News - AMD Trinity arriving with Core i5 performance at Core i3 costs

[Jimbo75]

AMD is allowing certain publications to preview certain (favourable) facets of desktop Trinity performance. We will not indulge in a lopsided release which merely serves to show the processor in the best-possible light.

We will release the full review when the NDA actually lifts. You'll see it some time next week.

On the other hand, I have no doubt that Trinity will be benchmarked against much more expensive intel cpu's in most reviews, which merely serves to show the processor in the worst-possible light.

It's generally not done in gpu reviews - there are obvious tiers of card and you don't benchmark a gt 640 vs a 7970 for example...but the A10 5800K - a ~£100 chip will still be benched alongside a bunch of far more expensive intel cpu's.

You're right that AMD is trying to show the chip in it's best light, but that's mainly due to the fact that the igp is probably more than 50% of the chip and yet it will be lucky to get 20% of all benchmarks - instead being shown up against i7's in synthetics like cinebench and sysmark, or gaming reviews using discrete cards - all of which are contrary to the point of these chips. They are only trying to ensure that the chip gets its fair dues, and sadly they have to pull these stunts because it won't otherwise.

[Jimbo75]

I really hope it competes with the i5 2500. I'm planning a build for sometime around the new year and was planning on an i5 2500. But if this one is close and cheaper, I'll go with it.

This one isn't hard to work out. The A10's are competing vs the i3's on x86 performance, and beating the i5's in igp performance and to AMD that works out as "i5 performance". To most people it won't, and there is no chance of it actually competing vs the i5 in x86 performance.

[scaryjim]

Nothing of what I listed would be considered "enterprise class".

Whilst each individual task might not be enterprise class, if you want a single system to perform well whilst doing all those tasks together, you need enterprise-class hardware, not consumer hardware. I understand why you want what you want, I just don't understand why you thought AMD might provide it in its low-end consumer products:

Considering graphics and compute loads we'd like to achieve on these APUs I was rather hoping for a quad lane memory controller.

Most people buying a trinity system will not put heavy graphics and compute loads on them. Some medium-quality 1080p gaming is likely to be the most intensive load. Essentially you seem to be saying "I hoped AMD would make a brilliant graphics and compute server chip for their mainstream consumer platform". Was always going to be a non-starter.

[scaryjim]

... the A10 5800K - a ~£100 chip will still be benched alongside a bunch of far more expensive intel cpu's.

And being fair to Intel, if AMD are going to publish a claim like "i5 performance at i3 costs", they're actually asking to be compared to the more expensive chips. That's not a claim created by the reviewers or by Intel, that's AMDs own marketing. If people test it and it falls down, they've only got themselves to blame.

... The A10's are competing vs the i3's on x86 performance, and beating the i5's in igp performance and to AMD that works out as "i5 performance". ...

As above, if AMD don't want comparing to the i5, they shouldn't make the comparison themselves. They could compare it to an i3 + discrete graphics (GT630, for example) and point out that they're a lot cheaper. They've chosen to make the i5 comparison knowing that the benchmark figures won't bear it out, and that's a problem of their own making.

[edvinasm]

Now put that into tablet running Windows 8 x86 OS and we have a winner.

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

And being fair to Intel, if AMD are going to publish a claim like "i5 performance at i3 costs", they're actually asking to be compared to the more expensive chips. That's not a claim created by the reviewers or by Intel, that's AMDs own marketing. If people test it and it falls down, they've only got themselves to blame.



As above, if AMD don't want comparing to the i5, they shouldn't make the comparison themselves. They could compare it to an i3 + discrete graphics (GT630, for example) and point out that they're a lot cheaper. They've chosen to make the i5 comparison knowing that the benchmark figures won't bear it out, and that's a problem of their own making.

It still does not make it a useful comparison though if no Core i3 is tested,as they are price comparable CPUs. Marketing can claim the CPU is made of rare Unicorns, but that should not be relevant to any review IMHO.

[scaryjim]

I'm not saying don't test against i3 - I absolutely agree that the correct test for A10 Trinity is against i3 (and the A8/A6 against the Pentiums) where it should be competitive on the CPU and slaughter it in GPU. I'd hope to see the A10 5800K at around £110, which is i3-3225 pricing. That'd be a good comparison, as the 3225 has HD4000 graphics, so represents Intel's best graphics effort in a mainstream processor.

My problem is with AMD's marketing perspective: they've chosen to pitch the A10 against i5. Now they've done that, they have to suck it up, not whinge that comparing it to the i5 is unfair because the CPU performance isn't as good: if the CPU performance isn't as good as i5, then don't market it as being as good as i5!

[robkewley]

just needs a nice itx mb and case