A8 5600k & e8500

[Mallibu]

One game?Seriously? By one website? Ok.
You try too hard man,take some time off.

Chill out and take some deep breathes. You don't have to rush to every thread, trying to defend a failed product and attack everyone that disagrees with your biased views. Your fanboysm and utter denial of facts is amusing at times, but at the same time blindness and obsession over a piece of silicon or a company is annoying and a bit sad. I'm sure there are better things in your life to get obsessed for.

Aside that, it's not one game. It's another game in the already 10-15 games that FX cpus can't keep steady frames.

Gamers that are not in the mood to cherrypick their games can't choose AMD. Simple as that.

 

[pc999]

Well I am looking for a new cpu too, from a even slower one and looking at all the possibility's and here is one way of seeing things.

1) A10 5600k is more or less as fast as a i3 (depending on the test), probably better at multitasking

2) A10 5600k does have a better gpu, in the case it your fails you will still be able to play games (not sure but probably not far as you do now, depending on how fast is your RAM)

3) A10 5600K have a bigger power consuption (not much bigger if you use a gfx card) than a i3, but it is justified if you use the gpu

4) you can either underclocking or overcloking it very easly with a modern motherboard (dont need to reboot http://www.asus.com/Motherboards/AMD_Socket_FM2/F2A85M_LE/) and have either a much better power consumption, or performance (even than a i3)

5) A10 5600k is cheaper

6) the motherboard for A10 5600K is better and will be able to get upgrades unlike the i3 (assuming AMD survives that long , which I personally believe it will).

After this I will probably get the A10 5600k for myself too

 

[Mallibu]

Well I am looking for a new cpu too, from a even slower one and looking at all the possibility's and here is one way of seeing things.

1) A10 5600k is more or less as fast as a i3 (depending on the test), probably better at multitasking

2) A10 5600k does have a better gpu, in the case it your fails you will still be able to play games (not sure but probably not far as you do now, depending on how fast is your RAM)

3) A10 5600K have a bigger power consuption (not much bigger if you use a gfx card) than a i3, but it is justified if you use the gpu

4) you can either underclocking or overcloking it very easly with a modern motherboard (dont need to reboot http://www.asus.com/Motherboards/AMD_Socket_FM2/F2A85M_LE/) and have either a much better power consumption, or performance (even than a i3)

5) A10 5600k is cheaper

6) the motherboard for A10 5600K will be able to get upgrades unlike the i3 (assuming AMD survives that long , which I personally believe it will).

After this I will probably get the A10 5600k for myself too

1) No. A5600k is slower than the i3 in multithreaded, and a lot slower in games.

2) Yes if your primary GPU fails and you want to play on your onboard GPU the A5600k is better. But we can't take the 0.1% chance of that happening, as an argument.

3) Consumes a lot more power = A lot less efficient in any case/usage.

4) Overclocking on stock AMD coolers is nightmare. My Phenom's II cooler was sounding like a freakin airplane.

5) Yes, but is it worth it?

6) I wouldn't count on that given all the socket changes by both companies lately.

 

[laputan machine]

Chill out and take some deep breathes. You don't have to rush to every thread, trying to defend a failed product and attack everyone that disagrees with your biased views. Your fanboysm and utter denial of facts is amusing at times, but at the same time blindness and obsession over a piece of silicon or a company is annoying and a bit sad. I'm sure there are better things in your life to get obsessed for.

Aside that, it's not one game. It's another game in the already 10-15 games that FX cpus can't keep steady frames.

Gamers that are not in the mood to cherrypick their games can't choose AMD. Simple as that.

Accusing others of fanboyism and being biased when you just declared an entire company's cpus for unsuitable for gaming based on one game is silly to say the least. There may(are) be other games, but you didn't bring them up in your post.

As for the a8-5600k, it's 20 bucks cheaper than the 3220 (newegg), and weaker in the cpu part (win a couple, tie some and lose even some more) while significantly stronger gpu part. It also uses a bit more power, but you get the option to overclock. All in all that just doesn't sound like a terrible product to me, even if I certainly agree that the 3220 is a lot better for games if you're adding a discrete card.

 

[frozentundra123456]

Accusing others of fanboyism and being biased when you just declared an entire company's cpus for unsuitable for gaming based on one game is silly to say the least. There may(are) be other games, but you didn't bring them up in your post.

As for the a8-5600k, it's 20 bucks cheaper than the 3220 (newegg), and weaker in the cpu part (win a couple, tie some and lose even some more) while significantly stronger gpu part. It also uses a bit more power, but you get the option to overclock. All in all that just doesn't sound like a terrible product to me, even if I certainly agree that the 3220 is a lot better for games if you're adding a discrete card.

Would you care to link to some games where AMD is superior?

The only game I know of that AMD is competitive is BF3. You can make a case for AMD if you want to go the absolute cheapest and forget about power consumption. You can also make a case for AMD for certain heavily multithreaded productivity apps. But for gaming, Intel pretty much rules. If you dont believe me, look at the latest Toms Hardware best gaming CPUs for the money. There is only one AMD cpu on the list, and that is a tie with Intel at one price point. Otherwise, Intel wins every category from the lowly pentium up to the 3570k. And this was written after Vishera came out. I suppose you could say that AMD cpus are "suitable" for gaming in that yes, they will run games. But you get better performance per watt and per dollar with intel, as well as absolute performance levels at the top end that AMD cant match.

 

[laputan machine]

Would you care to link to some games where AMD is superior?

The only game I know of that AMD is competitive is BF3. You can make a case for AMD if you want to go the absolute cheapest and forget about power consumption. You can also make a case for AMD for certain heavily multithreaded productivity apps. But for gaming, Intel pretty much rules. If you dont believe me, look at the latest Toms Hardware best gaming CPUs for the money. There is only one AMD cpu on the list, and that is a tie with Intel at one price point. Otherwise, Intel wins every category from the lowly pentium up to the 3570k. And this was written after Vishera came out. I suppose you could say that AMD cpus are "suitable" for gaming in that yes, they will run games. But you get better performance per watt and per dollar with intel, as well as absolute performance levels at the top end that AMD cant match.

Why should I link to games where AMD is superior when I never claimed they were? I'm sure I could find something (which would be cherry picking) but since I also think Intel is better for gaming (with discrete card) what would the point be? That doesn't mean that amd's cpu's are "no no" for gaming. They get the job done too, just not as good in some games.
For many, "suitable" for gaming is enough and that should be respected instead of choosing an attitude of "this is better for you even if your choice delivers all that you want".
This isn't even just amd vs intel but intel vs intel too. It's far too big a commonplace to see 3570k and 2500k be recommended for cpu regardless even when a pentium would be enough.

 

[frozentundra123456]

Why should I link to games where AMD is superior when I never claimed they were? I'm sure I could find something (which would be cherry picking) but since I also think Intel is better for gaming (with discrete card) what would the point be? That doesn't mean that amd's cpu's are "no no" for gaming. They get the job done too, just not as good in some games.
For many, "suitable" for gaming is enough and that should be respected instead of choosing an attitude of "this is better for you even if your choice delivers all that you want".
This isn't even just amd vs intel but intel vs intel too. It's far too big a commonplace to see 3570k and 2500k be recommended for cpu regardless even when a pentium would be enough.

If AMD cpus gave lower performance in games but had a strong advantage in some other area, I could see a case for them. But in addition to giving lower performance, they have no compensating advantages in other areas, and infact use more power as well. And no I dont consider the igpu an advantage at all in the desktop intended for gaming. In a laptop, yes, but not a desktop. Why settle for "good enough" when you can have better?

 

[AtenRa]

I think we can safely agree now that AMD cpus for gaming = no no. The A5600 can't even get above 35 frames. The supposed "improved in gaming" FX 8350 can't even beat the 4 year old i7 920.

I think we can safely agree now that Intel cpus bellow $300 for gaming = no no.

[/sarcasm]

 

[AtenRa]

If AMD cpus gave lower performance in games but had a strong advantage in some other area, I could see a case for them. But in addition to giving lower performance, they have no compensating advantages in other areas, and infact use more power as well. And no I dont consider the igpu an advantage at all in the desktop intended for gaming. In a laptop, yes, but not a desktop. Why settle for "good enough" when you can have better?

http://www.anandtech.com/show/6347/amd-a10-5800k-a8-5600k-review-trinity-on-the-desktop-part-2

Now, OC the A8-5600K and you get even more performance for lower price than the Core i3 3220. But you have to be blind if you havent seen any advantage for them. :whiste:

 

[inf64]

@ laputan machine
You bring up good points but trying to reason with that poster you replied to = no no. Search his posts and you will see why .

@ AtenRa
I doubt the "great" unbiased Mallibu will reply. Maybe with a personal attack against you since AMD = no no .

Sometimes I even wonder if AMD CPU can execute x86 code and start a game up. If it manages to do so then the game will probably crash soon after leaving the user in a rage mode with his fist in the air and screaming "I should have listened to that guy on AT forum"

The title of this forum is "CPUs", not "Why the other guy sucks"...
-ViRGE

 

[Mallibu]

Spoiler

@ laputan machine
You bring up good points but trying to reason with that poster you replied to = no no. Search his posts and you will see why .

@ AtenRa
I doubt the "great" unbiased Mallibu will reply. Maybe with a personal attack against you since AMD = no no .

Sometimes I even wonder if AMD CPU can execute x86 code and start a game up. If it manages to do so then the game will probably crash soon after leaving the user in a rage mode with his fist in the air and screaming "I should have listened to that guy on AT forum"

Thank you for dedicating all your latests posts nerdraging to me. It makes me giggle inside imagining you typing fast and furious everytime you read my posts :awe:

Aside that, here's the chart:
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/676?vs=677

The i3 2320 wins 36 of the 42 tests, over the A5600k.
Better in all but a few multithreaded, miles better in gaming.
So 36/42 & Lower power consumption - > Better overall product.
I don't get why is that so much difficult to grasp.


Now, about AMD cpus and gaming, I can't take that Far cry 3 graph as a normal metric. Why? Because It shows FX 4100 > 6100 which isn't true. If it is, then this game can't see above 4 threads. If it can't see above 4 threads, then the i5 2500 would smash fx4100 to the ground since even AMD fanboys can agree that it's 50%+ better, performance wise. Therefore, there's obviously something wrong with the benchmark.

Now, Hitman Absolutions, Skyrim, Civilization V, Borderlands 2, Guild wars 2, Starcraft 2, Shogun 2, World of Warcraft, F1 2012, are all popular games that AMD sucks at. No cherrypicked benchmark can change that, and until Intel CPUs start to suck as much in so many popular titles, they are & will be better for gaming.

 

[nforce4max]

Well I don't understand why people just don't tweak their volts if they are so concerned with power consumption. As for the stock coolers they have always been crap with very few exceptions.

 

[AtenRa]

Aside that, here's the chart:
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/676?vs=677

The i3 2320 wins 36 of the 42 tests, over the A5600k.
Better in all but a few multithreaded, miles better in gaming.
So 36/42 & Lower power consumption - > Better overall product.
I don't get why is that so much difficult to grasp.

A8-5600K = $109,99
Core i3 3220 = $129,99

Nobody said that 5600K is faster than 3220 at default, the fact that you selectively ignoring is that A8-5600K can be OverClocked to 4.4GHz. At that frequency it is faster and cheaper than Core i3 3220.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/6347/amd-a10-5800k-a8-5600k-review-trinity-on-the-desktop-part-2/7

With a stock cooler and not a ton of additional voltage, it looks like there's another 5 - 15% depending on whether you're comparing base clocks or max turbo clocks. With an extra 0.125V (above the 1.45V standard core voltage setting) I was able to hit 4.4GHz on the A10-5800K.

Also, with the price difference you could get a better Heat sink(better OC, quieter operation) , or more/faster ram or add it for an SSD etc.

So to conclude, A8-5600K is faster and cheaper making it the better product.

 

[frozentundra123456]

http://www.anandtech.com/show/6347/amd-a10-5800k-a8-5600k-review-trinity-on-the-desktop-part-2

Now, OC the A8-5600K and you get even more performance for lower price than the Core i3 3220. But you have to be blind if you havent seen any advantage for them. :whiste:

I was clearly talking about gaming performance (did you read my first sentence). You just have to reflexively bring up cherry picked multithreaded benchmarks to every discussion dont you?

 

[AtenRa]

I was clearly talking about gaming performance (did you read my first sentence). You just have to reflexively bring up cherry picked multithreaded benchmarks to every discussion dont you?

Your words,

If AMD cpus gave lower performance in games but had a strong advantage in some other area, I could see a case for them.

I dont believe i have to say anything more :whiste:

 

[frozentundra123456]

Your words,



I dont believe i have to say anything more :whiste:

Believe whatever you want, apparently you do that anyway from the flavor of your posts.

 

[SlowSpyder]

The GTS450 uses a lot of power, ~140 watts. The A10-5800K costs the same as the i3 on Newegg. How would gaming on the A10-5800K, especially with the CPU/GPU overclocked a bit, compare to the GTS450? Even overclocked, I bet overall power consumption goes down on an A10-5800K with the GTS450 gone vs the i3 + GTS450.

*edit - I see the OP has 1333MHz ram. That might hurt the A10-5800K vs. the GTS450. But, then again, selling the GTS450 (if it isn't really faster than the A10-5800K) and the 1333MHz ram could probably buy some pretty nice 1866MHz ram.

 

[AtenRa]

Believe whatever you want, apparently you do that anyway from the flavor of your posts.

I gave you the stronger advantage in some other area you were asking for and all you have to say is about the flavor of my posts ?? Why dont you become objective for once and admit that when OCed the A8-5600K is faster while cost less than Core i3 3220???

 

[Mallibu]

A8-5600K = $109,99
Core i3 3220 = $129,99

Nobody said that 5600K is faster than 3220 at default, the fact that you selectively ignoring is that A8-5600K can be OverClocked to 4.4GHz. At that frequency it is faster and cheaper than Core i3 3220.


Also, with the price difference you could get a better Heat sink(better OC, quieter operation) , or more/faster ram or add it for an SSD etc.

So to conclude, A8-5600K is faster and cheaper making it the better product.

So you can spend 129$ and:

1) Take A5600K, overclock it and overvoltage it to 1.50V and still be worse than i3 2320, dealing with possible instabilities, while consuming 2x more power due to overclock. Better heater required so no extra $$ saved. Also, since the article you posted he uses the A10 5800k NOT the A8 5600k, and he is unstable at 4.5 ghz, assuming a 4.4 Ghz as NORMAL and 24/7 is ridiculous. 24/7 usage o/c would likely be at ~4.1 ghz max.

Also:

all that hasle for 6-7% gains at 4.4 Ghz (so 5% at 24/7 overclocks). Totally worth it (not).

2) Take i3 2320 and be better at everything by default.

I'd choose option 2.

 

[frozentundra123456]

The GTS450 uses a lot of power, ~140 watts. The A10-5800K costs the same as the i3 on Newegg. How would gaming on the A10-5800K, especially with the CPU/GPU overclocked a bit, compare to the GTS450? Even overclocked, I bet overall power consumption goes down on an A10-5800K with the GTS450 gone vs the i3 + GTS450.

*edit - I see the OP has 1333MHz ram. That might hurt the A10-5800K vs. the GTS450. But, then again, selling the GTS450 (if it isn't really faster than the A10-5800K) and the 1333MHz ram could probably buy some pretty nice 1866MHz ram.

The GTS450 does use a lot of power, but it is faster than I initially thought. It looks like it is in HD5750 territory, quite a bit faster than the igp of the A10.

 

[AtenRa]

So you can spend 129$ and:

1) Take A5600K, overclock it and overvoltage it to 1.50V and still be worse than i3 2320, dealing with possible instabilities, while consuming 2x more power due to overclock. Better heater required so no extra $$ saved. Also, since the article you posted he uses the A10 5800k NOT the A8 5600k, and he is unstable at 4.5 ghz, assuming a 4.4 Ghz as NORMAL and 24/7 is ridiculous. 24/7 usage o/c would likely be at ~4.1 ghz max.

No, you can spend $109,99 and take the A8-5600K, OC with default heat-sink to 4.4GHz and be faster than Core i3 3220. The only difference between the 5600K and 5800K is the iGPU, the CPU Modules are the same. So, 5600K at 4.4GHz will perform the same as a 4.4GHz 5800K.

A8-5600K has 2 Modules 4 Cores
A10-5800K has 2 Modules 4 Cores

Also:

all that hasle for 6-7% gains at 4.4 Ghz (so 5% at 24/7 overclocks). Totally worth it (not).

I believe you missed that :whiste:

But on the other hand, if 6-7% faster is not worth it, then spending ~18% more ($109,99 vs %129,99) for the Core i3 just to be 10% faster is not worth it as well.

 

[Hubb1e]

I would like to know what the OP bought and whether or not he is able to play his game at good FPS now while recording his gameplay. The rest of you can take your fued someplace else. There are a lot of dedicated threads for Trinity.

 

[sm625]

Of course there's always the i5-750 on ebay. I use an i5-750 with a modest, very easily attainable overclock. It certainly cheaper and faster than the AMD trinity chip at any speed, for running bandicam while gaming. But honestly I think the i3-3220 would be faster still. But I cant really say for sure because nobody does benchmarks for FRAPS/Bandicam/encoding while simultaneously gaming. But I really do think the 3220 would put out the best numbers for any game that scales decently on 2 cores.

 

[pc999]

To be honest you should see if the gfx card is worth keeping it (not the best comparison, I know).

http://www.anandtech.com/show/6332/amd-trinity-a10-5800k-a8-5600k-review-part-1/2
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/geforce-gts-450-gf106-radeon-hd-5750,2734-8.html

But it seems that every game is a possibility with this igpu, even if not on the best conditions.

1) No. A5600k is slower than the i3 in multithreaded, and a lot slower in games.

2) Yes if your primary GPU fails and you want to play on your onboard GPU the A5600k is better. But we can't take the 0.1% chance of that happening, as an argument.

3) Consumes a lot more power = A lot less efficient in any case/usage.

4) Overclocking on stock AMD coolers is nightmare. My Phenom's II cooler was sounding like a freakin airplane.

5) Yes, but is it worth it?

6) I wouldn't count on that given all the socket changes by both companies lately.

1) Not in all, like posted, and probably good enough for me, certainly for my wallet.

Plus the more execution units (even if only integers), or cores or whatever you want, usually are the best for multitasking

2) It happened to me before, I may also want to just use the igpu for other reasons (noise, power consuption, put the gpu in other PC, but yes these ones are more probable...).

3) with a discrete GPU is only 13W more (A10 5600k http://hexus.net/tech/reviews/cpu/47257-amd-a10-5700/?page=6 ), and with the igpu the power usage is totally worth it, plus you can easily underclock for the less intensive use (dont even need to reboot like in my initial post) and probably get even less power than a i3 (say at a 5600K at 2,6Ghz?) and still probably more performance than the current CPU, that for most cases is already enough.



4) Reviews seems to disagree..


5) For me, totally!!!


6) They said so also AM3+ is lasting a while. This way, if we want, in a couple years we may buy a new CPU and igpu without changing anything, which is a lot cheaper.



Personally in this case AMD is worth it.

There isnt that many cases, but in the low-mid gaming/multimedia creation end it is worth to go with AMD.

 

[Mallibu]

1) Not in all, like posted, and probably good enough for me, certainly for my wallet.

Plus the more execution units (even if only integers), or cores or whatever you want, usually are the best for multitasking

2) It happened to me before, I may also want to just use the igpu for other reasons (noise, power consuption, put the gpu in other PC, but yes these ones are more probable...).

3) with a discrete GPU is only 13W more (A10 5600k http://hexus.net/tech/reviews/cpu/47257-amd-a10-5700/?page=6 ), and with the igpu the power usage is totally worth it, plus you can easily underclock for the less intensive use (dont even need to reboot like in my initial post) and probably get even less power than a i3 (say at a 5600K at 2,6Ghz?) and still probably more performance than the current CPU, that for most cases is already enough.



4) Reviews seems to disagree..


5) For me, totally!!!


6) They said so also AM3+ is lasting a while. This way, if we want, in a couple years we may buy a new CPU and igpu without changing anything, which is a lot cheaper.



Personally in this case AMD is worth it.

There isnt that many cases, but in the low-mid gaming/multimedia creation end it is worth to go with AMD.

I think the conversation is doing circles here.

1) I3 is better in 36 from 42 benchmarks. It's better in multithreading and gaming. Yes there are 6 benchmarks that A8 5600k is ahead by a small margin, but it loses in the other 90% of tests, therefore it's all around slower. If that is worth 20$ more, it's for the buyer to decide.

2) i3 also has an iGPU. If you want gaming on an iGPU both those processor fail at it and are terrible for any form of gaming. The thread creator has a discrete GPU, like any normal gamer.

3) Overclocked the A8 will consume double the power.

4) AMD stock coolers sound like airplanes. Google it, there are thousands of people raging over how freakin loud they are, it's a well known fact. That was a year and a half ago, when I bought my Phenom. I wish they had changed that stock cooler, but according to many they have not.

5) Good for you, that's what counts.

6) I thought A8 goes to FM2 not AM3+.