Trinity is to AMD what Ivy Bridge is to Intel. It competes with Ivy Bridge for the market share of notebook processors and the shrinking desktop processors. From the consumer perspective, it brings better graphics ( yes better than the Intel’s Integrated graphics in Ivy Bridge), lower cost, better battery life. Unfortunately it lags behind in CPU core performance – and depending upon how you use or plan to use the notebook ( or for that matter – a desktop), the Trinity may be better or worse than Intel’s Ivy Bridge. The short answers is – Trinity is better for gaming and inferior for computing.
The key advantage of the AMD is its Radeon Graphics and the corresponding software and driver support. Intel’s strength is their x86 CPU advantage – an area in which it has taken seemingly unassailable lead for many years.
If you examine the percentage of the silicon devoted to Graphics, the distinction becomes clear. AMD allocates significantly more area ( aka number of transistors) for Graphics compared to the CPU portion. Its sole selling point is the advantage in at least one area – its graphics – something that it does not wish to loose – not even at the cost of loosing more on CPU performance.
Unfortunately, this selling point is not good enough and AMD is relegated to compete in the low cost. It erodes its margin. From consumer perspective it provides an excellent inexpensive gaming solution.
Not that AMD has not improved its processor performance. On the contrary, AMD has made more improvement than Intel when you look at the enhancement in their IPC (Instructions Per Cycle) performance compared to their earlier architecture. Code named Piledriver, these second-generation Bulldozer have raised the bar, has been able to raise highest clock frequency and more importantly has done it while lowering the power consumption.
In the coming pages we will examine Trinity Architectures, its graphics and compare it to Intel’s Current ( Ivy Bridge) and past solution and also to AMD’s own previous Llano architecture.