Richland CPUs - Are AMD CPUs the "best bang for the buck"?

[bgt]

At least you have a good sense of humor. Biggest laugh I have had in a long while.

No problem😉

 

[AtenRa]

you are recommending a CPU with no IGP and thinks HDMI is worth mentioning? :thumbsup:

You asked about the tones of more features that X88 has over H81, i gave you the features. It is irrelevant if you going to use them or not, but that doesnt change the fact that X88 has tones more features than H81.

as for the rest read my previous post, you are proud of saving $24 and think having more memory slots and sata ports are needed? this "features" will look good on the box, but probably don't hold any advantage for most users of cheap hardware, that's not how you build an efficient performance/gaming PC with less money, if you want to mention "features" let's not forget the fact that the $90 richland have no IGP while the i3 have one (Gt2 but with 16 EUs), and support quicksync and all, but even if it wasn't the case...

you mentioned a $30 cooler and now thinks $24 are absolutely the money you have to use for the GPU, like you can't increase the overall budget by that amount without any change (% irrelevant), or save in another part (like, cheap memory, cheaper case and so on), the 4130 is a lower power draw and higher performing CPU for the most part, in some software the difference can be pretty big.

Kaveri release is irrelevant for people buying $90 Richland CPUs IMO.

Simple NO, you cannot increase the budget because you want to make your claim the better choice. In that case i can raise the budget and install an even better GPU and completely crush the Core i3/5 in gaming.

The thread is about bang for the buck, can you make a faster Gaming setup with the same features as the one bellow with Intel CPU at the same price ???

ps: keep it simple without AR.

AMD Athlon 760K = $90
MSI A78M-E35 = $60
4GB 1333MHz DDR-3 = $35
ASUS R9 270 OC 2GB = $180

Total = $369

Intel core i5 4570 = $200
MSI H81M-P33 = $50
4GB 1333MHz DDR-3 = $35
HIS R7 240 1GB GDDR5 = $80

Total = $369

Intel Core i3 4130 = $130
MSI H81M-P33 = $50
4GB 1333MHz DDR-3 = $35
Gigabyte R7 260X = $150

Total = $365

As you can see, with the Athlon 760K you get more features in the motherboard and higher GPU for gaming at the same price as the Intel systems. For a tight budget Gaming PC the Athlon 760K + Faster GPU is the better choice by far.

 

[monstercameron]

You asked about the tones of more features that X88 has over H81, i gave you the features. It is irrelevant if you going to use them or not, but that doesnt change the fact that X88 has tones more features than H81.



Simple NO, you cannot increase the budget because you want to make your claim the better choice. In that case i can raise the budget and install an even better GPU and completely crush the Core i3/5 in gaming.

The thread is about bang for the buck, can you make a faster Gaming setup with the same features as the one bellow with Intel CPU at the same price ???

ps: keep it simple without AR.

AMD Athlon 760K = $90
MSI A78M-E35 = $60
4GB 1333MHz DDR-3 = $35
ASUS R9 270 OC 2GB = $180

Total = $369

Intel core i5 4570 = $200
MSI H81M-P33 = $50
4GB 1333MHz DDR-3 = $35
HIS R7 240 1GB GDDR5 = $80

Total = $369

Intel Core i3 4130 = $130
MSI H81M-P33 = $50
4GB 1333MHz DDR-3 = $35
Gigabyte R7 260X = $150

Total = $365

As you can see, with the Athlon 760K you get more features in the motherboard and higher GPU for gaming at the same price as the Intel systems. For a tight budget Gaming PC the Athlon 760K + Faster GPU is the better choice by far.

that maybe logical but it isnt an intel processor, what about quicksync?

 

[AtenRa]

that maybe logical but it isnt an intel processor, what about quicksync?

What quicksync has to do with Gaming?? yes, you can count it as a feature for the Intel CPUs but, it only works with a single application as of now.

 

[monstercameron]

What quicksync has to do with Gaming?? yes, you can count it as a feature for the Intel CPUs but, it only works with a single application as of now.

my comment was absurd and OT to be comical...

 

[AtenRa]

my comment was absurd and OT to be comical...

Ehm, ok i got it now 😉

 

[ShintaiDK]

You asked about the tones of more features that X88 has over H81, i gave you the features. It is irrelevant if you going to use them or not, but that doesnt change the fact that X88 has tones more features than H81.



Simple NO, you cannot increase the budget because you want to make your claim the better choice. In that case i can raise the budget and install an even better GPU and completely crush the Core i3/5 in gaming.

The thread is about bang for the buck, can you make a faster Gaming setup with the same features as the one bellow with Intel CPU at the same price ???

ps: keep it simple without AR.

AMD Athlon 760K = $90
MSI A78M-E35 = $60
4GB 1333MHz DDR-3 = $35
ASUS R9 270 OC 2GB = $180

Total = $369

Intel core i5 4570 = $200
MSI H81M-P33 = $50
4GB 1333MHz DDR-3 = $35
HIS R7 240 1GB GDDR5 = $80

Total = $369

Intel Core i3 4130 = $130
MSI H81M-P33 = $50
4GB 1333MHz DDR-3 = $35
Gigabyte R7 260X = $150

Total = $365

As you can see, with the Athlon 760K you get more features in the motherboard and higher GPU for gaming at the same price as the Intel systems. For a tight budget Gaming PC the Athlon 760K + Faster GPU is the better choice by far.

Why the i3 and say not a Pentium? The i3 is wastly faster than the 760K.

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/core-i3-4340-4330-4130_5.html#sect0

 

[SPBHM]

You asked about the tones of more features that X88 has over H81, i gave you the features. It is irrelevant if you going to use them or not, but that doesnt change the fact that X88 has tones more features than H81.

it doesn't change the fact the other platform also have advantages, useless features like the IGP and quicksync, PCIE 3.0, probably slightly superior sata performance, or not so useless like higher performance, lower power draw, better upgrade path and so on,

the fact that you mentioned the "dead" HDMI port as a something relevant is very telling.

Simple NO, you cannot increase the budget because you want to make your claim the better choice. In that case i can raise the budget and install an even better GPU and completely crush the Core i3/5 in gaming.

The thread is about bang for the buck, can you make a faster Gaming setup with the same features as the one bellow with Intel CPU at the same price ???

ps: keep it simple without AR.

AMD Athlon 760K = $90
MSI A78M-E35 = $60
4GB 1333MHz DDR-3 = $35
ASUS R9 270 OC 2GB = $180

Total = $369

Intel core i5 4570 = $200
MSI H81M-P33 = $50
4GB 1333MHz DDR-3 = $35
HIS R7 240 1GB GDDR5 = $80

Total = $369

Intel Core i3 4130 = $130
MSI H81M-P33 = $50
4GB 1333MHz DDR-3 = $35
Gigabyte R7 260X = $150

Total = $365

As you can see, with the Athlon 760K you get more features in the motherboard and higher GPU for gaming at the same price as the Intel systems. For a tight budget Gaming PC the Athlon 760K + Faster GPU is the better choice by far.

again, features with no effect on performance or real use for most users.
you are artificially limiting things to suit your preference, it's ok, but at least use parts in stock.



the i3 with the same 270 is better "bang for the buck" compared to the 760k with the same VGA, faster with a very small price difference.

that maybe logical but it isnt an intel processor, what about quicksync?

who cares about quicksync when you can use HDMI with no IGP or you can use your $60 board for all your 6 sata III SSDs

 

[mrmt]

I am removing this post per user request.
Markfw900

 

[Lonbjerg]

Why do you guys keep discussing the merits of AMD products with an AMD reseller?

Thanks for that tibit of information...time to hit ignore 😉

 

[mrmt]

AMD is a great buy at lower price points, but there seems to be a more limited upgrade path if you want to consistently move up to better graphics and more performance. While commanding great value at such low price points is good for AMD, they really need better solutions in higher dollar range.

While Steamroller is a step in the right direction (improved IPC), performance per core is still unimpressive, and so is performance per watt. I don't think there is too much market prospect for it.

Kaveri doesn't seem to fundamentally address Richland flaws. It is still a big chip, being expensive to manufacture, it still sells cheap, it still runs hot. Success or failure of it depends more on Intel doesn't price too aggressively than on the merits of the product itself.

 

[frozentundra123456]

While Steamroller is a step in the right direction (improved IPC), performance per core is still unimpressive, and so is performance per watt. I don't think there is too much market prospect for it.

Kaveri doesn't seem to fundamentally address Richland flaws. It is still a big chip, being expensive to manufacture, it still sells cheap, it still runs hot. Success or failure of it depends more on Intel doesn't price too aggressively than on the merits of the product itself.

Not saying you are not correct, but the major problem in my mind is that half of the die area is devoted to an igpu that is still hamstrung by bandwidth restrictions.

 

[mrmt]

Not saying you are not correct, but the major problem in my mind is that half of the die area is devoted to an igpu that is still hamstrung by bandwidth restrictions.

That's also a problem IMO. Had AMD solved the badwidth issue, they would have the entire cheap gaming market for them. But OTOH they are poised to be shut out of the mobile market for good with Kaveri, and that's far more important than budget deskop gaming.

 

[AtenRa]

it doesn't change the fact the other platform also have advantages, useless features like the IGP and quicksync, PCIE 3.0, probably slightly superior sata performance, or not so useless like higher performance, lower power draw, better upgrade path and so on,

the fact that you mentioned the "dead" HDMI port as a something relevant is very telling.





again, features with no effect on performance or real use for most users.
you are artificially limiting things to suit your preference, it's ok, but at least use parts in stock.



the i3 with the same 270 is better "bang for the buck" compared to the 760k with the same VGA, faster with a very small price difference.



who cares about quicksync when you can use HDMI with no IGP or you can use your $60 board for all your 6 sata III SSDs

OK, not everyone has USB3 devices, no need to have that. Not everyone has SSDs, no need to have SATA-III. And as you said, because those features doesnt affect Gaming performance, lets have a cheap $50 FM2+ board + Athlon 750K at $80 (You can still OC to 4.2GHz with default cooler) for a total price off 50 + 80 = $130. That is the price of the Core i3 4130 alone 🙄

So now we have $50 more to spend for the GPU. Price/Performance for Gaming, the AMD platform is still better. 😉

 

[Galatian]

May I make a small suggestion: since the OT question was best bang for the buck, why don't you guys simply take some Benchmarks and divide them by the price of the processor. That way you'll simply get a good measurement for bang for buck.

My guess: Intel will come out off this with the best bang for the buck. Given the price difference of a i3-4130 (100&#8364😉 or a i5-4450 (157&#8364😉 and a A8-6500 (89&#8364😉 or a A10-6700 (130&#8364😉 or a FX-8120 (121&#8364😉 is small, but the Intel processors usually come out on top in Benchmark by a fair margin.

If you are asking for total system cost this picture might change a little bit to the favor of AMD, but given the fact I can't even find a motherboard with wireless LAN included for AM3+ on one of the most frequented German E-Seller speaks for it self, as this would be added costs to some. In fact I'm just building a office PC for my BFs birthday and I'm just puzzled how anybody can claim AMD is cheaper. For FM2 a mainboard with wireless lan cost exactly as much as for 1550.

It is true the GPU part of the AMD APU might be better, but those are fringe cases. If you are a low budget gamer get yourself either a GPU less FM2 processor or a Pentium/Core i3 and save up for a better graphic card. For HTPC I would suggest low TDP parts, as you don't want your fans spinning up while playing back music/videos. All Core i3 have a lower TDP then even the low TDP APUs.

Seriously if AMD would be at least close to catching up CPU performance I'd take a shot at them (good or equal CPU but much better GPU). As it stands right now it's just a vastly inferior CPU and a mediocre GPU for almost the same price.

Personally I'm not a fanboy to anything, but having build a gaming 2012 (for which the only choice has been a i5-3570K) and now building a home/office PC I'm just completely under impressed by AMDs offerings. Quite frankly I don't get all the talks about APUs and their - excuse my language - apologetics.

 

[JoeRambo]

Price/Performance for Gaming, the AMD platform is still better. 😉

There are two small problems tho, disastrous absolute performance and abysmal performance/watt. Cynics can joke about AMD digging in open pit mining machine graveyard, but sad fact is that in CPU performance they are lagging too much. Gaming or not, you still need single thread performance.

Fortunately for AMD, Intel does not want to destroy them and is instead focused on maximizing revenue without getting involved into price war AND cannibalization of their own higher priced offerings.

So it is in this enviroment, where only two consumer K CPUs are unlocked, AMD can survive and its clientele can have legitimate threads like this. UNLOCKED Haswell i3 or even Pentium on 4.5-5Ghz and 1.5Ghz GPU clock would destroy this illusion for good if Intel wished so.

If you move beyond HTPC (sadly for AMD, Intel is improving its drivers and designs, and soon will be "good enough" with much better power consumption and in HTPC thermals and power consumption are very valued due to niche specifics) and beyond shoddy OEM designs from hell, APUs are missing in action. Actually everyone in this thread perfectly knows why it is so - too high power/thermals and too low perf for mobile and too low performance for higher tiers...

I have assembled plenty of systems and AMD has not been "best bang for buck" for informed system builder for looooong time now...

 

[mrmt]

I have assembled plenty of systems and AMD has not been "best bang for buck" for informed system builder for looooong time now...

AMD is a fair bang for the buck if you are on budget and can find a suitable motherboard for it. You won't go very far on the CPU even with Intel, and the better iGPU makes up for the lower ST performance. Only if you account for power consumption AMD is definitely outclassed.

On top of that, you have to point out who gets the best bang for the buck here. AMD is strong in the bottom market due to aggressive pricing. The reason they hold almost 50% of the bottom desktop market is because AMD doesn't have anywhere else to dump their chips, so they tend to offer very sweet deals to resellers.

 

[AtenRa]

All Core i3 have a lower TDP then even the low TDP APUs.

A8-6500T and A10-6700T are 45W TDPs vs Core i3 55W TDPs and they have faster GPUs.

Quite frankly I don't get all the talks about APUs and their - excuse my language - apologetics.

APUs are not only for gaming, the following are some applications that AMD APUs can have a significant performance advantage vs Intel. More applications are becoming GPGPU every year and both AMD and Intel raises iGPU performance more than CPU.
As a reference, Adobe adds more OpenCL features every year making APUs perform way faster than traditional CPUs. More and more applications are using OpenCL every year. In a few more years the majority of applications will use OpenCL and APUs both from AMD and Intel will have an advantage over traditional CPUs.

 

[JoeRambo]

AMD is a fair bang for the buck if you are on budget and can find a suitable motherboard for it. You won't go very far on the CPU even with Intel, and the better iGPU makes up for the lower ST performance. Only if you account for power consumption AMD is definitely outclassed.

On top of that, you have to point out who gets the best bang for the buck here. AMD is strong in the bottom market due to aggressive pricing. The reason they hold almost 50% of the bottom desktop market is because AMD doesn't have anywhere else to dump their chips, so they tend to offer very sweet deals to resellers.

You are very right about the bottom of the market. But I'd like to point out that not everyone is scraping the bottom of the barrel in getting absolutely cheapest. It might sound strange in thread of "best bang for buck", but for what is 10-15% of total system price more there can be found Intel based solution that is markedly superior... While I am certain that OEM get sweet deals for CPUs etc, but i can't recommend those machines for anyone except mother-in-laws (i mean there is market for them, but it's not "best bang for buck" seeker crowd).

 

[mrmt]

You are very right about the bottom of the market. But I'd like to point out that not everyone is scraping the bottom of the barrel in getting absolutely cheapest. It might sound strange in thread of "best bang for buck", but for what is 10-15% of total system price more there can be found Intel based solution that is markedly superior...

This. There isn't such a thing as a general best bang for the buck. You must specify what kind of scenario you want and then check bang for the buck.

In a lot of cases AMD cannot be the best bang for the buck because they can't fulfill the requisites. Some times people don't want to pay the atrocious power consumption tax, some times people need SATA3, some times people want PCIe 3.0, etc.

I can see AMD APUs being the best bang for the buck only if you are extremely budget constrained, otherwise you'll be better with Intel + discrete or even FX 63x0 + discrete.

 

[AtenRa]

I have assembled plenty of systems and AMD has not been "best bang for buck" for informed system builder for looooong time now...

Then you are not an informed system builder 🙄

Even in CPU performance alone, Athlon 750K OCed to 4.2GHz can have 90% of Core i3 Haswell performance(average) with almost half the price. If that is not bang for the buck then you dont even know the meaning of the phrase. 🙄

 

[Galatian]

A screw I just did my suggestion by myself. I've taken the excellent results from X-bit Labs and ran them through the prices I found at the same German E-Shop I posted earlier (cheapest respective versions):

• i3-4130 100€
• i5-4450 157€ - this is actually a faster model then the one X-bit Labs used
• A10-6700 130€ - mind you X-bit Labs use a A10-6800K
• FX-8120 121€ - again they use FX-8350 which actually costs 166€, so take the results here with a grain of salt when it comes to AMD

SYSMark 2012:

Core i3-4130: 1,75 points per €
Core i5-4430: 1,25 points per €

A10-6800K: 1,04 points per €
FX-8350: 1,5 points per €

Gaming Civilization V - min FPS using discrete GPU (might be cherry picked, but's it's a game I'm playing so often)

Core i3-4130: 0,78 FPS per €
Core i5-4430: 0,64 FPS per €

A10-6800K: 0,42 FPS per €
FX-8350: 0,62 FPS per €

3DMark Fire Strike:

Core i3-4130: 71,58 points per €
Core i5-4430: 49,24 points per € - performance crown though

A10-6800K: 50,43 points per € - slowest performer
FX-8350: 60,25 points per € - faster then i3 - 3DMark is optimized for multithreading

iGPU performance with Tomb Raider - mind you the FX doesn't have an iGPU, Core i3 uses on some version HD4400, some have HD4600, i5 uses HD4600 all around - I'm looking an min FPS:

Core i3-4130: 0,2 FPS per €
Core i5-4430: 0,16 FPS per €

A10-6800K: 0,22 FPS per €

Cinebench R15:

Core i3-4130: 3,55 points per €
Core i5-4430: 2,98 points per €

A10-6800K: 2,50 points per €
FX-8350: 5,06 points per € - credits where credits due

x264 in fps:

Core i3-4130: 0,14 FPS per €
Core i5-4430: 0,13 FPS per €

A10-6800K: 0,10 FPS per €
FX-8350: 0,21 FPS per € - again credits where credits due

But Intel has Quicksync and since the nightly of Handbrake support it (and I use it all the time), Intel still has the advantage in my eyes.

I hope this summary settles the OP question: I wouldn't call AMD best bang for the buck.

 

[Galatian]

A8-6500T and A10-6700T are 45W TDPs vs Core i3 55W TDPs and they have faster GPUs.

I stand corrected on the T version, but those also exist for the i3 and i5...hell there is even an i7 35W TDP 4C/8T out. Faster GPU...not so sure. The T version have lower frequency 760 MHz versus 844 MHz on the A10-6800K you testet, although I can't find the turbo voltages. Intel turbos are the same on standard and low TDP versions.

Also you are solely looking at desktop. The GPU part of the APU is even further crippled on mobile. On the other side this is where Intel shines. The iGPU has just a slightly slower turbo. They are mostly on par to their desktop counterparts.

APUs are not only for gaming, the following are some applications that AMD APUs can have a significant performance advantage vs Intel. More applications are becoming GPGPU every year and both AMD and Intel raises iGPU performance more than CPU.
As a reference, Adobe adds more OpenCL features every year making APUs perform way faster than traditional CPUs. More and more applications are using OpenCL every year. In a few more years the majority of applications will use OpenCL and APUs both from AMD and Intel will have an advantage over traditional CPUs.

First...check my post earlier...I ran the numbers down. Intel still comes out best bang for the buck. Especially the APUs suck in this regard. Second...if you are going to post you're own results at least make a fair comparison. You are using last generation Intel processor against current generation AMD APUs, which you then even overclock. Way to bias your results.
But as X-bit labs have shown, some of your benchmarks are actually over turned by the IPC advantage Haswell brought, so your point is moot.

OpenCL is nice and dandy, but "...in a few more years" is not now. The OP asked best bang for the buck right now. You have no clue what will happen with the next iGPU versions from Intel. They already support OpenCL. I'm sure they'll take a shot at that too. Don't believe this playground only belongs to AMD.

 

[JoeRambo]

Even in CPU performance alone, Athlon 750K OCed to 4.2GHz can have 90% of Core i3 Haswell performance(average) with almost half the price. If that is not bang for the buck then you dont even know the meaning of the phrase. 🙄

AFAIK there is a small problem with 750K, no iGPU? But it's perfect example of bottom of the barrel I was talking about, for just 30-40$ more you can get Intel CPU with much better thermals and power consumption and has iGPU too. AND if you drift away to dGPUs or APUs, that is different price bracket...

P.S. And before you move to further personal attacks, please consider that I've built countless Athlon/Athlon64 systems in their time. But I won't assemble 750k, cause there are FASTER Intel options within 30$ just because of that glorious past.

 

[Abwx]

A screw I just did my suggestion by myself. I've taken the excellent results from X-bit Labs and ran them through the prices I found at the same German E-Shop I posted earlier (cheapest respective versions):

• i3-4130 100€
• i5-4450 157€ - this is actually a faster model then the one X-bit Labs used
• A10-6700 130€ - mind you X-bit Labs use a A10-6800K
• FX-8120 121€ - again they use FX-8350 which actually costs 166€, so take the results here with a grain of salt when it comes to AMD

SYSMark 2012:

Core i3-4130: 1,75 points per €
Core i5-4430: 1,25 points per €

A10-6800K: 1,04 points per €
FX-8350: 1,5 points per €

Gaming Civilization V - min FPS using discrete GPU (might be cherry picked, but's it's a game I'm playing so often)

Core i3-4130: 0,78 FPS per €
Core i5-4430: 0,64 FPS per €

A10-6800K: 0,42 FPS per €
FX-8350: 0,62 FPS per €

3DMark Fire Strike:

Core i3-4130: 71,58 points per €
Core i5-4430: 49,24 points per € - performance crown though

A10-6800K: 50,43 points per € - slowest performer
FX-8350: 60,25 points per € - faster then i3 - 3DMark is optimized for multithreading

iGPU performance with Tomb Raider - mind you the FX doesn't have an iGPU, Core i3 uses on some version HD4400, some have HD4600, i5 uses HD4600 all around - I'm looking an min FPS:

Core i3-4130: 0,2 FPS per €
Core i5-4430: 0,16 FPS per €

A10-6800K: 0,22 FPS per €

Cinebench R15:

Core i3-4130: 3,55 points per €
Core i5-4430: 2,98 points per €

A10-6800K: 2,50 points per €
FX-8350: 5,06 points per € - credits where credits due

x264 in fps:

Core i3-4130: 0,14 FPS per €
Core i5-4430: 0,13 FPS per €

A10-6800K: 0,10 FPS per €
FX-8350: 0,21 FPS per € - again credits where credits due

But Intel has Quicksync and since the nightly of Handbrake support it (and I use it all the time), Intel still has the advantage in my eyes.

I hope this summary settles the OP question: I wouldn't call AMD best bang for the buck.

The conclusion is aquite doctored since using Bapco s Sysmark
wich massively advantage Intel as basis for your computations.

In short the comparison must be biaised from the start using
an Intel benchmark to make the latter looks good.

Why not PCMark 8 instead ? or a mix Sysmark and PC mark.?...

Also you are solely looking at desktop. The GPU part of the APU is even further crippled on mobile. On the other side this is where Intel shines. The iGPU has just a slightly slower turbo. They are mostly on par to their desktop counterparts.

Crippled you said.?...

The Haswell processor using the HD 4600 graphics is actually less power efficient than the mobility Trinity APU, the A10-4600M (35 watt TDP). AMD’s edge in GPU performance is creating this advantage and allows the Trinity architecture to stand against Haswell in these configurations even a year after its release.

http://www.pcper.com/reviews/Graphi...rinity-and-Richland-Integrated-Graphics/Perfo