You don't need $40 more:
Granted those will actually start on 2 thread cpu, which is often not the case novadays...
You don't need $40 more:
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.Granted those will actually start on 2 thread cpu, which is often not the case novadays...
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 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.
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:
![]()
Can;t say it doesn't run on 2 thread... but watching google images gives more frames a second! LOL
So, you will not choose the best solution for the money? The "slim SFF case" criteria is arbitrary.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.
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.
Are we talking about true PC gaming experience? Then 2 threads are even greater failure:
![]()
Can;t say it doesn't run on 2 thread... but watching google images gives more frames a second! LOL
You don't get it, do you?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:
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.LOL, it will not get any better with slower card, trust me.
Then why not compare cpu+dgpu to cpu+dgpu at the same pricepoints?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.
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.
So, you will not choose the best solution for the money?
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).
Because this thread is about the (only) selling point of APUs: gaming at a low budget.Then why not compare cpu+dgpu to cpu+dgpu at the same pricepoints?
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.But a freaking pentium + gtx750 does. Jeez...
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 $140 APU.The best solution for the money depends on what you are looking for.
If you only want the best perf/$ 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 $140 APU.
For other purposes, the criteria may be different, so the results/best choices may be different. I am referring strictly at gaming in this thread.
Let us take a step back: Show us games that are playable on a Pentium+750 but not playable on iGP.I asked you to show games that do not run on a dual core CPU (because it is only a dual core), but are playable on a [more than dual core] CPU with only the integrated graphics.
You posted a GTA 5 benchmark with various CPUs, all paired with a GTX 970. "Jeez..", indeed.
And i said that if you want the best perf/$ for a small slim SFF case to play games the AMD APU at $140 is the only option, unless you want to spend more than double to go for the Intel Broadwell Iris GT3e and have less than 10% higher performance.
Also, lets wait and see the first Core i3 Skylake reviews and see how much slower it will be vs the Core i7 and especially vs AMD APUs at the same or higher price.
And i said that if you want the best perf/$ for a small slim SFF case to play games the AMD APU at $140 is the only option
with more than a link to the first page of a thread that consists mostly of posts explaining the importance of showing fps consistency.
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.