When is AMD ever a good value?

[Machiavegli]

Why am I reminded of an old beer commercial?: "Tastes great!" "Less filling!"

 

[AtenRa]

And where is your graph showing the Pentium likewise on Low? Please support that none of BF3's graphics settings have any effect on CPU load.

If you are NOT going to use higher quality graphics why get an inferior dual core CPU + dGPU ??

 

[monstercameron]

Its not just the 10fps but micro stuttering which happens less with Intel cpus. TR did an article about cpu affecting framerate latencies and bulldozer did badly. Piledriver seemed to improve it but its its still a drawback. http://techreport.com/review/23750/a...sor-reviewed/5

is it the cpus fault if the game microstutters? or the programmers? for gpu I can see the difference but cpu c'mon...

each AMD core is significantly slower than each i5/i7 core,

that isnt necessarily the truth, unless you are comparing something like perf/watt or the same clock speeds then an amd 4ghz core can be faster than an intel 2ghz one...

If it was only 10 FPS it wouldn't be the most popular and most recommended by reviewers for gaming chip on the market. But I think we all knew that

when gpu limited I am sure the intel advantage is marginalized, and you can cherry pick skyrim or civ5 with outdated engines and it still wont mean anything, or better yet, it mean that extra $100-300 could have gotten you a better set of components, something deep pocket intel fanboys dont seem to understand.

 

[scannall]

Another place AMD is a good value is low to mid range laptops. I recently picked up a laptop with an A8-4500m, for $339. And wow, it does great. It plays SWTOR decently for example. StarCraft 2 and Diablo both look great and run fast. Same with WoW and EQ2.

You just can't get that for $339 with Intel inside.

 

[SlickR12345]

AMD has extreme value in the low level and mid level, especially the FX6000 processors who are are so damn good performance for money and you can overclock them which improves their performance quite a bit.

I'd say if you don't want to overclock and want to use your PC for over 4+ years with no problems then go for Intel CPU's even in the lower end, but if you do plan on overclocking going for AMD makes sense.

The thing is Intel processors have lower TDP and consumption with a bit more performance, but are more expensive, from $20, $50 to $100 more expensive.

I'd say the FX6300 right now is great value, but if you want lower the FX 4300 is very good overclocked and will beat the I3 2100 in multithreaded applications.

 

[SPBHM]

Another place AMD is a good value is low to mid range laptops. I recently picked up a laptop with an A8-4500m, for $339. And wow, it does great. It plays SWTOR decently for example. StarCraft 2 and Diablo both look great and run fast. Same with WoW and EQ2.

You just can't get that for $339 with Intel inside.

for $339 I think you can't go wrong with that, definitely AMD have nice GPUs, when they released llano I thought they would gain more ground on mobile than what they did...


but I would also mention that the HD 4000 can probably also play those games, I've played SWTOR on the HD 2000 and with low settings it was OK with laptop res, HD 4000 should have easily 3x that performance I guess,

The thing is Intel processors have lower TDP and consumption with a bit more performance, but are more expensive, from $20, $50 to $100 more expensive.

I'd say the FX6300 right now is great value, but if you want lower the FX 4300 is very good overclocked and will beat the I3 2100 in multithreaded applications.

the price difference can decrease if you consider that Intel CPUs work better with ultra cheap motherboards because of the lower power requirements and more (better) chipset options,

the 4300 is a little bit of a strange choice, considering how close the FX 6300 is priced, also the i3 2100 is old, the 4300 needs to beat the 3220, and it does for a few things... but again, the FX 6300 is much more attractive, if you want a quad core, the 750K is a better deal.

 

[pcsavvy]

AMD to me is a good value especially when you factor in the m/b cost. Whether you can get to a microcenter or fry's, or newegg, you can get a quad or more, over clockable cpu and a decent midrange m/b with all the features you could want for around $120-200 depending upon sales and rebates.

Intel to get a quad core or more, over clockable cpu and a decent m/b with all the features you want, you would need to spend 4-5 times as much.
If you compare Intel and AMD m/b's with comparable features, price wise there is a big difference.
For the tight budget minded gamer or htpc or general use computer system AMD makes sense as a viable alternative.
Unless you already have a m/b and you are basically doing drop in upgrade then m/b cost should be a factor when considering replacing the cpu and m/b.

 

[Vesku]

for $339 I think you can't go wrong with that, definitely AMD have nice GPUs, when they released llano I thought they would gain more ground on mobile than what they did...


but I would also mention that the HD 4000 can probably also play those games, I've played SWTOR on the HD 2000 and with low settings it was OK with laptop res, HD 4000 should have easily 3x that performance I guess,

The Celerons and Pentiums in the non-ultrabooks are ~HD2000/2500 missing Quicksync.

 

[SPBHM]

The Celerons and Pentiums in the non-ultrabooks are ~HD2000/2500 missing Quicksync.

quicksync is used for video transcoding, not gaming.

you can buy for around $400 laptops with the HD 4000 (i3 3110M) and quicksync if that's what you need.

 

[Vesku]

quicksync is used for video transcoding, not gaming.

My point was that HD2000/2500 is not HD 4000.

you can buy for around $400 laptops with the HD 4000 (i3 3110M) and quicksync if that's what you need.

While they are being cleared out for Haswell. We have yet to see what graphics Haswell entry level Celeron and Pentium will get in terms of graphics.

 

[SPBHM]

My point was that HD2000/2500 is not HD 4000.




While they are being cleared out for Haswell. We have yet to see what graphics Haswell entry level Celeron and Pentium will get in terms of graphics.

Haswell GT1, which have 10EUs compared to Ivy Bridge GT1 (6), it should be a decent gain.

 

[AtenRa]

I will try XBMC with my Mini-itx A4-4000 and report back in the weekend.

AMD A4-4000
Asrock FM2A85-ITX
2x 4GB DDR-3 1333MHz 1.55v
256GB OCZ Vertex 4
Mini-iTX slim case with 120W PSU.
Windows 8 Pro 64bit
Logitech k400 Wireless keyboard with mouse pad.

Idle = 19W
XBMC Playing 22GB BattleShip @ 1080p H264 DTS-HD = 29-32W

 

[NTMBK]

AMD A4-4000
Asrock FM2A85-ITX
2x 4GB DDR-3 1333MHz 1.55v
256GB OCZ Vertex 4
Mini-iTX slim case with 120W PSU.
Windows 8 Pro 64bit
Logitech k400 Wireless keyboard with mouse pad.

Idle = 19W
XBMC Playing 22GB BattleShip @ 1080p H264 DTS-HD = 29-32W

+1 for useful information
-20 for watching Battleship

 

[AtenRa]

-20 for watching Battleship

ahahahaha

 

[onething]

The only reason to purchase Intel CPUs back in the day, was to overclock them. I would buy cheap pentium dual cores and just blast away. That was crazy good performance for the $$.

Now, performance/$ ratio wise, Intel doesn't stand a chance. And honestly, this should be the most important aspect.
I see SO MANY idiots do this all the time. They're "gaming", so they get a 3770k/4770k, and their video card is a Radeon 7770 or a GTX 650ti... Because that's all they could afford... Herp derp.

 

[grimpr]

AMD A4-4000
Asrock FM2A85-ITX
2x 4GB DDR-3 1333MHz 1.55v
256GB OCZ Vertex 4
Mini-iTX slim case with 120W PSU.
Windows 8 Pro 64bit
Logitech k400 Wireless keyboard with mouse pad.

Idle = 19W
XBMC Playing 22GB BattleShip @ 1080p H264 DTS-HD = 29-32W

Awesome, now could you try running that in 60fps through SmoothVideo Project? Has a benchmark tool also...

http://www.svp-team.com/

 

[Idontcare]

The only reason to purchase Intel CPUs back in the day, was to overclock them. I would buy cheap pentium dual cores and just blast away. That was crazy good performance for the $$.

Now, performance/$ ratio wise, Intel doesn't stand a chance. And honestly, this should be the most important aspect.
I see SO MANY idiots do this all the time. They're "gaming", so they get a 3770k/4770k, and their video card is a Radeon 7770 or a GTX 650ti... Because that's all they could afford... Herp derp.

There is no need to frame those individuals in such a derogatory light.

There are legitimate reasons why one might decide to invest into a cpu-heavy setup to start, with the trade-off being that you have less to spend at first on your GPU or SSD, with the plan being that you have a solid bedrock of a computer to upgrade down the road.

Pull out that 650ti and replace it with a $400 video card next year and you've got a hell of an upgrade and a gaming rig that will keep on delivering for a couple more years.

The same can't be said of the overclocked budget CPU build that is already pushed to the limit to make today's GPU perform with today's games.

Not that it costs more to upgrade the CPU than it does the GPU, but I can upgrade my GPU and not have to deal with the pain of reinstalling my OS, all my apps, and my games, and setting up all my shortcuts again, etc etc, like I would if I upgraded my CPU/mobo.

Just sayen I get that its not the upgrade path of choice for you, but there's no reason to be so negative on the people who might prefer that kind of an upgrade path.

 

[nemesismk2]

Why am I reminded of an old beer commercial?: "Tastes great!" "Less filling!"

nice commercial

 

[AtenRa]

Awesome, now could you try running that in 60fps through SmoothVideo Project? Has a benchmark tool also...

http://www.svp-team.com/

 

[frozentundra123456]

There is no need to frame those individuals in such a derogatory light.

There are legitimate reasons why one might decide to invest into a cpu-heavy setup to start, with the trade-off being that you have less to spend at first on your GPU or SSD, with the plan being that you have a solid bedrock of a computer to upgrade down the road.

Pull out that 650ti and replace it with a $400 video card next year and you've got a hell of an upgrade and a gaming rig that will keep on delivering for a couple more years.

The same can't be said of the overclocked budget CPU build that is already pushed to the limit to make today's GPU perform with today's games.

Not that it costs more to upgrade the CPU than it does the GPU, but I can upgrade my GPU and not have to deal with the pain of reinstalling my OS, all my apps, and my games, and setting up all my shortcuts again, etc etc, like I would if I upgraded my CPU/mobo.

Just sayen I get that its not the upgrade path of choice for you, but there's no reason to be so negative on the people who might prefer that kind of an upgrade path.

Not only is it insulting, it is just simply incorrect. I can't find the link, but the performance/price charts strongly favor Intel for gaming, while favoring amd for multi-threaded productivity apps. 3570k/4670k are very close in price to 8350, and the slightly higher initial cost will be mitigated by power savings over the life of the system. You will also get better performance in the vast majority of games.

 

[USER8000]

AMD A4-4000
Asrock FM2A85-ITX
2x 4GB DDR-3 1333MHz 1.55v
256GB OCZ Vertex 4
Mini-iTX slim case with 120W PSU.
Windows 8 Pro 64bit
Logitech k400 Wireless keyboard with mouse pad.

Idle = 19W
XBMC Playing 22GB BattleShip @ 1080p H264 DTS-HD = 29-32W

Is that with a 120W pico-PSU??

 

[AtenRa]

Is that with a 120W pico-PSU??

No, just 120W PSU(inside) that came with the mini-itx case.

 

[Torn Mind]

Unless you have specific requirements for fast single-core performance, I tend to think that the FX-4xxx, FX-6xxx, and A8s or A10s are better choices than their similarly priced Intel counterparts. Windows tries to avoid Hyperthreading cores whenever it can do so.

Intel wins the i5 and up in most cases. In the sub-$80 sector, the two are evenly matched, although their strength is in different areas, with AMD having a GPU lead while Intel has somewhat faster CPUs with better power control.

 

[Torn Mind]

Well... I counted 3 for AMD, 0 for intel and 2 draws.
Comparing AMDs 8 core to intels 4? It is like comparing civic to corvette on public road... both will go with 55mph(?speedlimit in US?). Or do you have any data indicating all 8 cores were utilized?

Speed's dimension are some variable divided by a dimension of time, such as distance over time. For CPUs, that is how quickly the CPU can perform calculations. For the ones not well-versed in the technical details, first figure out the individual core's speed and then multiply it by core count. However, core count is application dependent, as not every program is coded to use a ton of cores.

A better analogy is, 8 people not-as-skilled math people working on a certain calculation(s) vs 4 more competent people doing the same calculation, but faster.

Combustion engines are rather complex little animals when it comes to power generation and don't make for a good analogy here.

 

[bononos]

If you are NOT going to use higher quality graphics why get an inferior dual core CPU + dGPU ??

Is that how you are going to answer your flawed comparison by putting an Intel cpu through a harder benchmark and comparing it with AMD?
You keep trying to pull a fast one now and then and hope no one reads all of the posts in threads,