When is AMD ever a good value?

[crashtech]

I've just built several mITX rigs with A10, case: Silverstone SUGO6, with included high quality 450W PSU. Space for a 120mm radiator cooler as well if one needs the OC power.

OC A10 with fast ram stomps all over Haswell, for much cheaper. It's a HTPC rig that can actually do gaming at acceptable quality and speeds.

So certainly, any build without a discrete GPU, AMD's APU is a great choice. As soon as the budget is increased for a discrete GPU, I would recommend Intel all the way. One has to keep an open mind and its definitely not Intel = automatically superior in all situations.

ps. For sure AMD simply cannot compete in the higher priced gaming PC, not until they improve their IPC for single or dual threads. But it will certainly be interesting down the road when cross platform games are designed ground up to run on AMD's ecosystem. By then, we may actually see the advantages of "MOAR COARS!!".

Actually, I was interested to see if an A10 would work in something like an Antec ISK 100. That's why I am leery of the 65W TDP, since there are documented instances of AMD CPUs running well over published specs.

Honestly I've never been attracted to those cube style cases.

 

[NTMBK]

Actually, I was interested to see if an A10 would work in something like an Antec ISK 100. That's why I am leery of the 65W TDP, since there are documented instances of AMD CPUs running well over published specs.

Honestly I've never been attracted to those cube style cases.

It probably runs pretty close to that 65W number under load- it's only a very minor step down in clockspeeds from the 6800k, which supposedly has a 100W TDP.

That would only be an issue in seriously hardcore work, though- in low usage states it should be fine, and in idle it uses less power than Intel! I say whack a decent cooler on it (the stock one with the APUs is pretty shoddy) and it should be fine.

 

[crashtech]

It probably runs pretty close to that 65W number under load- it's only a very minor step down in clockspeeds from the 6800k, which supposedly has a 100W TDP.

That would only be an issue in seriously hardcore work, though- in low usage states it should be fine, and in idle it uses less power than Intel! I say whack a decent cooler on it (the stock one with the APUs is pretty shoddy) and it should be fine.

I might find out soon. I think it's about the most graphical horsepower that will fit in a mini-ITX enclosure, until Iris Pro for mini-ITX comes out (is it out yet?)

 

[tential]

Not seeing a lot of platform complaints in general at http://forum.xbmc.org/index.php

I don't think there should be a lot of "platform complaints" because it is well documented what you need to achieve what you want. I think the BIGGEST recent complaint was HD Audio. You need to be in the hardware section. Most recommended systems are intel though. I haven't seen any AMD system beat out an intel system at the same price range, but maybe I'm wrong. The G1610 is pretty solid though.

I mean the stronger AMD CPUs that are cheap, also have higher power consumption. I think this post sums up why you don't use the cheap CPUs, http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=303788. Power consumption exceeds 100 Watts under load, which exceeds the 80 watt PS used in most mini builds on there. The APUs, have better graphics performance than intel, but lower CPU performance, especially in single threaded.

AMD just has an odd balance. Weaker CPU, but great dGPU. Which while good for maybe a handful of users, most people need that single threaded performance and preferably at low power consumption when you're talking mini builds and AMD doesn't deliver that. The G1610 just dominates at that 43 dollar price point.

 

[scannall]

I don't think there should be a lot of "platform complaints" because it is well documented what you need to achieve what you want. I think the BIGGEST recent complaint was HD Audio. You need to be in the hardware section. Most recommended systems are intel though. I haven't seen any AMD system beat out an intel system at the same price range, but maybe I'm wrong. The G1610 is pretty solid though.

I mean the stronger AMD CPUs that are cheap, also have higher power consumption. I think this post sums up why you don't use the cheap CPUs, http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=303788. Power consumption exceeds 100 Watts under load, which exceeds the 80 watt PS used in most mini builds on there. The APUs, have better graphics performance than intel, but lower CPU performance, especially in single threaded.

AMD just has an odd balance. Weaker CPU, but great dGPU. Which while good for maybe a handful of users, most people need that single threaded performance and preferably at low power consumption when you're talking mini builds and AMD doesn't deliver that. The G1610 just dominates at that 43 dollar price point.

I have an AMD A4 in my HTPC, and couldn't be happier. It draws very little power. Quiet, cool and does everything an HTPC does very well. My case is very small, and while I might be able to shoehorn a low profile video card in it, there is no need. Since the A4 is an APU and all.

 

[Vesku]

You can undervolt and underclock if reducing power draw is the primary concern. Again, I checked the hardware section of XBMC forums as well as the support sections, couldn't find any general complaints about AMD.

 

[mrmt]

You can undervolt and underclock if reducing power draw is the primary concern. Again, I checked the hardware section of XBMC forums as well as the support sections, couldn't find any general complaints about AMD.

This.

One of the problems with AMD offers is that you cannot have the best experience out of the box. You have to overclock, underclock, overvolt, undervolt, avoid MB xyz, buy memory with gazillions of frequency, etc.

Why should someone waste time tweaking an AMD processor when they can buy at the same price (or even cheaper!) an Intel processor that will give everything out of the box?

 

[Vesku]

This.

One of the problems with AMD offers is that you cannot have the best experience out of the box. You have to overclock, underclock, overvolt, undervolt, avoid MB xyz, buy memory with gazillions of frequency, etc.

Why should someone waste time tweaking an AMD processor when they can buy at the same price (or even cheaper!) an Intel processor that will give everything out of the box?

Keep in mind you'd have to do the same tweaking for the Intel options (but you keep making this a brand issue if it makes you happy):

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/ivy-bridge-wolfdale-yorkfield-comparison,3487-19.html

Only way to get down to mobile chip like power use is to tweak the motherboard settings.

 

[tential]

I have an AMD A4 in my HTPC, and couldn't be happier. It draws very little power. Quiet, cool and does everything an HTPC does very well. My case is very small, and while I might be able to shoehorn a low profile video card in it, there is no need. Since the A4 is an APU and all.

I never said AMD doesn't work.

I'm saying that they do draw more power for less performance when compared to a similarly priced intel processor. However, if you want the added graphics performance for light gaming or whatever then sure. But considering most people don't game on their HTPC for light gaming, intel offers better performance. Hence why it is recommended in more builds.

The AMD A4-5000 isn't available for purchase anywhere that I can find. AMD A4-5300 though is. At 55 dollars, this is definitely a decent choice. However, under complete load

You can hit over 80 watts. Since most powersupplies for these builds were used with 80 watt power supply cases, it's not the safest choice.

I'm not saying you cant make a build that works with AMD. I'm simply saying that a similarly priced build from intel offers better CPU performance and thus can make the interface more snappy with HTPC software. Obviously, if you're using a less demanding HTPC software it won't matter. Like if you use confluence skin on XBMC you won't have a problem. Load up Aeon MQ4 though, and you might use up more CPU usage(dunno what skin is the most CPU intensive).

It's not whether AMD would work or not. I don't deny that

if you drop the resolution to something like 720p (compete with xbox 360 like I said), you probably could get a better gaming experience on an AMD APU compared to the xbox 360 at the same resolution.

But when used purely for viewing video and HTPC software navigation, I'd use a CPU that gives me the fastest navigation experience, and that'd be intel. The G1610 offers a better price to performance ratio than any AMD APU out. As for undervolting/underclocking to hit a lower power consumption, this further exacerbates the problem of AMD giving terrible single threaded performance, which is used to navigate menus in HTPC software(correct me if I'm wrong on this)

 

[Vesku]

There is something fundamentally wrong with a UI if it can't give decent responsiveness with a dual core CPU clocked anywhere north of 1GHz. People are using the 1.1GHz dual SB chip and seem satisfied with reponsiveness. Even with IPC differences, a ~2GHz A4 shouldn't have any issues not experienced with a Celeron 847.

Also, if your starting position is that graphical power is secondary what does power use running prime95+furmark matter?

You're welcome to site actual XBMC forum threads about issues, but so far the claims seem to be without merit.

 

[tential]

There is something fundamentally wrong with a UI if it can't give decent responsiveness with a dual core CPU clocked anywhere north of 1GHz. People are using the 1.1GHz dual SB chip and seem satisfied with reponsiveness, even with IPC differences. A ~2GHz A4 shouldn't have any issues not experienced with a Celeron 847.

Also, if your starting position is that graphical power is secondary what does power use running prime95+furmark matter?

You're welcome to site actual XBMC forum threads about issues, but so far the claims seem to be without merit.

Please read the FIRST line of my last post.

I never said AMD doesn't work. Like I have said previously, somethings don't work depending on OS, and what you are using. For example HD Audio doesn't work under certain circumstances (cant remember what). I didn't say you can't use AMD at all. I'm simply saying that people PREFER to use intel due to the power consumption and that it is recommended in more builds. I also said that the intel chip is CHEAPER.

This thread is "When is AMD ever a good value?"
Why would I pick a more expensive AMD chip, that isn't as fast in CPU performance, over the G1610, which is a faster CPU and is cheaper?

Please don't twist what I said, I never said the AMD APU won't give decent responsiveness, I never said it doesn't work, I never said you can't use it. This thread is about value, and like I said, G1610 gives better overall value, until you say you want to do light gaming. Then I am AMD APU all the way.

 

[Abwx]

Also, if your starting position is that graphical power is secondary what does power use running prime95+furmark matter?

Thoses graphs are misleading in that neither prime95
nor furmark perfs are specified , hence one could
conclude that thoses graphs show power comsumption
at the same perfs while you can imagine the HD2500/4000
poor perfs as well as for the other soft wich is likely
worse with the intel comparison.

 

[Vesku]

I never said AMD doesn't work.

...


Please don't twist what I said, I never said the AMD APU won't give decent responsiveness, I never said it doesn't work, I never said you can't use it.

. As for undervolting/underclocking to hit a lower power consumption, this further exacerbates the problem of AMD giving terrible single threaded performance, which is used to navigate menus in HTPC software(correct me if I'm wrong on this)

Programs and OSes that XBMC use just seem to work better on intel or there aren't drivers out that work with AMD.

Please clarify, I'm getting mixed messages.

As for value, the A4-4000 is $4 less than the Celeron G1610 on Newegg atm. So at the very least we can say they are price comparable.

 

[crashtech]

...until you say you want to do light gaming. Then I am AMD APU all the way.

So in your estimation there is a scenario where AMD provides a good value per the OP, but you choose not to stay OT by presenting it?

 

[tential]

So in your estimation there is a scenario where AMD provides a good value per the OP, but you choose not to stay OT by presenting it?

No offense, but I'm getting tired of people just attacking me without reading my posts.

The best application HTPC wise I think they could be used as, is a 720p Xbox type gaming rig. If you set your resolution to 720p, gaming is pretty realistic. We've gamed on the Xbox 360 and PS3 and most console users are very happy with that experience. You could emulate that for 300-400 dollars for with AMD, and still have functionality of a PC. That's the best application where AMD wins hands down.

So in your estimation, there is a scenario where I said that AMD provides a good value per the OP, but you choose not to read my posts, then attack me saying I didn't present it?

If we are going to only selectively read peoples posts whats the point? This is the best use I can think of, but it's a very small niche.

 

[crashtech]

No offense, but I'm getting tired of people just attacking me without reading my posts.



So in your estimation, there is a scenario where I said that AMD provides a good value per the OP, but you choose not to read my posts, then attack me saying I didn't present it?

If we are going to only selectively read peoples posts whats the point? This is the best use I can think of, but it's a very small niche.

I apologize.

It does seem as if your later comments contradict your earlier ones. Consistency will alleviate misunderstandings.

By the way, if you think that is an attack, you ain't been around.

 

[tential]

Please clarify, I'm getting mixed messages.

As for value, the A4-4000 is $4 less than the Celeron G1610 on Newegg atm. So at the very least we can say they are price comparable.

Ok so we drop to the A4-4000. This is perfect because I can actually find reviews for this one.

First issue: Power consumption:

It goes over that 80 watt sweet spot that a lot of users use for their mini cases. This is why it's not normally recommended but if you're willing to get a bigger power supply then sure why not?

From the review at techspot.com

Meanwhile the A4-4000, which displayed a lack of processing power in our benchmarks, still gulped down 89 watts under full load. That's roughly the same as the Core i5-3450 system. This means that the A4-4000 system consumed 46% more power than the Pentium G2020 and 53% more power than the Celeron G1610.

SOME of the benchmarks run over there that compare it to the G1610. (I'll try to avoid GPU ones because I've already said that yes, when it comes to gaming, I think AMD APUs are a sweet spot for gaming and can emulate an xbox 360/ps3 type system if that's what you want. I think it's an extremely small niche of users though.)

It's hard to find realistic gaming benchmarks as for some reason, too many sites test dgpu with 1080p resolution rather than a more realistic 720p, but I think APUs would be viable there.

When we talk about value though, it's quite clear from those graphs that the G1610 obliterates the A4-4000. This is why it's recommended in HTPCs and why AMD isn't recommended as often. I tried to recommend AMD myself and was cited these same complaints. AMD system is the cheapest system to do Full 3D 1080p though according to the recommended builds, but I don't know what Full 3D 1080p requirements are so meh.

 

[scannall]

I never said AMD doesn't work.

I'm saying that they do draw more power for less performance when compared to a similarly priced intel processor. However, if you want the added graphics performance for light gaming or whatever then sure. But considering most people don't game on their HTPC for light gaming, intel offers better performance. Hence why it is recommended in more builds.

The AMD A4-5000 isn't available for purchase anywhere that I can find. AMD A4-5300 though is. At 55 dollars, this is definitely a decent choice. However, under complete load

You can hit over 80 watts. Since most powersupplies for these builds were used with 80 watt power supply cases, it's not the safest choice.

I'm not saying you cant make a build that works with AMD. I'm simply saying that a similarly priced build from intel offers better CPU performance and thus can make the interface more snappy with HTPC software. Obviously, if you're using a less demanding HTPC software it won't matter. Like if you use confluence skin on XBMC you won't have a problem. Load up Aeon MQ4 though, and you might use up more CPU usage(dunno what skin is the most CPU intensive).

It's not whether AMD would work or not. I don't deny that

if you drop the resolution to something like 720p (compete with xbox 360 like I said), you probably could get a better gaming experience on an AMD APU compared to the xbox 360 at the same resolution.

But when used purely for viewing video and HTPC software navigation, I'd use a CPU that gives me the fastest navigation experience, and that'd be intel. The G1610 offers a better price to performance ratio than any AMD APU out. As for undervolting/underclocking to hit a lower power consumption, this further exacerbates the problem of AMD giving terrible single threaded performance, which is used to navigate menus in HTPC software(correct me if I'm wrong on this)

I don't run Prime95 on my TV. Ever. My HTPC doesn't ever run anything that more processor power would make a difference at. It has a pretty cushy life overall. The hardest it ever has to work is Plants vs Zombies once in a while for the kids. Other than that, it's just streaming content.

For *my* use case, the A4 was the best choice. You may be, and quite likely are different. And that's fine. Certainly nothing worth fussing over.

 

[AtenRa]

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

 

[Vesku]

Do you do a lot of Excel work on your HTPC?

Of all the things someone might do with an HTPC how would you rate the likelihood of "light gaming" or some other graphics related task compared to CPU intensive tasks?

Keep in mind people on XBMC forums seem fine with Celeron 847 level of CPU performance (1.1GHz SB).

 

[crashtech]

In the review to which the above graphs are deep linked, they are benching APUs with a 7970. I found that odd.

 

[tential]

Do you do a lot of Excel work on your HTPC?

Of all the things someone might do with an HTPC how would you rate the likelihood of "light gaming" or some other graphics related task compared to CPU intensive tasks?

Keep in mind people on XBMC forums seem fine with Celeron 847 level of CPU performance (1.1GHz SB).

So we're going to ignore all of those graphs showing that the G1610 is a faster processor, because they don't relate DIRECTLY to an HTPC benchmark?

If you want to say something works, yes it does certainly "work". My Athlon 64 also works on XBMC. Speed/Responsiveness of skins? Obviously just about ANYTHING will work as even a RaspPi runs XBMC. What's your point about saying it works? Of course as we already know just about anything works?

It's whether it's a good value? I say no it's not.
It has lower CPU performance and higher power draw. That isn't good value.

In the review to which the above graphs are deep linked, they are benching APUs with a 7970. I found that odd.

That's for the gaming part when they aren't using the IGP. So you can see there is an IGP page, and a Gaming page. The IGP uses the integrated, the gaming page uses the 7970. I think they use the 7970 to isolate it and just what the difference is when you change the CPU.

 

[Vesku]

So we're going to ignore all of those graphs showing that the G1610 is a faster processor, because they don't relate DIRECTLY to an HTPC benchmark?

If you want to say something works, yes it does certainly "work". My Athlon 64 also works on XBMC. Speed/Responsiveness of skins? Obviously just about ANYTHING will work as even a RaspPi runs XBMC. What's your point about saying it works? Of course as we already know just about anything works?

It's whether it's a good value? I say no it's not.
It has lower CPU performance and higher power draw. That isn't good value.



That's for the gaming part when they aren't using the IGP. So you can see there is an IGP page, and a Gaming page. The IGP uses the integrated, the gaming page uses the 7970. I think they use the 7970 to isolate it and just what the difference is when you change the CPU.

Considering the exchange started with you claiming hearing of issues with AMD and XBMC in the XBMC forums, yes I'm going to focus on HTPC use.

I never said AMD doesn't work.

...


Please don't twist what I said, I never said the AMD APU won't give decent responsiveness, I never said it doesn't work, I never said you can't use it.

. As for undervolting/underclocking to hit a lower power consumption, this further exacerbates the problem of AMD giving terrible single threaded performance, which is used to navigate menus in HTPC software(correct me if I'm wrong on this)

Programs and OSes that XBMC use just seem to work better on intel or there aren't drivers out that work with AMD.

But when used purely for viewing video and HTPC software navigation, I'd use a CPU that gives me the fastest navigation experience, and that'd be intel. The G1610 offers a better price to performance ratio than any AMD APU out. As for undervolting/underclocking to hit a lower power consumption, this further exacerbates the problem of AMD giving terrible single threaded performance, which is used to navigate menus in HTPC software(correct me if I'm wrong on this)

Now we have this:

My Athlon 64 also works on XBMC. Speed/Responsiveness of skins? Obviously just about ANYTHING will work as even a RaspPi runs XBMC. What's your point about saying it works? Of course as we already know just about anything works?

Wait so everyone knew anything works with XBMC?

 

[scannall]

So we're going to ignore all of those graphs showing that the G1610 is a faster processor, because they don't relate DIRECTLY to an HTPC benchmark?

If you want to say something works, yes it does certainly "work". My Athlon 64 also works on XBMC. Speed/Responsiveness of skins? Obviously just about ANYTHING will work as even a RaspPi runs XBMC. What's your point about saying it works? Of course as we already know just about anything works?

It's whether it's a good value? I say no it's not.
It has lower CPU performance and higher power draw. That isn't good value.



That's for the gaming part when they aren't using the IGP. So you can see there is an IGP page, and a Gaming page. The IGP uses the integrated, the gaming page uses the 7970. I think they use the 7970 to isolate it and just what the difference is when you change the CPU.

I still don't get why you are focused on CPU performance in an HTPC. The Intel graphics aren't as good as AMD's. And that the entire purpose of an HTPC. The APU's don't have the stutter problem for instance. You could argue it isn't a HUGE problem. But I don't want even a small one, when I don't have to have it.

I buy the parts that best fit the job they are intended for. My gaming rig is Intel for example. And when I build a new gaming rig this year, it will have a 4770k. As that is the best part for that particular job.

I need a truck once in a while. I could go out and buy a 10 yard dump truck, as I might even need that capacity once every 5 years. Or I could just use my pickup, and rent the big ass truck when I need it.

 

[Liquid_Static]

But it's like the pickup gets worse gas mileage than the truck and they are the same price...