Yeah, I was thinking about WinXP64, but I didn't know how many people even used it. It's stupid that MS didn't jump on it sooner than they had. I remember when I tried Ubuntu 64 on my Sempron, and it was all good until I wanted to play DVDs. But that's for another time.
- Status
blazorthon
Glorious
- Sep 24, 2010
- 14,022
- 21
- 43,265
It really wasn't just MS's fault that 64 bit didn't catch on more quickly. MS doesn't really write all of the drivers, that is the job of the hardware manufacturers. MS doesn't decide if CPUs are 64 bit compatible; that's AMD's and Intel's job. MS also doesn't force software developers to write programs that don't use 16 bit code (64 bit Windows doesn't work with 16 bit code, but a lot of XP programs, even the 32 bit ones, have at least some 16 bit code). MS could have been much more adamant about this, but it really wasn't a big deal until 2 or 3 GB of system memory started to become a limiting factor for many people.
Raiddinn
Splendid
- Oct 21, 2011
- 5,123
- 0
- 26,460
The graphics power of the A8 was bottlenecked by the slow RAM. If the RAM on the discrete card is faster than the APU's regular RAM, then its not an apples to apples comparison.
It is a sad fact of affairs that if you want an APU you really need faster than 1600 RAM, but it is a fact if you don't want to bottleneck your video performance.
The whole series of tests needs to be redone with some stupidly fast ram instead of this 1600 RAM to make sure that neither system (by that I mean the A8) is bottlenecked by the RAM speed.
It isn't at all clear if the A8 would have lost to the G620 in all those tests if it were not so bottlenecked by RAM speed. The statistics here don't really tell the whole story, people should be made aware of that in the article too.
It is a sad fact of affairs that if you want an APU you really need faster than 1600 RAM, but it is a fact if you don't want to bottleneck your video performance.
The whole series of tests needs to be redone with some stupidly fast ram instead of this 1600 RAM to make sure that neither system (by that I mean the A8) is bottlenecked by the RAM speed.
It isn't at all clear if the A8 would have lost to the G620 in all those tests if it were not so bottlenecked by RAM speed. The statistics here don't really tell the whole story, people should be made aware of that in the article too.
the point of this article is to find which is better at $140 price range.. i think if u can afford that 1866 or even 2133 ram.. u wont even bother to buy the APU or the pentium... i just recently bought an a6 just becoz i dont have enough money and wont upgrade it... just for my home pc for my family to use..
Raiddinn
Splendid
- Oct 21, 2011
- 5,123
- 0
- 26,460
I agree with you in that it is a flaw in the design of the APU that it should require expensive RAM, but are we trying to determine the capabilities of these things or not?
Even 1866 RAM is not that expensive from G.Skill. The Sniper or the Ripjaws are both about $15 - $20 more than regular 1333 RAM. Not like that is enough to bump up to a 2500k + 6670 or anything.
Personally, I think I would gain more from knowing how the systems would perform with 2200 RAM each instead of 1600 RAM each, especially since I am going to be suggesting people get 1866 RAM anyway.
I am an addict level support person in the Systems forum which handles all the new build suggestions and such things would be infinitely more useful to me than this.
I got pretty much no value out of reading this article that I can take back and apply to people's build threads there.
Even 1866 RAM is not that expensive from G.Skill. The Sniper or the Ripjaws are both about $15 - $20 more than regular 1333 RAM. Not like that is enough to bump up to a 2500k + 6670 or anything.
Personally, I think I would gain more from knowing how the systems would perform with 2200 RAM each instead of 1600 RAM each, especially since I am going to be suggesting people get 1866 RAM anyway.
I am an addict level support person in the Systems forum which handles all the new build suggestions and such things would be infinitely more useful to me than this.
I got pretty much no value out of reading this article that I can take back and apply to people's build threads there.
Really, who's going to use Pentiums anymore? I never did. OK, my folks' machine, one of the first generation models. It sucked. Oh wait, I did use a P4 w/HT running at 2.8ghz. Sadly, it sucked because of all the smokers and no one blew the fans out. I finally did, and it was nasty. Also the HDD was dying from the system being on 24/7. I solved that by cloning the drive, and using a SATA. That worked all fine. But alas, the machine gave out. And we were then downgraded to a first or second generation 2.8ghz P4. I'm not sure that it has HT or not, but it wouldn't matter as the HDD is a laptop drive that is demanding death. And our IT guy is retarted. He goes and puts Office 2007 on it. Seriously?? It's so slow doing anything.
I would buy the Fusion again if given an option, but I would wait until the FM2 or whatever the next socket series is called comes out.
I would buy the Fusion again if given an option, but I would wait until the FM2 or whatever the next socket series is called comes out.
and that $15-$20 will help the pentium even more by switching to more powerful GPU... i used a pentium (sandy) laptop... and frankly it feels no difference from an i3 or even i5 in majority of tasks.. and i bet most consumers will not even be able to distinguish the pentium, i3 or i5, APU when running office , facebook , casual stuffs.. but im sure they will be able to notice the differences in price.
i know about that.. but first of all... who buy a high end GPU and paired it with low end CPU? even if they do, they will be able to upgrade it to powerful CPU later ( compare it to APU?? )...
what i mean is in lightly threaded applications.. especially in laptop where the upgrade path is virtually non-existant.. if u r playing games in a non-gaming laptop.. i bet u r going to get GPU bottleneck first before CPU even when using a pentium... that is why i tell that i cannot feel a difference in doing light jobs ( facebookl, twitter, word ) when using my core2duo pc, pentium sb, and my i52500k..
what i mean is in lightly threaded applications.. especially in laptop where the upgrade path is virtually non-existant.. if u r playing games in a non-gaming laptop.. i bet u r going to get GPU bottleneck first before CPU even when using a pentium... that is why i tell that i cannot feel a difference in doing light jobs ( facebookl, twitter, word ) when using my core2duo pc, pentium sb, and my i52500k..
I find it interesting that the only comments critical of the test setup and specifically the choice of memory are "hidden". What's the deal, can't handle people pointing out how you skewed the test hardware to favor Intel parts?
As people mentioned, this test is fairly worthless b/c it doesn't consider total system price, only CPU+GPU, and the motherboard price difference is fairly substantial between the AMD and Intel parts.
It is also not very realistic, because the money saved on the AMD motherboard would be used by any one with half a brain to get faster RAM. Make of it what you will, but this is not very useful or relevant testing.
As people mentioned, this test is fairly worthless b/c it doesn't consider total system price, only CPU+GPU, and the motherboard price difference is fairly substantial between the AMD and Intel parts.
It is also not very realistic, because the money saved on the AMD motherboard would be used by any one with half a brain to get faster RAM. Make of it what you will, but this is not very useful or relevant testing.
Besides, there isn't a reasonably priced laptop that can run games that uses Intel chips, and laptops have effectively no upgrade path.
Basically, if you want a budget laptop to also run modern games, your only option is the APU, since laptop manufacturers will never add a discrete graphics card to a cheap processor, never. In all other tasks the performance differences aren't noticeable, so the mere ability to play modern games on a laptop (the primary target platform for an APU) is pretty much the only relevant consideration for anyone looking to game on a laptop at less than a grand.
Basically, if you want a budget laptop to also run modern games, your only option is the APU, since laptop manufacturers will never add a discrete graphics card to a cheap processor, never. In all other tasks the performance differences aren't noticeable, so the mere ability to play modern games on a laptop (the primary target platform for an APU) is pretty much the only relevant consideration for anyone looking to game on a laptop at less than a grand.
For the high-end enthusiasts/DIY overpayers, you are correct, but the situation is a hell of a lot more complicated if you are going for a pre-built and/or working with a budget. There are numerous situations where AMD is still the best performance/$ hardware. This article just doesn't highlight one of those circumstances. A "best desktop for $600" article, or "best pre-built on a budget" article would likely come to different conclusions.
Raiddinn
Splendid
- Oct 21, 2011
- 5,123
- 0
- 26,460
Hanskey is right here.
APUs are made for low budgets. They save you from having to spend $100 on a video card and they save you from having to deal with the consequences of a DOA video card.
They allow people to get by with a lower end PSU and lower power bills. They allow people to have more simple systems that can still do tasks that are more graphics intensive than HD2000 allows.
In any event, they could at least do a test that proves something to somebody. This test does nothing of the sort. All this test proves is that if you don't pick pieces well that your system won't perform well.
APUs are made for low budgets. They save you from having to spend $100 on a video card and they save you from having to deal with the consequences of a DOA video card.
They allow people to get by with a lower end PSU and lower power bills. They allow people to have more simple systems that can still do tasks that are more graphics intensive than HD2000 allows.
In any event, they could at least do a test that proves something to somebody. This test does nothing of the sort. All this test proves is that if you don't pick pieces well that your system won't perform well.
blazorthon
Glorious
- Sep 24, 2010
- 14,022
- 21
- 43,265
[citation][nom]Raiddinn[/nom]Hanskey is right here.APUs are made for low budgets. They save you from having to spend $100 on a video card and they save you from having to deal with the consequences of a DOA video card.They allow people to get by with a lower end PSU and lower power bills. They allow people to have more simple systems that can still do tasks that are more graphics intensive than HD2000 allows.In any event, they could at least do a test that proves something to somebody. This test does nothing of the sort. All this test proves is that if you don't pick pieces well that your system won't perform well.[/citation]
The APU system uses more power than the CPU plus discrete card system.
[citation][nom]triny[/nom]the magic of igp and gpu is only on AMDIntel falls flat they have no igp capable of that magical coupling with gpu[/citation]
[citation][nom]triny[/nom]If that's the case why did AMD make the igp couple to the gpu?[/citation]
Have a good look at HD 4000. It beats the mobile A8's in graphics performance and creeps up on the desktop A8s. AMD can only win against it when the APU is in Crossfire with a low end discrete card such as the 7470.
The APU system uses more power than the CPU plus discrete card system.
[citation][nom]triny[/nom]the magic of igp and gpu is only on AMDIntel falls flat they have no igp capable of that magical coupling with gpu[/citation]
[citation][nom]triny[/nom]If that's the case why did AMD make the igp couple to the gpu?[/citation]
Have a good look at HD 4000. It beats the mobile A8's in graphics performance and creeps up on the desktop A8s. AMD can only win against it when the APU is in Crossfire with a low end discrete card such as the 7470.
blazorthon
Glorious
- Sep 24, 2010
- 14,022
- 21
- 43,265
[citation][nom]tourist[/nom]blazorthon " AMD can only win against it when the APU is in Crossfire with a low end discrete card such as the 7470.Your talking mobile right ? the desktop apu still beats intels best hd 4000 without crossfire.[/citation]
Yeah, I was talking mobile. AMD will undoubtedly win back the mobile with Trinity anyway, so it's bound to be a short lived victory. AMD is still well ahwad of Intel in the desktop, especially because Intel's lowest end desktop CPU with HD 4000 is the i5-3570K (HD 4000 doesn't win against A8, but it isn't even the option, you're all stuck with HD 2500 which is about half of HD 4000, sometimes a little less than half).
[citation][nom]yialanliu[/nom]Ivy Bridge is the newest architecture, should be compared with trinity, not with llano...[/citation]
Getting sick and tired of this type of stupidity. Well then, let's compare it to Trinity. Oh wait, Trinity's not out yet, so we only have Llano. Well look at that, Llano is the only option, so it gets compared against Llano.
Yeah, I was talking mobile. AMD will undoubtedly win back the mobile with Trinity anyway, so it's bound to be a short lived victory. AMD is still well ahwad of Intel in the desktop, especially because Intel's lowest end desktop CPU with HD 4000 is the i5-3570K (HD 4000 doesn't win against A8, but it isn't even the option, you're all stuck with HD 2500 which is about half of HD 4000, sometimes a little less than half).
[citation][nom]yialanliu[/nom]Ivy Bridge is the newest architecture, should be compared with trinity, not with llano...[/citation]
Getting sick and tired of this type of stupidity. Well then, let's compare it to Trinity. Oh wait, Trinity's not out yet, so we only have Llano. Well look at that, Llano is the only option, so it gets compared against Llano.
Ivy bridge Pentium processors aren't out either.
Getting sick of peoplecomparing 300 dollar processors with 140 dollar processors + gpu..
If ivy bridge Pentium was out, you would have a point but it's not so you're comparing things from way different pricepoints.
Getting sick of peoplecomparing 300 dollar processors with 140 dollar processors + gpu..
If ivy bridge Pentium was out, you would have a point but it's not so you're comparing things from way different pricepoints.
Raiddinn
Splendid
- Oct 21, 2011
- 5,123
- 0
- 26,460
The more I think about it the more I am convinced that about the only good reason to get a Llano is if someone desires for whatever reason not to have a discrete graphics card.
In those cases, I would whole-heartedly condone getting a Llano or Trinity when it comes out.
In those cases, I would whole-heartedly condone getting a Llano or Trinity when it comes out.
blazorthon
Glorious
- Sep 24, 2010
- 14,022
- 21
- 43,265
[citation][nom]yialanliu[/nom]Ivy bridge Pentium processors aren't out either. Getting sick of peoplecomparing 300 dollar processors with 140 dollar processors + gpu..If ivy bridge Pentium was out, you would have a point but it's not so you're comparing things from way different pricepoints.[/citation]
What Am I doing wrong there? Clearly, Llano has a superior IGP to even HD 4000 that is only present on the top i5 and the i7s (desktop market) and is beaten on the mobile side by HD 4000 because the mobile A8s are weaker than the desktop A8s, but HD 4000 is just as fast (some models are even faster) on mobile as it is on desktop and the full i3/i5/i7 range has HD 4000. Pentiums don't even get HD 2000/2500/3000/4000, they get junk that's even worse than HD 2000, so they're not even comparable without a discrete graphics card (in which case their having only two cores without HTT and low clock frequencies for the money make them horrible values now).
I never compared Llano to an i7 and said that it was a fair comparison (assuming that the i7s are what you are referring to by $300 processor). Trinity is not out yet, so it can't be compared to anything accurately right now. Pentiums have little to nothing to do with what I said.
What Am I doing wrong there? Clearly, Llano has a superior IGP to even HD 4000 that is only present on the top i5 and the i7s (desktop market) and is beaten on the mobile side by HD 4000 because the mobile A8s are weaker than the desktop A8s, but HD 4000 is just as fast (some models are even faster) on mobile as it is on desktop and the full i3/i5/i7 range has HD 4000. Pentiums don't even get HD 2000/2500/3000/4000, they get junk that's even worse than HD 2000, so they're not even comparable without a discrete graphics card (in which case their having only two cores without HTT and low clock frequencies for the money make them horrible values now).
I never compared Llano to an i7 and said that it was a fair comparison (assuming that the i7s are what you are referring to by $300 processor). Trinity is not out yet, so it can't be compared to anything accurately right now. Pentiums have little to nothing to do with what I said.
Dirk_p_broer
Distinguished
- Dec 11, 2010
- 18
- 1
- 18,520
" if you're using a Socket FM1-based motherboard and an A8-3870K, your only upgrade would be to a faster add-in graphics card. In that scenario, the APU basically becomes a $140 Athlon II X4."
READ to message on the box of the 3870K: "Combine the AMD A8 APU Black Edition with any of the following DirectX 11-capable AMD Radeon HD graphics cards and experience the power of Dual Graphics, supercharging your systems performance even further". I have such a setup, and it works quite well for me (A8-3870K plus HD 6670)
READ to message on the box of the 3870K: "Combine the AMD A8 APU Black Edition with any of the following DirectX 11-capable AMD Radeon HD graphics cards and experience the power of Dual Graphics, supercharging your systems performance even further". I have such a setup, and it works quite well for me (A8-3870K plus HD 6670)
BCStringfellow
Honorable
- Apr 30, 2012
- 7
- 0
- 10,510
Hybrid crossfire would beat the intel with discrete card in this situation, but for a higher price. I am a fan of AMD, I am considering this on a mini-itx build. The main point is that if you spent the equivalent on the intel setup compaired to the cost of an additional card on the AMD setup I wonder how much actual performance difference would be made. The HD 6670 is selling on pricewatch right now for $72. So its fair to say that would have to be compaired to the intel Cpu with a $140 card. Not only that the APU when paired with a HD6670 results in an equivalent of a high 6000 series card I believe (there is a chart somwhere i just cant find it). All im saying is that for the price of the amd apu+ card you can have the intel with a HD7770, HD7750, HD6850, HD 6770, or dual HD6670 cards. Just my .02
Dirk_p_broer
Distinguished
- Dec 11, 2010
- 18
- 1
- 18,520
I consider the A-8 3870K to be equal to the i3-2100, both in price and clockspeed, if not in performance as well. When I combine a HD 6670 with the A8-3870K I get more graphics bang for my buck than when I combine it with a i3-2100.
Would I choose another card than the HD 6450, 6570 or 6670, I'd loose the benefit of Virtual Crossfire, but still the HD 6550D of the A8-3870K will be much better than the Intel HD 2000 of the i3-2100.
Would I choose another card than the HD 6450, 6570 or 6670, I'd loose the benefit of Virtual Crossfire, but still the HD 6550D of the A8-3870K will be much better than the Intel HD 2000 of the i3-2100.
- Status
TRENDING THREADS
-
Question No POST on new AM5 build - - - and the CPU & DRAM lights are on ?
- Started by Uknownflowet
- Replies: 13
-
-
-
Question Slow BIOS Boot on MSI PRO Z790-A WIFI – Over 60 Seconds Before Windows Loads- Started by Hardestware
- Replies: 22
-
-
Question Will a 120 watt inverter power my gaming laptop?
- Started by nelska
- Replies: 39
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram