[SA] Is AMD’s Trinity much better than it appears? - Page 6

yea you jsut dated yourself. Im in my second year of college dn i see maybe one or 2 users a day NOT playing a game on there laptop.... and as fro power wth, the only ppl that need power that cant be offered by a chip like this is 3d renders and database crunchers.. o wait no one does that on a laptop and no one ever will.....

I'm sure there are a ton of people playing browser based games or extremely light games like The Sims which can be played on just about anything.

The number of people playing MMOs or other AAA games simply does not support your argument when compared to actual sales however. If WoW had 100 million people playing you argument might hold water but sadly it has just around ten million and other games are lucky to have a tenth if that of what WoW does.

Did you completely forget about better battery life?

No?



When Ivy duals are out we will see. It looks bad in that graph but compared to the Sandy Quad it's only a hair worse. My guess is it's about the same.

I could look this up but I don't have the time. What about cost vs cost in that graph

i suspect intel might not have released the hd4000 driver because it is a complex thing but i suspect when they lunch they ll be on par with amd if not better (trinity)

i'm surprised i can understand the mess that you call "sentences." also, what if you want to play games in 1080p?

i will sum this up for you one more time
trinity does everything that ivy bridge can do PLUS stuff that ivy bridge cant properly do(games, graphical tasks) all at the same battery life or better(assuming future ivy bridge will match trinity) with a cheaper price tag

and for most users the purchase comes down to this: laptop looks nice, does everything they need it to do, has good battery life and portability, and matches their budget
so at the end of the day, the most important factor of all is price, as most people look at products according to their budget, and then they look at its portability/battery life so unless the 900$intel looks totaly freaking better than the 500$ trinity a typical person(majority of people dont know much about computers) will totaly go for trinity, especialy with all its fancy stickers and marketing "QUAD CORE, DISCRETE LEVEL RADEON GRAPHICS, 4-8GB RAM, 500GB HDD
now who in their right mind would buy a dual core that lacks a radeon sticker for 900$ when they can get a quad core with radeon! not to mention the lower frequency on the dual core vs the 3.2ghz on trinity!!(remember this is a typical person)

so my point is, whether from a practical standpoint, or a marketing stand point, AMD is dealing with a WIN-WIN situation, no wonder they are so confident about trinity, and im happy for them, as for the first time they are being good businessmen rather than just nerds who innovate, amd has brought more innovations than anyone, but they sucked at business, even when they had superior cpu's they couldnt sell better than intel, but look at how llano gained them 46% market share even tho it was clearly weaker in terms of cpu and was using a pretty outdated but good gpu (vliw5), and with trinity being even way better than llano they will only be getting better and better

I'm buying IB because it offers better battery life with more clock-clock efficiency than stuff AMD can even dream about. That's what matters in a laptop. It's called the cpu. Keyword: central. Everything you do runs through the cpu. Sure, no one is compiling linux on a laptop, but that doesn't mean we can't appreciate shaving off a few load seconds here and there that a faster cpu can do. Did I mention battery life?

I went through 2 years of college with just a laptop (that I'm using right now, in fact) and I played games just fine. The second 2 years I used a gaming desktop where I had an apartment to put it. No one is going to play Crysis on a laptop. You play flash games, You play 3 year old games with the details turned down. I know the HD4000 will be plenty good enough to do whatever I need to do involving a gfx card, on the go. I know this because my 4.5 year old laptop still does everything I need to do on the go (minus the crappy battery life courtesy of me cheaping out and not buying Core2). When I need to do heavy lifting...I go to my desktop. Most people game on consoles anyways. People keep pulling out these stupid test cases to justify Trinity like "you might be opening 5 GB photoshop files when gpu comput will help"


Trinity has a place, particularly in the low end desktop segment. But it's not some holy grail, uber panacea for all that AMD fanboys are making it out to be. There's a lot more important to a laptop than gpu performance. Sager will vouch for that (in terms of their obscure status).
Edited by dr/owned - 5/18/12 at 12:50pm