Overclock.net › Forums › Industry News › Rumors and Unconfirmed Articles › [MPC]Leaked AMD Trinity Slide Promises Big Gains Over Llano APUs
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

[MPC]Leaked AMD Trinity Slide Promises Big Gains Over Llano APUs - Page 6

post #51 of 84
Nobody buys Llano for CPU performance, thought I'd give you a heads-up that Intel has the fastest quad-cores if that's what you're looking for. Again, you're bringing in BULLDOZER, into a discussion about Trinity, which has Piledriver cores. Then you mention AMD's desktop TDP level. AMD's mobile TDP's are perfectly fine, actually, even better than Intel's if you consider a majority of their line is 35W. If you don't want to consider all the aspects there really isn't much point reasoning. If you like IPC that's great, really, but I don't see why you have a problem with letting people get excited about affordable laptops with good graphics. Every product has a strong point, perhaps you'll realize this eventually. Only arguing negatives makes you look like a "fan", sorry if you feel offended.

I don't appreciate getting told what to do, nor being called juvenile. Please report my post or take it outside of the thread if you find what I say so disagreeable.
 
Lanbox Lite
(16 items)
 
 
CPUGraphicsRAMHard Drive
i3-2310M Intel HD 3000 8GB DDR3 Samsung 830 64GB SSD 
Hard DriveOSMonitorCase
640GB Hitachi HDD Windows 7 13.3" LCD Magnesium Alloy, 3.2lbs 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Phenom II X4 955 BE Gigabyte GA-MA78GPM-UD2H MSI Hawk R5770 3x2GB G.Skill DDR2 800 4-4-4-12 
Hard DriveHard DriveOptical DriveCooling
1TB Samsung Spinpoint F3 250 GB WD Caviar Black Samsung 20X DVD-R/RW Thermaltake MaxOrb 
CoolingOSMonitorPower
Noctua NF-B9-1600 Windows 7 Pro 64-bit BenQ E2420HD, 24" 1920x1080 TT Purepower 500W 
Case
TT Lanbox Lite 
  hide details  
Reply
 
Lanbox Lite
(16 items)
 
 
CPUGraphicsRAMHard Drive
i3-2310M Intel HD 3000 8GB DDR3 Samsung 830 64GB SSD 
Hard DriveOSMonitorCase
640GB Hitachi HDD Windows 7 13.3" LCD Magnesium Alloy, 3.2lbs 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Phenom II X4 955 BE Gigabyte GA-MA78GPM-UD2H MSI Hawk R5770 3x2GB G.Skill DDR2 800 4-4-4-12 
Hard DriveHard DriveOptical DriveCooling
1TB Samsung Spinpoint F3 250 GB WD Caviar Black Samsung 20X DVD-R/RW Thermaltake MaxOrb 
CoolingOSMonitorPower
Noctua NF-B9-1600 Windows 7 Pro 64-bit BenQ E2420HD, 24" 1920x1080 TT Purepower 500W 
Case
TT Lanbox Lite 
  hide details  
Reply
post #52 of 84
Quote:
1. Intel does have a high-end platform, its CPUs have a quad channel memory controller that runs 1600 Mhz DDR3 RAM natively and 40 lanes of PCIe 3.0 connectivity, plus you get an Intel Gigabit LAN controller as standard in all X79 motherboards, plus the future upgradability to Ivy Bridge-E, including at least 6 core CPUs. In any case, this is besides the point. A Celeron based Sandy Bridge CPU is not the same as a Core i5 2500K or a Core i7 2600K. The fact that the architecture is the same does not mean they perform the same. It does however give consumers the assurance that their chip is based on a good architecture, which is my point all along.

It you're talking about technology "trickling down" it does not matter how the chips perform, it matters how advanced they are. A 990x performs better than a 2500k, but it is less advanced. But you can scale that more-advanced 2500k up to a 3960x and outperform the 990x.

My point is that it's entirely horizontal. There is no more trickling down from the high end, than there is trickling up from the low end.

Quote:
3. Yes, flagships are useful for marketing, who knew ? Nvidia doesn't get rich selling GTX 680's, neither does AMD selling HD 7970's, everybody knows that. But marketing is essential and that is why they both have flagships, and always will. Everybody knows that, you are only reaffirming what everybody already knows. And yes, consumers don't think 100% rationally, there is also an emotional / club factor in it. You don't necessarily have to label them as idiots though.
Quote:
It does however give consumers the assurance that their chip is based on a good architecture, which is my point all along.

So yes, in the end, it comes down to marketing to unsavvy/unintelligent consumers. An intelligent consumer buys a chip based on reviews and benchmarks. An unintelligent consumer buys a chip because of "assurance that their chip is based on a good architecture". rolleyes.gif
post #53 of 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by jrbroad77 View Post

Nobody buys Llano for CPU performance, thought I'd give you a heads-up that Intel has the fastest quad-cores if that's what you're looking for. Again, you're bringing in BULLDOZER, into a discussion about Trinity, which has Piledriver cores. Then you mention AMD's desktop TDP level. AMD's mobile TDP's are perfectly fine, actually, even better than Intel's if you consider a majority of their line is 35W. If you don't want to consider all the aspects there really isn't much point reasoning. If you like IPC that's great, really, but I don't see why you have a problem with letting people get excited about affordable laptops with good graphics. Every product has a strong point, perhaps you'll realize this eventually. Only arguing negatives makes you look like a "fan", sorry if you feel offended.
I don't appreciate getting told what to do, nor being called juvenile. Please report my post or take it outside of the thread if you find what I say so disagreeable.

I am considering all the aspects. You were the one bringing up a hypothetical AMD "3ghz quad-core laptop that's close to an Intel 2.2ghz quad-core" that does not exist , so I brought up Bulldozer to exemplify that in general, having a CPU with the same number of cores, a higher clockspeed and the same performance, might not be a trade-off of IPC for clockspeed at the same thermal envelope, but instead something that uses more power to perform the same tasks at a higher clockspeed.

I know we are talking about Piledriver, but Piledriver is still based on Bulldozer. Tell me what fundamental changes they made to the architecture that make it fundamentally better. What I said in my first post is that from their own alleged slide, it has a 26.6% higher clockspeed + Turbo Core, and claim up to 29% performance improvement. I think it's warranted to at least ask if they really made any significant improvements or are relying on clockspeed alone. And if that is the case, then Piledriver on the desktop will not fare much better than Bulldozer. I said it all. Read my first post again. I even said this was good enough for general purpose PCs.
 
Metro 2033 review
Metro 2033
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Core i7-3820 Asus Sabertooth X79 MSI GTX 750 Ti TF Gaming 16 GB Corsair DDR3 1866 Mhz Dominator 
Hard DriveOptical DriveCoolingOS
Samsung SSD 830 128GB + WD Caviar Black 1TB Sony Optiarc DVD-RW Corsair A70 + Noiseblocker M12-P Windows 7 Home Premium 64-bit 
MonitorKeyboardPowerCase
BenQ RL2455HM Cooler Master Octane Corsair AX750 Professional Modular 80 Plus Gold Cooler Master HAF 912 Plus 
Mouse
Cooler Master Octane 
  hide details  
Reply
 
Metro 2033 review
Metro 2033
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Core i7-3820 Asus Sabertooth X79 MSI GTX 750 Ti TF Gaming 16 GB Corsair DDR3 1866 Mhz Dominator 
Hard DriveOptical DriveCoolingOS
Samsung SSD 830 128GB + WD Caviar Black 1TB Sony Optiarc DVD-RW Corsair A70 + Noiseblocker M12-P Windows 7 Home Premium 64-bit 
MonitorKeyboardPowerCase
BenQ RL2455HM Cooler Master Octane Corsair AX750 Professional Modular 80 Plus Gold Cooler Master HAF 912 Plus 
Mouse
Cooler Master Octane 
  hide details  
Reply
post #54 of 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by RagingCain View Post

    Quote:


If we see this architecture, that is Bulldozer, in anything, it will still be a massive disappointment every which way you look at that CPUs performance, especially when looking at the competition.  There is no magic task scheduler, ala Windows 8, waiting to unleash Bulldozer's performance, because its potential isn't there, and what performance it could gain in the new instruction set would still place behind current gen i7s, and unless Ivy completely flops out, it will be even further behind when it gets reved out.

The entire Bulldozer is worse than its previous generation in terms of IPC or IPS or power saving.  Lets not even bring Intel into this.  The entire Bulldozer architecture was a massive flop both on paper, and real world performance was far behind Thubans and even Denebs in some tests.

This is Piledriver we are talking about, not 1st gen bulldozer.
Anaway, real world performance for Orochi/zambezi is actually not as bad as everybody says, especially in Photoshop, beating out a 2600k. if you look at a basic desktop running a chip, you might actually be surprised at its performance in certain apps.
Edited by totallynotshooped - 4/5/12 at 12:37am
    
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel i5 3570 (non-K) AsRock B75M  Sapphire HD7870 Ghz edition OC 8GB 1333Mhz Patroit 
Hard DriveOptical DriveCoolingOS
500GB Seagate Super WriteMaster Optical Drive Stock Windows 7 Home premium 
MonitorKeyboardPowerCase
24'' ASUS HD Monitor Razer Arctosa Coolermaster Extreme 2 525 w Coolermaster Elite 371 USB 3.0 
Mouse
Razer Death Adder 
  hide details  
Reply
    
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel i5 3570 (non-K) AsRock B75M  Sapphire HD7870 Ghz edition OC 8GB 1333Mhz Patroit 
Hard DriveOptical DriveCoolingOS
500GB Seagate Super WriteMaster Optical Drive Stock Windows 7 Home premium 
MonitorKeyboardPowerCase
24'' ASUS HD Monitor Razer Arctosa Coolermaster Extreme 2 525 w Coolermaster Elite 371 USB 3.0 
Mouse
Razer Death Adder 
  hide details  
Reply
post #55 of 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by aryastark View Post


It you're talking about technology "trickling down" it does not matter how the chips perform, it matters how advanced they are. A 990x performs better than a 2500k, but it is less advanced. But you can scale that more-advanced 2500k up to a 3960x and outperform the 990x.
My point is that it's entirely horizontal. There is no more trickling down from the high end, than there is trickling up from the low end.

So yes, in the end, it comes down to marketing to unsavvy/unintelligent consumers. An intelligent consumer buys a chip based on reviews and benchmarks. An unintelligent consumer buys a chip because of "assurance that their chip is based on a good architecture". rolleyes.gif

I just told you that SB-E is more advanced than SB and not only from a core and cache point of view. What else do you want ? But that is besides the point anyway. Trickling down has many meanings, the product does not have to be based on an inferior architecture for the trickling down concept to be validated. In fact, if nothing (technology, know-how) from the superior product was to be incorporated in the mainstream product, there would be no value added. In the case of SBs multiple products, there is the common feature that they all share the same efficient architecture.

And again you are basing your logic on the false dilemma way of thinking. An intelligent consumer may buy a product because they have the assurance that their chip is based on a good architecture AND have read the reviews to validate that. That is why I said you don't necessarily have to call them idiots, because there are many factors weighing in when you make a purchase decision.
 
Metro 2033 review
Metro 2033
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Core i7-3820 Asus Sabertooth X79 MSI GTX 750 Ti TF Gaming 16 GB Corsair DDR3 1866 Mhz Dominator 
Hard DriveOptical DriveCoolingOS
Samsung SSD 830 128GB + WD Caviar Black 1TB Sony Optiarc DVD-RW Corsair A70 + Noiseblocker M12-P Windows 7 Home Premium 64-bit 
MonitorKeyboardPowerCase
BenQ RL2455HM Cooler Master Octane Corsair AX750 Professional Modular 80 Plus Gold Cooler Master HAF 912 Plus 
Mouse
Cooler Master Octane 
  hide details  
Reply
 
Metro 2033 review
Metro 2033
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Core i7-3820 Asus Sabertooth X79 MSI GTX 750 Ti TF Gaming 16 GB Corsair DDR3 1866 Mhz Dominator 
Hard DriveOptical DriveCoolingOS
Samsung SSD 830 128GB + WD Caviar Black 1TB Sony Optiarc DVD-RW Corsair A70 + Noiseblocker M12-P Windows 7 Home Premium 64-bit 
MonitorKeyboardPowerCase
BenQ RL2455HM Cooler Master Octane Corsair AX750 Professional Modular 80 Plus Gold Cooler Master HAF 912 Plus 
Mouse
Cooler Master Octane 
  hide details  
Reply
post #56 of 84
Am I missing something? 26% faster than Stars modules? Isn't that a LOT faster than Bulldozer? I have read numerous threads that tout newer K10 series chips being better than bulldozer IPC. So Piledriver should be be >26% faster than Bulldozer.

Remind me why we are all yelling again.
Test Chamber ITX
(14 items)
 
Dream Rig (AMD)
(11 items)
 
Dream Rig (Intel)
(11 items)
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7-2600 Gigabyte H77N-wifi Radeon HD 7750 16GB Corsair DDR3 1600 CL 10 (@1333 CL 8) 
Hard DriveHard DriveOSPower
Corsair Force 3 180gb Seagate Barracuda STBD2000101 2x in RAID1 Lubuntu / Win 8.1 / CentOS 6.4 -- Xen 4.3 FSP 80+ Micro-ATX 450w 
Case
Fractal Node 304 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsGraphics
AMD FX-8350 ASRock Fatal1ty 990FX Professional Sapphire Radeon HD 7970 GHz Edition 3GB AMD FirePro W5000 
RAMHard DriveHard DriveCooling
G.Skill Trident X Series 32GB (4 x 8GB) DDR3-1866 Seagate Barracuda 1TB 3.5" 7200RPM x2 RAID 1 Corsair Force Series GT 120GB x2 RAID 0 NZXT Kraken X60 
PowerCaseOther
SeaSonic Platinum 860W 80 PLUS Platinum Lian-Li PC-100 (Black) ATX Mid Tower Case RaspberryPi 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsGraphics
i7-3930k ASrock X79 EXTREME4-M SAPPHIRE Radeon HD 7870 GHz Edition 2GB  AMD FirePro W5000 
RAMHard DriveHard DriveCooling
G.Skill Ripjaws Z Series 32GB (4 x 8GB) DDR3-1866 2x Corsair Force Series 3 180GB RAID 0 2x Western Digital Red 2TB RAID 1 Noctua NH-D14 SE2011 
PowerCaseOther
SeaSonic 660W 80 PLUS Platinum Silverstone TJ08B-E Integrated RaspberryPi 
  hide details  
Reply
Test Chamber ITX
(14 items)
 
Dream Rig (AMD)
(11 items)
 
Dream Rig (Intel)
(11 items)
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7-2600 Gigabyte H77N-wifi Radeon HD 7750 16GB Corsair DDR3 1600 CL 10 (@1333 CL 8) 
Hard DriveHard DriveOSPower
Corsair Force 3 180gb Seagate Barracuda STBD2000101 2x in RAID1 Lubuntu / Win 8.1 / CentOS 6.4 -- Xen 4.3 FSP 80+ Micro-ATX 450w 
Case
Fractal Node 304 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsGraphics
AMD FX-8350 ASRock Fatal1ty 990FX Professional Sapphire Radeon HD 7970 GHz Edition 3GB AMD FirePro W5000 
RAMHard DriveHard DriveCooling
G.Skill Trident X Series 32GB (4 x 8GB) DDR3-1866 Seagate Barracuda 1TB 3.5" 7200RPM x2 RAID 1 Corsair Force Series GT 120GB x2 RAID 0 NZXT Kraken X60 
PowerCaseOther
SeaSonic Platinum 860W 80 PLUS Platinum Lian-Li PC-100 (Black) ATX Mid Tower Case RaspberryPi 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsGraphics
i7-3930k ASrock X79 EXTREME4-M SAPPHIRE Radeon HD 7870 GHz Edition 2GB  AMD FirePro W5000 
RAMHard DriveHard DriveCooling
G.Skill Ripjaws Z Series 32GB (4 x 8GB) DDR3-1866 2x Corsair Force Series 3 180GB RAID 0 2x Western Digital Red 2TB RAID 1 Noctua NH-D14 SE2011 
PowerCaseOther
SeaSonic 660W 80 PLUS Platinum Silverstone TJ08B-E Integrated RaspberryPi 
  hide details  
Reply
post #57 of 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by dizzy4 View Post

Am I missing something? 26% faster than Stars modules? Isn't that a LOT faster than Bulldozer? I have read numerous threads that tout newer K10 series chips being better than bulldozer IPC. So Piledriver should be be >26% faster than Bulldozer.
Remind me why we are all yelling again.

26% faster with ~30% more clockspeed.

Chill
Heat
(14 items)
 
Asus G73JH
(9 items)
 
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsGraphics
i7 3770K @ 4600mhz Gigabyte GA-Z77X-UD5H eVGA GTX 980 eVGA GTX 980 
RAMHard DriveOptical DriveCooling
Team 8gb @ 2400mhz  SSDs LiteOn H70Core/ Ultra Kaze PP 
OSPowerCase
W7 Ultimate X64 PCP&C MKII 950W CM Storm Scout 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel i7 720 Asus HD5870M 6gb Triple Channel 
Hard DriveCoolingOSMonitor
500gb Asus Dual Fans W7 17.3" 
Mouse
Razer Orochi 
  hide details  
Reply
Heat
(14 items)
 
Asus G73JH
(9 items)
 
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsGraphics
i7 3770K @ 4600mhz Gigabyte GA-Z77X-UD5H eVGA GTX 980 eVGA GTX 980 
RAMHard DriveOptical DriveCooling
Team 8gb @ 2400mhz  SSDs LiteOn H70Core/ Ultra Kaze PP 
OSPowerCase
W7 Ultimate X64 PCP&C MKII 950W CM Storm Scout 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel i7 720 Asus HD5870M 6gb Triple Channel 
Hard DriveCoolingOSMonitor
500gb Asus Dual Fans W7 17.3" 
Mouse
Razer Orochi 
  hide details  
Reply
post #58 of 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dmac73 View Post

26% faster with ~30% more clockspeed.
Chill

I am chill, I really think I am missing something. Are they not comparing the Llano to the upcoming Trinity? Wouldn't that still make Piledriver > Bulldozer? Progress is progress thumb.gif

By the way, I am trying to get people to realize that all the yelling is pointless, not joining. I know the internet can be deceiving when it comes to inflection.
Test Chamber ITX
(14 items)
 
Dream Rig (AMD)
(11 items)
 
Dream Rig (Intel)
(11 items)
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7-2600 Gigabyte H77N-wifi Radeon HD 7750 16GB Corsair DDR3 1600 CL 10 (@1333 CL 8) 
Hard DriveHard DriveOSPower
Corsair Force 3 180gb Seagate Barracuda STBD2000101 2x in RAID1 Lubuntu / Win 8.1 / CentOS 6.4 -- Xen 4.3 FSP 80+ Micro-ATX 450w 
Case
Fractal Node 304 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsGraphics
AMD FX-8350 ASRock Fatal1ty 990FX Professional Sapphire Radeon HD 7970 GHz Edition 3GB AMD FirePro W5000 
RAMHard DriveHard DriveCooling
G.Skill Trident X Series 32GB (4 x 8GB) DDR3-1866 Seagate Barracuda 1TB 3.5" 7200RPM x2 RAID 1 Corsair Force Series GT 120GB x2 RAID 0 NZXT Kraken X60 
PowerCaseOther
SeaSonic Platinum 860W 80 PLUS Platinum Lian-Li PC-100 (Black) ATX Mid Tower Case RaspberryPi 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsGraphics
i7-3930k ASrock X79 EXTREME4-M SAPPHIRE Radeon HD 7870 GHz Edition 2GB  AMD FirePro W5000 
RAMHard DriveHard DriveCooling
G.Skill Ripjaws Z Series 32GB (4 x 8GB) DDR3-1866 2x Corsair Force Series 3 180GB RAID 0 2x Western Digital Red 2TB RAID 1 Noctua NH-D14 SE2011 
PowerCaseOther
SeaSonic 660W 80 PLUS Platinum Silverstone TJ08B-E Integrated RaspberryPi 
  hide details  
Reply
Test Chamber ITX
(14 items)
 
Dream Rig (AMD)
(11 items)
 
Dream Rig (Intel)
(11 items)
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7-2600 Gigabyte H77N-wifi Radeon HD 7750 16GB Corsair DDR3 1600 CL 10 (@1333 CL 8) 
Hard DriveHard DriveOSPower
Corsair Force 3 180gb Seagate Barracuda STBD2000101 2x in RAID1 Lubuntu / Win 8.1 / CentOS 6.4 -- Xen 4.3 FSP 80+ Micro-ATX 450w 
Case
Fractal Node 304 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsGraphics
AMD FX-8350 ASRock Fatal1ty 990FX Professional Sapphire Radeon HD 7970 GHz Edition 3GB AMD FirePro W5000 
RAMHard DriveHard DriveCooling
G.Skill Trident X Series 32GB (4 x 8GB) DDR3-1866 Seagate Barracuda 1TB 3.5" 7200RPM x2 RAID 1 Corsair Force Series GT 120GB x2 RAID 0 NZXT Kraken X60 
PowerCaseOther
SeaSonic Platinum 860W 80 PLUS Platinum Lian-Li PC-100 (Black) ATX Mid Tower Case RaspberryPi 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsGraphics
i7-3930k ASrock X79 EXTREME4-M SAPPHIRE Radeon HD 7870 GHz Edition 2GB  AMD FirePro W5000 
RAMHard DriveHard DriveCooling
G.Skill Ripjaws Z Series 32GB (4 x 8GB) DDR3-1866 2x Corsair Force Series 3 180GB RAID 0 2x Western Digital Red 2TB RAID 1 Noctua NH-D14 SE2011 
PowerCaseOther
SeaSonic 660W 80 PLUS Platinum Silverstone TJ08B-E Integrated RaspberryPi 
  hide details  
Reply
post #59 of 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by dizzy4 View Post

Am I missing something? 26% faster than Stars modules? Isn't that a LOT faster than Bulldozer? I have read numerous threads that tout newer K10 series chips being better than bulldozer IPC. So Piledriver should be be >26% faster than Bulldozer.
Remind me why we are all yelling again.

Up to 29% improvement with a 26.6% clockspeed increase compared to Llano (3 Ghz A8 3870K vs 3.8 Ghz A10 5800K) + Turbo Core 3.0.
 
Metro 2033 review
Metro 2033
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Core i7-3820 Asus Sabertooth X79 MSI GTX 750 Ti TF Gaming 16 GB Corsair DDR3 1866 Mhz Dominator 
Hard DriveOptical DriveCoolingOS
Samsung SSD 830 128GB + WD Caviar Black 1TB Sony Optiarc DVD-RW Corsair A70 + Noiseblocker M12-P Windows 7 Home Premium 64-bit 
MonitorKeyboardPowerCase
BenQ RL2455HM Cooler Master Octane Corsair AX750 Professional Modular 80 Plus Gold Cooler Master HAF 912 Plus 
Mouse
Cooler Master Octane 
  hide details  
Reply
 
Metro 2033 review
Metro 2033
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Core i7-3820 Asus Sabertooth X79 MSI GTX 750 Ti TF Gaming 16 GB Corsair DDR3 1866 Mhz Dominator 
Hard DriveOptical DriveCoolingOS
Samsung SSD 830 128GB + WD Caviar Black 1TB Sony Optiarc DVD-RW Corsair A70 + Noiseblocker M12-P Windows 7 Home Premium 64-bit 
MonitorKeyboardPowerCase
BenQ RL2455HM Cooler Master Octane Corsair AX750 Professional Modular 80 Plus Gold Cooler Master HAF 912 Plus 
Mouse
Cooler Master Octane 
  hide details  
Reply
post #60 of 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by tpi2007 View Post

So, the CPU part is still more or less the same as Bulldozer. Sorry, there is no way around that.
From the 3 Ghz A8 3870K to the 3.8 Ghz A10 5800K the difference is 26.6% higher clockspeed + Turbo Core, which is something the 3870K doesn't have. They are claiming a 29% increase in productivity performance, whatever that means, so almost all, if not all of the gains are attributable to the higher clockspeed + Turbo Core. This means that with the Trinity improvements they most probably basically only managed to bring the IPC back to the former architecture's level.
Add to that the "Optimized for Windows 8" moniker, which basically means "no, we haven't adressed the architectural flaws, just a few improvements to make it less bad and are relying on a better task scheduler of an OS that still hasn't been released to somehow make us look a little better".
AMD is relying on the newer manufacturing process to raise the clockspeed and make up the difference instead of making the architecture better.
AMD needs help and fast. They have no direction in the desktop market. Intel proved that you don't need to invest lots of money to get higher performance by doing a new manufacturing process and new architecture at the same time like AMD is foolishly trying to do. Intel's tick - tock cycle works. AMD on the other hand is acting like a company that has money to spare but they don't.
They could have saved money by not trasitioning to 32 nm on the CPU right away and investing the money saved on improving the Phenom II architecture. If Intel did it with Nehalem on 45nm, why can't AMD ? I would say even more, Intel could technically very well release Sandy Bridge at 45nm without the GPU. AMD is trying to do everything at the same time (new architecture + new manufacturing process) and they don't have the money to make that work. Not even Intel does that.
The saving grace is that this is good enough for general purpose computers and notebooks and they have good idle power saving technology.
But in the end you need to have a proper flagship, you can't last very long if you don't have something that inspires the desire of the customers. Even car makers do that. Fiat for example owns Ferrari.

There's a fundamental reason why AMD cannot follow the tick-tock model: AMD does not own any foundries, and cannot make a single batch of chips to experiment on, then make some small tweaks, and create another small batch. They have to order in bulk for anyone to make them, whereas Intel owns their own foundry and can do whatever the hell they want with it.

Also, there was an article posted a few weeks or months ago about AMD doing a "tick-tock" like approach. With two sets of platforms now, AMD is releasing the mainstream platform first (FM1/FM2), and using the things they learned from that release to improve the enthusiast platform (AM3+). The Piledriver cores that we will see in Trinity will be an indicator of Vishera performance, but it won't be the full thing, as there will be some tweaks + L3 cache.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hajile View Post

Compare 4-module bulldozer to 6-core thuban. Despite the extra two integer units and higher clockspeed, performance was fairly similar for most applications. In multi-threaded applications, a single bulldozer core isn't as powerful as part of the front-end units are used to power the secondary integer unit. The max theoretical output for 1 module using 2 integer units is 180% of the power of just one unit (rather than 200% as many who misunderstand bulldozer CMT seem to expect).
Theoretically, if IPC for using only one core per module matches stars core (assuming identical frequencies), then adding a second stars core and activating the second module will give the two stars cores a 20% advantage in performance (though there are many other potential disadvantages). Doubling this to 4 cores and 2 modules (as trinity has) means that the 20% advantage in multi-tasking still exists. Edit: note that stars is 6% faster than Phenom II, so that's another 6% improvement over bulldozer that's needed.
A 26% increase in clockspeed would be needed just to break even and an additional 35% improvement is needed in addition to that to get the claimed increase.
To push this further, the front-end of bulldozer was frequently small enough to bottleneck two integer cores, so high throughput applications often only saw 100% for one core per module and 140% for two (once again, instead of 200%). If this is factored in, then one bulldozer module vs 2 stars cores has a 60% disadvantage. If clockspeed only increases by 26%, then another 60% improvement must be coming from somewhere else if the chip is 30% faster overall.
I believe that the front end was widened by one or two instructions and the instruction cache was increased slightly. In addition, branch prediction could net huge gains in performance (branch prediction is much worse in bulldozer than in stars). More mature 32nm also means that cache latencies will finally be decent (the waits were 2x longer than the competition in some cases) and clockspeeds will likely get better.
As a mention to those who claim that another Phenom processor would be fine; it would be a losing strategy. AMD hasn't the research buying power to compete with Intel at the same game. The only hope for competition is to try something different. The CMT in Bulldozer is just that. Many companies have talked about what a great idea it seems to be, but none were willing to take the risk. AMD was/is in a position desperate enough to try something new and revolutionary, but there's no incremental change between classic design and bulldozer's design. It's all in or go home.
AMD's failure to deliver with Bulldozer doesn't mean the design is bad. Even the P4 has great usage. Almost all of the improvements from core2 through today have been due to Intel adding features that were dropped when moving from P4 to core. As to IPC, it doesn't mean anything. A high IPC can be had at the expense of clockspeed and thus be slower than a lower IPC chip. The only reason that higher IPC makes sense today is the silicon frequency wall, but in a few short years, silicon will be replaced and most of the replacements run at high clockspeeds. With these technologies, linear scaling in clockspeed/power (ie. fewer bottlenecks as speed increases) is more important than IPC.

I love how tpi2007 (and anyone else for that matter) had absolutely nothing to say about this post.

4 module Bulldozer barely matched 6-core Thuban, even though it had a 9% clock speed advantage (at stock).

Now we see 2 module Piledriver exceeding 4-core Stars by 29% with a 26% boost in clock speed, which means Piledriver's cores should be faster clock per clock than Stars, which itself is faster than Thuban. This much of a performance gain is fairly impressive if you ask me, that is if these rumors actually hold to be true. Even if it doesn't, and performance is something like 15% better on average, it's still fairly impressive what AMD has been able to do to tweak the architecture.
Edited by Tsumi - 4/5/12 at 1:13am
Millenium Falcon
(24 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Core i7 4930k MSI Big Bang Xpower II EVGA GTX 690 Patriot Viper II Sector 7 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveHard Drive
OCZ Deneva 2 Corsair Force 3 Maxtor Western Digital Green 
Optical DriveCoolingCoolingCooling
Samsung BD/DVD-RW Swiftech MCP655 x2 Black Ice GTX 480 Black Ice GTX 280 
CoolingCoolingCoolingCooling
Alphacool Repack Dual D5 Watercool Heatkiller 3.0 Alphacool GTX 690 fullcover Bitspower Big Bang Xpower II fullcover 
OSMonitorKeyboardPower
Windows 8.1 64-bit Professional 3x Dell S2340 Max Keyboard Durandal CoolerMaster V1000 
CaseMouseMouse PadAudio
Azza Genesis 9000B Logitech G700 Roccat Alumic Onkyo HT-S9100THX 
  hide details  
Reply
Millenium Falcon
(24 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Core i7 4930k MSI Big Bang Xpower II EVGA GTX 690 Patriot Viper II Sector 7 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveHard Drive
OCZ Deneva 2 Corsair Force 3 Maxtor Western Digital Green 
Optical DriveCoolingCoolingCooling
Samsung BD/DVD-RW Swiftech MCP655 x2 Black Ice GTX 480 Black Ice GTX 280 
CoolingCoolingCoolingCooling
Alphacool Repack Dual D5 Watercool Heatkiller 3.0 Alphacool GTX 690 fullcover Bitspower Big Bang Xpower II fullcover 
OSMonitorKeyboardPower
Windows 8.1 64-bit Professional 3x Dell S2340 Max Keyboard Durandal CoolerMaster V1000 
CaseMouseMouse PadAudio
Azza Genesis 9000B Logitech G700 Roccat Alumic Onkyo HT-S9100THX 
  hide details  
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Rumors and Unconfirmed Articles
Overclock.net › Forums › Industry News › Rumors and Unconfirmed Articles › [MPC]Leaked AMD Trinity Slide Promises Big Gains Over Llano APUs