Battle At $140: Can An APU Beat An Intel CPU And Add-In Graphics?

Page 6 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Status
Not open for further replies.


I already answered you: look 6 posts above, dude. :)
 


I'm not sure how but we're having some kind of misunderstanding.

As I see it, the answer to your question is:

"For that price, you could get a $70 Pentium G620 and a $140 Radeon HD 6790 with GDDR5 RAM that would totally dominate when it comes to gaming frame rates. "

So:

A8-3850 + 6670 ($210)
=
Pentium G620 + 6790 ($210)

Where the Pentium/6790 is faster for the price when it comes to gaming.
 
[citation][nom]Cleeve[/nom]I'm not sure how but we're having some kind of misunderstanding.As I see it, the answer to your question is:"For that price, you could get a $70 Pentium G620 and a $140 Radeon HD 6790 with GDDR5 RAM that would totally dominate when it comes to gaming frame rates. "So:A8-3850 + 6670 ($210)=Pentium G620 + 6790 ($210)Where the Pentium/6790 is faster for the price when it comes to gaming.[/citation]
:lol: i think i see what's bothering him...he wants a performance comparison, not a price comparison.

you know, if the AMD+GPU gives 50 fps playing xyz game, then which Intel+GPU combo will give 50 fps playing the same xyz game and (perhaps optionally) for how much.

lmao i think he's trolling though. but with all you've had to handle so far, i doubt it's funny anymore...
 
@tourist, the 6750 is the closest to the 6670+6550D we can get. It still outperforms it, but it should be somewhat close. It will also be cheaper, as has been stated, a 6790 can fit in the same budget. Does that help?

I admit that your question is a valid question, but it won't help anyone unless they are purchasing by performance instead of by price. If you want the same or similar performance to the A8+6670, then the Pentium G620 and the 6750 should be close enough without beating it too badly, but it will also be the better buy for being cheaper, not only slightly better performance.

Most people choose to buy something that fills their budget, but if you are looking for something about equal to the A8-3850/3870K and a 6670 in performance, then my suggestion is probably as close as you get because there is no intermediary card between the 6670 and the 6750 within the Radeon 6000 generation. Nvidia has no good low end graphics cards still selling as new right now and I don't think that the Radeon 5000 family has anything between a 6670 and 6750, so no DX11 video card should be between them, or at least no DX11 card worth having.

Usually we try to fit as much performance into a certain budget as possible, not as little money into a certain performance bracket as possible, so I can see why your question may have confused Cleeve and anyone else.

As for power usage, the AMD system would probably still use the most power simply because AMD CPUs are less efficient than Intel, although the somewhat beefier graphics of the 6750 could negate this if the A8 is not overclocked.
 


Ah! OK, yeah.

The best comparison to an A8-3870K and 6670 DDR3 ($210 total) might be a G620 + 6750 (about $180 total), although that's probably overkill.

A G620 plus 6670 GDDR5 ($160 total) might be closer in many cases, actually.

Depending on the game, somewhere in between those two options, anyway. Probably closer to the 6670 GDDR5, IMHO.
 
[citation][nom]Cleeve[/nom]Actually, we've shown time and time again that the *amount* of video memory rarely has an impact except in extreme circumstances with super-high resolutions and high levels of AA, and usually only in games that have colossal texture sets set to their highest detail setting... none of which was the case here, at low detail and low resolutions. As such, I left it at the 'auto' setting where it grabs as much as it needs for the task at hand, although to be honest I'm not sure what the maximum amount of VRAM the A8-3870K's GPU side is allowed to reserve. But with 8 GB onboard it had a lot of headroom to play with.Hope that helps.[/citation]

My apologies, I was thinking of the more extreme cases, whereas older games and less demanding games will definitely not require gobs of video memory.

I appreciate your time in answering my questions, and the work you and the rest of the staff put in under deadlines.
 
I just think its neat that a single chip is able to push out some playable frame rates. It was only a short time ago that I thought that such performance out of a integrated solution was impossible. It makes me wonder what the next generation APU will be able to do.
 


I totally agree with you. Llano is an amazing product, and I'm excited to see how Trinity will perform.

Just because it's not ideal for a desktop gaming machine doesn't take away its accomplishments. As I've said, it blows away everything in the mobile space, and that's the fastest growing market.

I don't know what people expected, but it did pretty well compared to a dedicated CPU and graphics card.
 
Indeed Tom's hardware did "forgot" to even mention the cost of decent motherboards. And because I am a retailer I can make a very quick and fair comparison:

FM1 socket
GIGABYTE A55M-S2V, sFM1, (no USB3.0, no 6GBps SATA3): 60€
MSI A75A-G35, sFM1, DDR3, ATX (mid-price with USB3.0): 72€

1155 socket
GIGABYTE H61M-DS2, s1155 (no USB3.0, no 6GBps SATA3): 50€
INTEL DH67BL, s1155, MicroATX (mid-price with USB3.0): 88€

And even the Intel board is not half decent as MSI's proposal (1xPCIe instead of 2, ofc no Crossfire support etc). There are also some Asus cheap 1155 boards at 75€ mark (P8H61-M Pro), but still no CrossFire and μATX only. And ofc if you put an AMD mid-ranged VGA on FM1 board, you got hybrid Crossfire.

So, I don't think the article is accurate. And if they want to make real comparisons, take a FM1 board with a cheap AMD card and compare it against a 1155 board with an expensive card at the same price range. And don't forget to mention what each architecture offers (SATA3, etc).
 


We did address it, actually, in the test system and benchmarks page.

Nevertheless, are you suggesting that the price of motherboards affect performance?
The evidence does not support that assertion.

Plus, if you add the price of a second card in hybrid crossfire, you open up the Pentium system to a much more powerful card. Hybrid crossfire will lose by a large margin.
 

The A8 and A6 are the perfect machines for people who just use PC for Video, browsing , playing blu-ray and they just do casual gaming like mine craft.
Even if you use a ton of excel , adobe , 7 zip , and other professional software which are used in offices the Quad core betas the Intel.
The intel is only good at gaming that too at 10% to 20%.
Even if the person is a gamer and if he wants to have a proper future with the softwares , i guess AMD is better because when games get optimized for 4 threads and when the APU is made use of in all the softwares the AMD is going to dominate.
I think the problem now is the software , Intel and AMD are moving according and Moores law or greater , but the software industry is just a piece of Garbage.
 
Can't believe the complaints saying there's pro-Intel bias, if anything it's pro-AMD as the o/c results are only for AMD and don't actually fit within the pricing restrictions because:
a) the much higher power draw would require a more expensive PSU.
b) there's much more heat meaning an expensive aftermarket cooler and probably more case cooling.

In a budget system neither of them are an option.

In addition:
c) you could just o/c intel system which would mean it would be even farther ahead.
d) any noise comparison against the o/c system is going to be vastly in Intel's favour due to any the overworked cpu cooler making a racket - even an aftermarket one will be loud with that amount of heat unless you spend even more money on some top-of-the-line super cooler.
 
[citation][nom]sbuckler[/nom]Can't believe the complaints saying there's pro-Intel bias, if anything it's pro-AMD as the o/c results are only for AMD and don't actually fit within the pricing restrictions because:a) the much higher power draw would require a more expensive PSU.b) there's much more heat meaning an expensive aftermarket cooler and probably more case cooling.In a budget system neither of them are an option.In addition:c) you could just o/c intel system which would mean it would be even farther ahead.d) any noise comparison against the o/c system is going to be vastly in Intel's favour due to any the overworked cpu cooler making a racket - even an aftermarket one will be loud with that amount of heat unless you spend even more money on some top-of-the-line super cooler.[/citation]

Hey if you loose the point, we dont talk about overclock the GPU ot CPU speeds. Indeed we suggest, that little optimizations - like ram used and some other tweaks, will greatly improve the performance of APU. We only suggest. And its up to Tom's redactors, to decide to make additional checks.
 
Lets see if it all posts this time:

Any chance of posting something on the heatsync/noise/temperatures on the overclocked APU setup?

I didn't look at it that closely at first, but a 270w power draw basically all concentrated on the CPU has to be more than a $30 cooler could handle long term no? While the Intel system would have no issues on stock cooling. Even the top SB-E chip doesn't draw that much power through the CPU socket alone with a 5ghz OC does it?

I guess my question is, could a motherboard & CPU cooler appropriately budgeted against the platform cost actually provide the power/cooling required to run at this OC level, or would it overwhelm the voltage regulation/cooling ability of a motherboard/cooler combo <$140? (I figure this is a decent top amount to consider since it's what the APU itself runs) Not saying this as an AMD bash, just legitimately curious after seeing how high these numbers are if they'd cause problems or not?

OTish, why does it seem like AMD & Intel measure their TDP's so differently? Intel always seems to over-state it's power draw, while AMD under-estimates theirs? Or am I imagining things?
 
[citation][nom]yargnit[/nom]Any chance of posting something on the heatsync/noise/temperatures on the overclocked APU setup?I didn't look at it that closely at first, but a 270w power draw basically all concentrated on the CPU has to be more than a $30 cooler could handle long term no? While the Intel system would have no issues on stock cooling. Even the top SB-E chip doesn't draw that much power through the CPU socket alone with a 5ghz OC does it? I guess my question is, could a motherboard & CPU cooler appropriately budgeted against the platform cost actually provide the power/cooling required to run at this OC level, or would it overwhelm the voltage regulation/cooling ability of a motherboard/cooler combo[/citation]

I think that the only problem is that if you want to overclock you need solid cooling(i recently buy Hyper 212)... Because its not only the video and cpu, but indeed and the chipset is also under the hood :)
 
Cleeve you should get the peace nobel price ... seriously. :)

In all seriousness, I think you're done answering any questions. People are asking the same questions over and over again. All questions have been answered in this forum. Anybody can now look it up in these 3 pages. If someone still doesn't get it, then he or she will never get it.
 
"(...) your only upgrade would be to a faster add-in graphics card. In that scenario, the APU basically becomes a $140 Athlon II X4"

Not so true...chosing a 3870K and putting a bigger graphics card on top of it, one has to consider Hybrid CFX. The card has to be a mid-range radeon though. Slapping a 6950 in for example, the dual graphics will most likely hinder the performance. But it is not relevant considering the form factors it's intended for.

If Trinity comes in at similar price points, it'll give APUs that little missing edge to be the definite part of choice for HTPCs and Mobile. But there'll be Ivy bridge at the same time. This test will have to be redone asap when these two part are out!!

 
The low-watt figures of the G620 are totally correct, if you consider Intel only giving out 65W tags to a lot of their processors.

>ALSO: The integrated graphics of the G620 count towards the TDP.
If you don't use it, the real TDP will be lower!
 
@yargnit
I think that a SB-E six core @ 5GHz will pull more than 270w.

@200380051

Once the Llano system is upgraded to above a 6670 then dual Crossfire is no longer possible because only up to the 6670 is it supported. Going to the 6750 and above means that is is literally just a $140 Athlon II BE because it's graphics can't do anything.

At That point you can disable the IGP and overclock the CPU significantly, but it is still an overpriced Athlon II. Trinity will be even more memory bottlenecked than Llano's A8s. At that point it should get larger performance benefits from faster memory, or at least more linear benefits.

Going from 1333MHz to 1600MHzis a 20% jump in frequency. Going from 1600MHz to 1866MHz is a smaller jump in frequency, only like 16%. Since the bandwidth is already higher than 1333MHz, the memory bottleneck is already smaller, further reducing the performance benefit of going from 1600MHz to 1866MHz. The performance increase from going to ever faster RAM gets smaller every jump because of this simple fact, each jump is a smaller jump (going by %) than the last and the bottleneck is reduced at every jump, making the improvements less linear each jump.

Lowering the latencies has been shown to improve Llano performance, but not by nearly as much as increasing bandwidth. This is probably just because a GPU doesn't really care about latency. Video cards can have much looser latencies than CPUs because they are bandwidth bound, not latency bound, so anyone complaining about Llano memory CL and such can shut up about it. The performance from going to a lower latency is always much lower than going to a higher frequency. 1600MHz CL10 is better than 1333MHz CL6.

With Trinity, it could be more linear because the memory bottleneck will be greater or Trinity could get a memory controller that is more efficient. As for Ivy Bridge? It is so power efficient that nothing AMD has can touch it's power usage. Ivy is set to use about 20% less power than Sandy, which is already more power efficient than anything from AMD. This means a lot for Intel overclocking because then Intel processor can then be given a decent overclock without pushing it's power usage to undesirable limits.

@fynnk

That is a good point. With the IGP not in use it will not use power or it will at least it will use less power than it would if it were in use.
 
Even at an obvious disadvantage as per this comparison, the APU is still the better buy overall.
The article's title does not include the word "gaming" or "graphics" so it's about overall performance.

Now, if we flip things around to benefit AMD instead, we'll see a much bigger disparity in AMD's favor. :)
 
Nevermind, I was looking at the wrong title - here's a proper correction:

Even at an obvious disadvantage as per this comparison, the APU is still the better buy overall.
Now, if we flip things around to benefit AMD instead, we'll see a much bigger disparity in AMD's favor. :)

Clearly, in an unbiased comparison AMD wins.
 
@peroludiarom

Fine, don't talk about CPU/GPU overclocking, but that will deliver more performance your your optimizations. Besides that, overclocking the memory and/or memory controller also increase power usage and heat output on the processor as well as the memory.

Even if you don't overclock the controller but you do overclock the memory it will stress the controller more so it can use more power and generate more heat.

The chipset is not on the Llano processor. The chipset is still on the motherboard. Like all other modern CPUs, Llano has some of the Northbridge functionality integrated as well, but it does not have all of it and it doesn't have the Southbridge. If it did then it would need even more transistors and it already has more than an LGA 1155 quad core.
 
"(...) your only upgrade would be to a faster add-in graphics card. In that scenario, the APU basically becomes a $140 Athlon II X4"

Not so true...chosing a 3870K and putting a bigger graphics card on top of it, one has to consider Hybrid CFX. The card has to be a mid-range radeon though.
Click to expand...

Yes, but on a price/performance basis compared to a discrete CPU and GPU, Hybrid Xfire is a poor choice: you're limited by the driver, and as we've discussed above a discrete card and cheap CPU for the same cost will blow it out of the water.



If Trinity comes in at similar price points, it'll give APUs that little missing edge to be the definite part of choice for HTPCs and Mobile. But there'll be Ivy bridge at the same time. This test will have to be redone asap when these two part are out!!
Click to expand...

Trinity has potential but it might be a mixed bag. FX performance isn't exactly consistent, but if AMD has improved IPC with the respin it might be a lot more impressive than AM3+ FX. And I believe it'll use Graphic Core Next like the 7000 series, something that works exceedingly well with Dx11 but can be slow with Dx9. Then again, I don't expect too much from Intel when it comes to Ivy bridge graphics. :)
 


There is no bias. The AMD A8-3870K has worse graphics than a comparatively price Intel system with a Radeon 6670. This is indisputable. The A8 does not win in games because of this. It's four cores don't matter in games at such a low end market because even one core probably wouldn't bottleneck the graphics in such low end gaming.

The A8 only wins outside of gaming where it's slower graphics does not hinder it whilst the two cores of the Pentium hinder the Pentium compared to the four cores of the A8. Your claim is biased and baseless, therefor invalid.

It doesn't matter if 1866MHz memory would help the A8 a little more (at best it will help 15%, not enough to beat the Intel system anyway) because it can't be afforded in this situation. There are very cheap, high quality motherboard for Intel. AMD boards are a little cheaper most of the time, but not that much cheaper.

So, even if we do these "optimizations" and use the 1866MHz memory, the AMD system will not win. If it gets too close then we simply overclock the Radeon 6670 and there you have it, the Intel system will win in gaming again despite being cheaper and still more power efficient.

If that isn't enough and we compare an A6 with a discrete card to the Intel system, the same is true. If it gets too close here then we go down to the Celeron G530, only a little slower than the Pentium, and we have another $20 to pump into the graphics. Sure, it will be a little slower in general applications, but at this far down into the low end spectrum I really don't think it matters. This is intended for entry level gaming and anyone who uses a computer this low end doesn't really care about doing a lot of work on it and can wait the extra time it takes for the Intel system to do some work.

Seriously, the Intel system is winning hands-down right now. If you do do some heavy productivity then you wouldn't be looking at an A8, you would want a Phenom II, FX, or i3/i5.

If you have any other ideas, then please bring them forth, we will show you if they really make a difference or not. Hey, maybe you will see something I or another person here missed, but it's unlikely.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom