Trinity vs Ivy Bridge

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.

 

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.

 

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?

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.

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).

That'll be fun.

 

So you promise that in 80h this kindergarden is closed?

 

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

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.

 

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

 

Well, there's this score..

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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

http://vr-zone.com/articles/arctic-...xt-gen-amd-trinity-a8-and-a10-apus/14712.html

 

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.

 

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.

 

Lets announce the 2013 APU fight:

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

VS

Kaveri
512SPs GCN @ >900MHz

http://phx.corporate-ir.net/External.File?item=UGFyZW50SUQ9MTI1MTM5fENoaWxkSUQ9LTF8VHlwZT0z&t=1

 

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.

 

what? No discussion about 17W Trinity?



look at productivity!

 

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.