I play on MAX, I play on AMD

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Seba

Golden Member
Sep 17, 2000
1,497
144
106
Granted those will actually start on 2 thread cpu, which is often not the case novadays...
And how many games that need more than 2 cores are there? Excluding those that were artificially limited to 2 cores and that limitation was removed afterwards by a patch (official or unofficial). That is not "often" by any measure.

From the remaining games limited to more than 2 cores, how many ca be played on integrated graphics anyway? None.
 

LTC8K6

Lifer
Mar 10, 2004
28,520
1,575
126
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.

And in such games, Intel's igp probably works just fine.

AMD has essentially been caught up to in the igp dept.

Skylake with eDram is the big question out there. It should be very good.

We've only seen the GT2 or lower version of the Skylake igp. There are much faster versions coming, apparently.


HD Graphics 510, GT1 – 12 execution units
HD Graphics 515, GT2 – 24 execution units, up to 384 GFLOPS at 1 GHz
HD Graphics 520, GT2 – 24 execution units, up to 403.2 GFLOPS at 1.05 GHz
HD Graphics 530, GT2 – 24 execution units, up to 441.6 GFLOPS at 1.15 GHz[16]
HD Graphics P530, GT2 – 24 execution units
Iris Graphics 540, GT3e – 48 execution units with 64 MB of eDRAM
Iris Graphics 550, GT3e – 48 execution units with 64 MB of eDRAM (the same as 540 but with a higher maximum clock and TDP), up to 844.8 GFLOPS at 1.1 GHz
Iris Pro Graphics 580, GT4e – 72 execution units with 64 or 128 MB of eDRAM, 1152 GFLOPS at 1 GHz
 

Erenhardt

Diamond Member
Dec 1, 2012
3,251
105
101
And how many games that need more than 2 cores are there? Excluding those that were artificially limited to 2 cores and that limitation was removed afterwards by a patch (official or unofficial). That is not "often" by any measure.

Doesn't matter. Actually, it could be Santa disabled games on your 2 core cpu because you were a bad boy this year for all I care.

Fact: There are new games coming out that will not run AT ALL on CPU with 2 threads. End of story.

From the remaining games limited to more than 2 cores, how many ca be played on integrated graphics anyway? None.

Technically all of them as long as there is a driver support and the game is free of bugs that prevent it from running.
 
Aug 11, 2008
10,451
642
126
Which games are there that wont run on 2 cores? As far as I know, only one or two games have not been patched to run on 2 cores. And I agree with Seba, those games (if there are any left) that dont run on a dual core may "run" on an igp, but playing them will be a very poor experience, most likely sub 1080p at very low settings and maybe barely making 30 fps at best.
 

Seba

Golden Member
Sep 17, 2000
1,497
144
106
Yeah, he can not name any game that meets that criteria (will not run on a dual core, with or without a patch, but will be playable on current integrated graphics; just because the game can be launched does not necessarily mean that you can actually play it).

He also makes only a vague statement about some unnamed "future games".

How far in the future? Are we talking about games that will be released this year or, at most, next year? Or are we talking about games that will be released in, say, 3-5 years from now?
 

Erenhardt

Diamond Member
Dec 1, 2012
3,251
105
101
Which games are there that wont run on 2 cores? As far as I know, only one or two games have not been patched to run on 2 cores. And I agree with Seba, those games (if there are any left) that dont run on a dual core may "run" on an igp, but playing them will be a very poor experience, most likely sub 1080p at very low settings and maybe barely making 30 fps at best.

Are we talking about true PC gaming experience? Then 2 threads are even greater failure:
gtav_vhigh_cpu8yaxg.png


Can;t say it doesn't run on 2 thread... but watching google images gives more frames a second! LOL
 
Last edited:

AtenRa

Lifer
Feb 2, 2009
14,001
3,357
136
Every time the same old thing.

Yes you can buy a dual Core Celeron/Pentium + dGPU but you compromise taking two less CPU cores and loose the ability to use a slim SFF case.

But,

A8-7600 at $90.00 has no competition
There is no dual core + dGPU at that price, also at that price Intel iGPUs suck big time in almost everything.
 

Seba

Golden Member
Sep 17, 2000
1,497
144
106
Are we talking about true PC gaming experience? Then 2 threads are even greater failure:
gtav_vhigh_cpu8yaxg.png


Can;t say it doesn't run on 2 thread... but watching google images gives more frames a second! LOL

No. We are talking about $140 APU vs. Pentium Haswell + GTX 750 combo for the same $140.

GTX 970 used in your benchmark results does not have any place in this comparison.
 

Seba

Golden Member
Sep 17, 2000
1,497
144
106
Every time the same old thing.

Yes you can buy a dual Core Celeron/Pentium + dGPU but you compromise taking two less CPU cores and loose the ability to use a slim SFF case.

But,

A8-7600 at $90.00 has no competition
There is no dual core + dGPU at that price, also at that price Intel iGPUs suck big time in almost everything.
So, you will not choose the best solution for the money? The "slim SFF case" criteria is arbitrary.

It's possible that even A8-7600 may be countered by the cheapest Celeron Haswell (~$40) and a GT 740 on sale for $50, or something like that. I do not look at such poor performance level anyway, so there may not be a suitable combo in the $90 budget. You might have a "winner" at that price point, but the performance of A8-7600 is even lower than that of the $140 APU (obviously).
 

Erenhardt

Diamond Member
Dec 1, 2012
3,251
105
101
No. We are talking about $140 APU vs. Pentium Haswell + GTX 750 combo for the same $140.

apples to oranges, I see. Why not compare it against athlon + gtx750
I thought we were discussing igp performance, but hey, switch them goals.

Going route of 2 threads+ dgpu is like shooting yourself in the foot. You get a nice gpu performance and then cripple it with stutterfest.

In the given example 3258K@4,5 had average performance of fx8350, but was actually worst than old phenom 965.

If I ever want to torture someone I will make him play GTA5 on 2 thread CPU with a TITAN X SLI rig.:twisted:

GTX 970 used in your benchmark results does not have any place in this comparison.

LOL, it will not get any better with slower card, trust me.
 

Seba

Golden Member
Sep 17, 2000
1,497
144
106
apples to oranges, I see. Why not compare it against athlon + gtx750
I thought we were discussing igp performance, but hey, switch them goals.

Going route of 2 threads+ dgpu is like shooting yourself in the foot. You get a nice gpu performance and then cripple it with stutterfest.

In the given example 3258K@4,5 had average performance of fx8350, but was actually worst than old phenom 965.

If I ever want to torture someone I will make him play GTA5 on 2 thread CPU with a TITAN X SLI rig.:twisted:
You don't get it, do you?

It's a CPU with only integrated graphics versus a cheaper CPU with dedicated graphics, but in the same budget.

It is not apples vs. oranges. The "fruit" in question here is the budget. And that is the same ($140).
LOL, it will not get any better with slower card, trust me.
Try WITH NO DISCRETE CARD. Not a slower than GTX 970 card. An APU (or Intel quad core CPU) does not come with a GTX 970 attached in that $140 budget.
 
Last edited:

Erenhardt

Diamond Member
Dec 1, 2012
3,251
105
101
You don't get it, do you?

It's a CPU with only integrated graphics versus a cheaper CPU with dedicated graphics, but in the same budget.

It is not apples vs. oranges. The "fruit" in question here is the budget. And that is the same.
Then why not compare cpu+dgpu to cpu+dgpu at the same pricepoints?
Try WITH NO DISCRETE CARD. Not a slower than GTX 970 card. An APU does not come with a GTX 970 attached in that $140 budget.

But a freaking pentium + gtx750 does. Jeez...
 

LTC8K6

Lifer
Mar 10, 2004
28,520
1,575
126
A8-7600 is 384:24:8 or roughly an R7-250, but with a much slower core clock and ddr3.
 
Last edited:

AtenRa

Lifer
Feb 2, 2009
14,001
3,357
136
So, you will not choose the best solution for the money?

The best solution for the money depends on what you are looking for.

If you only want the best perf/$ for gaming and you dont care about the dual core CPU then the CPU + dGPU will be the one to get.

If you want the best perf/$ for the smallest slim SFF case then the APU is the one to get.


It's possible that even A8-7600 may be countered by the cheapest Celeron Haswell (~$40) and a GT 740 on sale for $50, or something like that. I do not look at such poor performance level anyway, so there may not be a suitable combo in the $90 budget. You might have a "winner" at that price point, but the performance of A8-7600 is even lower than that of the $140 APU (obviously).

Perhaps you can have the GT740 at $50 (at times) in the US but everywhere else in the world its price is way higher.
 

Seba

Golden Member
Sep 17, 2000
1,497
144
106
Then why not compare cpu+dgpu to cpu+dgpu at the same pricepoints?
Because this thread is about the (only) selling point of APUs: gaming at a low budget.

But a freaking pentium + gtx750 does. Jeez...
I asked you to show games that do not run on a dual core CPU (because it is only a dual core), but are playable on a [more than dual core] CPU with only the integrated graphics.

You posted a GTA 5 benchmark with various CPUs, all paired with a GTX 970. "Jeez..", indeed.
 
Last edited:

Seba

Golden Member
Sep 17, 2000
1,497
144
106
The best solution for the money depends on what you are looking for.

If you only want the best perf/$ for gaming and you dont care about the dual core CPU then the CPU + dGPU will be the one to get.

If you want the best perf/$ for the smallest slim SFF case then the APU is the one to get.
The focus of this thread is the usage of APUs for playing games. In this case, a Pentium Haswell + GTX 750 ($140 combined price) gives higher performance than a $140 APU.

For other purposes, the criteria may be different, so the results/best choices may be different. I am referring strictly at gaming in this thread.
 

AtenRa

Lifer
Feb 2, 2009
14,001
3,357
136
The focus of this thread is the usage of APUs for playing games. In this case, a Pentium Haswell + GTX 750 ($140 combined price) gives higher performance than a $140 APU.

For other purposes, the criteria may be different, so the results/best choices may be different. I am referring strictly at gaming in this thread.

And i said that if you want the best perf/$ for a small slim SFF case to play games the AMD APU at $140 is the only option, unless you want to spend more than double to go for the Intel Broadwell Iris GT3e and have less than 10% higher performance.

Also, lets wait and see the first Core i3 Skylake reviews and see how much slower it will be vs the Core i7 and especially vs AMD APUs at the same or higher price.
 

Raftina

Member
Jun 25, 2015
39
0
0
I asked you to show games that do not run on a dual core CPU (because it is only a dual core), but are playable on a [more than dual core] CPU with only the integrated graphics.

You posted a GTA 5 benchmark with various CPUs, all paired with a GTX 970. "Jeez..", indeed.
Let us take a step back: Show us games that are playable on a Pentium+750 but not playable on iGP.

Keep in mind that perception of continuous motion requires a minimum of 24 fps, so any definition of playable must provide for at least 24 fps minimum.

Erenhardt has already shown us a benchmark that says there are CPU limitations to having 2T--see the 11 fps minimum on the OCd Pentium. It is up to you to rebut it--with more than a link to the first page of a thread that consists mostly of posts explaining the importance of showing fps consistency.
 

Seba

Golden Member
Sep 17, 2000
1,497
144
106
And i said that if you want the best perf/$ for a small slim SFF case to play games the AMD APU at $140 is the only option, unless you want to spend more than double to go for the Intel Broadwell Iris GT3e and have less than 10% higher performance.

Also, lets wait and see the first Core i3 Skylake reviews and see how much slower it will be vs the Core i7 and especially vs AMD APUs at the same or higher price.

Except that this thread is not about SFF.
 

cbn

Lifer
Mar 27, 2009
12,968
221
106
And i said that if you want the best perf/$ for a small slim SFF case to play games the AMD APU at $140 is the only option

For idle power consumption, I do wonder how the APUs compare to CPU + dGPU?

Lets say Athlon x 4 860K + R7 250 vs. A10-7850K......idle power consumption difference?
 

cbn

Lifer
Mar 27, 2009
12,968
221
106
with more than a link to the first page of a thread that consists mostly of posts explaining the importance of showing fps consistency.

Here are some specific posts in that thread:

http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=37502587&postcount=23

http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=37511615&postcount=37 (Notice the part quoted at the end of theELF's post which mentions the effect of GPU bottleneck on stutter)

http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=37518505&postcount=71

Something I am interested in testing (or finding info about) at some point:

http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=37519730&postcount=88

http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=37523191&postcount=118
 
Last edited:
Aug 11, 2008
10,451
642
126
Let us take a step back: Show us games that are playable on a Pentium+750 but not playable on iGP.

Keep in mind that perception of continuous motion requires a minimum of 24 fps, so any definition of playable must provide for at least 24 fps minimum.

Erenhardt has already shown us a benchmark that says there are CPU limitations to having 2T--see the 11 fps minimum on the OCd Pentium. It is up to you to rebut it--with more than a link to the first page of a thread that consists mostly of posts explaining the importance of showing fps consistency.

Erenhardt is the one who made the statement of games not running on a dual thread cpu. You are just moving the goalposts again. I am still waiting for Erenhardt to provide specific games that will not run on dual thread cpus.

In any case, this is just a deflection about how poor the gaming is on an APU by trying to say "oh, dual core is even worse". Even if you accept that (which in most cases I do not), it is just a red herring because for only about 40 dollars more one can get an Athlon X4 and something like a HD7770 or GTX750/750Ti and have a much better experience. That is why I dont really understand why AMD fans are so obsessed with proving APUs are a good gaming choice on the desktop. Even if one refuses to buy Intel or nVidia, AMDs own lineup offers a hugely better solution at very close to the same price.