• 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.

Real world user TRINITY reviews are in, guess what I found?

I

Irenicus

Member
It seems that even though trinity is considerably slower than intels latest offerings on the CPU side, virtually no one seems to notice or care when it comes to what they talk about in their reviews.

best buy provides a great case study here - two laptops, one with an ivy bridge i5 for around 700, another a trinity a A10 for around 600. Same chassis (i.e. same design and backlit keyboards etc), the only structural difference is the color and some drive/memory sizes aside from the core chips.


Same aggregate score:


ivy reviews

http://www.bestbuy.com/site/HP+-+15....t=m6&cp=1&lp=2


trinity reviews

http://www.bestbuy.com/site/HP+-+15....t=m6&cp=1&lp=1



Interestingly, someone who bought the trinity version posted a gaming video showing the results of battlefield 3:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4eYI99-bKhU



This is almost certainly much faster than the HD4000 would perform in similar games. So in every day tasks, almost no one is bothered by the performance of trinity, and for more graphically intensive tasks, it does much better for the price...

Why is AMD's offering such a bad choice?


I think the cpu speed elites disdain for trinity and its lower IPC is a bit overblown. Of course I hope all that is improved with kaveri, but trinity seems like a fine chip for the prices it is selling at, and the vast majority of the population will be perfectly happy with the performance and battery life and lack of heat it brings.
 
...because people who buy laptops for this are less than 1% of the overall CPU\Transistor market?


It's irrelevant in the grand scheme of things.
 
The problem is that when I go to slickdeals and type in AMD I get one A6 notebook for $470. A frickin A6.... which has a castrated GPU, and half the cpu cores of an A10.

But if I type in i5, I get a Lenovo IdeaPad Z580 i5-3210M ivy bridge notebook for $400. Or I get a Lenovo G480 same cpu for $550.

I can get a Toshiba Satellite L775-S7130 for $424.

I can get a Dell Latitude E5520 with an i5-2520M for under $400 (after gift card). Seriously. I cant believe it.

There just isnt deals like that with trinity. Conspiracies aside, its just the way it is.
 
The only thing F-ed up here is the fact the the processor/processor speed isn't mentioned in the Trinity specs!!!

Edit: I noticed it at the bottom of the description page, ironically I always jump to the specs page first.
 
sm625 said:
The problem is that when I go to slickdeals and type in AMD I get one A6 notebook for $470. A frickin A6.... which has a castrated GPU, and half the cpu cores of an A10.

But if I type in i5, I get a Lenovo IdeaPad Z580 i5-3210M ivy bridge notebook for $400. Or I get a Lenovo G480 same cpu for $550.

I can get a Toshiba Satellite L775-S7130 for $424.

I can get a Dell Latitude E5520 with an i5-2520M for under $400 (after gift card). Seriously. I cant believe it.

There just isnt deals like that with trinity. Conspiracies aside, its just the way it is.
Click to expand...


You guys will probably hate me for saying this, but 400 dollars for an i5 is too low. I know I'm not supposed to care, but I still want companies to command SOME profit, and that sort of gutter slashing of prices for laptops is too aggressive. And it is because of that consumer attitude that manufacturers supply ever sh*ttier screens and other components to shave costs as low as possible.

The fact that the only company where large numbers of people will tolerate higher prices for better designs and features to allow for some margin is apple is a disgrace. It is a death spiral, and the primary reason companies are so lukewarm on the pc market. If all they sold was ivy bridge i5 computers for 400 dollars, they would not be in business.

What is the build of materials on that? how much does intel charge for each ivy bridge i5 per unit to lenovo? What is the license fee microsoft extracts?


In the two examples above, they tried to justify the slightly higher marginal cost by designing nicer casings (some brushed aluminum, thinner chasis) and adding things like backlit keyboards and fingerprint readers and higher quality webcams. That is their midrange consumer line, they use the g series for the bottom of the barrel price shoppers who want to pay the least possible for a given cpu, and damn the rest of the notebooks components and design and all the rest.
 
Irenicus said:
It seems that even though trinity is considerably slower than intels latest offerings on the CPU side, virtually no one seems to notice or care when it comes to what they talk about in their reviews.

best buy provides a great case study here - two laptops, one with an ivy bridge i5 for around 700, another a trinity a A10 for around 600. Same chassis (i.e. same design and backlit keyboards etc), the only structural difference is the color and some drive/memory sizes aside from the core chips.


Same aggregate score:


ivy reviews

http://www.bestbuy.com/site/HP+-+15....t=m6&cp=1&lp=2


trinity reviews

http://www.bestbuy.com/site/HP+-+15....t=m6&cp=1&lp=1



Interestingly, someone who bought the trinity version posted a gaming video showing the results of battlefield 3:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4eYI99-bKhU



This is almost certainly much faster than the HD4000 would perform in similar games. So in every day tasks, almost no one is bothered by the performance of trinity, and for more graphically intensive tasks, it does much better for the price...

Why is AMD's offering such a bad choice?


I think the cpu speed elites disdain for trinity and its lower IPC is a bit overblown. Of course I hope all that is improved with kaveri, but trinity seems like a fine chip for the prices it is selling at, and the vast majority of the population will be perfectly happy with the performance and battery life and lack of heat it brings.
Click to expand...

The A10 at that price is in fact relatively attractive. The problem, is that that is a sale price for the A10. Most prices are considerably higher. And I am sure you could find a i5 for considerably less than 700.00 on sale somewhere, and you could probably get an i3 for around 500.00 that would more than meet the needs of most users except for gaming, and the A10 is still marginal for that. If the price came down another 50 or 100 dollars, then it would be a steal though.

T
 
frozentundra123456 said:
The A10 at that price is in fact relatively attractive. The problem, is that that is a sale price for the A10. Most prices are considerably higher. And I am sure you could find a i5 for considerably less than 700.00 on sale somewhere, and you could probably get an i3 for around 500.00 that would more than meet the needs of most users except for gaming, and the A10 is still marginal for that. If the price came down another 50 or 100 dollars, then it would be a steal though.

T
Click to expand...

Furthermore...you can build a pc from newegg that is vastly more powerful for the same price as the A10.

The Trinity A10 should go into $400 laptops. That would be amazing.
 
Phynaz said:
Best buy user comments? As "real world reviews".
Click to expand...

Of course, I'd bet a far larger percentage of anandtech readers just order their computers, unless they buy apple. Best buy shoppers are more typical, an less knowledgeable. They are often less anal retentive about the concerns over things like OMG BUT THE AMD PERFORMANCE IN JAVA IS SO SUB PAR !!!! keyboardspazcoma


Their needs are not as demanding. They want something with decent looks if possible, good performance (in a relative sense - i.e. a camry seems like solid performance vs many of the speed queens here that won't suffer anything less than a bmw m3 engine), good battery life, etc.

The fact of the matter is that MOST of the tasks that occupy the typical consumers time require far less speed to feel snappy than machines of yesteryear provided.



Take another example, what if amd came out with an A12 that gave 15 HOURS of usable battery life vs a more powerful intel with around 7 hours. Let's say the intel was tripple to quadruple the speed, which would you prefer? What do you think would provide more of a functional benefit to most people?
 
Irenicus said:
Of course, I'd bet a far larger percentage of anandtech readers just order their computers, unless they buy apple. Best buy shoppers are more typical, an less knowledgeable. They are often less anal retentive about the concerns over things like OMG BUT THE AMD PERFORMANCE IN JAVA IS SO SUB PAR !!!! keyboardspazcoma


Their needs are not as demanding. They want something with decent looks if possible, good performance (in a relative sense - i.e. a camry seems like solid performance vs many of the speed queens here that won't suffer anything less than a bmw m3 engine), good battery life, etc.

The fact of the matter is that MOST of the tasks that occupy the typical consumers time require far less speed to feel snappy than machines of yesteryear provided.



Take another example, what if amd came out with an A12 that gave 15 HOURS of usable battery life vs a more powerful intel with around 7 hours. Let's say the intel was tripple to quadruple the speed, which would you prefer? What do you think would provide more of a functional benefit to most people?
Click to expand...

Well, what if I won the power ball tomorrow? Hypothetical scenarios are somewhat meaningless. I grant your point that speed is adequate now on most any laptop for what most people use them for. But that makes the laptop you linked initially even less attractive. A much cheaper intel is sufficient for nearly everything most users do with a laptop, so why pay for the A10. If you are an AMD fan, I saw an Acer A6 (the Llano A6) for less than 400.00 on new egg. Even that seems like a better deal to me.
 
Irenicus said:
Of course, I'd bet a far larger percentage of anandtech readers just order their computers, unless they buy apple. Best buy shoppers are more typical, an less knowledgeable. They are often less anal retentive about the concerns over things like OMG BUT THE AMD PERFORMANCE IN JAVA IS SO SUB PAR !!!! keyboardspazcoma


Their needs are not as demanding. They want something with decent looks if possible, good performance (in a relative sense - i.e. a camry seems like solid performance vs many of the speed queens here that won't suffer anything less than a bmw m3 engine), good battery life, etc.

The fact of the matter is that MOST of the tasks that occupy the typical consumers time require far less speed to feel snappy than machines of yesteryear provided.



Take another example, what if amd came out with an A12 that gave 15 HOURS of usable battery life vs a more powerful intel with around 7 hours. Let's say the intel was tripple to quadruple the speed, which would you prefer? What do you think would provide more of a functional benefit to most people?
Click to expand...

You expect the people that buy at Bestbuy have any idea what a good computer is? They have nothing to compare it to. Besides most people don't have ability to admit to themselves they made a purchasing mistake even if the computer wasn't good.
 
Phynaz said:
You expect the people that buy at Bestbuy have any idea what a good computer is? They have nothing to compare it to. Besides most people don't have ability to admit to themselves they made a purchasing mistake even if the computer wasn't good.
Click to expand...

Then it'd get bad reviews.

If an Ultrabook/MBAir will suffice for most people's daily tasks why would a Trinity chip stumble? In day-to-day usage, your Noobasaurus Rex PC user won't have any idea because they don't run benchmarks and neither do they measure their e-peen length by how quickly they get a SuperPi run in.

This isn't exactly an astonishing revelation either. We've been saying CPU performance has been good enough for years and the current trend of web-based apps and mobile boomage has only reinforced those claims. As far as Intel and AMD are concerned, TDP/Power consumption and form factor > GPU performance > IPC/clock speed.
 
Unless I'm missing something the above linked i5 should beat the A10 at most everything.

On the CPU side the i5 is better than the A10, and on the graphics side the nVidia 630m is better than the A10 as well.

Which is not to say the A10 is all that bad, it is just that a smart shopper can do better...

I
 
lakedude said:
Unless I'm missing something the above linked i5 should beat the A10 at most everything.

On the CPU side the i5 is better than the A10, and on the graphics side the nVidia 630m is better than the A10 as well.

Which is not to say the A10 is all that bad, it is just that a smart shopper can do better...

I
Click to expand...

Trinity will have better battery life and the on-die GPU is within spitting distance of the Fermi 630m/540m. Personally, I'd avoid buying Fermi-based GPUs and sticking them in any laptop. That wasn't exactly the coolest and most efficient of architectures for nVidia ;P The CPU side would be a win for the i5, but, again, most people won't notice that. They'd likely notice the battery life before the superior i5.
 
pelov said:
Trinity will have better battery life and the on-die GPU is within spitting distance of the Fermi 630m/540m. Personally, I'd avoid buying Fermi-based GPUs and sticking them in any laptop. That wasn't exactly the coolest and most efficient of architectures for nVidia ;P
Click to expand...
Yeah I just found that unit as an example in like 2 minutes. Now that I've had a little more time to search:

Acer Aspire AS7750G-6645 Laptop -17.3", Core i5-2450M, 4GB DDR3, 500GB HDD, DVDRW, AMD Radeon HD 7670M, HDMI ,Windows 7 Home Prem for $499.97 AR w/FS

http://www.tigerdirect.com/applicati...?EdpNo=2008030

http://deals.woot.com/deals/details.../acer-aspire-as7750g-6645-laptop-computer-mir
 
Musn't....I musn't.........oh [LOVE] IT! AMD SUCKS AND TRINITY IS TRASH!


No profanity in the tech forums, please.

Moderator jvroig
 
Last edited by a moderator:
lakedude said:
Yeah I just found that unit as an example in like 2 minutes. Now that I've had a little more time to search:

Acer Aspire AS7750G-6645 Laptop -17.3", Core i5-2450M, 4GB DDR3, 500GB HDD, DVDRW, AMD Radeon HD 7670M, HDMI ,Windows 7 Home Prem for $499.97 AR w/FS

http://www.tigerdirect.com/applicati...?EdpNo=2008030

http://deals.woot.com/deals/details.../acer-aspire-as7750g-6645-laptop-computer-mir
Click to expand...

The current pricing is an issue, but you shouldn't compare it to older gen hardware that's been slashed in price due to it being labeled as outdated. Granted, the older hardware is still viable and outperforms the newer gen hardware at the same price point.

The reason you shouldn't use these is because it casts both AMD and Intel under a poor light. If you're not gaming, there is no difference between a Sandy i3 and an Ivy i5, yet you can get the prior for $200-$400 less. If you throw in a discrete GPU then there's no reason to buy Ivy at all. The same applies to AMD's Llano laptops which can be had for very very cheap and perform quite well (6620G performing a bit better than the HD4000).

The pricing is still an issue, but it's because AMD had nestled the A10's to be priced somewhere between i5 and i7 Ivys. The even bigger problem facing AMD, though, is that the OEMs are slapping these pretty good chips into very poor builds and configurations. Older hardware will always be much cheaper and a much better deal, but it doesn't serve as a good comparison for platforms other than for the prospective educated buyer.
 
I see what OP is trying to say but this is anandtech forums. There is no point trying to tell us what the average consumer thinks because we within seconds can link to a better deal and prove why the average consumer is stupid to spend $600 (on sale) when a $400 intel can do better.

AMD can't truly compete with Intel just yet. I sure hope they can soon.
 
daveybrat said:
When i find a Trinity A10 based laptop for $400ish price, i'll jump on it. 😉
Click to expand...

better yet, when they come out with an over clocking-approved design, I'll jump on it.

Or wait for the next iteration which looks like it solves the memory bandwidth problem.
 
frozentundra123456 said:
Well, what if I won the power ball tomorrow? Hypothetical scenarios are somewhat meaningless. I grant your point that speed is adequate now on most any laptop for what most people use them for. But that makes the laptop you linked initially even less attractive. A much cheaper intel is sufficient for nearly everything most users do with a laptop, so why pay for the A10. If you are an AMD fan, I saw an Acer A6 (the Llano A6) for less than 400.00 on new egg. Even that seems like a better deal to me.
Click to expand...


The biggest draw will be for people who also have in interest in more graphically intensive games, for everyone else, trinity is less of a draw. But there are plenty of people who DO want something that is more capable than an intel only solution, and it usually costs a good chunk more to get graphics as good as or better than what comes with the A10.


Another selfish reason I want to see more computers running trinity and higher (maybe intel will get there with haswell and beyond) is that I want the baseline graphics on laptops to get better faster. The larger the install base of higher end graphics, across the board, the sooner the entire market and game designers can shift their expectations and graphical targets upward. Before sandy bridge and even with that, intel was a veritable BLACK HOLE of graphical performance. Now that these hybrid chips are becoming more popular at an increasing rate, that bodes well for the health of pc gaming long term.... Unless I am completely wrong and off.
 
What?

I must be missing the point. I thought the question was "Why is AMD's offering such a bad choice?"

The answers are:

1) You can get a machine from Intel with a superior CPU for a LOT less money if you don't need graphics.

or

2) You can get an Intel based machine paired with a REAL graphics card and you will have a superior CPU and superior GPU for around the same money or less if you shop around...

Finally if last year's Intel parts are still better, well that is just sad for AMD.

Like most everyone I'd love to see AMD doing better and I try to buy AMD if performance isn't an issue (like for a web browsing laptop, or general use desktop). I've bought plenty of AMD products and they have been great. Got a $400 triple core AMD laptop for general family use and it is fine for the job, but my "real" laptop is an Intel with a discrete GPU...
 
Partly what we are seeing is how little influence AMD has on OEMs. They were even showing decently configured notebooks they had made at the same places the OEMs get theirs built. AMD balanced cost and features on these reference notebooks and even gave a reasonable price range given typical pricing models. Yet so far I've seen mostly meh configurations from OEMs.

But, that's AMD's problem to deal with not the consumer.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top