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

Page 9 - 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.
@tourist

I realize you said nvm to the 3850+6750, but please tell me where you got THAT idea. If we raise the budget to $160 then the Intel system can fit a 6750. If we lower the budget to $120 then the Intel gets either a 5550 or we switch to the Celeron G530 and still get the 6670.

When I did my other post I was simply stating the different configs that an A8 system and a Pentium system can have at those price points.

When you think about it, we don't really seem to know as much about the low end systems as we do about the high end systems. It seems we are all kinda elitist in this sense. Or at least I am. Maybe it's just because they are stuff I tend to overlook.

With current prices, I think I'll make a chart about each possible configuration for Intel and AMD CPU+GPU/APU/APU+GPU at each price point between $100 and $180. There seem to be many different ways to look at it, I think it would be beneficial to considera ll possible alternatives.
 
@Chip in a Box

That seems consistent with what I was thinking. The 5550 isn't enough to trump the AMD system there, but it should at least match it and be a lot more energy efficient. Then we go into whether or not the energy usage is worth the application performance in such a low end system. Honestly, if you cared about application performance, would you be looking at Pentiums and Llano?
 
I think if you want the absolute best performance per dollar you would be looking at an x3 455 chip.

I agree about the energy efficiency - these desktop llano's are pretty horrible in that regard.
 
Actually, if you bumped the budget down to $120 on Intel, You'd just keep the exact same video card, but swap the Pentium G620 for the Celeron G530. All you lose is 200mhz and 1MB cache. It's be a much better trade than dropping the video card.

Actually if you really wanted the absolute top game performance at the original $140 mark, a G530 + a HD6770 on a good sale (there's actually one for $70 after rebate on Newegg right now) would crush both the setups tested here, while only losing ~7% or so in apps to the G620 setup.
 
I just thought about something about AMD's APUs. The successor to Trinity might be around at the same time as DDR4's debut, that could help with the memory bottleneck significantly. At that time we might see better competition from AMD, however, if Trinity has a vastly improved memory controller and/or caches then it might be as good as the hype suggests too. I bet if the IGP can be given some more cache that it might be more tolerable of the memory, same if Trinity has more memory channels.
 
It's pretty clear. You build a system based on how you are going to use it. You'll also consider what games you intend to play on the system.

I built the A8-3870K system for Super Street Fighter IV Arcade Edition, Dirt 3, and just created a new Steam account for purchasing Indie titles. SFIV and Dirt 3 are playable at 1080p with no problems, and reduced quality in Dirt 3 still looks wonderful.

I paired it with a Biostar TA75M+ (newegg bundle deal) and that's the limiting factor why I can't hit anything faster than 3.4Ghz. I should have not been such a cheap ass and spent a little more for the Asus or similar as far as overclockability goes. The 6550D will run at 960mhz in every benchmark suite flawlessly, but for any game, it has to be reduced to no more than 900-930Mhz to avoid troubles. I give it 1GB RAM in the BIOS clocked at 1600 cas 7.

So it gets my vote for the all-around good worker for apps and light gaming.

For the storage buffs, I'd like to point out that this sub100 motherboard has 6 SATA III ports. You could probably add more with a controller in the available pcie slots.
 
@SessouXFX

The entire point of an APU is to not need a video card, so we compare them against systems with video cards. If it is a concept about value then it should have more value than the systems with similarly performing video cards. So yes, they were meant to face off against systems with a video card.

They are not meant to face off against high end systems and today's mid end systems, but if we can't compare them to the low end systems then they are useless, a gimmick. Your comment seems rather invalid when you actually think about it.
 



Sorta.

The GPU on an AMD APU is called a SIMD Engine Array for general purpose computing. One side benefit is the APU can replace integrated graphics as the big chip players move to SoC.

As noted above, for those who wish to boost their gaming level above that offered by the APU, hybrid operation with a discreet GPU has always been envisioned (as it was with the old-style hybrid with IGPs). This essentially comes together with Trinity and the Turks-based HD6570.

TrinityII in 2013 will most likely bring forth hybrid operation with GCN-based discreet cards.





 
I know about all of that, I was simply stating that AMD APUs should be compared to similarly performing systems with a discrete card. Yes, Trinity will most likely allow an asynchronous style of Crossfire with some GCN cards like Llano can with some VLIW5 cards, but I thought we already stated that assumption in previous posts so I didn't mention it. I suppose I should have anyway because the way I worded my post kinda necessitates it and implies that it isn't part of the equation. I should have worded the post better.

The point of an APU is too not need a discrete card for low end gaming or to supplement a low end card to get closer to or into mid-range gaming. I think that sums it up better.

Of course, integrating multiple functions into a single chip is supposed to improve latency between intercommunication of the different functions and lower power usage when compared to separate chip configurations.

Going towards a SoC design would then need to include the chipset. That would change the way we do things to differentiate between different chipsets for the same chips. Of course, it could just mean that the K editions have everything necessary for overclocking etc. built in so they don't need specific chipsets to unleash their potential like Intel is doing right now.

It definitely raises questions on how it would be implemented.
 
[citation][nom]blazorthon[/nom]I know about all of that, I was simply stating that AMD APUs should be compared to similarly performing systems with a discrete card. Yes, Trinity will most likely allow an asynchronous style of Crossfire with some GCN cards like Llano can with some VLIW5 cards, but I thought we already stated that assumption in previous posts so I didn't mention it. I suppose I should have anyway because the way I worded my post kinda necessitates it and implies that it isn't part of the equation. I should have worded the post better.The point of an APU is too not need a discrete card for low end gaming or to supplement a low end card to get closer to or into mid-range gaming. I think that sums it up better.Of course, integrating multiple functions into a single chip is supposed to improve latency between intercommunication of the different functions and lower power usage when compared to separate chip configurations.Going towards a SoC design would then need to include the chipset. That would change the way we do things to differentiate between different chipsets for the same chips. Of course, it could just mean that the K editions have everything necessary for overclocking etc. built in so they don't need specific chipsets to unleash their potential like Intel is doing right now.It definitely raises questions on how it would be implemented.[/citation]
AMD stated months in advance that the APU desktop versions weren't meant for graphic intense applications, rather, for those who more than likely to surf the web and maybe watch a movie or listen to music. If you're looking to play games, the APU's aren't really for you, even in crossfire. In Laptops, it does very well, doesn't it?

Furthermore, the general populace is looking at a unit in it's infamy and making assumptions about it. We have no idea how far AMD could take the APU at this point. While it doesn't look good right now, 2-3 years from now, could we say it has no place and is just a waste of time? Intel fanboys say yes, it's a waste of time and AMD should just increase productivity on what they have to compete with Intel.

AMD fans say, it's a new concept that needs further development, no need to compete directly. Let the worms squirm under Intel's higher cost for ownership...

AMD shouldn't have to pit themselves firmly against Intel just because they both make processors. Indirect competition is where AMD is currently. AMD can't compete with Intel money and everyone knows it. So why throw endless money playing on Intel's level for the sake of competition? So AMD decides to play the game within it's abilities.

And Intel fans hate it, because now, they have to find ways to justify the cost of operation without direct competition. Intel will continue to raise the cost to own their product because they're the only ones in the game with their ability.

As I explained on another site, it's the difference between a Corvette and Charger. You have two sports cars fitting the needs of the owner. They both do their job well. One has more than the other, but neither are intended to face off in the same class anyhow. But somehow, if you can manage to increase performance or value of the lower end sports car, you've managed to make the owners of the higher end car, scratch their head and wonder "Is it worth the price?"
 
What are you going on about? If an APU isn't for gaming at all, then why have it for just movies, web browsing, etc? The A8s are more than three times faster than Intel's HD 3000 graphics, yet that same HD graphics is more than adequate for pretty much anything the normal person does except gaming. The A4 has more than enough graphics performance for the average person who isn't gaming. AMD stated that they don't intend to directly compete with Intel in the high end, not that they will stop being Intel's only competitor. The only way that AMD could stop being a competitor in the x86 market is if they abandon it altogether.

If your right, then why did AMD make APUs with graphics that FAR exceeds the needs of most users who don't play games? I can do regular stuff such as web browsing and TV and now that I've tested, even 1080p TV on a GMA 950. That GMA 950 is probably dozens of times slower than the 6550D.

honestly, I'm not being an Intel fanboy about any of this. Most of my computers have AMD processors, but not all of them. I'm fully supportive of AMD's APU design. In fact, I am going as far as anticipating future APUs.

AMD shouldn't pit themselves against Intel? They are the only two suppliers of x86 CPUs and they are competitors. Saying that I can't pit competitors against each other in comparisons seems rather ridiculous. Intel CPUs can have just as much value as AMD CPUs, more so depending on the situation, just as AMD CPUs and APUs can have more value in a given situation.

An Intel i7 is worth the price for it's increased performance when compared to an FX-8150 in highly threaded work. Compared to an i5 in lightly threaded work, it obviously has much lower value. AMD is good in it's own situations. Here in the low end, we see them still trading blows depending on the type of work load. I do not refute this at all. Depending on the work load, it is worth the price to get the better system. For AMD CPUs, multi-threaded performance is the more advantageous workload, especially below the $200 price mark.

At any given price point, Intel tends to have better lightly threaded performance up until the i7's prices where it has better performance more or less universally on the desktop side. Unfortunately for AMD, this lightly threaded workload constitutes a fairly large percentage of software, especially software intended for a home user.

Unfortunately for Intel, AMD wins in software that is well-threaded in the budget price ranges. I recognize all of this. What else is there to say?
 
4 cores vs 2 cores ? what a stupid test
apu taken more watts than i3 with gpu discrete.
get an apu will take more cost with a bad performance in game and a little performance in application just because have more stupid core.
 
4 cores vs 2 cores ? what a stupid test
apu taken more watts than i3 with gpu discrete.
get an apu will take more cost with a bad performance in game and a little performance in application just because have more stupid core.
Click to expand...

I can't tell what you are trying to say beyond that you dislike this test because there was a difference in the core count, a ridiculous claim at best anyway. Besides that, what did any of this have to do with an i3? Also, if the A8-3870K has two cores disabled, it won't perform better in games as you seem to think it will. In fact, the best that that could accomplish is trading the A8's only advantage (application performance) for somewhat reduced power usage. The Intel system would still be more efficient, but then it wouldn't lose to the A8 at all.
 
[citation][nom]beavermml[/nom]not many people likes to tweak their machine.. they just want it to works.. besides.. not all parts are created equal... some can be tweaked higher while others may not.. i understand that u want to have a thoroughly tested APU here, but no matter how much u tweaked the APU, intel+discreet just perform effortlessly and cheaper too.. if u insisted that the APU should be tweaked to its max.. then Tom should also tweak intel+discreet to its max also.. im curious too about the result and then we can see clearly which is better at $140 price point[/citation]

We are juswt interested at exploring full potential of the APU, and we will decide which is better for our daily use. :)
 
Hi all
Good news for those of you still holding out on building a low-power Intel-based socket-1155 system. Intel announced a price-cut on the Pentium G630T (2.30GHz) today. The price has been cut from $70 to $64 (9% price reduction). (see www.intc.com for the new processor price list updated today March 6, 2012). Also, the G530T (2M L2, 2cores, 2 threads, 2.0Ghz) has been cut from $47 to $42. Now, if only the 6670 card would drop to about $50 - $55 ;-)
 
Bad test. Not even an OpenGL benchmark was put like Cinebench 11.5 . That is where the APU looses big to the CPU+GPU.
 
Great article, have been looking at these options for quite a while. It would have been even better IMHO, if you could have also added the A4-3400+5570 in CFX. Comes to around 120$ & I believe would have come close in games w\o cfx support & would have easily won in games with proper support. Ohh well, guess we will never know.
 
[citation][nom]blackbrigade[/nom]if the purpose was to compare the cpu+gpu vs apu combo, why not include the AMD cpu options?intel favoured reviews much?[/citation]

The point was initially to test Llano's viability. AMD's low end CPUs may be viable, but they would still be at a disadvantage to Intel in power usage and then performance. Maybe a dual or tri core Phenom at a 3.0+GHz clock rate could try to keep up with a Pentium or Celeron at 2.xGHz, but it would still probably favor the Pentium. At that point we would need to find out if the AMD chips bottleneck a Radeon 6670 or 6750.

[citation][nom]wrazor[/nom]Great article, have been looking at these options for quite a while. It would have been even better IMHO, if you could have also added the A4-3400+5570 in CFX. Comes to around 120$ & I believe would have come close in games w\o cfx support & would have easily won in games with proper support. Ohh well, guess we will never know.[/citation]

A4s are no good for that, they have too slow CPUs and their integrated GPU is too slow to make a difference. A6s are a better option to try APU + very low end card.
 
[citation][nom]blazorthon[/nom]The point was initially to test Llano's viability. AMD's low end CPUs may be viable, but they would still be at a disadvantage to Intel in power usage and then performance. Maybe a dual or tri core Phenom at a 3.0+GHz clock rate could try to keep up with a Pentium or Celeron at 2.xGHz, but it would still probably favor the Pentium. At that point we would need to find out if the AMD chips bottleneck a Radeon 6670 or 6750.A4s are no good for that, they have too slow CPUs and their integrated GPU is too slow to make a difference. A6s are a better option to try APU + very low end card.[/citation]

afaik, AMD's phenom II x3 455 performs better if not on the same level as the sandy bridge g620

and its for 70usd + an extra core. they should have included it in the review imo.
 
[citation][nom]blackbrigade[/nom]afaik, AMD's phenom II x3 455 performs better if not on the same level as the sandy bridge g620and its for 70usd + an extra core. they should have included it in the review imo.[/citation]

No, it doesn't. It will only perform better in most games if you overclock it and then it uses even more power and it would have already used more power than the Intel system.
 
[citation][nom]blazorthon[/nom]No, it doesn't. It will only perform better in most games if you overclock it and then it uses even more power and it would have already used more power than the Intel system.[/citation]

Wrong.

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/print/pentium-g850-g840-g620.html

23 Tests

AMD Athlon X3 455 wins in 18/23 test.
Intel G620 wins in 4 (only 1 of which is a power 100% usage test)

So, AMD's Athon X3 455 @ stock is better the G620.
 
http://www.xbitlabs.com/images/cpu/pentium-g850-g840-g620/farcry.png
http://www.xbitlabs.com/images/cpu/pentium-g850-g840-g620/starcraft.png
http://www.xbitlabs.com/images/cpu/pentium-g850-g840-g620/mafia2.png
http://www.xbitlabs.com/images/cpu/pentium-g850-g840-g620/civ5.png
http://www.xbitlabs.com/images/cpu/pentium-g850-g840-g620/power-2.png

http://www.xbitlabs.com/images/cpu/pentium-g850-g840-g620/metro.png

This clearly shows that the Pentium G620 is indistinguishable from that Athlon, so no it didn't win. You know what? To get indistinguishable performance for the same cost up front, well you pay for it in FAR more power usage. In fact, that power usage chart clearly shows the Athlon system using twice as much power as the Pentium system.

Obviously, I was right when I said that the low end AMD CPUs only beat Intel in gaming when they are overclocked. At stock we see the AMD system using twice as much power, how much are YOU willing to pay to get better performance? Remember, power usage increases exponentially with linearly increased clock rates, so for every little bit of performance you get in the AMD system, power usage goes up substantially.

Only the Metro 2033 benchmark shows an advantage on the Athlon system that might be seen (depending on the person). I might see a 10FPS difference, but to a lot of people it's not a discernible difference. Considering such a low end market, I'll even bet that most people looking for such a weak system can't tell the differences too well anyway.

Besides that, you called the 455 a Phenom II, now you call it an Athlon II. Which do you want to call it? Either way, it hurts your already stretched credibility. I even got to prove you wrong with your own link.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom