AMD Trinity APUs Stack Up Well To Intel's Core 3 223
Barence writes "AMD's APUs combine processor and graphics core in the same chip. Its latest Trinity chips are more powerful than ever, thanks to current-generation Radeon graphics and the same processing cores as AMD's full-fat FX processors. They're designed to take down Intel's Core i3 chips, and the first application and gaming benchmarks are out. With a slight improvement in applications and much more so in games, they're a genuine alternative to the Core i3."
MojoKid writes with Hot Hardware's review, which also says the new AMD systems "[look] solid in gaming and multimedia benchmarks, writing "the CPU cores clock in at 3.8GHz / 4.2GHz for the A10-5800K and 3.6GHz / 3.9GHz for A8-5600K, taking into account base and maximum turbo speeds, while the graphics cores scale up to 800MHz for the top A10 chip."
AMD has forbidden testers to write about cpuperfor (Score:5, Interesting)
AMD has apparently forbidden testers to write about cpuperformance.
In their NDA-contract it's specified
"In previewing x86 applications, without providing hard numbers until October [something], we are hoping that you will be able to convey what is most important to the end-user which is what the experience of using the system is like. As one of the foremost evaluators of technology, you are in a unique position to draw educated comparisons and conclusions based on real-world experience with the platform,"
and
"The topics which you must be held for the October [sometime], 2012 embargo lift are
- Overclocking
- Pricing
- Non game benchmarks"
So the reviews coming out are only from sources that has decided to go along with those "guidelines". In other words, not complete, I would say extremly biased.
Re:Wow (Score:4, Interesting)
Except that none of the benchmarks actually cover CPU speed, because AMD have put all the reviewers under NDA until the chip is released. That rather suggests they haven't caught up, they're just showing off the better IGP, which no one playing games will use anyway, and that anyone not playing games won't give a shit about.
But does it run Linux worth a damn? (Score:5, Interesting)
But does it run linux worth a damn [phoronix.com]? Inquiring minds want to know. I got boned by buying an Athlon 64 L110/R690M machine for which proper Linux support was never forthcoming. Now I want to see power saving and the graphics driver work before I give AMD money for more empty promises about Linux support.
Re:Wow (Score:4, Interesting)
Pretty much until the sandy bridge era, integrated graphics were completely unusable for gaming, and they are still years behind dedicated cards.
Your statement that "90% of folks either of these is good enough." is true, but misleading. It is true that the extent of desktop/laptop gaming that most people are interested in maxes out at farmville (or whatever the new facebook gaming trend is, I certainly don't pay attention), and they do their gaming on their phone, tablet or console.
These articles however are written towards the community that constructs their own PCs, or at the very least is quite picky about what is inside their machines. You don't read these articles unless you care about such things. From that perspective, for the majority of the target audience of TFA links, these graphics performance of either brand is hardly good enough for any sort of main machine build.
Time to come out and confess... (Score:5, Interesting)
My current gaming rig uses Zambezi 8-core AMD CPU, still adequate but it shows its age. I am disappointed AMD hasn't come up with an upgrade, but I can wait.
My last gaming rig lasted me over 4 years and going. I started with Athlon X2 end ended with Phenom II X4. It is still in use as a media PC, and still capable of gaming.
Maybe it is dumb luck, but every AMD chip I had was running cool, overclocked well and lasted. Every Intel chip I owned didn't overclock well and had problems staying cool.
Re:Wow (Score:4, Interesting)
I don't doubt that it works. I have a previous version of integrated intel graphics (yes I am aware of the advancements of the HD2000/3000/4000 series in comparison) on this laptop, and -can- game with the settings turned down... way down.
that said, I think my (somewhat cynical) "we are as good as a 6 year old card!" comments are pretty appropriate. Tom's hardware [tomshardware.com] ranks the HD4000 roughly on par with the nvidia 6800 ultra (released in 2004) or the 8600GT (released in 2006).
the 8600gt was a fine midrange card, and can still run today's games, albiet at reduced resolution and details. if all you're looking for is the ability to run a game, period, these chips will work, but I can't really say they'd do much better than a console (the ps3 gpu is essentially an nvidia gtx 7800, and the 360 gpu is similar, only with unified shaders), and again they don't hold a candle to even modest dedicated cards today.
in a laptop, I might be interested. On the desktop, which is what the chips being reviewed are for, I can't see much use for these things when it comes to gaming (which, again, is their big selling point right now). if you're building a desktop machine you expect to do any gaming on, and the extra $100 for, say, a gts 450 or something like that is a budget breaker, maybe you should be saving up an extra month.