ITT: We list current generation CPUs that are in most need of improvement

[coercitiv]

For $35 less I would rather have the faster 4Ghz CPU and add my own dGPU in.

Judging by the way you think, AMD should price the 860K higher than it's iGPU counterparts. Glad someone at AMD knows better than that.

 

[cbn]

Judging by the way you think, AMD should price the 860K higher than it's iGPU counterparts. Glad someone at AMD knows better than that.

No. AMD should not price the Athlon x 4 860K higher than the iGPU counterparts. It is priced right the way it is.

Instead AMD should be pricing A10-7850K only somewhat above Athlon x 4 860K (since using the iGPU on the A10 hurts the performance of the CPU).

This and the A10-7850K specs should be revised from 3.7Ghz/4.0 Ghz turbo to 3.0 Ghz/4.0 Ghz turbo. See post #19.

 

[NTMBK]

Intel's Iris Pro parts- overpriced for their use case. I would rather see a 2 core + GT3e part, with high clocked dual cores and high clocked GPU, at a lower price point.

 

[coercitiv]

No. AMD should not price the Athlon x 4 860K higher than the iGPU counterparts. It is priced right the way it is.

Instead AMD should be pricing A10-7850K only somewhat above Athlon x 4 860K (since using the iGPU on the A10 hurts the performance of the CPU).

If A10 were priced "somewhat above" 860K, then A8 series would be priced how? Somewhat equal, somewhat bellow 860k?!

You attribute zero value to the iGPU then proceed to create some imaginary pricing scheme in which all dual module FM2+ CPUs cost "somewhat" the same.

 

[cbn]

You attribute zero value to the iGPU....

I don't think the iGPU zero value on the desktop. For a processor like A10-7850K it certainly has some value over the Athlon x 4 860K.

For example, a person would be well served by buying A10-7850K over Athlon x 4 860K simply because that iGPU can fill for the times when the A10-7850K user is in between video cards (or their video card breaks). This provided the A10-7850K price premium were much smaller than the $55 we see today.

http://www.amazon.com/AMD-Athlon-Bl...qid=1449491817&sr=1-1&keywords=athlon+x4+860k

http://www.amazon.com/AMD-A10--A10-...UTF8&qid=1449491851&sr=1-1&keywords=A10-7850K

Also for people that do office work or other light tasks (that don't increase iGPU load and cause the CPU to throttle) having the iGPU saves them from buying a discrete card.

 

[rancherlee]

For gaming, a dgpu is much more useful than an extra 300 or so MHz of CPU clock speed. In fact, if one insists on torturing themselves by trying to game on the igpu, an A8-7600 is a better buy, because it is cheaper and has very nearly the same gaming performance because the 7870k is so bandwidth limited.

I've got the 7850k in my daughters computer and set it up so only the CPU throttles and the iGPU runs rock steady at 950mhz. There is little to no difference in performance between using the CPU @ 3ghz throttled vs. stock 3.7ghz if only using the iGPU. For 99$ at Microcenter , its a great chip at the price.

 

[cbn]

difference in performance between using the CPU @ 3ghz throttled vs. stock 3.7ghz if only using the iGPU. For 99$ at Microcenter , its a great chip at the price.

If you had a dGPU plugged in, the clocks on that A10-7850K should rise to 4GHz for gaming.

 

[coercitiv]

Not sure where you got that.

Again I ask you then: if A10-7850k is to be priced "only somewhat above" the 860K, then how are the A8-7600, A8-7650K, A8-7670K, A10-7800, A10-7700K supposed to be priced? Somewhat equal to 860k?!

This provided the A10-7850K price premium were much smaller than the $55 we see today.

Much smaller as in... $25?! Let's see how that would look like in $10 increments, not even counting all available SKUs:

A10-7850K +$25
A10-7700K +$15
A8-7650K +$5
A8-7600 -$5

Is this what you have in mind? $5 video card?

 

[frozentundra123456]

First, microcenter prices are an abberation, great for those that live close, but not really relevant to the overall pricing scheme.

And the contention that there is no loss in gaming throttling the cpu to 3.0 ghz from 3.7 (plus turbo), would certainly be true only in certain non-cpu demanding games. Otherwise, we would all just throttle our cpus to save some energy.

 

[cbn]

Again I ask you then: if A10-7850k is to be priced "only somewhat above" the 860K, then how are the A8-7600, A8-7650K, A8-7670K, A10-7800, A10-7700K supposed to be priced? Somewhat equal to 860k?!

Not sure. All I know is I think the Athlon x 4 860K price is right. And that the A10-7850K is way overpriced (see opening post).

P.S. Regarding the A8-7600, we do have to realize it is a 65W processor whereas the Athlon x 4 860K and A10-7850K are 95W. This makes comparison difficult because that A8-7600 will work in a SFF pre-built the Athlon x 4 860K (or A10-7850K) won't.

 

[frozentundra123456]

I've got the 7850k in my daughters computer and set it up so only the CPU throttles and the iGPU runs rock steady at 950mhz. There is little to no difference in performance between using the CPU @ 3ghz throttled vs. stock 3.7ghz if only using the iGPU. For 99$ at Microcenter , its a great chip at the price.

So you are deliberately throttling an already relatively weak cpu in order to keep from throtting an already bandwidth limited igpu? Does that basically sum it up?

 

[Abwx]

If you had a dGPU plugged in, the clocks on that A10-7850K should rise to 4GHz for gaming.

Because fully loading a 512SPs IGP doesnt require the CPU to be at 3.7GHz, that s even wasted power, with a dGPU that is twice as big its logical that full frequency could be required, that s indeed the root of your confusion about this APU.

Otherwise the 7870K is a better deal as for a few $ more you ll get both a more efficient chip and a 125W cooler instead of the regular 95W attached to the 7850K, at lower prices the 7670K is the APU of choice for whom want to tweak.

 

[cbn]

Because fully loading a 512SPs IGP doesnt require the CPU to be at 3.7GHz, that s even wasted power, with a dGPU that is twice as big its logical that full frequency could be required, that s indeed the root of your confusion about this APU.

If iGPU bottlenecked, I see your point.

But that is not always going to happen. See post #6 for an example.

 

[rancherlee]

First, microcenter prices are an abberation, great for those that live close, but not really relevant to the overall pricing scheme.

And the contention that there is no loss in gaming throttling the cpu to 3.0 ghz from 3.7 (plus turbo), would certainly be true only in certain non-cpu demanding games. Otherwise, we would all just throttle our cpus to save some energy.

Not really my point, The chip at only 3.0ghz has plenty of power to max out the 512sp iGPU, no need for a dGPU for my daughters gaming and web surfing needs. I will agree though that it should have been listed as a 3.0ghz/4.0 turbo chip in the specs BUT my particular chip does not throttle at stock settings, chip stays at 3.7ghz if I don't overclock the iGPU (which is a waste, the iGPU overclocks quite well and likes 2133mhz ram) Actually I'm kinda impressed how the iGPU does ok with modern games @ 720p. I've got an old 5770 sitting around with a loud fan but I really didn't fell the need to toss it in her rig as the iGPU does well enough.

 

[DrMrLordX]

If accurately labeling the APU specs reduces sales then so be it.

But it wouldn't be accurate. You've got to run something like Furmark or a GPGPU program (GPUPI) to actually peg the CPU at state p5 (or p3, depending on how you label it). It actually bounces between base (p3 according to amdmsrtweaker), p4, and p5 according to its admittedly-crude power management scheme. Throw in turbo states and it can go higher than base during gameplay!

If I were to run my 7700k at bone stock + turbo, it'd vary between 2.8-3.7 GHz, spending the majority of its time between 3.1-3.4 GHz.

Only if the detail settings are increased to make the iGPU a strong bottleneck.

And what settings are these? How many among even enthusiasts will try to play games at "settings increased to make the iGPU a strong bottleneck"? You act as if I'm some crooked reviewer. You want me to run games at 720p with all the detail levels set to minimum? It's not like I'm using an old Jaguar here. I can run TF2 @ 1600x1200 and get a minimum FPS of about 57 (it's usually higher than that, and spends more time above 100 than not). I can clear 30 fps minimum in Dirty Bomb at the same resolution. And I don't even have 512 shaders! Why would I step down to something like 1024 x 768 when my framerates are acceptable, at least to me anyway?

Most users are going to push their system as hard as they can to breach some framerate minimum (either 30 or 60 fps, or higher if the hardware supports it) at the highest resolution they can get. They are not deliberately going to run their system at 720p or whatever other res to get a "fair assessment" of how CPU speed affects the game when they could get good gameplay at a higher res.

That is a graphical benchmark, not a game.

It's a GPU + CPU benchmark, intended to simulate game performance. It even has four different tests now (and sub-tests as well). If you're so concerned about GPU bottlenecks, look to the Ice Storm numbers, where my 7700k can run over 500 fps in some of the benchmark segments. The iGPU is not much of a bottleneck there, especially not in the physics tests.

With that mentioned, a person could reproduce the same effect by dialing up settings in a game (and making the iGPU a strong bottleneck). However, not all people like to play that way.

So how many people deliberately run TF2 @ 720p or 1024x768 or whatever, just to get 150 average when 100 fps average "isn't good enough"? A few people might do that for competitive play, but otherwise . . .

Well, the A8-7600 is only 20.00 more than the 860k. You get basically an igpu free.

Not really. The 7600 tops out at 3.8 GHz, whereas the 860k can (in theory) go as high as 4.7 GHz, though based on what I've been seeing lately, you're more likely to start hitting trouble around 4.3 GHz.

To me that is a good deal if you only want to do lite gaming. Granted the 7870k is "better", but it is also getting very close in price to an 860k plus dgpu, which will give far better gaming performance. And if you want cpu performance, an i3 will in most cases give better performance at nearly the same price as well, while using much less power.

Congratulations: you've just demonstrated that you are not in the market for an APU . . . and certainly not one of AMD's units.

If you think the 7870 is some kind of great deal, more power to you, but I certainly dont see it. And if you think it is a great deal just because the price has plummeted from the inflated initial cost, well just ask yourself *why* the price has fallen so much.

The price is down 'cuz sales are low. Lots of people think the same way you do, or worse, just buy Intel sight unseen without really knowing anything about the products. So neither the APUs nor the 860k are in play in those situations.

If A10 were priced "somewhat above" 860K, then A8 series would be priced how? Somewhat equal, somewhat bellow 860k?!

You attribute zero value to the iGPU then proceed to create some imaginary pricing scheme in which all dual module FM2+ CPUs cost "somewhat" the same.

Ah, now you've cut to the heart of the matter, haven't you? cbn (and other detractors) assign $0 value to the entire APU concept. And really, who can blame them? Not many people really want or like the things, hence the sales numbers on them being less-than-stellar. But, that doesn't mean that anyone who obviously doesn't "get it" should request or demand that prices on APUs go even lower since, as you've elucidated, doing so would produce pricing schemes that make no sense whatsoever.

Personally I do like mine, and I'd like a slightly-beefier one just . . . because. Though the RAM bottleneck issue is really annoying on occasion. At other times, I hardly notice it. Regardless, the current price on the 7870k is pretty good for anyone who does want an APU and doesn't have one already.

There's a good bit of price compression out there, with too many APU SKUs occupying the spectrum between $80 and $130. In that space, you've got the 7600, 7650k, 7700k, 7670k, 7800, 7850k, and 7870k. The 7650k, 7700k, 7800, and 7850k are mostly obsolete and need to be pushed out of the channel, so if there's anything that needs to be lower in price, it's those units. The 7600 is still bringing up the rear, so it needs to stay where it is. The 7670k and 7870k are really the only other two units that AMD "needs" on the market, provided they don't release the 7890k (which it's beginning to look like they won't).

 

[VirtualLarry]

Ah, now you've cut to the heart of the matter, haven't you? cbn (and other detractors) assign $0 value to the entire APU concept. And really, who can blame them? Not many people really want or like the things, hence the sales numbers on them being less-than-stellar.

Two things: The value that AMD actually brings to the table, with the APU concept (now that HSA is virtually dead - the head guy left and went to NV)... is basically zero. Sure, it's nifty to have an iGPU, but... it's basically useless for "real" gaming, and overkill for office-type applications. If they could have gotten HSA to work, and get the Windows' software ecosystem to buy into it, then perhaps things would be different, and end-users would actually give a hoot about "Compute Core", if it worked to speed up their Excel spreadsheets.

Second, the cost differential of an integrated feature. Look at audio. Back in the "olden days", audio was a premium feature, and required a discrete card solution (hence the popularity of SoundBlaster cards).

Fast-forward to today. How many people are willing to pay $30 extra for a motherboard, for onboard audio? Virtually no-one. Due to integration, onboard audio has approached $0 cost / pricing differential.

For those claiming that people that aren't willing to pay $30-50 more for an APU, rather than just an iGPU-less quad-core, "don't get it" - I suggest that they look in the mirror. An iGPU, no matter how powerful (unless it truly competes in performance with real discrete solutions), is basically worth around $0 extra to the vast majority of consumers.

Sure, "an" iGPU is nice to have, saves buying a discrete card, but it's not really worth much more either.

Edit: Basically, there's no "killer app" for APUs and iGPUs. Maybe if, with DirectX 12, some games started to use the SPs on APUs for accelerated Physics, then the table might turn, and APUs might be valuable again. But AMD has dropped the ball so much on GPU (and thus, APU)-accelerated Physics, I don't think that they'll do this either.

 

[cbn]

If you do fire up a game with a Kaveri APU and record framerates with and without throttling, you'll find that it makes dick all difference.

Only if the detail settings are increased to make the iGPU a strong bottleneck.

And what settings are these? How many among even enthusiasts will try to play games at "settings increased to make the iGPU a strong bottleneck"?

It depends on how CPU intensive the game is.

The greater the game hits the cores, the harder it is to make the iGPU at bottleneck.

Conversely, if the game is relatively light on the CPU making the iGPU a bottleneck is relatively easy.

 

[cbn]

Ah, now you've cut to the heart of the matter, haven't you? cbn (and other detractors) assign $0 value to the entire APU concept.

The iGPU definitely has value:

http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=37883432&postcount=30

And for the record, I do like the APU/HSA concept....just not these big APUs.

The problem (on these big APUs) is that once the iGPU load increases past a certain point it starts eating into the CPU power budget.

So only at the lowest/lower levels of iGPU load is the graphics silicon used on the Kaveri/Godaveri die additive to the CPU.

 

[coercitiv]

Fast-forward to today. How many people are willing to pay $30 extra for a motherboard, for onboard audio? Virtually no-one. Due to integration, onboard audio has approached $0 cost / pricing differential.

For those claiming that people that aren't willing to pay $30-50 more for an APU, rather than just an iGPU-less quad-core, "don't get it" - I suggest that they look in the mirror. An iGPU, no matter how powerful (unless it truly competes in performance with real discrete solutions), is basically worth around $0 extra to the vast majority of consumers.

Let me get this straight, nobody values integrated sound, yet manufacturers include it anyways? Show me a client motherboard without onboard audio that sells just as well as the others at a similar price point!Or could it be you just said nobody values discrete sound cards anymore... Sound cards went extinct not because people didn't value them, but rather because integrated audio started offering a similar quality experience, which is the exact same reason dGPU will have a hard time in the years to come.

But let's say you're right, let's say AMD should lower the price of their iGPU products very near the CPU only products.

X4 860K $70 (4Ghz turbo, 95W TDP)
A8 7670K $70 (3.9Ghz turbo, 95W TDP)

What will the consumer buy? The A8 with iGPU of course, free lunch right? And what will this thread start arguing? Look at that Athlon X4 860K, failed CPU way too expensive for what it offers. They really should lower the price if anyone is going to consider it.

 

[VirtualLarry]

Let me get this straight, nobody values integrated sound, yet manufacturers include it anyways? Show me a client motherboard without onboard audio that sells just as well as the others at a similar price point!

That's sort of the point. If people were willing to pay extra for onboard audio, then you would see motherboards sold both with and without onboard audio, and the boards with onboard audio would sell for more. But you don't see that. There's no added value there, it's an expected checkbox feature, and no-one is willing to pay extra for it.

But let's say you're right, let's say AMD should lower the price of their iGPU products very near the CPU only products.

X4 860K $70 (4Ghz turbo, 95W TDP)
A8 7670K $70 (3.9Ghz turbo, 95W TDP)

What will the consumer buy? The A8 with iGPU of course, free lunch right? And what will this thread start arguing? Look at that Athlon X4 860K, failed CPU way too expensive for what it offers. They really should lower the price if anyone is going to consider it.

No, the 860K will just "fade away" from the market. The market will expect an iGPU, but will not be willing to pay extra for it. It's not a value-add feature. It's a checkbox feature.

To put it another way, when is the last time that you saw CPUs, sold both with, and without, an FPU? The last time I can recall, is the 486SX versus the 486DX. The FPU is no longer considered a value-adder, but instead, a $0 cost integrated feature. If it was still considered a value-adder, then Intel would sell differentiated products, both with and without FPUs, for different market prices.

But the market has spoken, and that just isn't viable. Same with the APU's and their iGPUs.

Edit: Also, competition. If your market competitor, is offering an FPU integrated, for $0 cost additional, or an iGPU for $0 cost additional, you may not be able to use that as a value-added differentiation in the market anyways.

 

[beginner99]

Sound cards went extinct not because people didn't value them, but rather because integrated audio started offering a similar quality experience, which is the exact same reason dGPU will have a hard time in the years to come.

This isn't comparable by any means. Sound cards went away because they were integrated into motherboards. And since most people use $5 loudspeakers the quality doesn't matter Mostly the loudspeaker /headphone is the limiting factor in audio quality. Also you don't magically need double-triple or 10 times the calculation power to get better audio.

A dGPU will always offer way, way more performance than an iGPU. Even the best APUs are weak compared to mid range GPUs not to mention high end. This is no comparison to audio quality. The comparison woudl only be true if everyone had like 800x600 resolution monitors and hence a better GPU would be worthless.

 

[coercitiv]

No, the 860K will just "fade away" from the market. The market will expect an iGPU, but will not be willing to pay extra for it.

Just so we're clear, you are aware the 860K is a cut down chip obtained from an otherwise malfunctioning A10 chip, right? And not selling the 860K at all can only increase the cost of the iGPU, not lower it.

This isn't comparable by any means.

A dGPU will always offer way, way more performance than an iGPU.

Really? Tell that to console makers.

Current PC APUs have failed due to bandwith limitations (and failure to adress that in a cost effective manner). Don't make the mistake of thinking this status quo will remain in place forever.

 

[VirtualLarry]

Just so we're clear, you are aware the 860K is a cut down chip obtained from an otherwise malfunctioning A10 chip, right? And not selling the 860K at all can only increase the cost of the iGPU, not lower it.

Correct, it is simply an APU with a defective (or simply disabled) iGPU. But much like 486SX chips, were 486DX chips with disabled FPUs (at least, initially), but then the next generation of processors didn't ship in an FPU-less version, I expect that the same thing will happen to FM2+ CPUs.

 

[cbn]

Current PC APUs have failed due to bandwith limitations (and failure to adress that in a cost effective manner). Don't make the mistake of thinking this status quo will remain in place forever.

The bandwidth issue is one thing. Then also the TDP rating is too low given the amount of silicon AMD invested in the chip.

Looking back, I think AMD should have released something with a smaller iGPU. Then with each successive future generation AMD could conservatively plan an increase iGPU as power and bandwidth permitted. (Trouble with this strategy though is that CPU requirements for PC games also appear to be increasing. Not sure how much DX12 will offset this?)

 

[DrMrLordX]

Two things: The value that AMD actually brings to the table, with the APU concept (now that HSA is virtually dead - the head guy left and went to NV)... is basically zero.

HSA is still in development actually, though it's staying bottled up in a place where virtually nobody sees it. They're still working on the HSA-enabled GCC compiler, for example. What we're probably seeing is that AMD expects OpenCL, Vulkan, and DX12 to take over in much the same way that Vulkan and DX12 are taking over for Mantle.

To date, I've seen virtually no reason why anyone would bother with HSA when OpenCL 2.0 offers about the same degree of GPGPU control, and does so with a larger/better set of tools. It still isn't perfect but . . .

Second, the cost differential of an integrated feature. Look at audio. Back in the "olden days", audio was a premium feature, and required a discrete card solution (hence the popularity of SoundBlaster cards).

PAS16. Ensoniq Soundscape Elite. Ensoniq AudioPCI. Ah, the good old days . . .

Fast-forward to today. How many people are willing to pay $30 extra for a motherboard, for onboard audio? Virtually no-one. Due to integration, onboard audio has approached $0 cost / pricing differential.

Oh there's a cost associated with the sound hardware. You pay for it whether or not you want it. People just don't notice the cost anymore . . .

For those claiming that people that aren't willing to pay $30-50 more for an APU, rather than just an iGPU-less quad-core, "don't get it" - I suggest that they look in the mirror. An iGPU, no matter how powerful (unless it truly competes in performance with real discrete solutions), is basically worth around $0 extra to the vast majority of consumers.

Yeah, that's why Kaveri hasn't sold all that well, which is unfortunate. Intel is doing a fine job of selling APUs to all the people that won't buy the AMD ones, though.

Edit: Basically, there's no "killer app" for APUs and iGPUs. Maybe if, with DirectX 12, some games started to use the SPs on APUs for accelerated Physics, then the table might turn, and APUs might be valuable again. But AMD has dropped the ball so much on GPU (and thus, APU)-accelerated Physics, I don't think that they'll do this either.

Keep an eye on Ashes of the Singularity beta. It's supposedly going to feature GPGPU acceleration. It should be very nice on APUs like the 7870k and 5775c. Should be.

And for the record, I do like the APU/HSA concept....just not these big APUs.

That much is obvious. But really, some folks do like the "big" APUs, and I, for one, would like something bigger, maybe with a little HBM2 thrown in there for good measure . . . but that'll take awhile.

So only at the lowest/lower levels of iGPU load is the graphics silicon used on the Kaveri/Godaveri die additive to the CPU.

Bleh, I disagree there. But we're just going to have to disagree and move on.

Current PC APUs have failed due to bandwith limitations (and failure to adress that in a cost effective manner). Don't make the mistake of thinking this status quo will remain in place forever.

Eventually, all GPUs will need to be integrated with the primary system link/bus traditionally reserved for the CPU. The days of GPUs being isolated on an expansion bus with separate memory space are numbered. Nvidia is trying in their own way to usher out that era with NVLink (which really should be integrated into the PCIe standard, or something similar, but that's just my opinion). AMD and Intel are baking GPUs into the die of their CPUs. The handwriting is on the wall.