Just barely and in a totally obscure cumulative average. Considering that the Phenom II was a 130W part without any graphics, at that level having an APU less that half of which is dedicated to CPU cores, is actually quite impressive.
AMD is obviously moving sideways, they finally caught up with themselves in regards to GCN, they committed to a lot of innovative stuff, they rule the consoles, you don't need a vice or a razor to cool them! For anyone without a graphics card, Kaveri is a safe recommendation.
With all the discussion, about who APUs are for? Now, maybe there are people out there who drop more than a grand on a gaming PC, to play it 10 hours a week and have the best possible experience. But I suspect, from a time when I used to own graphics cards, there are plenty of blokes who'd want to get a lot of mileage out of the purchase of a pricey discrete GPU card, which in retrospect usually is a bad decision.
Casual gaming can imply staying say below 100W TDP, sticking with shorter, smarter, independent games, instead of chasing the biggest high, be it total Immersion in a Sim, the most spectacular Battlefield stunt kill or the shiniest armor in an RPG. For the first time it's viable, you even can test and run any game and then decide to commit to an allegedly better experience. Computing is stuck in a holding pattern anyway, waiting for mobile to catch up.
People who say a frequency gimped, i3, with pitiful graphics, disabled energy saving states and 20 degees worth of thermal insulation is a better choice than a fully featured, top of the line APU, those people are full of something, but it ain't wisdom. OK, Maybe in an ultra-book an i3 makes sense, or in a office nettop.
The funny thing is that for the longest time it seemed that notebooks were going to replace desktops, but actually AMD is better than ever positioned in the growing HTPC, console segment than say the blasted ultrabooks, or thousand dollar graphics cards in their respective markets.
Facebook
Twitter