First Trinity Review.

[Olikan]

Very low energy efficiency (as expected)

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/a10-5800k-trinity-efficiency,3315-11.html

...seeing more reviews, power consuption seems pretty much all over the place...

anadtech: bad efficiency
xlabs: good efficiency
toms: bad efficiency
legitreviews: good efficiency
pcper: bad efficiency
hartware: good efficiency

i mean...WTF

 

[exar333]

Efficiency is really only the area where Trinity is flat-out bad. CPU is slow(er), but at least respectable. Single-threaded is definitely a weakness, but not like it will fail to run applications. The GPU is solid, and idle-power was very good.

I am curious how the A4 and A6 performed. Any reviews cover the lower SKUs? 65w still sounds pretty high for the A4.

 

[SPBHM]

http://www.hardware.fr/articles/878-1/amd-a10-5800k-a8-5600k-apu-desktop-deuxieme.html

great review (in French, but google translate and the graphics work)

anyway,
as I said on the other topic,
I really like the idea of using the $71 Athlon X4 740 and a discrete GPU a lot more than buying the A10.

my only doubt is about "FSB" overclocking, if it is still there (like in FM1), if that's not the case, than the $80 750k would be more interesting.

 

[Phynaz]

Here's a tip for ya: don't [redacted] your shorts, cover while you still can.

Lol at your trying to sound savvy. It's been about three years since naked shorts were allowed. So therefore your post makes no sense whatsoever.

FYI, I'm long on AMD.

 

[Roland00Address]

Sigh, lots of people are making this into a bigger deal than it really is.

In almost all cpu situations AMD wins by less than 20% or loses by less than 20%. In fact in most tests it is closer to about 10%.

10 to 20% is marginal for most people yet a lot of emotional energy is used stating this product is so much better than this product.

Ananad is right when he states this.

The A10 offers similar performance to the Core i3 3220 at a lower price. Your decision here would come down to the rest of the factors: single threaded performance, processor graphics performance, overclocking capabilities and power consumption. Intel and AMD both win two of those each, it's really a matter of what matters most to you.

AMD wins

• Overclocking Capabilities
• Processor Graphics

Intel wins

• Singlethreaded Performance (Worse case scenario for AMD is 34% but most situations are in the 10 to 20% area)
• Load Power Consumption

Tie

• Multithreaded Performance. Both Processors are really close and it depends on which test is used with AMD winning some by less than 20% or Intel winning some by less than 20%)
• Idle Power Consumption. This bullet point is not cared by for most people, since a difference of 7 watts at idle does not matter for desktop users. The only people that care are laptops for idle affects battery life and htpc. The reason why htpc users care is for additional heat/power users means more noise if a fan is used on the cpu. 7 watts on power bill is negligable since 1 watt used 24 hours a day 7 days a week is 8.76 kWh thus we are talking about 61.32 kWh (7*8.76). The price per kWh is about 10 cents nationally or only about 6 dollars a year in savings in electricity.

 

[exar333]

Sigh, lots of people are making this into a bigger deal than it really is.

In almost all cpu situations AMD wins by less than 20% or loses by less than 20%. In fact in most tests it is closer to about 10%.

10 to 20% is marginal for most people yet a lot of emotional energy is used stating this product is so much better than this product.

Ananad is right when he states this.



AMD wins

• Overclocking Capabilities
• Processor Graphics

Intel wins

• Singlethreaded Performance (Worse case scenario for AMD is 34% but most situations are in the 10 to 20% area)
• Load Power Consumption

Tie

• Multithreaded Performance. Both Processors are really close and it depends on which test is used with AMD winning some by less than 20% or Intel winning some by less than 20%)
• Idle Power Consumption. This bullet point is not cared by for most people, since a difference of 7 watts at idle does not matter for desktop users. The only people that care are laptops for idle affects battery life and htpc. The reason why htpc users care is for additional heat/power users means more noise if a fan is used on the cpu. 7 watts on power bill is negligable since 1 watt used 24 hours a day 7 days a week is 8.76 kWh thus we are talking about 61.32 kWh (7*8.76). The price per kWh is about 10 cents nationally or only about 6 dollars a year in savings in electricity.

Agree with your observation here. The issue for AMD will be getting these into laptops with the poor power consumption/TDP ratings. The GPU will need to be cut down, and the CPU freq neutered. Intel doesn't need to barely touch the clock-speed because the TDP is already much lower. The power difference becomes a lot bigger deal outside of the Desktop.

 

[blastingcap]

I wasn't aware that people run critical applications on a $122 CPU + GPU combination setup aimed at budget consumers and HTPC market?

Not my fault if ignorant people want to put up with non-ECC RAM. Node sizes continue to shrink and error rates continue to go up. Even with older-tech RAM Google and others have found that soft error rates occur 8% per year, and I've seen reports that imply a higher error rate. The error rate goes up with altitude and with number of memory modules (quantity of RAM). So if you use a laptop with lots of RAM on a high-altitude transcontinental flight, you will probably have at least one soft error during your flight. Even for desktop users, what happens when RAM hits 28nm? 22nm? What error rate % is going to get people to say enough is enough? Look up the various studies yourself and draw your own conclusions.

ECC should be standard for everybody. It doesn't cost that much more to implement, and the only way consumers are going to move the market is to stop being sheeple and start voting with their wallets.

No ECC, no sale.

 

[Borkil]

Not my fault if ignorant people want to put up with non-ECC RAM. Node sizes continue to shrink and error rates continue to go up. Even with older-tech RAM Google and others have found that soft error rates occur 8% per year, and I've seen reports that imply a higher error rate. The error rate goes up with altitude and with number of memory modules (quantity of RAM). So if you use a laptop with lots of RAM on a high-altitude transcontinental flight, you will probably have at least one soft error during your flight. Even for desktop users, what happens when RAM hits 28nm? 22nm? What error rate % is going to get people to say enough is enough? Look up the various studies yourself and draw your own conclusions.

ECC should be standard for everybody. It doesn't cost that much more to implement, and the only way consumers are going to move the market is to stop being sheeple and start voting with their wallets.

No ECC, no sale.

ECC adds 8 pins per channel to the cpu. socket changes and pin count are expensive and adds to the overall complexity.

 

[Vesku]

Agree with your observation here. The issue for AMD will be getting these into laptops with the poor power consumption/TDP ratings. The GPU will need to be cut down, and the CPU freq neutered. Intel doesn't need to barely touch the clock-speed because the TDP is already much lower. The power difference becomes a lot bigger deal outside of the Desktop.

The notebook versions have been available for a while and their power draw is competitive. Similar trade offs to desktop, a weaker ST better iGPU.

 

[eternalone]

AMD needs to drop the cpu bussiness already and stick to making GPU's their cpu's are dead in the water.

 

[ViRGE]

...seeing more reviews, power consuption seems pretty much all over the place...

anadtech: bad efficiency
xlabs: good efficiency
toms: bad efficiency
legitreviews: good efficiency
pcper: bad efficiency
hartware: good efficiency

i mean...WTF

Unfortunately the results showing poor efficiency make a lot more sense. It's a 100W processor versus a 55W processor; even though TDP isn't an exact science, it's also not wrong.

 

[Roland00Address]

AMD needs to drop the cpu bussiness already and stick to making GPU's their cpu's are dead in the water.

Yet their CPUs make money and there GPUs do not. I hope AMD does not follow your advice

AMD exists for Intel is fine being the Apex predator (think Lion) while letting AMD being the scavenger/mesopredator (think Coyote). If Intel wanted AMD dead they would clock the pentium and i3 chips at 4 ghz on the desktop and put much better integrated graphics in all price points. Intel hasn't done that for to do so would kill AMD but would also destroy their tier price structure. When an i3 is at 4 ghz instead for $130 there is less interest for you to shell out for a i5 at 3 ghz for $180 or a i5 at 4 ghz for $250. Intel is fine with the current price structure so it won't compete too heavy with AMD for competing too heavy with AMD will destroy their golden goose.

AMD is also fine with the Intel price structure so it won't undercut Intel buy too much.

The fear for Intel is not AMD but instead ARM they are fine with low average selling prices on their chips for they do not make (much) money on the cpu instead arm players make money by selling the complete product such as cell phones or tablets. An iphone goes for $600 dollars even though it cost about $200 for the raw components. It is the added value else where (not the cpu) that drives the price of the unit.

Thus in this analogy ARM would be a creature the size of a scavenger/mesopredator that survives via teamwork similar to an African Wild Dog (canine that is about 40 to 80 lbs that works together in a pack which can be of 10 to 20 animals but sometimes these packs get as large as a 100).

 

[DeeDot78]

Truth be told, Intel could end AMD on desktop side at any time. They could drop there processors to take mininal profit, and bury amd. They would become Desktop CPU monopoly. They dont want that.

Anyone care to use some science based guesswork from Trinity APU on performance of fx 8350? I've been holding out with my 1090t for a while. It needs to a decent upgrade path. Im thinking its probably not. Why would amd stick with AM3+ for next 2 generations of Desktop CPU with so many things that need to be addressed in the chipset itself.

Most of us would be willing to adopt a new chipset for amd performance comparable to intel. I've been with AMD since my K6-2 days. I dont wanna see them die off.

 

[Olikan]

Unfortunately the results showing poor efficiency make a lot more sense. It's a 100W processor versus a 55W processor; even though TDP isn't an exact science, it's also not wrong.

actually, reading again...
2M/4c piledriver goes well against 4c/8t core intel...but loses agains 2C/4t
and that makes alot more sense

well, the future 8 core vishera might take things even agains a 6 cores ivy
(but performance is another story)

 

[Blitzvogel]

Because they take up roughly the same area?

32nm Sandy Bridge 18.4mm^2
32nm Bulldozer 19.42mm^2

Are we talking SB Core vs BD Module?

 

[RussianSensation]

But (and this is the key point), nothing supports VCE either. VCE is AMD's equivalent of QuickSync, not OpenCL software.

Meanwhile once it finally ships (and all indications are it won't be any time soon ), the OpenCL version of Handbrake will run on any OpenCL device, including Intel's processors.

What? I think you are mistaken on that:

http://techreport.com/review/23324/a-look-at-hardware-video-transcoding-on-the-pc

QuickSync is still the best solution for smaller screens on smartphones and non-1080P tablets. However for a high quality video transcoding, Quick Sync, VCE and NVENC are completely useless, meaning you'll want to use a CPU anyway if you plan on transcoding video to a large screen TV.

"The unfortunate truth is that, right now, hardware-accelerated video transcoding on the PC is a mess. For the time being, the best option for quick, high-quality video transcoding is unfortunately to buckle down, get yourself a fast CPU" ~ TechReport

Ironically, i3 would be slower for most video transcoding tasks since they take advantage of multi-core CPUs.

 

[ViRGE]

What? I think you are mistaken on that:

http://techreport.com/review/23324/a-look-at-hardware-video-transcoding-on-the-pc

QuickSync is still the best solution for smaller screens on smartphones and non-1080P tablets. However for a high quality video transcoding, Quick Sync, VCE and NVENC are completely useless, meaning you'll want to use a CPU anyway if you plan on transcoding video to a large screen TV.

"The unfortunate truth is that, right now, hardware-accelerated video transcoding on the PC is a mess. For the time being, the best option for quick, high-quality video transcoding is unfortunately to buckle down, get yourself a fast CPU" ~ TechReport

Ironically, i3 would be slower for most video transcoding tasks since they take advantage of multi-core CPUs.

You can chill RS, I didn't mean that literally. I was just pointing out that if not supporting QuickSync was any kind of criteria, then VCE is equally unsupported.

 

[Soulkeeper]

Has AMD confirmed that these are using the clock mesh technology ?
Or will this tech only be used in the FX piledriver parts ?

 

[ViRGE]

Has AMD confirmed that these are using the clock mesh technology ?
Or will this tech only be used in the FX piledriver parts ?

It was already confirmed that it was in Trinity back when the mobile versions launched.

 

[Centauri]

Yeah... I just gave AMD some moneyz.

AMD A10 5800K: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...tent-_-text-_-
Asrock A75 mobo: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...tent-_-text-_-
2x 4GB of 2133 Patriot RAM: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...tent-_-text-_-
128GB Samsung SSD : http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...tent-_-text-_-
Thermaltake 500w PSU: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...tent-_-text-_-
Fractal Design case: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...tent-_-text-_-
--------
$383 all up.

Sick deal I reckon for something that maybe isn't the fastest rig on Earth, but definitely has quality components.

 

[NostaSeronx]

You can chill RS, I didn't mean that literally. I was just pointing out that if not supporting QuickSync was any kind of criteria, then VCE is equally unsupported.

CyberLink MediaEspresso benchmark here:

http://techreport.com/review/22932/amd-a10-4600m-trinity-apu-reviewed/8

Both VCE and QuickSync appear to halve transcoding times... except the latter looks to be considerably faster. We didn't see much of a difference in output image quality between the two, but the output files had drastically different sizes. QuickSync spat out a 69MB video, while VCE got the trailer down to 38MB. (Our source file was 189MB.) Using QuickSync in high-quality mode extended the Core i7-3760QM's encoding time to about 10 seconds, but the resulting file was even larger—around 100MB. The output of the software encoder, for reference, weighed in at 171MB.

38 MB vs 69 MB/~100 MB. Most people wouldn't care about the time it takes but how much is it compressed. Compression > Time for me.

 

[Roland00Address]

Does nobody get optical drives for their computers anymore, I know physical media is dying but sometimes it is convenient and it is damn cheap. Or does everyone just have spare sata drives already since optical drives are an old technology that you can reuse?

Same question with cpu cooler, stock or a cheap but nice cooler.

 

[beginner99]

AMD is also fine with the Intel price structure so it won't undercut Intel buy too much.

I rather say they can't undercut them anymore since they actually do need to make money. In the whole discussion just compare die sizes. an A10 is probably about double the size of an i3 (ivy bridge) but costs less. If intel wanted to kill AMD they could just lower all their prices by a significant amount and because Intel has higher performance per die size AMD would loose any price war.

Back to topic.

For AMD this thing is actually better than expected. I mean the CPU mostly does actually have higher performance than the previous version.

 

[Centauri]

Does nobody get optical drives for their computers anymore, I know physical media is dying but sometimes it is convenient and it is damn cheap. Or does everyone just have spare sata drives already since optical drives are an old technology that you can reuse?

Same question with cpu cooler, stock or a cheap but nice cooler.

Personally, I already have an external burner for my laptop that I'll just swap over as needed. As for the CPU cooler, I suspect I'll wind up grabbing one but I wanted to assess my desire to overclock before I invested in any potentially unnecessary gear.

 

[zaydq]

Yeah... I just gave AMD some moneyz.

AMD A10 5800K: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...tent-_-text-_-
Asrock A75 mobo: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...tent-_-text-_-
2x 4GB of 2133 Patriot RAM: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...tent-_-text-_-
128GB Samsung SSD : http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...tent-_-text-_-
Thermaltake 500w PSU: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...tent-_-text-_-
Fractal Design case: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...tent-_-text-_-
--------
$383 all up.

Sick deal I reckon for something that maybe isn't the fastest rig on Earth, but definitely has quality components.

Wow $400 and you got all that... probably the best tight budget machine you can put out there for the mainstream.