AMD will launch AM4 platform in March 2016 says industry source

[cbn]

You kidding yourself if you believe a Stuttering Pentium with a dGPU will provide a better gaming experience than a APU.

OC G3258 doesn't stutter with a low end dGPU (eg, R7 250X) though.

And yes, the gaming experience will be better than a APU.

 

[cbn]

The difference is that G3258 users expectations were high and they were believing they could use a high-end dGPU for high 1080p gaming.

The expectations of G3258 users were terrible.

They wondered if it would even be able to play games. 2C/2T in 2014?

 

[frozentundra123456]

OC G3258 doesn't stutter with a low end dGPU (eg, R7 250X) though.

And yes, the gaming experience will be better than a APU.

I agree. I would take a pentium or x4 860 any day with a 250x/750 type dgpu. But I am tired of arguing with the APU proponents. No matter how logical the argument for other options, a few posters will continue to shift the goalposts until they find a way, at least in their own minds, to justify gaming on APUs.

 

[cbn]

How about this scenario: cheap pre-built "gaming" PCs and saved labour costs?

Brought up that point years ago...

I know, it just seems, that it becomes the victim of argumentum ad ignorantiam, or that some project their own world of thinking onto every computer buyer out there. I think, I also brought it in this thread before.

These cheap pre-built gaming PCs don't exist though.

At least two problems AMD has:

1. A10 desktop APUs are premium priced.

2. Pre-built desktops with the lower A8 APU (for whatever reason) are rather expensive compared to Intel. For example, back when I checked prices end of 2014/beginning of 2015 Pre-built desktops with A8 APUs were actually more expensive than Pre-builts with Core i3s. (This even though the list price of a Core i3 is higher than the A8 APU).

 

[Dresdenboy]

These cheap pre-built gaming PCs don't exist though.

At least two problems AMD has:

1. A10 desktop APUs are premium priced.

2. Pre-built desktops with the lower A8 APU (for whatever reason) are rather expensive compared to Intel. For example, back when I checked prices end of 2014/beginning of 2015 Pre-built desktops with A8 APUs were actually more expensive than Pre-builts with Core i3s. (This even though the list price of a Core i3 is higher than the A8 APU).

I wrote "gaming" with quotation marks on purpose. Newegg lists PCs for $179 with A4-5000 and $200-$300 models with A8 or A10.

List price doesn't matter when making deals.

 

[cbn]

Newegg lists PCs for $179 with A4-5000 and $200-$300 models with A8 or A10.

Here are the listings for new (not refurbished) A8 desktops (some of these are A8-6410 cat core processors):

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produ...14&IsNodeId=1&bop=And&Order=PRICE&PageSize=30

(Kaveri starts @ $399.99)

Here are the listings for new (not refurbished) A10 desktops

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produ...14&IsNodeId=1&bop=And&Order=PRICE&PageSize=30

(Kaveri starts @ $419.99)

 

[cbn]

Here are the listings for new (not refurbished) Core i3 desktops

http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?Submit=ENE&N=100019096 4814 600014733&IsNodeId=1

(Core i3 4170 starts @ $329.99)

 

[cbn]

List price doesn't matter when making deals.

Yes, Intel has much better volume pricing, no doubt.

Which brings us to the question of what we would we like to see AMD do with Bristol Ridge?

Personally, I would like to see AMD go all in for 35W laptop, then use the least desirable dies (Athlon x 4, dual core with iGPU) for AM4 desktop.

 

[cbn]

Assuming all 4C + 512sp and 4C + 384sp Bristol Ridge go to 35W laptop, I would like to see the dual core desktop APU finally get some justice in the iGPU department. It should have at least 384sp iGPU.

That would make the processor line-up for AM4 something like this:

1.) dual core Bristol Ridge with 384sp (CPU and iGPU both pushed to max clocks or near max clocks with unlocked multiplier)
2.) quad core Bristol Ridge without iGPU
3.) Zen 4C/8T
4.) Zen 6C/12T
5.) Zen 8C/16T

P.S. The beefed up dual core with 384sp (or maybe even 512sp) would be nice for entry level gamers. More serious desktop gamers could either choose the quad core Bristol Ridge and pair with dGPU or one of the Zen CPUs + dGPU.

 

[Fjodor2001]

Is that the 2016 lineup you are referring to?

There are Zen based APUs with HBM in the pipeline too...

 

[cbn]

Is that the 2016 lineup you are referring to?

Assuming AM4 and Zen 8C/16T (and derivatives) come in 2016, yes.

 

[DrMrLordX]

The expectations of G3258 users were terrible.

They wondered if it would even be able to play games. 2C/2T in 2014?

Only the critics. Enough people bought into the hype (including, to an extent, yours truly!) that they paired G3258s with things like 290s and 290Xs and well . . . the rest is history. That's why OCed G3258s show up in so many gaming reviews with awful minimum FPS and why there are so many "look at my Pentium AE stutter on GTAV" youtube videos.

People can try to slag the "APU proponents" all the want, but it's an unrelated phenomenon. The G3258 was overhyped. It turns out that you really do need more than 2c/2t. The critics were right.

 

[ShintaiDK]

An APU isn't any better in the cases mentioned. Its an illusion to think that something equally as weak is enough to solve all the issues and play on max in a game that got Core i5 and FX8xxx under recommended. The weak APU would stutter just as much.

 

[cbn]

they paired G3258s with things like 290s and 290Xs and well . . . the rest is history. That's why OCed G3258s show up in so many gaming reviews with awful minimum FPS and why there are so many "look at my Pentium AE stutter on GTAV" youtube videos.

You did notice the GTA V results of OC G3258 and OC Athlon x 4 860K with OC R9 290X in post #273 didn't you?

Athlon x 4 860K barely did better in minumum FPS (And some might even think the Athlon x 4 860K is worse due to only having 21.6 average FPS)

It is only with the Nvidia card that the OC Athlon x 4 860K shines.

 

[cbn]

Enough people bought into the hype (including, to an extent, yours truly!) that they paired G3258s with things like 290s and 290Xs

As far as I can remember if OC G3258 was paired with R9 290 or R9 290X it was purely for benchmarking or testing purposes.

Like I mentioned back in post #269 for practical build-ups Core i3 was so much faster than the highest OC G3258.

What happened was the Core i3 was much faster in pretty much all reviews. So anyone wanting to use a relatively strong GPU was pointed away from the G3258 for at least that reason. (ie, too many FPS left on the table with G3258 vs Core i3. This was the most obvious reason. Why waste extra money on dGPU when for $50 more a person could get a Core i3 and gain more that way.)

 

[DrMrLordX]

You did notice the GTA V results of OC G3258 and OC Athlon x 4 860K with OC R9 290X in post #273 didn't you?

Yes. The G3258 is going to stutter no matter how well some APU performs in comparison.

As far as I can remember if OC G3258 was paired with R9 290 or R9 290X it was purely for benchmarking or testing purposes.

No, not really. Remember there were a bunch of cheap 290X cards dumped on the market from mining that went into a lot of different machines. Some people who were trying to game on the cheap passed up on locked i5s for cheaper G3258s thinking they could squeeze out more performance from 4.8 GHz overclocks. You know, spare the CPU and spoil the GPU, which is the usual mantra in a lot of places.

Sadly people who would have been better-served by an i3 frequently ignored them. They were terribly overpriced for awhile there, seriously compromising their value vs. locked i5s.

An APU isn't any better in the cases mentioned. Its an illusion to think that something equally as weak is enough to solve all the issues and play on max in a game that got Core i5 and FX8xxx under recommended. The weak APU would stutter just as much.

What you frequently get with the 2m/4t FM2+ chips is just bad framerates overall. Look at the charts cbn posted, for example. Higher minimums than the G3258, but still sub-30 fps anyway. But lets be honest, not many outside of AMD diehards think that a 970 or a 290x/390x goes well with an 860k or 7870k.

 

[cbn]

Sadly people who would have been better-served by an i3 frequently ignored them.

There were some cases where the OC G3258 was faster than the Core i3:

http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/2014/06/24/intel-pentium-g3258-review/5

(^^^ Click on link above as I can't post the graphs)






.....and the following results from this review:

The other reviews either showed the OC G3258 tying a Core i3 or getting beat by it.

 

[cbn]

Here are the AMD APU vs Core i3 desktop prices from January 2014:

http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=35947650&postcount=746

Using Newegg prices are a comparison for pre-built desktops:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...el Core i3 (Core i3 starts @ $399)

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...8-Series APU (A8-6500 APU starts @ $479)

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...0-Series APU (A10-6700 APU starts @ $499)

Using the Current Fry's sale for Pre-builts here is what I am coming up with:

http://www.frys-electronics-ads.com/...4130-Processor (Core i3 for $348)

http://www.frys-electronics-ads.com/...6500-Processor (A8-6500 for $448)

Now granted the Core i3 systems come with 4GB RAM vs. 8GB for the AMD systems, but that still a pretty big disparity in pricing IMO.

^^^^ Notice how Core i3 desktops (despite a rather high processor list price) are still cheaper than both the A8 and A10 desktops.

Now here are the current price trends (2 years later):

Here are the listings for new (not refurbished) A8 desktops (some of these are A8-6410 cat core processors):

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produ...14&IsNodeId=1&bop=And&Order=PRICE&PageSize=30

(Kaveri starts @ $399.99)

Here are the listings for new (not refurbished) A10 desktops

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produ...14&IsNodeId=1&bop=And&Order=PRICE&PageSize=30

(Kaveri starts @ $419.99)

Here are the listings for new (not refurbished) Core i3 desktops

http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?Submit=ENE&N=100019096 4814 600014733&IsNodeId=1

(Core i3 4170 starts @ $329.99)

Notice how the Core i3 desktops are still significantly cheaper than the A10 and A8 desktops.

With that info noted, what do you think should be done?

1.) Should AMD keep on fighting on Desktop with A10 and A8 Bristol Ridge APUs?

2.) Or do you think AMD would be better off focusing all 4C/512sp and 4C/384sp Bristol Ridge into Mobile (particularly the 35W category)?

3.) Or perhaps a middle of the road approach where all 512sp dies are allocated to mobile, but 4C/384sp is allowed on desktop?

Personally, I am thinking #2 is the best option. Then maybe at some later time (perhaps when Zen APU launches) there could be some left over 4C/384sp and 4C/512sp Bristol Ridge made available on AM4?

 

[Azuma Hazuki]

The pricing isn't up to AMD though, is it? This smells like the OEMs are (at Intel's behest?) screwing AMD over.

I build computers for a living. The A10 is the same price as an i3 and the A8 is cheaper, and our prices for customers reflect this. Sounds like a more subtle market-corruption tactic of Intel's...

 

[AtenRa]

There were some cases where the OC G3258 was faster than the Core i3:

http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/2014/06/24/intel-pentium-g3258-review/5

(^^^ Click on link above as I can't post the graphs)


.....and the following results from this review:

The other reviews either showed the OC G3258 tying a Core i3 or getting beat by it.

And that is exactly what im talking about,

Average fps is high with the OC G3258 but the game with high-end GPUs is unplayable due to heavy stuttering.
But since reviews like this one doesn't mention anything about stuttering, people were left to believe they could use the G3258 overclock it and pair it with a high-end GPU and be fine.

Not only that, the above graph is completely misleading displaying the OC G3258 better even than the Core i5 4460.

 

[Shivansps]

And that is exactly what im talking about,

Average fps is high with the OC G3258 but the game with high-end GPUs is unplayable due to heavy stuttering.
But since reviews like this one doesn't mention anything about stuttering, people were left to believe they could use the G3258 overclock it and pair it with a high-end GPU and be fine.

Not only that, the above graph is completely misleading showing the OC G3258 better even than the Core i5 4460.

Who gona pair a G3258 with a high end card? at most 250X/360/GTX750/GTX750TI/GTX950 maybe, its stupid to pair a
$300 card with a $70 cpu.

 

[ShintaiDK]

The pricing isn't up to AMD though, is it? This smells like the OEMs are (at Intel's behest?) screwing AMD over.

I build computers for a living. The A10 is the same price as an i3 and the A8 is cheaper, and our prices for customers reflect this. Sounds like a more subtle market-corruption tactic of Intel's...

Then you should make AMD aware of this, so they can get some free billions in a lawsuit.

Else its time to take the tinfoil hat off.

 

[Arachnotronic]

The pricing isn't up to AMD though, is it? This smells like the OEMs are (at Intel's behest?) screwing AMD over.

I build computers for a living. The A10 is the same price as an i3 and the A8 is cheaper, and our prices for customers reflect this. Sounds like a more subtle market-corruption tactic of Intel's...

What kinds of volumes does your computer shop buy processors in?

 

[mrmt]

The pricing isn't up to AMD though, is it? This smells like the OEMs are (at Intel's behest?) screwing AMD over.

I build computers for a living. The A10 is the same price as an i3 and the A8 is cheaper, and our prices for customers reflect this. Sounds like a more subtle market-corruption tactic of Intel's...

Do you buy directly from Intel or through distributors?

 

[cbn]

But since reviews like this one doesn't mention anything about stuttering, people were left to believe they could use the G3258 overclock it and pair it with a high-end GPU and be fine.

Tom's hardware (in June 2014) brought up the topic of stuttering to their readership.

And Eurogamer/Digital Foundry (in July 2014) was the first one to emphasis the importance of CPU to GPU balance to prevent stuttering.

After those got released knowledge of properly balancing the G3258 was already fairly well ingrained in these forums.