Trinity vs Ivy Bridge

fehu said:
some early problem with 22-3d?
Click to expand...
Even if there was, these numbers are still pretty bad news for AMD, if true.

Up to 40% faster than SB-GPU at ~half the clockspeed? Trinity better be good, 'cause final silicon IB will probably eat Llano for breakfast (driver stability and image quality might be a different matter, though).


As for Trinity, it looks like the CPU part won't be much faster than Llano; reviews show the 3.6 GHz (+Turbo) FX-4100 losing against A8-3850 in gaming performance, that means BD's IPC/core in games is a whopping ~25-30% lower than Llano's. So even with the 10% higher IPC promised for Piledriver cores, Trinity will need at least 20% higher clockspeeds just to beat Llano on the CPU side.

So if IB's GPU is as much of a step forward as it appears to be (in terms of performance/clock at least), Trinity's Devastator GPU has to be a considerable step forward compared to Llano as well, otherwise Intel might actually beat AMD in both areas...

Time to sell my remaining AMD stock, I guess.:???:
 
TKK said:
Up to 40% faster than SB-GPU at ~half the clockspeed? Trinity better be good, 'cause final silicon IB will probably eat Llano for breakfast (driver stability and image quality might be a different matter, though).
Click to expand...

I don't think it'll be THAT bad. But if its true, it seems Intel's target with IVB in graphics is where Llano is at. Turbo works pretty well on Sandy Bridge, which is why the gain will be more like 40-50% over what its doing now rather than 2x.
 
Nice performance increase in synthetic benchmarks, but the only gaming test shows exactly opposite results. IB's GPUs should be at least 50% faster than SB's to be competitive with Llano.
 
no-X said:
Nice performance increase in synthetic benchmarks, but the only gaming test shows exactly opposite results. IB's GPUs should be at least 50% faster than SB's to be competitive with Llano.
Click to expand...

Totally opposite from TKK's response. Still, performs almost 15% better than HD 3000.

The extra ~50% clock would do what's required. Besides, even the CPU is seriously under 2600K's clocks.
 
Not to mention Intel has never been good at GPU drivers, and therefore optimizing for ANY games related paths, I just hope they put more resources into it.

But this is finally some good news for IB's GPU. I was disappointed when i heard its performance were only 30% faster then SB. Now IB, a VERY good CPU, with 22nm Tri Gate, Low Power, and finally ( or hopefully ) a decent enough GPU, should significantly rise the bar of the lowest GPU power on PC.

And i could finally get a Macbook Air :D
 
Last edited by a moderator:
DavidC said:
The extra ~50% clock would do what's required. Besides, even the CPU is seriously under 2600K's clocks.
Click to expand...
Even +50% GPU clock and +50% CPU clock doesn't translate to +50% gaming performance, because BW stays at the same level.
 
DavidC said:
Totally opposite from TKK's response. Still, performs almost 15% better than HD 3000.
Click to expand...
Well, I based my opinion on the fact that it beats SB despite less than half the base clock. However, if it ran at full turbo most of the time, the results are not that impressive, I must admit. I forgot that with such a low CPU clock, GPU turbo might have kicked in all the time due to more TDP headroom, so maybe things don't look as grim for AMD as I originally thought.
 
50% is far from enough to reach a8-3800
Click to expand...

That's enough to do it in the Street Fighter benchmark linked.

That said, I don't think it'll be much faster than Llano if it is. The aim seems to be "just Llano", nothing more.

Apparently there are two chips out there, 2.0GHz and 2.2GHz both with 400-900MHz GPU speeds.
 
TKK said:
Well, I based my opinion on the fact that it beats SB despite less than half the base clock. However, if it ran at full turbo most of the time, the results are not that impressive, I must admit. I forgot that with such a low CPU clock, GPU turbo might have kicked in all the time due to more TDP headroom, so maybe things don't look as grim for AMD as I originally thought.
Click to expand...
I believe all intel igps pretty much always use max turbo igp clock when running 3d apps. You simply don't need 4 3.5Ghz cores to keep that IGP busy.
I don't think IVB will be able to catch (fully-enabled) Llano - intel apparently saying IGP clock should be a bit lower than on SNB, and a 50% increase is not enough to really threaten Llano except maybe in few select titles.
BUT I don't think Trinity will improve that much over Llano (not least because it seems it won't be more tightly integrated with the cpu with the cpu having no L3 cache hence it will likely be even more bandwidth limited than Llano), which means intel will get a lot closer.
 
AMD Trinity Detailed Further, Compatible with A75 Chipset
The integrated memory controller will get an overhaul, too. Unlike with K10-based processors that have two independent 64-bit wide memory interfaces that can be configured to work ganged or unganged, Trinity will have a single 128-bit memory interface, the controller will support dual-channel DDR3-2133 MHz memory standard, with DRAM voltages of under 1.5V. Trinity will include a 24-lane PCI-Express root complex, it supports 2-way multi-GPU configurations.

Moving on to the integrated GPU component, AMD promises a 30% performance improvement over Llano's iGPU. The GPU component is DirectX 11 compliant, and features UVD 3 hardware HD video acceleration, with SAMU and native VCE. Featuring AMD Eyefinity technology, this integrated GPU will support up to three displays without needing a discrete graphics card. Eyefinity can be used to step up productivity.
Click to expand...
 
fellix said:
AMD Trinity Detailed Further, Compatible with A75 Chipset
Click to expand...

The Eyefinity bit is great news, it means you can have an Eyefinity setup driven by a powerful discrete card (e.g. HD 7800/7900) but completely turn it off while not gaming, and still retain your three displays for productivity.

That's actually a pretty big selling point for me, enough to steer me towards Trinity rather than Ivy Bridge, provided its CPU proves to be decent.
 
only 20% over llano that wasn't that fast on his own, and a less advanced memory controller?
we must keep waiting?
 
fehu said:
a less advanced memory controller?
Click to expand...
I wouldn't call that less advanced. K10 could do ganged and unganged, but it only had chip select interleaving (aside from node interleaving like all others but I'm not looking at that as it will only apply to multichip configurations). Ganged was AFAIR also limited because it needed the dimms to be of the same size.
BD, Trinity (I just assume it's the same), and even Llano got rid of unganged, but they are more flexible otherwise - not only can they do chip select interleaving, but they can do channel interleaving, hence no need for unganged really, and they don't require dimms to be of the same size in different channels in this mode neither.
Unganged wasn't really much of a win over ganged in K10 anyway, some apps were slightly faster some slightly slower, unganged was more of a bandaid because ganged was not flexible enough.
So getting rid of ganged vs. unganged should be a good thing - I think the interleaving now used is probably also much closer to what intel is doing since a decade or so...
 
for sure you are right, but the unganged mode was promoted as a so big advancement that i can't believe that they putted it apart
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

D
  • Locked
A quick XBOX 360 vs. PS3 Comparison
2
Replies
24
Views
8K
MrSingh
M
A
Full transcript of John Carmack's QuakeCon 2005 Keynote
3 4 5
Replies
98
Views
34K
nemisis
N
Back
Top