AMD Sets New Pricing For A-Series APUs

Status
Not open for further replies.

usertests

Distinguished
Mar 8, 2013
32
1
18,530
0
I suppose you could just get the top of the line desktop APU, game with it, and then throw in a discrete after a couple years of earning more dinero.
 

ta152h

Distinguished
Apr 1, 2009
1,207
2
19,285
0
The original prices were never consistent with the performance of the processors, particularly for the A10-7850K. They probably had yield problems initially, and have largely ironed them out.

The prices now aren't great, but at least they make sense. I could at least make an argument for the 7850K over a similiarly priced i3. At $185, that was a much more difficult side to take.
 
I still feel the A10-6800k is the better option. The performance difference isn't worth the extra cost. These things are only really great for budget systems, and every dollar counts so that extra $30 still makes a good amount of difference if used towards other parts.
 
Oct 22, 2014
3
0
4,510
0
Antemon, look at the top chart, the respective video cart that each processor "equals" to is listed. Take those and substract around 10-20% because gddr5 vs ddr3. Thats about what it equals. Ive played around a lot with apus when the 5800k came out.
 

Achoo22

Distinguished
Aug 23, 2011
350
2
18,780
0
These processors are a reflection of what AMD can offer, not what consumers actually need or want. Anyone buying a low-end PC is better served by Intel for the same money. If AMD ever makes chips with integrated graphics that are "good enough", maybe the situation will change. For the present, however, inventing the APU jargon isn't enough to move these chips at this price.
 

antilycus

Distinguished
Jun 1, 2006
933
0
18,990
1
I have the A10-7850k and if you think any of those games run well in 1080p, you would'be completely wrong. 720p is playable though. These integrated GPU's are the best INTEGRATED on the market, but aren't a "one stop shop" for console like gaming. Even the 360's GPU is better than the A10-7850k (their top of the line)
 

BleedingEdgeTek

Reputable
May 29, 2014
709
0
5,360
144
Even with a welcome price drop, it's still not a good idea if you're focusing on gaming.

You can get an AMD 860k and a 250x for the same price:

PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant

CPU: AMD Athlon X4 860K 3.7GHz Quad-Core Processor ($77.99 @ Newegg)
Video Card: PowerColor Radeon R7 250X 1GB Video Card ($69.99 @ Newegg)
Total: $147.98
Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available
Generated by PCPartPicker 2014-10-22 11:03 EDT-0400

The 7850k will do 30 FPS at Medium running Bioshock Infinite at 1080p, whereas the 860k + 250x will net you 50 FPS at High running Bioshock Infinite at 1080p.

Tl;dr APUs have a LOOOOOOOOOOONG way to come before matching price/performance of a dedicated GPU.
 

Chris Droste

Honorable
May 29, 2013
275
0
10,810
14
R7 graphics on these seem kinda useless to be honest. if they can make R9 graphics(based on Tonga maybe?) that's the equivalent of a 270/270X ? I think these would really really take off. i mean, part of the draw, other than price is being able to game with them. if I'm building a new gaming system, I'm going to, at bare minimum, get the best graphics i can afford, and build a system to prop up that capability while trying not to ignore general tasks. just that small price difference of $30-40 depending on setup and you're talking about a GTX 750(Ti?) or 260X, which i don't think is quite where an A10-7850k would be. even a gamer on a tight budget could make room for that sum through a cheaper case, a step back in RAM, or a smaller OS drive.
 


Perhaps you should actually know what you are talking about before you comment. AMD's integrated graphics are miles ahead of Intel's. Compared to buying a discounted Intel i3 which is actually a little more expensive, the A10-6800k gives a huge boost in gaming performance over it. Granted the CPU performance isn't amazing, but working on the two systems you will never notice the difference in web browsing, video editing, photo shop, or numerous other tasks between the two.

When it comes to gaming, with a GPU that is at R9 level and above, you will see some mild improvements on an i3 against an A10-6800k, but since we are talking about budget systems and no one plans to buy a high-end GPU that costs $200 for a system they are trying to build for under $400. So that leaves us with integrated graphics, and when it comes to that its not so uncommon to see double the performance of Intel integrated graphics from the APUs.

Long story short, you get a significantly better system for lite gaming on a tight budget by buying the APU than you do an Intel system. The performance gap in iGPU only gets bigger if you go with one of the new APUs based on Kaveri, and the typical CPU performance stays pretty much unnoticeable between them.

As for inventing the "APU" jargon, you clearly have no idea what AMD is doing. This wasn't invented to just try to increase sales. They did this for numerous reasons, and not a single one is a stupid marketing ploy. First, they needed to distinguish it from their CPUs which do not have graphics, to better help users know what they are buying. Second, since the they acquired ATI they have been working with integrating graphics into CPU operations. The ultimate idea would be the eventual remove of FPUs from CPUs, because the GPU performs much better at these tasks. The idea was that with a GPU core on the CPU, eventually to send all FPU instructions to the GPU which would be able to perform them much faster and give a much greater performance. This is part of the reasoning behind their CPU design as well, since they are Integer heavy architecture but only have half the number of FPUs as Integer units, obviously preparing for GPUs to do the work. Had they been successful, the floating point performance would of given them a huge performance advantage. This is why they are called APUs more than anything as the use of GPU for floating point would accelerate their processing performance greatly.
 

Reepca

Honorable
Dec 5, 2012
156
0
10,680
0
The 7850k price cut is great and all, but what I'm looking at and ooh-ing over is the a8-7600. From what I've read, in games it does about as well as the a10-5800k (what I have) and the a10-6800k. With it now costing only $90, I can't think of any similar d-gpu setup with an even remotely close value, and definitely not in power efficiency (especially when it's working at its 45W setting). We have an old case with an old power supply, and an old 720p monitor lying around. I imagine it would be possible to snag some core components involving the a8-7600 for around $200, and it would make a nice HTPC-style rig that, on that old 720p screen, could probably be a solid low-med settings gamer as well.

This is the kind of value I was hoping for with Kaveri. It's a shame it took so long for the prices to get here, though.
 

Calculatron

Honorable
Apr 3, 2013
2,240
0
12,460
384
In my opinion, this was something that was needed. Before, the cost of an A10-7850K was the same as the (just released) Athlon II 860K paired with the R7 250 with DDR3 memory. In other words, without and rebates or coupons, the cost and performance was more or less equal. With the new pricing, not only will people be more like to purchase an APU, but the option of Dual-Graphics seems a bit more viable - or, to word it more harshly, not as much of a joke.

The one that is catching my eye the most is the A8-7600.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts