Tom's Hardware: AMD Trinity Desktop APU review

http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/a10-5800k-a8-5600k-a6-5400k,review-32463.html

Our per-clock cycle testing suggests that the revised design, as it's implemented on Trinity, is as much as 15% faster than Bulldozer. A quad-core Trinity-based chip will still trail a quad-core Llano APU if you hit it with a floating-point-heavy workload-but that's to be expected, given that each of two Piledriver modules shares a floating-point unit. Fortunately for AMD, most of what we use to test taxes the architecture's four integer cores.

A majority of our benchmarks favor Trinity over Llano thanks to IPC improvements and significantly higher clock rates. Piledriver still gives up significant instruction per cycle throughput compared to the older Stars design, but is better able to compensate than Bulldozer. The result, then, is modest x86 performance. It's better than Bulldozer, but only a slight step up from what you get Llano.

How about Trinity's built-in graphics component? Clearly, this is one of AMD's greatest strengths. We know from our Core i7-3770K review that HD Graphics 4000 can't even keep up with Llano. Pile on frame rates that are 20 to 25% higher than the first-gen APU and you have the prelude to a blowout favoring AMD's Trinity

Here are some benchmarks


Well, my thoughts. It's not enough for me to upgrade from my A8-3850 due to the new socket but it is a hell of an improvement on the GPU side. I mean, 3/4 games are playable on 1080P (25 fps is just enough to call playable but I know many would disagree) and they all get great framerates at 720P. I guess those 6900-series cores really helped Trinity.

It's a shame piledriver is only a bit better than the Athlon II cores (stars), by the time steamroller comes around Intel will have Haswell out and the gap in CPU performance will be stretched further.

For a budget tier gaming PC these chips are great. If they are priced at around 100 like llano was they will be a steal.

EDIT Added 2 CPU benchmarks

EDIT 2 I want to remind you all you can probably pull off a healthy OC on these chips too to increase the performance.

I saw that too. I found it incredibly disappointing that it wasn't compared to intel chips, as that's kinda what its selling point would be. We all knew it would be better than bulldozer and that the APU would be ahead of intel's integrated HD 4000. But in terms of processor performance, if it's not compared to intel, we don't really know how good it is.

Yeah, being a PC gamer is so cheap and easy, not sure why the rest of the world doesn't embrace it...

/sarcasm

Only took two posts for someone to make an ignorant, non constructive hate post. New record?

Gotta say, that's not bad for integrated graphics, assuming you're ok with 720p. Personally the FPS at 1080 is way too low for my liking. I can hardly stand 40 fps...

I didn't see it, but did they say anything about price?

Matthew94:

image

why not against anything Intel?

ResonanceSD:

Matthew94:

image

why not against anything Intel?

Edit: Also, wtf is that resolution XD

Edit 2: 34 fps isn't "playable" unless you're starting from a stupidly low base computer.

I didn't think anyone actually sold monitors at that resolution. Would look shit on a screen with a higher native.

Sober Thal:
Yeah, being a PC gamer is so cheap and easy, not sure why the rest of the world doesn't embrace it...

/sarcasm

Typical console peasant.

Ah good, the flaming has started early I see -_-

OT: Good to see PC gaming becoming cheaper and cheaper. Should make it easier for people (including myself) to get into.

I'm rather curious about how they hold up compared to my old Phenom 965 I have in my PC.

Sober Thal:
Yeah, being a PC gamer is so cheap and easy, not sure why the rest of the world doesn't embrace it...

/sarcasm

You must've missed those topics about the decent, under-300 quid gaming rig that were posted here a while back.

Waaghpowa:
Gotta say, that's not bad for integrated graphics, assuming you're ok with 720p. Personally the FPS at 1080 is way too low for my liking. I can hardly stand 40 fps...

I didn't see it, but did they say anything about price?

It's not due out until around october due to the stock being aimed at laptops for the school season. I like to have high framerates too but I would call 30 playable seeing as many console games run at that. Hell, I played metro 2033 at 25fps when I had a 5770.

ResonanceSD:
why not against anything Intel?

They say

We know from our Core i7-3770K review that HD Graphics 4000 can't even keep up with Llano. Pile on frame rates that are 20 to 25% higher than the first-gen APU and you have the prelude to a blowout favoring AMD's Trinity. Of course, there aren't any Intel processors with HD Graphics 4000 selling where we'd expect to find these upcoming APUs, making HD Graphics 2000 or 3000 a more realistic comparison. We'll see how that Core i3-2100 sizes up, but the results of our benchmarks are foregone.

llano destroyed HD 4000 on it's own so this would leave it in the dust and if you want to buy a HD 4000 chip you'd be spending way more than this.

SpAc3man:
I didn't think anyone actually sold monitors at that resolution. Would look shit on a screen with a higher native.

Many televisions that are "HD Ready" have a resolution of 1280x720, I have a TV that does it.

ResonanceSD:

Edit: Also, wtf is that resolution XD

Edit 2: 34 fps isn't "playable" unless you're starting from a stupidly low base computer.

Resolution explained above.

34 FPS is more than playable, trust me. I know you have high end hardware but you must understand what playable means, it means you can play the game without any major issues, you can do that at 30 FPS. I'm guessing you couldn't play KOTOR or LA Noire as they are both locked to 30.

Hazy992:
Ah good, the flaming has started early I see -_-

OT: Good to see PC gaming becoming cheaper and cheaper. Should make it easier for people (including myself) to get into.

Yeah, people really seem to hate the low end with a passion. I mean, I think this is great for a single chip which is aimed at the budget end.

Matthew94:
Yeah, people really seem to hate the low end with a passion. I mean, I think this is great for a single chip which is aimed at the budget end.

Thing is though, people who get in to PC gaming through through the low end route will probably invest in some better hardware later down the line, and benchmarks like that for so cheap is a great starting point.

It just seems snobbish quite frankly and I can't believe people think 720p for a budget machine is bad. But then again I'm an inferior console peasant so what the hell do I know?

Hazy992:

Matthew94:
Yeah, people really seem to hate the low end with a passion. I mean, I think this is great for a single chip which is aimed at the budget end.

Thing is though, people who get in to PC gaming through through the low end route will probably invest in some better hardware later down the line, and benchmarks like that for so cheap is a great starting point.

It just seems snobbish quite frankly and I can't believe people think 720p for a budget machine is bad. But then again I'm an inferior console peasant so what the hell do I know?

I agree and due to the fact this can be run in dual graphics mode it means you can upgrade in the future if you want (I know all PCs can). You could buy this and if you like PC gaming buy a dedicated GPU to run with it, if you don't then you can just keep the APU on it's own and still have a good desktop machine for general use and light gaming.

It's a great stepping stone into PC gaming.

Matthew94:

Hazy992:

Matthew94:
Yeah, people really seem to hate the low end with a passion. I mean, I think this is great for a single chip which is aimed at the budget end.

Thing is though, people who get in to PC gaming through through the low end route will probably invest in some better hardware later down the line, and benchmarks like that for so cheap is a great starting point.

It just seems snobbish quite frankly and I can't believe people think 720p for a budget machine is bad. But then again I'm an inferior console peasant so what the hell do I know?

I agree and due to the fact this can be run in dual graphics mode it means you can upgrade in the future if you want (I know all PCs can). You could buy this and if you like PC gaming buy a dedicated GPU to run with it, if you don't then you can just keep the APU on it's own and still have a good desktop machine for general use and light gaming.

It's a great stepping stone into PC gaming.

Exactly, and if PC gamers want more people to embrace PC gaming then they're going to have to stop being so hostile to the lower end market. Not everyone can afford a high end machine.

Hazy992:

Matthew94:

Hazy992:
Thing is though, people who get in to PC gaming through through the low end route will probably invest in some better hardware later down the line, and benchmarks like that for so cheap is a great starting point.

It just seems snobbish quite frankly and I can't believe people think 720p for a budget machine is bad. But then again I'm an inferior console peasant so what the hell do I know?

I agree and due to the fact this can be run in dual graphics mode it means you can upgrade in the future if you want (I know all PCs can). You could buy this and if you like PC gaming buy a dedicated GPU to run with it, if you don't then you can just keep the APU on it's own and still have a good desktop machine for general use and light gaming.

It's a great stepping stone into PC gaming.

Exactly, and if PC gamers want more people to embrace PC gaming then they're going to have to stop being so hostile to the lower end market. Not everyone can afford a high end machine.

I also remembered, seeing as these are unlocked chips it's a cheap way for people to get into overclocking.

Bulldozer (the previous generation of CPU from PIledriver, the CPU in the APU) could hit 4.5Ghz on air pretty easily so I can't see why this couldn't either. It would suck up a lot of juice though if it's like bulldozer, I'll have to wait until they do it and record the results.

EDIT Yeah, this hostility is probably one of the big reasons for the "PC gaming master race" stereotype.

Matthew94:

Hazy992:

Matthew94:

I agree and due to the fact this can be run in dual graphics mode it means you can upgrade in the future if you want (I know all PCs can). You could buy this and if you like PC gaming buy a dedicated GPU to run with it, if you don't then you can just keep the APU on it's own and still have a good desktop machine for general use and light gaming.

It's a great stepping stone into PC gaming.

Exactly, and if PC gamers want more people to embrace PC gaming then they're going to have to stop being so hostile to the lower end market. Not everyone can afford a high end machine.

I also remembered, seeing as these are unlocked chips it's a cheap way for people to get into overclocking.

Bulldozer (the previous generation of CPU from PIledriver, the CPU in the APU) could hit 4.5Ghz on air pretty easily so I can't see why this couldn't either. It would suck up a lot of juice though if it's like bulldozer, I'll have to wait until they do it and record the results.

EDIT Yeah, this hostility is probably one of the big reasons for the "PC gaming master race" stereotype.

This chip is really sounding like a good deal in my book.

And yeah I'd say it's a huge contribution to that stereotype.

Hazy992:
This chip is really sounding like a good deal in my book.

And yeah I'd say it's a huge contribution to that stereotype.

If they price the A10 at around 100 like the previous top-tier chip and let it run in dual graphics with more than a 6670 then it would be a must have for a first gaming PC. The 6670 is a good card (I own one) but it's the best card the last APU could run in dual graphics with, it would be a shame if it was the max both times.

It would make sense for it to be able to run with the mid-range 7000 cards as they are affordable like a 7750 as it is essentially the new 6670 due to the fact it doesn't need a power cable, just power from the socket.

I guess there is nothing we can really do about people with an elitist attitude. I mean, I love having good hardware but it doesn't stop me from appreciating the lower-tiers of gaming. It's one of the reasons I made those 2 "Sub-300 Gaming PC Threads" just to show what you can get on a budget.

Matthew94:
snip

Yeah with how easy it is to upgrade too it's a must buy.

And yeah the elitists will never go away but it's still kinda sad

Matthew94:
-snip-

At this point, all AMD can hope to do in the x86 space is provide strong integrated solutions, which they are doing. In terms of CPU performance, Intel has the crown and shows no sign of losing it in the future. If AMD keep up at this rate, they'll pretty much be the go to solution for any budget build that would normally have featured a low to mid range discrete graphics card. Saying that, the CPU performance in and of itself isn't too bad, it's just when compared to Intel that it's pretty abysmal. I'd wager that most people wouldn't tell the difference, because at this point with quad cores becoming ever more prevalent, even in the low end space, even AMD's chips will blow through any CPU task fairly unscathed. Only those in design, CAD/CAM etc will really tell the difference with an Intel chip.

I've always liked AMD, they are true underdogs that really seem to be trying. But I just can't justify getting one of their chips as my needs and budget can usually factor in a decent Intel chip and a high end discrete GPU. But I always recommend AMD chips to people when the use case fits.

Lastly, this is a great deal for anyone wanting to get into PC gaming but can't afford bigger machines. It's always good to welcome more people into the fold.

PS - There's a bit of a discussion regarding FPS. 30 FPS is actually more playable than 40 or 50, since it is half of 60 and thus a direct derivative (since most panels refresh reports at 60), players going at 30 will not notice choppyness in screen refresh like they would at 40 or 50. It just won't be as smooth as 60, for obvious reasons, but that difference in smoothness only ever comes out to those whose eyes are trained for 60 (like mine).

Damn this thread is nerdy as fuck

Keep it up guys

Griffolion:

Matthew94:
-snip-

At this point, all AMD can hope to do in the x86 space is provide strong integrated solutions, which they are doing. In terms of CPU performance, Intel has the crown and shows no sign of losing it in the future. If AMD keep up at this rate, they'll pretty much be the go to solution for any budget build that would normally have featured a low to mid range discrete graphics card. Saying that, the CPU performance in and of itself isn't too bad, it's just when compared to Intel that it's pretty abysmal. I'd wager that most people wouldn't tell the difference, because at this point with quad cores becoming ever more prevalent, even in the low end space, even AMD's chips will blow through any CPU task fairly unscathed. Only those in design, CAD/CAM etc will really tell the difference with an Intel chip.

I've always liked AMD, they are true underdogs that really seem to be trying. But I just can't justify getting one of their chips as my needs and budget can usually factor in a decent Intel chip and a high end discrete GPU. But I always recommend AMD chips to people when the use case fits.

Lastly, this is a great deal for anyone wanting to get into PC gaming but can't afford bigger machines. It's always good to welcome more people into the fold.

PS - There's a bit of a discussion regarding FPS. 30 FPS is actually more playable than 40 or 50, since it is half of 60 and thus a direct derivative (since most panels refresh reports at 60), players going at 30 will not notice choppyness in screen refresh like they would at 40 or 50. It just won't be as smooth as 60, for obvious reasons, but that difference in smoothness only ever comes out to those whose eyes are trained for 60 (like mine).

I agree completely, if I was buying a new PC I wouldn't get this as I'd go for a dedicated CPU and GPU combo. This is (as you said) great for getting into PC gaming.

What I think is great about AMD is that they can still get good performance despite being such a small company (I think they spend $100m on R&D and Intel spend $2bn) and they are also a CPU process behind intel.

I doubt we will see a repeat of the Athlon 64 vs Pentium 4 where AMD had the performance crown. It's a shame, it would be nice to see more competition

Matthew94:
.

YEAH I BOUGHT A 3770K.

LEFT THE GRAPHICS ON INTEGRATED 4000HD THOUGH.

Like that's EVER going to happen -_-. Fail bench.

ResonanceSD:

Matthew94:
.

YEAH I BOUGHT A 3770K.

LEFT THE GRAPHICS ON INTEGRATED 4000HD THOUGH.

Like that's EVER going to happen -_-. Fail bench.

You might if you got it prebuilt.

What did you expect it to use then if you wanted the APU compared to the i7? A dedicated card?

AMD is great for poor enthusiasts, for 100 you can buy a 4ghz quad core bull dozer that will overclock to 5ghz on just a 25 cooler...

Sounds fun to me.

(I have an older PhenomII six core OCed to 4ghz.. I should have gotten less cores with higher clock :P)

 

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked