I think you meant to say that Trinity is a dual-module. Not dual-core. AMD marketing will likely call it a quad-core. Much like BD is an octo-core.
Of course, we can debate modules versus cores endlessly on this forum.
Maybe that roadmap was created before they decided to pull out of the highend market?
Nice, I don't always game at low res, low quality, but when I do, I use AMD. :thumbsup:
Note, performance/watt.
You DO realize that casual low res, low quality gamers form the bulk of all gamers don't you?
APU is all about the mobile space and the casual gamer. Llano is simply awesome already for these markets, Trinity just takes it a step up. I'm waiting for it to see if it can handle high res 1080p but low quality gaming.. then I will build a mITX rig for the missus.
And I always thought that the 8xx series Phenom IIs had 2MB less L3 cache than the full fledged 9xx CPUs
No, Kentsfield is not better than Phenom II - any time, any place (except in extremelly rare cases).
Errr, seems like when people are talking about gaming pcs a certain set of games are the only considered.
With my llano rig (a8-3870k 3.5ghz, 850mhz gpu) I play the following games with no issues whatsoever, at 1080p, mid to high settings.
Eve-Online
World of Tanks
Dota 2
Diablo 3
Skyrim
Warhammer 40k Space Marine (awful game, but fun, does not support 1080p)
On top of that, my system consumes < 200ish watts at full load.
Trinity is going to bee a very good product.
Well, it's certainly not worse, either.
45nm C2Q has better IPC than Phenom II, I'm pretty certain. 65nm is debatable.
This may caused bruised e-peens, but the reality is that AMD at the very best can only match Intel's CPU architecture from 6 years ago.
The reality is that measuring single core performance on a 4/8 core CPU is a rather skewed way to look at it.
The reality is that measuring single core performance on a 4/8 core CPU is a rather skewed way to look at it.
The reality is that measuring single core performance on a 4/8 core CPU is a rather skewed way to look at it.
Why? Would you prefer a quad core with IPC of X or of 1.5x? Seems to me faster IPC would give both better single threaded performance and better multi-core performance when using the same number of cores.
You DO realize that casual low res, low quality gamers form the bulk of all gamers don't you?
Plus Phenom II's multithreaded performance was better than 65nm Core 2 Quad. AMD always had good multithreaded performance. AMD single threaded performance was a goner since the original Socket AM2 days.
AMD cores had bigger pipelines to allow for better multithreaded performance.
Kind of look at it as using thicker guage wire for electricity to travel through.
Nice, I didnt see any benches for Diablo 3 yet on Llano.. that's exactly what I want a second rig for the Missus for so she can team up for D3. Trinity is +50% GPU power from the looks of things, should be pretty damn fast for a light-gamer.
My suspicious that you don't know about this topic are growing ever so slightly bigger. Do you even know what a CPU pipeline is?
Quite crazy looking at that, more than half the die space is the GPU.
Finally, an iGPU that can handle 1080p gaming?? Would be awesome for a light-gamer setup.
Also, with Intel's failIvB they are really letting AMD play catch up.
Dude, I am not going to get specific this time at night. I am not at work so I am not going to think on a high level right now since I already had a few drinks. The cores are bigger which allows for more data to travel through. Pipelines are usually referred more to cache. I am not talking about bulldozer either, I am talking about a CPU from 2008.
How can you seriously call Ivy a failure?
LOL... LOL.
Yep, my suspicious were confirmed. But hey, not everyone knows the very specifics of CPU architecture, so I won't give you too much of a hard time for it, especially if you're out drinking. Have fun!