argument that I couldn't agree with.

[dess]

Originally Posted by Albuquerque

Nowhere does he say 17W. Interestingly, he specifically mentions "almost half the power" -- if the processor was truly 17W, he wouldn't say "almost half", he'd say "less than half!" as any good PR parrot should. His choice of wording insinuates that it's actually above half the power, and the lowest powered offering AMD currently has is the 35W Llano. Does that mean 18W, or does it mean 20W, or does it mean even more and the origin point for "half" was a higher model?

There is an apparent flaw in your argument. TDP is not actual power consumption, it's a classification. It indicates a part's power consumption is somewhere between the top of the given TDP class (35W in this case) and the top of the class one level below (18W?). So, the "almost half" of the power consumption of a part belonging in the 35W TDP class can indeed be 17W.

[Albuquerque]

Originally Posted by dess

There is an apparent flaw in your argument. TDP is not actual power consumption, it's a classification. It indicates a part's power consumption is somewhere between the top of the given TDP class (35W in this case) and the top of the class one level below (18W?). So, the "almost half" of the power consumption of a part belonging in the 35W TDP class can indeed be 17W.

Sigh.

It doesn't matter. Each company has a different way of measuring it; an Intel 95W TDP chip will consume less than 95W; an AMD chip typically consumes more. No matter what, AMD's own people rate the chip in that demo unit as one of thier "mainstream", which is not in the 17W class.

Thus, it doesn't matter how you personally want to spin it, the only people perpetuating the 17W myth are misinformed at best. Now that you know, you can help stop the myth

[Kaotik]

Arctic Cooling sues AMD for using name Fusion, which AC has used on their PSUs before. It's completely irrelevant that there's countless products, many older than any AC PSU is, that are called "Fusion"

http://translate.google.com/translat...n-1418534.html

Shortly after, AMD announces that they're ditching Fusion naming, FSA (Fusion System Architecture) will be called HSA (Heterogenous Systems Architecture) instead.
http://www.bit-tech.net/news/hardwar...sion-branding/

[Alexko]

Next they'll be suing the ITER consortium.

[snarfbot]

i predict socket hm1 for trinity.

[dkanter]

Originally Posted by dess

There is an apparent flaw in your argument. TDP is not actual power consumption, it's a classification. It indicates a part's power consumption is somewhere between the top of the given TDP class (35W in this case) and the top of the class one level below (18W?). So, the "almost half" of the power consumption of a part belonging in the 35W TDP class can indeed be 17W.

Um...not even close.

The TDP is the highest allowable average power consumption over a thermally significant period of time. It's how you design your heat sink.

So a 35W chip is guaranteed to have an average power of 35W or less over a thermally significant time frame. The average power might be 10W, it might be 5W or it might be 34.5W.

However, it's quite common for the power consumption (and dissipation) to be substantially higher over short periods of time, due to variations in current and voltage.

The real world power draw depends on a lot of factors such as the CPU design, any DVFS, temperature, cooling, etc.

David

[dess]

Originally Posted by Albuquerque

an Intel 95W TDP chip will consume less than 95W; an AMD chip typically consumes more.

NO, it's absolutly not true, it's indeed the other way around! Intel base its classification on weighted average consumpion, so you will find Intel CPU's with f.ex. 130W TDP and consuming really 150W at high loads. AMD, in the other hand, base its classification on absolute maximal [averaged on short time-frames] consumption [at official clock rates], so you won't find any AMD CPU that consumes more anytime [longer than a split second, except with overclocking, of course] than it's given TDP! Just look around, it's common knowledge since a decade. "Sigh."

Thus, it doesn't matter how you personally want to spin it

Maybe it's you who spin things according to your bind to the maker of the CPU you own...

Originally Posted by dkanter

Um...not even close.

What is not even close to what? Are you avare of the antecedents? It's that an AMD representative said the new super-low-consumption 4-core Trinity consumes "almost half" of a certain part that has a TDP of 35W, and some say that then it cannot be 17W (because 35/2 > 17), which is also said to be its (maximal, etc.) consumption. And I've said there are no contradiction if one considers that TDP is a classification.

The TDP is the highest allowable average power consumption over a thermally significant period of time. It's how you design your heat sink.

So a 35W chip is guaranteed to have an average power of 35W or less over a thermally significant time frame. The average power might be 10W, it might be 5W or it might be 34.5W.

However, it's quite common for the power consumption (and dissipation) to be substantially higher over short periods of time, due to variations in current and voltage.

The real world power draw depends on a lot of factors such as the CPU design, any DVFS, temperature, cooling, etc.

I know it all, but how does it invalidate what I've wrote? I was obviously speaking about averaged maximal consumption at normal circumstances, if you're just splitting hairs. Or, do you perhaps deny there are TDP classes (at least at AMD)? Then how would you explain there are ranges of CPU's with different clockrates and indeed different averaged-maximal-consumption-at-normal-circumstances (by measure), still with the same given TDP? There are TDP's of 45W, 65W, 89W, and so on, but not f.ex. 55.6W, because that will be classified as 65W... (To ease logistics or whatever.)

So, I stand by what I've wrote: the "almost half" of the consumption of an AMD part classified as "35W TDP" (so with actual averaged-maximal-consumption-at-normal-circumstances somewhere between 18W and 35W!) can indeed be 17W. Simple as that.

[dkanter]

Originally Posted by dess

NO, it's absolutly not true, it's indeed the other way around! Intel base its classification on weighted average consumpion, so you will find Intel CPU's with f.ex. 130W TDP and consuming really 150W at high loads. AMD, in the other hand, base its classification on absolute maximal [averaged on short time-frames] consumption [at official clock rates], so you won't find any AMD CPU that consumes more anytime [longer than a split second, except with overclocking, of course] than it's given TDP! Just look around, it's common knowledge since a decade. "Sigh."


Maybe it's you who spin things according to your bind to the maker of the CPU you own...


What is not even close to what? Are you avare of the antecedents? It's that an AMD representative said the new super-low-consumption 4-core Trinity consumes "almost half" of a certain part that has a TDP of 35W, and some say that then it cannot be 17W (because 35/2 > 17), which is also said to be its (maximal, etc.) consumption. And I've said there are no contradiction if one considers that TDP is a classification.



I know it all, but how does it invalidate what I've wrote? I was obviously speaking about averaged maximal consumption at normal circumstances, if you're just splitting hairs. Or, do you perhaps deny there are TDP classes (at least at AMD)? Then how would you explain there are ranges of CPU's with different clockrates and indeed different averaged-maximal-consumption-at-normal-circumstances (by measure), still with the same given TDP? There are TDP's of 45W, 65W, 89W, and so on, but not f.ex. 55.6W, because that will be classified as 65W... (To ease logistics or whatever.)

So, I stand by what I've wrote: the "almost half" of the consumption of an AMD part classified as "35W TDP" (so with actual averaged-maximal-consumption-at-normal-circumstances somewhere between 18W and 35W!) can indeed be 17W. Simple as that.

You need to read AMD's definition of TDP. What are PVT? What is max current?

What I'm telling you is that you cannot assume that just because TDP dropped by 2X that the average power dropped by 2X. That's just silly.

David

[dess]

Originally Posted by dkanter

What I'm telling you is that you cannot assume that just because TDP dropped by 2X that the average power dropped by 2X. That's just silly.

Yes, that would be silly, but I didn't even say that! Please, read more carefully! The 35W was a TDP class number, but the 17W wasn't (I assume). But, even if it was so, as well, it's still possible that its actual averaged-maximal-consumption-at-normal-circumstances is more than half of that of a 35W TDP part. So, what's the problem?

ps. why don't you snip big parts of quoted texts that are not related to your answer (and not even addressed to you)?

[french toast]

DESS;

i predict socket hm1 for trinity

Why do you keep saying these things Dess!? lol.

[dess]

@french toast: I don't think that was me. I don't even know what is "hm1".

@Albuquerque: Regarding AMD TDP vs. Intel TDP (/Max power/Sustained power):
http://www.semiaccurate.com/forums/s...9&postcount=86

-----

Well, there is an official slide from AMD:

[ToTTenTranz]

Originally Posted by dess

Well, there is an official slide from AMD:

And here comes Albuquerque saying it's still not really explicit that the 17W part is a quad-core and the world+dog is just making up facts based on a vague slide.
Or something like that.

Originally Posted by dkanter

Um...not even close.

The TDP is the highest allowable average power consumption over a thermally significant period of time. It's how you design your heat sink.

So a 35W chip is guaranteed to have an average power of 35W or less over a thermally significant time frame. The average power might be 10W, it might be 5W or it might be 34.5W.

However, it's quite common for the power consumption (and dissipation) to be substantially higher over short periods of time, due to variations in current and voltage.

The real world power draw depends on a lot of factors such as the CPU design, any DVFS, temperature, cooling, etc.

David

As dess pointed out, that's Intel's TDP measurement, not AMD's:

http://www.anandtech.com/show/2807/2
.

AMD measures TDP by multiplying voltage and current at its electrical maximum (I don't really know how they achieve this, but it's probably using unrealistically high usages through a power virus of some sort).
An AMD 17W TDP CPU/APU will never consume beyond 17W (either average or peak), unless overclocked.
TBH, it's a bit silly to call it Thermal Design Power, since the term originates from calculating cooling systems, but it seems AMD just lazily uses this widely known term to measure an actually more demanding characteristic.
By the way, this could also be an explanation as to why AMD's Turbo function is so modest.


An Intel 18W TDP CPU may consume a lot more during an instant.
Intel's TDP is more realistic, though.
Nonetheless, Albuquerque's statement about AMD consuming more than the announced TDP is flat out wrong.



Of course, the actual difference between AMD's and Intel's TDP is probably negligible for practical usage regarding battery life and cooling systems.




@ dess,
Don't worry, newbie "friendly bullying" isn't that uncommon in these parts, but the forum is still worth it!
Just don't let the frightening number of posts make you doubt your knowledge

[dess]

@ToTTenTranz: Thanks! I've also edited in some bits about it in my last post. (In some cases there can be a huge difference! Thus, AMD intoduced the ACP measure, as being comparble to Intel's TDP. They don't use it on the desktop/mobile, though.)

[3dilettante]

It's very difficult to guarantee there won't be some transient spike over TPD. It's why TDP is averaged over a longer period of time.

I thought Bulldozer's turbo core allowed it to ramp higher than TDP for a short period, but cannot source that.

Llano, however, apparently does.
http://www.anandtech.com/show/4444/a...apu-a8-3500m/4

Trinity might have more in common with Llano than BD on this matter.

[ToTTenTranz]

Originally Posted by 3dilettante

It's very difficult to guarantee there won't be some transient spike over TPD. It's why TDP is averaged over a longer period of time.

Looking at the explanations I've seen, AMD's TDP is not an average but an absolute maximum value.

Originally Posted by 3dilettante

I thought Bulldozer's turbo core allowed it to ramp higher than TDP for a short period, but cannot source that.

Llano, however, apparently does.
http://www.anandtech.com/show/4444/a...apu-a8-3500m/4

I've seen the following statement in that article:

Like Sandy Bridge, Llano is able to temporarily exceed the APU's maximum TDP if it determines that the recent history of power consumption has been low enough that it'll take a while for the APU to ramp up to any thermal limits.

But that doesn't seem to meet the description of AMD's TDP, and I haven't seen a single official slide/document supporting this claim..
After reading this and other articles, it shows how modest the turbo overclock values are, which further implies that there's a very strict AMD-TDP limitation, and not a AMD-ACP/Intel-TDP limitation, as suggested by that sentence.