• 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.

Trinity benched at folding

Those are some decent gains, granted not in the iFP department. AMD seems to clearly be embracing their HSA agenda so FP performance was never going to be a huge leap when they're banking on their GPUs to make up that difference (and then some).

With regards to FP performance, that's with half of the Llano's APUs though, right? I guess we won't know until Trinity is released but Piledriver is almost certainly still wielding 2n integers for every n FPUs. So while the FP performance is nothing to gloat about, the fact that they're managing to get a 5% gain with half the FPUs is damn good.
 
Of course there is no comparison vs any intel chip so we cant really derive any meaning from this at all.
 
Looking forward to getting myself a trinity based HTPC and laptop.

Llano was almost but not quite there. Add another 30% onto the graphics performance of llano and we have a winner.
 
Benchmarks without clock speeds are worthless to me, how much of that performance gain is from higher clocks?
 
I don't think the clock speeds matter much here. The issue with BD was not that the clock speeds were too high but that the performance and performance-per-watt weren't there. High clock speeds can work if it's done right (Power from IBM, though they had their efficiency issues as well). Both chips are at a 35W TDP and it seems Trinity is able to squeeze more out of that than Llano.

Clock speeds be damned. If the chip performs well and offers great graphical performance at a cheap price and low thermal/power envelopes than the competition then I'll buy it.
 
pelov said:
I don't think the clock speeds matter much here. The issue with BD was not that the clock speeds were too high but that the performance and performance-per-watt weren't there. High clock speeds can work if it's done right (Power from IBM, though they had their efficiency issues as well). Both chips are at a 35W TDP and it seems Trinity is able to squeeze more out of that than Llano.

Clock speeds be damned. If the chip performs well and offers great graphical performance at a cheap price and low thermal/power envelopes than the competition then I'll buy it.
Click to expand...

Yup, this. It does not matter at what clock they are operating.. as long as they are under similar TDP envelope.
 
joshhedge said:
It will be interesting to see the graphics performance gains!
Click to expand...
Donanimhaber posted some desktop Trinity benchmarks a few weeks ago, the A10-5800K graphics were about 51% faster than the A8-3850's, which is inline with the 50% faster claim AMD has made. No idea if the benches are legit, though, take them with a grain of salt.

http://www.donanimhaber.com/islemci...on-A105800K-Trinity-islemcisi-test-edildi.htm

The only CPU benchmark than they ran was SuperPi, and it was only about 9% faster. SuperPi is pretty floating point heavy, though, other workloads may see a bigger benefit (AMD has claimed 20-30% better CPU performance I think, I'd assume this is "up to" and not seen in most workloads). And as speculated most of the benefits seem to come from increased clock speed, A10-5800K is supposed to have a 3.8GHz base clock and 4.2GHz turbo clock, for example, compared to only 2.9GHz for the A8-3850. But like pelov mentioned I don't think it matters much if they have to clock them high just to beat Llano in CPU performance, as long as they can hit these clocks while maintaining low power consumption, which it seems they can. It's sounding like improvements to GloFo's 32nm process and new technologies like the resonant clock mesh have really allowed them to increase the perf/watt of Piledriver cores, which is something they desperately needed to remain competitive.
 
frostedflakes said:
Donanimhaber posted some desktop Trinity benchmarks a few weeks ago, the A10-5800K graphics were about 51% faster than the A8-3850's, which is inline with the 50% faster claim AMD has made. No idea if the benches are legit, though, take them with a grain of salt.

http://www.donanimhaber.com/islemci...on-A105800K-Trinity-islemcisi-test-edildi.htm

The only CPU benchmark than they ran was SuperPi, and it was only about 9% faster. SuperPi is pretty floating point heavy, though, other workloads may see a bigger benefit (AMD has claimed 20-30% better CPU performance I think, I'd assume this is "up to" and not seen in most workloads). And as speculated most of the benefits seem to come from increased clock speed, A10-5800K is supposed to have a 3.8GHz base clock and 4.2GHz turbo clock, for example, compared to only 2.9GHz for the A8-3850. But like pelov mentioned I don't think it matters much if they have to clock them high just to beat Llano in CPU performance, as long as they can hit these clocks while maintaining low power consumption, which it seems they can. It's sounding like improvements to GloFo's 32nm process and new technologies like the resonant clock mesh have really allowed them to increase the perf/watt of Piledriver cores, which is something they desperately needed to remain competitive.
Click to expand...

If that is even remotely true, i would love to buy an A10 based laptop! 😉
 
frostedflakes said:
The only CPU benchmark than they ran was SuperPi, and it was only about 9% faster. SuperPi is pretty floating point heavy, though, other workloads may see a bigger benefit
Click to expand...

well, 5.5 to 9% is very a small gap, maybe ram speed, diferent OS made those small differences.

...we can say that it is DOUBLE CONFIRMED 😛
 
SuperPi is completely useless, boinc numbers are more interesting since they are a mix of heavy integer and floating point depending on project, such as WCG.
 
Real question is will mobile makers hit the right form factor + price and availability. Llano had some decent launch notebooks but they disappeared pretty quickly.

I don't think it's unreasonable to expect some non-ultrathin
13 and 14 inch 2 module Trinity models with the highest tier IGPs around ~$500-600.
 
Yes, the right form factor. 95% of Llanos came in 15.6", as if smaller sizes were forbidden. Furthermore, the faster A8s with decent graphics that seemed great for laptops mostly came with completely unnecessary dual graphics which made them cost $650+. I'm not sure if it's OEM or AMD, but their product line decisions could use some improvements.
 
pelov said:
Those are some decent gains, granted not in the iFP department. AMD seems to clearly be embracing their HSA agenda so FP performance was never going to be a huge leap when they're banking on their GPUs to make up that difference (and then some).

With regards to FP performance, that's with half of the Llano's APUs though, right? I guess we won't know until Trinity is released but Piledriver is almost certainly still wielding 2n integers for every n FPUs. So while the FP performance is nothing to gloat about, the fact that they're managing to get a 5% gain with half the FPUs is damn good.
Click to expand...

Yes. Yay. Some promise, finally.
 
The last time AMD said something about Trinity, the release date was late June to early July. I think the 17W parts are later.
 
Last edited:
Yea which is why im keeping my A6 laptop i bought recently instead of returning it.. I dont want to wait 2-3 months more for trinity.. itll probably be delayed until mid to late summer
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top