That's the same thing the AMD-nuts have been saying about all of the reviews pitting the A10 against the 45W i7 IB and even the 55W i7 IB. It just goes to show you how shitty and half-assed the reviews have been, Anandtech included.
The i3 35W SB doesn't stomp on the A10 either and the "win" isn't as clear (flat-out faster) as you made it seem. It can get pretty close and you can see that.
That I agree with 100%, but atm we're discussing hypotheticals. When comparing laptop builds there's a lot that goes into it and not just cinebench scores. When you buy a laptop you're buying the entire package and not just the CPU so it's hard to compare competing processors fairly. I think it's much easier to do that when you've got the laptops in hand and you can consider things like price, battery life, discrete GPU vs APU, etc., otherwise we're discussing hypotheticals. We don't know what OEMs will do to Trinity yet. HP has a "sleekbook" for ~$600 with the A10 which is pretty good but we don't know the exact specs/options. The i3 IB's don't even have a release date other than a rough estimation so we don't know how they'll be featured by OEMs and what the prices/options will be.
I think the only certainty is that SB/Llanos will be the best bang-for-your-buck. Some SB i5's with discrete GPUs can be had for ~$600 and Llano crossfired with dGPUs can be had for ~$500. If those get even lower they'll be an absolute steal.
Ok, so power consumption doesn't matter on desktop, but does in mobile. Gotcha.
Got anything to back up your other statements? If it was as easy as that, why would AMD leave so much performance laying on the floor?
actually the 3820 is much bigger with ~275 million more xtors and 80 sq mm more silicon
(which will mean 5-10% slower than i7 HD 4000).
So the IB HD4000 will have a smaller performance hit than HD3000 did despite being much bigger transistor-wise and far more dependent on the L3 cache and turbo speeds?
I'm almost certain it's going to be worse than 5-10% slower than the 45W HD4000 i7's. It's 10% slower if you consider the TDP alone, never mind the hit the performance will take after having it's cache halved. I hope it's only 5-10% because then the i5's (not so much the i3's as I'd kick myself for not having CPU turbo) will be a great buy provided they stay cheap.
Using TDP as your argument is inherently wrong because of the fact that the extra 10W TDP in the i7 goes directly to power the extra transistors for the bigger quad-core die. That 10W TDP difference is because of the extra cores, not because of the slightly higher IGP Turbo speed.
It's also already been established that having more L3 cache won't make a difference as the 3-4MB of L3 shared with the CPU is plenty given the cache is fast and more efficient than AMD's.
Using TDP as your argument is inherently wrong because of the fact that the extra 10W TDP in the i7 goes directly to power the extra transistors for the bigger quad-core die. That 10W TDP difference is because of the extra cores, not because of the slightly higher IGP Turbo speed.
Ivy Bridge isn't CPU limited, so your comments about it making a bigger difference going from the i3 to i5 to i7 with the same IGP are unfounded.
There will be a difference, but a very small one like with HD 3000.
Congrats Rory, you get it.
The performance hit was 5-10% with the HD 3000, too. This was already established a page ago. The penalty will be the same now because the clock speed differences are exactly the same as they were with HD 3000 and they both use the exact same architecture.
It's also already been established that having more L3 cache won't make a difference as the 3-4MB of L3 shared with the CPU is plenty given the cache is fast and more efficient than AMD's.
Using TDP as your argument is inherently wrong because of the fact that the extra 10W TDP in the i7 goes directly to power the extra transistors for the bigger quad-core die. That 10W TDP difference is because of the extra cores, not because of the slightly higher IGP Turbo speed.
The point is Intel can also do more with more cache and that's what I'm getting at, especially when you've got far more graphics transistors to play with.
look man, it doesn't matter anymore about needing faster CPU performance for SB or IVB. Trinity is fast enough and its GPU and battery life is what what matters for portable devices which is where AMD leads. Give it up. Intel will have to wait until haswell in order to compete with AMD.
It's funny that even with 22nm and superior fab that Intel still falls behind. AMD is now leading in the most important areas which goes to show that unlimited funds (Intel) can't help always help you win the race.
Congrats Rory, you get it.
I agree. Why pay more for Intel when you don't have to? i5 and i7 laptops always seem to be $100-$200 more here, and I've always found AMD laptops ran smoother anyway (not in benchmarks but in actual real-world performance). Save your money and stop the "Intel Inside/5 stars" marketing by buying what you really need instead! Most laptop resolutions are still 1366x768 anyway.Trinity is fast enough and its GPU and battery life is what what matters for portable devices which is where AMD leads.
Are you really so deluded or is this post just sarcastic? I am sure intel is really worried about how "superior" AMD is, since they (intel) only have 80+ percent of the market. I get so sick of hearing the "good enough" excuse for AMD's inferior CPU performance. You could say that HD4000 is "good enough" for graphics too, and if you want to game, add a discrete card. Even trinity is only slightly ahead in graphics and is not "good enough" to play games at decent settings.
Yeah, never understood the "I want to game with HD3000/4000/AMD APU" stuff. If I want to game, you can be darn sure I'll have a discrete card in there.
As a casual gamer on a budget a fast IGP is a perfect solution. The majority of people are not enthusiasts. I am currently considering an A8 based laptop for light gaming. A good $500- $600 laptop that can play all of the F2P games at a decent frame rate is good enough for most people.
Check the data. This data has been known for quite some time, but no one really seems to grasp its significance. Not sure why. Seems pretty damn significant to me. Yet I can find no one single article that covers this in the detail it should. We have articles with benchmarks that show the increased power, but no real discussion on it.
Not only is a 45W intel TDP chip being compared with a 35W amd TDP chip, but I have also posted data showing that intel chip uses 12 more watts (about 25% more power) when both are rated at the same TDP. So really, the 45W intel i7 notebook chip is using somewhere in the neighborhood of 50% more power than the 35W AMD A10 while gaming.
Check the data. This data has been known for quite some time, but no one really seems to grasp its significance. Not sure why. Seems pretty damn significant to me. Yet I can find no one single article that covers this in the detail it should. We have articles with benchmarks that show the increased power, but no real discussion on it.
look man, it doesn't matter anymore about needing faster CPU performance for SB or IVB. Trinity is fast enough and its GPU and battery life is what what matters for portable devices which is where AMD leads. Give it up. Intel will have to wait until haswell in order to compete with AMD.
It's funny that even with 22nm and superior fab that Intel still falls behind. AMD is now leading in the most important areas which goes to show that unlimited funds (Intel) can't help always help you win the race.
Congrats Rory, you get it.
As a casual gamer on a budget a fast IGP is a perfect solution. The majority of people are not enthusiasts. I am currently considering an A8 based laptop for light gaming. A good $500- $600 laptop that can play all of the F2P games at a decent frame rate is good enough for most people.
Can anyone here tell me how HD 4000 is not "good enough" when people here were parroting a year ago that Llano/HD 6620G were "perfect" for budget gaming? HD 4000=HD 6620G in performance. So is Llano now all of a sudden not "good enough" or do you just hate Intel?
The 6620G compared to a really [lousy] HD3000. The only games I can play on the HD3000 are DX9 (DX11 didnt even work) and the frames and image quality were sub par. Basically, this laptop is only good for watching videos and web browsing/reading, which is what I mainly use it for anyway but for those same tasks the Llano with on-die 6620G (would have been cheaper than my i3 too) could have done all of that + gaming and at a lower power figures and far better FPS with K10stat. I screwed the pooch buying this i3 SB.
You're right in that the 7640G won't be an upgrade over the 6620G and if I were to buy Trinity I'd make sure to buy an A10 to leverage the graphical performance over the HD4000 and Llano. The comparisons are only fair if you take into account price and release date. You can't compare an HD4000 to Llano as that was last gen hardware just as you can't compare Trinity to HD3000 because that too was last gen.
The power figures are a little wonky on the Intel chips, for sure. The SB i5 also has a very high load power consumption that bests the 35W TDP limitations and surpasses both Llano and Trinity in certain tasks, but comparing power consumption figures also requires accounting for perf-per-watt and Intel still bests AMD's Llano/Trinity in heavy compute scenarios despite the added wattage.