• 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 32 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
georgec84 said:
People will say anything to put AMD down and prop Intel up.

CPU: Intel > AMD
iGPU: AMD > Intel

End thread.
Click to expand...

You do realize there's a bigger quantity of consumers that would rather have a faster CPU than a faster IGP, right? Business users, power users, video and photo editors, software programmers, 3D rendering, architects, and engineers all come to mind. I'm pretty sure they're a bigger market than people wanting gaming on the cheap or AMD fans. It should go without saying that the HD 4000 is still "good enough" and AMD's mantra for the past years has been "good enough".
 
LOL_Wut_Axel said:
You do realize there's a bigger quantity of consumers that would rather have a faster CPU than a faster IGP, right?
Click to expand...

yes, we all know that... but for like 80% of people, the cpu speed of trinity to i3 is meaningless...

...Heck! a bobcat is suficient to 80% of people
 
LOL_Wut_Axel said:
You do realize there's a bigger quantity of consumers that would rather have a faster CPU than a faster IGP, right? Business users, power users, video and photo editors, software programmers, 3D rendering, architects, and engineers all come to mind. I'm pretty sure they're a bigger market than people wanting gaming on the cheap or AMD fans. It should go without saying that the HD 4000 is still "good enough" and AMD's mantra for the past years has been "good enough".
Click to expand...

I don't think anyone has been saying otherwise. We're talking about budget gaming performance here, not what the general populace will be looking for...
 
LOL_Wut_Axel said:
Business users, power users, video and photo editors, software programmers, 3D rendering, architects, and engineers all come to mind.
Click to expand...
And these power users and architects buy $600 laptops for their work? I think our definitions of power users aren't the same...
 
iCyborg said:
And these power users and architects buy $600 laptops for their work? I think our definitions of power users aren't the same...
Click to expand...

I didn't say that. I said why a faster CPU is more important to more people.

When did I say a budget? People on $600 budgets probably wouldn't have any of those professions, except perhaps a small business owner.
 
Olikan said:
yes, we all know that... but for like 80% of people, the cpu speed of trinity to i3 is meaningless...

...Heck! a bobcat is suficient to 80% of people
Click to expand...

And for 99% of people, the IGP difference from the HD 4000 to HD 7660G is meaningless. And given they have the same pricing, that's exactly why they'd go with the i3. Take any random consumer, and ask him whether AMD or Intel is better, and 9/10 times they'll say Intel.

AMD's own "good enough" mantra is why they're not posting larger market share numbers. They need to do significantly better than Intel in relevant areas: pricing, form factor and weight, battery life, features, marketing, and overall performance. They're not better than Intel in any of those things, so that's why Intel keeps winning.
 
Does AMD really have a "mantra" of "good enough"? How many times has it actually been said by them? I'm just wondering since I don't recall an advertising campaign telling people to "Buy AMD, because whatever, who cares?".

All I've heard about is some BS said by their CEO to try to frame their situation in as good of a light as possible. What do you expect him to say? Something like "Our processors are worse in all but specialized cases, but buy them because you feel sorry for us!"?
 
LOL_Wut_Axel said:
I didn't say that. I said why a faster CPU is more important to more people.

When did I say a budget? People on $600 budgets probably wouldn't have any of those professions, except perhaps a small business owner.
Click to expand...
You're saying that "HD4000 is good enough", and the argument that Trinity CPU is not good enough is the list of these users that would rather have faster CPU, none of which are in the price market of Trinity/i3.

Both are good enough for 90+% of consumers who are buying in the sub $700 range. I have a solid desktop - i7 3720QM is almost the same power as my desktop CPU, at stock even faster, while HD4000 is several times slower than my GPU. Trinity just looks more balanced compared to a mid-range desktop.

Besides, they did well with Llano from a market share / financial aspect, so I guess this market isn't so small as you are trying to make it.
 
LOL_Wut_Axel said:
And for 99% of people, the IGP difference from the HD 4000 to HD 7660G is meaningless. And given they have the same pricing, that's exactly why they'd go with the i3. Take any random consumer, and ask him whether AMD or Intel is better, and 9/10 times they'll say Intel.

AMD's own "good enough" mantra is why they're not posting larger market share numbers. They need to do significantly better than Intel in relevant areas: pricing, form factor and weight, battery life, features, marketing, and overall performance. They're not better than Intel in any of those things, so that's why Intel keeps winning.
Click to expand...

Wait, what? What does market share or winning have anything to do with Trinity from a budget gaming perspective? I mean, sure, Trinity is fine for general usage. Intel is better if you aren't doing the budget gaming thing. That's not the point, though. 99% of the people on here aren't arguing about market share or whether or not the common, non-budget-gaming consumer will be better off with an IB i3 or a Trinity laptop.

The whole point is that Trinity, at least the A10 model, is better than an IB CPU with an HD4000 GPU when it comes down to decent budget gaming. Pricing will almost assuredly be competitive, though AMD has room to mess things up there. Since we don't have solid info on Trinity pricing, there's no use arguing about that quite yet. We can only argue based on nebulous price ranges.

Anyone that buys a Trinity rig expecting massive power is a fool. They have better laptops they could spend their money on (IB CPU + dedicated GPU). For people like me, I want a laptop in the $550-650 range that is fairly portable, gets good battery life, isn't slow, and does budget gaming well. Trinity should fit the bill (pricing pending). IB + HD4000? Not so much. I have my personal desktop for when I need a powerful rig. If I needed a powerful laptop, I'd buy one. But I don't.

So, what are we left with? Trinity is overall better at budget gaming than an IB CPU + HD4000, and not by a small margin (15-20%). And, yes, when the user isn't gaming, it is "good enough" for everything else (since when is anything "good" a bad thing?). I'd say the battery life it can provide is well above "good enough", and the "good enough" CPU performance in everyday tasks will be a solid compromise for the gains I get while gaming.

Also, have you seen the Sleekbooks that HP will be putting Trinity in? What were you saying about form factor and weight?

But, rather than agreeing to most of this, you've taken to arguing against Trinity in such a way that no one really cares about on these forums (see comments above on market share and whether or not the "regular" folk who don't visit nerdy forums will pick IB or Trinity). Do you feel like a big man arguing? Because I feel like the manliest man when I argue nonsensically about computer hardware online behind a relatively anonymous identity.
 
Last edited:
LOL_Wut_Axel said:
And for 99% of people, the IGP difference from the HD 4000 to HD 7660G is meaningless. And given they have the same pricing, that's exactly why they'd go with the i3. Take any random consumer, and ask him whether AMD or Intel is better, and 9/10 times they'll say Intel.
Click to expand...

people prefer to buy intel over amd?
lol, and the sky is blue!

AMD's own "good enough" mantra is why they're not posting larger market share numbers. They need to do significantly better than Intel in relevant areas: pricing, form factor and weight, battery life, features, marketing, and overall performance. They're not better than Intel in any of those things, so that's why Intel keeps winning.
Click to expand...

i thought that OEM are more responsiable for this than amd itself
 
iCyborg said:
You're saying that "HD4000 is good enough", and the argument that Trinity CPU is not good enough is the list of these users that would rather have faster CPU, none of which are in the price market of Trinity/i3.

Both are good enough for 90+% of consumers who are buying in the sub $700 range. I have a solid desktop - i7 3720QM is almost the same power as my desktop CPU, at stock even faster, while HD4000 is several times slower than my GPU. Trinity just looks more balanced compared to a mid-range desktop.

Besides, they did well with Llano from a market share / financial aspect, so I guess this market isn't so small as you are trying to make it.
Click to expand...

Read:

Take any random consumer, and ask him whether AMD or Intel is better, and 9/10 times they'll say Intel.

AMD's own "good enough" mantra is why they're not posting larger market share numbers. They need to do significantly better than Intel in relevant areas: pricing, form factor and weight, battery life, features, marketing, and overall performance. They're not better than Intel in any of those things, so that's why Intel keeps winning.
Click to expand...
"Good enough" isn't good enough to win AMD a large number of consumers in comparison to Intel. If they're only as "good enough" as Intel, then Intel will easily keep winning.
 
second archtecture analyst of trinity...

http://semiaccurate.com/2012/05/28/trinity-has-a-brain-and-a-queue/

highlights...

Future performance advances will happen here, it doesn’t take a huge leap of logic to add a local memory cache ala Haswell/Crystalwell or Tiran (before the roadmap reshuffle)
Click to expand...

the GPU memory controller talks to physical memory like an x86 CPU does. This generally means backwards, broken, and wholly stupid, but it is far easier to change an integrated GPU’s MC than the entire x86 world, hardware and software
Click to expand...

Either way, the IOMMUv2 is a big step forward, and lays the groundwork for all future CPU/GPU integration. This will make GPGPU programming vastly easier and saner for the overwhelming majority of coders, and Trinity basically brings us there in coding practice, just not at full speed.
Click to expand...

This IOMMU on the PCIe card needs to support it too, and that currently means only 6900 and 7000 series GPUs (...) On a more mundane level, it makes frame-buffer limitations on external GPUs a thing of the past, and can allow neat tricks with multiple GPUs that simply weren’t possible before.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
LOL_Wut_Axel said:
Read:

"Good enough" isn't good enough to win AMD a large number of consumers in comparison to Intel. If they're only as "good enough" as Intel, then Intel will easily keep winning.
Click to expand...
There's no argument that Intel has much better brand recognition. You called Netburst bad yourself a number of times, and Intel still had 80%+ x86 market share: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/05/10/q1_x86_cpu_market/

AMD doesn't even have capacity to take over 80% of the market, such goals are unrealistic in the near future, especially given the process advantage Intel has over everybody. What they can do is target markets that can benefit from the one edge they have right now which is better IGP. Well, that, and offering lower prices. It may seem that going from 15% to 18% market share is peanuts, and for Intel it may be so, but another way to think about is that they shipped ~20% more units (assuming approx same number of total units). Which is still good, even if Intel remains better for the majority of buyers.
 
LOL_Wut_Axel said:
Read:
Take any random consumer, and ask him whether AMD or Intel is better, and 9/10 times they'll say Intel.

AMD's own "good enough" mantra is why they're not posting larger market share numbers. They need to do significantly better than Intel in relevant areas: pricing, form factor and weight, battery life, features, marketing, and overall performance. They're not better than Intel in any of those things, so that's why Intel keeps winning.
Click to expand...

"Good enough" isn't good enough to win AMD a large number of consumers in comparison to Intel. If they're only as "good enough" as Intel, then Intel will easily keep winning.
Click to expand...

Where is that quote coming from?

Side note: For someone who seems to aspire to do reviews, as seen in your signature, you need to take a step back, forget about marketing, and look at the performance numbers.
 
tulx said:
Don't worry - the award will no doubt be torn to shreds by our local forum experts, who are much more quialified than "a panel of esteemed government officials, academics, research analysts, editors-in-chief of key media outlets and industry experts ".
Click to expand...

meh... i stoped with the discussion sometime ago...
i am just answer if there is something really wrong...

i am now just bumping news...

like the 3rd article from charlie...:biggrin:
http://semiaccurate.com/2012/05/29/trinity-has-an-older-gpu-new-power-management/

highlights
Llano had a fairly normal power efficiency curve, and Bulldozer was nothing unusual either. Trinity changes things, if you plot power vs voltage, you get the flattest curve SemiAccurate has seen, not the usual arch.
Click to expand...

5ghz vishera incoming :awe:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top