Best Gaming CPUs For The Money: January 2012 (Archive)

[InvalidError]

APU is a term AMD made up to describe their new line of Cpu + Gpu models. The are not a term that describes how Intel CPUs are modeled.

How Intel "models" their CPUs is irrelevant.

While AMD popularized the use of term APU (they did not invent it or make it up), the "Accelerated Processing Unit" actually refers to any CPU bundled with any additional processing resources integrated in it and is in no way limited to AMD's own products.

It does not matter whether or not Intel markets their CPUs as APUs, most Intel's CPUs still meet the generic definition.

 

[Someone Somewhere]

They are not APUs, I can understand why AMD would want to change the field since it would put part in their favor. However the iCore processors are CPUs not APUs.

APUs are nothing more than AMD's name for CPUs with IGP, which is exactly what most Intel's mainstream CPUs are. The only reason Intel does not call their CPUs with IGPs APUs is simply because they do not want to.

APU is a term AMD made up to describe their new line of Cpu + Gpu models. The are not a term that describes how Intel CPUs are modeled. Plus why would Intel want to saddle their CPUs with a the name a theses underwhelming APUs what are very poor performers. Why would anyone do that.

Intel's CPU+GPU chips are exactly the same architecture wise as what AMD calls an APU.

Your second part is right on the nail, though.

 

[overfocused]

The intel 4670 CPUs is roughly the same cost at the 3570k but about %7 faster and with the newest architecture. Why not recommend that instead of last gen tech in November?

 

[RedJaron]

For anyone not playing the latest, most demanding games, and/or insisting they be on the highest settings possible (which is probably 80% or more of the home market, plus 99% of the business market), a high-end APU will meet their needs. AMD is banking on this volume market, and from a business perspective, I can't see this being the wrong decision, even if it disappoints enthusiasts. If it is successful, and gives AMD a little financial room to "play," they may then be able to throw the high-end market a bone. Let's see what happens over the next year or so.

I guess it depends where you draw the line on "demanding games." Judging by the Richland review, that playable threshold doesn't look so high. No, I'm not suggesting people will seriously try BF4 or CoD on an APU alone, but even old Skyrim is only barely smooth at medium settings. Looking at some posted videos, yes, you can play things like XCOM, Borderlands, and GW2 on it, but again, it's only barely past the cusp of smooth play with diminished settings. I'm not trying to be a graphics snob. I'm still on my 6870 and med-high detail is the most that I can usually hope for, so it's not like I expect 60fps minimums when I play.

Maybe I'm more demanding than I know, but it just feels like the current crop of APUs is barely adequate for what I consider mainstream gaming right now. If it barely keeps smooth framerates now, will games in even the next year push it to just the other side of frustrating? I can't help but think an APU for anything more than Sim City is asking for problems in terms of future gaming ( lack of L3 chief among those. )

Maybe Kaveri and the Jaguar cores will change that. Maybe game devs will jump faster onto AMD's HSA idea than I think they will. I think AMD has some very intriguing ideas. But until those ideas ideas become better supported, I wouldn't want to wager on an solo APU for the next two years.

 

[InvalidError]

I'm still on my 6870 and med-high detail is the most that I can usually hope for, so it's not like I expect 60fps minimums when I play.

Maybe I'm more demanding than I know,

You probably are. I'm an occasional/casual gamer and my old HD5770 can play most of the games I want to play at 1200p well enough for my taste. The only options I usually need to give up (and do not really care about in the first place anyway) for playable frame rates is shadows, FSAA and other similar GPU hogs.

I don't play things like BF, Crysis and other similar... looking around constantly gives me nausea in 5-10 minutes and when it doesn't, my patience trying to chase things around while attempting to be stealthy usually runs out about as quickly.

 

[winterhold]

So many comments - and yet NO ONE mentioned bleedingly obvious:
"REVIEW" of REDUNDANT CPUS!~!!!

Where do you live guys? South of Neptune???
1156 chipset can not be found anywhere. 1155 chipset redundant this year.
C,mon be serious....

 

[artk2219]

The intel 4670 CPUs is roughly the same cost at the 3570k but about %7 faster and with the newest architecture. Why not recommend that instead of last gen tech in November?

Associated motherboard costs, the fact that they use online pricing that may not be as aggressive as say microcenter or frys, and that haswell on average OC's worse than ivy typically making the difference in IPC a moot point for an overclocker. The only thing I can positively say is worth taking into account is the fact that socket 1150 has 1 more upgrade before its dead, 1155 is dead dead. But I very much doubt that the difference in IPC between Broadwell and Haswell, let alone Ivy, and to some extent even Sandy bridge would make it a worthwhile thing to push on readers until there are no other options left. Hell until just this month they were still pushing Athlon II's and Phenom II's, dont get me wrong I loved and still very much like those chips, but if I were to push a person on a chip i'd be pushing FX's, mostly because of the newer extensions that they use. In some cases those new extensions way more than make up for the difference in IPC between k10 and Bulldozer. What I really wish they would do is blow away 10 months of comments, and separate out the monthly cpu article into different webpages as opposed to making changes to the same damned one over and over. The new comment system still sucks hardcore as well, I dunno, maybe I've been here too long but this is kind of ridiculous.

 

[Stevemeister]

"As Chris covered in his launch story, it's really not all that impressive compared to Core i7-3770K. You need an LGA 1150-based motherboard to support it, and Intel currently wants $30 more for it. We're passing on making Haswell a recommendation for now."

The current issue is that although i7-3770K CPU's are still available there is very limited selection in decent motherboards available as most retailers have done what they can to off-load their stocks. For anyone building a new computer Haswell has to be the way to go . . . time to stop recycling text that was valid 6 months ago but which no longer really holds true

 

[Sakkura]

Intel has attempted to get into the discrete GPU business before and failed miserably. These graphics units in the iCore CPUs are better then their past offerings however they don't perform as well as real discrete models. Intel doesn't have the interest to spend the money to make them into stand alone discrete graphics cards. Remember they are leaving the desktop motherboard market do you think they want to go into the discrete video card business and get into the battle with AMD and Nvidia in a field they have not had success in before, hardly.

I didn't say that they SHOULD or WOULD make dedicated graphics cards using the same architecture as they have in their integrated GPUs, but that they COULD.

There's no magical difference between AMDs graphics cores and Intel's, the former just tend to be better and have better driver support (even if you're in the Nvidia camp and think AMD drivers are horrible, Intel graphics drivers are even worse). It's only natural, graphics has been an afterthought for Intel until quite recently.

Anyway, an AMD APU has x86 cores and graphics cores. Most Intel CPUs have x86 cores and graphics cores. They are in the same category of products.

 

[tsnor]

So many comments - and yet NO ONE mentioned bleedingly obvious:
"REVIEW" of REDUNDANT CPUS!~!!!

Where do you live guys? South of Neptune???
1156 chipset can not be found anywhere. 1155 chipset redundant this year.
C,mon be serious....

I currently use both LGA 1156 and LGA 1366, both are discontinued. The VALUE of this chart to me is to compare what I have to what's out there so I can decide when to upgrade. A compare of only the most current intel to amd would have no value to me.

 

[slimething]

These "discussions" always descend into how large of a sledge hammer (no pun intended) is needed to swat a fly; counting the angels on the head of a pin.

It's just a bit humorous IMO.

 

[shadowvorce27]

FX-8350 would be great.

 

[littleleo]

Intel has attempted to get into the discrete GPU business before and failed miserably. These graphics units in the iCore CPUs are better then their past offerings however they don't perform as well as real discrete models. Intel doesn't have the interest to spend the money to make them into stand alone discrete graphics cards. Remember they are leaving the desktop motherboard market do you think they want to go into the discrete video card business and get into the battle with AMD and Nvidia in a field they have not had success in before, hardly.

I didn't say that they SHOULD or WOULD make dedicated graphics cards using the same architecture as they have in their integrated GPUs, but that they COULD.

There's no magical difference between AMDs graphics cores and Intel's, the former just tend to be better and have better driver support (even if you're in the Nvidia camp and think AMD drivers are horrible, Intel graphics drivers are even worse). It's only natural, graphics has been an afterthought for Intel until quite recently.

Anyway, an AMD APU has x86 cores and graphics cores. Most Intel CPUs have x86 cores and graphics cores. They are in the same category of products.

So then what you are saying is the APUs and the FX are the same too correct? So the AMD APU marketing is all a lie that is what you mean right. So why is AMD not making new FX and making only new APUs. FX perform better except for the graphics. I don't think you can equate the limited graphics in the FXs and the iCores with the full blown GPUs in the APUs they are not the same or equal.

 

[littleleo]

So many comments - and yet NO ONE mentioned bleedingly obvious:
"REVIEW" of REDUNDANT CPUS!~!!!

Where do you live guys? South of Neptune???
1156 chipset can not be found anywhere. 1155 chipset redundant this year.
C,mon be serious....

I currently use both LGA 1156 and LGA 1366, both are discontinued. The VALUE of this chart to me is to compare what I have to what's out there so I can decide when to upgrade. A compare of only the most current intel to amd would have no value to me.

The chart is good for that I would also check some of the different benchmarks to get a well rounded picture of where you stand. If your happy with your rig and it plays all the games you like well and runs all the program you use perfectly why bother to change it. If it ain't broke why fix it, lol.

 

[InvalidError]

I don't think you can equate the limited graphics in the FXs and the iCores with the full blown GPUs in the APUs they are not the same or equal.

The definition of APU has nothing to do with how powerful or not the IGP is. For a chip to qualify for the APU designation, the CPU only has to integrate some forms of off-core feature acceleration. It can be sound DSP, video DSP, GPU or anything else.

Does the Pentium G650 have off-core feature acceleration? Yes, it has an IGP. That technically makes it an APU by the general definition of what an APU is. How fast it might be compared to AMD's IGP is of no consequence on that.

 

[Sakkura]

So then what you are saying is the APUs and the FX are the same too correct? So the AMD APU marketing is all a lie that is what you mean right. So why is AMD not making new FX and making only new APUs. FX perform better except for the graphics. I don't think you can equate the limited graphics in the FXs and the iCores with the full blown GPUs in the APUs they are not the same or equal.

What kind of logic got you there? I said the Intel CPUs and AMD APUs were the same kind of product because they both have x86 cores as well as graphics cores.

FX CPUs do NOT have graphics cores, so they obviously are not covered by my statement.

 

[littleleo]

So then what you are saying is the APUs and the FX are the same too correct? So the AMD APU marketing is all a lie that is what you mean right. So why is AMD not making new FX and making only new APUs. FX perform better except for the graphics. I don't think you can equate the limited graphics in the FXs and the iCores with the full blown GPUs in the APUs they are not the same or equal.

What kind of logic got you there? I said the Intel CPUs and AMD APUs were the same kind of product because they both have x86 cores as well as graphics cores.

FX CPUs do NOT have graphics cores, so they obviously are not covered by my statement.

Very good and an APU is a FX core connected to a Radeon core. An Intel CPU is just a CPU with IGP integrated, its not two separate cores married together. so it isn't a APU which is made up a basically a separate FX core paired with a Radeon Core.

 

[Sakkura]

The IGP is not any more separate in an AMD APU than in an Intel CPU.

 

[InvalidError]

Very good and an APU is a FX core connected to a Radeon core. An Intel CPU is just a CPU with IGP integrated, its not two separate cores married together.

Humm, no. Just no.

APU = CPU core(s) + Accelerated cores for whatever other functions + off-core glue-logic and shared resources such as memory controllers.

This fundamental recipe is the same for Intel, AMD, Qualcom, Samsung, Nvidia, Broadcom, Texas Instrument, Apple, the handful of Chinese CPU designers/manufacturers, etc.

The CPU and GPU cores in AMD's APUs are not any more or less "married" together than they are in all other vendors' implementations. Even though Intel's IGP only exists as an integrated design, it is still only an extra module plugged into the off-core logic that ties everything together just like it is in all other designs. The exact details may vary by manufacturer and specific applicaiton but they are all fundamentally the same.

 

[Onus]

...The VALUE of this chart to me is to compare what I have to what's out there so I can decide when to upgrade...

No. Not at all. You decide WHEN to upgrade when something you [will] have does not run well enough on the system you have now. If everything you have runs just fine, an upgrade is not warranted. If you just want to keep up with new tech, a sidegrade (or even a downgrade) can have just as much educational value.

 

[RedJaron]

Oh, if we're talking educational value, I can list a whole slew of failed technological experiments that were VERY educational. 😉

 

[littleleo]

Very good and an APU is a FX core connected to a Radeon core. An Intel CPU is just a CPU with IGP integrated, its not two separate cores married together.

Humm, no. Just no.

APU = CPU core(s) + Accelerated cores for whatever other functions + off-core glue-logic and shared resources such as memory controllers.

This fundamental recipe is the same for Intel, AMD, Qualcom, Samsung, Nvidia, Broadcom, Texas Instrument, Apple, the handful of Chinese CPU designers/manufacturers, etc.

The CPU and GPU cores in AMD's APUs are not any more or less "married" together than they are in all other vendors' implementations. Even though Intel's IGP only exists as an integrated design, it is still only an extra module plugged into the off-core logic that ties everything together just like it is in all other designs. The exact details may vary by manufacturer and specific applicaiton but they are all fundamentally the same.

I disagree with you saying the AMD APU and the Intel iCore CPUs being the same thing check the history on Wiki.

"The AMD Fusion project started in 2006 with the aim of developing a system on a chip that combined a CPU with a GPU on a single die. The acquisition of graphics chipset manufacturer ATI by AMD was a key step toward realizing such a vision. The project reportedly required three internal iterations of the Fusion concept to create a product deemed worthy of release. Reasons contributing to the delay of the project include the technical difficulties of combining a CPU and GPU on the same die at a 45 nm process, and conflicting views on what the role of the CPU and GPU should be within the project."

"AMD APUs have a unique architecture: they have AMD CPU modules, cache, and a discrete-class graphics processor all on the same die, using the same bus. This architecture allows for the use of graphics accelerators, such as OpenCL, with the integrated graphics processor. The goal is to create a "fully integrated" APU, which, according to AMD will eventually feature 'heterogeneous cores' capable of processing both CPU and GPU work automatically, depending on the workload requirement."

They are not the same as the Intel iCore Processors period. The iCore is not an Intel CPU with a discrete GPU sharing the same bus. Just because a CPU has integrated graphics doesn't make it an APU.

Lets try explaining it this way, an APU is a marketing term to describe a unique AMD line of products. Like a Volkswagon Bug. Not every car that has doors and an engine is a VW bug. There are differences internally and in the name of the product giving by the manufacturer. Does that make it easier.

 

[Someone Somewhere]

You're arguing two different things there.

You're saying that an intel chip isn't an APU because it's somehow different (which it doesn't seem to be; every example you've given applies to Intel chips too. Including the "The iCore is not an Intel CPU with a discrete GPU", which applies to the AMD APUs too). I disagree with this. It's like saying that a VW Bug is a car because it has four wheels, an engine, runs on the road, and can carry people; then turning around and saying that a Toyota Corolla isn't a car because it's not made by VW.

EDIT: Your second argument is that 'APU' isn't a defined term; it's a marketing tool, like VW's Blumotion, which some of their cars have. This is more what I'd agree with, but then the Intel and AMD chips are the same thing, just with a different name.

 

[littleleo]

You're arguing two different things there.

You're saying that an intel chip isn't an APU because it's somehow different (which it doesn't seem to be; every example you've given applies to Intel chips too. Including the "The iCore is not an Intel CPU with a discrete GPU", which applies to the AMD APUs too). I disagree with this. It's like saying that a VW Bug is a car because it has four wheels, an engine, runs on the road, and can carry people; then turning around and saying that a Toyota Corolla isn't a car because it's not made by VW.

The AMD APU description plainly states on the AMD website it is a Marriage of an AMD CPU and an AMD GPU.

"PCs with beauty and brawn. The best of both worlds.
We changed the game for PCs by revolutionizing accelerated desktop processors that combine the power of multicore CPUs with the beauty of AMD Radeon™ graphics all in one energy-efficient chip."

And no in my example I would say the Toyota Corolla isn't a VW Bug it's a car, and you are arguing it is VW because it has an engine and 4 wheels.

 

[Someone Somewhere]

Actually, if you read the Wikipedia article, they weren't the first to coin the term:

An accelerated processing unit (APU, also Advanced Processing Unit) is a computer's main processing unit that includes additional processing capability designed to accelerate one or more types of computations outside of a central processing unit (CPU). This may include a graphics processing unit (GPU) used for general-purpose computing (GPGPU), a field-programmable gate array (FPGA), or similar specialized processing system. Variations on the usage of this term include a variation in which the APU is described as a processing device which integrates a CPU and an OpenCL compatible GPU on the same die, thus improving data transfer rates between these components while reducing power consumption by upwards of 50% with current technology over traditional architecture.[1] APUs can also include video processing and other application-specific accelerators. Examples include AMD Accelerated Processing Unit, Cell, Intel HD Graphics, and NVIDIA's Project Denver.

The term accelerated processing unit was first used in a public context with respect to accelerated computing in 2006,[2] and prior to that in various presentations and business plans written by Joe Landman[3] of Scalable Informatics.[4] Other uses include Xilinx using the term for an auxiliary processor unit.

It says that an APU is any chip with may different components.

It's not a vendor-specific term, like Blumotion; it's a vendor-agnostic term, like car.