Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Closed

AMD Trinity Desktop Chip Schedule Challenges Mobo Makers

Last response: in News comments
Share
June 8, 2012 8:54:27 AM

"get rid of its pile of Llano"

but who wants them? I want Trinity.
Score
23
June 8, 2012 9:09:03 AM

styrkes"get rid of its pile of Llano"but who wants them? I want Trinity.

Me too,
but I will go for Ivy Bridge. Just plug a graphics card if more gpu is needed.
Score
-4
a b À AMD
June 8, 2012 9:19:29 AM

At first, i was waiting for them to be released in june for a build for my friend. rumors had gone through saying it was in august, a little disapointed, but was still willing to wait. news of it saying its no later then october, which is way past the deadline i was going to make the build for sadly.
Score
3
June 8, 2012 9:21:34 AM

Quote:
AMD's Trinity desktop CPUs, originally scheduled with a June introduction date, are now expected to arrive no earlier than October.

Heh. Deja vu?
Score
6
June 8, 2012 9:42:50 AM

they're delayed like Bulldozer, let's just hope they don't suck like Bulldozer.
Score
16
June 8, 2012 10:01:14 AM

Where is the desktop piledriver ? If it can reach anywhere near 80-90% performance of 2600k at half the price, I'll get one.
Score
3
June 8, 2012 10:10:46 AM

if the desktop Trinity's are like what we saw compared to Llano on the mobile side of performance then it really isn't going to yield that much more improvement on the cpu side of things. Where it does offer a lot better performance in the GPU side of things and that is the bread and butter of AMD's APU's. A dream APU chip would be to have Ivy Bridges cou performances with AMD's GPU performance. One can only dream. :) 
Score
9
June 8, 2012 10:12:00 AM

Who really sucks ? The radical new processor , or the 9/10 blindfolded tech journalists who like it better XD
Score
-6
June 8, 2012 11:05:12 AM

Quote:
Mainboard manufacturers told German publication heise online that only samples are available ...


I do believe that Heise Online should be capitalized, since it's the name of a media outlet.
Score
0
June 8, 2012 11:49:06 AM

The A8 Llano and even the E450 Zacate (previous gen) are a great cpu ... nothing wrong with them.

AMD must have a fair bit of stock.

I picked up an E450 notebook for a song ... they won't take long to clear them.

I'd say August rather than September ...
Score
6
June 8, 2012 11:57:56 AM

Quote:
AMD's Trinity desktop CPUs, originally scheduled with a June introduction date, are now expected to arrive no earlier than October.

I am most definitely displeased. I was hoping to build a nice HTPC with trinity for CPU/GPU.

Guess not.
Score
8
June 8, 2012 12:22:19 PM

SteelCity1981if the desktop Trinity's are like what we saw compared to Llano on the mobile side of performance then it really isn't going to yield that much more improvement on the cpu side of things. Where it does offer a lot better performance in the GPU side of things and that is the bread and butter of AMD's APU's. A dream APU chip would be to have Ivy Bridges cou performances with AMD's GPU performance. One can only dream.


A 3rd party APU equivalent to an i7, with AMD's GPU, with IBM's magic. Oh god that would be frightening, for AMD and Intel.
Score
6
June 8, 2012 12:37:41 PM

AMD should change their future roadmap schedules as to when they will release chips in volume to retail and oem manufacturers rather then when they will come out with a handful of prototype samples.
Score
3
June 8, 2012 1:40:39 PM

Ok someone needs to start random drug tests over at AMD...I have been watching a lot of their decisions and just keep scratching my head and I can only come to one conclusion these guys are obviously smoking something (and it anit de good stuff Mon).
Score
10
June 8, 2012 2:26:49 PM

Well, if they're gonna take some time on it, I do hope they could squeeze additional features and enhancements compared to their mobile brethren while they're at it. More so if it's just a marketing decision to stall them.
Score
2
June 8, 2012 2:35:21 PM

I wish these APUs would just use the same socket as their real desktop CPUs ...
Seems like that'd make things a lot easier on motherboard makers, and consumers wanting an upgrade path.
Score
0
June 8, 2012 3:08:48 PM

Soul_keeperI wish these APUs would just use the same socket as their real desktop CPUs ...Seems like that'd make things a lot easier on motherboard makers, and consumers wanting an upgrade path.

that cant happen because the APUs and the bulldozer CPU are totally different architectures. if they were to make the APU fit on an AM3+ socket, theyd have to remove the IGP completely, defeating the purpose of the APU. AM3+ is made to support bulldozer which has no IGP in the die.
Score
3
June 8, 2012 3:14:02 PM

Soul_keeperI wish these APUs would just use the same socket as their real desktop CPUs ...Seems like that'd make things a lot easier on motherboard makers, and consumers wanting an upgrade path.


That'd be nice. Wouldn't count on it though. Not entirely surprised by the delay. All companies across all industries tend to hold off or limit the release of new product until all the previous iterations are at a low enough level in terms of supply. Intel did the same with Ivy Bridge, though that delay ended up being relatively short.

It's also not unusual that vendors get first crack at new tech since the predominant sales are likely to be those buying a complete system as opposed to those building. What worries me is the fact that the manufacturers are making it seem like they aren't getting ANY samples to work with. At this stage of the game, that is very concerning. When you're talking about the fact that about now they were supposed to be releasing their new boards with Trinity, but are still waiting on samples to finish the boards, that seems very strange and troubling.
Score
0
June 8, 2012 3:14:44 PM

SteelCity1981if the desktop Trinity's are like what we saw compared to Llano on the mobile side of performance then it really isn't going to yield that much more improvement on the cpu side of things. Where it does offer a lot better performance in the GPU side of things and that is the bread and butter of AMD's APU's. A dream APU chip would be to have Ivy Bridges cou performances with AMD's GPU performance. One can only dream.


I would think that the CPU difference between desktop models of Llano and Trinity would be about 800MHz as evidenced with the A10-4600M and A8-3500M comparison made recently. Mobile Trinity seems to perform between 15 to 30% better in most CPU tasks which shows less instructions per clock than Llano but easily more instructions per core and at a lower power level. An 800MHz boost over the A8-3870K would result in a lower % gain for desktop Trinity, but thanks to resonant clock meshing (which allegedly should do more for sort of clock speeds that desktop Trinity will run at than the mobile variant) they can have a CPU that performs up to 25% faster, never slower thanks to TurboCore v3, and I haven't even mentioned the improved GPU...

If Piledriver is the first step to fixing the Bulldozer microarchitecture, a 25% CPU and 50% GPU performance boost over the previous generation whilst using the same or less power is actually significant, and should mean there's a good amount of extra performance to come with the GCN-and-Steamroller-equipped Kaveri. One can dream.
Score
7
Anonymous
June 8, 2012 3:23:52 PM

Not unexpected. Intel did the same thing. Once Intel delayed, I had a feeling that Trinity would be delayed as well. The industry slow down is to blame, not AMD's management. AMD still has to make money and so do the manufacturers. Performance wise, I'm not expecting nearly as much as some, but do expect it to be lower power and thus a better overclocker.
Score
5
June 8, 2012 4:13:38 PM

But enthusiasts don't want to buy Trinity anyway... (@last sentence)
Score
-1
June 8, 2012 4:17:02 PM

hardcore_gamerWhere is the desktop piledriver ? If it can reach anywhere near 80-90% performance of 2600k at half the price, I'll get one.

Not going to happen.
Score
-1
June 8, 2012 4:27:03 PM

archangeI do believe that Heise Online should be capitalized, since it's the name of a media outlet.

No, "heise online" is all lower case.
Score
5
June 8, 2012 4:57:39 PM

Hmm, I was planning to build a few lower-end machines (to replace some Pentium 4s), and was thinking of getting a Trinity APU for that. I guess if they don't want my business, I'll go with an i3 instead. It's their problem..
Score
0
June 8, 2012 5:15:53 PM

Quote:
I guess if they don't want my business, I'll go with an i3 instead. It's their problem..

Until Intel goes back to being fat, lazy and overpriced...then it's "our" problem
Score
0
June 8, 2012 5:17:09 PM

"If it can reach anywhere near 80-90% performance of 2600k at half the price, I'll get one."

2600k = $300...so Trinity for $150?

sadly, that doesn't seem very realistic
Score
0
June 8, 2012 5:39:48 PM

Bad move on AMD's part. Delaying means that they're getting closer to Haswell's release. Close enough at least to make people "wait and see". And Haswell *will* give Trinity a run for its money on graphics. Core performance and power consumption are already lost causes for AMD.
Score
2
June 8, 2012 6:31:16 PM

archangeI do believe that Heise Online should be capitalized, since it's the name of a media outlet.

It's also German, so all Nouns should be capitalized anyway...
Score
0
June 8, 2012 7:26:18 PM

I think now days CPUs are becoming powerful enough for most anyone besides someone who doesn't like to wait for videos to encode or huge programs to compile or the gamer who demands top notch graphics. AMD chips are at a point where they are powerful for most anything and so what if Intel's CPUs are 30-
50% faster, AMD won't be that far behind and 5 years down the road a new AMD chip I'm sure will be much faster than Sandy Bridge.
I guess it's just a matter of how long you want to wait to get the performance level you need to make you happy for all your computing needs. I think nowdays we can forecast what sort of things we want to do on our computers in the future and so you know what hardware will satisfy. Maybe Intel is the only one that has the performance level you want right now, so you have a choice of going that route or wait a while for Piledriver revision 1..
Score
0
June 8, 2012 8:43:32 PM

Get rid of it's pile of Llano or get rid of Llano because it's a pile?
Score
-4
Anonymous
June 9, 2012 1:17:52 AM

Originally, I had planned to build a Trinity based micro system but, with this news I'll build a Llano based system instead. At least that way I can avoid the BIOS/Driver teething issues that are sure to come with bleeding edge technology. Once that storm clears I'll upgrade to the Trinity setup.
Score
3
June 9, 2012 7:00:51 AM

Soul_keeperI wish these APUs would just use the same socket as their real desktop CPUs ...Seems like that'd make things a lot easier on motherboard makers, and consumers wanting an upgrade path.


Not possible. The desktop CPU sockets don't have the necessary video output pins.

bustaprthat cant happen because the APUs and the bulldozer CPU are totally different architectures. if they were to make the APU fit on an AM3+ socket, theyd have to remove the IGP completely, defeating the purpose of the APU. AM3+ is made to support bulldozer which has no IGP in the die.


This, but architecture has little to do with it. It's really just the IGP that stops the APUs and CPUs from sharing a socket. Theoretically, AMD could design the AM4 socket to have latent video output pins so that the AM4 socket could join the two platforms, but it can't happen until at least AM4 and that probably won't happen until DDR4 is out. Interestingly, DDR4 should also solve the memory bandwidth bottle-neck problem with AMD's APUs.

eddieroolzBut enthusiasts don't want to buy Trinity anyway... (@last sentence)


Until Piledriver CPUs (Vishera) replace Bulldozer CPUs (Zambezi), Trinity could be the most powerful gaming platform for AMD CPU-wise. I bet they would overclock like mad if you used them as a CPU with the IGP disabled and a good discrete graphics card or two connected. Kinda like how Llano's CPU power usage drops like a rock if the IGP is disabled, leaving a lot of room for overclocking compared to even AMD's Phenom IIs.

The only other thing from AMD that could challenge Trinity in this sense would be an FX-8120 with one core from each module disabled, giving the entire module's resources to a single thread, even if it means that only four cores are enabled. This has been shown to improve per-core performance by up to about 20% (it's far more effective than the Windows 7 FX patches) and it would leave the FX-8120 using less power than the FX-4100 due to their superior binning even though they would be significantly faster than it. Overclocked, an 8120 modded in such a way might be worth it's current $170 price point at newegg.

iamtheking123Bad move on AMD's part. Delaying means that they're getting closer to Haswell's release. Close enough at least to make people "wait and see". And Haswell *will* give Trinity a run for its money on graphics. Core performance and power consumption are already lost causes for AMD.


Now this is where I see the worst problem with launching Trinity in retail so late. Haswell would be creeping up on it. However, unless Haswell at least doubles the HD 4000 in IGP performance, it won't beat the top desktop A10s in IGP performance. Even the Llano A8s still beat HD 4000 significantly, let alone the Trinity A10s. Not only would Haswell need to double performance of the HD 4000, but Haswell's low end IGP would need to have double the performance of HD 4000, not just Haswell's high (in this context) end IGP. That would be an enormous jump because it would need to be something like 3 to 4 times faster than the HD 2500. Unlike on the mobile side, AMD is utterly killing Intel in IGP performance as Intel utterly kills AMD in performance per core.
Score
1
June 9, 2012 8:51:05 AM

styrkes"get rid of its pile of Llano"but who wants them? I want Trinity.
by sellling another 50% discount price on top of the current price?

if it is I might get it too.
Score
0
June 9, 2012 10:38:21 AM

I heard not until the console manufacturers were supplied.
Score
0
June 11, 2012 1:05:54 AM

I was looking at that long comment above addressed to multiple comments, and after going through it, no surprise, blaz! Haha! I don't really expect anything less of you and you're turning me into a fanboy of yours. Don't expect me to be biased with my comments though! Hehehe...

Getting back to something more relevant, I found your proposition (is it your own?) of disabling one module on an FX-8120. Is it a 20% performance increase per core or module? Would this yield more performance all in all compared to a fully active 8120? The thing is, I'm not sure if you meant that it would just be more power efficient. If it's the former which you seemed to imply, I'm wondering how deactivating an ALU (integer unit, are they pretty much the same, please tell me if so) would benefit performance, unless it somewhat like how Hyper-threading could reduce performance in some situations. Please enlighten me/us. :-)
Score
0
June 11, 2012 2:51:48 AM

army_ant7I was looking at that long comment above addressed to multiple comments, and after going through it, no surprise, blaz! Haha! I don't really expect anything less of you and you're turning me into a fanboy of yours. Don't expect me to be biased with my comments though! Hehehe...Getting back to something more relevant, I found your proposition (is it your own?) of disabling one module on an FX-8120. Is it a 20% performance increase per core or module? Would this yield more performance all in all compared to a fully active 8120? The thing is, I'm not sure if you meant that it would just be more power efficient. If it's the former which you seemed to imply, I'm wondering how deactivating an ALU (integer unit, are they pretty much the same, please tell me if so) would benefit performance, unless it somewhat like how Hyper-threading could reduce performance in some situations. Please enlighten me/us. :-)


Disabling one integer core/ALU in each Bulldozer module improves the performance of the remaining core by up to about 20%. This is because it gives that one core all of an entire module's resources and allows more aggressive Turbo frequencies to be used. This lowers highly-threaded performance because you basically have half the cores, each core is just about 20% faster than they used to be. Highly threaded performance, at best, would be less than 5/8 of what it is when all 8 cores are active, but single, dual, triple, and quad threaded performance would improve and for gaming and most other consumer workloads, that is often more important than performance with 8 or even 6 threads.

So, the module's performance drops, but the performance per core increases. Basically, you're taking a module that has four X86 decode paths, two 128bit FPU threads or a 256 bit FPU thread (interchangeable), 2MB of L2 cache, and more and instead of sharing this among two cores, a single core now has all of it. In use, it's kinda similar to how HTT could hurt performance in workloads that aren't designed for it, but the actual problems behind its behavior are a little different.

The power usage drop would come from the fact that you now have half the cores, so the CPU isn't using as much power. I'd say that this drops power usage to around that of the FX-4100 while letting the specialized 8120 be considerably faster than the 4100. The 8120 is also binned better, so it should overclock better than the 4100.

Now this next thing might not be have a huge impact, but you also have the 8120's active cores basically strewn about the CPU instead of focused in two modules, so it might not only have lower heat density at the same power usage as the 4100 (spreading about the same around of heat over four modules' worth of die space as the 4100 does with only two modules) and thus be more stable due to the better binning, but also heating up slower due to the heat being spread over a larger area. I don't think that it will make a huge difference, but theoretically, it should at least help a little.

Heck, if possible, you could probably even disable some of L3 cache without taking a performance hit due to the huge amount of cache that each core now has, further decreasing power usage slightly, improving power efficiency slightly, and maybe allowing slightly higher overclocks.

FX-81xx has a lot of apparent advantages that I'd like to explore in further detail.
Score
1
June 11, 2012 3:57:07 AM

*deleted double-post*
Score
0
June 11, 2012 3:59:05 AM

blazorthonHighly threaded performance, at best, would be less than 5/8 of what it is when all 8 cores are active, but single, dual, triple, and quad threaded performance would improve and for gaming and most other consumer workloads, that is often more important than performance with 8 or even 6 threads.


I didn't think of this even though game benchmarks have shown this to be true time and time again. This idea is very interesting. If only AMD or a mo-bo manufacturer would allow these kind of controls/settings. Then I'd like it put to the test. Are these propositions of yours theoretical for now or have they been proven? :-)

army_ant7Getting back to something more relevant, I found your proposition (is it your own?) of disabling one module on an FX-8120


I just want to correct myself, I meant "core" not "module" got them mixed up for a moment there. Hehehe...
Score
0
June 11, 2012 4:16:33 AM

army_ant7I didn't think of this even though game benchmarks have shown this to be true time and time again. This idea is very interesting. If only AMD or a mo-bo manufacturer would allow these kind of controls/settings. Then I'd like it put to the test. Are these propositions of yours theoretical for now or have they been proven? :-)I just want to correct myself, I meant "core" not "module" got them mixed up for a moment there.


This performance boost is a proven phenomenon. I'll look through my links and see if I can find some of the demonstrations of this (I've read two reviews that demonstrated this). Also, some motherboards allow it. I don't remember any particular board models that do, but I know that some Asus boards can do it.
Score
1
June 11, 2012 11:46:31 AM

The Crosshair V Formula has it, I believe (conveniently, that was AMD's review board of choice).
Score
2
!