I play on MAX, I play on AMD

[cbn]

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.

For someone overclocking using the unlocked multiplier and an aftermarket heatsink, they would still have to use AMDMSRTweaker if they wanted to prevent the CPU from throttling (in Windows 3D gaming) to 3.0 Ghz and below when the iGPU is active.

Having the iGPU active (in Windows 3D gaming) forces a certain clockspeed on the CPU (depending on the model of APU) regardless of cooling available. This is reported not to happen in Linux though, so a person could theoretically overclock the CPU and hold that speed with the iGPU active (without any additional software tools) provided the cooling is sufficient to keep temps under control.

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.

And yet the selection of Mini-ITX boards for FM2+ is rather limited and expensive:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produ...d=1&N=100007625 600474773 600469846 600009028

The ASRock FM2A78M-ITX+ board below being the exception at $54.99 After rebate with $.99 shipping:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813157478

According to the CPU list it support Godaveri:

http://www.asrock.com/mb/AMD/FM2A78M-ITX+/?cat=CPU

And it does come with six SATA 6 Gbps ports.

 

[cbn]

With regard to performance of games mentioned in the AMD APU campaign here was some informal testing I did not so long ago with the A6-5400K in Linux Mint:

http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=37675951&postcount=73

I just finished informal testing of CS:GO With Linux Mint 17.2 and the proprietary AMD driver. The game appears to average around 45 FPS (estimated) @ 1280 x 1024 low using the A6-5400K with 4GB stick of DDR3 1866 (single channel).

P.S. CS:GO is IMO the most demanding game (on hardware) Valve has released so far. The other Valve games should have equal or better performance.

Increased resolution on CS:GO from 1280 x 1024 low to 1920 x 1080 low, game play stayed smooth and I would estimate average FPS somewhere between 35 and 40.

I also played Borderlands 2 using the same set-up. Through the first few levels average FPS was over 30 (smooth) at a resolution of 1280 x 1024 low.

I think that performance is actually pretty good considering the APU I used is 3.6 Ghz (3.8 Ghz turbo) Piledriver dual core with 192sp VLIW iGPU.

So I've been thinking we should get some good numbers from the A8-7670K in the Linux Version of CS:G0 as well. This especially if the CPU doesn't throttle under iGPU load.

 

[AnxiousInfusion]

[Removed by user]

 

[cbn]

I just so happen to have extensively tested Godavari on that FM2A78M-ITX+ motherboard, with Linux Mint using the proprietary drivers: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLAsUo8-fA9Hki4i6NsYO0Cgd_ErRpDzO5 It's not Windows performance but certainly adequate.

Thanks for posting those results.

Also looking forward to seeing how these APUs perform under Linux Mint 17.3 (due out next month).

 

[cbn]

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?

For those APU users with Micro-ATX or ATX boards (especially the A88X with eight SATA ports), I'm thinking a project like the following would be very useful:

http://lime-technology.com/forum/index.php?topic=42958.0

(Basically a easy to follow standardized multi-usage build.....but specifically for FM2+ users)

For the APU, it could be the A8-7670K and then whatever FM2+ board works the best.

The as time goes on additional video cards (for VMs) and hardware could be added.

So it could very well start off as a relatively cheap device for certain users....but with a roadmap for expansion into other uses.

 

[DrMrLordX]

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

I don't think they will anymore. It may not be worth the money or trouble for either AMD or Nvidia to rebrand old tech, slap it on new PCBs, and sell it in the bargain bin.

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.

7670k + DDR3-2400 isn't going to be much (if at all) more expensive than x4-860 + 240 + DDR3-1600. In fact, I'd expect it to be cheaper to get the 7670k:

x4-860k CPU + RAM + dGPU: $158.86
http://pcpartpicker.com/p/gHZNCJ

A8-7670k + RAM: $138.87
http://pcpartpicker.com/p/jk37Lk

As far as throttling goes, I ran 3DMark Vantage and 3DMark IceStorm with and without throttling to see how disabling the p5 state behavior affected scores.

With throttling (4.5 GHz -> 2.8 GHz):
http://www.3dmark.com/3dmv/5349765
http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/8948100

Without throttling(4.5 GHz)
http://www.3dmark.com/3dmv/5349772
http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/8948258

Note that these tests were performed on an A10-7700k @ 4.5 GHz CPU, 2100 mhz NB, DDR3-2400 RAM with 1GB assigned to the iGPU

Not what you'd expect. Visible stuttering at random intervals can be observed in both programs when running with throttling disabled. I've noticed that before in some games and benchmarks . . . and I'm not 100% sure what's going on there. Regardless, I almost never defeat the throttling behavior anymore unless I'm doing some really weird multitasking, like running SuperPi and Furmark at the same time.

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.

That's pretty much the point of the ad campaign, at least with respect to light-duty gaming ala Steam titles. But I've said as much already.

 

[cbn]

7670k + DDR3-2400 isn't going to be much (if at all) more expensive than x4-860 + 240 + DDR3-1600. In fact, I'd expect it to be cheaper to get the 7670k:

x4-860k CPU + RAM + dGPU: $158.86
http://pcpartpicker.com/p/gHZNCJ

A8-7670k + RAM: $138.87
http://pcpartpicker.com/p/jk37Lk

Tom's compared Athlon x 4 860K and R7 240 to a A10-7850K though (not a A8-7670K). So when replacing A8-7670K with A10-7850K that makes total cost almost $10 more expensive than the Athlon x 4 860K and R7 240 combo.

Also, for all practical purposes I don't think I would ever actually recommend a R7 240 when R7 250X routinely goes on sale for $59.99 After rebate:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814131662

So for $10 more than that R7 240 you listed the Power Color R7 250X offers about 2.57 times the performance (640sp x 1000Mhz/ 320 x 780 Mhz = 2.57)

So for about ~$168 a person can either choose A10-7850K + DDR3 2400 or Athlon x4 860K + DDR3 1600 + R7 250X.

And, of course, the Athlon x 4 860K + R7 250X is going to win by an even bigger margin.

 

[cbn]

I don't think they will anymore. It may not be worth the money or trouble for either AMD or Nvidia to rebrand old tech, slap it on new PCBs

I think Nvidia will still do it because 384 Maxwell cores with 64 bit GDDR5 is still going to be faster than most iGPUs.

Actually even a 256 Maxwell core 64 bit DDR3 will still find use because there are even some new computers that don't have an iGPU.

This, not to mention, all the older computers out there as well with very slow iGPUs.

 

[SPBHM]

I think Nvidia will still do it because 384 Maxwell cores with 64 bit GDDR5 is still going to be faster than most iGPUs.

Actually even a 256 Maxwell core 64 bit DDR3 will still find use because there are even some new computers that don't have an iGPU.

This, not to mention, all the older computers out there as well with very slow iGPUs.

a "Tegra X1" GPU card would be quite good for a cheap card, better perf than most Intel IGPs and HEVC/HDMI 2.0, sounds good.

 

[DrMrLordX]

And, of course, the Athlon x 4 860K + R7 250X is going to win by an even bigger margin.

And Dota2/LoL/CS:GO players are going to care . . . why? It isn't about which is fastest, it's about which is more than good enough to run the most popular PC games out there. Same reason why Nvidia and AMD are walking away from the low-price dGPU market. iGPUs have gotten "good enough" that insufficiently-few shoppers care to deal with dGPUs at all.

At the "high end" of the APU cost scale (at least among AMD's products), you have the 7870k: $184.88

http://pcpartpicker.com/p/KfzXqs

Personally, I think that's a bit of overkill for tasks that can be carried out just as well by the A8-7600 (read: Steam ftp gaming), but it's nice to have a bit of extra punch when you need/want it while staying with a simple single-chip solution.

 

[frozentundra123456]

Why would one settle for "good enough", when better is available for the same cost? It is like saying steak and hamburger are the same price so I will take the hamburger because it is "good enough".

And the 7850k at 185.00 is an even more absurd choice. It is actually *more expensive* than an X4 860K and the 60.00 250x (on sale). And the 250x will be faster, not require expensive ram, or be subject to possible throttling issues.

 

[AtenRa]

Newegg prices

First of all, A10-7850K is at $130

Secondly Athlon 860K is at $75

Thirdly R7 250X with AR is at $60

Total = $135.

A few things,

Yes the CPU + dGPU it is the faster combination for gaming,

The CPU + dGPU will have almost double the power consumption
The CPU + dGPU will have higher noise levels
The CPU + dGPU will not be able to fit in to a slim SFF case.

The APU alone (A10-7850K) is able to run LOL/DOTA 2 and any other similar game (SMITE etc) at 1080p FULL Settings.

So, for someone that only plays those kind of games, the APU alone is more than enough AND the better product for the job (less power, less heat, SFF case option etc).

One more thing,

You may find R7 250X at $60 AR in the States but that is not what it will cost you in the rest of the world.

 

[ShintaiDK]

Slim SSF case is an ultra tiny niche segment.
And the 7850K will throttle wont it.

Not to mention a 250X would be quite faster. Even the 250(GDDR5 version I assume) is.

 

[Phynaz]

Newegg prices

First of all, A10-7850K is at $130

Secondly Athlon 860K is at $75

Thirdly R7 250X with AR is at $60

Total = $135.

A few things,

Yes the CPU + dGPU it is the faster combination for gaming,

The CPU + dGPU will have almost double the power consumption
The CPU + dGPU will have higher noise levels
The CPU + dGPU will not be able to fit in to a slim SFF case.

The APU alone (A10-7850K) is able to run LOL/DOTA 2 and any other similar game (SMITE etc) at 1080p FULL Settings.

So, for someone that only plays those kind of games, the APU alone is more than enough AND the better product for the job (less power, less heat, SFF case option etc).

One more thing,

You may find R7 250X at $60 AR in the States but that is not what it will cost you in the rest of the world.

But yet you quote US prices for the APU, so which is it?. Do you really think people are so dumb to not see through your agenda?

Since the online FPS post you made has been discredited now it's strategy games in a tiny, tiny case. That's four goalpost moves for you in one thread, above your usual average.

Are your APU sales down? Need to drum up some business? With the corner cases you need to create it's no surprise

 

[zentan]

Well in places like India AMD APUs are priced worse,some top end ones priced in the i5 range.
One can get a haswell pentium+r7 250x or gtx 750.Even a haswell i3+ r7 240GDDR5 can be found for near about same price.

 

[Phynaz]

Yes, but an apples to apples comparison doesn't fit AtenRa's agenda.

 

[Vortex6700]

I don't understand why power consumption is a good enough reason to pay 2x the price for something 15% better (albeit from a company that makes Carnegie and Ma Bell look like the good guys), yet it's not a good enough reason to buy an apu.

Could someone explain this?

 

[DrMrLordX]

Why would one settle for "good enough", when better is available for the same cost?

AtenRa sort of beat me to it, though let me add that for overclockers, being able to cool both CPU and GPU in one package is really nice. Aftermarket coolers for dGPUs can sort of be a pain in the arse. Not all stock cooling solutions are adequate for overclocking of dGPUs (and that includes low-end units).

I'll reiterate that, for a lot of Steam gamers (who are clearly the target market in this ad campaign), being able to shop for a one-chip solution (be it Intel or AMD) is highly desirable versus bothering with a dGPU (especially for those who are not technically-inclined). Many of them wouldn't notice the advantage of using a 250 or 250X either; in fact, they might not even notice the difference between a 7670k and 7870k playing a game like Dota2. Something like a 7670k, 7850k, 7870k, or i3-6100 will do a bang-up job on most if not all ftp titles. You don't even have to think about low-end dGPUs anymore if you don't want to. For people who are used to buying and using dGPUs, that isn't much of a plus, but the market is speaking, and the low-end dGPUs are becoming a dying breed.

And the 7850k at 185.00 is an even more absurd choice.

7850ks haven't been selling at that price for a loooong time. Thanks Anandtech for continuing to show $185 as the 7850k list price in reviews featuring that old part . . . anyway, you can get one for about $120-$125 depending on where you shop.

or be subject to possible throttling issues.

So you saw the 3DMark benches I ran above, right? The only way I can get the CPU throttling to affect the performance of anything - even when dropping 1.7 GHz of clockspeed - is to run Furmark and then run something like SuperPi at the same time. That would be a problem if anyone released lots of GPGPU software for Windows. The throttling does not happen in Linux . . . though I really should test Furmark + something else in that platform to see what happens there.

 

[frozentundra123456]

I don't understand why power consumption is a good enough reason to pay 2x the price for something 15% better (albeit from a company that makes Carnegie and Ma Bell look like the good guys), yet it's not a good enough reason to buy an apu.

Could someone explain this?

Power consumption isn't the main reason to buy Intel, better performance is, and in many cases it is a lot more than 15% for a lot less than twice the cost. And if you think half the performance for the same price to save a bit of power cost is a good compromise, well you are entitled to your opinion, whatever motivates it, but I strongly disagree.

 

[RaistlinZ]

I play on MAX pain, I play on AMD.

I play on MAX disappointment. I also play on AMD.

 

[VirtualLarry]

AtenRa sort of beat me to it, though let me add that for overclockers, being able to cool both CPU and GPU in one package is really nice.

Whatever happened to AMD's plans for a "Super APU" that was basically a 300W full-on CPU + discrete card together? Is that still in the works? Zen core, some uber GPU core, and HBM(2?)?

Edit: Do you think that MS and Sony will help AMD to stay afloat until then, or is one of them most likely to pick over AMD's carcass, if they let them die? (But then wouldn't they lose their x86 license, and lose compatibility with existing consoles?)

 

[cbn]

And Dota2/LoL/CS:GO players are going to care . . . why? It isn't about which is fastest, it's about which is more than good enough to run the most popular PC games out there. Same reason why Nvidia and AMD are walking away from the low-price dGPU market. iGPUs have gotten "good enough" that insufficiently-few shoppers care to deal with dGPUs at all.

For CS:GO, being able to stay above 60 FPS is going to be something those players want.

And the claim from AMD (see post #43) is up to 61.96 FPS for the A10-7870K using 1080p ultra settings.

That mentions nothing of the average or minimum frame per second which will be much lower.

 

[cbn]

Some problems I see with the current APU situation:

1. CPU throttling under iGPU load during Windows gaming (unless AMDMSRTweaker is used). For an overclocker this throttling will take away more CPU clocks than if the processor were stock speed.

2. Need for more expensive RAM when using the APU's iGPU for demanding 3D gaming.

3. Most FM2+ boards are ironically Micro-ATX or larger. I think this pretty much negates most (if not all) of the space saving benefit of having the iGPU under the same heatspreader as the CPU.

So I got to thinking why not use the APU iGPU with DDR3 1600 RAM for some kind of Linux application (so no throttling of the CPU whether it is stock speed or OC) and then pass a dGPU to a VM for Windows (or Linux) Gaming?

That would eliminate the effect from number 1 and number 2 and using dGPU for VMs make the most of the uATX board's extra PCIe slots.

 

[cbn]

And Dota2/LoL/CS:GO players are going to care . . . why? It isn't about which is fastest, it's about which is more than good enough to run the most popular PC games out there. Same reason why Nvidia and AMD are walking away from the low-price dGPU market. iGPUs have gotten "good enough" that insufficiently-few shoppers care to deal with dGPUs at all.

For CS:GO, being able to stay above 60 FPS is going to be something those players want.

And the claim from AMD (see post #43) is up to 61.96 FPS for the A10-7870K using 1080p ultra settings.

That mentions nothing of the average or minimum frame per second which will be much lower.

Right now I am doing some informal testing of CS:GO with Athlon x 4 860K and GTX 660 at 1280 x 1024 low detail settings just to see what the Quad core Steamroller CPU is capable of as far as minimum frame rates go.

So far so good. On both Windows 8.1 and Linux Mint 17.2 (on the limited number of maps I have played on) my minimum frame per second is over 100.

Therefore It would be interesting to find out what resolution and detail settings a A8-7670K APU (or like) could run at to keep minimum FPS at 60 FPS or above.

 

[DrMrLordX]

Whatever happened to AMD's plans for a "Super APU" that was basically a 300W full-on CPU + discrete card together? Is that still in the works? Zen core, some uber GPU core, and HBM(2?)?

Edit: Do you think that MS and Sony will help AMD to stay afloat until then, or is one of them most likely to pick over AMD's carcass, if they let them die? (But then wouldn't they lose their x86 license, and lose compatibility with existing consoles?)

Not sure if MS and Sony will bother with all that. With Nintendo allegedly pouring a bunch of money into AMD in the form of NX hardware orders, MS and Sony may not be alone in that venture.

The "uber" card is still a go (so far as I know) for 2017.

cbn, I haven't tried CS:GO yet, but in TF2 (same engine, but less intensive) I can regularly sustain minimum framerates above 70 in 1600x1200. Note that is @ 4.5 GHz without any attempts to defeat throttling behavior (no amdmsrtweaker). I would expect 1600x1200 to be a little easier on the GPU than 1920x1080.