Best value "Entry Level" gaming PC.

[Shivansps]

AMD needs to do something right now, the entire AM1 line-up could be destroyed if 2980U ITX starts to show up near the 1037U prices, and lets remember there is a entire chromebook running the 2955u for just $150

 

[AtenRa]

AMD needs to do something right now, the entire AM1 line-up could be destroyed if 2980U ITX starts to show up near the 1037U prices, and lets remember there is a entire chromebook running the 2955u for just $150

Why do something now and not WHEN and IF 2980U will be released at near 1037U prices ???

 

[Shivansps]

Because AM1 is already on the verge of not having a market AND 2955U boxes are starting to pop up cheap, there is a Zotac with a 2957U at just $120.

And needless to say that all AM1 a little too expensive for what they are, 2650 to 5150 are a little too expensive compared to J1800/J1900, and the 5350 is causing all this disscusion of "VS 1150" because is so expensive that steps over 1150 prices.

 

[Abwx]

Because AM1 is already on the verge of not having a market AND 2955U boxes are starting to pop up cheap, there is a Zotac with a 2957U at just $120.

And needless to say that all AM1 a little too expensive for what they are, 2650 to 5150 are a little too expensive compared to J1800/J1900, and the 5350 is causing all this disscusion of "VS 1150" because is so expensive that steps over 1150 prices.

2955u is at BT Celeron N2930 level set apart for the GP, and at double the TDP, not what i would call an ultra competitive product, it is comparable to the 1007U, a 5350 is better computing wise, the BT are often slightly cheaper because their GPU imply 10-12$ less intrinsical value, the market is not that stupid.

 

[Shivansps]

indeed, but we are talking of something with higher ST performance and a MT performance of or higher than 5150, with a better IGP, thats place it way forward of a N2930.
The key here is the 2980U those 200mhz are significant for the overall MT performance.

Maybe cbn can help to reproduce their performance, they are not hard to emulate, mbs allows for changing the TDP too.

EDIT: Mayor problem in those ITX mbs are mainly intended for non-gaming, thats why we keep seeing 1037U, and thats really place AM1 in trouble too, even when we compare them to BTs.

 

[cbn]

The key here is the 2980U those 200mhz are significant for the overall MT performance.

Maybe cbn can help to reproduce their performance, they are not hard to emulate, mbs allows for changing the TDP too.

I think testing 2980U would be interesting for entry level iGPU gaming.

Not sure if it would be possible to faithfully replicate the performance though using another chip though. (re: how does someone get the iGPU turbo to act the same as 2980U using a desktop chip)

 

[cbn]

Regarding single vs. dual channel memory testing, here is the maximum speed memory listed for the various chips:

1. Athlon 5350/Athlon 5150: DDR3 1600
2. A4-7300: DDR3 1600
3. Celeron/Pentium: DDR3 1333 (On Non-Z boards)
4. A6-5400K/6400K: DDR3 1866

I only have 1 x 4GB DDR3 1600 and 2 x 2GB DDR3 1600 at the moment.

I actually bought my A6-5400K with the hope I could test as an A4-7300 by boosting multiplier by 2 and raising iGPU clocks by 40 MHz. Does anyone foresee a problem with the A6-5400K not behaving close enough to a A4-7300 to get an approximation on its performance? Both chips do come with a 200 MHz turbo, it is just that the A4-7300 has a 200 MHz higher base clock.

P.S. I am interested in testing single channel on these entry level chips (in addition to dual channel) because I am curious how much performance would be sacrificed by going with the lower cost 1 x 4GB set-up vs. 2 x 2GB set-up. Furthermore, I am noticing lots of low cost value bundles only include a single 4GB stick (usually almost always at DDR3 1600) rather than 2 x 2GB.

 

[Shivansps]

I think testing 2980U would be interesting for entry level iGPU gaming.

Not sure if it would be possible to faithfully replicate the performance though using another chip though. (re: how does someone get the iGPU turbo to act the same as 2980U using a desktop chip)

you will have to limit the maximum TDP allowed to 15W, you can do that on the bios, thats easy, the hard part whould be lowering vcore and not getting crash in the process, ill say just put 20W tdp as max and get done with it, its not gona be 100% accurate but its gona be close.

 

[Abwx]

.

EDIT: Mayor problem in those ITX mbs are mainly intended for non-gaming, thats why we keep seeing 1037U, and thats really place AM1 in trouble too, even when we compare them to BTs.

Actualy they are commodity PCs for average users and thoses dont mind enthusiast level perfs, they can even game on thoses low power PCs provided they have enough comfort, wich is easy since they are not demandnding in respect of thoses tasks but still they can enjoy more than playable framerates on quite a lot of, preferably free, games.

http://www.au-ja.de/review-amd-athl...00-a4-5300-a6-5400k-a4-6300-a6-6400k-13.phtml

http://www.au-ja.de/review-amd-athl...00-a4-5300-a6-5400k-a4-6300-a6-6400k-14.phtml

http://www.hardware.fr/articles/921-5/gpu-performances-jeux-opencl-h-264.html

 

[cbn]

Here are some more built-in-benchmark Dirt 3 results to add to the ones in post #133

Pentium G3258 @ G3220 speeds, dual channel DDR3 1333 (2 x 2 GB):

800 x 600:

medium (multisampling off): 51.99 avg FPS, 44.25 min FPS
high (multisampling off): 41.57 avg FPS, 34.23 min FPS
ultra (multisampling off): 17.29 avg FPS, 15.28 min FPS

1024 x 768:

medium (multisampling off): 37.02 avg FPS, 32.11 min FPS
high (multisampling off): 30.95 avg FPS, 25.92 min FPS

Athlon 5350, single channel DDR3 1600 using 2 x 2GB:

800 x 600:

medium (multisampling off): 37.64 avg FPS, 30.28 min FPS
high (multisampling off): 29.53 FPS, 24.54 min FPS
ultra (multisampling off): 15.71 avg FPS, 13.3 min FPS

1024 x 768:

medium (multisampling off): 28.57 avg FPS, 23.17 min FPS
high (multisampling off): 23.17 avg FPS, 20.01 min FPS

Please keep in mind that the Athlon 5350 results from post #133 were from Madpacket's AM1 set-up using 2 x 4GB DDR3 1600 (with 1GB of RAM dedicated to the iGPU). While the Athlon 5350 results in this post were from my own Athlon 5350 using 2 x 2GB DDR3 1600 (with 512 MB RAM dedicate to iGPU- I can't find a way to change this in the BIOS.) Therefore I am not entirely sure how much the Athlon 5350 results carry over.

 

[Abwx]

Like this perhaps.

 

[cbn]

I'm done with the first phase of multiplayer testing for Athlon 5350 on Team Fortress 2.

(This phase involved changing resolution with the lowest detail settings being used as a constant.)

Some basic observations:

1. The game appears to spread the load out primarily to three cpu cores. (Activity does exist on core four, but it is extremely light)

2. Some player character classes appear to stress the game more than others. For example, I seem to get the lowest frame rates while playing the Scout.

3. According to FRAPS minimum frame rates have dropped to as low as 16 on multiple logs. I have tested this on resolutions as low as 800 x 600 with lowest settings and it still happens.

4. Determining average frame rate is extremely difficult because once my player dies (and I am waiting to respawn) the frame rate shoots up much higher than what it was in game. With that mentioned, average frame rate appears to be > 30 FPS up to 1920 x 1080 (lowest settings). Some variation in average FPS appears to be dependent on map and number of players.

Overall, I will give the Athlon 5350 a pass (for casual gamers) on Team Fortress 2 up to 1920 x 1080 (lowest settings). However, the minimum frame rates reported by FRAPs can be alarmingly low. As I have mentioned, lowering resolution does not help the reported minimums. Ideally I would like to see AM1 with a higher clock on the CPU in order to help the minimum FPS.

 

[Abwx]

You should had tested with 1gb ram, it s easy to set on the bios, there s inherently a menu that allow this given that the MSI has quite a complete one.

 

[BSim500]

Seems like a pointless academic argument when you initially rule out the best option in the vast, vast majority of cases, that being a low end cpu like the 3258, i3, FX6300 or Athlon x4 760 with a discrete card.

^ This. If you intend to play games just buy a discrete card, even if it's a cheap 2nd hand 7790 on Ebay. Out of the 3 people I know who built an iGPU based rig for gaming, all 3 ended up with a discrete card less than 3 months down the line. It's not just about average fps but min fps too and when your game hits a heavy spot and slows down to 6fps, for the sake of an extra $50 for +150% performance...

 

[monkeydelmagico]

^ This. If you intend to play games just buy a discrete card, even if it's a cheap 2nd hand 7790 on Ebay. Out of the 3 people I know who built an iGPU based rig for gaming, all 3 ended up with a discrete card less than 3 months down the line. It's not just about average fps but min fps too and when your game hits a heavy spot and slows down to 6fps, for the sake of an extra $50 for +150% performance...

Falls on deaf ears in this thread. They've gone so far down the rabbit hole reality is a distorted echo.

FWIW the OP had a very narrow use case and build parameters hence the academic debate on how best to meet that challenge. I stick by my page 1 A8-7600 build. Nothing I've seen here so far will outperform it (except, of course, a proper dGPU gaming build).

 

[cbn]

You should had tested with 1gb ram, it s easy to set on the bios, there s inherently a menu that allow this given that the MSI has quite a complete one.

MSI AM1l does not have the ability to change the amount of ram dedicated to the iGPU. (I actually had to get the video memory amount from HWiNFO64 because it wasn't listed in the BIOS).

With that mentioned, I doubt 512MB vs. 1GB will matter at these low detail settings we are testing. In fact, when I originally started doing benchmarks with my Pentium G3258 @ G3220 speeds it didn't occur to me to change video memory in BIOS. So I ended up collecting a good amount of Dirt 3 benchmark data at the default 64MB video memory. Later on, when I changed to 512 MB and redid the benchmarks I noticed there was no difference in the frame rates.

 

[cbn]

^ This. If you intend to play games just buy a discrete card

I already have a discrete video card for my main rig.

I want to know how much performance a person can squeeze out of the cheap processors for use in a secondary gaming PC.

 

[MiddleOfTheRoad]

^ This. If you intend to play games just buy a discrete card, even if it's a cheap 2nd hand 7790 on Ebay. Out of the 3 people I know who built an iGPU based rig for gaming, all 3 ended up with a discrete card less than 3 months down the line. It's not just about average fps but min fps too and when your game hits a heavy spot and slows down to 6fps, for the sake of an extra $50 for +150% performance...

I run the onboard graphics on my backup desktop (mostly for friends on LAN gaming night).... It's a lowly A6-6400K, but games perfectly fine at 720p. I have no plans to upgrade to a dedicated video card. The FM2 APU's are "good enough" for many people. As long as the APU has DDR3 1600 or better, the onboard graphics are adequate.

 

[cbn]

Tomb Raider is on sale at Steam ($3.99 till Friday) so I picked it up because I knew it had a built in gaming benchmark.

So here are the results I got with my Athlon 5350 (2 x 2 GB DDR3 1600 with 512 MB dedicated to iGPU):

800 x 600 (detail settings: Lowest possible):

avg FPS 39.9
min FPS 30.0

1024 x 768 (detail settings: Lowest possible):

avg FPS 26.9
min FPS 21.8

1366 x 768 (detail settings: Lowest possible):

avg FPS 20.9
min FPS 15.5

P.S. If anyone knows of any more games on sale (with built-in benchmarks) please either post in this thread or PM me and I will buy the game and test it using my small inventory of low end processors (G3258, Athlon 5350, A6-5400K)

 

[Yuriman]

Frontpage is Baytrail C0 refresh posted.

Major takeaways:
Now supports Quicksync
Dual channel memory
Similar performance @ 10w to 25w Athlon 5350
Lower cost @ ~$70 for a J1900 (quad core) + motherboard
Not socketed, no upgrade path
Most boards use notebook memory
IGP is ~half as fast as AMD's

I think that if not planning to use the IGP, a J1900 seems a much better choice than Kabini. You get quicksync, lower power usage, and similar performance and features at a lower price. No mention of overclocking, which gives Kabini some appeal.

 

[Abwx]

Frontpage is Baytrail C0 refresh posted.

Major takeaways:
Now supports Quicksync
Dual channel memory
Similar performance @ 10w to 25w Athlon 5350
Lower cost @ ~$70 for a J1900 (quad core) + motherboard
Not socketed, no upgrade path
Most boards use notebook memory
IGP is ~half as fast as AMD's

I think that if not planning to use the IGP, a J1900 seems a much better choice than Kabini. You get quicksync, lower power usage, and similar performance and features at a lower price. No mention of overclocking, which gives Kabini some appeal.

Get us some real FP bench, you know that 3d particle run on X87 on AMD and SSE3 on Intel CPUs.?.

It s terrible that ultra rigged benches are used to compare CPUs...

 

[Yuriman]

Get us some real FP bench, you know that 3d particle run on X87 on AMD and SSE3 on Intel CPUs.?.

It s terrible that ultra rigged benches are used to compare CPUs...

The benches on the frontpage were limited as it wasn't gaming-focused, and I wasn't aware of the large FP gap between the two.

 

[Abwx]

The benches on the frontpage were limited as it wasn't gaming-focused, and I wasn't aware of the large FP gap between the two.

Let s see the FP perfs with the usual suspects benches, the 5350 could be advantaged by AVX in Povray but not in CBench 11.5, dont know on R15, the new BT revision is about the same as the previous one perfs wise :

 

[Enigmoid]

Let s see the FP perfs with the usual suspects benches, the 5350 could be advantaged by AVX in Povray but not in CBench 11.5, dont know on R15, the new BT revision is about the same as the previous one perfs wise :

<SNIP>

POV-ray doesn't use FMA or AVX to any large extent.

 

[cbn]

I think that if not planning to use the IGP, a J1900 seems a much better choice than Kabini. You get quicksync, lower power usage, and similar performance and features at a lower price. No mention of overclocking, which gives Kabini some appeal.

You mean using a video card with the J1900 for gaming?

The only boards I see with physical PCI-E x 16 slot are a Foxconn J1900 Mini-ITX and the ASRock J1900 Micro-ATX boards, but keep in mind these run x1 electrically AFAIK.

Now it may be that the PCI-E x1 slots on some of the other J1900 boards could be modified (ie, the closed part in the rear of the slot opened up) to accept a small PCI-E x16 card. However, there would need to be enough open space behind the pci-e x 1 slot to let the card fit.

Plaguing both methods of installation is the limited PCI-E 2.0 x1 bandwidth. How much video card can be used with a single pci-e lane?