[SP,NH] AMD Trinity A8-4500M APU Benchmarked, Better Than Expected - Overclock.net

Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #1 of 11 Old 04-10-2012, 04:49 PM - Thread Starter
Mess with the goat, get the horns
 
xd_1771's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 20,615
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 1027
Send a message via MSN to xd_1771 Send a message via Skype™ to xd_1771

LINK to Softpedia article (I prefer their explanations)

LINK to original on NordicHardware

 

Quote:
Advanced Micro Devices is going to launch its 32nm-based Trinity accelerated processing units this year (2012) and there is now some extra information on the line.
 
The dual-Piledriver A8-4500 was tested under the Folding benchmark.  In terms of floating point speeds, A8-4500M "Trinity" scored 1,655.51 points on one of the two systems tested, and 1,679.55 on another.  Meanwhile, A8-3500M "Llano" got 1,580.98, which means that the average difference is of 5.47% (in favor of Trinity).

The integer speed (basically the CPU math performance) is where Trinity shines though: its score of 5,214.95 / 5 662.48 is about 38.67% better than the Llano's 3,921.99.

 

Whether the integer test is supposed to be single-threaded or multi-threaded (we don't know), the results are exceptionally impressive.  Let me break this down with my views/thoughts/observations of the results:

  • If they are single threaded, this proves a 40+% IPC gain.  The 4500M is outperforming in IPS (instructions per second - IPC + clock speed) by nearly 40% while managing 200Mhz lower on the single threaded clock speed! (we know it is 2.2Ghz from the other article that was posted in hardware news).  That is a MASSIVE boost over Llano!
  • If they are multi threaded, this is still impressive.  Because the Bulldozer (now Piledriver) module is designed to offer better performance when only 1 core/module is used but only ~80% as much when both cores/module are used, BD/PD based processors should see lower multithreaded performance even at higher clock speed.  We know that this is a 2.2Ghz processor and with all 4 threads activated the Llano runs at 1.5Ghz.  Despite the multithreaded performance hit of 80%, it is outperforming Llano by 40%, at the same power consumption (35W TDP).  That is exactly what we want to be seeing with these new AMD processors thumb.gif
  • And bear in mind that if this IS a multithreaded result, then that means the single-threaded gains would be even more impressive because of the INT/FP imbalance in the modules!  From an extrapolation/estimation of these results in the sentences following, dividing between cores/clock speed and taking the average between the two measurements assuming a flat 80% performance loss applying to this task with 2 cores/module loaded as opposed to 1/module, then the Trinity APU gets a score of 1669.6/full core compared to Llano's 980.49/core.  Trinity APU has a 46.6% clock speed advantage on all 4 cores.  On a per core, per ghz basis, Trinity scores 759 while Llano scores 653.66.  If these extrapolated results are anywhere close to accurate, then Trinity has a 16% IPC improvement over Llano mobile APU on top of an IPS (higher clock speed) improvement - higher so over Bulldozer, of course - and at the same power consumption.  Marvellous!

 

Keep in mind that the cores in Trinity APU do not have L3 cache.  This means the desktop Piledriver CPU results shall be even more impressive.

 

Should everything be true, of course.


Circumstances forced me to go inactive back in 2014. I guess I'm back for 2016, but won't be active much! Cheers!
Forum Rules (TOS) - Professionalism Initiative - News & info | New members - Marketplace
Good reads | VRM & MOSFET info - AMD VRM database - What unlocks? - CPU/NB/RAM multipliers chart
xd_1771 is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 11 Old 04-10-2012, 04:59 PM
*cough* Stock *cough*
 
HybridCore's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 9,984
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 182
I have high hopes for Trinity and Piledriver.

HybridCore is online now  
post #3 of 11 Old 04-10-2012, 05:00 PM
CS:GO Addict
 
onoz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: San Diego
Posts: 4,067
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 309
xd_1771, after reading your thoughts, I have this urge to respond with...

Of course. wink.gif

onoz is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #4 of 11 Old 04-10-2012, 05:07 PM
Overclocker
 
computerparts's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: In the shadows
Posts: 1,798
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 153
Looking very very good.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Masta Squidge go_quote.gif

Clearly not, you don't know how it works. The CPU has to build every individual frame before it sends the data to the GPU to be rendered.
FX-8120 vs. 2500k BenchmarksAMD FX Clubsniper.gif
computerparts is offline  
post #5 of 11 Old 04-10-2012, 05:10 PM
Try catching every moment you see...
 
Mad Pistol's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: The Beach, Florida
Posts: 6,062
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 280
Wow... that's like... a lot faster.

Hopefully the rest of Trinity APU's and corresponding applications are equally impressive. If so, we have a huge HUGE winner.

Mad Pistol is offline  
post #6 of 11 Old 04-10-2012, 05:14 PM
nub
4.0ghz
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Washington DC
Posts: 2,066
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 131
Quote:
Originally Posted by xd_1771 View Post

LINK to Softpedia article (I prefer their explanations)
LINK to original on NordicHardware


Whether the integer test is supposed to be single-threaded or multi-threaded (we don't know), the results are exceptionally impressive.  Let me break this down with my views/thoughts/observations of the results:
  • If they are single threaded, this proves a 40+% IPC gain.  The 4500M is outperforming in IPS (instructions per second - IPC + clock speed) by nearly 40% while managing 200Mhz lower on the single threaded clock speed! (we know it is 2.2Ghz from the other article that was posted in hardware news).  That is a MASSIVE boost over Llano!
  • If they are multi threaded, this is still impressive.  Because the Bulldozer (now Piledriver) module is designed to offer better performance when only 1 core/module is used but only ~80% as much when both cores/module are used, BD/PD based processors should see lower multithreaded performance even at higher clock speed.  We know that this is a 2.2Ghz processor and with all 4 threads activated the Llano runs at 1.5Ghz.  Despite the multithreaded performance hit of 80%, it is outperforming Llano by 40%, at the same power consumption (35W TDP).  That is exactly what we want to be seeing with these new AMD processors thumb.gif
  • And bear in mind that if this IS a multithreaded result, then that means the single-threaded gains would be even more impressive because of the INT/FP imbalance in the modules!  From an extrapolation/estimation of these results and assuming a flat 80% performance loss with 2 cores/module used on Trinity, then the Trinity APU gets 1669.6/core compared to Llano's 980.49/core.  Trinity APU has a 46.6% clock speed advantage on all 4 cores.  On a per core, per ghz basis, Trinity scores 759 while Llano scores 653.66.  If these extrapolated results are to be accurate, then Trinity has a 16% IPC improvement over Llano mobile APU on top of an IPS (higher clock speed) improvement - higher so over Bulldozer, of course.  Marvellous!

Keep in mind that the cores in Trinity APU do not have L3 cache.  This means the desktop Piledriver CPU results shall be even more impressive.

Should everything be true, of course.

Dresdenboy looked at Trinity boinc performance relative to Llano and bulldozer cpu's on his blog. He found some improvement, but not anywhere near what you calculated except in interger performance vs bulldozer (+20%)
http://citavia.blog.de/2012/04/08/trinity-piledriver-performance-13460109/

Quote:
Originally Posted by ira-k
It's possible, just think of the chaos and womens tears if it ever did get loose...eek.gif
nub is offline  
post #7 of 11 Old 04-10-2012, 05:16 PM
First Time Build
 
totallynotshooped's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 221
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 3
Hellooo, Piledriver. biggrin.gif

totallynotshooped is offline  
post #8 of 11 Old 04-10-2012, 05:19 PM
 
Dmac73's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 2,109
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 107
Looking forward to Trinity, but Vishera more.

XD contrary to your previous thoughts, i do believe desktop PD is a different version of cores than what Trinity will be using.
Dmac73 is offline  
post #9 of 11 Old 04-10-2012, 05:21 PM
 
Kvjavs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Chicagoland
Posts: 4,134
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 197
But can it play Skyrim?
Kvjavs is offline  
post #10 of 11 Old 04-10-2012, 05:21 PM
New to Overclock.net
 
ZealotKi11er's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Toronto, CA
Posts: 44,140
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Liked: 1786
Send a message via Yahoo to ZealotKi11er
Cant wait!

CPU History (Click to show)
CPU -> Sempron 2400+, Athlon 64 3700+, Core 2 Q6600, A8-3870K, Core 2 Q9550, Core 2 QX9770, Core i7 920, Core i5 2500K, Core i5 3570K, Phenom II X4 955, Core i7 3770K.
GPU History (Click to show)
FX 5200 128MB, 9800 Pro 128MB, 6800GS 256MB, 7600GT 256MB, HD 4850 512MB, HD 4870 1GB, 2x HD 4870 1GB, GTX280 1GB, HD 5850 1GB, GTX470 1.25GB, GTX580 1.5GB, HD 6950 2GB, HD 6950 2GB + HD 6970 2GB, HD 6990 2GB, HD 7970 3GB, 2 x HD 7970 3GB,R9 290 4GB, R9 290X 4GB, R9 Fury X 4GB, GTX 1080 8GB, GTX1080 Ti 11GB
MB History (Click to show)
ECS KN1 Extreme -> ASUS P5Q-E -> GIGABYTE GA-X58A-UD7 -> GIGABYTE GA-Z68XP-UD4 -> GIGABYTE GA-Z77X-UD5H -> ASRock Z77E-ITX
ZealotKi11er is online now  
Reply

Quick Reply

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off