Gaming At 1920x1080: AMD's Trinity Takes On Intel's HD Graphics

[americanbrian]

[citation][nom]luciferano[/nom]Hmm... Perhaps you were a little harsh, but I might have not been harsh enough too, now that I've read and thought about this post.Also, about pricing on 1866 memory,http://pcpartpicker.com/parts/memo [...] 66&sort=a8The cheapest, quality 8GB DDR3-1600 9-9-9-24 kit is $31 (after MIR, but still).The cheapest, quality 8GB DDR3-1866 kit has 9-10-9-27 timings and is $42 (also after MIR).Also, I only counted 1.5V kits and didn't care to see if there are better prices on higher voltage kits. I wouldn't want a higher than 1.5V voltage kit. IDK if you don't mind going to a higher voltage or not, but I wouldn't, at least not with these APUs. One thing going for the 1866 kits is that they have a good chance of being able to be overclocked to DDR3-2133 without unreasonable timings, maybe even at stock voltage of 1.5V or at least below 1.6V. The difference in performance between 1600 and 1866 isn't huge, but 1600 to 2133 is probably a greater boost. I've had better luck overclocking most 1866 kits to 2133 than I've had getting 1600 to 1866 without voltage hikes or crap timings and this could be more incentive.Still, that price difference is well under (by percentage) the performance difference, so despite my semantic ramblings, you do seem to be correct.[/citation]

I am in the UK, from my favorite supplier (ebuyer), I get a £5 difference when only considering 1.5V quality branded RAM, so yeah, we'll call it 2%.

Anyways, I am just trying to do my part to keep tom's honest. They do great work, which is why I am here all the time. But I am not afraid to say when they miss something or need a reality check.

I suppose the real niggle for me is that some of those "higher settings" that were borderline in this review would probably have been a bit more comfortable if the intended RAM speed had been used. Possibly making the conclusion a bit more positive.

I don't own and do not plan to build a machine like this, My 50" plasma is only 720p and I have no plans to buy a new one soon. My laptop is my HTPC. I just genuinely feel that the new advances in hardware should be given their chance to show what they can do, regardless of who makes them.

 

[mousseng]

Anyways, I am just trying to do my part to keep tom's honest. They do great work, which is why I am here all the time. But I am not afraid to say when they miss something or need a reality check.

It's good to have folks like you around - but after reading the TechReport article, I think it's fair that they didn't include the memory scaling tests or other tests, as this is really only a "preview" of sorts; I'll bet that when the full review is published, they will acknowledge that they need to test it, if they haven't tested it already.

 

[steelninja]

I would rather run at 1080p with high settings which is why I do

 

[Guest]

If AMD could make a quad channel memory controller, like intels' socket 2011, then they would have the headroom for high frame rates at full HD resolution. Memory bandwidth is allways the bottleneck at those high resolutions and they IGP gets it's memory from system RAM. It's either a quad channel controller (or DDR4) that will really let these IGP's open up at full HD resolution. That's why graphics cards allways use the latest GDDR5 or whever it is up to and have hundreds of GB's per second of memory bandwidth

 

[luciferano]

[citation][nom]Steelninja[/nom]I would rather run at 1080p with high settings which is why I do[/citation]

That may be your opinion of gaming and I 'd even go as far as to agree with it, but it's still irrelevant for this article.

 

[Guest]

I rather run at 1280x1024 with MSAA x4 on medium then 1920x1080p with it barely playing Medium.

 

[TheinsanegamerN]

at this rate, in about 3 years, any game will be playable on an integrated gpu. super small gaming rigs will be a possibility. think alienware x51, but wihtout powerbrick, and using integrated gpu. small, powerefficient, and gaming capable.

 

[bigdog44]

As quality true high speed internet penetration improves the need for horsepower on the user end will diminish as it will be served to you, taking away more of your ownership in the process. In other words, an A-10 based system would have no problem handling the games mentioned if it was only operating like a thin client, had a good high speed connection and was connected to a game server doing all of the heavy lifting. Why do you think AMD has invested in CiiNow and Nvidia is powering that ridiculously named little cube with their new Tegra mobile chips. Thats another reason why the next Xbox/PS3 dont have to make as big of a jump hardware-wise, but need to have certain other hardware areas prioritized. That way future console iterations are only really a matter of console shrinks and accessorizing.

 

[luciferano]

[citation][nom]bigdog44[/nom]As quality true high speed internet penetration improves the need for horsepower on the user end will diminish as it will be served to you, taking away more of your ownership in the process. In other words, an A-10 based system would have no problem handling the games mentioned if it was only operating like a thin client, had a good high speed connection and was connected to a game server doing all of the heavy lifting. Why do you think AMD has invested in CiiNow and Nvidia is powering that ridiculously named little cube with their new Tegra mobile chips. Thats another reason why the next Xbox/PS3 dont have to make as big of a jump hardware-wise, but need to have certain other hardware areas prioritized. That way future console iterations are only really a matter of console shrinks and accessorizing.[/citation]

Of course, we could be smarter and learn how to run a game engine's CPU needs off of the APU's IGP through OpenCL so that it can keep up with even high-end graphics cards in supporting games without resorting to servers.

 

[army_ant7]

It's good to have folks like you around - but after reading the TechReport article, I think it's fair that they didn't include the memory scaling tests or other tests, as this is really only a "preview" of sorts; I'll bet that when the full review is published, they will acknowledge that they need to test it, if they haven't tested it already.

They actually have tested it a few months ago, though I was honestly hoping for a redo, but it came in the form of the article this thread is for, which I'm not really sad about. Go to the main page and see the two articles that came before this one, if you've yet to. They have more tests including memory scaling.

 

[mousseng]

They actually have tested it a few months ago, though I was honestly hoping for a redo, but it came in the form of the article this thread is for, which I'm not really sad about. Go to the main page and see the two articles that came before this one, if you've yet to. They have more tests including memory scaling.

Assuming Tom's is under the same "embargo" that TR is, this article is still part of the preview, which Tom's even mentions in the memory scaling test: "Of course, the thing to remember is that this is a preview."

Unless I'm missing something and the TR article is completely irrelevant, we should be expecting a full review on release, right?

 

[luciferano]

Assuming Tom's is under the same "embargo" that TR is, this article is still part of the preview, which Tom's even mentions in the memory scaling test: "Of course, the thing to remember is that this is a preview."

Unless I'm missing something and the TR article is completely irrelevant, we should be expecting a full review on release, right?

We already had a pretty full review. We can probably expect an updated full review around release time, but that doesn't mean that the one that Tom's did a while ago isn't important for the CPU tests that it did (graphics tests would have been with outdated drivers, thus less relevant today, but this gaming review kinda solves that issue, at least somewhat and that doesn't discredit the CPU tests much).

 

[bombebomb]

Maybe I am misreading, but I play bf3 on lowest settings @ 768 res, and I get 30fps the entire time, on a laptop a8-3500m.... I have a hard time believing Bf3 on lowest settings on a much more powerful chip can not support 1080.

I guess the writings on the all though.

 

[shin0bi272]

[citation][nom]luciferano[/nom]That may be your opinion of gaming and I 'd even go as far as to agree with it, but it's still irrelevant for this article.[/citation]

I have to argue that he's right even for this article. What use is a cpu with integrated graphics if it doesnt perform at even current console levels? I mean come on... the crysis2 benchmarks should make you irate. Entry level or not 9fps is NEVER acceptable at any resolution! For $200 you can get a 7750 gpu and a phenom 2 x4 955 black edition. Sure thats more expensive than an APU but you get 23fps in crysis2 which is well worth it in anyone's book. Point is these APUs are a joke and a total waste of time for anything but office workstation productivity and HTPCs. The fact that review sites keep trying to call them entry level gaming cpu/gpus is laughable.

 

[luciferano]

[citation][nom]shin0bi272[/nom]I have to argue that he's right even for this article. What use is a cpu with integrated graphics if it doesnt perform at even current console levels? I mean come on... the crysis2 benchmarks should make you irate. Entry level or not 9fps is NEVER acceptable at any resolution! For $200 you can get a 7750 gpu and a phenom 2 x4 955 black edition. Sure thats more expensive than an APU but you get 23fps in crysis2 which is well worth it in anyone's book. Point is these APUs are a joke and a total waste of time for anything but office workstation productivity and HTPCs. The fact that review sites keep trying to call them entry level gaming cpu/gpus is laughable.[/citation]

I'd have to argue that you're wrong for several reasons. First off, at least for the A10s, they have superior graphics to any currently selling game console by quite a lot and the games that they're playing are set much more intensively than consoles (yes, even with low settings because consoles can't even play that at 1080p at all, let alone with even 9FPS in the same tests). These IGPs are entry-level and I can name a dozen inferior entry-level graphics cards such as the Radeon 6450, 5550, 5570, 6570, 5670, and 6670.

[citation][nom]bombebomb[/nom]Maybe I am misreading, but I play bf3 on lowest settings @ 768 res, and I get 30fps the entire time, on a laptop a8-3500m.... I have a hard time believing Bf3 on lowest settings on a much more powerful chip can not support 1080.I guess the writings on the all though.[/citation]

The graphics performance difference isn't so huge and there are like three or four resolutions with 768 in them, so I literally can't even accurately guess at what resolution you play at. Regardless, the performance difference between the top Trinity A10 and your mobile A8 with both using dual-channel DDR3-1600 is smaller than the performance difference of the top xxxx by 768 resolution and 1080p.

 

[mousseng]

I have to argue that he's right even for this article. What use is a cpu with integrated graphics if it doesnt perform at even current console levels?

They do perform on par with consoles, if not even better: consoles (the 360, at least) don't render at 1080p. When you set your 360 to display at 1080p, it's still rendering at 720p (or even 480 for some, I'd imagine) and is upscaled to 1080.

 

[SteelCity1981]

[citation][nom]luciferano[/nom]Actually, the A10 and A8 have somewhat superior graphics compared to current consoles. Current consoles can't even play in 720p as well as these AMD IGPs played 1080p despite being a more optimized platform, so that this is true is kinda obvious IMO. Also, new games would simply mean dropping resolution for these APUs. They wouldn't be unable to play new games, just probably at 1080p and 16xx by 900/10xx resolutions too.Intel probably isn't very motivated by gaming performance for their IGPs and they're supposedly making roughly 100% performance gains per generation with their top-end IGPs anyway, so they're working on growing IGP performance. AMD also gets to use GCN in their next APU and I don't think that I need to explain the implications there, especially if they go the extra mile with using their high-density library tech too.[/citation]

uh what? xbox 360 and ps3 can play in 1080p you do realize xbox 360 and ps3 have games that are in 1080p right?

 

[luciferano]

[citation][nom]SteelCity1981[/nom]uh what? xbox 360 and ps3 can play in 1080p you do realize xbox 360 and ps3 have games that are in 1080p right?[/citation]

lol, no, they don't. They run 720p in light games and 480p or 360p in heavier games and upscale it to 1080p. These APUs are playing in real 1080p. Not only that, but they played 1080p without being such an optimized platform as the consoles too. They're greatly superior to console graphics. Heck, some phones and tablets can compete with the consoles in graphics performance (although not in CPU performance).

If anything, the only native 1080p that the consoles can use is video/movie playback.

 

[mousseng]

uh what? xbox 360 and ps3 can play in 1080p you do realize xbox 360 and ps3 have games that are in 1080p right?

Let me direct you to my post above:

When you set your 360 to display at 1080p, it's still rendering at 720p (or even 480 for some, I'd imagine) and is upscaled to 1080.

The consoles don't have the power to generate playable framerates at 1080p (which was in its nascent years when the 360 and PS3 released - remember that these consoles are 6+ years old!), so they instead render at no more than 720p (typically some other odd resolution with the same horizontal dimensions) and scale them up.

 

[rhangman]

Wonder how much better AMD would have performed with a hybrid Crossfire setup?

 

[Wisecracker]

Wonder how much better AMD would have performed with a hybrid Crossfire setup?

Your mileage may vary.

This would be mobile, but desktop is likely similar. My understanding is the discreet card of choice for dual-graphics would be an HD 6570 DDR3 Turks Pro

 

[kartu]

[citation][nom]mayankleoboy1[/nom]Consoles set the bar for game developers. These iGPU's are comparable to the consoles and thats why games will run smooth here.[/citation]
Get your facts traight, Watson, PS3 has ancient GPU, that was roughly on par with Gforce 7800. (360 is worse than that)

A8 and A10 can run circles around console GPUs as well as CPUs.

 

[TechnoD]

Lol...
"Today, Trinity and Ivy Bridge get us a lot closer to 1920x1080, which is where both AMD and Intel need to be if they hope to convince gamers that their on-die graphics engines are actually viable for gaming."

Last time i checked Ivy bridge isnt getting you anywhere near "close" in any game......
Hands down AMD you rock APU's are boss.

 

[bison88]

[citation][nom]esrever[/nom]Personally I would rather run games at 720p with medium settings than at 1080p with low.[/citation]


QFMFT! I know the intro of the article comparing 720p to 1080p integrated wise was to instill a sense of advancements, but you'll get little to no real benefits upping the resolution if you have to play at inferior settings.

Fact is both Intel and AMD are advancing integrated graphics further than they ever attempted beforehand, but they still have a long way to go. They are just now getting up on par with whats inside the consoles (360/PS3) which is nothing to blow off by the way since that alone is better than what was possible 4 years ago when integrated graphics were still abandoned.

It's a love-hate relationship for many of us. On one hand it's nice to know IGP's are stepping up there game, on the other hand most of us here are using discreet cards and feel a little abandoned from the lack of CPU love over the graphics focus. Then again the amount of CPU we have now is so incredibly underused that Intel/AMD can squeeze out a few more generations mostly improving the graphics without having to really focus on the CPU side of things before the rest of the software industry catches up.

 

[luciferano]

[citation][nom]bison88[/nom]QFMFT! I know the intro of the article comparing 720p to 1080p integrated wise was to instill a sense of advancements, but you'll get little to no real benefits upping the resolution if you have to play at inferior settings.Fact is both Intel and AMD are advancing integrated graphics further than they ever attempted beforehand, but they still have a long way to go. They are just now getting up on par with whats inside the consoles (360/PS3) which is nothing to blow off by the way since that alone is better than what was possible 4 years ago when integrated graphics were still abandoned.It's a love-hate relationship for many of us. On one hand it's nice to know IGP's are stepping up there game, on the other hand most of us here are using discreet cards and feel a little abandoned from the lack of CPU love over the graphics focus. Then again the amount of CPU we have now is so incredibly underused that Intel/AMD can squeeze out a few more generations mostly improving the graphics without having to really focus on the CPU side of things before the rest of the software industry catches up.[/citation]

Are you reading this or not? The AMD IGPs are clearly far ahead of the consoles. Some phones and tablets caught up to the consoles months ago. Are you telling me that these AMD IGPs aren't far ahead of those phones and tablets?