Trinity vs Ivy Bridge

[DavidC]

Its anand suggesting those transistors are mostly attributed to he gpu nkt me. I certainly hope the cpu has some decent improvents over SB.

It's a Tick so, the CPU may see 3-4% gains if at all. Even then, CPU and I/O transistor counts are always little compared to others. For comparison, there was zero performance gain for Westmere, for existing software. Interesting there is an L3 cache on the GPU now. The shared L3 cache is called LLC.

 

[Alexko]

wow an extra half a billion transistors for the GPU alone is pretty serious indeed. We may finally start seeing good intergrated PC graphics across the board.

Isn't there some extra cache as well?

 

[DavidC]

Isn't there some extra cache as well?

Nope.

 

[Kaotik]

Its anand suggesting those transistors are mostly attributed to he gpu nkt me. I certainly hope the cpu has some decent improvents over SB.

Ah indeed, I missed the last phrase there - however there's now update on the article - Intel gave real numbers, SB 1.16B, IB 1.4B, so only ~20% bigger transistorbudget, which of only part (even if it's lions share like Anand said) for GPU

 

[mczak]

anand updated that transistor count quote: http://www.anandtech.com/show/4798/ivy-bridge-148b-transistors - apparently intel doesn't always count them the same way...

Still, assuming most of the increase is due to the gpu (and I can't see why not) it's roughly ~200 million transistors more for the gpu. That certainly looks like a quite big increase (though I don't remember having seen any number for transistor count of the gpu of SNB alone). And certainly it's not just cache - I see no good reason for the L3 gpu cache to be large (interestingly, on the slides intel actually doesn't mention L3 gpu cache is there for performance reasons, just for lower power consumption...).

Looks indeed like the gpu part could be quite competitive with Llano - it's got the features (3 displays, d3d11), it might still not quite catch the fastest Llano versions but could at least be close probably. Now of course Trinity is a different matter, it should be faster but will appear (how much really?) later.

 

[Kaotik]

anand updated that transistor count quote: http://www.anandtech.com/show/4798/ivy-bridge-148b-transistors - apparently intel doesn't always count them the same way...

Still, assuming most of the increase is due to the gpu (and I can't see why not) it's roughly ~200 million transistors more for the gpu. That certainly looks like a quite big increase (though I don't remember having seen any number for transistor count of the gpu of SNB alone). And certainly it's not just cache - I see no good reason for the L3 gpu cache to be large (interestingly, on the slides intel actually doesn't mention L3 gpu cache is there for performance reasons, just for lower power consumption...).

Looks indeed like the gpu part could be quite competitive with Llano - it's got the features (3 displays, d3d11), it might still not quite catch the fastest Llano versions but could at least be close probably. Now of course Trinity is a different matter, it should be faster but will appear (how much really?) later.

You'd need around 3 times the performance of their current GPU to even match Llano

Going by the trend the graphs (http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/A8-3850_Fusion_GPU_Performance/13.html) FullHD would just grow the difference in Llanos favor.

 

[mczak]

Too bad they have to get by with mediocre memory bandwidth.

It's not really that bad, considering you can still get midrange cards like the GTS 450 or HD6670 with 128bit ddr3 memory (granted you shouldn't get them...). Of course compared to the "real" cards which have gddr5 memory it's not quite half the bandwidth, but the ratio of flops/bandwidth is still roughly similar (well in intel's case they actually don't have that many flops).
Also IGPs can use the LLC cache which potentially saves quite a bit of bandwidth. And things like dynamically generated vertex data would never need to hit memory (or the pcie bus for that matter).
Memory bandwidth won't scale that well though for future chips.
Now SNB-E would have twice the bandwidth too bad it won't have a IGP .

 

[mczak]

You'd need around 3 times the performance of their current GPU to even match Llano

Going by the trend the graphs (http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/A8-3850_Fusion_GPU_Performance/13.html) FullHD would just grow the difference in Llanos favor.

I was going by these results where the difference is more like a factor of 2:
http://ht4u.net/reviews/2011/amd_llano_apu_desktop_a8/index16.php
I guess (apart from different titles) the average is better because these tests used lowest settings, plus lower resolutions (indeed shows worse scaling for HD3000 there too).
But you're right that Ivy Bridge won't be able to touch A8-3850. But it might be close to the lower-end models, and things should be (because I expect a larger clock discrepancy for Llano than for Ivy Bridge for mobile parts) closer on the mobile side a bit.

 

[Paran]

You'd need around 3 times the performance of their current GPU to even match Llano

If we compare the top models its about two times. I don't see it coming though, latest rumours hinted 60% in Vantage.

Anand was wrong with his 50% increase. Sandy bridge has 1.16 Billion transistors while Ivy Bridge 1.4 Billion. This is a ~20% increase in transistor count.

 

[Deleted member 13524]

Going by the trend the graphs (http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/A8-3850_Fusion_GPU_Performance/13.html) FullHD would just grow the difference in Llanos favor.

Looking at the difference between 1680*1050 and 1280*1024, I'd say the difference is actually narrowing.

Let's not forget Llano's GPU is severely bandwidth limited, which shows in higher resolutions, whereas HD3000's access to L3 pays off.

 

[DarthShader]

wow an extra half a billion transistors for the GPU alone is pretty serious indeed. We may finally start seeing good intergrated PC graphics across the board.

Well, it's only half of half billion after all and most of these will be to bring DirectX11 and OpenCL functionality to the GPU, not performance. Have you forgotten how it was with HD5000 series? Much more transistors, not much more raw performance.

 

[mczak]

Well, it's only half of half billion after all and most of these will be to bring DirectX11 and OpenCL functionality to the GPU, not performance. Have you forgotten how it was with HD5000 series? Much more transistors, not much more raw performance.

I don't think that's really "most" of the transistors being used for DX11 - RV710 was 242 million transistors, whereas Cedar was 292 million transistors. Granted SNB (HD3000) GPU is faster than that (so maybe a bit more transistors) but certainly Ivy Bridge doesn't need ~200 million transistors just for some dx11 features...

 

[Erinyes]

Well, it's only half of half billion after all and most of these will be to bring DirectX11 and OpenCL functionality to the GPU, not performance. Have you forgotten how it was with HD5000 series? Much more transistors, not much more raw performance.

Anand has since corrected his numbers, the Transistor count is 1.16 billion for SB v/s 1.4 billion for IB, which is about 20% more. Most of these would be towards the GPU but there are some improvements to the CPU cores as well (probably a Conroe to Wolfdale type change). Number of EU's remain the same(16) so the performance increase is only due to arch improvements and higher clocks (say 20%). Overall Vantage score increases by about 60% according to Anand, and 3DMark 06 by about 30%.

And anyway, HD5870 brought a ~50-60% performance increase over Hd4890. I would hardly classify that as "not much"

I don't think that's really "most" of the transistors being used for DX11 - RV710 was 242 million transistors, whereas Cedar was 292 million transistors. Granted SNB (HD3000) GPU is faster than that (so maybe a bit more transistors) but certainly Ivy Bridge doesn't need ~200 million transistors just for some dx11 features...

Well most of the transistors would be for the GPU. Apart from DX11 they are also beefing up the media capabilities (three displays, faster quicksync, etc). While the CPU side is also going to be improved somewhat, it isnt anything like the changes to the GPU (you could say CPU is a tick and GPU is a tick+)


Edit: Also with regard to Trinity, it looks like we could be heading towards an early 2012 launch, so it might beat Ivy Bridge!

 

[CarstenS]

You'd need around 3 times the performance of their current GPU to even match Llano

Going by the trend the graphs (http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/A8-3850_Fusion_GPU_Performance/13.html) FullHD would just grow the difference in Llanos favor.

I disagree. Going from 1280 to 1680 actually lessens the gap when comparing the ratings in that review.

Speaking of which: How much sense does a rating make when incorporating DX11-tests where one competitor fails completely because he lacks DX11 support, while the other has it, but struggles to even achieve two-digit Fps, making the game completely unplayable. One would rather think, it's make sense to at least tune the settings so as to at least one of the competitors can achieve playable Fps.

 

[Paran]

Number of EU's remain the same(16) so the performance increase is only due to arch improvements and higher clocks (say 20%).

EUs increased. SB has 12 EUs while Ivy has 16 EUs (GT2 part).

Edit: Also with regard to Trinity, it looks like we could be heading towards an early 2012 launch, so it might beat Ivy Bridge!

Unlikely. Trinity production starts early in 2012 which makes a Q2 launch likelier. Not much difference between Ivy and Trinity, maybe Ivy Quad will come 1-2 months earlier.

 

[mczak]

Number of EU's remain the same(16) so the performance increase is only due to arch improvements and higher clocks (say 20%).

SNB only had 12 (or 6 respectively) EUs. I don't know if clocks are actually higher (maybe they are at least with turbo).

Well most of the transistors would be for the GPU. Apart from DX11 they are also beefing up the media capabilities (three displays, faster quicksync, etc).

So did Cedar over rv710 (well Eyefinity don't think UVD was changed much) and it still was only 50 million transistors more.

Edit: Also with regard to Trinity, it looks like we could be heading towards an early 2012 launch, so it might beat Ivy Bridge!

Where did you see that? All I saw were the roadmaps indicating it's part of the 2012 platform. If that's anything like the 2011 platform that'll mean more like middle of the year rather than early...

 

[Erinyes]

EUs increased. SB has 12 EUs while Ivy has 16 EUs (GT2 part).

SNB only had 12 (or 6 respectively) EUs. I don't know if clocks are actually higher (maybe they are at least with turbo).

Sorry my bad, i somehow thought SB had 16 EU's as well In that case, the performance increase looks to be mainly due to increased EU's and clocks. I expect the clocks to be a bit higher so say 33% increase due to EU's and ~20% clock speed improvements.

Unlikely. Trinity production starts early in 2012 which makes a Q2 launch likelier. Not much difference between Ivy and Trinity, maybe Ivy Quad will come 1-2 months earlier.

Where did you see that? All I saw were the roadmaps indicating it's part of the 2012 platform. If that's anything like the 2011 platform that'll mean more like middle of the year rather than early...

This is what was quoted on Anandtech - "AMD indicated that Trinity was a few months away, implying an early 2012 launch". So it could be out before IB, lets see.

Source Article - http://www.anandtech.com/show/4813/...-comes-trinity-amds-2012-demo-on-video-at-idf

I think this time Ivy Quad and Dual will launch simultaneously, the launch has been pushed back to March from the original January timeframe mainly due to yields.

 

[Paran]

I think this time Ivy Quad and Dual will launch simultaneously, the launch has been pushed back to March from the original January timeframe mainly due to yields.

Ivy Quadcore is coming 1 month earlier at least.

 

[mczak]

This is what was quoted on Anandtech - "AMD indicated that Trinity was a few months away, implying an early 2012 launch". So it could be out before IB, lets see.

I think there might have been a misunderstanding what "few months away" really mean.
I'd be really surprised if AMD could launch it before Ivy Bridge - heck Llano family isn't even complete yet.

 

[Kaotik]

I think there might have been a misunderstanding what "few months away" really mean.
I'd be really surprised if AMD could launch it before Ivy Bridge - heck Llano family isn't even complete yet.

Maybe the planned (faster?) Llanos have been canned and Trinity comes out earlier?
It's not impossible scenario - AMD needs all the momentum it can get, if you have the ability to push your product out faster at the expense of older product moving out of the pipeline faster than planned, so be it.