Here we go again. Let the flames begin.
I looked up and familiar with the history of the APU, never mind my experiances doing this professionally, certified, and been around BEFORE the first Home Computer was built. That said it was and is a combined processor and graphics processor AS DESIRED when AMD bought out ATI. The point of it was to create a 'all in one' chip, low cost and low power (watts)'. They succeeded and the TARGET market when designed was netbooks (ATOM processors) then tablets (can you really play Crysis on a netbook or tablet??? NO!).
The latest iteration employs to make CHEAP desktops for the 'masses' (notice not powerful gaming design mantra) at the target marketspace of the i3-Clarksdale (the first i3s) then the 2nd Gen i3s. Intel had decided on the Mobo cheap Integreted Video, which changed things; you no longer 'had to buy a video card' just to USE a computer (use being the other 90% of the market grandma, parents, etc. whom just need to type Word, check Email, surf a Website).
The INTEL ideas was that simple (IG on Mobo), while AMD thought putting it all on one chip was the BETTER idea. Intel moved along and with the latest revisions of the iCores, the IG chipset became a issue (the seperate chipset) so Intel moved the components onto the CPU Die LIKE AMD, but instead targetted the new ULTRABOOK marketspace with it. Lighter weight, lighter power consumption, but still a FULL POWER CPU (a APU's CPU is not the same as say a AMD-6xxxx or AMD-8xxx CPU, but sort of a 'lightweight' underpower version in comparision). Intel didn't want to sacrifice the iCore processors (that was what the Duo Core 2 does, as well as the new Gxx CPUs are for) but just wanted a all in one package for the new UltraBooks.
Intel also didn't want to 'increase costs' by having just a Laptop CPU (though laptops outsell desktop 3 to 1) and the iCores weren't changed realistically from a 'Desktop version', so they use the SAME iCore with IG on the CPU die in BOTH Laptops, Desktop, or anything else (someone want to use it in a Smart Phone? Sure. iPad-Like one, SURE! Game Console? Sure go ahead! ONE CPU TO RULE THEM ALL - LOL!).
So a APU is *NOT* the same thing as a iCore though they both employ the same idea, just as a Honda Civic uses gas, has tires and you drive it, it isn't the same thing as a Hummer, a Semi Truck nor a Lamborgini; butthey all use gas, have tires and you drive them too. The design and market targets made the designs distinctly different. A APU is NOT the same CPU as the rest of the AMD processed ones, while the Intel is the same powerful HyperThreaded CPUs they always been.
Is a APU good for gaming? Alot of people been piping on here OH JUST F'ING BUY A TITAN and it won't matter the GPU is the magic bullet for all games!
Sadly this is NOT true, first basic computing 101: Data is stored (HDD) to be read (RAM) in chunks to be processed (CPU) to determine what component (Sound, GPU, Printer, NIC, etc.) needs to use the code to do that 'task'. So a slow HDD (5400RPM) will bottleneck the data no matter if you have a Tital or not. Lower end (DDR2) or slow RAM timing (9-9-9-24) will slow how long it takes to read.... readd.............readddddddd........that data BEFORE handing it to the CPU; again a Titan GPU still isn't making this speed up and still a bottleneck. Then finally if you have a low end CPU (i.e. a i3 Clarksdale or the i-3xxx , or even most of the AMD CPUs, all the Intel 'Duo Core' and even the Intel G series) it takes longer and longer and longer (also most of the time less cores aka less individual workers 'working' on the code) till it figures out "OH YEA Hey GPU can you render this Jeep?". Again the GPU doesn't replace or help this, it is waiting it's "turn" to get the at that same data.
Now if you read CAREFULLY, all those bellowing out 'YES YOU CAN GAME ON A APU' .. but then they say 'on lowest graphics settings its still "PLAYABLE" (above 15FPS to 30FPS is thier 'playable' margin). Personally I didn't spend any of this money to just 'play' on crappy video settings, shitty graphics details, and sttopppssss... and go go go.. lag lag lag... go go go.. sort of game play. Some even say playing as 'low as ' 800x600 display is fine too because you still 'playing the game'. I personally DO NOT believe this and think this is just a excuse to say it does 'work' when really it isn't close to the gaming experiance I SHOULD be getting and expected.
Lastly, ANY of the NUMEROUS Benchmark tests out there about CPUs all do NOT show any APUs on the charts, why? Well in the case of BF4 and similiar programmed games the CPU is 50% of the actual WORK the game needs to function (the other 50% is the GPU to render). To make the AIs work, the bullet physics, building physics, and so on are all NOT RENDERING dependent (i.e. no GPU), they are CPU dependent. Now all the AMD Fanboys are crying why BF4 is such a CPU HOG on thier AMD-6xxx CPUs that 'worked great for BF3! Can play Crysis like no one's business, must be a F'ed Up BF4 Code then!". No it is simply the demands of the games are MUCH MORE then the processor can handle, it is THE BOTTLENECK, no matter if they have a high end GPU card or not. Secondly to that, the APUs (as noted) are intended to perform 'general computing tasks' (like the older i3s which they were DESIGNED to COMPETE against), which means for gaming they don't "process" that code efficiently as say a AMD-8xxxx, i5 or the still undisputed leader i7s.
So let the flames start, but CHECK ALL THE BENCHMARKS TESTS YOURSELF about your favorite games, what do you ALWAYS see? The same answer, at the top i7, next i5/AMD 8xxx, then i3/rest of AMD chips.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram