Llano, Trinity and Kaveri Die: Compared

AMD sent along a high res shot of Kaveri's die. Armed with the same from the previous two generations, we can get a decent idea of the progression of AMD's APUs:

Llano, K10 Quad Core

Trinity and Richland Die, with two Piledriver modules and processor graphics

Kaveri, two modules and processor graphics

Moving from Llano to Trinity, we have the reduction from a fully-fledged quad core system to the dual module layout AMD is keeping with its APU range. Moving from Richland to Kaveri is actually a bigger step than one might imagine:

AMD APU Details
Core Name Llano Trinity Richland Kaveri
Microarch K10 Piledriver Piledriver Steamroller
CPU Example A8-3850 A10-5800K A10-6800K A10-7850K
Threads 4 4 4 4
Cores 4 2 2 2
GPU HD 6550 HD 7660D HD 8670D R7
GPU Arch VLIW5 VLIW4 VLIW4 GCN 1.1
GPU Cores 400 384 384 512
Die size / mm2 228 246 246 245
Transistors 1.178 B 1.303 B 1.303 B 2.41 B
Power 100W 100W 100W 95W
CPU MHz 2900 3800 4100 3700
CPU Turbo N/A 4200 4400 4000
L1 Cache 256KB C$
256KB D$
128KB C$
64KB D$
128KB C$
64KB D$
192KB C$
64KB D$
L2 Cache 4 x 1MB 2 x 2 MB 2 x 2 MB 2 x 2 MB
Node 32nm SOI 32nm SOI 32nm SOI 28nm SHP
Memory DDR-1866 DDR-1866 DDR-2133 DDR-2133

Looking back at Llano and Trinity/Richland, it's very clear that AMD's APUs on GF's 32nm SOI process had a real issue with transistor density. The table below attempts to put everything in perspective but keep in mind that, outside of Intel, no one does a good job of documenting how they are counting (estimating) transistors. My only hope is AMD's transistor counting methods are consistent across CPU and GPU, although that alone may be wishful thinking:

Transistor Density Comparison
Manufacturing Process Transistor Count Die Size Transistors per mm2
AMD Kaveri GF 28nm SHP 2.41B 245 mm2 9.837M
AMD Richland GF 32nm SOI 1.30B 246 mm2 5.285M
AMD Llano GF 32nm SOI 1.178B 228 mm2 5.166M
AMD Bonaire (R7 260X) TSMC 28nm 2.08B 160 mm2 13.000M
AMD Pitcairn (R7 270/270X) TSMC 28nm 2.80B 212 mm2 13.209M
AMD Vishera (FX-8350) GF 32nm SOI 1.2B 315 mm2 3.810M
Intel Haswell 4C (GT2) Intel 22nm 1.40B 177 mm2 7.910M
NVIDIA GK106 (GTX 660) TSMC 28nm 2.54B 214 mm2 11.869M

If AMD is indeed counting the same way across APUs/GPUs, the move to Kaveri doesn't look all that extreme but rather a good point in between previous APUs and other AMD GCN GPUs. Compared to standalone CPU architectures from AMD, it's clear that the APUs are far more dense thanks to big portions of their die being occupied by a GPU.

The Steamroller Architecture: Counting Compute Cores and Improvements over Piledriver Accelerators: TrueAudio DSP, Video Coding Engine, Unified Video Decoder
Comments Locked

380 Comments

View All Comments

  • DryAir - Tuesday, January 14, 2014 - link

    So at playble settings (30 fps+) kaveri is no better than richland. And both get outperformed by Iris Pro.
  • jeffkibuule - Tuesday, January 14, 2014 - link

    That CPU with Iris Pro costs $450 compared to these AMD chips which are far less expensive.
  • takeship - Tuesday, January 14, 2014 - link

    Only if you spring for the i7 variant. The i5 variant is ~300$. Still a premium over Kaveri, but you're also getting nearly double the CPU power.
  • mr_tawan - Tuesday, January 14, 2014 - link

    Also Iris comes only with R-variant of i5/i7. It won't run on your mainboard, so forget about DIY machine. You can always get a dGPU for that kind of machine though.
  • just4U - Tuesday, January 14, 2014 - link

    Is that why you can't buy the R variant at the usual places? I wasn't even aware that they are not compatible with regular 1150 boards.. hmmm.. that's to bad. I just thought they were in low supply or going to OEMs before they hit the retail channels.
  • Gigaplex - Wednesday, January 15, 2014 - link

    I'm pretty sure they only come in soldered-on variants.
  • Klimax - Friday, January 17, 2014 - link

    Correct, however some rumors say, that it won't be case with Broadwell/Haswell-refresh anymore. (Depends who is correct)
  • thevoiceofreason - Tuesday, January 14, 2014 - link

    Precisely. All those percentage improvement at 1080p graphs look very nice but are in the end moot if you realize you are looking at 12fps.

    At the end of the day, you can barely play at 720p.
  • methebest - Tuesday, January 14, 2014 - link

    he needed to test them on low settings at 1080p.
  • Principle - Tuesday, January 14, 2014 - link

    Thats because they dont do these APUs any justice with their review strategy. They basically want to push GPUs, so they do not highlight the APU's actual capabilities. For example, how about some qualitative subjective analysis, rather than all of this easily comparative quantitative nonsense. I want to know at 1080p, what settings have to be turned down to be playable. Why in the world would they run these at Extreme settings??? Its absurd, unless you're trying to sell dGPUs. Where the AMD solutions really have an advantage is in the details. You likely can turn off AA and see the AMD FPS double, without nearly as big of jump by the Intel IGP where you would likely have to turn everything off or on low.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now