AMD A10-5800K preview - iGPU side only

[bononos]

......
And idle power savings means nothing when the difference is under 10W on a desktop. That's less than a $5 difference a year even on a country with high energy costs. Less than 10W won't make a desktop run any hotter, either. The big difference is that Trinity consumes around 75% more power under CPU load than Ivy Bridge, yet of course you conveniently never mention that.

Would idle power consumption state be for usual browsing, checking email, watching youtube etc. If so then its quite good for the A10, since normal users won't complain about higher power consumption while they are gaming.

 

[podspi]

You say this as if it's a good thing



I'd have liked to see a new chipset and socket after Kaveri. It would show that AMD was pushing forward with respect to the current issues that persist in Trinity APU platform. The lack of a chipset and socket means that we're going to be waiting 3 years until that happens. I guess we could potentially see drastic changes in the pure desktop non-APU platform and Hondo, but it still doesn't bode well for FM2

It does seem a bit suspect. I guess that means we know sideport isn't going to happen for quite some time. I suppose they could still add memory on-package or on-die, though.

I'm still waiting for somebody to actually just slap RAM onto the package. According to SA Intel is planning to do it, but it doesn't sound like it will be coming in Haswell. I think it would be awesome as long as we can still add more (perhaps slower) memory like we do now.

 

[dastral]

To sum up from the above, AMD A10-5800K is the better product and yet you are trying hard to downplay it with every post you make.

That's not entirely true, you get much worse x86 performance and higher power consumption at load...

But i agree, AMD A10-5800K is the better product if you want a "decent versatile and cheap PC" which is 90% of PC users need.
Not to mention Trinity is starting to make a lot of sense for the PS4 and XBox720

Unlike Bulldozer which was usable only when all the stars aligned, with A10 you get "sufficient CPU performance" and "Good enough GPU for most games".

People play League of Legends Diablo3 WoW SIMS NBA2012 NFL2012 Assasin's Creed, etc etc... and for that A10 the best bang per buck.

 

[CHADBOGA]

That's not entirely true, you get much worse x86 performance and higher power consumption at load...

But i agree, AMD A10-5800K is the better product if you want a "decent versatile and cheap PC" which is 90% of PC users need.

But it may NOT be what PC users want.

Unlike Bulldozer which was usable only when all the stars aligned, with A10 you get "sufficient CPU performance" and "Good enough GPU for most games".

People play League of Legends Diablo3 WoW SIMS NBA2012 NFL2012 Assasin's Creed, etc etc... and for that A10 the best bang per buck.

You know this whole bang per buck thing argument seems grossly distorted to me, unless one is living in dire poverty.

Let's take Starcraft 2 for example. Now I was playing this game with a HD 5770 card(which is way beyond any current IGP) and I was able to have a pretty good experience with it, supposedly the experience "90% of users need", but I knew I wasn't able to run everything maxed out on it and that bugged me.

This eventually led to me buying a HD 7850 card and now I can run it completely maxed out and I am very happy.

When I put together a computer for a technically challenged friend of mine, one thing he instinctively knows is that buying products which will just run everything okay today, can leave you a very disappointed fellow a year or so later when something you want to play/run comes out and you now can't run it to your satisfaction.

So for that reason, he always wants some leeway built in to what he can buy, provided that the extra dollars aren't that much.

It is for this reason a few years ago, that he opted for a Quad i5-760 instead of a dual core. The extra cost was minimal to him, for the peace of mind that he would be able to run things going forward better than if he had saved $80 to get a dual core.

Surely most people will say to themselves, "Look, I can get this PC here for $700 or I can get this other one for $800 or $900, what will that extra money give me in user experience, both now, and in 2 years time".

 

[dastral]

But it may NOT be what PC users want.

This is your biggest mistake, Anandtech is not 90% of PC users.
Everyone wants "the best of the best" (obviously) but not everyone "knows about PC" or can afford a HD7850

How many times have you seen "Multimedia PC" from Dell/HP/Friends with an i7 and a shitty GPU (like a GT520) ?
A10 is probably able to give you "console like performance/quality" with a PC at a "very decent price".

BestBuy/Wallmart PC for 450$ with a sticker "Console like Gaming !" will sell like pancakes.
Take the same PC with i5 and GT600s for 750$ ... better... But more expensive and less appealing.

I was able to have a pretty good experience with it, supposedly the experience "90% of users need", but I knew I wasn't able to run everything maxed out on it and that bugged me.
This eventually led to me buying a HD 7850 card and now I can run it completely maxed out and I am very happy

I agree, A10 is not a "gaming CPU/GPU" for "serious gamers".... the 0.1% crowd which we are part of.

But as i was saying many years ago to a friend when playing Quake3 "do you REALLY have to time to admire how a flame is reflected into a pool of water when you have someone with a quad damage chasing you" ?

Do you really need to "MAX everything" to enjoy WOW ?

Surely most people will say to themselves, "Look, I can get this PC here for $700 or I can get this other one for $800 or $900, what will that extra money give me in user experience, both now, and in 2 years time".

Which is what A10 is all about, satisfying the SIMS/GTA/SC2/D3/WOW crowd with "good enough performance" for the "lowest price possible".

 

[nemesismk2]

The A10 5800 gives great IGP performance (it beats all others) going by the techspot:-

www.techspot.com/review/580-amd-a10-5800k/page7.html

If i could pick one IGP to be used without any video card then if you ask me the A10 5800 is the winner.

I would much prefer to be doing some work and then gaming during my breaks using the A10 5800 IGP because any IGP from Intel is slideshow city.

 

[NTMBK]

Let's take Starcraft 2 for example. Now I was playing this game with a HD 5770 card(which is way beyond any current IGP) and I was able to have a pretty good experience with it, supposedly the experience "90% of users need", but I knew I wasn't able to run everything maxed out on it and that bugged me.

This eventually led to me buying a HD 7850 card and now I can run it completely maxed out and I am very happy.

Most people don't have that sort of graphics itch. Look at how well the PS3 and 360 are still selling. Look at how well the Wii sold. Look at how many people play games every day on Core 2 Duo laptops.

 

[nemesismk2]

Most people don't have that sort of graphics itch. Look at how well the PS3 and 360 are still selling. Look at how well the Wii sold. Look at how many people play games every day on Core 2 Duo laptops.

I agree 100%, i sometimes play my fav atari st games using steem on my laptop

 

[CHADBOGA]

The A10 5800 gives great IGP performance (it beats all others) going by the techspot:-

www.techspot.com/review/580-amd-a10-5800k/page7.html

If i could pick one IGP to be used without any video card then if you ask me the A10 5800 is the winner.

I would much prefer to be doing some work and then gaming during my breaks using the A10 5800 IGP because any IGP from Intel is slideshow city.

Other than those in dire poverty, no one is forced to only go with an IGP.

To use a car analogy, the Trinity boosters seem to think every one is flat broke and want to drive a KIA, whereas for not much more, you can have a Toyota or Mazda.

 

[NTMBK]

Other than those in dire poverty, no one is forced to only go with an IGP.

To use a car analogy, the Trinity boosters seem to think every one is flat broke and want to drive a KIA, whereas for not much more, you can have a Toyota or Mazda.

You don't have to be broke to look for good value. The majority of people would question the wisdom of spending an extra £100 on a gaming PC for marginally higher settings on their favourite games when they can get the same gaming experience without spending the extra dough. £100 less on a graphics card is £100 more to spend on going out, on nice dinners, to be put towards a holiday, or even saving for a deposit. Just because you could spend the money, doesn't mean it's worth it.

 

[Crap Daddy]

While being the best around, the iGPU is just not good enough for any decent gaming. The whole perspective is wrong. If you already spend 500$ to build a PC why not put another 100? If one wants console quality gaming why not buy a console for half the money?

 

[taltamir]

gaming at 1080 ? sure, but you're missing a big point in the apus . you can now build a system for $350 that'll play most games at 720p and deliver an enjoyable experience . The amount of win there is simply unbelievable !

We have some pretty different definitions of "enjoyable" then.
If I wanted console level graphics or worse (due to lack of optimization) then I would be playing on a console.

 

[NTMBK]

We have some pretty different definitions of "enjoyable" then.
If I wanted console level graphics or worse (due to lack of optimization) then I would be playing on a console.

PC gaming offers plenty of other things than just epic resolutions with ludicrously over the top AA settings. Different input methods, lower prices, wider range of games, booming indie market, over a decade of backwards compatibility- and you can use it for surfing the net, and for getting work done. PC gaming isn't restricted to some god-like race of superbeings who run dual 680s.

 

[Olikan]

While being the best around, the iGPU is just not good enough for any decent gaming. The whole perspective is wrong. If you already spend 500$ to build a PC why not put another 100? If one wants console quality gaming why not buy a console for half the money?

dude, the most played game at steam are dota 2, TF2, CS (1.6, source and go)

...and trinity is more than twice as fast as an hd4000 in source games

 

[Idontcare]

While being the best around, the iGPU is just not good enough for any decent gaming. The whole perspective is wrong. If you already spend 500$ to build a PC why not put another 100? If one wants console quality gaming why not buy a console for half the money?

True, and many will approach DIY builds with that mindset.

And at the same time there will be many who won't/don't.

When I build for my family I don't look for reasons to add another $100 component to the build. I look at what my family members value.

They value quiet and bullet-proof stability. They value snappy - near zero delay system response to them when they are making their inputs.

My expectation is that pretty much anyone who is buying an i3-whatever type system is not going to know whether it actually has an i3-whatever inside or if it has an AMD A10/A8-whatever inside.

At that performance bracket people are spending $500 and not $1000 because they don't value the performance that comes in dropping $1k on speedy CPUs and ram. They are spending only $500 because that is all their computer is worth to them.

Outside of myself, the fastest computer owned by a family member in my family is one that is owned by my unemployed brother who is living on an income provided by his wife who works at McDonalds. He has to have a fast gaming computer because what else is he going to do with his time?

The rest of my family is made up of folks who work and earn in excess of $60k/yr (they can afford a $1k computer if they wanted one) and yet not a one of them owns a computer that cost more than $500.

When I see these threads with raging arguments about price/performance and so on I definitely see folks who are simply disconnected with the reality of why the sub-$500 price tier even exists. It exists because people don't want to spend more, regardless however much more performance could be had if only they spent just a little more.

My mother in-law bought a new laptop last year. She paid extra to buy a 14" model versus the 15" model at the time because she wanted the smaller form factor - but the real kicker was it also had a slower CPU. She didn't care about performance, she just wanted the form factor. Performance was good enough, and for her I suspect performance of anything sub-$400 will always be fast enough.

My point is that I don't think many people walk into Best Buy or Staples wishing they could afford the $800 computer but settling for the $550 one. They buy the $550 one because that is all they want to spend on a computer, period, regardless its performance.

I've yet to meet a friend or family member who wishes to buy an $800 computer but settles for the $500 one, if they want it (and my unemployed brother did) then they find a way to scrimp and save the extra cash to buy it. Folks who buy i3's are not wishing they could buy an i5 (not the majority of them anyways), they buy i3's because an i3 is already fast enough.

They'll buy A10's and A8's for the same reason if one of them is on the shelf next to the i3 come the day they walk into Best Buy provided Joe the Geek doesn't bad mouth the AMD system and talk them out of it.

 

[frozentundra123456]

While being the best around, the iGPU is just not good enough for any decent gaming. The whole perspective is wrong. If you already spend 500$ to build a PC why not put another 100? If one wants console quality gaming why not buy a console for half the money?

Well said. Not to mention that you could defer buying a couple of games and save that amount of money.

I made a detailed post about this earlier, but will just re-interate, any igpu is inadequate for gaming at decent resolutions and settings in modern games. You may be able to run some games at med to low settings at lower resolutions, but why would you limit yourself to being able to only play less demanding or older games now, not to mention that as the new consoles come out, graphics demands will probably increase. I think A10 systems are going to be promoted by big box stores as a great gaming machine, and new owners will be sorely disappointed when they get home and cant run popular games like BF3, Crysis 2, or Witcher 2 at even the lowest settings at 1080p, which is the native resolution of almost any monitor you would buy today.

AMD really has no advantage over Intel except the igpu. So AMD fans/Intel haters keep touting this as a gaming chip. It is not for modern games at decent settings, period.
It does not even give good value if you want to game. Good value first has to be something that does the job, then you can look at price. A10 or any other igpu does not yet do the job for gaming.

 

[dastral]

I think A10 systems are going to be promoted by big box stores as a great gaming machine, and new owners will be sorely disappointed when they get home and cant run popular games like BF3, Crysis 2, or Witcher 2 at even the lowest settings at 1080p, which is the native resolution of almost any monitor you would buy today

I agree, if they expect "Everything at MAX on Crysis3"... well... they'll be disappointed.... BUT :

Sure that's not with "everything maxed" like CHADBOGA would like.

But you can expect A8 and A10 to run most games at "Medium" with at 1680x1050 (standard for 20-22")
That's why i said "Console Quality" (at least 720p & Medium) on almost every game...
The 500$ (monitor included) "Decent Gaming PC" is now a reality.

 

[frozentundra123456]

True, and many will approach DIY builds with that mindset.

And at the same time there will be many who won't/don't.

When I build for my family I don't look for reasons to add another $100 component to the build. I look at what my family members value.

They value quiet and bullet-proof stability. They value snappy - near zero delay system response to them when they are making their inputs.

My expectation is that pretty much anyone who is buying an i3-whatever type system is not going to know whether it actually has an i3-whatever inside or if it has an AMD A10/A8-whatever inside.

At that performance bracket people are spending $500 and not $1000 because they don't value the performance that comes in dropping $1k on speedy CPUs and ram. They are spending only $500 because that is all their computer is worth to them.

Outside of myself, the fastest computer owned by a family member in my family is one that is owned by my unemployed brother who is living on an income provided by his wife who works at McDonalds. He has to have a fast gaming computer because what else is he going to do with his time?

The rest of my family is made up of folks who work and earn in excess of $60k/yr (they can afford a $1k computer if they wanted one) and yet not a one of them owns a computer that cost more than $500.

When I see these threads with raging arguments about price/performance and so on I definitely see folks who are simply disconnected with the reality of why the sub-$500 price tier even exists. It exists because people don't want to spend more, regardless however much more performance could be had if only they spent just a little more.

My mother in-law bought a new laptop last year. She paid extra to buy a 14" model versus the 15" model at the time because she wanted the smaller form factor - but the real kicker was it also had a slower CPU. She didn't care about performance, she just wanted the form factor. Performance was good enough, and for her I suspect performance of anything sub-$400 will always be fast enough.

My point is that I don't think many people walk into Best Buy or Staples wishing they could afford the $800 computer but settling for the $550 one. They buy the $550 one because that is all they want to spend on a computer, period, regardless its performance.

I've yet to meet a friend or family member who wishes to buy an $800 computer but settles for the $500 one, if they want it (and my unemployed brother did) then they find a way to scrimp and save the extra cash to buy it. Folks who buy i3's are not wishing they could buy an i5 (not the majority of them anyways), they buy i3's because an i3 is already fast enough.

They'll buy A10's and A8's for the same reason if one of them is on the shelf next to the i3 come the day they walk into Best Buy provided Joe the Geek doesn't bad mouth the AMD system and talk them out of it.

I know most people are happy with a modest computer. That is fine. For them, an A10 or lower AMD system will work fine, as will any IVB pentium or i3. What I have a problem with, as also stated in many other posts, is that AMD fans/Intel haters on these forums keep touting A10 as a great gaming platform because the igpu is the only advantage AMD has, really. It is not a gaming platform.

It is worse at gaming than a GT640 ddr3, a graphics card universally reviled by gamers. It is very limited in what modern games it can play, not to mention will be even more inadequate in the future as graphical demands rise. Yes, you could add a discrete card, but that sort of defeats the advantage of an igpu, not to mention that Anand also stated that if you are going to add a discrete card, it is better to go with Intel.

 

[frozentundra123456]

You don't have to be broke to look for good value. The majority of people would question the wisdom of spending an extra £100 on a gaming PC for marginally higher settings on their favourite games when they can get the same gaming experience without spending the extra dough. £100 less on a graphics card is £100 more to spend on going out, on nice dinners, to be put towards a holiday, or even saving for a deposit. Just because you could spend the money, doesn't mean it's worth it.

"Good value" implies first of all that something does the job well. No igpu currently on the market does gaming well. Barely adequately on some less demanding titles, but why would you want to game and limit yourself that way. That is not "good value".

 

[frozentundra123456]

I agree, if they expect "Everything at MAX on Crysis3"... well... they'll be disappointed.... BUT :

Sure that's not with "everything maxed" like CHADBOGA would like.

But you can expect A8 and A10 to run most games at "Medium" with at 1680x1050 (standard for 20-22")
That's why i said "Console Quality" (at least 720p & Medium) on almost every game...
The 500$ (monitor included) "Decent Gaming PC" is now a reality.

Way to cherry pick benchmarks. Why did you not show BF3, Crysis 2 or Witcher 2 which would not even give adequate performance at the lowest settings at 1080p?

 

[dastral]

A10 as a great gaming platform

Hell no, it's not great... saying "great" would be an outright lie
It is "decent for mainstream buyers" that don't know anything about PC Hardware.

1080p?

I never talked about 1080p, or high quality, or Crysis 2, Witcher 2 , BF3.
A10 is not the CPU for "serious gamers", never was, never will.
But for some "mainstream games" bought for 500$ in total, it does a good job.

 

[Idontcare]

I know most people are happy with a modest computer. That is fine. For them, an A10 or lower AMD system will work fine, as will any IVB pentium or i3. What I have a problem with, as also stated in many other posts, is that AMD fans/Intel haters on these forums keep touting A10 as a great gaming platform because the igpu is the only advantage AMD has, really. It is not a gaming platform.

It is worse at gaming than a GT640 ddr3, a graphics card universally reviled by gamers. It is very limited in what modern games it can play, not to mention will be even more inadequate in the future as graphical demands rise. Yes, you could add a discrete card, but that sort of defeats the advantage of an igpu, not to mention that Anand also stated that if you are going to add a discrete card, it is better to go with Intel.

True. When performance doesn't matter, and the price reflects this, then the performance doesn't matter. It is a double-edged sword.

When selling into this tier, performance doesn't matter, and being the best performer means being the cheapest, not the fastest, for this tier.

I will likely build with A10's and A8's because of their platform cost, not because they are faster or offer better price/performance. This tier is not about price/performance. It is just about price.

 

[Crap Daddy]

It is worse at gaming than a GT640 ddr3, a graphics card universally reviled by gamers.

In fact it's worse even than a GT440. On the other hand people just can't upgrade to this part. They have to buy a mobo to go with it. Also we should not forget laptops. A 650$ notebook with a mid-low end mobile graphics chip offers the same sort of performance .

 

[dastral]

Which will be 150$ more expensive.
For 500$ you'll be able to buy at BestBuy/Wallmart/Friends a Box + 20" Monitor that can play "most mainstream games" : DOTA/TF2/D3/SC2/WOW/SIMS/BATMAN at "Console Quality".

If you know anything about hardware, you'll pick something else and custom build.
But if you don't, well it's a decent buy for a household for a lowish price.

 

[nemesismk2]

You don't have to be broke to look for good value. The majority of people would question the wisdom of spending an extra £100 on a gaming PC for marginally higher settings on their favourite games when they can get the same gaming experience without spending the extra dough. £100 less on a graphics card is £100 more to spend on going out, on nice dinners, to be put towards a holiday, or even saving for a deposit. Just because you could spend the money, doesn't mean it's worth it.

that's my thinking too