Xbitlabs: Comparison of current APUs

[Atreidin]

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 seem intent on making everything sound as bleak and horrible as possible. From what I understand, they aren't destroying existing chips, they are only not making as many as contractually obligated. Even if they get the wafers made doing anything else with them would cost more money. It speaks more to AMDs horrible management and than to their product quality.

If I contract you to make me 2 million widgets to sell but I can only find buyers for 1 million, I'd like you to stop making widgets. That doesn't mean nobody bought them, it means I suck at evaluating the market and I enter into stupid contracts.

 

[Phynaz]

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...

1. Attack the message, not the messenger.

2. I'm actually an AMD shareholder, why would I want them to fail? I own as many AMD products as I do Intel products.

3. Since when is pointing out falsehoods not constructive?

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 point of my post went right over your head.

If they are so good then why pay Glofo to not take delivery of them?

 

[Phynaz]

From what I understand, they aren't destroying existing chips, they are only not making as many as contractually obligated.

It's easy to do the math to figure out that in order to accommodate the massive drop in orders that wafers would have to have been scrapped. GloFo certainly isn't going to continue processing them and put them on their shelves.

You seem intent on making everything sound as bleak and horrible as possible.

Things are bleak for AMD. Very bleak. Their sales are collapsing. They are cancelling products. They are delaying products.

I also like to make sure some newcomer isn't getting incorrect information from reading falsehoods here. The situations where buying an AMD cpu is the optimum choice are very few. But there is a segment of posters here that would mislead people due to their own bias.

Anyway, the sun is coming up, I should probably get to bed

 

[insertcarehere]

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.

While I know that this is not the most accurate website around, but according to notebookcheck, the fastest trinity on a 17W TDP (A6-4455m), actually performs worse than the hd graphics 4000 ulv, by about 10% in Diablo 3 (only benchmark i can find as a comparison), and it has a much worse cpu to boot. This means that AMD probably has some issues scaling down into lower power TDPs, they will have to address this going forward.

 

[frozentundra123456]

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?

Yes it all has been said before. At this point an apu can be beaten in gaming by a Pentium and a hd7750. No matter how many counter arguments, YouTube videos, or screenshots the amd fans post, it does not change that fact.

It is less efficient in CPU power, which conveniently gets ignored, more gpu power than is needed for normal use, and not enough gpu power for a quality gaming experience.

 

[erunion]

http://www.tomshardware.com/news/HD...-Consumption-Increased-Performance,21763.html

It's too bad they did this right before an Intel driver update.

And before Richland is out. Strange timing indeed.

 

[Homeles]

And before Richland is out. Strange timing indeed.

Who cares? Honestly? The end result is a better user experience for Intel users.

Why does everything have to be a conspiracy around here?

 

[Charles Kozierok]

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?

You know, I hadn't considered something like your second build for the machine I want to build for my son (light/moderate gaming and school use). It looks like a much better idea, because as much as I'd love to just go with an IGP, it just seems to me I'm going to end up buying him a GPU at some point anyway.

Maybe I can even go with an older video card since he won't be running the latest and greatest.

Thanks!

 

[Galatian]

[...]

It is less efficient in CPU power, which conveniently gets ignored, more gpu power than is needed for normal use, and not enough gpu power for a quality gaming experience.

You know that the point I was already asking on page 1 and no nobody felt like answering:

What exactly is the usage scenario for this?

For mobile processor I can see this filling the gap between a 35W Notebook sans discreet graphic and a 45W Notebook with discreet graphic. For Ultrabooks I have yet to see some real gaming comparisons but lets be honest: most Ultrabooks are bought for work and the Intel ULVs simply offer a lot more power compared to the AMD 17 W parts. You can't play newer games on either one.

For desktop processor it looks even bleaker then for mobile processor: I can only see this as a good proposition if you are on a very very tight budget. It has been pointed out several times that you only have to pay little extra for a lot more power. Also when building a gaming machine I want at least 1080p gaming. These APUs don't provide that. For me this also excluded these processors from an HTPC. Might as well get a PS3/X360 then.

I simply don't see what exactly I can use this APU for: as has been said...CPU to weak compared to other similar priced alternative and the GPU to weak for anything serious.

 

[Homeles]

I'm running a 17w IVB ultrabook, and gaming quite well on it. It's not perfect, and I'd prefer to game on my desktop (if it were operational), but it's lightweight and has the horsepower I need.

 

[Hubb1e]

2. I'm actually an AMD shareholder, why would I want them to fail? I own as many AMD products as I do Intel products.

Things are bleak for AMD. Very bleak. Their sales are collapsing. They are cancelling products. They are delaying products.

So you're holding onto AMD shares when you think AMD is tanking. Can I give you some money to invest for me? /s

 

[Shephard]

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.

actually it depends on the game and the AMD will not get solid 30 fps at low settings on modern games so what is the point here?

the best investment is a real cpu and a graphics card. you can always save money and upgrade the card later.

 

[Piroko]

I'm running a 17w IVB ultrabook, and gaming quite well on it. It's not perfect, and I'd prefer to game on my desktop (if it were operational), but it's lightweight and has the horsepower I need.

I'm running a 17w IVB ultrabook and I'm a little bit annoyed by it. Civ 5 has multitouch support but the HD4000 is too weak to enjoy the game. Same for Minecraft, Shogun 2, GW2 & Tera.
Care to share your gaming experience? I'd like to have at least some games that I could play on the go...

 

[AtenRa]

So every reputable review site is cherry picking their benchmarks according to you.

No, YOU chery picked a single game

I'd like to see those 10 or 20 games that an AMD CPU beats Intel.

I believe English is your native language,

at 1080p that AMD cpus are within a few fps against Intel CPUs or even faster.

You do know what OR means in this sentence don’t you ??

But let me give you a few examples,
http://www.techspot.com/articles-info/655/bench/CPU_03.png


http://www.techspot.com/articles-info/645/bench/CPU_03.png


http://www.techspot.com/articles-info/642/bench/CPU_03.png


http://www.techspot.com/articles-info/615/bench/CPU_01.png


http://www.techspot.com/articles-info/601/bench/CPU1.png


http://www.techspot.com/articles-info/591/bench/CPU_01.png


http://www.techspot.com/articles-info/537/bench/CPU3.png


http://gamegpu.ru/images/stories/Test_GPU/strategy/StarCraft II Heart of the Swarm BETA/sc2 proz.png


8 of the latest games, AMD CPUs are within a few FPS against their Intel counterparts. I believe that’s enough to show to everyone that you deliberately Cherry picked a single game to make me look like im trying to misinform people when in fact, it is you that trying to push your agenda.

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.

Man you are beyiond salvation, I dont give a flying fart if you attack AMD and its products. I was talking about the iGPU and how AMD APUs can actually play even new AAA titles at 720p when Intel iGPU cannot.

But it is typical for people here to get out of topic (Comparison of AMD and Intel APUs) and speak about financial things that average users don’t give a rats ass simple to avoid talking about the inferior Intel iGPU performance.

 

[AtenRa]

While I know that this is not the most accurate website around, but according to notebookcheck, the fastest trinity on a 17W TDP (A6-4455m), actually performs worse than the hd graphics 4000 ulv, by about 10% in Diablo 3 (only benchmark i can find as a comparison), and it has a much worse cpu to boot. This means that AMD probably has some issues scaling down into lower power TDPs, they will have to address this going forward.

Taking a single game/benchmark will not be enought to make any conclutions.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

That's how bad those APU's are. AMD literally can't give them away. That's the truth.

I don't think it really is. They renegotiated the wafer supply agreement and paid a charge in order to take less product. That doesn't mean they could never sell those chips. It just means they feel it is a better business decision to buy out the old contract than to fulfill it.

It's obviously not a sign of health on their part, but I think you've gone a bit overboard there.

 

[Homeles]

I'm running a 17w IVB ultrabook and I'm a little bit annoyed by it. Civ 5 has multitouch support but the HD4000 is too weak to enjoy the game. Same for Minecraft, Shogun 2, GW2 & Tera.
Care to share your gaming experience? I'd like to have at least some games that I could play on the go...

Right now, I've been playing Diablo III, SWTOR (coworkers wanted me to play again) and Warthunder. It's done the job, but I would definitely appreciate more performance. 30 FPS is what I usually get in SWTOR with medium-ish settings, and 30 FPS happens to be below what I consider to be optimal. But it gets me by, and I'm more concerned about the weight and aesthetics of my computer more than performance.

 

[frozentundra123456]

No, YOU chery picked a single game



I believe English is your native language,



You do know what OR means in this sentence don’t you ??

But let me give you a few examples,
http://www.techspot.com/articles-info/655/bench/CPU_03.png


http://www.techspot.com/articles-info/645/bench/CPU_03.png


http://www.techspot.com/articles-info/642/bench/CPU_03.png


http://www.techspot.com/articles-info/615/bench/CPU_01.png


http://www.techspot.com/articles-info/601/bench/CPU1.png


http://www.techspot.com/articles-info/591/bench/CPU_01.png


http://www.techspot.com/articles-info/537/bench/CPU3.png


http://gamegpu.ru/images/stories/Test_GPU/strategy/StarCraft II Heart of the Swarm BETA/sc2 proz.png


8 of the latest games, AMD CPUs are within a few FPS against their Intel counterparts. I believe that’s enough to show to everyone that you deliberately Cherry picked a single game to make me look like im trying to misinform people when in fact, it is you that trying to push your agenda.



Man you are beyiond salvation, I dont give a flying fart if you attack AMD and its products. I was talking about the iGPU and how AMD APUs can actually play even new AAA titles at 720p when Intel iGPU cannot.

But it is typical for people here to get out of topic (Comparison of AMD and Intel APUs) and speak about financial things that average users don’t give a rats ass simple to avoid talking about the inferior Intel iGPU performance.

Please give us a break. More gpu limited benchmarks to "prove" cpu parity. Doesnt prove anything.

Edit: you also didnt need to include the "or faster". In none of the games was the 8350 faster than the 3770k, and maybe only 1 fps faster than a low end i5 when the closest competitor, 3570k was not tested. Of course like I said, most of the results you show are gpu limited anyway, but even if one accepts your dubious testing criteria, AMD is not faster.

 

[inf64]

Yep AtenRa, people who buy these CPUs with high end GPUs actually game at super low resolution and low image quality, you have to provide the relevant data that shows Core with 30+% advantage. :awe:

 

[Sleepingforest]

There are equally many tests that show the i7-3770K to produce 10% or more frames than the 8150 (but more typically, 25-80% higher). Let's not get into a fight about what CPU games better. Factually, the best Intel CPUs, with a dedicated GPU, produce better results than the best AMD ones (but you'll pay for it!) and when price is tied, Intel has done slightly better with the exception of the well-threaded Crysis 3 (which we cannot use to predict what is coming--after all, the original Crysis remained riddiculously hard to drive for 3-4 years). When we compare only iGPUs, we see that AMD's APUs have the lead, especially when given high speed RAM and overclocked. BUT the money that goes into the APU, overclocking, and high speed RAM is typically better spent on a dGPU with a cheaper processor at pretty much all price levels for gaming.

The next generation of APU will close that gap at the budget end, and steadily climb (asuming AMD can fund it). But that's not out yet.

 

[Idontcare]

I don't think it really is. They renegotiated the wafer supply agreement and paid a charge in order to take less product. That doesn't mean they could never sell those chips. It just means they feel it is a better business decision to buy out the old contract than to fulfill it.

It's obviously not a sign of health on their part, but I think you've gone a bit overboard there.

Since you framed the decision as "better", I'm curious under what scenario you envision the decision being better?

If I gave you a choice of either paying me $10 and getting nothing in return versus paying me $10 and getting something in return that you might be able to sell for a buck or two (lessening your $10 loss in the process), under what conditions would you argue that it is the "better business decision" for you to just give me your money and get nothing in return?

It seems to me when the "better" business decision is "take my money, but don't give me any of that product in return" is when there isn't a "buck or two" to be made in attempting to resell the product in question.

I.e. only when I literally have to give it away (adding more SG&A cost than revenue to my business) does it make for a better business decision to give money away in return for nothing.

Otherwise it isn't really the better business decision because I am turning down the opportunity to get something for my money that I can sell and recoup a percentage of my losses on.

 

[mrmt]

If I gave you a choice of either paying me $10 and getting nothing in return versus paying me $10 and getting something in return that you might be able to sell for a buck or two (lessening your $10 loss in the process), under what conditions would you argue that it is the "better business decision" for you to just give me your money and get nothing in return?

When you know your customer that got free chips this quarter will ask for free chips next quarter, and when your other customers that heard about it won't want to pay for something they can get for free if they play the right cards.

AMD simply went to the bottom of the value ladder, they can't go any lower because if they do, even if they reach their targeted volumes they won't be able to generate any cash at all. In fact, they might even lose cash regardless of what they sell. So it is worth to eat a one-quarter fee in order to keep pricing intact for the next quarters than crater prices now and never see them recover again.

It's not so simple a being able to sell or not, it's much worse than that. It's about being a viable company or not. By paying the take-or-pay charge, AMD said that it cannot go lower than 38% gross margin.

 

[frozentundra123456]

Yep AtenRa, people who buy these CPUs with high end GPUs actually game at super low resolution and low image quality, you have to provide the relevant data that shows Core with 30+% advantage. :awe:

So according to the first graph for Bioshock, a phenom II x2 is only 5% slower than an FX 8300. Are you saying that is a valid test of cpu performance?

 

[Sleepingforest]

So according to the first graph for Bioshock, a phenom II x2 is only 5% slower than an FX 8300. Are you saying that is a valid test of cpu performance?

I think he's being sarcastic.

 

[frozentundra123456]

I think he's being sarcastic.

Maybe he was, but he and AtenRa continually insist gpu limited benchmarks are valid tests of cpu performance. I just showed an example of why that is not true.