I play on MAX, I play on AMD

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Erenhardt

Diamond Member
Dec 1, 2012
3,251
105
101
Whelp, you missed my not so well made point. One can set settings so that the weak cpu will not let the gpu fly. Or the other way around.
Amd has strong igp, intel has strong cpu. Reviewer can choose settings to show one part ahead of the other.

oh, and wake me up when intel releases apu as powerful as ps4 ;)
 

Boze

Senior member
Dec 20, 2004
634
14
91
So you need AMD's top of the line APU for $140 to get less performance than you would from a dual-core Pentium Haswell and a GTX 750 as Seba pointed out.

Where's the draw? Even if you're building a SFF system, you can get ITX versions of a lot of NVIDIA cards.

If this is supposed to convince people to buy AMD again, I don't see how it would? All this shows me is that in another two years - assuming AMD is even alive then, and that looks unlikely - Intel will have thoroughly crushed AMD in every way possible.
 

LTC8K6

Lifer
Mar 10, 2004
28,520
1,575
126
The Core i3 6100 HD530 is 10-15% slower than the HD530 on the Core i7 6700K.

Look how slow the HD530 on the Core i5 6600K is, on the Core i3 6100 it will be even slower than that.

What it looks like to me is that where the Intel igp is unplayable, so is the AMD igp.

Where the AMD igp is playable, so is the intel igp.
 
Aug 11, 2008
10,451
642
126
Whelp, you missed my not so well made point. One can set settings so that the weak cpu will not let the gpu fly. Or the other way around.
Amd has strong igp, intel has strong cpu. Reviewer can choose settings to show one part ahead of the other.

oh, and wake me up when intel releases apu as powerful as ps4 ;)

I would just as certainly argue that you missed my point, or are ignoring it.

And what does the PS4 have to do with any of this? What laptop does that come in?
 

Phynaz

Lifer
Mar 13, 2006
10,140
819
126
Whelp, you missed my not so well made point. One can set settings so that the weak cpu will not let the gpu fly. Or the other way around.
Amd has strong igp, intel has strong cpu. Reviewer can choose settings to show one part ahead of the other.

oh, and wake me up when intel releases apu as powerful as ps4 ;)

The difference is I can supplement a weak GPU with a discreet card. I cant do that with a weak CPU.
 

AtenRa

Lifer
Feb 2, 2009
14,001
3,357
136
What it looks like to me is that where the Intel igp is unplayable, so is the AMD igp.

Where the AMD igp is playable, so is the intel igp.

Look again,

AMD iGPU playable, Intel iGPU not playable. And this is not the only game.

cc9c4395-3f3d-4198-bfcc-9851c67473b4.png
 

AtenRa

Lifer
Feb 2, 2009
14,001
3,357
136
The difference is I can supplement a weak GPU with a discreet card. I cant do that with a weak CPU.

I can play every game even the latest AAA of 2015 with the A8-7600 + HD7950. Im sure i could play all the games even with higher IQ using a faster dGPU like the R9 390 or Fury Nano.
 

LTC8K6

Lifer
Mar 10, 2004
28,520
1,575
126
Look again,

AMD iGPU playable, Intel iGPU not playable. And this is not the only game.

cc9c4395-3f3d-4198-bfcc-9851c67473b4.png

Ummm...why is an Intel igp the fastest thing on your chart then?

Actually though, if the average is 40fps, I consider that unplayable, even though Intel is the fastest.
So, all of those fall under "unplayable" to me.
 

JamesDax3

Junior Member
Oct 8, 2015
10
0
0
Ummm...why is an Intel igp the fastest thing on your chart then?

Actually though, if the average is 40fps, I consider that unplayable, even though Intel is the fastest.
So, all of those fall under "unplayable" to me.

Umm... the fact that a $490 i7 is less than 4 fps faster then a $140 A10 is quite telling. And perhaps 40fps isn't playable to you but to me, for $140, it's quite acceptable.
 

Sweepr

Diamond Member
May 12, 2006
5,148
1,142
131
Core i5 5675C provides that iGPU performance at $274. The CPU performance this chip provides for smooth high-end dGPU gaming alone could justify the price for some people. Having the best iGPU on the market comes as a nice bonus.
 
Aug 11, 2008
10,451
642
126
Umm... the fact that a $490 i7 is less than 4 fps faster then a $140 A10 is quite telling. And perhaps 40fps isn't playable to you but to me, for $140, it's quite acceptable.

Or for about 40.00 more than the 7850k you could get probably twice the performance with an 80.00 CPU and a hundred dollar discrete card.
 

Phynaz

Lifer
Mar 13, 2006
10,140
819
126
I can play every game even the latest AAA of 2015 with the A8-7600 + HD7950. Im sure i could play all the games even with higher IQ using a faster dGPU like the R9 390 or Fury Nano.

Way to move the goalposts again. We're talking about iGPU here.

Don't give up the fight man! ADF forever!
 
Last edited:

Phynaz

Lifer
Mar 13, 2006
10,140
819
126
Actually though, if the average is 40fps, I consider that unplayable, even though Intel is the fastest.
So, all of those fall under "unplayable" to me.

This. With v-sync that's actually 30fps with dips to 15.
 

DAPUNISHER

Super Moderator CPU Forum Mod and Elite Member
Super Moderator
Aug 22, 2001
28,698
21,289
146
Or for about 40.00 more than the 7850k you could get probably twice the performance with an 80.00 CPU and a hundred dollar discrete card.
We can all move the goal post. If we leave it where it was originally set i.e. iGPU, AMD compares quite favorably on value. We start talking about what we can do for the same money, and it turns into general hardware fodder.

Contain it to absolute performance of iGPU and Intel has picked it up very well. And gameplay.intel.com is a nice offering too.

Which brings me to a question: How often are they updating drivers now? This was always the low point of their graphics.
 
Aug 11, 2008
10,451
642
126
We can all move the goal post. If we leave it where it was originally set i.e. iGPU, AMD compares quite favorably on value. We start talking about what we can do for the same money, and it turns into general hardware fodder.

Contain it to absolute performance of iGPU and Intel has picked it up very well. And gameplay.intel.com is a nice offering too.

Which brings me to a question: How often are they updating drivers now? This was always the low point of their graphics.

I dont see it as "moving the goal posts" to consider all options. Especially if you want to consider "value", gaming on the desktop with any apu, AMD or intel is an extremely poor value, when for about 10% or less of the system cost you can get 50 to 100% better performance.
 

cbn

Lifer
Mar 27, 2009
12,968
221
106
http://promotions.newegg.com/amd/15-4678/index.html

Interesting little marketing campaign. I assume that they are comparing to other iGPUs, and not discrete.

Edit: Took the parameters off of the link. Still works for me. Maybe it checks referrer, try going to Newegg.com, then copy + paste the link into the same window.

Copy and paste worked for me.

They listed A10-7870K (with dual channel DDR3 2400 RAM) at up to 89 FPS for 1080p max settings in League of legends and up to 61.96 FPS for 1080p ultra settings in CS:GO.

For the A8-7670K (with dual channel DDR3 2133 RAM) at up to 84 FPS for 1080p max settings in League of legends and up to 54.18 FPS for 1080p ultra settings in CS:GO.
 

cbn

Lifer
Mar 27, 2009
12,968
221
106
When comparing the APU to CPU vs dGPU (for the same money) several factors need to be considered:

1. CPU throttling on the Kaveri APU during iGPU load. (Athlon x4 860K doesn't have this problem)
2. Price of dual channel 2 x 4GB DDR3 2133/DDR4 2400 RAM vs. dual channel kit 2 x 4GB 1600 kit (or maybe even one 8GB DDR3 1600 stick)
3. Resolution being tested. In the low resolution case shown below a Athlon x4 860K plus R7 240 DDR3 beats a A10-7850K with dual channel DDR4 2400:

17-IGP-GTA-V.png
 

LTC8K6

Lifer
Mar 10, 2004
28,520
1,575
126
Umm... the fact that a $490 i7 is less than 4 fps faster then a $140 A10 is quite telling. And perhaps 40fps isn't playable to you but to me, for $140, it's quite acceptable.

38fps average is unplayable on any card or system. It's going to be dipping well below 38 much of the time.

Also, the i5-5675C has the same igp. It's currently about $300.

Also, the Broadwell chips are still Gen8, whereas Skylake is Gen9.
 
Last edited:
Aug 11, 2008
10,451
642
126
I am not advocating igpu gaming, because there are much better options on the desktop, but your definition of "playable" certainly is much more demanding than mine. I played W3 on a HD7770 at around 30 FPS. Not to quibble over terms, but it certainly was "playable" because I finished the game. Now it was not optimal, and certainly not up to your standards apparently, but definitely playable.
 

Shehriazad

Senior member
Nov 3, 2014
555
2
46
If you're playing RPGs, singleplayer games, slow to medium paced games (Diablo 3 would be a good example of medium paced)...then 30fps is very much playable.

I mean on my first OWN PC I played through the entire Neverwinter Nights + Expansions on a whopping 5-10 fps...turn based games might as well run with 1 fps, lmao.

I mean sure...you should not play competitive games below 60 fps...but calling 30 fps unplayable is reaaaaally stretching it. Oh and don't get me wrong...I'm not saying Godavari is what everyone should buy...but it definitely has a right to exist, because let's face it, if you aren't playing with a dedicated GPU on a Desktop it would probably revolve around either the fact that you want a small PC or a money issue...especially considering the fact that a majority of PC users have very little clue about hardware and their competitiveness because all they're ever told about is how awesome those new 600$ Graphics cards are.

To someone with only like 300$-400$ to spend on an entire system, an APU must look awesome when looking at "all dem fps". All in all AMD is trying to market to the right people here...just way too late.
 
Last edited:

cbn

Lifer
Mar 27, 2009
12,968
221
106
It's a decent marketing move on AMD's part. Game's like LoL, Dota2, and CS:GO have huge player bases. Why not let the public know that you can play games like that "just fine" with an AMD APU like the 7870k? It's not like they need a GTX 980Ti or anything.

For CS:GO, I do wonder how these APUs compare to the new Skylake Pentium G4500...and if the G4500 does throttle the CPU when its GT2 iGPU is under load?

My 4.3 Ghz Pentium G3258 could run Prime95 and Furmark together without throttling, but the stock heatsink is rated at 95W and the iGPU is only GT1 (though my CPU was overclocked as I mentioned).

If the G4500 doesn't throttle then I bet we would get some great FPS numbers from it in a game like CS:G0, but no way do I believe it would handle 1080p ultra settings like an AMD APU would.

However, as I mentioned in post #43 the AMD APUs are only claiming up to 61.96 FPS (A10-7870K) and 54.18 FPS (A8-7670K) for 1080p ultra in CS:GO. This suggest average FPS in the game are much lower. The question is what processor is better at holding 60 FPS minimum? And what settings is each processor capable of using to accomplish this feat?
 
Last edited:

AtenRa

Lifer
Feb 2, 2009
14,001
3,357
136
The difference is I can supplement a weak GPU with a discreet card. I cant do that with a weak CPU.

I can play every game even the latest AAA of 2015 with the A8-7600 + HD7950. Im sure i could play all the games even with higher IQ using a faster dGPU like the R9 390 or Fury Nano.

Way to move the goalposts again. We're talking about iGPU here.

Don't give up the fight man! ADF forever!

Really ?? Whos moving the goal posts here ??