I still dont think the APU is of any great benefit for gaming on the desktop. Just add a discrete card. Matter of fact, I would even prefer that Intel CPUs for the desktop were more focused on the CPU and even came without the IGP.
Laptops, where space and power savings are critical, yes an IGP is useful, but for the desktop, not so much, at least for anything above very low end, non-gaming, and perhaps HTPC uses.
A lot of gaming is still done at resolutions lower than 1080p and I'm talking about desktop.
http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey
1080p represents only 25% of their sample with laptop res at 17%. Keep in mind laptops outsell desktops 2:1 as well.
I think with the next generation, Kaveri, AMD will have surpassed that 30FPS+ mark at 1080p with high settings hump. For someone like myself who only does some gaming, a couple hours a week at most, it's a perfect budget solution This isn't an AMD only thing, though. Intel is focusing most of their architectural improvements and performance gains to the on-die GPU as well.
They've both got a lot of ground to make up, Intel on GPU and AMD on the CPU, but they're both headed in the same direction: making a processor that can do it all.
I game at 1920x1080 with an i5-3570K. The HD 4000 GPU can render adequately many modern games, even at mid-high settings (vsync on - no AA). Unless you're an FPS junky who can't get enough of resource hog titles like Metro 2033, I don't see an absolute need for a discreete card in order to moderately game today.
if you add a GPU for crossfire...you end up having a better cpu and gpu performance
trinity looks good...it's just a matter of price now
6 months is new? You can't even use the quote function properly, so don't even act like seniority is important.No straw man . here is what you said .
The funny thing is, I agree with you. We do need a more thorough review. I was just destroying your ridiculous claim that there wasn't anything showing IPC increases in this review, when Tom's specifically addressed that issue.
Your a new member here. cough. You come in here tring to confuse people with your IPC is same as clocks . Lol . Look every member here understands that only X% of people O/C O/Cing benchmarks are not important only to people like us. Everyone else runs at stock .
AT when doing compares between the last generation and the new . Basicly tries to normalize the clocks as he should . But You AMD guys always want to change the rules of past practice inorder to overlook short comings. Its been that way now for 6 years and likely the next 6 years if amd manages to stay in the game.
Amd has a hard time competing with intel on x86. Now they are going to try to align with other companies . That in time AMD will turn around and try to sue for unfair business practicies . Its AMds way.That market has many players . Once intel comes with 22nm atom . Those companies will slowly die off. Just as they did in the early years of x86. Same story differant song. Apple is the company that has my interest . Will they switch or elect to die as they did many years back. Fablesss companies are in danger of losing everthing. Intel is helping acer out in many ways with tablets. Is this unfair to others . Hell no its not. But AMD isn't happy about . and will likely file yet another suit against intel . After Windows 8 NO more X86 monoply all cpus will run on same operating system. Than watch what intel does. Medfield clearly shows intel is in the game . 2nd generation atom puts them ontop of the heap. In all things
I game at 1920x1080 with an i5-3570K. The HD 4000 GPU can render adequately many modern games, even at mid-high settings (vsync on - no AA). Unless you're an FPS junky who can't get enough of resource hog titles like Metro 2033, I don't see an absolute need for a discreete card in order to moderately game today.
I wonder how Llano's GPU, Intel's HD4000, and Trinity's GPU compare to current consoles. Anyone care to take an educated guess? I bet Trinity's GPU can do as well or better at 1080P than the PS3 or Xbox. Or am I way off here?
6 months is new? You can't even use the quote function properly, so don't even act like seniority is important.
It's either a straw man -- a purposefully misconstrued interpretation of my viewpoints which you then attacked, or you're illiterate.
There's no "changing" rules here. It's simple processor knowledge -- something that you can't seem to grasp. IPC is not everything. Clock speed is important too, or else we'd all be running a Phenom II 980 BE (3.8GHz stock). And for Satan's sake, stop calling me an "AMD guy." Want to play this game? I'll start calling YOU an AMD fanboy, and I'll have just as much evidence as you've got.
I'm a bit weary of Tom's reviews. While Trinity is obviously gonna be an improvement over Llano and the Piledriver core is going to improve on Bulldozer I believe his benchmarks are skewed to make Trinity appear better. If you look at his Test setup you will notice this for the memory:
G.Skill 16 GB (4 x 4 GB) DDR3-1600, F3-12800CL9Q2-32GBZL @ 9-9-9-24 and 1.5 V
Kingston 4 GB (2 x 2 GB) DDR3-2800, KHX2800OCC12D3T1K2/4GX @ 1.5 V
Since the Trinity platform is the only one that supports the DDR3-2800 RAM we can deduce that the Trinity system must be the one using this RAM. Even though Tom could only get the system running at DDR3-1833 speed, this will obviously skew the results and might account for some of the strange benchmark results that previous posters have pointed out. This would also mean the true improvement of Trinity is less then what Tom's bench shows because in the memory tests it shows about an 8% improvement in gaming performance when going from DDR3-1600 to DDR3-1833 RAM. While the benchmark shows Trinity having about a 20-25% improvement over Llano at gaming where 8% of that is coming from the use of faster RAM the other 12-17% from the architecture improvement. There is some solid games with Trinity but definitely less then the "upto 50% improvement" that was claimed by AMD.
In the SiSoft Sandra tests you’ll see shortly, the Trinity-based APUs yield less memory bandwidth from our 16 GB DDR3-1600 kit than Llano. But let’s see what happens when we replace those modules with Kingston’s new KHX2800OC12D3T1K2/4GX kit of two DDR3-2800 modules.
I hate IBM for forcing intels hand at allowing AMD x86.
Not really terrible at anything, but not really outstanding in anything either.
The company that supposedly invented the transitor in 1946(Bell Labs) . Cough at that date. 47 more likely. Roswell in 1947. After AT&T was broken up my phone bill doubled Thanks for nothing USA gooberment.
Seriously, I'm glad they got the performance gain they did, but it isn't enough. I still believe that abandoning the K7->K8->K10 lineage was a terrible idea. Llano was proof that the architecture was still capable of being competitive. A six or eight-core CPU with Llano cores would be quite appealing, not to mention that it would likely be capable of clocks up to ~4.5 GHz.
I have to bump this.
Watch the video for 2 very big bumps. LOL
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/a10-5800k-a8-5600k-trinity-apu,3241.html
That video is absolutely ridiculous.
Yea, nice looking girl, but I couldnt even watch more than a few seconds of it. What a biased video and article. At least they labelled the video as an advertisement. Did they label the article itself as an advertisement also? If not they should have.
Comparing a last generation dual core intel with a next generation "quad core" from AMD. Ridiculous!! For CPU performance, why did they not compare quad core AMD to quad core Intel? And for igpu performance, they should have compared Trinity to HD4000 or HD2500 at least. The more I think about that video the angrier I get.
Edit: And in any case I cannot see the point of gaming on an APU on the desktop, as I stated earlier, but I stand by it. Just add a discrete 50.00 to 100.00 card that will destroy any of the APUs.
Dude. Your anger is so mis-directed? They're directly comparing chips at the price points of $120. (The cost of the Llano and i3 chip) You could easily find a chip and card that eats it for lunch, but that's not the point. If you want to put a Core i5-3570K in there ($230 price point and as far as I know the lowest chip with hd4000 graphics), it would look both good and bad for that chip.