AMD's 'Trinity' challenge to Intel's Ivy Bridge: Will it convince OEMs?
Summary: Lower power consumption means less heat generated and longer battery life for mobile devices. Both of these are important to OEMs wanting to build thin and light devices.
AMD has officially lifted the lid on the first batch of second-generation A-Series Accelerated Processing Units (APUs), codenamed "Trinity", which, on paper at any rate, seem to give Intel's Ivy Bridge silicon a real run for its money.
But can AMD convince the OEMs to jump on board the Trinity bandwagon?
AMD is launching five new APUs today. The A10-4600M, A8-4500M, and A6-4400M, which have been designed for notebooks systems, and the A10-4655M and A6-4455M that will find a home in ultrathin systems.
Trinity is the first outing for AMD's Piledriver architecture, a follow-on to the Bulldozer architecture which formed the basis of the FX range of processors. However, unlike Intel who switched to 22-nanometer architecture with Ivy Bridge, AMD is still using the older 32-nanometer architecture for Trinity. This means that in order to accommodate the 125 million extra transistors in the second-generation processors, the size of the die has had to increase significantly: from 228 mm² for the first-generation Llano A-series APUs, to 246 mm² for Trinity parts.
AMD has put a lot of work into making Trinity the ideal choice for OEMs building mobile systems. First, the power consumption -- measured in TDP -- for these parts has been cut from 35W and 45W for the first-generation dual- and quad-core APUs respectively, down to 17W for the dual-core Trinity APUs, and 35W for the quad-core APUs. These power consumptions are in line with Intel's Ivy Bridge parts.
Lower power consumption means less heat generated and longer battery life for mobile devices. Both of these are important to OEMs wanting to build thin and light devices. AMD claims that Trinity will allow OEMs to build mobile systems that could last up to 12 hours off a single charge.
But there's one area where Trinity has a clear advantage -- at least on paper --over Ivy Bridge, and that's the GPU. In benchmark tests carried out by AMD, the HD 7000 series GPU incorporated into Trinity has a clear lead over the Intel's Ivy Bridge GPU.
A more powerful GPU means better gaming, and better HD video quality. Also, because Trinity supports the OpenCL standard, this allows the GPU to be leveraged to carry out computational tasks. This allows third-party software such as Adobe Photoshop or the Flash Player plug-in to offload some of the work that would normally be carried out by the CPU onto the GPU.
AMD also claims that Trinity-powered hardware will be cheaper than equivalent Intel-powered systems, with thin and light systems starting at $699. If OEMs can deliver hardware at this price point then AMD-powered hardware will have a $100 advantage over similar Intel-powered systems.
AMD claims that big-name OEMs such as Asus, HP, Lenovo, Samsung, Toshiba, and Acer will unveil mobile systems based around Trinity shortly.
While it seems that AMD has silicon that rivals that of Intel, it remains to be see whether the company can persuade OEMs to use its parts. Intel, whose chips are used in some 80 percent of the world's PCs, is pushing for ultrabooks to be powered by its Ivy Bridge silicon. The company has invested some $300 million in an investment fund to help smaller companies develop technology to use in future ultrabooks, and expects that these devices will account for 40 percent of all consumer laptop sales by the holiday season.
Not only was Intel the first to market with Ivy Bridge, the company has enormous resources at its disposal to throw at convincing OEMs -- not to mention buyers -- that its silicon is the best choice.
AMD's ace up its sleeve with Trinity is the GPU. While Intel has the CPU market stitched up tight when it comes to CPUs, it's not a big name when it comes to GPU technology. AMD on the other hand has the Radeon line of GPUs that OEMs are familiar with and trust. If it can leverage its GPU relationship with the OEMs to push its APUs, then it is in a position where it could put pressure on Intel.
It's now down to the OEMs.
Related:
Build your own "Ivy Bridge" desktop PC
| Image Gallery: Build your own "Ivy Bridge" desktop PC | ![]() |
![]() |
||||
- AMD unveils 'Trinity' A-Series APUs
- CNET UK: AMD A Series ‘Trinity’ processors: what you need to know
- ZDNet: Intel wants to be inside the iPad
- Intel announces Ivy Bridge chips for high-end laptops and desktops
- Intel’s Ivy Bridge: Aggressive launch, but a lot of wild cards
- Why Intel’s 22nm technology really matters
Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily email newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.


Talkback
EASY CHOICE!
You want 6% better productivity, go with Intel.
Personally, I don't care if my Excel calculations run 6% faster if my Intel integrated graphics stu stu stu stuu ... stu stu... stutter when playing Youtube videos. That stinks.
Intel's graphics still have a long way to go. Maybe they can catch up in two years??
GPU is not relevent for the 99% who are just doing email and facebook
email and facebook
Depends on the emails they get
Define "good enough"
However people these days use Hulu, Netflix, HD.
Good enough? Nah....
Intel Graphics aren't that bad
Clearly superior for some things
@Tea.Rollins
Fud
Their GPUs, I won't even touch, they bluescreen half the systems I've installed them on and flat don't work on server OSes.
depends
And how many consumers do that?
what AMD chip have you used
the only reason your youtube graphics
Don't listen to the BS.
So when you see that sticker at Best Buy that says "get better graphics for video, be able to check mail faster" and all that other crap, thats what it is, crap to get people who don't know any better to buy higher end PC's than they really need.
I agree
Maybe Intel will catch up in two years? People have been saying maybe Intel will catch up for the past 10 years and they still haven't. Intel may never catch up and thats fine, they make good CPU's thats all we need is Intel catching up in the graphics market and putting stress on AMD and Nvidia and trying to make a monopoly in graphics as well.
AMD would be your second choice?
OpenCL is a clear advantage for AMD even with 32nm.
Cost factor
Most users care less about graphics
The other reality is that Intel graphics are certainly good enough for HD video and even some online gaming. When I see the discount PC bins online its the AMD PC's that make up the biggest discounts. The real problem still for AMD is image and the ability to convince tpyical consumers who mostly see Intel marketing to give AMD a shot. The end game for AMD has always been to beat Intel on price in order to sell.
true