AMD Trinity APUs Stack Up Well To Intel's Core 3

Barence writes "AMD's APUs combine processor and graphics core in the same chip. Its latest Trinity chips are more powerful than ever, thanks to current-generation Radeon graphics and the same processing cores as AMD's full-fat FX processors. They're designed to take down Intel's Core i3 chips, and the first application and gaming benchmarks are out. With a slight improvement in applications and much more so in games, they're a genuine alternative to the Core i3." MojoKid writes with Hot Hardware's review, which also says the new AMD systems "[look] solid in gaming and multimedia benchmarks, writing "the CPU cores clock in at 3.8GHz / 4.2GHz for the A10-5800K and 3.6GHz / 3.9GHz for A8-5600K, taking into account base and maximum turbo speeds, while the graphics cores scale up to 800MHz for the top A10 chip."

Comments

Unfair benchmark publishing from AMD

[IYagami]

AMD allowed websites to publish a preview of the benchmarks before the estimated date if they only focused on graphics performance. This is an unfair move by AMD.

Read http://techreport.com/blog/23638/amd-attempts-to-shape-review-content-with-staged-release-of-info for more details

(maybe in a couple of weeks you will find that AMD Trinity APUs have abysmal x86 performance compared to Intel CPUs)

Disclaimer: I own a laptop with an AMD cpu inside

Re:8600 was not "low end"

[hairyfeet]

Oh really? I'll quote and highlight the relevant portion "On 17 April 2007, NVIDIA released the GeForce 8500 GT, 8600 GT, and 8600 GTS for the low-end to mid-range market".

Now please note that the midrange was NOT the 8600 vanilla, or GT, but the GTS. Its a trick nvidia has done for years, they make several cards with the same name but with different letters, so people say "I have an 8600!" while actually having the low rent card. they've done this going back to Geforce 4, where they had the 4, the 4ti, and the MX4000 which while having a larger number was actually equal to a G3 series.

So I'm sorry but you're wrong. I can see how you were confused, just look at how many flavors they made of the 7600 or 8600, I think you are looking at over a half a dozen variants of just those 2 numbers, VERY confusing to the consumer.

This is why I prefer the number schema started when AMD took over ATI, as it couldn't be simpler. the first number is the series, 3xxx, 4xxx,5xxx, the second number is whether its low mid or high, 42xx-43xx for low,45xx-47xx for mid, 48xx-49xx for high, and the next to last number further splits the group, such as 4830 for the low end of the high cards in the 4xxx series, 4850 for the middle, 4870 for the high, and if its a 9 for the third number, like 4890, then its a dual chip design.

Hell of a lot easier than trying to keep up with which is which on the Nvidia side, GS vs GT vs GTS vs GX vs Ti and so on.