Request for a review of an A4-5300 and a G1610

[Maragark]

Since review sites seem to be allergic to doing reviews of low-end chips, I was just wondering if any of you guys would do one.

What I'd like to see along with the standard benchmarks, is some benchmarks of how these chips handle 720p AAA gaming at lowest settings. I would also like to know whether they can handle 1080p at lowest settings and whether they can candle medium settings at 720p.

In anyone can bothered to do this, thanks in advance.

Edit: I'm not looking for recommendations, anecdotes or guesses about performance, I'm looking for actual data.

 

[Centauri]

I agree.

APUs in particular are kind of a game changer when it comes to reviews. In the old days, reviewing any one chip from a product family gave you a solid baseline for what to expect across that family. But with APUs, the GPU itself changes in addition to the number of cores varying. The 5800K says nothing about any of the A4s, A6s or A8s.

 

[frozentundra123456]

Since review sites seem to be allergic to doing reviews of low-end chips, I was just wondering if any of you guys would do one.

What I'd like to see along with the standard benchmarks, is some benchmarks of how these chips handle 720p AAA gaming at lowest settings. I would also like to know whether they can handle 1080p at lowest settings and whether they can candle medium settings at 720p.

In anyone can bothered to do this, thanks in advance.

I assume you mean on integrated graphics alone. Neither of these is going to run more demanding modern games at 1080p at any kind of decent framerate, even at low settings. 720p at low to medium, maybe. Considering the total cost of a computer, plus internet, games, etc. I dont really see why anyone would limit themselves to such low end chips for any kind of AAA gaming. If you added a discrete card, like a HD7750 you could probably play at 1080p, at least for most games at low settings, but it seems like a really poor tradeoff to accept such poor performance to save maybe 10% or less on the cost of the total system for one of these low end chips compared to an A10 or i3.

 

[shady28]

I assume you mean on integrated graphics alone. Neither of these is going to run more demanding modern games at 1080p at any kind of decent framerate, even at low settings. 720p at low to medium, maybe. Considering the total cost of a computer, plus internet, games, etc. I dont really see why anyone would limit themselves to such low end chips for any kind of AAA gaming. If you added a discrete card, like a HD7750 you could probably play at 1080p, at least for most games at low settings, but it seems like a really poor tradeoff to accept such poor performance to save maybe 10% or less on the cost of the total system for one of these low end chips compared to an A10 or i3.

That's not really what the OP asked. Your line of reasoning would result in a $600 'low end' system, where its quite possible to build a viable sub $300 system using all low end parts. The OP is asking which of those parts are best at that kind of price point, a question not answered by most reviews.

 

[frozentundra123456]

That's not really what the OP asked. Your line of reasoning would result in a $600 'low end' system, where its quite possible to build a viable sub $300 system using all low end parts. The OP is asking which of those parts are best at that kind of price point, a question not answered by most reviews.

If you have to buy windows, you are only left with 200.00 for everything. That will barely get a system sufficient for very basic use, much less gaming.

 

[Centauri]

Hardware budget ≠ Software budget

 

[Maragark]

I assume you mean on integrated graphics alone. Neither of these is going to run more demanding modern games at 1080p at any kind of decent framerate, even at low settings. 720p at low to medium, maybe.

Yes, integrated graphics. While I think that they wouldn't be able to handle 1080p, it's simply an assumption until someone tries and I haven't seen any attempts. I'm not interested in anecdotes, I want data.

Considering the total cost of a computer, plus internet, games, etc. I dont really see why anyone would limit themselves to such low end chips for any kind of AAA gaming. If you added a discrete card, like a HD7750 you could probably play at 1080p, at least for most games at low settings, but it seems like a really poor tradeoff to accept such poor performance to save maybe 10% or less on the cost of the total system for one of these low end chips compared to an A10 or i3.

A lot of people have extremely limited budgets. According to Steam, plently of people are gaming on low-end hardware. $100 may not seem like much to you but it is to some people. And why just assume that these chips will provide "such poor performance" without having any data to back it up? And poor performance compared to what? A $1000 PC? An Ouya? A PS3? The data would answer these questions.

If you have to buy windows, you are only left with 200.00 for everything. That will barely get a system sufficient for very basic use, much less gaming.

The Gateway SX2380-UR308 is an SFF PC that costs $350. It comes with an A4-5300, 4 GB DDR3 RAM, 1 TB HD and Win 8. That seems like an excellent little system for the price.

 

[SPBHM]

looking at the specs, the 7480D from the A4 5300 is probably comparable to a 6450 DDR5 (when you use dual channel), the G1610 IGP should perform close to the HD 2500 from the non K i3/5/7 CPUs.

7480D
128 VLIW4 sps
4ROPs
8TMUs
720MHz
128bit DDR3 (shared)

6450
160 VLIW5 sps
4ROPs
8TMUs
750MHz
64bit DDR5

so the 6450 performance is a good reference
http://www.anandtech.com/show/4263/amds-radeon-hd-6450-uvd3-meets-htpc/5

lower settings 720P looks possible for many games, for 720P medium, I would suggest the A10.

 

[cbn]

If you have to buy windows, you are only left with 200.00 for everything. That will barely get a system sufficient for very basic use, much less gaming.

I agree the MS Windows license takes a big chunk out of the hardware budget.

.......but at least the $100 Windows 8 System builder license can be re-installed over and over again on different motherboards (through the personal use license).

So that $100 MS license becomes essentially becomes a re-usable component on the DIY hobbyist parts list (along with such items as psu, case, display, etc.). IMO this re-usability makes budget mainboards/cpus for DIY a more attractive option than it was in the past.

The same cannot be said of the $100 Windows 7 OEM license. That was a one shot deal. (ie, license was tied to a single motherboard).

 

[Maragark]

looking at the specs, the 7480D from the A4 5300 is probably comparable to a 6450 DDR5 (when you use dual channel), the G1610 IGP should perform close to the HD 2500 from the non K i3/5/7 CPUs.

7480D
128 VLIW4 sps
4ROPs
8TMUs
720MHz
128bit DDR3 (shared)

6450
160 VLIW5 sps
4ROPs
8TMUs
750MHz
64bit DDR5

so the 6450 performance is a good reference
http://www.anandtech.com/show/4263/amds-radeon-hd-6450-uvd3-meets-htpc/5

lower settings 720P looks possible for many games, for 720P medium, I would suggest the A10.

I'm not looking for recommendations or comparisons with similar GPUs to guess the performance. I want to see data on how they actually perform.

 

[beginner99]

Hardware budget ≠ Software budget

hardware budget != total system cost

Thats what he is saying and AMD APU fanboys don't get. For a minor increase in total system cost you can double your GPU performance compared to the lowest end APU. I think we all agree that pentiums/celerons IGP is not meant for gaming in any way.

And if you then include the cost of the actual games you play, this $100 for a way better experience seems like a very, very good idea.

 

[SPBHM]

I'm not looking for recommendations or comparisons with similar GPUs to guess the performance. I want to see data on how they actually perform.

I thought it was obvious but, comparison with similar GPUs will give you something very close to the actual real performance,
I cannot provide you with any good review of the 5300, but the actual GPU performance is really, really close to that one, it's the best reference I can see at the moment, and it's clear that a 128sps/8TMUs GPU is not going to be great for AAA games.

 

[bgt]

I would not use my A4-5300 for games anyway. I mean real heavy games. Far too slow. But Win8 app. games.....no problem. What are AAA games BTW??????As a HTPC....excellent, you can be nothing else than utterly surprised how well and what a sharp picture it will give you on your TV set. It runs 1080p ultra smooth. Even my 4000IGP(in my 3225HTPC) can not touch this. Graphics is quite important for general impression of a PC. So for little money you can have a nice pc with the 5300. And if you think it is slow...forget it. Only a lot of multiple tasks can stall it a bit. It is ofcourse only 1 real core +1 integer core inside. The 5700 is a completely different story. This is superfast. You will not miss anything compared to an i5. Only benchmarks is not its strongest point.

 

[NTMBK]

Still looking for a console replacement?

 

[Insert_Nickname]

A quick Google search found this:

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/a10-5800k-a8-5600k-a6-5400k,3224.html

Its for the 5400K, but it doesn't look half bad actually. I'm quite surprised. The 5400K actually runs Skyrim at 720p, medium detail at ~35FPS. That's actually impressive for such a cheap CPU...

 

[DominionSeraph]

That's not really what the OP asked. Your line of reasoning would result in a $600 'low end' system, where its quite possible to build a viable sub $300 system using all low end parts.

A Dell would be more viable.

 

[SPBHM]

A quick Google search found this:

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/a10-5800k-a8-5600k-a6-5400k,3224.html

Its for the 5400K, but it doesn't look half bad actually. I'm quite surprised. The 5400K actually runs Skyrim at 720p, medium detail at ~35FPS. That's actually impressive for such a cheap CPU...

5400K uses a more powerful IGP
192 vs 128sps for the 5300, also slightly higher clock.

the 6450 DDR5 is closer to the 5300 IGP than the 5400k IGP imo.

and it can't even run crysis 2 with minmum details, dx9 at 720p/30
http://media.bestofmicro.com/9/T/288065/original/Crysis2 720p.png

but skyrim with low-medium is definitely playable,

 

[Maragark]

5400K uses a more powerful IGP
192 vs 128sps for the 5300, also slightly higher clock.

the 6450 DDR5 is closer to the 5300 IGP than the 5400k IGP imo.

and it can't even run crysis 2 with minmum details, dx9 at 720p/30
http://media.bestofmicro.com/9/T/288065/original/Crysis2 720p.png

but skyrim with low-medium is definitely playable,

That benchmark says "High Detail Preset", which is like the benchmarks I've seen for the 5300.

 

[SPBHM]

high = lowest settings for Crysis 2...

 

[frozentundra123456]

Hardware budget ≠ Software budget

I just dont understand the extreme budget "gaming" idea. Gaming is an optional activity. If you buy one AAA game that is 60.00 right there. And if you play online that is another 60.00 per month for internet. If you have the money to game, I think it only makes sense to get a decent system. Otherwise, why not just get a "gasp" console? Then at least you will know you can play everything.

 

[frozentundra123456]

Hardware budget ≠ Software budget

You cant run it without the software.

 

[beginner99]

I just dont understand the extreme budget "gaming" idea. Gaming is an optional activity. If you buy one AAA game that is 60.00 right there. And if you play online that is another 60.00 per month for internet. If you have the money to game, I think it only makes sense to get a decent system. Otherwise, why not just get a "gasp" console? Then at least you will know you can play everything.

exactly. Why spent $500 on games and then run them on a crappy GPU? for like $120 you can get a 7770. or maybe find an old 5870 or 5850 of ebay. It's a small amount compared to total system cost including game price.

 

[Maragark]

high = lowest settings for Crysis 2...

I'm not sure whether you're being serious or making a Crysis joke.

 

[NTMBK]

I'm not sure whether you're being serious or making a Crysis joke.

Serious- that's actually the lowest graphics settings.

 

[Maragark]

I just dont understand the extreme budget "gaming" idea. Gaming is an optional activity. If you buy one AAA game that is 60.00 right there. And if you play online that is another 60.00 per month for internet. If you have the money to game, I think it only makes sense to get a decent system. Otherwise, why not just get a "gasp" console? Then at least you will know you can play everything.

That's probably because you're not poor and have no idea what it's like to be poor.

Here in the UK, PC games are usually £30 and you get the odd one or two like COD that are £40. As for Internet costs, most people pay nowhere near that much. Here's a comparison of Internet costs from various UK providers. If I was spending $60 on Internet, I'd better be getting at least 100Mb.

Take that Gateway PC I linked you to, If you bought one of those right now, it will likely handle pretty much all games at 720p/30fps with lowest settings. After the new consoles come out, you find that you can no longer play some games, what do you do? You simply replace the APU with a new APU that can handle them. From the prices of all AMD's previous APUs, that would be around $150 for the top of the line chip.

Now imagine that you bought a PS3 today. After the new consoles come out, you find that all the games you want to play are on the PS4, what do you do? You buy a new console costing around $500.

Why get a console if you can get a fully functional SFF PC that has similar gaming performance for a similar price? The PC provides far better value. Basically, you're advocating that poor people should spend more to play games. I find it proper baffling that some people don't understand this.