Originally Posted by Homeles
Trinity is a lot more interesting than Ivy Bridge was. However, once again, I'm not impressed by Trinity. Llano was awesome -- great graphics performance and passable CPU performance in an affordable package.
Exactly, in reality Trinity needs to clock higher to match / beat Llano, but it's understandable since it is an improved BD architecture. It's still not at impressive levels yet, we still have to wait.
The avg OC's are 4.4 - 4.5 right?
Originally Posted by Homeles
Trinity is the same thing, but we've already seen it before with its predecessor. It's feature set is hardly expanded over Llano.
I do think that the AVX and FMA3 support is nice. Trinity will age well, while Llano owners will not be so fortunate.
The main problem I have with Trinity isn't actually with Trinity itself, but with the lack of interesting ultrabook designs that use it. I would kill for a Trinity based Zenbook, but such a thing doesn't exist.
As far as desktops go, to me personally, I have no need for Trinity. That's not to say it is useless for everyone -- if you're planning on gaming on the cheap, there's no better place to go. But if you're planning on upgrading to a better GPU someday, Intel is still quite enticing. Trinity also does not OC high enough to make a significant difference.
I don't have a problem with it. I'm just not blown away by it either. You can always count on OCN's desperate AMD apologists to misconstrue that.
Yet you're perfectly content with being one yourself. What hypocrisy.
I genuinely would like to know what is impressive about Trinity. Particualrly the desktop variety. That is not trolling.
At least FM2 has longevity and we'll be able to drop Kaveri in there. That's why I'd rather go with A85X from the get go, but those mobos need to be closer to $100.
1 of the rigs will be an HTPC, the other is a secondary computer that the wife will mainly use. Trinity + an SSD in there will make it feel extremely fast compared to the 4400+ she's been using.
He can't answer the simple question, because really, Trinity is not impressive, it's decent and a nice improvement over Llano, that's about it, it's nice but not exciting.
Thanks! I haven't been keeping up with SSD's the last couple months, that's a great price for a 120GB SSD, I paid $229 for my 80GB, and it' nowhere near as fast. That's good RAM for the price too. There's also this one:
The Biostar motherboard, I'm not so sure, not a fan of Biostar, I'm looking at the possibility of going with A75 instead, makes more sense since I won't be crossfiring, at MOST I'll add a 6670 to one of the rigs, but I doubt it.
If I was buying an A85 mobo today, I'd go with:
But I'd also highly consider this instead to bring me closer to the $200 mark:
I'll wait a bit and see what combo deals pop up, as well as what other mobos come to market, I'd like a 5800K + A85 for $225, and the Mobo has to be ASUS, Gigabyte, ASRock, I wouldn't buy Biostar personally.
Originally Posted by AlphaC
^ point is : A85X motherboards are overpriced right now and it's driving up the system cost.
A75 is a better buy because Crossfire setups would be bottlenecked by A10 anyhow.
Price performance would be:
$150 trinity A75
$250 Trinity A85X
* i5, i7 systems are discounted, A85X is new so it is not.
AMD has always had great longevity and price/performance in mid-range. Athlon II/Phenom II came with a decent cooler with heatpipes, for example and outdid Core2Quad (and i3 for the most part).
$150 Trinity A75 is not realistic, $200 would be more like it. You're right on the A85 scenario, $250 Trinity is on the borderline expensive side, $100 A85 boards would be more like it.
Another thing we have to add to Trinity is a decent cooler like the 212, so add another $30 to that, and you're nearing $280.