Slashdot Mirror
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."
AMD is finally competitive with Intel's lowest end offerings again!
Yay!
Mod me down, my New Earth Global Warmingist friends!
One down.....two to go!
AMD has apparently forbidden testers to write about cpuperformance.
In their NDA-contract it's specified
"In previewing x86 applications, without providing hard numbers until October [something], we are hoping that you will be able to convey what is most important to the end-user which is what the experience of using the system is like. As one of the foremost evaluators of technology, you are in a unique position to draw educated comparisons and conclusions based on real-world experience with the platform,"
and
"The topics which you must be held for the October [sometime], 2012 embargo lift are
- Overclocking
- Pricing
- Non game benchmarks"
So the reviews coming out are only from sources that has decided to go along with those "guidelines". In other words, not complete, I would say extremly biased.
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
But does it run linux worth a damn? Inquiring minds want to know. I got boned by buying an Athlon 64 L110/R690M machine for which proper Linux support was never forthcoming. Now I want to see power saving and the graphics driver work before I give AMD money for more empty promises about Linux support.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
I admit, I am one of the last few ideologues in PC gaming. I would never consider AMD graphic card due to shitty drivers and I would never consider Intel CPU due to socket shenanigans. Yes, I am actually one of the rare few people who upgrades CPUs and cares about socket backwards comparability.
My current gaming rig uses Zambezi 8-core AMD CPU, still adequate but it shows its age. I am disappointed AMD hasn't come up with an upgrade, but I can wait.
My last gaming rig lasted me over 4 years and going. I started with Athlon X2 end ended with Phenom II X4. It is still in use as a media PC, and still capable of gaming.
Maybe it is dumb luck, but every AMD chip I had was running cool, overclocked well and lasted. Every Intel chip I owned didn't overclock well and had problems staying cool.
Meth is a hell of a drug.
I am John Hurt.
For the last few years I have only been buying Intel hardware because it just works out of the box with all Linux distros. Is this AMD thing going to work out of the box in Linux?
No, I'm not going to take time to download and install drivers. That crap is for M$ users. Yeah, yeah, I know Intel graphics are not the fastest thing out there. Save it for someone who cares. The Intel graphics are fast enough for the games that I write and play.
Multiple applications open at once cover the multicore need quite nicely. At this point the clock on both is in the good enough territory, for me it would be just price.
I was just wondering if the quality of the video drivers has improved at all since ATI was rebranded to AMD.
No, ATI's drivers are still shit. But now, nVidia's drivers are also shit, so they look better by comparison. As it stands, Intel is the leader in working graphics.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
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.
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.