I don't think the clock speeds matter much here. The issue with BD was not that the clock speeds were too high but that the performance and performance-per-watt weren't there. High clock speeds can work if it's done right (Power from IBM, though they had their efficiency issues as well). Both chips are at a 35W TDP and it seems Trinity is able to squeeze more out of that than Llano.
Clock speeds be damned. If the chip performs well and offers great graphical performance at a cheap price and low thermal/power envelopes than the competition then I'll buy it.
Donanimhaber posted some desktop Trinity benchmarks a few weeks ago, the A10-5800K graphics were about 51% faster than the A8-3850's, which is inline with the 50% faster claim AMD has made. No idea if the benches are legit, though, take them with a grain of salt.It will be interesting to see the graphics performance gains!
Donanimhaber posted some desktop Trinity benchmarks a few weeks ago, the A10-5800K graphics were about 51% faster than the A8-3850's, which is inline with the 50% faster claim AMD has made. No idea if the benches are legit, though, take them with a grain of salt.
http://www.donanimhaber.com/islemci...on-A105800K-Trinity-islemcisi-test-edildi.htm
The only CPU benchmark than they ran was SuperPi, and it was only about 9% faster. SuperPi is pretty floating point heavy, though, other workloads may see a bigger benefit (AMD has claimed 20-30% better CPU performance I think, I'd assume this is "up to" and not seen in most workloads). And as speculated most of the benefits seem to come from increased clock speed, A10-5800K is supposed to have a 3.8GHz base clock and 4.2GHz turbo clock, for example, compared to only 2.9GHz for the A8-3850. But like pelov mentioned I don't think it matters much if they have to clock them high just to beat Llano in CPU performance, as long as they can hit these clocks while maintaining low power consumption, which it seems they can. It's sounding like improvements to GloFo's 32nm process and new technologies like the resonant clock mesh have really allowed them to increase the perf/watt of Piledriver cores, which is something they desperately needed to remain competitive.
The only CPU benchmark than they ran was SuperPi, and it was only about 9% faster. SuperPi is pretty floating point heavy, though, other workloads may see a bigger benefit
Those are some decent gains, granted not in the iFP department. AMD seems to clearly be embracing their HSA agenda so FP performance was never going to be a huge leap when they're banking on their GPUs to make up that difference (and then some).
With regards to FP performance, that's with half of the Llano's APUs though, right? I guess we won't know until Trinity is released but Piledriver is almost certainly still wielding 2n integers for every n FPUs. So while the FP performance is nothing to gloat about, the fact that they're managing to get a 5% gain with half the FPUs is damn good.
When will Trinity be released?