-
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 review
Page 19 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Trinity and Llano have already surpassed the rendering capabilities of the PS3 and 360. IMHO these chips along with the HD4000 arguably are the most important graphics chips released to help move the goal posts as you say forward. Any publisher who cares about the sale of their game always codes for the bottom line to reach the largest audience possible.
The good news is that new consoles are coming soon so that along with Haswell and AMD's integrated 7750 next year should raise the bar dramatically as far as graphics are concerned. The only negative areas left holding back the goal posts may be the crappy GPU's in smartphones.
The good news is that new consoles are coming soon so that along with Haswell and AMD's integrated 7750 next year should raise the bar dramatically as far as graphics are concerned. The only negative areas left holding back the goal posts may be the crappy GPU's in smartphones.
Anandtech runs the benchmark using the games preset medium values. Other sites like TR enables 4x AA and FXAA on there test (Except on BF3). Enabling these hurt the performance on the Intel platform because Intel graphics are generally shader limited (Haswell should fix that) while AMD graphics are usually texture/memory limited so they take less of a hit when AA is enabled. While I have no problem with the benchmark results I do have a problem with inconsistency. TR seems to test only certain games and at whatever settings they want... this makes comparison even within there own site impossible. For example if you wanted to compare the A10-4600M with there A8-3500M review you can't because different games were used for the individual reviews, the only comparison you have is the 3 games they tested in the A10 review. AT on the other hand is pretty consistent with there benchmarks. Even though some people will say alot of the game/settings benchmarks are irrelevant now at least you can compare them.
If TR ever does a review of the 17W A6-4455M lets see if they enable 4x AA and FXAA on there test with an AMD IGP that has 2/3 the shader and 2/3 the clock speed or are they going to change the settings to make the A6 look good?
Anandtech use settings that dont stress the IGP , making
the results CPU bound...
That s what you call consistent benchs ?...
Not counting the already pointed 30% difference in TDP ,
surely another of Anand s numerous consistencies...
Red Hawk
Diamond Member
Might as well accuse all GPUs of stagnation, since there will always be games pushing the bar up.
ShintaiDK
Lifer
CPU bound? Haha....
http://www.anandtech.com/show/5831/amd-trinity-review-a10-4600m-a-new-hope/6
If it was CPU bound. The faster GFX wouldnt increase FPS.
And think about how it would judge the Trinity CPU, if it was CPU bound already. 😉
Last edited:
Lonbjerg
Diamond Member
All games on IGP are pushing it...but not enough.
It's a step backwards...and why hamper the CPU (TDP)...with IGP performnace?
Give me a clean CPU core...I'll add a to the system GPU if I need it...but I have no use for a IGP anymore than I have a use for a console.
Red Hawk
Diamond Member
Wait, how is it a step backwards? If TDP is an issue, then you're better off just using the CPU and its on-die GPU without a discrete GPU. If you're using a discrete GPU, then TDP is likely not an issue in the first place.
Sure, you're a PC hardware enthusiast. That's not the target market for APUs. Intel & AMD probably figure it's easier to manufacture all the CPUs with on-die GPUs rather than design two separate CPUs. It's not like the APUs are absolutely devoid of benefits to enthusiasts, anyways. The Intel processors have the Quicksync technology, while AMD APUs can be Crossfire'd with their discrete GPUs.
How many PC's sold these days even have a discrete gpu? I'm thinking its less than 25%. The market is integrated cpus. Even the sandy bridge quads and some llanos that were sold with no gpu just had it disable or it was faulty. Even xeons have an igp
Lonbjerg
Diamond Member
Wake me up when these IGPs' can run ARMA 2.
When they can..my bet is that I am gaming ARMA 3...or 4...or 5.
Putting these IGP's through the paces on DX9 consoels ports is hadly saying...that they have "surpassed" +6 years old hardware...big whopty...doo..*chough*
Red Hawk
Diamond Member
Pretty much.
...what? You just seem to be rambling with no particular point relevant to what I said.
While i don't think you are wrong in saying the games are not necesairly cpu bound, there are probably alot of places in the game that are cpu bound.
(talking about Batman)
Also remember that both trinity and ivB even more have turboboost on cpu and gpu side. If you use an discrete gpu instead of the IGP both cpus will turboboost to the maximum possible speed, something they cannot do when running on an IGP (e.g. TDP constraints).
So in case of the i7 2637M you are looking to a cpu difference of up to 1.1GHz.
Buth both i7 prove that the game is GPU and CPU limited.
the i7 2637 has a much faster gpu and scores the same as the i7 3720QM which has a much faster cpu. My guess is that if you print out the fps you would see the 3720 has the lowest frames in batman as well as the highest. (gpu limited part and cpu limited part).
Hence in those areas the 3720 will run away from trinity by a big margin.
In BAC , Trinity barely beat Llano despite a superior GPU ,
wich is perhaps a driver issue , yet , the CPU perfs of
these two APUs are not very different , hence the scores.
That said , as pointed ad nauseam , give Trinity those
missing 10 watts TDP , otherwise the benchs will stay
greatly tricked.
Olikan
Platinum Member
it does 9 fps at ULTRA....😵
if we use crysis 2 as reference...arma 2 seems to be playable at medium settings...not bad imo
http://cdn.overclock.net/a/a3/a3522a11_2nhm929.png
Lonbjerg
Diamond Member
Like I said...come back when this actually runs ARMA2...a game know to be pushing bosth CPU and GPU...no wonder they shun away from testing this game.
And it will only get worse with ARMA 3:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bz9mIgaBmU8
Like I stated...these IGP's will alway be trailing and chasing "almost good enough"...it's litterally a moving goalpost...that even GPU's have a hard time following.
ARMA 2 is a bad example to use.. Mechanically it's a great game, but it's engine seems a bit poorly coded, or at least badly optimized. The visuals you get are pretty weak for the performance hit, and yes, I know the game is more demanding because of the view distance, how many objects it squeezes on screen.. But it is definitely not a technology demo showing off the latest stuff, or a show of DX11 capabilities.. It's a blocky, bland visual feast.
Phynaz
Lifer
AMD could have chosen to increase TDP for greater performance. They chose not to. Therefore saying that it's not a fair comparison is bunk.
Lonbjerg
Diamond Member
"poorly coded/not optimized" is the excuse for putting down sandbox-games by people that dosn't understande the computational needs of such game engines :thumbsdown:
A sandbox has MUCH steeper computational needs than a shooter-on-rails.
Same uninformed wievpoint is often seen posted in gards to "Crysis", but it's argumentation from ingorance.
But glad you think a game that stresses both the CPU and GPU (ARMA 2 WILL use all the CPU power it can grab!) is a bad game for these "almost good enough" GPU/IGP combos...proves my point 😉
ARMA 3 will require even more.
Like I stated before...these IGP's are playing catchup in a race they will never finish.
Olikan
Platinum Member
nor they are designed to win anyway...
well, not until we see an APU with >200Watt and gddr5...heheheheh
Well, the rumour machine bets on GDDR5 in AMDs 2013 28nm APUs named Kaveri.
http://translate.google.com/transla...i+28nm+gddr5&hl=en&biw=929&bih=488&prmd=imvns
That s irrellevant..
They could as well compare with DT IBs.
There s a 4C/8T 35W IB , mind you....
http://ark.intel.com/products/64901
Sure that with 600mhz less with turbo and
for base frequency as well as lower IGP turbo frequency
the scores would be even less credible...
Last edited:
IB IGP has been overhyped....
Let s see when either a 45W Trinity is launched or a 35W IB
is used instead of the 45W or sometimes 55W parts...
Lonbjerg
Diamond Member
Both Intel's and AMD's IGP's have been overhyped FYI.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 24K
-
-
