When is AMD ever a good value?

[sm625]

This is an OK deal:

A10-5800K for $109.99

I would much rather have that than any intel chip for under $120.

(Of course there are a number of i5-760 and even i7-920s under $100 on the used market that represent a much greater value than anything else....)

 

[SPBHM]

I think the issue here is that the CPU difference is imperceptible for most users while the iGPU difference is certainly noticeable when they want to game.

Most of the time when I was asked to build a computer it is not intended for cpu intensive tasks but they'd like to have an option to game every now and then. An APU seems like a great choice in such instances.

Case in point, my school just upgraded hundreds of computers from Core 2 systems to Haswell. It pains me to see 200$ i5-4670 on computers destined to run browsers and Microsoft Word 99% of the time.

well, the HD 4600 is looking quite close to Trinity/Richland IGP in many games, and the CPU difference is big, sure it might be overkill for basic stuff, but it's a nicer CPU to have for a longer period, with better upgrade path, and the price difference is not to big.

This is an OK deal:

A10-5800K for $109.99

I would much rather have that than any intel chip for under $120.

(Of course there are a number of i5-760 and even i7-920s under $100 on the used market that represent a much greater value than anything else....)

paying $40 more for the 6800K make no sense... Richland is to overpriced.

 

[crashtestdummy]

And regarding the APUs, the only place those make even a modicum of sense is for an HTPC build where you want very low power consumption (which directly impacts heat generation and therefore the noise level of cooling required) while still being able to do some gaming. But even here, these chips just don't have the strength to push games at reasonable screen resolution with eye candy enabled (who wants to game on medium settings at 720p with no AA?). For standard HTPC (non-gaming) uses, Intel chips are much superior (better performance combined with lower power consumption). And if you just have to game on your HTPC, you're better off adding a low power discrete card to be able to really enjoy the experience.

I more or less agree with this, with the single exception that I'm eyeing how the Kabini will do as a low end non-gaming HTPC and as a low power (read:cheap) ultraportable solution.

Most users don't need a lot of power for web browsing/office/streaming video use, and could do with a lot less than what's in a ultrabook now, but would still like a lightweight computer with a lot of battery life. This low-end will open up even more as SSDs become cheaper.

Intel likes high margin areas, and doesn't mind ceding the low margin areas like the above or game consoles to a company like AMD. Of course, the downside in this is that AMD may never be able to rake in those large profits that Intel does.

 

[cbk]

AMD MB's tend to be less expensive also

I disagree, I have seen a Z77 for less than a AM3+ on Newegg.

 

[NTMBK]

A8-5600k + 8GB DDR3-2400 (crazy sale right now) = $158
G2020 + 8GB DDR3-1600 + Radeon 7700 (with free Farcry 3) = $195

$37 more, but 3x the graphics performance. Even if you have a hard drive to reuse (a huge chunk in a new build) it's still going to be less than a 15% increase in total build cost, and the amount itself is tiny relative to First World wages.

That Pentium is a godawful choice, though. Only two threads, which makes it stuttery on modern engines. The i3 is a big step up in terms of frame time consistency, as it has the 2 hyperthreads to let it handle more heavily threaded game engines. If you want a cheap CPU to go in a bargain build, the Trinity/Richland base Athlon X4 750k/760k are much better choices.

 

[DominionSeraph]

I don't know why APUs get discounted so easily. I think that for a system where there is no room or budget for a discrete graphics card, the A10-6700 is hard to beat. I'm planning a mini-ITX build

Most people in the market for a gaming computer don't live in a cardboard box, which opens up the mATX form factor.

 

[DominionSeraph]

That Pentium is a godawful choice, though. Only two threads, which makes it stuttery on modern engines. The i3 is a big step up in terms of frame time consistency, as it has the 2 hyperthreads to let it handle more heavily threaded game engines. If you want a cheap CPU to go in a bargain build, the Trinity/Richland base Athlon X4 750k/760k are much better choices.

They also cost more. We can continue that until we're at 2P LGA 2011 with quad Titans.
The fact is that a G2020 with a 7770 that'll get you 60FPS is a bit less stuttery than the 20FPS of a A8-5600k.

 

[crashtech]

Most people in the market for a gaming computer don't live in a cardboard box, which opens up the mATX form factor.

No need to veer into the personal. Some of us like cardboard boxes, they are very eco-friendly. And a mini-ITX system is great for users who don't require more, a VESA mounted one is great for freeing up space and reducing clutter.

 

[crashtech]

I still think it's to much money for what it is... a haswell i5 is only $ 40 more, and while the the HD 4600 is slower, it certainly not as bad as the HD 2500 from ivy i5, and the CPU difference is huge...

Most of us haven't had these two systems side by side, but I'd bet you'd be hard pressed to detect any difference except when doing something computationally intensive or gaming, the latter going to AMD and the former to Intel. And what I have noticed is that if the machine needs to churn away on something for a bit, a lot of people will walk away and do something else for a bit. The difference between the two systems is likely less than a bathroom break in most instances.

That said, I DO prefer Intel for most things, just not graphics. Not yet.

 

[AtenRa]

When is AMD ever a good value?

Just a teaser
ps: Voltage is at 1.47v

 

[monstercameron]

I disagree, I have seen a Z77 for less than a AM3+ on Newegg.

fm2 bro

 

[cbk]

I think the issue here is that the CPU difference is imperceptible for most users while the iGPU difference is certainly noticeable when they want to game.

Most of the time when I was asked to build a computer it is not intended for cpu intensive tasks but they'd like to have an option to game every now and then. An APU seems like a great choice in such instances.

Case in point, my school just upgraded hundreds of computers from Core 2 systems to Haswell. It pains me to see 200$ i5-4670 on computers destined to run browsers and Microsoft Word 99% of the time.

I hear you, but at least it is faster, my school is using Windows XP on Core 2 Dell Optiplex 960s and Atom Dell Latitude 2120s. The Latitudes take 10-20 mins to boot up, it's so sad. Your school must have a lot of money saved up for this overkill upgrade, but think about it this way, they will keep these PCs for 5-10 years, by then we will be hitting CPU speeds so much higher than what we have today, so Haswell CPUs will be incredibly slow compared to what we have now. It would make much, much more sense to upgrade to Ivy instead of Haswell. I think the person who came up with the idea's thoughts were, "We need the fastest computers out there, because the kids need to run their 10MB PowerPoint, and we need to check our email, and one needs a very powerful PC to make those apps run smoothly." Props to your school for realizing you can buy the PCs they have for $60 online, and they need an upgrade, but It's stupid that they decided to use Haswell.

 

[cbk]

fm2 bro

FM2s are dirt cheap, I understand what you mean.

 

[cbk]

I've been out of the "loop" with these things for a very long time. My last AMD CPU was an Athlon 3200+ (might have the name a little wrong).

Ever since then I've been looking for an excuse to use an AMD CPU in a cheap budget build, overclock the hell out of it, and grin, knowing it absolutely destroys a comparable Intel processor at a fraction of the price. Unfortunately, this seems to never be so, no matter how much I want it to be. Even wit ha good overclock AMD CPUs have nothing on their Intel counterparts. (short of APUs maybe)

I've been closely monitoring hot deals here, an deal news website hoping for a "very good" deal on an AMD processor, but no matter how much I look, it's just never there. In fact, AMD severely overcharges for their CPUs for what they are.

For example today there is a "Deal" on newegg.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16819103996

"Only" $90 with a coupon code!


But wait... Lets compare it to an i3 2100. I think its fair to compare a stock i3 2100 to an overclocked FX 4100. I made a lot of assumptions. I assumed that an overclocked FX 4100 is running something like a FX 4300 and compared using Ananadtech bench. Even though they seem somewhat equal, the i3 still manages to edge out the FX! This is quite disappointing, given the i3 is only $20 more on newegg. But what is the i3 was overclocked? Fuhgetabouttit!


And the same story seems to hold true for just about every other CPU I compare.

I will admit however that I am by far not even remotely any sort of expert on CPUs or comparisons. And I didn't even looks at that many comparisons. But overall, the story doesn't look good at all for AMD.


As far as their APUs go, AMD is awesome off course. Because there is nothing for Intel that offers descent gaming performance in such a tiny package. But when the overall raw speed/performance gap is so large, I cannot see why anyone in their right mind would be buying an AMD CPU (short of multi-core applications) for any reason.


Maybe someone would be kind enough to prove me wrong? I'd really like that too. I hate how intel is the only option for just about anything.

That CPU deal sucks, add 2 more cores for $30:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...FVEV7AodumYA7Q

 

[cbk]

Just a teaser
ps: Voltage is at 1.47v

Those benchmarks are amazing! Proof that the A10 is an amazing APU for gaming. (The link in his sig, the site is below, make sure you use a browser that can translate Greek to what language you want to read it in.)
http://forum.oktabit.gr/topic/oktabit-vero-w-pc-mainstream-a6800a#comment-115079

Quote:
"To put it bluntly, the A10 is the Easy Bake Oven of gaming and is priced to match." - svenge

 

[SPBHM]

Those benchmarks are amazing! Proof that the A10 is an amazing APU for gaming. (The link in his sig, the site is below, make sure you use a browser that can translate Greek to what language you want to read it in.)
http://forum.oktabit.gr/topic/oktabit-vero-w-pc-mainstream-a6800a#comment-115079

Quote:
"To put it bluntly, the A10 is the Easy Bake Oven of gaming and is priced to match." - svenge

it's overpriced, the 5800K gaming performance is basically the same, and for almost the same money you can get a 750K + 7750 (which is 2x the gaming performance basically).

but, 4.9GHz is quite nice.

 

[crashtech]

it's overpriced, the 5800K gaming performance is basically the same, and for almost the same money you can get a 750K + 7750 (which is 2x the gaming performance basically).

but, 4.9GHz is quite nice.

The new A10s have measurably better single thread performance, in my mind AMD can use all it can get of that.

 

[SPBHM]

The new A10s have measurably better single thread performance, in my mind AMD can use all it can get of that.

well, it's the same die as the "old" A10, the gain is not very impressive, and comes from the higher clock,
and the IGP gain is minimal, so gaming is still going to be limited by the IGP, I don't see how the 6800k is "amazing for gaming".

 

[Remobz]

As for me, I needed a small laptop for basic computer needs.

Bought a HP Pavilion G4 with AMD A6 and 7250g graphics. It was bought for about $400.00 US and has served me well for my needs. Its only 14 inches but I think its useless to game on laptops anyway.

All the Intel laptops were way more expensive but AMD was a good value for me.

As for desktop components, for my needs Intel would not be a good value.

For the future, I would always buy the cheaper AMD laptops and buy the Intel components for my gaming desktop.

 

[PG]

Lower end FX cpus like the FX-4XXX and FX-6XXX series are very full featured which may be more important to some people than gaming fps. All the FX cpus have AES and full hardware virtualization features. An i3 is missing AES and VT-d. And if you get an Intel K series cpu you are still missing out on VT-d.
I am lucky enough to live near a Microcenter. The FX-6300 and i3 3245 are about the same price and both are available in special bundle pricing with cheap motherboards. Overall the combo pricing is about the same too as long as you get cheap boards for each. As I said before though the i3 is missing features like AES and virtualization and has 2 less threads which may matter if you want to have multiple VMs running at the same time. (Note I said threads not cores. Let's not go there.)
In many things the i3 wins in terms of benchmarks, but in terms of features and value AMD is the winner. Overall it depends what you want and need but it's hard to argue against the fact that AMD gives you more for your money.

 

[nyker96]

I did some research on low end systems because I was thinking of upgrading my current, which I ended up w/ a used i5 2500k+Z68 board. here's the best bang for buck at each money range:

+ below $50, a used PII x4 is the best value, hands down. I see quite a few 955BE/965BE sold at just $35shipped. that's incredible value no matter how you cut it.
+ below $50-70, a x6 used or i5 750 is best value.
+ at about $100, a i7 860 is best value.
+ at about 135-150, i5 2500k is best value.
+ 175ish, i5 3570k best value.
+ 180+ you should just save up and get a new haswell K series.

also i7 920s are very cheap like 90-100 bucks, but the added heat isn't worth it, at that price, just get yourself a i7 860 unless you got a x58 board lying around for free.

all these CPU are used, but I never had any problem buying used CPUs they last a long time.

i3 2xxx is basically 90-100 bucks used. I see no need to get that cause you can get excellent quads at all price range now on ebay, no need to go to a duel core at all. At 100 bucks, i7 860 once overclocked 3.5+ will run circles around an i3 2xxx.

so basically to answer your question, $75 or below I'd consider AMD, $40-50 below, AMD still is a killer value, anything above that, I'd get intel. but whatever price range I'd always get a decent OCable quad.

follow this path and you can get so much CPU for so little money, for instance, I stress tested my 2500k at 10hr+ Linx stable at 4,5ghz no problem using just 1.285v. running daily at 4,2ghz currently, for $145 bucks+ cheap $45 Z68 board, it's unbeatable value.

I think AMD is still great if i build something for a kid around the house on a sub $200 budget, I'd get a $35 955BE, oc that to about 3,5ghz couple w/ a nice $50 board, and $50 DDR3 8gb, a used gtx460 ($50) bascially got yourself a nice sub $200 machine that can game some, should be plenty for a kid/parent etc.

 

[pcunite]

Case in point, my school just upgraded hundreds of computers from Core 2 systems to Haswell. It pains me to see 200$ i5-4670 on computers destined to run browsers and Microsoft Word 99% of the time.

They could be linked together in the evening to do some Distributed Computing. The good news is the power draw is 40 Watt for the system (-monitor) when idle.

 

[Concillian]

AMD is really only competitive if you compare against the locked Intels in multi-threaded applications.

Games almost universally prefer an i3 at stock to an OCed AMD these days. Value generally lies with a locked i3 partly because to OC an AMD you need a pretty significant mobo & cooler due to the amount of power you push through the VRMs, where an i3 is happy with a stock cooler on a ~$70 H77 motherboard.

If you're specifically looking at mutithreaded performance, than OCed AMDs compete, but consume quite significantly more power. Long term cost is potentially better with a locked i5 depending on power costs, I haven't run ROI numbers on this sort of thing.

Intel motherboard costs are really only outrageous for the boards with unlocked chipsets. The locked chipset boards are much more reasonably priced and for the most part, Intel single threaded performance is so far ahead of AMD that locked Intels actually compete with overclocked AMDs in some applications.

In the past Intel SATA performance with SSDs was always well ahead of AMD. Has AMD turned that around yet? I recall them having serious performance issues compared to the Intel controllers.

 

[ElFenix]

For standard HTPC (non-gaming) uses, Intel chips are much superior (better performance combined with lower power consumption).

Do we have benches of richland (or trinity) with standard htpc tasks ( video decoding) to show that?

 

[escrow4]

I don't think AMD is ever a good choice on the CPU side unless you are broke and need a new system and have no choice. And at the end of the day spending an extra 100 or 200 on an Intel system makes more sense to me in the long run than a slow and hot AMD chip.