I play on MAX, I play on AMD

[Phynaz]

His ability to move the goalposts in unrivaled. He'll move them at least three times in every thread.

It's happened twice already, expect a third time in the next 24 hours

See that? Goalposts moved again, now it's online fps without vsync. Only took him a few hours too

 

[YBS1]

Nobody? I garantee you are wrong.

But thanks for pointing out the compromises you have to make to play with an APU.

I don't know if I'd call that a compromise. You're correct in saying there certainly isn't "nobody" playing with vsync online though, I'm sure screen tearing is aggravating to many. I don't use vsync ever though, contributes to increased input lag.

 

[USER8000]

I could play the game with the sub $100 A8-7600 at nice 40fps and above. No need to play at 28fps.

Thats pretty impressive - the A8 7600 is like £65 in the UK and the G3258 is around £52!

How is the performance at 1600X900??

You would think that PC enthusiasts would be happy that even a cheapo setup could run the game,but obviously not,since they probably would rather have people buy consoles if on a smaller budget especially if they don't build they own PCs.

Each to their own I suppose.

I don't use vsync ever though, contributes to increased input lag.

Same here,the lag is going to be more important in an online shooter.

 

[frozentundra123456]

FC4 and DA:I from top of my head.

Both can be played on APU on medium settings.

I'm not sure about the GTA5 2 threads stutter at lower settings, but I guess it doesn't depend on graphics settings as it is CPU bottleneck. So yea, playing GTA5 on APU is better experience than on the 2 core pentium:

How it is to play GTA5 on pentium:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RGpkNPbSa2Q

Far Cry 4

DA:I

And here is GTAV that you have been touting as such a great experience on an APU

GTAV Cant even make 30 FPS on lowest settings. Can hardly wait to play that.

Edit: Oh and here is Battlefront Battlefront Another great experience on an APU.

 

[cbn]

1. CPU throttling on the Kaveri APU during iGPU load. (Athlon x4 860K doesn't have this problem)

You are a broken record. Most end-users won't even notice. Just out of curiosity, have you bothered benching a 7870k running TF2 or LoL or DotA2 etc. with and without amdmsrtweaker being used to defeat the iGPU throttling? Or have you seen anyone else do it? I'd like to know if all that throttling actually makes any difference in framerates.

If you look at the GTA V 720p low results I posted, A10-7850K (CPU @ 3.7/4.0) with dual channel DDR3 2400 RAM loses to a Athlon x4 860K (CPU @ 3.7/4.0) with R7 240. This even though the Athlon x4 860K's R7 240 GPU (320sp @ 720/780) is significantly weaker than the A10-7850K's iGPU (512sp @ 720). My assumption is that the difference in performance must be due to the A10-7850K's CPU throttling.

With that mentioned, yes I am interested in seeing how A10-7850K performs vs. Athlon x4 860K + various low end dGPU in the type of games (CS:GO, etc) mentioned in this thread. In fact, a Linux comparison would also be awesome because I remember you mentioning AMD APUs do not throttle in Linux.

P.S. Regarding AMDMSRTweaker, the utility needs a lot of work in order to make it useable for the non technically inclined.

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)

Are we still talking about Skylake i3 here?

No, I brought up this up because a comparison of APU to Athlon x 4 860K + dGPU was being made by some of the previous posters (see posts #40 through #42). And the memory prices do factor into the total cost.

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:

Yeah, I figured that's where you were going with that. It's a nice thought, but you haven't got the 7870k in that benchmark, and some folks just don't want the hassle of a dGPU anyway. Someday all those deprecated low-end dGPUs will leave the channel, and Nvidia/AMD will do nothing to replace them. What'll you do then?

AMD can't really leave the low end too much because Nvidia would grab even more marketshare from them. In fact I think AMD needs something better at the low end (re: According to Tom's monthly best GPU for the money price guide Nvidia has consistently gotten the low end spot with the GT 730 GDDR5 for quite some time now. See link below for the current price guide: )

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-graphics-card-review,3107-2.html

P.S. Eventually I expect that GT 730 GDDR5 (64 bit) to be replaced by Maxwell in the form of a GM108 GT 930 (384 Maxwell cores with 64 bit GDDR5) and a GM108 GT 920 (384 or 256 Maxwell cores with 64 bit DDR3)

 

[AtenRa]

Nobody? I garantee you are wrong.

But thanks for pointing out the compromises you have to make to play with an APU.

Seems you dont play on-line fps.

If you play at 30 fps your input lag is at 30ms, enabling vsync will only make it even higher. This will make the game unplayable for you because your opponents will be "faster" than you and you will not be able to shoot them. You will be shot down 99% of the time without even be able to understand what happened.

That is why i said

nobody plays online fps with vsync, especially at sub 60fps.

 

[DrMrLordX]

If you look at the GTA V 720p low results I posted, A10-7850K (CPU @ 3.7/4.0) with dual channel DDR3 2400 RAM loses to a Athlon x4 860K (CPU @ 3.7/4.0) with R7 240. This even though the Athlon x4 860K's R7 240 GPU (320sp @ 720/780) is significantly weaker than the A10-7850K's iGPU (512sp @ 720). My assumption is that the difference in performance must be due to the A10-7850K's CPU throttling.

A lot of it is related to the CPU and iGPU fighting for memory bandwidth to the same bank of memory, whereas that is not happening with a dGPU in play.

In fact, a Linux comparison would also be awesome because I remember you mentioning AMD APUs do not throttle in Linux.

Correct. That behavior is peculiar to Windows. They don't experience p5 throttling during heavy iGPU usage.

No, I brought up this up because a comparison of APU to Athlon x 4 860K + dGPU was being made by some of the previous posters (see posts #40 through #42). And the memory prices do factor into the total cost.

The price differential between DDR3-1600 and DDR3-2400 is very small.

AMD can't really leave the low end too much because Nvidia would grab even more marketshare from them.

But they are leaving the low end . . . and so is Nvidia. Neither one of them want to deal with Intel's iGPU onslaught. The sub-$100 video card market is completely stagnant.

 

[cbn]

If you look at the GTA V 720p low results I posted, A10-7850K (CPU @ 3.7/4.0) with dual channel DDR3 2400 RAM loses to a Athlon x4 860K (CPU @ 3.7/4.0) with R7 240. This even though the Athlon x4 860K's R7 240 GPU (320sp @ 720/780) is significantly weaker than the A10-7850K's iGPU (512sp @ 720). My assumption is that the difference in performance must be due to the A10-7850K's CPU throttling.

A lot of it is related to the CPU and iGPU fighting for memory bandwidth to the same bank of memory, whereas that is not happening with a dGPU in play.

If you look at the chart the A10-7850K with DDR3 2400 memory only did slightly better than the A10-7850K with DDR3 2133 memory (63 vs 62 Avg FPS, both with 13 min FPS).

Also, the R7 240 is low bandwidth as well (128 bit DDR3, usually at 1600 speed).

 

[DrMrLordX]

And? You're talking about a CPU that can (theoretically) saturate all available memory bandwidth on its own. A system equipped with DDR3-1600 system memory and DDR3-1600 on the video card (ugh) still has ~33% more available memory bandwidth in sum total than an APU-based system running DDR3-2400, barring the effects of timings on available bandwidth for AMD CPUs.

The point is moot anyway. As others have pointed out, dGPUs in the low-end are no longer profitable enough for AMD or Nvidia to bother with them. Neither firm has released cards below the $100 price point at launch as a part of their latest generation of products. AMD is promoting their APUs as price-competitive convenience products, and it's a relatively good strategy, though it's sort of too little, too late.

 

[cbn]

And? You're talking about a CPU that can (theoretically) saturate all available memory bandwidth on its own. A system equipped with DDR3-1600 system memory and DDR3-1600 on the video card (ugh) still has ~33% more available memory bandwidth in sum total than an APU-based system running DDR3-2400, barring the effects of timings on available bandwidth for AMD CPUs.

At 720p minimum details (in GTA V) I don't think memory bandwidth is the problem.

Reason: Going from DDR3 2133 to DDR3 2400 is a 12.5% increase in bandwidth, yet the avg FPS only increased 1.6%. And the minimum FPS didn't change.

So something else must be at work here.

In a CPU intensive game like GTA V, I believe the most likely cause would be CPU throttling on the APU. So despite its more powerful GPU core (512sp @ 720 Mhz vs. 320sp @ 710/780), its throttling CPU is keeping from jumping ahead of the Athlon x 4 860K and its weaker R7 240.

 

[jihe]

I play on MAX pain, I play on AMD.

 

[frozentundra123456]

Seems you dont play on-line fps.

If you play at 30 fps your input lag is at 30ms, enabling vsync will only make it even higher. This will make the game unplayable for you because your opponents will be "faster" than you and you will not be able to shoot them. You will be shot down 99% of the time without even be able to understand what happened.

That is why i said

Maybe he isnt playing on an APU and can run vsync at 60 FPS.

 

[cbn]

The point is moot anyway. As others have pointed out, dGPUs in the low-end are no longer profitable enough for AMD or Nvidia to bother with them. Neither firm has released cards below the $100 price point at launch as a part of their latest generation of products.

Nvidia still sells very low end dGPUs (GT 720 launched back in August 2014 is based on GK208 with half the cores enabled and 64 bit DDR3).

And we still haven't seen the rest of the Nvidia 9xxx line-up (eg, GT 940, GT 930, GT 920).

Here is what I think will happen:

GT 940: GTX 750/GTX 750 Ti rebranded (This will replace GT 740, which is a rebranded GTX 650)

GT 930: GM108 (ie, Maxwell v1) with 384 cores and 64 bit GDDR5. This will replace the 384 core GK208 GT 730 with 64 bit GDDR5.

GT 920: GM108 (ie, Maxwell v1) with either 384 or 256 cores and 64 bit DDR3. This will replace 192 core GK208 GT 720 with 64 bit DDR3.

P.S. The specs on the Gt 720 also mention a 64 bit GDDR5 option, but we didn't see it in products. I am actually wondering though if this round we see a GT 920 with 256 Maxwell cores and 64 bit GDDR5.

 

[cbn]

The price differential between DDR3-1600 and DDR3-2400 is very small.

Going by current Newegg prices I'm seeing $12 more for 2 x 4GB DDR3 2400 and $8 more for 2 x 4 GB DDR3 2144 compared to 2 x 4 GB DDR3 1600:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produ...39&IsNodeId=1&bop=And&Order=PRICE&PageSize=30 (2 x 4GB DDR3 2400 starting at $47 shipped)

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produ...78&IsNodeId=1&bop=And&Order=PRICE&PageSize=30 (2 x 4GB DDR3 2133 starting at $43 shipped)

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produ...63&IsNodeId=1&bop=And&Order=PRICE&PageSize=30 (2 x 4GB DDR3 1600 starting at $35 shipped. Two kits available at this price)

So while not a huge difference in money, it is something to factor in.

 

[VirtualLarry]

Nvidia still sells very low end dGPUs (GT 720 launched back in August 2014 is based on GK208 with half the cores enabled and 64 bit DDR3).

And we still haven't seen the rest of the Nvidia 9xxx line-up (eg, GT 940, GT 930, GT 920).

Here is what I think will happen:

GT 940: GTX 750/GTX 750 Ti rebranded (This will replace GT 740, which is a rebranded GTX 650)

GT 930: GM108 (ie, Maxwell v1) with 384 cores and 64 bit GDDR5. This will replace the 384 core GK208 GT 730 with 64 bit GDDR5.

GT 920: GM108 (ie, Maxwell v1) with either 384 or 256 cores and 64 bit DDR3. This will replace 192 core GK208 GT 720 with 64 bit DDR3.

But that would all be ... logical. Too logical for NVidia, they have to figure out a clever way to screw over their customers first.

 

[cbn]

Going by current Newegg prices I'm seeing $12 more for 2 x 4GB DDR3 2400 and $8 more for 2 x 4 GB DDR3 2144 compared to 2 x 4 GB DDR3 1600:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produ...39&IsNodeId=1&bop=And&Order=PRICE&PageSize=30 (2 x 4GB DDR3 2400 starting at $47 shipped)

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produ...78&IsNodeId=1&bop=And&Order=PRICE&PageSize=30 (2 x 4GB DDR3 2133 starting at $43 shipped)

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produ...63&IsNodeId=1&bop=And&Order=PRICE&PageSize=30 (2 x 4GB DDR3 1600 starting at $35 shipped. Two kits available at this price)

So while not a huge difference in money, it is something to factor in.

And here is the current APU pricing to further add to the discussion:

http://www.amazon.com/AMD-Athlon-Bl...5075735&sr=1-1-spell&keywords=Athlon+x+4+860K

(Athlon x 4 860K @ 3.7/4.0, $74.99 shipped)

http://www.amazon.com/AMD-7600-Grap...8&qid=1445075628&sr=1-1&keywords=A8+7600+FM2+

(A8-7600 @ 3.1/3.8* with 384sp iGPU, $79.99 shipped)

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819113395

(A8-7670K @ 3.6/3.9* with 384sp, $91.98 shipped)

*Keep in mind the CPU cores on these APUs will throttle below advertised specs when the 384sp iGPU is used during Windows 3D gaming (AMDMSRTweaker is an advanced user utility than can prevent this from happening). For Linux usage it has been reported the cores will not throttle during 3D gaming (without needing to use AMDMSRTweaker), but I am not sure if this only pertains to aftermarket heatsink usage.

 

[Phynaz]

Maybe he isnt playing on an APU and can run vsync at 60 FPS.

We have a winner.

And I also don't have screen tearing, low image quality settings, low resolution, and framerate jitter and input lag jitter.

I'm getting curious why he posted only the raw chart scaled to 60%. Probably because the smoothed chart will point out what an unplayable stutter fest it is, considering his penchant for trying to deceive with cherry picking benchmarks.

 

[DrMrLordX]

Nvidia still sells very low end dGPUs (GT 720 launched back in August 2014 is based on GK208 with half the cores enabled and 64 bit DDR3).

And we still haven't seen the rest of the Nvidia 9xxx line-up (eg, GT 940, GT 930, GT 920).

Here is what I think will happen:

Thanks for making my point. I'll restate: Neither AMD nor Nvidia have actually launched anything from their latest gen of cards in the sub-$100 range. The products you THINK they'll launch aren't there yet, and will probably never hit the market. You know why? 'Cuz Gen9/Gen10, that's why.

They haven't bothered pushing out low-end cards since 2014.

So, going back to the topic, AMD is pushing their APUs with this ad. Obviously they intend for people buying the x4 860k (and eventually, the 870k or 880k) to pair such CPUs with more-powerful dGPUs. For the Steam crowd, an APU is a simple and effective solution for ftp gaming, and they can always cheap-out with the A8-7600 or 7650k if they don't want to pay for a 7870k. The x4-860k + 240 offers no price advantage in that situation.

Btw, NewEgg prices = not always the best. Even then, $12? Seriously? Cmon now. At that point you'd want DDR3-2400 for the 860k as well.

 

[YBS1]

Maybe he isnt playing on an APU and can run vsync at 60 FPS.

60FPS.....Might as well be a console peasant.

 

[cbn]

Thanks for making my point. I'll restate: Neither AMD nor Nvidia have actually launched anything from their latest gen of cards in the sub-$100 range. The products you THINK they'll launch aren't there yet, and will probably never hit the market. You know why? 'Cuz Gen9/Gen10, that's why.

They haven't bothered pushing out low-end cards since 2014.

Prior to the Kepler based GT 720, Nvidia was actually using Fermi for their GT 610 and GT 620 low end cards.

So rebranding older tech for low end is nothing new and I expect it to continue. In the case of the Gt 930 and Gt 920 I do expect it to be Maxwell v1 simply for the reason the GM108 chips have been used in mobile for quite some time already.

And probably the low end will still be Maxwell rebrands even some time after Pascal launches.

So while the lowest end dGPUs may use older lagging tech, they do improve over time.

 

[cbn]

So, going back to the topic, AMD is pushing their APUs with this ad. Obviously they intend for people buying the x4 860k (and eventually, the 870k or 880k) to pair such CPUs with more-powerful dGPUs. For the Steam crowd, an APU is a simple and effective solution for ftp gaming, and they can always cheap-out with the A8-7600 or 7650k if they don't want to pay for a 7870k. The x4-860k + 240 offers no price advantage in that situation.

With the A88X having eight SATA ports, they need to do some advertising with that as well.

Of course, that has nothing to do with the APU vs CPU + dGPU argument. However, if I was going to build some kind of NAS, DVR, HTPC combo box (with some secondary game playing abilities) maybe I would be happy enough to go for the A8-7670K over a more expensive Athlon x 4 860K + dGPU combo.

But if the primary mission is gaming, I think these APUs are tough to justify due to the higher cost of the processor + RAM in addition to the CPU throttling under iGPU load.

But for NAS, DVR, HTPC combo duties the higher RAM requirements and CPU throttling won't factor in like they do in gaming. Then the $17 more for the A8-7670K over the Athlon x4 860K seems pretty reasonable.

 

[TheELF]

*Keep in mind the CPU cores on these APUs will throttle below advertised specs when the 384sp iGPU is used during Windows 3D gaming (AMDMSRTweaker is an advanced user utility than can prevent this from happening).

Oh no no no no no,there is no throttling, it's amd's ingenious way of manipulating the market,it's all about their "energy saving" turbo, they turbo up the igpu to get good gpu benchmark numbers (game benchmarks only test the gpu) and they turbo up the cpu cores for them single/multi core benchmarks,people put one and one together and think that they will get a very nice system.
(amd keeps very quiet about it not being able to turbo both at once at the advertized 95w tdp)

Same with this campaign right here,if you look around in forums there is plenty of fps drops in team fights going on with the APUs,seems they only test the starting phase.

 

[YBS1]

Oh no no no no no,there is no throttling, it's amd's ingenious way of manipulating the market,it's all about their "energy saving" turbo, they turbo up the igpu to get good gpu benchmark numbers (game benchmarks only test the gpu) and they turbo up the cpu cores for them single/multi core benchmarks,people put one and one together and think that they will get a very nice system.
(amd keeps very quiet about it not being able to turbo both at once at the advertized 95w tdp)

Same with this campaign right here,if you look around in forums there is plenty of fps drops in team fights going on with the APUs,seems they only test the starting phase.

While this may be true, to be fair, these are sold as "black" APUs. It's not difficult to overcome this behavior with proper board settings. I'm really surprised this topic has created such fervor, it isn't like AMD was claiming Crysis 3 at max here, and anyone who would believe such marketing Kool-Aid is a fool. These are integrated GPUs and someone should expect as much, they are good for someone interested in either compactness, saving the expense of a dedicated GPU, or for general light gaming duty. If you're expecting to max out Witcher 3, you'll be disappointed, however this could be said to some degree with half the discreet GPU systems in here as well. Unless you're willing to pay big bucks, you're probably going to have to make compromises on some game or another.

 

[frozentundra123456]

For sure you have to make compromises with any system, but with an APU you have to make some very *big* compromises for a very small savings in cost. Honestly, I just dont get this obsession with saving 50 or a hundred dollars by giving up a discrete card when a system will be used for several years. It just seems like setting up artificial criteria regarding cost because that is the only was to justify an APU for gaming.

I can see the place for APUs in mobile or SFF builds, but in the conventional desktop, it is just a terrible compromise.

 

[YBS1]

For sure you have to make compromises with any system, but with an APU you have to make some very *big* compromises for a very small savings in cost. Honestly, I just dont get this obsession with saving 50 or a hundred dollars by giving up a discrete card when a system will be used for several years. It just seems like setting up artificial criteria regarding cost because that is the only was to justify an APU for gaming.

I can see the place for APUs in mobile or SFF builds, but in the conventional desktop, it is just a terrible compromise.

I think they are a poor choice for a conventional desktop as well. I built mine for a small form factor multimedia box, and for this it does very well. The fact that it could pull light gaming duty with acceptable performance in non demanding games without the need for a discreet GPU was icing. I have since added a GTX 760, it wasn't due to the APU being unacceptable, I just made some other system changes that made the 760 available for use, so why not?

I don't think it's a matter of setting up artificial criteria to justify the APU, for me at least it was that an APU was the simplest choice for doing an adequate job at all the things the system may need to do. I didn't need maximum performance, I have that in other boxes. I also think they will come into their own if the current trend toward smaller form factors continues.