LinkBack URL
About LinkBacksWhen were we supposed to be getting trinity?
When were we supposed to be getting trinity?
8350 supposed to be launched in October.
http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/27...ghz-eight-core
Trinity in the channel? August, AFAIK, although it may get pushed well back from that now. There are one or two Trinity laptops available at retail now but not many - rumour was that chips had already shipped to OEMs but not many products have got as far as the shelves - which is disappointing given AMD were trumpeting up how many more design wins Trinity had compared to Llano. I can only assume AMD are suppressing availability until they've managed to shift a few more Llano and Bulldozer parts. Personally I'd be getting the new stuff out there, rather than waiting for Intel to get Ivy Bridge i3 on the market, but I'm not an AMD exec, so what do I know...
Saw a press release form AMD stating 10-20% performance boost and lower power consumption vs bulldozer. But then again lower power consumption that bulldozer isnt really saying much.
I really want to believe AMD press releases but after the Bulldozer launch I feel the only reliable information would come from looking at several benchmark results.
That is always a good callOriginally Posted by KeyboardDemon
Intel said that the new 3D transistor layout in Ivy Bridge would be a total game changer. Yet in reality all we got was a part that doesn't overclock that well
Well,we saw in two benchmarks from Toms Hardware,that the A10-5800K has a 15% IPC improvement over an FX8150 and that is in two benchmarks which the Phenom II X6 1100T is faster than the FX8150 and the A10 lacks L3 cache too. Hence,10% overall IPC improvement seems doable, and with a 10% increase in clockspeed,that would be around 20% overall. OTH,the stock clockspeeds are what is going to make or break the FX8350 I suspect. It would be quite dissapointing if they don't get at last around 10% higher clockspeeds a year after the FX8150(3.6GHZ base clockspeed with Turbo Core upto 4.2GHZ),ie, 3.9GHZ to 4GHZ base clockspeed with Turbo Core upto 4.5GHZ to 4.6GHZ or thereabouts.
I am of course making the assumption that AMD is keeping the TDP of the top bin Vishera CPU to 125W.
Even Llano had around a 6% IPC improvement over the Athlon II X4. The Phenom II also had a decent jump in IPC over the first generation Phenom:
http://www.anandtech.com/show/2702/9
Having said that for gaming,I suspect Intel will still have the upper hand. I get the feeling we will see a Phenom II X6 vs Core i5 700 series stituation.
Last edited by CAT-THE-FIFTH; 07-07-2012 at 01:50 PM.
I'll be honest about this, I'm not sure if I understand this entirely, the bits I sort of get are with the A10-5800K IPC improvement in two benchmarks where the FX8150 didn't perform as well, so this is clearly an improvement on the previous version, this was measured as approximately 15% and this where I started to lose it a little, would the FX8350's L3 cache give an estimated 10% over the new A10-5800K or over the previous FX8150?
I know you can't tell the future, but you seem to have some good ideas on how you think the FX8350's will be compared to the FX8150 based on your understanding of the information you've read, and you seem to discuss it in an objective way, which is refreshing. So based on your understanding, are you feeling brave enough to make a prediction to say that FX8350 will be a significant upgrade from my 965BE? I didn't feel that the performance increase to FX8150 was significant enough to justify the cost of the upgrade.
I am looking for a CPU that will be used for photo and video editing when my wife sets up her wedding photography business (based in North London, in case anyone is interested), this might well mean editing long videos and batches of around 200 to 300 pictures at a time using Corel's Paint Shop Pro X4 and Video Studio Pro X5 (as it has a proxy mode and will make use of the processing power in my GPU as well).
I really want to get some good bite size answers that I understand, I often talk about new CPUs so far from launch date just frustrate me as I don't have enough cold hard numbers that make sense, all we see are a collection of cherry picked test results that either show it as a big success on one site while there's another site showing other results that make it look like a big fail, these don't really help anyone, other than those people that want to fly a particular colour and chant, "look see I told you so".
This is what we know ATM:
1.)Vishera will have L3 cache. Certain applications will benefit from this improving IPC further than Trinity. Some applications will show little gains as they are not sensitive to L3 cache.
2.)According to some information,supposedly the PD cores in Vishera have slight modifications.
3.)The CPU section of Trinity is TDP limited,as the die has both an IGP and things like the PCI-E controller unlike Vishera. The L3 cache does add to things like power consumption and hence things like TDP. However,since Vishera is a higher TDP package,it probably means clockspeeds will be higher.
My 10% IPC statement is Vishera with L3 cache when compared to the FX8150 and I am being conservative. There might be situations where IPC has hardly increased,but other situations(like the examples Toms Hardware tested) were IPC has increased a decent amount.
Gaming performance is an unknown,but we will have to wait and see how Trinity does with discrete cards to get a baseline level of the performance in games.
Even with a 20% improvement overall in games,the Intel CPUs will be quicker:
http://www.anandtech.com/show/5448/t...patch-tested/3
However,compared to the Phenom II X4, especially if the FX8350 can hit higher clockspeeds when overclocked than the FX8150,I can see it as being a decent enough upgrade over what you have now. OTH,the Intel setup probably will still have the advantage for games which don't thread well. OTH,newer DX11 engines do thread better,so the FX8350 should be OK in this situation.
The best thing is to wait until reviews are out and I can see your dilemma as you have an awesome motherboard.
If Corel PSP is well threaded,the FX8350 is probably going to do quite well in this situation.I am looking for a CPU that will be used for photo and video editing when my wife sets up her wedding photography business (based in North London, in case anyone is interested
I really want to get some good bite size answers that I understand, I often talk about new CPUs so far from launch date just frustrate me as I don't have enough cold hard numbers that make sense, all we see are a collection of cherry picked test results that either show it as a big success on one site while there's another site showing other results that make it look like a big fail, these don't really help anyone, other than those people that want to fly a particular colour and chant, "look see I told you so".
Look at the Adobe Photoshop CS6 benchmark for the A10-5800K:
http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/a10-58...w-32476-4.html
Toms Hardware is one of the few websites to use CS6 ATM.
The A10-5800K is already faster than a Core i3 2100 in CS6 and is probably closer to a Core i3 2120 or Core i3 2130. So,in that sense,an FX8350 is probably going to be quite competitive with the IB Core i5 and Core i7 CPUs IMHO.
Even CS5.1 does well on the FX8150 against a Core i7 3770K:
http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/ivy-br...-32428-15.html
Here are some CS5 benchmarks:
http://www.hardwaresecrets.com/artic...-Review/1537/6
The FX8150 did improve performance in certain areas over the Phenom II X6 1100T,and Photoshop performance was one of them.
Moreover,a few things you need to consider:
1.)Most reviews don't use the Win7 hotfix(even Anandtech plonked in older results for the IB review for some strange reason). In some cases it adds a bit of performance.
2.)Win8 will add a bit more performance due to schedular changes.
3.)Newer applications seem to support BD better. An example is with things like Photoshop - CS5,CS5.1 and CS6 seem to do well on Bulldozer. A lot of reviews can use older software which means newer CPUs might not perform to their full potential.
I am not saying the three points will add massive performance benefits,but it will add a few percent here and there.
I would also look at your disk setup too as this could be a huge limiting step in what you do.
Last edited by CAT-THE-FIFTH; 07-07-2012 at 06:42 PM.
KeyboardDemon (08-07-2012)
I have never seen the improvement in gaming performance using Intel over AMD as a good enough reason to use Intel CPUs, I didn't feel the performance gains were sufficient justification for me to spend the extra money when I could save money on a CPU + mobo combination and then spend more on the GPU and I feel that my combination of CPU and GPU delivers a better than acceptable gaming experience at the moment.
Looking to the future, if I were thinking about the new CPU purely for gaming I would probably not really think it worth spending around £200 mark on a new CPU, even though the higher clocks alone do excite me. Some of my recently completed games are DX11 titles and it would be nice to see games like Crysis 2 running at full whack with everything turned up to 11 instead of running it on high for the smoother frame rates.
When Corel launched PSP X4 they added GPU optimisations that made better use of CUDA cores to enhance the software performance on systems with nVidia cards, this is not particularly useful for me but they do seem to be keeping up with current hardware trends and have products that take advantage of the current range of Bulldozer CPUs. I read that VSP X5 is another title with multi-core CPU support that make it 10 times faster than the previous version of the software and the GPU support also makes use of AMD/ATI as well as nVidia GPUs as well. I wanted to cite a source for this but all I could find was this quote in the AfterShot Pro description on the Corel website:
Other than that I also found this article about Corel and AMD, which sounds a bit like a romcom, more useful was this clip."Corel has done a fantastic job of taking full advantage of multicore CPUs that are shipping in a broad range of AMD VISION PCs. For instance, on our FX-8150 8-core desktop machines, we found performance increases of as much as 605 percent—an impressive speed improvement over the already fast experience we saw with a single core enabled. For photographers working with hundreds of images at a time, this is a huge time savings."
John Taylor, Director of Client Product and Software Marketing, AMD
Now I know this is an area where I have plenty of room for improvement, the Seagate drive I'm using was carried forward from a previous build, so I will be looking at swapping this out for a WD Caviar Black which should improve the standalone drive performance, and then using my OCZ Synapse cache drive should help boost the performance for hot data significantly, I have already seen a massive improvement in performance using this, particularly with start up times. However I might drop the cache drive solution in favour of getting a couple of larger SSDs, one for the OS and key software applications and the other to hold the data for current projects and then I might keep the Seagate simply as storage. What I'm really hoping for is for 500gb+ SSDs to become more affordable so that I can have one of those as my main system drive plus 240gb SSD as a working data drive and then my Seagate drive would contain any other data. Though I might also be content with two SSDs, a 240gb as a boot drive and a 120gb for current project data then the Seagate would be fine for any other data.
It depends on the launch price. The lower end models will be cheaper and probably will overclock to a similar level. TBH,the six core version is probably go to be the best mix of lightly threaded and multi-threaded processing power for games IMHO.
The thing is though,that in many cases most modern CPUs will give you a decent gaming experience anyway IMHO. Another aspect,is what is defined as a smooth framerate is dependent on the game played and the person. It does make me think at times,if double blind studies were done with different setups and with different settings,how many people could tell a cheaper setup from an expensive one,or ultra settings with 8X AA from high settings with 4X AA for example.
A bottleneck is only a real world bottleneck when it affects what you are doing.
A lot of the times geeks/nerds are always measurebating their systems,ie, checking CPU and GPU utilisation of the computer,and having a framerate counter running 24/7 and then upgrading parts due to this,even if a game runs fine. Now I have been guilty of doing the measuring part myself and even the odd frivolous "upgrade" due to wanting new shiny. However,I know this and admit it unlike some others who try to mask it in pseudo-objectivity. It makes me cringe when people are adviced to ditch perfectly capable setups as they are considered incapable of doing the job,or adviced to spend much more money than required. An example is the view that you need to have a £150+ overclocked CPU and a £300+ graphics card to run games at 1680X1050 and 1920X1080 according to some forums. It seems cheaper hardware is not capable of doing anything especially when if you don't overclock. If you have the budget fine,but when people are adviced to spend over 40% more on parts(a £160 CPU instead of a £90 one),it does make me think if some people have any concept of budgeting!!
Sadly,I have known many non-techy people read this and then just get a cheaper console. Luckily,I managed to convert some of them back to happy PC gamers!!
In many cases,I have also seen even if there are issues,it is more down to poor optimisation of the game(the upgrade has no difference),or a driver or software issue which could be solved by re-installing drivers or even an OS re-install.
AMD seems to be working quite closely with Adobe too,as the Trinity IGP has been certified for use with CS6. So FX8350 might end being a good choice,depending on the price.
Last edited by CAT-THE-FIFTH; 08-07-2012 at 11:22 AM.
KeyboardDemon, you sound like you want to upgrade to take on this new work?
I really hope your wife gets enough success for you to be PC limited at times, but if that is the case it seems to me that you would need a second PC to help with that, as overall that would get you a doubling in performance compared to you current single PC. If you look at modern upgrades, then whilst people use words like "slaughter" when comparing CPUs when you look at the graph they are really only talking about 20% better at most.
You can get a lot of power in a small shoebox PC these days.
Another point to consider is that whilst right now there may not be a big difference between X4 and the FX, the new instructions in the FX should start getting used at some point and that will make if faster. That isn't a certainty (it may take too long to happen to really matter) but if all else is equal it would push me that way.
BTW,have you tried this custom high resolution texture pack for Crysis2:
http://maldotex.blogspot.co.uk/
It looks better than the official one.
I can run the game relatively smooth using the pack at 1680X1050 with a Core i3 2100 and an HD5850 1GB overclocked to near HD5870 levels. The newer AMD drivers also seemed to have helped a bit.
FYI CAT it is advised, not adviced
I agree with you about people being given misguided advice. It is annoying that they manage to persuade others to spend more than they need to especially when the extra money spent has little impact on the tasks the people will be using their machines for.
With my new i5 3570K and Virtu MVP I am able to use ultra settings for Shogun 2 while I was only using High settings before with 2x AA and there is very little difference between them. The things that are improved don't have a big impact on the game for example the flaming arrows look better but only if you zoom right in, zoomed out managing multiple troops makes it look the same. Even though this is the case some people convince themselves that it is worth the extra cost just to achieve Ultra graphics quality, a lot of it is to do with prestige and almost irrespective of logic but they aren't our decisions to make for them.
It isn't difficult to get people thinking more about their upgrades but it is impossible to stop muppets from spouting their e-peen rubbish
Oops! My internet spelling at times can go a tad wonky - probably doing too many things at the same time!!FYI CAT it is advised, not adviced
Hexus actually seems OK,but some other forums,just wow!I agree with you about people being given misguided advice. It is annoying that they manage to persuade others to spend more than they need to especially when the extra money spent has little impact on the tasks the people will be using their machines for.
With my new i5 3570K and Virtu MVP I am able to use ultra settings for Shogun 2 while I was only using High settings before with 2x AA and there is very little difference between them. The things that are improved don't have a big impact on the game for example the flaming arrows look better but only if you zoom right in, zoomed out managing multiple troops makes it look the same. Even though this is the case some people convince themselves that it is worth the extra cost just to achieve Ultra graphics quality, a lot of it is to do with prestige and almost irrespective of logic but they aren't our decisions to make for them.
It isn't difficult to get people thinking more about their upgrades but it is impossible to stop muppets from spouting their e-peen rubbish
Supposedly games like WoW need at least SB Core i5 CPUs,preferably overclocked, to run at 1920X1080 even with sub £150 graphics cards. I was like,WTF?? WoW?? I know loads of hardcore WoW players myself and most are not running SB Core i5 CPUs. Some mods are poorly coded and do require more CPU power(but there are alternatives which require much less CPU power), which might be a reason for a Core i5 but OTH such people give the impression the vanilla install absolutely requires it.
It appears the latest craze seems to be that even if multiple reviews show something cheaper is fine,people will go on about the online component needing an uber CPU and GPU unlike the SP or LAN version of the game. Now it might be true,but OTH it is hard to quantify ether way and it is not reproducible.
Yet for some magic reason,I know enough people running these games at 1920X1080 and 1680X1050. I have a feeling that their rigs might have been blessed by Tramp magic!!
How many people on the planet can afford or even want to spend hundreds of quid on the latest gear every year for gaming during a recession?? Desktops are competing for the same cash pools as tablets,phones and laptops nowadays.
The more expensive PC gaming is made to appear,the larger the number of people will go to consoles(or stick with them) and other platforms,and hence more and more PC games will become console ports.
This is why I am happy that both Intel and AMD are improving IGPs to a decent level. If it opens PC gaming upto a larger crowd,then it is only good for us PC gamers. Not so good for the E-PEEN crowd though.
Last edited by CAT-THE-FIFTH; 08-07-2012 at 02:16 PM.
WoW is one of those games (Half Life 2 is another) where you can play it quite happily on underpowered hardware and the game will do an impressive job as giving you something worth playing. It is a very different game to the one players with high end kit are playing though.
I have known people raid on laptops with (old) Intel integrated graphics. Personally, I couldn't play like that and consider my 955BE quad core and GT460 to be a bit better than the minimum. Perhaps I need more skill
There are currently 17 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 17 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
