AMD's Trinity : An HTPC Perspective
by Ganesh T S on September 27, 2012 11:00 AM ESTMany users tend to avoid Intel GPUs because of the absence of accurate video output refresh rates. Intel has still not come out with their promised update to bring 23.976 Hz refresh to Ivy Bridge. AMD has historically been able to provide quite accurate refresh rates while NVIDIA gives users the ability to make fine-grained adjustments to their settings.
How does Trinity fare? The short story is that the display refresh rate is not as accurate as we would like. However, it is still much better than Intel's setting. NVIDIA cards, when configured correctly, can probably provide better accuracy. We are not sure whether this is an issue specific to the Asus board, or it is a problem with the drivers / processor's video output itself. Setting the display refresh rate to 23 Hz yields 23.977 Hz, as shown below.
Other refresh rates also suffer similar problems The gallery below shows some of the other refresh rates that we tested.
An interesting point to note here is that AMD is able to drive 25 Hz, 29 Hz and 30 Hz refresh rates on the Sony KDL46EX720 through the Pioneer Elite VSX-32. In the same setup, NVIDIA and Intel don't present these settings in the progressive format. That said, both Intel and NVIDIA offer 50 Hz, 59 Hz and 60 Hz settings which are exactly double of the above settings (Clarification: 29 Hz in the control panel corresponds to a refresh rate of 29.97 Hz, and 59 Hz in the panel corresponds to a refresh rate of 59.94 Hz).
It would be nice to have more control over the display refresh rate similar to what NVIDIA provides. That would help users fine-tune their settings in case the out of the box behaviour doesn't match the user's expectations.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
49 Comments
View All Comments
Marlin1975 - Thursday, September 27, 2012 - link
Later, when you hace access, can you do the same test with the lower end dual core 65watt Trinity?I think that would be the best HTPC Trinity if it also keeps up.
But looks good for a HTPC/Light gaming rig.
coder543 - Thursday, September 27, 2012 - link
gotta agree. The A10 would not be my choice of processor for an HTPC. I would go with something lower cost and lower wattage... but maybe other people enjoy transcoding videos on their HTPCs.ddrum2000 - Thursday, September 27, 2012 - link
I partially disagree (personal preference). I'd like to the 65W A10-5700 reviewed as opposed to the A10-5800K since a 65W part makes much more sense for an HTPC then a 100W part. By extention, the A8-5500 would be interesting as well though I'm curious how much of a difference the number of Radeon cores makes in terms of HTPC usage.coder543 - Thursday, September 27, 2012 - link
that's what we said. how do you disagree?Silent Rage - Thursday, September 27, 2012 - link
You said, "The A10 would not be my choice of processor for an HTPC."He said, "I'd like to the 65W A10-5700 reviewed as opposed to the A10-5800K since a 65W part makes much more sense for an HTPC then a 100W", hence the partial disagreement.
MonkeyPaw - Thursday, September 27, 2012 - link
I transcode on my HTPC, but I just use Quicksync on my i3 with HD 3000 graphics. I use Arcsoft media converter 7 and rip HD TV recordings down to a manageable size to play on my Iconia tablet. Considering the fact that it only takes 20-30 minutes to take a 1080p show down to 720p at 1/6 the original file size, I can't complain about the results. Intel offers an HD 4000 i3, and that would be my HTPC CPU of choice if I had to buy today.Arbie - Thursday, September 27, 2012 - link
The features you are testing are never obvious from a spec sheet, so a targeted hands-on review like this is very important. At least it is to me, because my next laptop choice will be based on its capabilities for media viewing and gaming. And battery life, followed by weight.Thanks!
coder543 - Thursday, September 27, 2012 - link
this was a desktop review. The Trinity mobile reviews happened months ago..stimudent - Sunday, September 30, 2012 - link
I'm glad that Anandtech has explained to us that this is a staged released and has offered its review based around that by looking to past performance. This is better reporting. Not the immature biased reporting being done by Tech Report.If Intel did this, it's almost a sure thing TechReport.com would not have said a thing about a staged release and gone ahead with its review the same way Anantech did here.
ChronoReverse - Thursday, September 27, 2012 - link
Isn't giving you 23.977 what you'd actually want over 23Hz? I can't think of when you'd want 23Hz (whereas 24Hz, 25Hz and 30Hz are all useful) whereas 23.976 is what you'd want from telecined material.