Tuesday, October 02

Geek

Trinity Or Not Trinity?

AMD's new "Trinity" desktop chips are out, and there's been a bit of a flap over AMD's week-long "don't mention the CPU" embargo.

Basically, the AMD chips clobber Intel on integrated graphics performance once again, but lag behind on pure CPU tasks.  SemiAccurate compares the top-of-the-line Trinity to the top-of-the-line Ivy Bridge, and shows that Trinity is only 60% as fast on CPU-intensive workloads.

However, it's also only 40% as expensive as the top-of-the-line Intel chip,  and as SemiAccurate note, you can't see the difference in CPU speed in day-to-day tasks, but you can see the difference in GPU speed.  Games that are unplayable on Intel's integrated graphics run relatively smoothly on AMD's chips.  Of course, an Intel chip plus a dedicated graphics card will win over the AMD chip alone every time, but that costs more again.

Another thing to consider is that if the game you're playing is a console port, AMD's integrated graphics now clearly outclass current-generation consoles.  The higher-end Trinity parts deliver 600 GFLOPS vs. 240 GFLOPS for the Xbox 360's GPU.

Anandtech examines the chips in two parts: gaming and graphics performance and CPU performance.  

Against the competitively-priced Intel Core i3, the CPU results are mixed, though the Intel chip does show better single-threaded performance.  The GPU results are entirely one-sided, though, with the AMD chips showing two, three, four, and in the case of Civilization V* a humiliating seven times the speed of Intel's integrated graphics.

They also test power consumption of the AMD vs. the Intel chips running the game Metro 2033, and AMD fares poorly there, using twice as much power overall.  But you have to consider that it's also running the game twice as fast...

Looking at the SemiAccurate article I can understand AMD's feelings here - you don't want the first stories about your new chip to say that it's 40% slower than the competition - even though the competition is more than twice the price.  I'm less convinced that putting an embargo on reality is the solution to that problem.

In all, though, this is the chip I'd choose for a general-purpose desktop or HTPC build, and probably for a home server as well.**  Specifically the A10 5700, a 65W part that's only slightly slower than the 100W A10 5800K.  For my higher-end machines, I'm still awaiting the FX 8350, which is due...  Soonish. 

* I have a free copy of this on Steam, if any of my regular readers are interested.

** Servers don't need the GPU power - not unless you're running floating point apps that can take advantage of it as a GPGPU.  The reason AMD is better for small servers is all down to Intel's marketing. 

Intel have a nasty practice of market fragmentation; their slower and cheaper CPUs aren't just slower and cheaper, they are actually missing features found on their higher-end chips, features that are relevant to servers.  For example, Trinity is up to 6x as fast as a Core i3 for encryption, because AMD support hardware-accelerated encryption on all their chips, while Intel only enable it on select models.  The Core i3 also lacks VT-d, which you really want if you're running virtual servers, and Trusted Execution ("TXT"), which you probably don't want at all.  And it's clock-locked, so no overclocking for you!  Though Trinity isn't a great overclocker anyway. Unless you douse it in liquid nitrogen; then you can hit 8GHz.

Posted by: Pixy Misa at 09:42 PM | Comments (23) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)
Post contains 574 words, total size 4 kb.

1 Hm, that's interesting.  My current desktop is a 2007-era 2.13GHz Core 2 Duo.  I had been looking at a 3rd-gen Core i5 as a replacement (because then I can go quad-core), but that means around $300 in upgrades, because I'd need a new motherboard and RAM.  The Bulldozers are quite a bit cheaper, but I was concerned over the performance difference.  (The integrated graphics on the new Trinities are only going to impress me if a midrange one can beat my 1GB 5670HD, so my CPU is already by a good margin the system bottleneck.)  I'm going to read the article you linked above but if the Trinities are better than the Bulldozers on CPU that may flip me back to the AMD side, especially if that combo can play, say, WoW well at 1600x1200.

Posted by: RickC at Wednesday, October 03 2012 04:12 AM (A9FNw)

2 Also, let me just take this opportunity to tilt at windmills and excoriate SemiAccurate for their lame attempt to defeat copy-paste.  Guys, 1996 called and wants to let you know about View Source.

Posted by: RickC at Wednesday, October 03 2012 04:15 AM (A9FNw)

3 Looks like the Trinity GPU core is right on par with the 5670, but a GDDR5 5670 card would have about twice the memory bandwidth.  Depending on the game, that might make a big difference.

Posted by: Pixy Misa at Wednesday, October 03 2012 01:02 PM (PiXy!)

4 Well, that's what I have, actually.  It's an HiQ, and they made something like 7 models of this card for some crazy reason, and I got one of the better ones on sale--not due to any smarts on my part, it's what the store had.  But an A6-5600K  + mobo is about the same cost as an i3, and since my current motherboard is a socket 775 I would have to get a new mobo anyway.  So I might actually go with AMD for the first time in years, on the idea that mostly web browsing+email+WoW/Wizard101/games like that is probably going to be plenty fine on that system.

Posted by: Rick C at Friday, October 05 2012 06:43 AM (WQ6Vb)

5 Also, Intel are changing sockets again next year, so if you buy an Intel system now, you won't be able to upgrade.  Shame, because the next iteration of chips sounds like it will be pretty nice.

AMD just changed sockets, and next year's update is promised to work in this year's motherboards.

Posted by: Pixy Misa at Friday, October 05 2012 02:27 PM (PiXy!)

6 Another new socket?  Not LGA2011?  Oh god.

Posted by: RickC at Saturday, October 06 2012 09:31 AM (WQ6Vb)

7 They're keeping 2011 for another year (I think) but moving from socket 1155 to 1150.

Posted by: Pixy Misa at Saturday, October 06 2012 05:36 PM (PiXy!)

8 I've bought all AMD machines since 2007, about one a year on average (since I always need two, one for Windows and one for Linux), and while I can't use the newest AMD chips in the oldest motherboards or vice-versa, I do have a couple of CPUs that will work across the entire range.  (Moving from AM2 to AM2+ to AM3, the CPUs are backwards compatible, and AM3 CPUs work in AM3+ boards, but not vice-versa.  The latest AM3+ chips need different voltages, so you need a motherboard that supports that.)
And they're planning to keep AM3+ for two more CPU generations.  After that, DDR4 will have hit the desktop and it will be time to upgrade anyway.
In the same time, Intel will have had four completely incompatible sockets.

Posted by: Pixy Misa at Saturday, October 06 2012 05:49 PM (PiXy!)

9

Okay, this is a bit off the track of comments, but I am trying to figure this out....What is the AMD equivalent of Intel's i7?

C.T.

 

Posted by: cxt217 at Sunday, October 07 2012 06:13 AM (f46Jh)

10 The FX series.  I have a couple of FX 8150 systems.  They're not bad, but they're not quite as fast as the i7 and use more power at full load.  On the other hand, they're cheaper and the sockets are cross-compatible with older AMD systems, which was good for me.

Posted by: Pixy Misa at Sunday, October 07 2012 08:29 AM (PiXy!)

11

Thanks.  I did look that up, reading about Haswell.  Looks like they moved a bunch of pins around, including no longer having separate power for the GPU.  Would be nice if that didn't require ANOTHER socket change.

 

My current system is a Core 2 Duo E6400 from 2007, and it still works but it's getting a little long in the tooth.  While I'd love to buy a high-end CPU, it's not in the cards right now, and I'm not doing a lot of stuff that would need it.  The Trinities are sounding pretty interesting--an A6 or A8 coupled with my 5670 seems like it would be a decent upgrade for under $200; whereas if I was going to go with an Intel chip I'd probably want to get an i5, and now we're looking at $300.

Posted by: Rick C at Sunday, October 07 2012 10:11 AM (WQ6Vb)

12

Thanks Pixy.  I have been using PCs with AMD chipsets for a number of years now, due primarily to advice from certain people who despises Evil Inside(TM) (IIRC, which developed from when Intel was doing something to their chips that would make them easier to track.).  Also, when I was shopping around for something to serve as my current desktop, I looked at AMD systems because they were easier to upgrade the graphics card then the PCs with Intel integrated graphics.

But given the power of the i7 chips, and as long as the integrated graphics is not a factor (Either because it is not there, or the graphics do not need to be on bleeding edge for the system.), I have been taking a very favorable look at my next system using Intel chipsets.

Posted by: cxt217 at Sunday, October 07 2012 01:09 PM (f46Jh)

13

(Oops.  I hit post before I finished writing.)

But if there is an AMD equivalent to the i7, I would inclined to buy a AMD system, all things being equal.

C.T.

Posted by: cxt217 at Sunday, October 07 2012 01:14 PM (f46Jh)

14 The next-gen FX parts are expected to come out this month, with the top of the line FX 830 costing around $250.

Posted by: Pixy Misa at Monday, October 08 2012 12:47 AM (PiXy!)

15 So the Visheras are the higher-end procs and the Trinities are the lower-end ones.  I didn't realize that.  Explains why the Trinities, in spited of going all the way to "A10", are only dual- and quad-cores.
Probably any of them would beat my existing CPU handily.

Posted by: RickC at Monday, October 08 2012 01:56 PM (WQ6Vb)

16 Yeah, that's the thing.  The tech sites get all bothered over differences of a few percent, but if your computer is three or four years old, any of the modern CPUs is likely to be a good upgrade.

Posted by: Pixy Misa at Monday, October 08 2012 05:38 PM (PiXy!)

17 The nice thing from a consumer point of view is that Trinity/Vishera is killing the prices of Llano.  Newegg's got the A8-3870K for $109.99 and the 3850 for $99.99, and, to put those numbers in perspective, refurb 3850s for "$99.99, was $199.99".  So clearly there's a fire sale going on, and given that, IIRC,  Trinity has about a 10-15% boost over Llano, getting the latter probably makes a lot of sense especially if you don't mind upgrading in a year or so instead of 3.

Posted by: RickC at Tuesday, October 09 2012 11:57 PM (A9FNw)

18 Problem is, Trinity uses a different socket to Llano. sad

Posted by: Pixy Misa at Wednesday, October 10 2012 02:34 PM (PiXy!)

19 Yeah.  Re-reading that, I think I meant Llano->Vishera, assuming Vishera's AM3+, not FM2.  I can't find, on a quick search, what it will have.
My wife called me at work today, saying the computer wouldn't power up, so this is acquiring a certain amount of urgency, heh.  When I got home, I blew a dust cloud out of my PSU, and the machine started, but I don't know how much longer it's going to last.  Newegg's selling an interesting combo right now:  an MSI motherboard with an A4-5300 for $105. Ooh, i just noticed, for $35 more, they have a Biostar/A6-5400K combo, although I don't know if it'll be enough extra oomph to justify.

Posted by: RickC at Thursday, October 11 2012 01:21 PM (WQ6Vb)

20 The graphics on the A6 are 50% faster than the A4, but CPU performance is only marginally better, and if you have a graphics card the integrated graphics doesn't matter much.

Just to clarify:

Vishera is socket AM3+, which is semi-compatible with AM2/AM2+/AM3.
Llano is socket FM1.
Trinity is socket FM2.

So Llano is unfortunately a dead-end, but the other sockets will be getting new CPUs for at least another generation and probably two.

Posted by: Pixy Misa at Thursday, October 11 2012 03:20 PM (PiXy!)

21 Derp.

Posted by: RickC at Friday, October 12 2012 10:02 AM (WQ6Vb)

22 In case you are interested, I bought a Trinity A8-5600K and am currently running at stock speeds.  It has a 7560D inside.  With 4GB of RAM and an MSI motherboard, the WEI on WIndows 8 64-bit is 7.3 CPU, 4.1 desktop graphics, and 6.1 gaming.  By comparison, my 1GB 5670HD discrete card rated 6.9 for both desktop and gaming.  The integrated GPU is better than the Intel first-gen i5s, but it's not much of a comparison to a real card.

Posted by: Rick C at Monday, October 22 2012 01:59 PM (WQ6Vb)

23 Also:  I love the new chip, it's so much faster than my C2D.

Posted by: Rick C at Monday, October 22 2012 01:59 PM (WQ6Vb)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Comments are disabled. Post is locked.
61kb generated in CPU 0.0297, elapsed 0.4514 seconds.
56 queries taking 0.4324 seconds, 360 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.