AMD Shows Live Demo of Trinity APU With Eyefinity Gaming

[dalauder]

[citation][nom]zeratul600[/nom]So this means that they can work in tandem apu + 4 video cards?[/citation]The problem with APU + GPU is that a typical GPU is so much more powerful, combining them is largely irrelevant.

A single APU + a low end GPU could, theoretically, combine to give you midrange performance. This would be ideal for more casual or low budget gamers, especially those who buy OEM systems, and only have 1 PCIe slot.

For enthusiasts who buy Tri SLI/CFX capable motherboards with LOTS of PCIe slots, an APU is mostly useless. As adding the integrated graphics to a higher-end GPU would only add 15% performance while bringing compatibility problems with unacceptable performance hiccups.

So while you may possibly be able to combine it with multiple graphics cards, there is no incentive for AMD to provide that feature as anyone running a Crossfire-X system would have an easier time running it without using the APU's graphics. That said, the APU may provide some alternate Direct Compute or Physics functions that could be beneficial to ANY graphics setup. This is really a year or two off from regular implementation though.

 

[palladin9479]

The problem with APU + GPU is that a typical GPU is so much more powerful, combining them is largely irrelevant.

A single APU + a low end GPU could, theoretically, combine to give you midrange performance. This would be ideal for more casual or low budget gamers, especially those who buy OEM systems, and only have 1 PCIe slot.

For enthusiasts who buy Tri SLI/CFX capable motherboards with LOTS of PCIe slots, an APU is mostly useless. As adding the integrated graphics to a higher-end GPU would only add 15% performance while bringing compatibility problems with unacceptable performance hiccups.

So while you may possibly be able to combine it with multiple graphics cards, there is no incentive for AMD to provide that feature as anyone running a Crossfire-X system would have an easier time running it without using the APU's graphics. That said, the APU may provide some alternate Direct Compute or Physics functions that could be beneficial to ANY graphics setup. This is really a year or two off from regular implementation though.

Yeah APU's make the most sense in the Laptop / Notebook / Ultrabook markets. Small, low power and get the job done. In the desktop space I just can't see them gaining traction above $500 due to the availability of cheap dGPUs.

 

[_zxzxzx_]

I agree @ waethorn. AMD gives way more than Intel in low-mid range for same price.

 

[dalauder]

[citation][nom]_zxzxzx_[/nom]I agree @ waethorn. AMD gives way more than Intel in low-mid range for same price.[/citation]That all depends on what you're doing with your computer. Low-end gaming, advantage AMD. Low-end CPU intensive...hmmm, advantage AMD. But low-end mobile CPU intensive, advantage Intel.

 

[sonofliberty08]

[citation][nom]dalauder[/nom]That all depends on what you're doing with your computer. Low-end gaming, advantage AMD. Low-end CPU intensive...hmmm, advantage AMD. But low-end mobile CPU intensive, advantage Intel.[/citation]
entry-level to mainstream mobile PC, advantage AMD low power Fusion APU & Fusion APU with Radeon Dual Graphic +1

 

[hetneo]

[citation][nom]Yuka[/nom]Current Llano heats a lot in desktop, so they better come up with better HSFs this time around for the Boxed ones. Also, it's pretty darn impressive that it can push 3x 1680x1050 monitors in eyefinity, even with the artifacts, lol.Cheers![/citation]
Those are not artifacts, but sfx of camera being hit, I guess you never played any Dirt game.

 

[alidan]

[citation][nom]gpj[/nom]I think you're imagining things. The laptop demo was quite smooth - the desktop version was choppy. PS 700ms... really? If you are capable of measuring 700ms with your eyes, what are you doing on these forums?[/citation]

correct me if im wrong, but 700ms is over a half second right? you you are incapable of noticeing 700ms of time... ... ... cant think of anything clever to say... i just cant comprehend this.

[citation][nom]bystander[/nom]Even games which require crossfire/SLI to max offer perfectly good graphics quality that a single card can run. I know it does hurt people's ego when their system can't run a game maxed out, but I like it, because it gives me a reason to play the game again in a couple years.[/citation]

its not an ego thing, when games are made with "future hardware" in mind we get things like crysis, it had one of the worst optimized engines in recent memory.

yea its nice when a pretty game gets prettier in 2 or so years when you get a new gpu, but the fact is if game developers are allowed to go balls out than develop whats current, they tend to go about it in a brute force method...

i know so many people hate it for what ever reason, but lets look at modern warfare engine on the consoles... did you ever think the power those things have could push graphics that look that good?

that engine (o no, they didnt modify it, the world is ending that such a great engine isnt being tweaked) is the most immaculate engine that i have seen in games in a long time... compare it to cryengine 2, which ran like crap on the pc at high settings...

but lets jump to when when crysis was ported to cryengine 3, and it was suddenly so optimized that it could run on the consoles.

that's what i don't like about pc developers that go for future tech or take into account multi gpu... yea those should be supported, but not designed around. they tend to drop making thing optimized in favor of brute force.

 

[DjEaZy]

... i wanna a 18'' laptop with that to replace my Aspire 8530G...

 

[Guest]

Me thinks toms hardware should list in all future laptop reviews, the graohics drivers version numbers for: opengl, direct X, etc. Toms should state in the review if the drivers are stock or OEM modified! This should
be the standard for any computer graphics hardware/software portions of the review! Proper in depth reviews should include Links to the processor data sheet, as well as the computer manufacturers data sheet for that computer. I know some OEM computer manufacturers do not have good data sheets on their computers, like in the good old days, but toms should do their best to obtain this info for their readers!
Toms hardware should try to rate OEMs on their ability to keep the computers OEM customized software updated, be it graphics drivers, or any other OEM software!

 

[rex86]

[citation][nom]benkraft[/nom]Almost right. It uses the revised Piledriver core meant to be around 15 percent faster than the current Bulldozer parts at the same clock speed.[/citation]

I really don't care that much about CPU performance in laptops. I'm happy to use processors that have 4 cores and can efficiently distribute the workload between the cores, bundled with decent gpus.

 

[dalauder]

[citation][nom]sonofliberty08[/nom]entry-level to mainstream mobile PC, advantage AMD low power Fusion APU & Fusion APU with Radeon Dual Graphic +1[/citation]I don't see how you "thumbs downed" me. I just gave advantage to AMD on everything low-end except CPU intensive. If you look at any CPU benchmarks Intel wins in all price segments. I love AMD, but their products are only viable in selected segments--specifically graphics focused laptops under $500. Because they lose to i5's with discrete graphics above that price range.

 

[Guest]

Show me Crysis running 3 screens and I am sold.

 

[Guest]

wow, look how stretched the image is the further away from the center you are... thats all eyefinity ends up doing... turning a 16:9 game into 48:9 ratio....