it is not that they have great engine, it is the graphics in D3 are quite dated compared to todays standard. So this has nothing about so great their engine is.

I am positive that AMD Llano could play this game at decent settings, since its graphics is soo dated.

to be fair, a great game engine & graphic doesn't mean render in the most realistic fashion ever.
take for example games like trine, fable, starcraft.
they r not the most realistic graphic, but it's stylish artwork & it works.

It will , bear in mind Blizzard needs to cater for mac users as well. Macs are dated and there are people in the states (that I know , since i've played World of Warcraft) still use old PC. When I am talking about old PC .They still play wow and even D3 beta with Pentium 4 and ATI X1550 graphics , and it still works for them.

It makes me wonders that hardware companies like Intel/AMD/Nvidia/Samsung/Hynix(for RAM) should start paying serious attention on software development(including games) to push the sales of their hardware b4 is getting too late.

With the trend(low req games/software) like this we'll see hardwares for desktop PC are going to last at least 5yrs or more b4 having any slow down. Back then a powerful desktop P3/P4 PC rarely last over 3yrs.

its seems my dream of having a CG/photo realistic Games are going to take a while to materialize.

This post has been edited by Boldnut: Mar 17 2012, 02:56 PM

It's a chicken and the egg and the fox problem. You're not going to get photo realistic games (the chicken) unless the hardware is powerful enough (the egg) and you're not going to get powerful hardware unless you have photo realistic games. And on top of that, non-photo realistic games (the foxes) are getting good enough that making photo realistic games becomes a dangerous gamble.

Until then best to stick with AM3+ then

A55/A75/A85 chipsets can be used on both FM1 and FM2 sockets. The chipsets aren't exclusive for each socket generations.

well basically now I have a decent hardware, to be ready for photo realistic games, still nothing really push the hardware to run.

Infact because of all above that, I think AMD bulldozer could do ok also, despite their poor performance(if they are selling cheap). The only prob is AMD isnt aggressive on its pricing anymore.

Its totally no reason to buy AMD. I still wonder whats wrong with AMD by pricing such high price. Even higher than Intel's given the same performance.

Production cost.

You see, AMD is a much much smaller company than Intel. So they can't afford to lose much. I can see that they're just rolling out whatever they currently have while preparing to roll out new gen of processors (Piledriver).

This post has been edited by soulfly: Mar 18 2012, 01:51 PM

True enough, but do bear in mind Piledriver cores are enhanced Bulldozer cores. Piledriver will not be developed from the scratch as opposed to bulldozer. So this too might explain as to why the price drop is low.

Trinity said to be 29 percent faster than Llano
AMD also in planning to launch AMD ultrathin notebooks (to compete Intel Ultrabook).

already long waiting for these launch planned from AMD, let's see how is the Trinity with AMD A85 FCH chipset motherboard in the market after June-July.

One thing that I really wonder about '29 percent faster', was that referring to clock-for-clock comparison, or it's faster by 29% clock advantage?

If Trinity is really faster 19% over Llano clock for clock, the performance improvement might be very significant for Kaveri over Zambezi too.... since clock for clock, Llano is faster than Zambezi in both single or multi-threaded performance.

review here: AMD Trinity A10-5800K APU Gets Benchmarked

3DMark 06 CPU Score:
A10-5800K: 4304 Marks
A8-3850: 3814 Marks

3DMark 06 SM 2.0 Score:
A10-5800K: 3285 SM 2.0
A8-3850: 2139 SM 2.0

3DMark 06 SM 3.0 Score:
A10-5800K: 4067 SM 3.0
A8-3850: 2552 SM 3.0

Super Pi 1M Calculations:
A10-5800K: 23.775 Sec
A8-3850: 26.039 Sec

okay... it seems that Trinity's better performance is because of the faster clockspeed. There's like 900mhz advantage. iGPU performance increased significantly but I'm more interested in the CPU performance. I'm seeing slight performance hit when running multi-threaded apps considering the L1 inst cache is shared for each module.

I wonder how would they fare if both are at the same speed

This post has been edited by soulfly: Mar 22 2012, 05:00 PM

Is it me or did the IPC dropped even more?

3.8GHz (A10-5800K) / 2.9GHz (A8-3850) = 31.0% gain
4304 (A10-5800K) / 3814 (A8-3850) = 12.8% gain

Oh AMD....

What can you expect from a failed architecture?

per-clock, Piledriver was claimed to have IPC improvement over Bulldozer, but nothing concrete over Stars... and we know Bulldozer is weak per-clock against Stars

Server/Workstation optimized design may not really work for for desktops after all

A8-3850 @ 2900mhz @ CPU score 3814 = 1.315/mhz
A10-5800K @ 3800mhz @ CPU score 4304 = 1.132/mhz

A downgrade in performance per clock, really.

One way they could improve the performance over the same architecture is by utilizing lower latency cache memory.

However it may be really interesting if Trinity can perform better than Zambezi despite the lack of L3 cache.

This post has been edited by soulfly: Mar 24 2012, 11:32 AM

hello inactive thread since March.

desktop demand or volumes is trending down while notebook still maintain and good news for AMD!
AMD gains x86 market share
AMD is stealing about one percent of the market from Intel.

Since current Intel Ultrabook is not cheap, due to Intel and expensive Aluminum chassis. Many OEM/ODM aim for ultrabook look alike next, criteria maintain is <1" thinness and cheaper cost of course like AMD processor. it's time for AMD to counter back Ultrathin.

almost 3 years using amd laptop

from thuban 6 core is it worth upgrading to bulldozer 8core?

im thinking bout jumping to the other ship

Already A10? Hmmm how long to wait for FX 8170 aiyooo.. trisx, just hold on to your 1090T for the time being.