Welcome, Unregistered.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Reply
Old 29-Jan-2012, 10:00   #276
fehu
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Somewhere over the ocean
Posts: 806
Default

i remember that
rambus saved amd that time :S
fehu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-Jan-2012, 10:05   #277
ronvalencia
Registered
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 8
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paran View Post
He said 50% more compute capability at almost half the power. Think twice about it. AMD announced on CES 50% more compute power for the 35W Trinity. 17W and +50% power doesn't match AMDs claim. You can be sure it is a marketing trick.

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

He clearly stated the demo system used a Mainstream APU. Ultra Thin APU was separately mentioned.
Refer to http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=lsmTDb-Mlws
ronvalencia is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30-Jan-2012, 21:58   #278
Albuquerque
Red-headed step child
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Guess ;)
Posts: 3,298
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ronvalencia View Post
Yes, we have seen this video. He never says anything about 17 watts, he only says it's coming from a laptop. A separate video was presented, at the same booth, where the AMD person specifically mentions the laptop is using the mainstream Trinity part, which is not 17W.

There have been a lot of people claiming 17W because of the video you posted, but that video never mentions 17W. I assume that various sites have latched onto the 17W "slide" that was presented, and made the conclusion that they were the same parts. Unfortunately, while a lot of sites claimed 17W, that doesn't make it correct.

Again: AMD"s own spokesperson called it a mainstream part, and mainstream parts aren't 17W -- those are ULV parts. Case closed.
__________________
"...twisting my words"
Quote:
Originally Posted by _xxx_ 1/25 View Post
Get some supplies <...> Within the next couple of months, you'll need it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by _xxx_ 6/9 View Post
And riots are about to begin too.
Quote:
Originally Posted by _xxx_8/5 View Post
food shortages and huge price jumps I predicted recently are becoming very real now.
Quote:
Originally Posted by _xxx_ View Post
If it turns out I was wrong, I'll admit being stupid
Albuquerque is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 31-Jan-2012, 01:36   #279
ronvalencia
Registered
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 8
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Albuquerque View Post
Yes, we have seen this video. He never says anything about 17 watts, he only says it's coming from a laptop. A separate video was presented, at the same booth, where the AMD person specifically mentions the laptop is using the mainstream Trinity part, which is not 17W.

There have been a lot of people claiming 17W because of the video you posted, but that video never mentions 17W. I assume that various sites have latched onto the 17W "slide" that was presented, and made the conclusion that they were the same parts. Unfortunately, while a lot of sites claimed 17W, that doesn't make it correct.

Again: AMD"s own spokesperson called it a mainstream part, and mainstream parts aren't 17W -- those are ULV parts. Case closed.
In time stamp: 1:06, He talks about "thin" notebooks and He opens the desktop PC case and shows the notebook i.e. "what we are showing you" section. He then claims claims it fits into "ultra thin designs".
ronvalencia is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 31-Jan-2012, 01:48   #280
ronvalencia
Registered
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 8
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Albuquerque View Post
Yes, we have seen this video. He never says anything about 17 watts, he only says it's coming from a laptop. A separate video was presented, at the same booth, where the AMD person specifically mentions the laptop is using the mainstream Trinity part, which is not 17W.

There have been a lot of people claiming 17W because of the video you posted, but that video never mentions 17W. I assume that various sites have latched onto the 17W "slide" that was presented, and made the conclusion that they were the same parts. Unfortunately, while a lot of sites claimed 17W, that doesn't make it correct.

Again: AMD"s own spokesperson called it a mainstream part, and mainstream parts aren't 17W -- those are ULV parts. Case closed.
Notice "mainstream ultrathin segment" point for Trinity ULV.

ronvalencia is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 31-Jan-2012, 02:04   #281
Alexko
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 2,945
Send a message via MSN to Alexko
Default

Guys, AMD's Analyst Day is in 3 days, just drop this for about ~80 hours and I'm sure you'll have much more precise information to bicker about.
__________________
"Well, you mentioned Disneyland, I thought of this porn site, and then bam! A blue Hulk." —The Creature
My (currently dormant) blog: Teχlog
Alexko is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 31-Jan-2012, 02:57   #282
Albuquerque
Red-headed step child
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Guess ;)
Posts: 3,298
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ronvalencia View Post
In time stamp: 1:06, He talks about "thin" notebooks and He opens the desktop PC case and shows the notebook i.e. "what we are showing you" section. He then claims claims it fits into "ultra thin designs".
To which, later, it is referred to as a mainstream part and not an ultrathin. And as evidenced by the chassis itself, isn't an ultrathin. The Trinity ULV parts are not the Trinity Mainstream parts; you are confusing Trinity naming schemes (mainstream higher wattage vs ULV lower wattage) with laptop chassis form factor naming schemes (mainstream chassis sizes versus ultrathin chassis sizes.)

I'm fine with waiting If I'm wrong, so be it, but I doubt it...
__________________
"...twisting my words"
Quote:
Originally Posted by _xxx_ 1/25 View Post
Get some supplies <...> Within the next couple of months, you'll need it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by _xxx_ 6/9 View Post
And riots are about to begin too.
Quote:
Originally Posted by _xxx_8/5 View Post
food shortages and huge price jumps I predicted recently are becoming very real now.
Quote:
Originally Posted by _xxx_ View Post
If it turns out I was wrong, I'll admit being stupid
Albuquerque is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 31-Jan-2012, 03:30   #283
ronvalencia
Registered
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 8
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Albuquerque View Post
To which, later, it is referred to as a mainstream part and not an ultrathin. And as evidenced by the chassis itself, isn't an ultrathin. The Trinity ULV parts are not the Trinity Mainstream parts; you are confusing Trinity naming schemes (mainstream higher wattage vs ULV lower wattage) with laptop chassis form factor naming schemes (mainstream chassis sizes versus ultrathin chassis sizes.)

I'm fine with waiting If I'm wrong, so be it, but I doubt it...
AMD assigned "mainstream ultrathin segment" on thier Trinity ULV slide.

I'm also fine with waiting.
ronvalencia is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 31-Jan-2012, 03:41   #284
ToTTenTranz
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 3,543
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Albuquerque View Post
To which, later, it is referred to as a mainstream part and not an ultrathin.
Wow.. I mean, really?
Even though there's a sentence saying "mainstream ultrathin" in the official slide, you still insist it's either one or the other?


Quote:
Originally Posted by Albuquerque View Post
And as evidenced by the chassis itself, isn't an ultrathin.
And what size is the chassis, actually?
Looking at the keyboard size, I know it's not more than 13", but nonetheless I'm eager to watch say it's a 17" laptop and very thick, lol.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Albuquerque View Post
The Trinity ULV parts are not the Trinity Mainstream parts; you are confusing Trinity naming schemes (mainstream higher wattage vs ULV lower wattage) with laptop chassis form factor naming schemes (mainstream chassis sizes versus ultrathin chassis sizes.)
Oh, now you think "mainstream" is a name that defines power consumption.
That's wrong.


Mainstream is a name that defines target audience. In this case, mainstream means it'll reach the majority of the possible audience, so it's actually a pricing definition, and not power consumption or size or color or gender or whatever you come up with next...
As anyone (except you?) could see in pretty much every presentation/interview/press release/report/etc. from AMD since CES, Trinity is going to be an APU for mainstream systems.
There's no "high-end" Trinity down the line (that's for Piledriver FX CPUs), and there's no "low-end" either (that's for Brazos 2.0). There's only Trinity, a mainstream APU that can be put into desktops, laptops and ultrabooks/ultrathins (in its ULV BGA form).


Quote:
Originally Posted by Albuquerque View Post
I'm fine with waiting If I'm wrong, so be it (...)
That'll be fun.
ToTTenTranz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 31-Jan-2012, 03:49   #285
rpg.314
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: /
Posts: 4,274
Send a message via Skype™ to rpg.314
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alexko View Post
Guys, AMD's Analyst Day is in 3 days, just drop this for about ~80 hours and I'm sure you'll have much more precise information to bicker about.
Where is the fun in bickering when you have precise information?
rpg.314 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 31-Jan-2012, 06:34   #286
mboeller
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Germany
Posts: 892
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alexko View Post
Guys, AMD's Analyst Day is in 3 days, just drop this for about ~80 hours and I'm sure you'll have much more precise information to bicker about.
So you promise that in 80h this kindergarden is closed?
mboeller is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 31-Jan-2012, 08:11   #287
Albuquerque
Red-headed step child
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Guess ;)
Posts: 3,298
Default

Ok, I have posted several times the irrifutable proof that the CES demo was not on an "ultrathin" CPU, ie NOT the ULV BGA package, which absolutely means it wasn't 17W. And it's direct from AMD's mouth. And it's on video, so there's no room for error.

Since multiple people in this thread seemingly missed the video (or just want to pretend it doesn't exist), I'm going to link directly to the moment at which it is absolutely defined: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=agJxehoSBmY&t=2m14s

Quote:
Originally Posted by John Taylor, AMD
This is, of course, the Trinity APU for a mainstream notebook like you see here (gesturing at the laptop inside the desktop case.) We'll also be introducing this technology with all those capabilities for premium ultrathins. So you see here, this is uh, what's called a BGA package (holding up a separate chip example) for allow for very thin, z-high very thin form factors yet all of these incredible capabilities come along for the ride.
He directly indicates the laptop on display is not an ultrathin, he directly indicates it is not using the BGA packaged CPU, he directly indicates that all t he power of the (standardly sized) notebook will be coming to ultrathins with later Trinity devices.

I will not reply ever again to this thread, as I have utterly proven my point beyond any question or shadow of a doubt.
__________________
"...twisting my words"
Quote:
Originally Posted by _xxx_ 1/25 View Post
Get some supplies <...> Within the next couple of months, you'll need it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by _xxx_ 6/9 View Post
And riots are about to begin too.
Quote:
Originally Posted by _xxx_8/5 View Post
food shortages and huge price jumps I predicted recently are becoming very real now.
Quote:
Originally Posted by _xxx_ View Post
If it turns out I was wrong, I'll admit being stupid
Albuquerque is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 31-Jan-2012, 14:13   #288
DarthShader
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Land of Mu
Posts: 350
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Albuquerque View Post
Ok, I have posted several times the irrifutable proof that the CES demo was not on an "ultrathin" CPU, ie NOT the ULV BGA package, which absolutely means it wasn't 17W.
But why is it such a big deal to fight over it for two pages? :S

Llanos can play Dirt3 on low settings and 768p at close to 60fps (source: notebookcheck). So if the ULV Trinity has similar performance levels and seperate circuits for decode and encode, then it isn't impossible that 17W chip could indeed perform such demo, even if it didn't on said video. So what's the big deal? :S
DarthShader is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 31-Jan-2012, 14:19   #289
ToTTenTranz
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 3,543
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DarthShader View Post
So if the ULV Trinity has similar performance levels and seperate circuits for decode and encode, then it isn't impossible that 17W chip could indeed perform such demo, even if it didn't on said video. So what's the big deal? :S
Well, there's this score..
ToTTenTranz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 31-Jan-2012, 16:19   #290
jimbo75
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 1,211
Default

Perhaps we should look at something a bit more relevant.

http://techreport.com/articles.x/20401/5

The e350 is an 18W cpu according to AMD and the d525 is a 13W cpu according to intel. One of them is either undervaluing or overvaluing their actual TDP. By a lot.
jimbo75 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 31-Jan-2012, 16:44   #291
Kaarlisk
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 38
Icon Frown If you want long term support, do not go for an Intel IGP

The newest leaked Intel IGP driver (on station-drivers) only supports Ivy Bridge and Sandy Bridge. Basically, for some time already, it seems that Intel supports only the two newest generations of IGPs. The older IGPs may get updates, but only as bugfixes for older branches, so forget about any new features or performance increases if you do not have a new Intel IGP. This is quite sad considering that large parts of the basic architecture have been the same since GMA X3000 (G965) - and Linux support for older IGPs does continue.
Kaarlisk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-Feb-2012, 00:59   #292
DavidC
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 307
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimbo75 View Post
Perhaps we should look at something a bit more relevant.

http://techreport.com/articles.x/20401/5

The e350 is an 18W cpu according to AMD and the d525 is a 13W cpu according to intel. One of them is either undervaluing or overvaluing their actual TDP. By a lot.
Neither is overvaluing the TDP. Look at the difference between idle and peak. D525 needs extra 4W at load and the E350 requires about 9W, both significantly under TDP values. Actually, the ratio of undervaluing is about the same for both.
DavidC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-Feb-2012, 00:19   #293
jimbo75
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 1,211
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidC View Post
Neither is overvaluing the TDP. Look at the difference between idle and peak. D525 needs extra 4W at load and the E350 requires about 9W, both significantly under TDP values. Actually, the ratio of undervaluing is about the same for both.
Yes but it's total system draw.

If the rest of the system was 5W, the e350 would be 9W idle and 18W load while the Atom would be 17W idle and 21W load.

If the rest of the system was 10W, the e350 would be 4W idle and 13W load, while the Atom would be 12W idle and 16W load.

Either the e350 draws a lot less than 18W, or the Atom draws a lot more than 13W. It could just have been a particularly bad motherboard on the Atom I guess, but I don't think so - even xbitlabs often shows Brazos having lower draw than the Atom. I think intel is being somewhat generous to themselves on this one.
jimbo75 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-Feb-2012, 12:02   #294
ToTTenTranz
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 3,543
Default

Well, Arctic just "announced" the Trinity A8 and A10 APUs:

http://vr-zone.com/articles/arctic-a...pus/14712.html
ToTTenTranz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-Feb-2012, 17:42   #295
Paran
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 211
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ronvalencia View Post

I don't trust a person who lied to the press. He lied on the part 50% more compute capability at almost half the power. If you trust a liar you are fine.
Paran is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-Feb-2012, 19:19   #296
DavidC
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 307
Default

Quote:
Either the e350 draws a lot less than 18W, or the Atom draws a lot more than 13W. It could just have been a particularly bad motherboard on the Atom I guess,
You can spin it anyway you want, comparing load vs idle is way more accurate than anything else as CPUs usually dominate power usage at load.

It's not the motherboard, but due to lack of power management on the D-series Atoms. While the N-series chips go to C4 state, D-series stop at C1. The E-350 is the same E-350 in Netbooks, that feature full C states and power/clock gating. The Atom probably uses few W at idle , but E-350 has higher TDP, balancing it out at higher load usages when looking at in terms of system power.
DavidC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-Feb-2012, 20:17   #297
AnarchX
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 1,516
Default

Lets announce the 2013 APU fight:

Haswell
20? EUs GMA Gen7.5 @ >1,3GHz

VS

Kaveri
512SPs GCN @ >900MHz

Quote:
Originally Posted by APPENDIX A
Testing performed by AMD Performance Labs. Calculated compute performance or Theoretical Maximum GFLOPS score for 2013 Kaveri (4C, 8CU) 100w APU, use standard formula of (CPU Cores x freq x 8 FLOPS) + (GPU Cores x freq x 2 FLOPS). The calculated GFLOPS for the 2013 Kaveri (4C, 8CU) 100w APU was 1050. GFLOPs scores for 2011 A-Series “Llano” was 580 and the 2013 A-Series “Trinity” was 819. Scores rounded to the nearest whole number.
http://phx.corporate-ir.net/External...F8VHlwZT0z&t=1
AnarchX is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-Feb-2012, 23:37   #298
tunafish
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 408
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by AnarchX View Post
Lets announce the 2013 APU fight:

Haswell
20? EUs GMA Gen7.5 @ >1,3GHz

VS

Kaveri
512SPs GCN @ >900MHz
Weren't there some rumors around that Intel would use TSV:s to provide a high-bandwidth frame buffer for Haswell IGP? That would matter more than the GFlops I think.
tunafish is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-Feb-2012, 10:06   #299
mboeller
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Germany
Posts: 892
Default

what? No discussion about 17W Trinity?



look at productivity!
mboeller is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-Feb-2012, 13:30   #300
Tim
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Denmark
Posts: 869
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimbo75 View Post
Yes but it's total system draw.

If the rest of the system was 5W, the e350 would be 9W idle and 18W load while the Atom would be 17W idle and 21W load.

If the rest of the system was 10W, the e350 would be 4W idle and 13W load, while the Atom would be 12W idle and 16W load.

Either the e350 draws a lot less than 18W, or the Atom draws a lot more than 13W. It could just have been a particularly bad motherboard on the Atom I guess, but I don't think so - even xbitlabs often shows Brazos having lower draw than the Atom. I think intel is being somewhat generous to themselves on this one.
The GPU-part is idle in Cinebench and the E-350 has no turbo mode to take advantage of this, the E-350 is running way under the TDP.

The D525 "GPU" is so slow that it won't use much more power in a game than just sitting in Windows, thus the D525 should be running near TDP in Cinebench.
Tim is offline   Reply With Quote

Reply

Tags
amd, fusion, intel, ivy bridge, trinity

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:27.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.