Why do fools insist AMD is better when its not ? - Page 4 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #91 of 164 Old 06-11-2012, 12:12 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Zon2020's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 2,716
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by matteos View Post

We haven't seen Trinity desktop benches yet, but they are likely to be a win since laptop benches look really good.

Win at what? Llano was "better" too, but the advantage was meaningless. As you said, both do 1080P video just fine, and yet with both in order to game you needed to buy a discrete video card. The likelihood is that, just as with Llano, Trinity will still be inadequate for real gaming, and so you'll still have to buy a discrete video card. Sounds like a pyrrhic victory to me. The laptop benchmarks are basically meaningless for real gaming.

Quote:
Originally Posted by matteos View Post

The point is, a thuban is more than almost everybody needs. We are at a point where any midrange and above cpu is more than enough for anyone. Who cares if an i5 can apply 10 photoshop filter effects 3 seconds faster than an 1100t?

A $90 i3 is more than almost everybody needs. So what. Does that mean that you should overpay for what you're getting? As I said, if you like paying more money for less performance, the Thuban is great, not to mention that it sucks power, pumps out heat, and lacks an integrated GPU, so go for it. I fail to see how "yeah, but it does what most people need" makes any difference when you could have gotten even more real performance for less money. In my book, paying more for less is a bad deal.
Zon2020 is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #92 of 164 Old 06-11-2012, 01:06 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Dark_Slayer's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 2,468
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 141 Post(s)
Liked: 292
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zon2020 View Post

inadequate for real gaming, and so you'll still have to buy a discrete video card

What is real gaming? When I think of HTPC gaming, my mind goes directly to console emulation. Are people out to play newest versions of Crysis, Max Payne, Battlefield, CoD?

When the gaming industry started to repeatedly slap consumers in the face by putting out shoddy console ports and removing dedicated server multiplayer features, most gamers I know just started to buy up XBOX 360s. Multiplayer has a lot more game lobbies for consoles than PC multiplayers offer, and since the 360 is the lowest-common-denominator graphics wise, lazy developer houses keep it as the standard so they can make a quick buck by porting to PS3 and PC without utilizing advanced hardware in PCs. Only a handful of new games ever utilize the newest dGPUs and more-than-two core processors.

It's always worthwhile to know the limitations of your hardware, but also the software "target" you are trying to hit.

I guess I should correct my previous post by stating, "Most console emulators require excessive configuration and installation tweaking to achieve GPU offloading." In my experience an Athlon X2 + GTX 260 would stutter with default configurations in my favorite console emulators while an i3 + HD2000 would handle them fine at 75% utilization where the Athlon would experience 100% utilization. Tough comparison I know, but software that would properly utilize the GTX 260 (i.e. original Crysis or CAD) would run with plenty of headroom for the X2.
Dark_Slayer is offline  
post #93 of 164 Old 06-11-2012, 02:21 PM
 
matteos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 156
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 20
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dark_Slayer View Post

I may be incorrect, but I remember AMD being first with x64 architecture and the CPU+GPU architecture. Unfortunately the x64 architecture was irrelevant at the time of the AMD 64 and by the time the major OSs caught up Intel produced a more refined x64 offering, so first to cross the finish line didn't necessarily win the market.
The manufacturing technology difference that Zon2020 pointed out would be the elephant in the room as far as I'm concerned. Intel doubles down in this area, which is why they always win the power consumption vs performance in floating point arithmetic. There on a rich getting richer path as far as I'm concerned which should lead AMD down the mobile SOC path. NVIDIA has also been fierce on this front hammering hard with their Tegra line. They laughed all the way to the bank with Xbox and PS3 revenue. To think that they'll be beaten out in the next gen console wars is really just a guess at this point. Apple went against NVIDIA with one single generation of Macbook Pros, and as of today Apple has switched back and will be using the NVIDIA 650M in their new line of laptops.
This logic kills me, and it should be of note that a lot of console emulators receive nearly 0 benefit from a dedicated gpu. (I would like to say a majority, but I don't feel like doing the research) Check your emulators of choice for their utilization, but for my favorites for PS and N64 the coding for emulation relies 90% on the processor. Typically it's only standard games that utilize dGPUs while emulators rely heavily on your cpu, but I do speak primarily from my own console emulation interests

You are right about x64, AMD has introduced some fairly radical stuff, the architecture on bulldozer using modules instead of cores is fairly revolutionary, where they fail is they are too forward thinking and don't focus on the here and now, when they introduce things the market isn't there or it isn't fully supported, by the time it is intel have rolled out with a better version.

I don't know about emulators being more cpu dependent, I only just installed one and haven't spent much time with it. here are no emulators I'm aware of that are more advanced than the wii, so I'd have thought most current cpus should be able to run all of them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zon2020 View Post

Win at what? Llano was "better" too, but the advantage was meaningless. As you said, both do 1080P video just fine, and yet with both in order to game you needed to buy a discrete video card. The likelihood is that, just as with Llano, Trinity will still be inadequate for real gaming, and so you'll still have to buy a discrete video card. Sounds like a pyrrhic victory to me. The laptop benchmarks are basically meaningless for real gaming.
A $90 i3 is more than almost everybody needs. So what. Does that mean that you should overpay for what you're getting? As I said, if you like paying more money for less performance, the Thuban is great, not to mention that it sucks power, pumps out heat, and lacks an integrated GPU, so go for it. I fail to see how "yeah, but it does what most people need" makes any difference when you could have gotten even more real performance for less money. In my book, paying more for less is a bad deal.

At this point I'm just going to stop arguing with you. You are able to game with Llano, it worked great on laptops. Before llano you couldn't game on a budget $400 laptop. Now you can, trinity improves that even further. Same with desktop, we are talking budget computers that have enough juice to game with, not at ultra settings, but the people buying them aren't dropping $400 on a video card, they're dropping $400 on a whole computer. APU has its place, deny it if you want, I don't care, buy Intel if you want, I don't care. I'm glad you are happy with your i5 or your i3 or whatever.
matteos is offline  
post #94 of 164 Old 06-11-2012, 02:26 PM
AVS Special Member
 
ilovejedd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 3,716
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 32 Post(s)
Liked: 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by matteos View Post

We are at a point where any midrange and above cpu is more than enough for anyone.
Correction, make that almost everyone (at least if you consider AMD's midrange and high-end offerings). There are still some applications where fast single-threaded performance matters more and Intel is better than AMD in that regard. However, I reckon even the bottom dual-core Llano (A4-3300?) and Sandy Bridge (Celeron G530) paired with an SSD would be enough for majority of computer users. Indeed, I know several folks who are still using a Pentium 4.

Quote:
Originally Posted by matteos View Post

Desktop is a mature market, enthusiast cpus are not a focus for either intel or AMD, both are more concerned with server and mobile, AMD is losing on both server and desktop t the moment, but it is starting to win on mobile. AMD is a better choice than intel for laptops with trinity, and intel has been losing market share to AMD for the last year. Laptops overtook desktop sales in 2008 and tablets will overtake desktops within a couple of years. Mobile is a much more important market to get the lead in right now.
True, mobile is more important. AMD is actually a bit late to the game on this one with Llano as Intel has focused on mobile since the Core 2 (which was derived from mobile). However, what AMD brings to the table is a good balance of CPU and GPU power whereas Intel is too CPU-heavy. Not sure how long laptops will be sustainable, though, given tablets are slowly eroding PC (both desktop and mobile) sales.
ilovejedd is offline  
post #95 of 164 Old 06-11-2012, 02:34 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Zon2020's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 2,716
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by ilovejedd View Post


True, mobile is more important. AMD is actually a bit late to the game on this one with Llano as Intel has focused on mobile since the Core 2 (which was derived from mobile). However, what AMD brings to the table is a good balance of CPU and GPU power whereas Intel is too CPU-heavy. Not sure how long laptops will be sustainable, though, given tablets are slowly eroding PC (both desktop and mobile) sales.

Plus, if AMD's only advantage is moderate gaming on laptops, that's not going to remotely budge their eroding market share upwards. Intel delivers more cpu strength and lower power consumption. 95% of laptop buyers don't care a bit about gaming on their laptop. They're using Facebook and Skype and Office and email and surfing the web and the only thing they care about the graphics is can they display a powerpoint, can they look at their digital pictures, and can they watch Youtube and Hulu. AMD is pushing its graphics because, with its acquisition of ATI, that's all it has.
Zon2020 is offline  
post #96 of 164 Old 06-11-2012, 02:43 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Zon2020's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 2,716
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by matteos View Post


At this point I'm just going to stop arguing with you. You are able to game with Llano, it worked great on laptops. Before llano you couldn't game on a budget $400 laptop. Now you can, trinity improves that even further. Same with desktop, we are talking budget computers that have enough juice to game with, not at ultra settings, but the people buying them aren't dropping $400 on a video card, they're dropping $400 on a whole computer. APU has its place, deny it if you want, I don't care, buy Intel if you want, I don't care. I'm glad you are happy with your i5 or your i3 or whatever.

There wouldn't be any "argument" if you wouldn't just make stuff up. You can't do any serious gaming on a Llano. Chanting repeatedly that you can doesn't alter that reality. I quoted you what xbitlabs said after they actually tested the top of the line: "In the typical desktop 1080p resolution AMD A8-3870K processor can’t deliver acceptable fps rate even with lowered image quality settings. And overclocking doesn’t save the day."

Some people just have an irrational hatred of anything named Microsoft or Intel.
Zon2020 is offline  
post #97 of 164 Old 06-11-2012, 02:51 PM
Member
 
TheTinkerer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 94
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Mfusick Is an idiot.
TheTinkerer is offline  
post #98 of 164 Old 06-11-2012, 03:00 PM
 
matteos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 156
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 20
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zon2020 View Post

There wouldn't be any "argument" if you wouldn't just make stuff up. You can't do any serious gaming on a Llano. Chanting repeatedly that you can doesn't alter that reality. I quoted you what xbitlabs said after they actually tested the top of the line: "In the typical desktop 1080p resolution AMD A8-3870K processor can’t deliver acceptable fps rate even with lowered image quality settings. And overclocking doesn’t save the day."
Some people just have an irrational hatred of anything named Microsoft or Intel.

There wouldn't be an argument if you read the things I wrote, I don't have a hatred of intel, I just bought an intel cpu, I'm no fan of microsoft since I've had two xboxes rrod on me, but that isn't argued in this post. Stop being such an intel fanboi that you react to things not even siad.. You can game on a Llano, it is a budget system, it is not going to give you the same performance as a high end cpu combined with a high end GPU. People drop money on gaming systems, my GPU was over $300. You can get a LLano system for only slightly more than that. You can game on it at lowered image quality settings and at 1080p

Look at this review and how it compares with the i3, twice the FPS of the i3

http://www.legitreviews.com/article/1649/13/

Now admit you are an intel fanboy with a blind hatred of anything AMD
matteos is offline  
post #99 of 164 Old 06-11-2012, 03:01 PM
 
matteos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 156
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 20
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheTinkerer View Post

Mfusick Is an idiot.

Agreed, I've seen him start a number of troll threads.
matteos is offline  
post #100 of 164 Old 06-11-2012, 03:02 PM
 
matteos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 156
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 20
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zon2020 View Post

Plus, if AMD's only advantage is moderate gaming on laptops, that's not going to remotely budge their eroding market share upwards. Intel delivers more cpu strength and lower power consumption. 95% of laptop buyers don't care a bit about gaming on their laptop. They're using Facebook and Skype and Office and email and surfing the web and the only thing they care about the graphics is can they display a powerpoint, can they look at their digital pictures, and can they watch Youtube and Hulu. AMD is pushing its graphics because, with its acquisition of ATI, that's all it has.

And yet intel is steadily losing marketshare to AMD on notebooks
matteos is offline  
post #101 of 164 Old 06-11-2012, 03:12 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Zon2020's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 2,716
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by matteos View Post


Look at this review and how it compares with the i3, twice the FPS of the i3

Speaking of not reading. Let me say this once more. This time pay attention.

It doesn't matter if the Llano's gaming graphics performance is better than Sandy Bridge's because you can't game with either one. If you want to game, you need a discrete card with either one.

It's really not that difficult.
Zon2020 is offline  
post #102 of 164 Old 06-11-2012, 03:15 PM
 
matteos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 156
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 20
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zon2020 View Post

Speaking of not reading. Let me say this once more. This time pay attention.
It doesn't matter if the Llano's gaming graphics performance is better than Sandy Bridge's because you can't game with either one. If you want to game, you need a discrete card with either one.
It's really not that difficult.

click on the link, look at the benchmarks done with Llano, compare them to the i3.
matteos is offline  
post #103 of 164 Old 06-11-2012, 03:27 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Zon2020's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 2,716
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by matteos View Post

And yet intel is steadily losing marketshare to AMD on notebooks

Steadily? Last year Intel's mobile processor market share fell 2.6% to 83.8%. AMD gain slightly to end at 16%. A 5:1 margin for Intel. It's totally lopsided. And during the same period AMD actually lost market share in both desktops and servers.

The real question is how soon ARM will pass AMD.
Zon2020 is offline  
post #104 of 164 Old 06-11-2012, 03:29 PM
AVS Special Member
 
ilovejedd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 3,716
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 32 Post(s)
Liked: 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dark_Slayer View Post

This logic kills me, and it should be of note that a lot of console emulators receive nearly 0 benefit from a dedicated gpu. (I would like to say a majority, but I don't feel like doing the research) Check your emulators of choice for their utilization, but for my favorites for PS and N64 the coding for emulation relies 90% on the processor. Typically it's only standard games that utilize dGPUs while emulators rely heavily on your cpu, but I do speak primarily from my own console emulation interests
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dark_Slayer View Post

I guess I should correct my previous post by stating, "Most console emulators require excessive configuration and installation tweaking to achieve GPU offloading." In my experience an Athlon X2 + GTX 260 would stutter with default configurations in my favorite console emulators while an i3 + HD2000 would handle them fine at 75% utilization where the Athlon would experience 100% utilization.
I'd like to comment, though, PS1 emulation isn't really that heavy on resources and Llano (Athlon II X2) should be more than up to the task. Atom and Zacate are almost borderline acceptable at high settings and a Celeron E3300 Wolfdale definitely makes the grade (exceeds it actually, I get ~200FPS on average with frame limiting disabled) so an Athlon II X2 (which is basically what Llano has) would definitely suffice.

On a side note, I was actually waiting on Llano to build a tiny/portable emulation rig (Intel iGPU I've tried don't play nice with Pete's OpenGL2 GPU plug-in). However, looking at reviews, power consumption and heat at load is comparable to an Intel-based solution paired with a GT 430/HD 5570. With the high initial cost of Llano (FM1 M-ITX+Llano would've cost the same as LGA-1155 M-ITX+Celeron/Pentium SNB+dGPU), the latter just made for a better option both on price and performance.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dark_Slayer View Post

It's always worthwhile to know the limitations of your hardware, but also the software "target" you are trying to hit.
Well said. I check benchmarks, too, but I usually ignore the overall rankings and just zero in on the actual apps I'm likely to run.

Quote:
Originally Posted by matteos View Post

I don't know about emulators being more cpu dependent, I only just installed one and haven't spent much time with it. here are no emulators I'm aware of that are more advanced than the wii, so I'd have thought most current cpus should be able to run all of them.
PCSX2 (PS2). Waaaaaay harder on the CPU than any modern game I know of.
ilovejedd is offline  
post #105 of 164 Old 06-11-2012, 03:30 PM
 
matteos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 156
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 20
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zon2020 View Post

Steadily? Last year Intel's mobile processor market share fell 2.6% to 83.8%. AMD gain slightly to end at 16%. A 5:1 margin for Intel. It's totally lopsided. And during the same period AMD actually lost market share in both desktops and servers.
The real question is how soon ARM will pass AMD.

So you've finally conceded the point that you can game with a Llano based computer?

Intel has always been the big dog and will be for the forseeable future, only for a couple of years with the original FX was AMD even close to trading blows, since this was combined with intels netburst fail.
matteos is offline  
post #106 of 164 Old 06-14-2012, 08:44 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Addicted Member
 
Mfusick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Western MA
Posts: 22,375
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 142 Post(s)
Liked: 771
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zon2020 View Post

Not entirely a fair price comparison. That's an OEM chip, so you need to buy a heatsink. The G530 boxed is $35 at Micro Center.

This^

And,

My biggest offense to that terrible article was that it alluded to the fact that the majority of people seem to think AMD is the best/obvious choice.

Someone reading that article that did not know better would go out and buy an AMD when really the Intel cost the same or lower and performs better.

-

"Too much is almost enough. Anything in life worth doing is worth overdoing. Moderation is for cowards."
Mfusick is offline  
post #107 of 164 Old 06-14-2012, 08:47 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Addicted Member
 
Mfusick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Western MA
Posts: 22,375
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 142 Post(s)
Liked: 771
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mfusick View Post

http://www.anandtech.com/show/5906/a...builders-guide


"All the three major vendors (Intel, AMD and NVIDIA) pay quite a bit of attention to the HTPC market in their products. It is universally agreed that AMD presents some of the most economical HTPC building blocks targeted towards budget system builders. "



Really ?


I can list five important reasons why intel is a much better choice for me.

Glad to see this thread picked up.


Lol.

But- lets stay on the quote above.

Why would the author make that statement ? It is really true?

"Universally agreed" ???? "most economical HTPC building blocks targets at budget builders" ???


I would point to my thread about cheapest decent HTPC and point out 5 builds all cheaper and all better than any AMD build I have seen on here... for various reasons.


Intel is cooler, cheaper, quieter, faster, better, reliable, - and since with a Sandy 1155 motherboard- you have tons of CPU upgrade options for cheap. AMD socket is old, slow and being discontinued. It's hotter and uses more wattage.

Seems like the author did not do his homework.

-

"Too much is almost enough. Anything in life worth doing is worth overdoing. Moderation is for cowards."
Mfusick is offline  
post #108 of 164 Old 06-14-2012, 09:27 AM
AVS Special Member
 
jeffkro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 2,053
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 23
http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/27531-amd-desktop-trinity-coming

Looking good 65w trinity chips are quad core and supposedly there is no delay
jeffkro is offline  
post #109 of 164 Old 06-14-2012, 09:35 AM
AVS Special Member
 
StardogChampion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: New Hampshire, USA
Posts: 3,003
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 34 Post(s)
Liked: 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mfusick View Post


"Universally agreed" ???? "most economical HTPC building blocks targets at budget builders" ???

At least get the quote right: "some of the most economical". As in, in the universal of most economical, they offer some, not all. That is to also imply others offer some.

 

 

StardogChampion is offline  
post #110 of 164 Old 06-14-2012, 09:44 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Zon2020's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 2,716
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffkro View Post

http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/27531-amd-desktop-trinity-coming
Looking good 65w trinity chips are quad core and supposedly there is no delay

It's interesting that AMD contacted HardwareCanucks because of HardwareCanuck's reporting last week. Apparently AMD addressed the "delay" issues, but there's no indication they responded to this part of the HardwareCanucks report:

"Benchmarks done to date indicate that while Trinity on the desktop proves to be power efficient, it is much slower than an equivalently clocked Intel chip."

It's also curious that AMD tried to address the reports that delivery would be delayed until Fall by saying "We expect to start shipping Trinity APUs into the component channel starting in the second half of this year.” If I'm not mistaken, "second half" could mean anything from next month to Christmas.

It remains to be seen what AMD actually delivers and when.
Zon2020 is offline  
post #111 of 164 Old 06-14-2012, 11:23 AM
Advanced Member
 
Ruiner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 527
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 17
Trinity needing a new socket is major fail.

Benchmarks at Tom's show a ~20% improvement at the GPU level; Trinity A8 basically matches A8 Llano at CPU level, A10 is a little faster, A6 a bunch slower. Power consumption hasn't changed.
For gaming, recent titles will play at 720p at medium quality.

Pricing will be make or break for these.
Ruiner is offline  
post #112 of 164 Old 06-14-2012, 11:28 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
assassin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 12,936
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 35 Post(s)
Liked: 232
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruiner View Post

Trinity needing a new socket is major fail.
Benchmarks at Tom's show a ~20% improvement at the GPU level; Trinity A8 basically matches A8 Llano at CPU level, A10 is a little faster, A6 a bunch slower. Power consumption hasn't changed.
For gaming, recent titles will play at 720p at medium quality.
Pricing will be make or break for these.

So it is safe to say that it isn't what it was cracked up to be?

Also since some people were critical of the new socket need for the Intel builds I would assume that they will be equally critical of Trinity needing a new socket.
assassin is online now  
post #113 of 164 Old 06-14-2012, 11:34 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Zon2020's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 2,716
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by assassin View Post

So it is safe to say that it isn't what it was cracked up to be?
Also since some people were critical of the new socket need for the Intel builds I would assume that they will be equally critical of Trinity needing a new socket.

Since no one has actually seen a desktop part yet, I don't think anyone actually knows how it will turn out.
Zon2020 is offline  
post #114 of 164 Old 06-14-2012, 11:38 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
assassin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 12,936
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 35 Post(s)
Liked: 232
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zon2020 View Post

Since no one has actually seen a desktop part yet, I don't think anyone actually knows how it will turn out.

Agreed.

I was (sarcastically) making that comment trying to point out the same.

The new socket need seems like a problem for some of the anti-Intel people though.
assassin is online now  
post #115 of 164 Old 06-14-2012, 11:47 AM
Advanced Member
 
Ruiner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 527
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 17
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zon2020 View Post

Since no one has actually seen a desktop part yet, I don't think anyone actually knows how it will turn out.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/a10-5800k-a8-5600k-a6-5400k,3224.html
This looks kosher. The benches match expectations.
Ruiner is offline  
post #116 of 164 Old 06-14-2012, 11:56 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
assassin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 12,936
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 35 Post(s)
Liked: 232
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruiner View Post

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/a10-5800k-a8-5600k-a6-5400k,3224.html
This looks kosher. The benches match expectations.

Does it? I am not so sure.

I really want to see an Intel vs AMD comparison so we can see.
assassin is online now  
post #117 of 164 Old 06-14-2012, 12:51 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Zon2020's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 2,716
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by assassin View Post

Does it? I am not so sure.
I really want to see an Intel vs AMD comparison so we can see.

Yes, that will be interesting to see some head to head comparisons on various tests. I suspect there will simply be arguments over which particular items matter more. For example, in the Adobe premier rendering test, Tom's comments "But because I already drew one reference to how much better AMD’s integrated Radeon graphics are than Intel’s HD Graphics, I feel it’s equally important to point out Ivy Bridge’s superiority in x86-based workloads. The $210 Core i5-3550 gets this job done in less than half of the time."

The new design, with the reduction in cache and use of shared resources apparently has some strengths and some weaknesses. In another part, Tom's comments "3ds Max is known as a floating-point-intensive application, and it’s in this test that Piledriver’s shared resources hurt its performance relative to Llano. A8-3850 isn’t even the quickest previous-gen APU available, and it’s still faster than the unreleased A10-5800K in this real-world metric. Fortunately, APUs aren’t being positioned as great solutions for workstations. Nevertheless, 3ds Max serves as a reminder that AMD’s newest architecture makes certain compromises that affect the behavior of some applications positively and others negatively."

They conclude "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."

I did get a chuckle though in a passage on the first page of that review. In spin worthy of the Presidential campaign, it sounds like AMD recognizes its strength is in the graphics and that it's behind in computing. "AMD is eager to deemphasize the importance of x86 performance, instead focusing on the potential of workloads accelerated by its powerful graphics architecture. The company willingly dubs its implementation “good enough,” pointing out that basic productivity-oriented workloads reliant on user input aren’t sped up at all by a faster CPU."

So my guess is that when they start to compare Trinity with Ivy Bridge, we're going to see even more of the same dichotomy we've seen in the past. Trinity's graphics will be even farther ahead of Intel's than they were before, and cpu performance will be no closer or perhaps even farther behind. So we'll probably be left with the same argument that gets repeated here constantly. Is it better to have graphics performance that is "good enough" and more cpu power, or cpu power that is "good enough" with more gpu power. Pricing is going to be critical - what will actually be the comparable street-price chips?
Zon2020 is offline  
post #118 of 164 Old 06-14-2012, 12:52 PM
Advanced Member
 
Ruiner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 527
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 17
Quote:
Originally Posted by assassin View Post

Does it? I am not so sure.
I really want to see an Intel vs AMD comparison so we can see.

Does it not look kosher or not meet expectations? Tom's isn't my 'go to' site for benches, but I doubt they're far off.
Projecting from previous llano benches, I'd guess the A10's will approach i3 numbers for single threaded, probably beat it for multithreaded. Was anyone realistically expecting i5 numbers?
Ruiner is offline  
post #119 of 164 Old 06-14-2012, 01:15 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
assassin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 12,936
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 35 Post(s)
Liked: 232
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruiner View Post

Does it not look kosher or not meet expectations? Tom's isn't my 'go to' site for benches, but I doubt they're far off.
Projecting from previous llano benches, I'd guess the A10's will approach i3 numbers for single threaded, probably beat it for multithreaded. Was anyone realistically expecting i5 numbers?

I think i3 numbers would be plenty for HTPC. I really want to see more and see a head to head comparison. I also obviously want to see pricing as well.
assassin is online now  
post #120 of 164 Old 06-14-2012, 03:17 PM
Senior Member
 
kesawi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 321
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 25 Post(s)
Liked: 23
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zon2020 View Post

So my guess is that when they start to compare Trinity with Ivy Bridge, we're going to see even more of the same dichotomy we've seen in the past. Trinity's graphics will be even farther ahead of Intel's than they were before, and cpu performance will be no closer or perhaps even farther behind. So we'll probably be left with the same argument that gets repeated here constantly. Is it better to have graphics performance that is "good enough" and more cpu power, or cpu power that is "good enough" with more gpu power. Pricing is going to be critical - what will actually be the comparable street-price chips?

For my use I would suggest the latter (ie more cpu power) as a separate discreet GPU can always be added later a marginal extra cost if more power is needed in that area. Upgrading to a more powerful CPU is more costly by comparison.

kesawi is offline  
Reply Home Theater Computers

User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off