• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

AMD Trinity desktop chips due next week, promise Core i5-matching power at Core i3 pr

Durvelle27

Diamond Member
Being the industry underdog means you're always in need of a punchy pitch. Fortunately, AMD's latest briefing to journalists in London yesterday contained exactly that: for something like the cost of an Intel Core i3 you'll be able to pick up an overclockable Trinity A10-5800K which, we're told, belongs in the same weight class as a Core i5 with HD 4000 graphics. Exact pricing won't be revealed until the full stack of A10, A8, A6 and A4 processors hits shelves next week, but the top-end A10 will likely cost around $130, based on recent leaks and a glance at what Newegg currently charges for an i3. Unluckily, however, whereas Ivy Bridge was compatible with some previous-generation motherboards, Trinity will require the purchase of a new Socket FM2 motherboard.

The claim of performance parity with the Core i5 just cries out to be tested, but we'll have to wait until early October before we can round up verdicts from full reviews on specialist sites. In the meantime, check out the More Coverage links below for some early previews. Also, if you require something more directly head-to-head with an Intel chip, then that's exactly what you'll find in the video after the break, albeit under AMD's auspices and solely in relation to a single game, Sleeping Dogs. As you'll see, there's nothing to turn hardcore gamers against discrete graphics cards, and there are no clues about non-gaming performance (which is arguably more relevant on an APU-powered system). But the quad-core A10-5800K does offer plenty of scope for escapism on a low-power HTPC or all-in-one. Indeed, the more expensive Core i5 is left for dust, not least because it's locked -- unlike AMD, Intel charges a premium for its overclockable K-denoted chips. We'll add further preview links as they become available.

Update: Just added HotHardware's preview, which shows that the A10 really does game as well as our video suggests in addition to providing a mostly fluid computing experience. As mentioned, however, it's impossible to reach a final verdict until AMD allows sites to publish full benchmarks next week.


Source: http://www.engadget.com/2012/09/27/amd-trinity-desktop-preview/
 
I call bs for cpu releated tasks.

Unless they are comparing it to a 1st gen desktop i5, or a 3rd generation laptop chip, or something that is single threaded only and thus a i5 will compare similarly to an i3.
 
I call bs for cpu releated tasks.

Unless they are comparing it to a 1st gen desktop i5, or a 3rd generation laptop chip, or something that is single threaded only and thus a i5 will compare similarly to an i3.

If Trinity can match an i5 in single-threaded tasks, that would be an incredible feat.
 
Reminds me of all the claims made before Bulldozer launch, and we know how that turned out. But I will give AMD the benefit of the doubt and wait for benchmarks.

I have a feeling they are cherry picking the benchmarks, or comparing an overclocked A-10 to a stock SB, or somehow weighting in graphics performance. I seriously doubt an A-10 will beat a SB or IVB i5 with both at stock in pure CPU performance for most tasks.
 
More like Pentium-level CPU performance and HD 6670 DDR3 GPU performance. Mediocre all-around.

It should be pretty obvious that Piledriver has lower IPC than Stars.
 
If Trinity can match an i5 in single-threaded tasks, that would be an incredible feat.

The i5 3330 is 3ghz desktop chip and can turbo up to 3.2 ghz as a dual core or single core (3.1 ghz for a tri or quad).

The a10 5800k is a 3.8 ghz part and can turbo up to 4.2 ghz. Thus due to its 31% higher frequencies to use to compete against the faster ipc on the core i5.

But start throwing in variables such as using 2 cores instead of 1 (thus it can't turbo as high or it must share resources between 2 cores inside 1 module and thus take a penalty) let alone 4 cores and the i5 desktop chip is going to trounce it.

---------

Let alone bringing a 3570k to the fight which can turbo all the way up to 3.8 ghz. The 3330 is the slowest 3rd generation desktop chip out there that keeps the 77w tdp
 
Performance parity with an i5 is of course in gaming related tasks most likely, and other GPU accelerated tasks...there's no way it would match an i5 in CPU intensive tasks. AMD has to play up their strengths. I am somewhat of an AMD fan but even I know their CPU performance sucks relative to Intel. If I was buying an entirely new system I would definitely go Intel right now. I have found this fx-6100 is good enough for my tasks right now (I have it at 4.2GHz) which is a bit of light gaming and some video encoding...I just wish power consumption was lower since I have my CPU and 7950 on one watercooling loop.
 
I can only say: Good luck AMD:

f1-2012.jpg.jpeg

http://vr-zone.com/articles/amd-tri...-discrete-gpu-gaming-performance/17272-2.html
 
Wow you picked the only benchmark in which i5 3450 has a big lead on 5800K when both use discrete card (7870) and it is good luck to AMD? How about the other games in which you see no difference? Or wait, F1 2012 is the most popular game all of a sudden? Awesome cherry picking there man 😉
 
A four core BD architecture chip matching a four core i5 in CPU performance?

Maybe if it's clocked 1.5Ghz higher.

I wonder why AMD won't let Anand post CPU performance numbers? What are they hiding?

The claim of performance parity with the Core i5

Who is claiming this?
 
Last edited:
Oh looks interesting...I wonder if it would be a good upgrade from a Phenom II X4 OCed @ 3.7GHz...

FM2 will be compatible with future AMD CPU releases and i'd only need to upgrade the CPU later on...

What I want to see is how the A10s performs compared to the Phenoms.
 

I can play that game too,

50168.png







Good luck Intel 😛

He is comparing cpu performance (the massive cpu bottleneck when used with a discrete gpu while you are comparing the igpu performance).

Actually intel is closer than you think with trinity, especially where it matters which is the mobile front. You can almost always upgrade a desktop but a laptop cannot be upgraded (unless you get one of the expensive gaming laptops but i am talking about what a general consumer will use, one who does not have a desktop as they need the portability. A quad core i7 is about 20% slower than trinity (the highest model the a10 4600m)[http://www.anandtech.com/show/5831/amd-trinity-review-a10-4600m-a-new-hope/6] , making the average i5 about 30-40% slower. Other trinity models are significantly slower than the a10 4600m with fewer cores. The ULV i5's are better than any Amd offering when it comes to cpu and graphics performance.

Haswell gt2 is expected to bring about 25% better performance (20 eu's instead of 16 + slight architecture efficiency - nonlinear scaling). GT3 is supposed to have 40 eu's at a slightly reduced clock speed. Haswell is also suppoed to have a large cache of up to 128 mb (on a seperate die) to help with memory bottlenecks (buffering). If haswell turns out as promised (tech demos show massive improvement) it will kill trinity. Since AMD's next processor (apu with gcn) will not launch until after trinity intel will have the lead for a short period of time.

AMD has its crossfire options going for it which are really quite good. An a10-4600m + 7670m (2048 3d marks 11) is about equal to a gtx 560m (2051 3d marks). Unfortunately drivers still suck and in games the crossfire option gets killed. Look at bf3 or skyrim benches for the two and the a10 crossfire is about 30-100% slower.

In cpu heavy games such as gw2 the a10-4600m is worse than an i5 at low resolutions (http://www.notebookcheck.net/Guild-Wars-2-Benchmarked.81604.0.html).

On the desktop trinity is unmatched and will likely continue to lead even Haswell (though the gap will narrow significantly). On mobile, Haswell will beat it, and ULV/ultrabooks will kill it. Unfortunately for AMD we are moving towards laptops and tablets and mobile is the fastest growing market.
 
AMD marketing's new strategy is to compare their CPUs solely on igpu performance and ignore that whole cpu part 😉

It's sort of like selling sports cars based on cargo space and not performance.
 
Oh looks interesting...I wonder if it would be a good upgrade from a Phenom II X4 OCed @ 3.7GHz...

FM2 will be compatible with future AMD CPU releases and i'd only need to upgrade the CPU later on...

What I want to see is how the A10s performs compared to the Phenoms.

I think you should keep your X4 3.7Ghz...unless you want a downgrade or sidegrade if lucky.
 
Back
Top