Articles Comments

AMD Trinity Architecture

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.

Related posts:

  1. AMD Llano Architecture – the Fusion APU
  2. AMD Trinity A6-4400M in HP Pavilion g4-2002ax
  3. A8-4500M Vs A10-4600M Trinity Processors
  4. AMD Zacate APU architecture

4 Response

  1. advisor says:

    Trinity:AMD :: Ivy Bridge:Intel

  2. apl56 says:

    Equations

    Speed(Graphics.Trinity.AMD) >= Speed(Graphics.IvyBridge.Intel)
    Speed(processor.Trinity.Intel) <= Speed(processor.IvyBridge.Intel)

  3. alter says:

    apl56,

    well said. Note

    sales ( Trinity.AMD) = sales ( IvyBridge.Intel)/ 10
    profit_each_processor(Trinity.AMD) = profit_each_processor((IvyBridge.Intel)/ 5

  4. prak says:

    AMD Trinity slower than Llano

    It has been a while since the Notebook Trinity APU has been launched. A number of websites which colluded with AMD ( and were possibly given free A10-4600M sample and systems) were quick to publish the Trinity review and drew quick conclusion that the Trity is better in processor, graphics and power consumption. While there is no doubt that Trinity is a step forward in terms of the graphics prowess and the power consumption, it is actually a regression as far as the processor performance is concerned.

    Just compare the two APU for same clock to clock and you understand what I mean.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>