AMD "Trinity" APU Models Release Schedule Details Leaked
In a recently leaked roadmap on AMD's desktop product lineup in 2012, Trinity is set for the second quarter 2012.
Based on leaked slides coming from Turkish website DonanimHaber, AMD will launch its next-generation accelerated processing unit, codenamed Trinity, in second quarter 2012. The Trinity will start with its quad-core A10 and A8 processors in the second quarter then followed by dual-core A6 and A4 processors in the third-quarter of 2012.
The A10 lineup consists of quad-core APUs that come with Radeon HD 7660D graphics. The A10-5800K has four "Piledriver" architecture cores, clock speeds of 3.80 GHz (4.20 GHz Turbo Core), 4 MB L2 cache, DDR3 1866 support and 100W TDP. Next in line is the non-Black Edition A10-5700, which has a base clock clocked at 3.40 GHz (4.00 GHz Turbo Core) with a 65W TDP. The HD 7660D has 384 Graphics CoreNext stream processors.
The A8 lineup consist of quad-core APUs that come with a Radeon HD 7560D graphics. The A8-5600K has clock speeds of 3.60 GHz (3.90 Turbo Core), 4 MB L2 cache, DDR3 1866 support and 100W TDP. The A8-5500 has a base clock clocked at 3.240 GHz (3.70 GHz Turbo Core) with a 65W TDP. The HD 7560D has 256 Graphics CoreNext stream processors.
The A6/A4 lineups consist of dual-core APUs that come with a Radeon HD 7540D/HD 7480D graphics. The A6-5400K will have an unlocked multiplier (clock speeds not currently listed), 1 MB L2 cache, DDR3 1866 support, 65W TDP and HD 7540D graphics. The HD 7540D has 192 Graphics CoreNext stream processors. The lowest priced A4-5300 will support 1 MB L2 cache, DDR3 1866 support, 65W TDP and HD 7480D graphics (clock speeds not currently listed). The HD 7480D has 128 Graphics CoreNext stream processors. The HD 7480D will lack dual-graphics support, which would allow users to pair an APU graphics processor with a compatible discrete GPU to make the two work together.
Please keep in mind, of course, that these specifications are from a leaked source to DonanimHaber. We won't know for sure until AMD shares official information. Stay tuned!


One of the most optimistic statements of this year!
One of the most optimistic statements of this year!
a 6990m will not resemble anything near a 6990 for example.
I wouldn't like to guess what's coming from AMD, it's been a mixed bag which has been generally disappointing.
Though I would love a graphically capable Llano, as it should be the future if done right.
(graphics core to boost performance where consumers want it, games and video playback, and cutting down on space requirements/power requirements)
I don't hold much hope for anything AMD though.
Oh, well, let Piledriver come before making judgements...
I will have to wait and see if the graphics are as nice as the model number implies, especially considering that they are way too optimistic with their labeling (I doubt the integrated 7660 would be as nice as a 6950, which by the way is still about $250 for a discrete card). We will have to find out what type of hardware acceleration is included with the APU. At a minimum, I have to assume that better hardware support for transcoding is included. There is simply no reason why Intel's Quick Sync is faster than AMD's solution.
I had hoped that the TDP would be a little lower as well, 100W, though nice, should be more like 85W or even 65W like the A10-5700. I suppose that the graphics component adds to the bottom line, but with the advances in power management and core deactivation, I had hoped for a little bit better.
Time will tell if the revised Piledriver is better than Bulldozer (which is a disappointment to say the least). If the hype is to believed and the graphics performance is on par with a 6950, then methinks that AMD has a winner here. Price may very well determine whether this revised lineup will be a success, or a flop.
Here's hoping for an AMD comeback, so we aren't held captive by Intel in the upper-midrange market. I've been putting off purchasing a new rig because the total cost to move to an Intel 2500K /2600K (including processor, motherboard and a graphics card to replace the pathetic integrated HD graphics) is too much to bear, especially for an AMD fanboi like myself.
"If the A10 line-up really has the 7660D, and this performs on par with HD6750/HD5750, this would be an awesome-enough-for-casual gaming platform PC... Should wait for the bench soon..."
Well the HD7750 has 512 GCN cores and the same core speed and has 15% more performance than HD6750/HD5750. 7660D has 384 GCN cores, that is 3/4, so the performance will be about 10-15% behind the HD6750/HD5750, that is assuming the memory bandwidth is good enough, so the system should have fast enough memory.
But it will be awesome for HTPCs and ultrabooks.
I am an AMD fan, and I even found your comment hilarious!!!!! I agree with both the humour and sarcasm!!! +1
Assuming they keep the same hybrid graphics set ups, perhaps it will combine with a 7700 series GPU to get power near that of a 7800 series in Xfire enabled games. That would be a pretty good setup.
Why would it equal a 6950? The first number is the generation, 950 is higher than 660. I read it as "slightly under a 7670" which still might be a pretty large claim considering 384 vs 480 shaders.
Even 100w is impressive and likely a bit underquoted. A DDR3 7570 is quoted at 44w, which combined with a 65w CPU would make something more around 110w. You can't compare the power draw to Intel until you combine it with an equal discrete card. Power management isn't considered when claiming a maximum TDP, it could run much lower at idle. Intel will likely still draw less power though, they have a 22m process.
All in all, looks like a pretty good GPU upgrade, but how will that CPU perform? I'm skeptical here due to use of "cores" when Piledriver uses modules. Is the A10 a 2 module chip then? 2 modules may not perform as well as a true quad core, even if they repair their IPC woes.
Remember AM2 vs AM2+ vs AM3? An AM3 processor could be dropped into an AM2 board, so likely they'll allow an FM2 proc in an FM1 board, but have FM2 boards with better feature sets to fully support the new proc.
As for "core" counts in the slides, I doubt they'd bill something as an AM10, and have it only have 2 modules (4 "cores") when an A8 can be had with 4 modules (8 "cores"). The "core" column is likely equivalent to "modules," just AMD blasting past the marketing hype and semi-accurately going with the 4core/8thread mentality of Intel's marketing. I was hoping for a 6-module/12-core A12 chip myself
Why would they do something that would hurt performance? Gaming needs high performance per thread. Bulldozer cores have horrible IPC so they need high clock rates just to get half decent performance. Increasing core count means there's less room for higher clock rates and doesn't help gaming much so it would be rather counter intuitive to cripple their APUs in such a way. Besides that, AMD's APUs are intended for consumer, low budget areas where highly multi-threaded work is a lot less common, so the extra cores wouldn't be much help at all even outside of current gaming.
A 6 core APU would give APU users two nearly useless cores that increase power usage and heat generation and increase the die size, making it more expensive and have poorer yields, making it even more expensive and/or have fewer in stock.
Besides that, APUs aren't high power devices and aren't meant to be. AMD has received enough criticism about their processors using more power than much faster Intel processors use. For example, many of AMD's CPUs use the 125w TDPs, but Intel's Sandy Bridge i7s are faster than anything AMD has on the consumer side in everything yet use equal to or less power than most of AMD's mid range and high end CPUs!
With Ivy Bridge coming out, only AMD's low power, horribly performing processors can keep up in power usage with Intel's fastest Ivy Bridge i7s. Point is that AMD does not want 125w TDPs where they can avoid them.
Moving on, I have to wonder how AMD's increasingly powerful graphics on these APUs is doing with its minute amounts of memory bandwidth. APUs are meant for low budget systems where highly overpriced RAM is much less of an option. As the GPU performance increases, so too does the memory bottleneck. I also have to wonder if the bottleneck affects the CPU cores as well.