- Status
silicondoc_85
Honorable
- Mar 10, 2012
- 39
- 0
- 10,530
[citation][nom]JAYDEEJOHN[/nom]Hope its only the beginning of much more[/citation]
My same feeling. The Trinity GPU just is not quite enough for gaming, and I saw HD4000 beats it in a couple of games and ties in a few others so the real news is Intel has made a leap and a giant bound.
That's good I hope it scares amd into doing more GPU power - come on - how many years will it take...
So for now one would be a fanboy to not buy an Optimus notebook from last generation instead of this trinity if they really do want mobile gaming.
I'll check it out again but I suspect it will do nothing but make one pissed off at the crappy stalling, low settings, and constant need to tweak, and still be disappointed.
I hope Intel passes them right by with HD5000 - man that would be so awesome, I'd love it. Something to jolt the losers at AMD into fight for your lives mode.
I suspect however that Intel will go back into their mushy who cares standard after this HD4000. I sure hope not - maybe Intel finally woke up and we can thank amd for that.
My same feeling. The Trinity GPU just is not quite enough for gaming, and I saw HD4000 beats it in a couple of games and ties in a few others so the real news is Intel has made a leap and a giant bound.
That's good I hope it scares amd into doing more GPU power - come on - how many years will it take...
So for now one would be a fanboy to not buy an Optimus notebook from last generation instead of this trinity if they really do want mobile gaming.
I'll check it out again but I suspect it will do nothing but make one pissed off at the crappy stalling, low settings, and constant need to tweak, and still be disappointed.
I hope Intel passes them right by with HD5000 - man that would be so awesome, I'd love it. Something to jolt the losers at AMD into fight for your lives mode.
I suspect however that Intel will go back into their mushy who cares standard after this HD4000. I sure hope not - maybe Intel finally woke up and we can thank amd for that.
blazorthon
Glorious
- Sep 24, 2010
- 14,022
- 7
- 43,265
[citation][nom]silicondoc_85[/nom]My same feeling. The Trinity GPU just is not quite enough for gaming, and I saw HD4000 beats it in a couple of games and ties in a few others so the real news is Intel has made a leap and a giant bound. That's good I hope it scares amd into doing more GPU power - come on - how many years will it take... So for now one would be a fanboy to not buy an Optimus notebook from last generation instead of this trinity if they really do want mobile gaming.I'll check it out again but I suspect it will do nothing but make one pissed off at the crappy stalling, low settings, and constant need to tweak, and still be disappointed.I hope Intel passes them right by with HD5000 - man that would be so awesome, I'd love it. Something to jolt the losers at AMD into fight for your lives mode. I suspect however that Intel will go back into their mushy who cares standard after this HD4000. I sure hope not - maybe Intel finally woke up and we can thank amd for that.[/citation]
HD 4000 is only slightly ahead of Llano's 6550D and Trinity is well beyond that. Furthermore, that's only on the mobile market, on the desktop market, Llano A6s are beyond the HD 4000, let alone the Trinity A10s that are probably almost twice as fast as HD 4000. HD 4000 is a little faster on mobile than on desktops, yet APUs are far faster on desktops than on mobile, so they fly past HD 4000 on desktop. Also, the next generation of APUs will get a 28nm GCN GPU, so they can be FAR faster than Trinity, whereas Intel will need to find a way to improve their graphics further without having the chance at shrinking the die like AMD will.
The Trinity GPU would isn't a high end gaming GPU and neither are the other IGPs. They are and always have been entry level GPUs and for that, they most certainly are fast enough. Would I like them to be faster? Of course, but saying that they aren't fast enough to be entry level GPUs is ridiculous.
HD 4000 is only slightly ahead of Llano's 6550D and Trinity is well beyond that. Furthermore, that's only on the mobile market, on the desktop market, Llano A6s are beyond the HD 4000, let alone the Trinity A10s that are probably almost twice as fast as HD 4000. HD 4000 is a little faster on mobile than on desktops, yet APUs are far faster on desktops than on mobile, so they fly past HD 4000 on desktop. Also, the next generation of APUs will get a 28nm GCN GPU, so they can be FAR faster than Trinity, whereas Intel will need to find a way to improve their graphics further without having the chance at shrinking the die like AMD will.
The Trinity GPU would isn't a high end gaming GPU and neither are the other IGPs. They are and always have been entry level GPUs and for that, they most certainly are fast enough. Would I like them to be faster? Of course, but saying that they aren't fast enough to be entry level GPUs is ridiculous.
nforce4max
Splendid
- Sep 9, 2009
- 8,337
- 0
- 31,460
[citation][nom]palladin9479[/nom]What memory did you put in it? I'm currently in the process of looking for a 2x4GB kit of DDR3-1600 for my DV6. The crap HP sends with them has disappointed me pretty badly.That and I'm getting really angry at how AMD is refusing to support any setup with switchable graphics. My board is the newer DV6-6C00 model and HP's removed the fixed GPU setting and made it entirely dynamic. Of course HP sucks at making drivers so it doesn't work half the time and its constantly trying to run things on the 6620G that I want run on the 7690M. Hybrid graphics works pretty well, so DX11 stuff is fine, but DX9 / OpenGL is totally messed up right now.[/citation]
You can use any DDR3 1600 kit but it must be 1.5v or it won't work. The low voltage kits don't run at all with mobile Llano. Second only the MX models have ddr3 1600 support, the rest can't can run the kits at full clocks.
You can use any DDR3 1600 kit but it must be 1.5v or it won't work. The low voltage kits don't run at all with mobile Llano. Second only the MX models have ddr3 1600 support, the rest can't can run the kits at full clocks.
nforce4max
Splendid
- Sep 9, 2009
- 8,337
- 0
- 31,460
Looking back over the review I noticed that no one bothered to even try to normalize the clocks between Llano for direct comparisons. Second you guys should have used the same ram in all three machines so all are on the same playing field for memory bandwidth purposes.
blazorthon
Glorious
- Sep 24, 2010
- 14,022
- 7
- 43,265
[citation][nom]nforce4max[/nom]You can use any DDR3 1600 kit but it must be 1.5v or it won't work. The low voltage kits don't run at all with mobile Llano. Second only the MX models have ddr3 1600 support, the rest can't can run the kits at full clocks.[/citation]
I don't know why you were downvoted; I thought that what you said was very helpful.
Hey Tom's, could you retest the Llano notebook with an A8 MX APU?
I don't know why you were downvoted; I thought that what you said was very helpful.
Hey Tom's, could you retest the Llano notebook with an A8 MX APU?
- Mar 7, 2003
- 12,012
- 0
- 40,790
[citation][nom]nforce4max[/nom]Looking back over the review I noticed that no one bothered to even try to normalize the clocks between Llano for direct comparisons. [/citation]
We mention that we'll have to wait until we test the desktop version to normalize the clocks.
There are simply no controls in the BIOS of these mobile platforms.
[citation][nom]nforce4max[/nom]Second you guys should have used the same ram in all three machines so all are on the same playing field for memory bandwidth purposes.[/citation]
As the article states, we did. Same RAM and SSD across all platforms.
The Llano laptop refused to run the RAM at 1600 MHz though. Once again, the BIOS did not provide any controls (and it's not an MX CPU).
Having said that, the Llano notebook ran the RAM at lower latency so there shouldn't be much difference.
We mention that we'll have to wait until we test the desktop version to normalize the clocks.
There are simply no controls in the BIOS of these mobile platforms.
[citation][nom]nforce4max[/nom]Second you guys should have used the same ram in all three machines so all are on the same playing field for memory bandwidth purposes.[/citation]
As the article states, we did. Same RAM and SSD across all platforms.
The Llano laptop refused to run the RAM at 1600 MHz though. Once again, the BIOS did not provide any controls (and it's not an MX CPU).
Having said that, the Llano notebook ran the RAM at lower latency so there shouldn't be much difference.
blazorthon
Glorious
- Sep 24, 2010
- 14,022
- 7
- 43,265
[citation][nom]Cleeve[/nom]It'd have been a nice addition but they're really rare and hard to find for sale, so I'm not sure how relevant they are.We don't have a test machine with an A8 MX onhand, so I don't think we'll pursue it.[/citation]
Machines on hp.com have MX APUs as options and they're only $20 more than a slightly slower non-MX APU.
http://www.shopping.hp.com/en_US/home-office/-/products/Laptops/Laptops?SearchParameter=%26%40QueryTerm%3D*%26CategoryUUIDLevelX%3DjeEQxXjbj14AAAE0syxcZzOW%26Processor_facet_DTE2%3DAMD%26TieredPricing1%3D%255B400.0%2BTO%2B599.99%255D%26%40Sort.HPProductType%3D0%26%40Sort.TieredPricing%3D0&PageSize=15
The second one from the top has A6 MX and A8 MX APUs as an option. Not that I think that you'd all want to spend several hundred dollars just for one minor test, but it is a way to get a laptop with an A8 MX APU. MX versions are $20 more than non-MX versions.
Machines on hp.com have MX APUs as options and they're only $20 more than a slightly slower non-MX APU.
http://www.shopping.hp.com/en_US/home-office/-/products/Laptops/Laptops?SearchParameter=%26%40QueryTerm%3D*%26CategoryUUIDLevelX%3DjeEQxXjbj14AAAE0syxcZzOW%26Processor_facet_DTE2%3DAMD%26TieredPricing1%3D%255B400.0%2BTO%2B599.99%255D%26%40Sort.HPProductType%3D0%26%40Sort.TieredPricing%3D0&PageSize=15
The second one from the top has A6 MX and A8 MX APUs as an option. Not that I think that you'd all want to spend several hundred dollars just for one minor test, but it is a way to get a laptop with an A8 MX APU. MX versions are $20 more than non-MX versions.
- Mar 7, 2003
- 12,012
- 0
- 40,790
I know you can find them if you look Blaze, I'm just saying you have to look. Non-MX A8s are easy to source, it seems like the MXs never got a lot of traction in comparison. I don't think they're as relevant.
It's just too much $$$ to justify for testing when perf will be very similar. I wish I had one here, but that's not the case unfortunately.
When we do the desktop tests we'll be able to have a lot of granular control for comparing Llano to Trinity, so we'll get you the info. It just won't be on mobile.
It's just too much $$$ to justify for testing when perf will be very similar. I wish I had one here, but that's not the case unfortunately.
When we do the desktop tests we'll be able to have a lot of granular control for comparing Llano to Trinity, so we'll get you the info. It just won't be on mobile.
k let start with the ddr 3 1333 k if the apu
does not support ddr 3 1600 u can make it by do so if the bios suports it underclock the apu then raise the front bus to where it is 1600 that would raise the gpu clocks to just under or a little over there stock speed but like i sais bios has to suppor the under clocking of the apu and u have to set the ram voltage to 1.5.I know this works i have done this with my wifes laptop it running just 22 ghz faster then stock but ram is running at 1600 and u dont have to raise the front bus a hole lot to get it to 1600 so there is not that much of a heat differents.One other thing i like to say is Trinity gpu side is just find if u get the desktop apu part then the Trinity gpu would bitch slap intels 4000 hd back to the stone ages its like one reader said its the speed of the apu that make the differents in how fast the gpu runs so if u get a laptop that unlocks the apu then u could kill intels 4000 hands down.
does not support ddr 3 1600 u can make it by do so if the bios suports it underclock the apu then raise the front bus to where it is 1600 that would raise the gpu clocks to just under or a little over there stock speed but like i sais bios has to suppor the under clocking of the apu and u have to set the ram voltage to 1.5.I know this works i have done this with my wifes laptop it running just 22 ghz faster then stock but ram is running at 1600 and u dont have to raise the front bus a hole lot to get it to 1600 so there is not that much of a heat differents.One other thing i like to say is Trinity gpu side is just find if u get the desktop apu part then the Trinity gpu would bitch slap intels 4000 hd back to the stone ages its like one reader said its the speed of the apu that make the differents in how fast the gpu runs so if u get a laptop that unlocks the apu then u could kill intels 4000 hands down.
blazorthon
Glorious
- Sep 24, 2010
- 14,022
- 7
- 43,265
[citation][nom]elric42[/nom]k let start with the ddr 3 1333 k if the apudoes not support ddr 3 1600 u can make it by do so if the bios suports it underclock the apu then raise the front bus to where it is 1600 that would raise the gpu clocks to just under or a little over there stock speed but like i sais bios has to suppor the under clocking of the apu and u have to set the ram voltage to 1.5.I know this works i have done this with my wifes laptop it running just 22 ghz faster then stock but ram is running at 1600 and u dont have to raise the front bus a hole lot to get it to 1600 so there is not that much of a heat differents.One other thing i like to say is Trinity gpu side is just find if u get the desktop apu part then the Trinity gpu would bitch slap intels 4000 hd back to the stone ages its like one reader said its the speed of the apu that make the differents in how fast the gpu runs so if u get a laptop that unlocks the apu then u could kill intels 4000 hands down.[/citation]
For what you suggested to work, a laptop's BIOS would need to support both multiplier underclocking of the GPU and CPU and BLCK overclocking and those are two fairly unlikely situations in my experience. A laptop would also need to be able let the RAM not be automatically underclocked when the BLCK is increased. Also, there is no way that your wife's laptop is running anything at 22GHz, let alone over 22GHz, so I have to assume that you meant 22MHz, although you don't specify what part of the laptop is running 22MHz over stock. Next, I have no idea what you mean by the APU part of anything. An APU is just a brand name for AMD's CPUs with powerful IGPs (relative to the CPU), such as Llano, Brazos, and Trinity. It's not a part of Trinity or Llano, it's the name for the entire chip.
You're correct in that if the BIOS allows it, you're workaround for getting 1600MHz memory on a non-MX Llano laptop should work. However, the rest of your post simply does not make sense to me. The APU, IE Accelerated Processing Unit, is just the name for AMD's processors that have more or less equal parts of the die dedicated to GPU hardware as is dedicated to CPU hardware. There is no part of them that is an APU part because the whole chip is an APU. I can say that for desktops, Trinity would truly kill HD 4000 and that even on laptops, if you either plug the laptop in or set it to a high performance profile, it would probably also kill HD 4000, although the difference probably still wouldn't be as great as the difference on the desktop market.
For what you suggested to work, a laptop's BIOS would need to support both multiplier underclocking of the GPU and CPU and BLCK overclocking and those are two fairly unlikely situations in my experience. A laptop would also need to be able let the RAM not be automatically underclocked when the BLCK is increased. Also, there is no way that your wife's laptop is running anything at 22GHz, let alone over 22GHz, so I have to assume that you meant 22MHz, although you don't specify what part of the laptop is running 22MHz over stock. Next, I have no idea what you mean by the APU part of anything. An APU is just a brand name for AMD's CPUs with powerful IGPs (relative to the CPU), such as Llano, Brazos, and Trinity. It's not a part of Trinity or Llano, it's the name for the entire chip.
You're correct in that if the BIOS allows it, you're workaround for getting 1600MHz memory on a non-MX Llano laptop should work. However, the rest of your post simply does not make sense to me. The APU, IE Accelerated Processing Unit, is just the name for AMD's processors that have more or less equal parts of the die dedicated to GPU hardware as is dedicated to CPU hardware. There is no part of them that is an APU part because the whole chip is an APU. I can say that for desktops, Trinity would truly kill HD 4000 and that even on laptops, if you either plug the laptop in or set it to a high performance profile, it would probably also kill HD 4000, although the difference probably still wouldn't be as great as the difference on the desktop market.
what this review need to be perfect is clock per clock performance, as every body know bulldozer ipc is the worst so i was anxiously waiting to see how much piledriver cores IPC performance , and its boring to wait until desk top version to see this benchmark .
Wisecracker
Splendid
- Jan 15, 2007
- 8,106
- 17
- 31,965
The thing is ... AMD will increase IPC 15-20% in their core progression. That is not their focus, however.
The goal of AMD is to run instruction-level code on the APU graphics engine as they fine-tune chip integration, on their way to SoC. That's probably also the reason you will not see desktop benchmarks prior to release in a few months. A few code optimizations have the potential for serious compute, making a benchmark from today useless.
The best examples would be Handbrake, Vegas, possibly CS6 Adobe, 3DSM, etc. Of lesser concern would be synthetics, but they want to put their best foot forward for rabid fanboy fodder (and potential brain aneurysms from Chipzilla).
blazorthon
Glorious
- Sep 24, 2010
- 14,022
- 7
- 43,265
You make a good point, but most software still won't be capable of running on the IGP and will still need the CPU cores, especially software that stresses the IGP already (such as gaming) and software that can't be run in parallel situations very well, if at all. Having a clock-per-clock comparison between the Llano cores and Trinity cores is important even if not all software is intended to be run on the CPU cores. Just because AMD intended to increase IPC by x% doesn't mean that they didn't fail, succeed, or exceed that expectation.
blazorthon
Glorious
- Sep 24, 2010
- 14,022
- 7
- 43,265
[citation][nom]spookyman[/nom]Do this processor does not compete well against Ivy Bridge then?[/citation]
They compete very well depending on what you do. For the money, you can get more graphics performance with AMD notebooks and ultrabooks/sleekbooks than with Intel (most of the time), but at the same time, Intel can often have higher CPU performance for the money in one way or another. This is not always true either, just the norm. For example, HP has AMD sleekbooks that are better in both CPU and GPU performance than some of their slightly more expensive Intel ultrabooks. How well they compete will generally depend on the deals and sales at any given time. For example, HP had a $100 off deal for their AMD sleek books last weekend and they were far cheaper and still higher-performing than Intel alternatives at the same price. At the same time, HP had a similar $100 off deal on some i7 notebooks that use integrated graphics and they had far greater CPU performance than the AMD sleekbooks, but weren't much more expensive at all.
Other times, an Intel CPU plus Nvidia graphics notebook can be on sale or discounted for other reasons and win in either CPU and graphics performance for the money or just graphics performance for the money., Short answer, yes, AMD's APUs are competitive, but that depends on what you want to do with them and on the deals/discounts of that time.
They compete very well depending on what you do. For the money, you can get more graphics performance with AMD notebooks and ultrabooks/sleekbooks than with Intel (most of the time), but at the same time, Intel can often have higher CPU performance for the money in one way or another. This is not always true either, just the norm. For example, HP has AMD sleekbooks that are better in both CPU and GPU performance than some of their slightly more expensive Intel ultrabooks. How well they compete will generally depend on the deals and sales at any given time. For example, HP had a $100 off deal for their AMD sleek books last weekend and they were far cheaper and still higher-performing than Intel alternatives at the same price. At the same time, HP had a similar $100 off deal on some i7 notebooks that use integrated graphics and they had far greater CPU performance than the AMD sleekbooks, but weren't much more expensive at all.
Other times, an Intel CPU plus Nvidia graphics notebook can be on sale or discounted for other reasons and win in either CPU and graphics performance for the money or just graphics performance for the money., Short answer, yes, AMD's APUs are competitive, but that depends on what you want to do with them and on the deals/discounts of that time.
GreaseMonkey_62
Distinguished
- Jul 3, 2009
- 521
- 0
- 18,980
I didn't expect the new processor to beat out Intel, but the level of improvement bodes very well. Now if manufacturers can get on board and start cranking out more APU based notebooks that's a win.
I want to ask a noob question if any oone can help
Lets say i have a AMD processor like 4600M and its gaming benchmarks a beter that the i5 with APU only.
Now i have 2 machines with identical graphics cards say 7970 but one with AMD 4600m other with i5-2450m.
ok now in case i launch a game which causes the machine to switch to my 7970 and turns of the processor graphics, will it release the CPU to do other stuff or is that part of CPU reamins idle and wasted ?
or in other words in a machine where the APU and intel HD is turned off and the discrete graphics (eg7970) is in action does the AMD 4600M will still have advantage over i5-2450M??
Lets say i have a AMD processor like 4600M and its gaming benchmarks a beter that the i5 with APU only.
Now i have 2 machines with identical graphics cards say 7970 but one with AMD 4600m other with i5-2450m.
ok now in case i launch a game which causes the machine to switch to my 7970 and turns of the processor graphics, will it release the CPU to do other stuff or is that part of CPU reamins idle and wasted ?
or in other words in a machine where the APU and intel HD is turned off and the discrete graphics (eg7970) is in action does the AMD 4600M will still have advantage over i5-2450M??
I want to ask a noob question if any one can help
Lets say i have a AMD processor like 4600M and its gaming benchmarks are beter that the i5-2450M with only the APU only.
Now i have 2 machines with identical graphics cards say 7970 but one with AMD 4600m other with i5-2450m.
ok now in case i launch a game which causes the machine to switch to my 7970 and turns of the processor graphics, will it release the CPU resources to do other stuff or is that part of CPU remains idle and wasted ?
or in other words in a machine where the APU and intel HD is turned off and the discrete graphics (eg7970) is in action does the AMD 4600M will still have advantage over i5-2450M??
Lets say i have a AMD processor like 4600M and its gaming benchmarks are beter that the i5-2450M with only the APU only.
Now i have 2 machines with identical graphics cards say 7970 but one with AMD 4600m other with i5-2450m.
ok now in case i launch a game which causes the machine to switch to my 7970 and turns of the processor graphics, will it release the CPU resources to do other stuff or is that part of CPU remains idle and wasted ?
or in other words in a machine where the APU and intel HD is turned off and the discrete graphics (eg7970) is in action does the AMD 4600M will still have advantage over i5-2450M??
[citation][nom]komikool[/nom]I want to ask a noob question if any one can helpLets say i have a AMD processor like 4600M and its gaming benchmarks are beter that the i5-2450M with only the APU only.Now i have 2 machines with identical graphics cards say 7970 but one with AMD 4600m other with i5-2450m.ok now in case i launch a game which causes the machine to switch to my 7970 and turns of the processor graphics, will it release the CPU resources to do other stuff or is that part of CPU remains idle and wasted ?or in other words in a machine where the APU and intel HD is turned off and the discrete graphics (eg7970) is in action does the AMD 4600M will still have advantage over i5-2450M??[/citation]
No it doesn't have the advantage anymore, thats not to say it wouldn't be able to mostly support the weight of a 7970, but its not going to have the raw power of the 2450m. There's actually a laptop thats designed with what your thinking of in mind, its an a10 - 4600M and a 7970M. One of the biggest issues with it though is not being able to correctly switch between integrated and discrete GPU's so you have to force it to use the discrete GPU half the time. Here is the article in case you are interested.
http://www.kitguru.net/laptops/zardon/msi-gx60-gaming-laptop-review-a10-4600mhd7970m/4/
No it doesn't have the advantage anymore, thats not to say it wouldn't be able to mostly support the weight of a 7970, but its not going to have the raw power of the 2450m. There's actually a laptop thats designed with what your thinking of in mind, its an a10 - 4600M and a 7970M. One of the biggest issues with it though is not being able to correctly switch between integrated and discrete GPU's so you have to force it to use the discrete GPU half the time. Here is the article in case you are interested.
http://www.kitguru.net/laptops/zardon/msi-gx60-gaming-laptop-review-a10-4600mhd7970m/4/
- Status
TRENDING THREADS
-
-
-
Question Help in troubleshooting possible graphics card issue?
- Started by nort99
- Replies: 3
-
Question RX 6600 visual glitches right after upgrading to it- Started by Wamek
- Replies: 4
-
News US sanctions transform China into legacy chip production juggernaut — production jumped 40% in Q1 2024- Started by Admin
- Replies: 35
-
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram