Xbitlabs: Comparison of current APUs

[SPBHM]

Yes its a bit OCed to 705MHz, i can push it up to 800MHz with this setup but its purpose is HTPC so no need to. Also this is a slim Mini-iTX setup so no extra GPUs

trinity and llano IGP perform quite close at the same clock, at 800MHz llano is probably very competitive compared to stock trinity, anyway,
if you decide to test some more, I would be curious to see the impact of lower memory clock (like 1333), my guess is that tomshardware used a 1600MHz 6670, so trinity with 2133 ram could probably improve on that result.

Here's two exceptionally low cost CPU/mobo/RAM/GPU sets. If they were actually budget builds, the rest of the parts (case, HDD, and so on) would have the same costs, so all I'm looking at is the difference between an APU and a CPU+dGPU. I picked the cheapest possible component for the motherboard and the RAM (but the APU got 1866MHz RAM). The Athlon was the cheapest quad core option.

CPU: AMD A10-5800K 3.8GHz Quad-Core Processor ($129.99 @ Newegg)
Motherboard: MSI FM2-A55M-E33 Micro ATX FM2 Motherboard ($49.99 @ Newegg)
Memory: G.Skill Ripjaws X Series 4GB (2 x 2GB) DDR3-1866 Memory ($37.99 @ Newegg)
Total: $217.97

CPU: AMD Athlon II X4 640 3.0GHz Quad-Core Processor ($64.99 @ Amazon)
Motherboard: ECS A960M-M3 Micro ATX AM3+ Motherboard ($39.99 @ Amazon)
Memory: Mushkin Silverline 4GB (2 x 2GB) DDR3-1333 Memory ($26.98 @ Amazon)
Video Card: PowerColor Radeon HD 7750 1GB Video Card ($89.98 @ Newegg after $15 rebate)
Total: $221.94 after a $15 rebate.

So the version with a dedicated graphics card is around $5 more after a rebate, $20 before it. Yet it'll perform 50% better. Sure, the APU is acceptable in games, but why would you get it when the next option is barely any more and performs way better?

very good example, the second option is much faster for gaming,

even if you stay on the same platform, is easy to see where you can save some money to invest in higher gaming performance.

a quick look on newegg,

$109.99 5600k 5800k $$129.99
4GB DDR3 1600 $28.99 2x2GB DDR3 1866 $37.99
Asrock a75 fm2 = $54.99

with the CPU and memory there is a $30 difference, for almost no penalty for the CPU performance,

obviously 30 is not enough for a decent card, but, if you follow the same patern, you could pick a cheaper board like this asrock instead of a $80-90 A85 board, also it could be the difference from a cooler you could buy to OC the A10 CPU+IGP or something (I suppose CPU cooling and MB VRMs will suffer less with the IGP disabled)...

you can buy a 7750 DDR5 for as low as $85 on newegg after rebate...

so even if you keep the rest unchanged, this would be like $55 difference for a $ 300-400 build, that's like 15% for a a gain as high as 100%
(see here)

but your example is even better

 

[notty22]

I would never use a 7750 ddr5 in CF with the Trinity IGP,
first is not officially supported, and second you are dealing with 2 vastly different GPUs in terms of performance, so you are limited to poor scaling, and all of the usual AFR problems, it may well give you a 15% boost on a well known (and optimized) benchmark (using an overclocked APU with fast memory), but do you really think it adds anything to the experience? my guess is that it's actually worse than a single 7750, considering this.

Agreed. Suggesting unsupported options are going to work better than recommended ones(considering the reviews already out) seems like wishful thinking. That a possible driver bug is going to give results AMD isn't aware of?
http://www.amd.com/us/products/technologies/dual-graphics/Pages/dual-graphics.aspx#3

 

[Sleepingforest]

The Athlon II can't match the A10 in CPU benchmarks so you're trading CPU for GPU performance. The PhII 965 would be a better match, and you'd need a better motherboard for AM3 to support 125W CPUs and all that would raise the price of your AM3 build by $40 which would be enough difference to drop in a 6570 to crossfire with the A10 and now you're nipping at the heals of the 7750.

Isn't the Athlon II X2 just an underclocked A10 with no iGPU? There should be headroom even at stock to bring it up very close to the A10's performance.

I agree that there isn't really room for an i3 in low end gaming builds--a weaker Athlon or Pentium with a dGPU is a better choice. I would recommend that, generally speaking, over Trinity or a lone i3. Or even better, a Dell Outlet refurb with a 7750 or 7770 (depending on the PSU connectors available).

But purely for web browsing and maybe some word processing (what students would use a computer for, in terms of productivity), I would recomend getting any modern processor, even a dirt cheap Celeron or prebuilt, and putting in an SSD for the OS. The SSD will make a bigger difference for general use than any GPU or APU.

 

[Hubb1e]

The AM3 Ahtlon II is based on the Phenom II architecture minus the L3 cache. It is a different die than the PhII but the same design. They are available in quad core up to 3ghz, tri core, and dual core up to 3.6ghz. There are some FM2 Ahtlon IIs but those are rare in the US market and they do make very nice gaming PCs when paired with discrete video card.

 

[Jovec]

The AM3 Ahtlon II is based on the Phenom II architecture minus the L3 cache. It is a different die than the PhII but the same design. They are available in quad core up to 3ghz, tri core, and dual core up to 3.6ghz. There are some FM2 Ahtlon IIs but those are rare in the US market and they do make very nice gaming PCs when paired with discrete video card.

That 630 also has higher IPC that Trinity (though Trinity's higher clocks give it better ST performance) and slightly better MT performance too.

 

[grimpr]

That 630 also has higher IPC that Trinity (though Trinity's higher clocks give it better ST performance) and slightly better MT performance too.

But it consumes more in idle, it doesnt have any of extensions that the Piledriver/FM2 APUs have like AES/AVX etc, it doesnt have power gating and turbo core, it doesnt overclock as well and its generally an inferior product. I would take the 750k instead.

 

[Jovec]

But it consumes more in idle, it doesnt have any of extensions that the Piledriver/FM2 APUs have like AES/AVX etc, it doesnt have power gating and turbo core, it doesnt overclock as well and its generally an inferior product. I would take the 750k instead.

Good points and I'm not arguing any of that, merely pointing out that for a budget gamer the 640 vs 750k/5800k is a bit closer than the clock disparity indicates, and arguably not worth the price premium.

 

[MeldarthX]

Just for fun,

AMD Llano 3870K Crysis 3 Low 720p on Samsung 47" 1080p TV.

Power consumption playing Crysis 3 was 115W on the wall.[/QUOT

That shows a lot my friend - thanks for making that

Can Llano play Crysis 3? yes......which means so can Trinity

And after what I've posted on Richland; I'd say possibly mid settings at 720p for Richland...

 

[Shephard]

I don't really see a point of these APU's.

For gaming who finds under 30 fps acceptable? I sure don't. Playing Metro 2033 on my 9800 gt and then GTS 250 those cards showed their age. 15 fps - 20 fps in fire fights is not fun.

Maybe not everyone is obsessed with eye candy, but I would think most gamers want a decent picture even on a budget rig. Low fps and crap graphics? No thanks.

So what is the use? Home Theater PC? A HTPC can be the cheapest PC with an HDMI port and enough storage space. Really nothing more to it than that. For 1080p you really don't need that powerful onboard graphics. I was doing 1080p on a Pentium D 2.8ghz. For LOSELESS Blu-Ray you might need a decent video card / apu, but most people compress their Blu-Ray to save space. Then you don't need that.

So... What is the point? You can build a cheap AMD build with a better CPU or an Intel with a better CPU? Better to get one of those and if you want to game down the line get a real video card. 7770's have been on sale a lot and they are quite good.

Also HD4000 is not as bad as people here make it out to be. Has anyone tried it? Before I got my video card I was running Starcraft 2 @ 1680x1050 with good frames, medium graphics, ultra physics. CSGO was on similar settings with playable fps.

 

[AnonymouseUser]

Maybe not everyone is obsessed with eye candy, but I would think most gamers want a decent picture even on a budget rig. Low fps and crap graphics? No thanks.

Also HD4000 is not as bad as people here make it out to be. Has anyone tried it? Before I got my video card I was running Starcraft 2 @ 1680x1050 with good frames, medium graphics, ultra physics. CSGO was on similar settings with playable fps.

You just contradicted yourself by saying the HD4000 was playable. AMD's APUs stomp all over Intel's iGPUs, so what does that really say? That's right, it does make for decent budget gaming.

 

[Shephard]

Actually no I said it's not as bad as people here make it out to be.

The APU benchmarks are really not graphic intensive games and the fps is still poor. Lowest graphics and under 30 fps.

AMD fanboys seem to think HD4000 cannot play any games but it can.

Compare HD4000 to the onboard graphics on my Core2Quad. The C2Q can 'play' CSGO at 1-4fps at the lowest settings and resolution. Then Starcraft 2, graphics at the lowest resolution, lowest settings at 10-18 fps. Any big scale combat in Starcraft 2 will drop down to 5 fps.

The APU is better than HD4000, but neither are good for 1080p modern games with playable frame rate.

 

[Mallibu]

The main argument to hide AMDs crap cpu performance was "CPUs don't matter, GPU does!".

Now, that some people get obsessed over AMD advantage over something noone really cares about, we're told that 20 fps and low details are perfectly acceptable.

Oh, dear god.

 

[AtenRa]

AMD A10-6700 GPU Performance Exposed – 80% Faster Than Core i5-3570K, 20% Than A10-5800K in 3DMark 11 “Fire Strike”

3DMark 11 Fire Strike (DirectX 11):

• AMD A10-6700 - 1131 Points / GPU score 1212
• AMD A10-5800 – 919 Points / GPU score 987
• Intel Core i5-3570K - 630 Points / GPU score 656

3DMark 11 Cloud Gate (DirectX 10):

• AMD A10-6700 - 6450 Points / GPU score 8933
• AMD A10-5800 - 5645 Points / GPU score 7418
• Intel Core i5-3570K - 5348 Points / GPU score 5545

3DMark 11 Ice Storm (DirectX 9):

• AMD A10-6700 – 86027 GPU Points
• AMD A10-5800 - 65657 GPU Points

 

[AtenRa]

The main argument to hide AMDs crap cpu performance was "CPUs don't matter, GPU does!".

Now, that some people get obsessed over AMD advantage over something noone really cares about, we're told that 20 fps and low details are perfectly acceptable.

Oh, dear god.

The crap AMD cpu performance is within a few fps vs the intel cpus in the majority of the games in 1080p and most of the time above 60fps.

Can you say the same for Intel iGPUs vs AMDs ??? Let me just put it this way, you can game every game at 1080p with the AMD crap cpus but you cannot do the same even at 720p with the Intel iGPUs.

 

[grimpr]

AMD A10-6700 GPU Performance Exposed – 80% Faster Than Core i5-3570K, 20% Than A10-5800K in 3DMark 11 “Fire Strike”

3DMark 11 Fire Strike (DirectX 11):

• AMD A10-6700 - 1131 Points / GPU score 1212
• AMD A10-5800 – 919 Points / GPU score 987
• Intel Core i5-3570K - 630 Points / GPU score 656

3DMark 11 Cloud Gate (DirectX 10):

• AMD A10-6700 - 6450 Points / GPU score 8933
• AMD A10-5800 - 5645 Points / GPU score 7418
• Intel Core i5-3570K - 5348 Points / GPU score 5545

3DMark 11 Ice Storm (DirectX 9):

• AMD A10-6700 – 86027 GPU Points
• AMD A10-5800 - 65657 GPU Points

Man, it wipes the floor with Intel iGIF HD4000 graphics, if this is so powerful i cant wait to see a full blown HSA APU such as Kaveri what will deliver.

 

[AtenRa]

What is most impressive is that A10-6700 with a 65W TDP will be close to or even faster than A10-5800K at 100W TDP at the same 32nm process.

 

[insertcarehere]

Man, it wipes the floor with Intel iGIF HD4000 graphics, if this is so powerful i cant wait to see a full blown HSA APU such as Kaveri what will deliver.

Unfortunately for AMD, this gap only shows in the desktop area, where power use is not a concern and expandability is relatively good. In power-constrained laptops and tablets, where this will benefit the most, the AMD APUs are not nearly as much ahead in graphics performance (the gap even seems to have narrowed).

 

[Phynaz]

The crap AMD cpu performance is within a few fps vs the intel cpus in the majority of the games in 1080p and most of the time above 60fps.

You continue spreading the same misinformation.

Which majority of games is that, because it's not the ones reviewers are using?

http://techreport.com/review/23750/amd-fx-8350-processor-reviewed/5

http://techreport.com/review/23662/amd-a10-5800k-and-a8-5600k-trinity-apus-reviewed/8

AMD gets its ass handed to it every time. And you know it too.
Maybe with Steamroller AMD's octo cores will be able to game as well as Intel duals.

Maybe.

 

[laputan machine]

AMD A10-6700 GPU Performance Exposed – 80% Faster Than Core i5-3570K, 20% Than A10-5800K in 3DMark 11 “Fire Strike”

3DMark 11 Fire Strike (DirectX 11):

• AMD A10-6700 - 1131 Points / GPU score 1212
• AMD A10-5800 – 919 Points / GPU score 987
• Intel Core i5-3570K - 630 Points / GPU score 656

3DMark 11 Cloud Gate (DirectX 10):

• AMD A10-6700 - 6450 Points / GPU score 8933
• AMD A10-5800 - 5645 Points / GPU score 7418
• Intel Core i5-3570K - 5348 Points / GPU score 5545

3DMark 11 Ice Storm (DirectX 9):

• AMD A10-6700 – 86027 GPU Points
• AMD A10-5800 - 65657 GPU Points

Can you make out what the ram speed is?

 

[AtenRa]

Unfortunately for AMD, this gap only shows in the desktop area, where power use is not a concern and expandability is relatively good. In power-constrained laptops and tablets, where this will benefit the most, the AMD APUs are not nearly as much ahead in graphics performance (the gap even seems to have narrowed).

Trinity A10-4600M at 35W TDP is on average 20% faster(gaming at 1366x768) and priced almost half than Intel Core i7 3720QM at 45W TDP according to AT review last year. At the same TDP Trinity will be even faster and Richland A10-5750M will even raise the performance even farther.

It is the ULV CPUs that people believe that Intel have better performance than AMDs APUs but due to low TDP constrains and the fact that desktop A4-5300 can outperform the HD4000 in core i3 I have to say that we have to see real benchmarks to make any conclusion.

 

[AtenRa]

You continue spreading the same misinformation.

Which majority of games is that, because it's not the ones reviewers are using?

http://techreport.com/review/23750/amd-fx-8350-processor-reviewed/5

http://techreport.com/review/23662/amd-a10-5800k-and-a8-5600k-trinity-apus-reviewed/8

AMD gets its ass handed to it every time. And you know it too.
Maybe with Steamroller AMD's octo cores will be able to game as well as Intel duals.

Maybe.

The majority of games is the cherry picked Skyrim ??? really man, give it a rest, I can cherry pick 10-20 games at 1080p that AMD cpus are within a few fps against Intel CPUs or even faster.

Edit: Not to mention that even dual core 5600K can produce more than 60fps in Skyrim, can you play Crysis 3 with the Intel HD4000 ???

 

[AtenRa]

Can you make out what the ram speed is?

It seams like 1066 (2133MHz)

 

[monstercameron]

I know posting videos of gameplay from youtube is lame but listen to his rationale
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9l8dR4NMRro

 

[Phynaz]

The majority of games is the cherry picked Skyrim ??? really man, give it a rest, I can cherry pick 10-20 games at 1080p that AMD cpus are within a few fps against Intel CPUs or even faster.

Edit: Not to mention that even dual core 5600K can produce more than 60fps in Skyrim, can you play Crysis 3 with the Intel HD4000 ???

So every reputable review site is cherry picking their benchmarks according to you.
I'd like to see those 10 or 20 games that an AMD CPU beats Intel.

Yep the AMD CPU's are so great that AMD paid GloFo to not take them.

That's how bad their chips are. Try to wrap your brain around it. AMD could have taken the chips and given them away to employees. They could have offered the OEM's sweet deals to move products - buy one get one. They could have given them away at events. They could have torn them down for research.

They could have made cool keychains out of them.

But even to AMD they were worth less than $0. Just think about it. AMD had no confidence they could even sell the CPU's at a small enough loss that they paid to literally have the wafers scrapped at the factory.

That's how bad those APU's are. AMD literally can't give them away. That's the truth. Isn't it about time we all stopped pretending otherwise?

The PC market has spoken and has found AMD CPU's to be so inferior that AMD can't even move them below cost. All the youtube videos in the world doesn't change that.

Do you get it yet? A company that has a sellable product doesn't scrap them.

 

[monstercameron]

So every reputable review site is cherry picking their benchmarks according to you.
I'd like to see those 10 or 20 games that an AMD CPU beats Intel.

Yep the AMD CPU's are so great that AMD paid GloFo to not take them.

That's how bad their chips are. Try to wrap your brain around it. AMD could have taken the chips and given them away to employees. They could have offered the OEM's sweet deals to move products - buy one get one. They could have given them away at events. They could have torn them down for research.

They could have made cool keychains out of them.

But even to AMD they were worth less than $0. Just think about it. AMD had no confidence they could even sell the CPU's at a small enough loss that they paid to literally have the wafers scrapped at the factory.

That's how bad those APU's are. AMD literally can't give them away. That's the truth. Isn't it about time we all stopped pretending otherwise?

The PC market has spoken and has found AMD CPU's to be so inferior that AMD can't even move them below cost. All the youtube videos in the world doesn't change that.

Do you get it yet? A company that has a sellable product doesn't scrap them.

you are just the worst. It is like you want AMD to fail. I mean if you have nothing constructive to post why post at all?
...man there are plenty of trolls on this forum...

the fact is that intel is faster than amd cpu-wise, though adjusted for price amd becomes a little more competetive.

the igp on the amd systems are nearly all faster than intels fastest igp.

neither intel nor nvidia have a product that can outperform the apu in raw graphics performance -moreso intel than nvidia(nvidia has no such product).

the a10-5800k will play NEWER games low-medium @1080p30 and medium-high @720p30, as for older games, maxed out 1080p60 shouldnt be a problem.

a cheap intel + dgpu will be a faster system but will cost more.
blah blah blah...its all been said before...

what do you guys think is the impact of a more integrated solution versus cpu&dGPU fro top to bottom?