Picking A Sub-$200 Gaming CPU: FX, An APU, Or A Pentium?

[verbalizer]

cleeve - it doesn't matter because the FX-Bulldozer in the desktop = FAIL..

 

[de5_Roy]

@Cleeve: will you be including nvidia gfx cards in that article? may be a tiny bit of sli and crossfire too.. since a lot of people argue that fx 4100 is a 4 core cpu ..
i've been wondering this for a while - how big will be the performance loss if a core i3 2100 has to drive 2 gaming cards in crossfire/sli, how will the fx 4100 fare against a core i3 running crossfire/sli (the fx 6100 bottlenecks two crossfired gfx cards). do all quadcores perform better than dual cores like core i3 2100? if a core i3 can run a multi gpu gaming pc, that makes it an even better choice against an fx 6100.

 

[cleeve]

[citation][nom]de5_roy[/nom]how big will be the performance loss if a core i3 2100 has to drive 2 gaming cards in crossfire/sli, how will the fx 4100 fare against a core i3 running crossfire/sli [/citation]

Interesting idea. I'm not sure why you assume that CrossFire/SLI would make use of more CPU cores, though.

CrossFire/SLI are mostly limited by the driver and bandwidth of the platform, the CPU doesn't have all that much to do with it from what I've seen.

 

[mosu]

Giving greghome's comment a+20 rating means that your survey sucks big time.This is a very dishonest comparison by all means.

 

[g-unit1111]

[citation][nom]rambostyrer[/nom]Another showcase of how disappointing the FX processor is in gaming terms. the fx-8120 outperformed by the i3-2100[/citation]

The FX-8120 is outperformed by the PENTIUM G620!!! That is totally unreal.

 

[blazorthon]

[citation][nom]JohnK11[/nom]My previous post was ridiculed--since it was not germane to thisparticular implementation of this topic "best $100-200 cpu for gaming"--since it assumes that you will also put in the system a decent graphics card. However, I would like to ask a different question on the "best $100-200 cpu for gaming" --can one get a budgetgaming system without a graphics card--such as a $500 laptop. In that case, A8-3500 has roughly twice the fps as i3/Intel-3000 (basedon several reviews in this site)--whether this is adequate is up to you. Perhaps the A8-3870 and future AMD offereing will even do better,leading to a truely-budget full-gaming laptop. I would guess that it will interest many people, but perhpas not thesystem builders frequenting this site. (my $499/on-sale Gateway NV55S05u A8-3500 6GB/640GB HD laptop plays Skyrim at 20 fps at the laptop's native res (1366x768)with medium effects (8 samples in AA/Anis, High in Texture, Shadow,Decal, Distance, Medium in Radial and FXAA off).[/citation]

A8-3870 doesn't exist, there is an A8-3870K for the desktop, but nothing mobile with a similar name. A8-3500 doesn't exist, there is a mobile A8-3500M. Of course we assume you will buy a graphics card, even the A8 graphics is beaten handily by the Radeon 6570, a $30 or so card. Modern gaming is best done on at least a 6670, preferably a 6750/6770. Being able to get pretty poor frame rates in Skyrim on your machine doesn't matter. Skyrim isn't a very intensive game and you are using only medium settings at a moderate resolution. This article isn't even about laptops, it is about desktops.

If you want to spout this nonsense then you should expect your posts to be ridiculed. You mention laptops, laptop CPUs, a desktop CPU as if it were a laptop CPU, and then you mention an A8 having roughly twice the FPS as i3/HD3000... Hold on there, that is also ridiculous. FPS is a measure of performance in a specific game at a specific resolution and there are even more variables, so to say it has roughly double the FPS is pretty ignorant. Do you really have any understanding of the topics you are trying to talk about?

Besides that, the A8 desktop graphics (you mentions a desktop A8 here) usually averages between three and four times faster than the HD 3000. Just what were you trying to prove and ow much more could you have failed at it?

[citation][nom]Anonymous[/nom]Not much of a fair shake here for a true budget readerYou actually used a $550 video card so you wouldn't have to worry about bottlenecking the test - sorry, that doesn't float since none of us get the free equipment you do so we're stuck at under $100 for our rigs (my last card was $55 after rebate) - we work around these bottlenecks in other waysDid we crossfire the APU's with the onchip video and the (gulp!) $550 video card ? - just plugging it in doesn't do this - you actually have to set this up and they would have been the only crossfired system in the group - seems rather an important step which wasn't doneThe Intel chip motherboards cost $50 more than both the AMD boards used - curious ? do more expensive products improve speed ? - years of reading these articles would point to that conclusion4 Gigs of Ram used ??? - Sorry but us budget folks would rather spend the $40 for 8 gigs or $80 for 16 gigs and run with that - no one reading this is building a machine with 4 gigs - Did you know that those APU's used more RAM ? - you should have before the test since it's the cheapest upgrade availableHas anyone ever played a non-online game ??? - let's test stand alone games as well please-Very biased article toward the Rich and Intel, you've done everything possible for the Intel chips and crippled the AMD's before you even began[/citation]

Showing you how much performance the CPUs can give out doesn't float? Sorry, but I thought we looked at this ararticle to learn the absolute best these processors are capable of. If they can't do well with the best graphics card available then they are obviously bad choices. You also can't do Dual Graphics crossfire with the integrated Llano GPU and anything faster than the 6670 or 6750, I don't remember which one so even mentioning it was pointless and wrong. Even if you could, it would not provide a noticeable difference, in fact it could reduce performance because it is so much slower than the 7970 and would simply provide more work for the CPU without increasing FPS in the games.

Think of it this way, the A8's graphics is roughly similar to the Radeon 5550. The 5550 is significantly slower than the 6570, which is significantly slower than the 6670, which is significantly slower than the 6750... At best, the 5550 is maybe half of a 6750 in performance. The 6750 is about half of a 6950, which is a little more than half of a stock 7970. Is that enough perspective for how insignificant the A8's graphics is? I probably overestimated the A8 in that math so it's probably a lot slower than my oversimplified and not well studied enough math shows.

Besides all of that, you complain about a bias... What bias? Sandy Bridge has far more IPC than Phenom II, which has considerably more than Athlon II and Llano. This causes Intel dual cores to fly past AMD quad cores fairly easily in single and lightly threaded work, such as gaming. Biased towards the rich? Are you out of your mind? The 7970 was used to find out the absolute best each CPU can do. Cleeve already told us that another article is in the works that will show us at what point the CPU becomes the bottleneck. The 7970 shows us the best the CPU can do, the upcoming article shows at what point the CPU tops out. There is nothing about being rich here. You don't need to be rich to even buy the 7970, all you need to do is set back a little money every so often if you can't afford it upfront yet. By the time you can afford it, it may come down in price or be replaced, but then you can get the best.

Pretty simple solution. Besides, it's smart to have some money saved up just in case a problem comes along in life anyway. your complaints are either unfounded or based upon ignorance.

 

[blazorthon]

[citation][nom]tourist[/nom]It is really simple Amd has manage to one -up intel in a niche market segment, nothing earth shattering.To the low budget consumer I3 may be faster but Liano offers a more rounded system at a cheaper price point. It is all how you look at it, is the glass half full or half empty.[/citation]

Llano offers a more rounded system than an i3 without a discrete graphics card, but a Sandy Bridge Celeron or Pentium and a Radeon 6670 can be had cheaper than the top A8s and will outperform them significantly in gaming.

The Celeron G530 is only $52, yet it is a dual core 2.4GHz SB CPU that combined with a $30 or so Radeon 6570 is better than the much more expensive A8-3850 for single and dual threaded work. AMD is currently failing in almost every market. The only thing going for AMD is multi threaded performance. At any given price range below the i7s, AMD tends to have better multi-threaded performance than Intel. For example, the A6s and A8s are quad core parts competing with Intel's low end dual core parts, it's natural that they have better multi-threaded performance.

For example, the best per price and performance competition for the A6s and A8s are the Celerons and Pentiums paired with low end Radeons. Intel's side wins in single and dual threaded work, the A6s and A8s win in quad threaded work. They probably also win in tri threaded work, but three threads is probably an odd number of threads for an application and even then the fast dual cores and slower quad cores would be similar in performance for three threads.

Moving up the ladder, the six core Phenom II and FX CPUs for under $180 from AMD top multi-threaded performance until the eight core FX chips, which hold the line for AMD until the i7s price range upwards of $300. Basically, until about $280, AMD wins in multi-threaded performance at all price points. It's unfortunate that so much software doesn't (or less often, can't) use all of the threads available in AMD processors because if it did then AMD would be much more competitive with Intel.

Of course, if for whatever reason you can't use any discrete video card at all, then yes, Llano offers the better solution. However, at least 95% of all desktop computer users can have a video card even if it can't have a PCIe power connector. The 7750 and 6670 both don't require an additional power connector and thus are the fastest reference video cards that can be used almost universally.

Point is that Intel is currently dominating AMD in almost everything. AMD is only winning in the few markets where low to mid end processors are used for highly multi-threaded work loads. Of course, this is taking into account only the actual performance and all, not whether or not people buy them. Many people probably have little to no clue about the differences between most technology so the numbers of actual sales doesn't always reflect the actual performance of a part.

Intel's IPC advantage kills any advantage given by higher clock rates and core counts in AMD processors for work that doesn't utilize more threads than the Intel chip has cores. Once you get into the eight core FX vs. quad core i7, the i7's four physical and four logical are enough to beat the eight physical cores of the FX-8xxx chips. The i5s are beaten by six and eight core AMD chips in multi-threaded workloads, however the six core FX chips might be very close to an i5 instead of beating them like the six core Phenom IIs can.

The only serious advantage for consumers that AMD has over Intel is in the mobile markets. Notebooks and netbooks usually had crappy Intel graphics so Llano beats them greatly. Desktops can have a discrete video card almost completely regardless of their budget, so it isn't such a problem because we don't need to use Intel graphics.

 

[blazorthon]

[citation][nom]tourist[/nom]Again i look at it from a more simplistic view, the average consumer will not know or even care if a i3 with discrete video is faster than liano, or the fact the i3 is faster in single threaded apps.they will see liano will play dx11 and walk right past the i3. everything else being equal. From this video you can see a 3850+ 6570 is > i3 2100 + 6570 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lXEghqhWDOoThe future article toms referenced will be interesting to see where the two points meet, i would guess around 7770 . I would also like to see the scaling from overclocking and 8gigs of 1600 ram minimum.[/citation]

i2-2100+6570 vs A8-3850+6570? Yes, lets be stupid and compare a processor from a different budget league and give it the same video card... that's is ridiculous. How about you compare the much more comparable Celeron G530 plus a Radeon 6770 to the A8-3850+Radeon6570? The price for the two would be similar, I guarantee the the Intel would hammer the Llano in gaming performance, probably more than doubling it.

I don't care if the average consumer is too damn stupid to actually buy the better solution for their money, they can be as stupid as they want, as can you, but denying that the Intel setup I suggested is better than the AMD that you suggested despite the similarity in price is also stupid.

The Celeron G530 plus a Radeon 6670 could be had together for less than a lone A8-3850 despite the fact that it would outperform the A8 GREATLY. If you want too, you could get the Pentium G620 instead of the Celeron and still be cheaper than the A8 and providing even greater performance.

Also worth mentioning, the Celeron G530 and the Radeon 6570 will outperform the A8-3850 while being a little over half the price. The A8 graphics is about equal to a Radeon 5550, considerably slower than the 6570.

Go ahead, be as stupid as you want, it's supposed to be a free world afterall. However, please don't you come here and make false claims based upon the alleged stupidity of the common user and yourself.

 

[blazorthon]

Also, what do you mean about the 7770? The fastest card that can be Dual Crossfired with the Llano CPUs is either the 6670 or the 6750, I don't remember which (I think the 6670). No Radeon 7000 cards should be able to mix with the Llano CPUs unless the Llano IGP is not working in tandem with the discrete card, completely circumventing the point of a Llano chip and basically meaning you paid for an overpriced Athlon II instead.

Even if the 6750 can work together with the A8's integrated 6550D, it would be around 10% or 15% improvements, no more.

Even if FX scales 100% with improved clock rates, (it probably doesn't, but it is probably close enough), it would still not hammer i3s nor touch i5s in gaming.

I daresay that the 6550D + 6570 would roughly equal a 6670, or be pretty close and that isn't nearly enough graphics horsepower to be bottle-necked by Llano's poor performance CPU section. It makes sense that the equivalent of an Athlon II and a Radeon 6670 will beat an i3 with a Radeon 6570. That the two were compared like this does not make sense.

It would be like comparing the Celeron G530 to an i5, the two are of different performance leagues so the cost is also much greater for the i5. If You pair the Celeron and the i5 with the Radeon 6570, I guarantee that they will have more or less identical performance. Does that make the i3 the better option? No, it is a biased comparison.

No one truly knowledgeable about these topics should use this sort of logic because it doesn't work.

 

[blazorthon]

It would seem you are being the horses rearend having to resort to name calling, You were than one who referenced the mythical 30 dollar 6570. Not Me YOU! I was just proving you wrong. I also said future reviews by toms will find the tipping point where the pendulum swings, most likely around the 7770 range

Now you want to compare a 6570 to a 6670, Now who is delusional ?

I realize you do not care further than your own selfish existence but some have to think about others, how does the average consume perceive xyz product when it is time to buy. When you are down this low in the trough, the water can get muddy, amd does not have to be faster than intel just close. The average consumer at bestbuy will say, both are in my price range but one plays dx11 games the other won't. Simple choice. Maybe too simple for you

I didn't call you stupid, I said you were being stupid and had the option to be stupid if you want too. I did not say that the 6570 and the 6670 are similar, I said the 6570 plus the 6550D were similar to the 6670. Explaining why you are wrong does not make me selfish. If the average consumer is stupid enough to choose AMD over Intel in a situation where Intel is a clear winner, then fine. Even cheaper Phenom IIs and Athlon IIs paired with the 6570 or 6670 are cheaper than Llano so it's not just Intel that is better than Llano. However, the Intel solution is also better than the Phenom II and Athlon II solution too.

You're just proving me wrong? You failed at that so kudos to you.

The Radeons I talked about will all play DX11 games. The A8's graphics is not even enough to play many of the most recent games at the minimum settings, so NO it is not enough for gaming at all anyway. You are delusional if you think that AMD is better right now because it simply is worse for gaming. AD was better during the Athlon 64 vs. P4 era, but not anymore and it doesn't look like they will be anytime soon, if ever again (AMD claims to have given up in the high performance markets). Could AMD find an awesome architecture that ends up trumping Intel? It's possible, but unlikely.

AMD is not better and has been worse for a while now. The problem is that before, they weren't too much worse. Now, the difference is getting huge.

If a consumer is so simple-minded that they don't know the better option, then I don't want to be as stupid as the average person. Frankly, I don't think that the average person is that stupid anyway. A $52 Celeron G530 and a $50 Radeon 6670 can be had, together about $100, lower than the price of an A8-3850 (the top A8 besides the A8-3870k, the difference is almost purely that it is multiplier unlocked anyway and overclocking it won't even make up the difference anyway). Not only is it cheaper, but it has about double the graphics performance of the A8-3850 and has at worst similar single and dual threaded performance, if not better single and dual threaded performance than the A8s.

Please, enrich the forums with your misinformation all you want, but I'll refute it every time I find it as I would for anyone else.

 

[blazorthon]

I just checked, I was a little off on the prices of the video cards. They seem to have gone up a little since I last looked into them a few weeks ago, my bad.

The 6670 has several models under $70 (Celeron G530 + 6670 is still $15-$20 cheaper than the A8-3850 at $129.99 while beating it greatly, all prices from newegg.com).

The 6570 is under $60 or $50, as said on Newegg.com. The Pentium G620, which is somewhat faster than the Celeron G530, costs $69.99 at Newegg, so it and the Radeon 6670 would be slightly more expensive than the A8-3850, (only $5-$10 more), yet once again it beats it greatly. The 6670 is around twice as fast as the 6550D that the A8-3850 has.

Just in case you want to mention the A8-3870K, it is only unlocked and has a 100MHz higher clock frequency than the A8-3850, all else is the same except for maybe slightly better binning. However, AMD often doesn't bin their chips nearly as aggressively as Intel so many CPUs overclock to the same frequencies with the same voltages as a model with a higher stock clock frequency.

Sure, it could overclock fairly well, but it still won't beat the Intel solution at the similar price point and will use a lot more power. Again, we have power usage costing more money.

 

[blazorthon]

I did prove you wrong a i3 + 6570 is slower than a a8 + 6570, i will even add the i3 + 6570 is slower in games than the a6 +6570. As i said i was just proving you wrong or as you would say being stupid.

The point is a i3 with igp will be what is compared to a a6 or a8 apu based on the price range, no add on cards.

"so NO it is not enough for gaming at all anyway." By your standards , not all of use live in a ivory tower of 70fps I fail to see your point when intel cannot even play dx11.

Comparing only the IGP of i3 is stupid because the 6670 plus Celeron or Pentium is better than both the i3+6570 and A8+6570.

Once again, that comparison is stupid. The i3 is a high performance CPU for gaming and should never be compared to a low end CPU in such a way. It is for a high end graphics card, not a low end graphics card. The i3 is not comparable to the A8-3850. It is a MUCH faster CPU and should be used as such. I compared two setups with a similar price, not two products with completely different uses and prices.

70FPS? Yeah... the A8-3850 doesn't even get half of that in the newer, intense games. Sure, it's okay for less intense games, but it can't even handle Skyrim in low resolutions like 720p, let alone an intense game (Skyrim is NOT an intense game). The A8 plus the 6670 is just playable in Skyrim at 720p, again with only half of that 70FPS you mention me needing.

The Intel IGP is not for gaming and should not be even considered for use in gaming. The i3 is a CPU that competes with FX and Phenom II in gaming, all with discrete cards.

Once more, you are trying to use a stupid and ignorant comparison as a base for your argument and it isn't working.

Keep saying that the A8 is better simply because you think that most people that would look at it are too stupid to go with the far better Intel solution I mentioned, but even if that is true, customer stupidity does not make their choice better. The Celeron plus the 6670 will be cheaper than the A8-3850 that you seem to like and will outperform it by around 100%. Even if you buy a poorly priced motherboard for the Intel system and a well-priced mobo for the AMD, the prices would be about the same with the Intel system still being twice as good as the AMD for gaming.

Please, continue refuting facts with an argument based on the ignorance of the comparison you like so much and the alleged stupidity of customers, but you shouldn't expect me to let it slide when I have shown you the truth here.

I showed you the prices and have told you the performance differences. Continue your ignorance as you please.

 

[blazorthon]

Your an idiot, plain and simple. The Radeon 6670 that is going with the Celeron G530 (you know, the solution that is cheaper than the A8-3850 that it outperforms by around 100%) is designed for DX11.

The general populace is not stupid enough to think that a video card is not worth having. Integrated solutions have never been better than discrete solutions and the same is still true. That an integrated solution can beat the weakest graphics cards doesn't matter, the solution I suggested is far better AND cheaper AND uses less power.

So, the average gaming user doesn't have a video card? That is absurd. Most gaming computers have a graphics card. I apologize for insulting you, but you are unbelievably wrong. You are the one who is twisting the facts. I am experienced, I study this crap every day and am constantly looking for both proof that supports my understanding AND proof against me. I know what I'm talking about when I say that the 6670 is around twice as fast as the 5550/6550D (they are roughly equal anyway).

You want to tell me I am wrong, yet I have the facts here and I have shown the holes in your argument. You have failed to prove me wrong about anything. What you pointed out is simply wrong. You say you are thinking simply, perhaps you can't think on an advanced enough level to understand these topics. Or, more likely, you are capable but refuse to do so because I really don't want to think that you are stupid. Unfortunately, when you spout these lies and misinformation, you leave me little choice but to call you out on this.

You want simplicity? Fine, you are wrong, plain and simple. If I were simple-minded then I would have said that instead of explaining WHY you are wrong.

I'll even go into further detail as to why the comparison you have talked about is stupid. You are comparing a $130 CPu (price from Newegg) with a $50 (again, from Newegg) video card (total ~180) to an $80 CPU with an $80 graphics setup (total ~worth $160 in that sense, the 3850+6570 costs about $180). Those numbers are from the price of the F1 Athlon that is a 3850 with the graphics disabled and that the 6550D plus a 6570 is actually a little better than a 6670. Since the Llano CPU part is NOT a bottleneck for this minute level of graphics performance, it will beat the i3 setup because it has significantly more graphics performance.

However, the i3 is a $130 CPU, the Llano is NOT. It is a $130 CPU+GPU. The i3 isn't being stressed nearly as much as the A8 in this case, it is being compared to a processor from a different budget and performance league, a much lower one at that. It is a ridiculous comparison.

Instead, I compared a processor from the same budget league as the Llano CPU to it and paired it with a graphics card that keeps the total cost at or below that of the A8, a much more fair comparison budget wise, and much more balanced setup. The setup I suggested is cheaper, uses less power, and is a lot faster than the Llano setups. This is irrefutable fact.

 

[blazorthon]

"Just in case you want to mention the A8-3870K, it is only unlocked and has a 100MHz higher clock frequency than the A8-3850, all else is the same except for maybe slightly better binning. However, AMD often doesn't bin their chips nearly as aggressively as Intel so many CPUs overclock to the same frequencies with the same voltages as a model with a higher stock clock frequency."

This quote tell me you have no clue about liano, the K series has unlocked cpu and apu and they are independent of one another. Also using 8gigs of ddr 1600 gives about a 20% graphics boost further separating itself from the i3.

I know plenty about the 3870K. It has a lot of overclocking headroom for the GPU and considerable headroom for the CPU sections. It does NOT even touch an i3, even when overclocked, that has a discrete video card. The Llano chips have both the graphics section and the CPU section creating heat so it's headroom is much less than that of pretty much any other CPU.

Overclocked, it still doesn't touch the CPU performance of an i3 in games. Overclocked, the graphics can go over 50% greater than stock, but that is only enough to make it about equal with the 6570. Then you need to buy a high end cooler just to keep it from overheating too because stock cooling won't cut it.

The power usage would be huge for it's performance, a big waste. Besides that, you mention 1600MHzmemory... Since it is about the same price as 1333MHz, why not put it in both systems? It will make a much greater difference on the Llano system, but 20% seems a little large. It will probably be more like a 15% improvement over 1333MHz for the A8. The Intel system will not see even a 5% improvement for it, but the price difference is null, so why not anyway?

Furthermore, even if it were a 20% difference, it won't be enough to touch the systems I suggested. The 6550D+20% from faster memory does not come close to the 6670 in the Intel Celeron system, which just happens to STILL be cheaper.

 

[blazorthon]

I think it is also worth mentioning that despite what you think about me, I don't have a high end system running right now. The machine I use most is a cheapy 2008 laptop with a Radeon 1270m, an AMD Turion v64 x2 @ 2.00GHz, and 2GB of DDR2-667.

MY high end system needs a new hard drive, but again, unlike how you think of me, I can't even afford a new hard drive right now. I am simply more or less an expert, I know what I talk about here because I devote most of my time to researching it and talking about it on these forums or with friends and family.

I am a veteran on this site because I occasionally go through the forums and help a few dozen people out. I have nearly a 100% track record because I know what I talk about, what I recommend. I'm not some rich idiot.

I devote most of my time to either researching or helping forum members through their problems. Don't expect me to try this hard to prove a point unless I am damn sure I'm right. If you could prove me wrong, then I'd admit I was wrong. However, I can prove I'm right and you can't prove me wrong, despite your frivolous attempts to do so.

But please, ignore me and continue bashing my expertise and knowledge if you want to. Despite the time and effort I put into my understanding of what I argue with, and the many people I've helped, I must be wrong if I disagree with you, mustn't I?

 

[blazorthon]

This is where you went off the deep end the first time. The i3 is offered as a cpu igp solution for the masses as is the liano, The i3 and a8,a6 are in the same category and thus will be compared regardless of how many times you keep saying i3 + xyz card is better. Stop floating conjecture it has been proven already a8 3850 is better at gaming than i3 using integrated solutions. what you call a stupid comparison is how they will be sold to thousands of buyers with no discrete video card.That is just the way it is.

No matter how you twist the words like this "However, the i3 is a $130 CPU, the Llano is NOT. It is a $130 CPU+GPU. The i3 isn't being stressed nearly as much as the A8 in this case, it is being compared to a processor from a different budget and performance league, a much lower one at that. It is a ridiculous comparison." It is a comparison that every review site also makes, so I will ask, who is ridiculous them or you ?

Only people who don't need decent graphics or are stupid would use an i3 without a discrete graphics card. It doesn't matter if an i3, without a graphics card, doesn't beat the Llano CPUs or if it needs a higher end card to win, it wins in the market segment that it is intended for.

Yes, Llano offeres a more balanced solution than an i3 without a graphics card and a Llano with a low end card is also more balanced than an i3 with the same low end card, but that doesn't matter because that isn't the place where you should use the i3.

You are going off the deep end by trying to take a high gaming performance CPU and comparing it to a low end gaming CPU. You can compare them, but it's irrelevant.

That is like comparing an i5 without a graphics card to Llano, or an i7. What will win, the i7 or the weak little Llano chip? The Llano will win because it has better graphics. Does this make it better? No. The i7 is not good for this usage. Neither is the i3.

The i3 competes with FX and Phenom II, NOT Llano. Intel's Pentiums and Celerons plus a Radeon compete with Llano. Are you going to ignore a better option just because it isn't integrated? That is one of the most ridiculous things I've ever heard.

Even if someone gets a machine with an i3 and no graphics card, they can just install a graphics card afterwards so it doesn't matter. Going further into the high end, Llano CPUs fall behind i3 very quickly because they are not comparable CPUs.

OEM manufacturers are known for being ridiculous so your asking if I or them is ridiculous is stupid because my answer should be obvious. Besides, they all give you the option to have a video card with your i3 or any other processor so your reasoning is a moot point.

Why do you continue to ignore the far better solution with a Celeron or Pentium that I've brought up so many times? It beats all other low end gaming systems in it's price range and uses the least amount of power, what more can you ask for but to be the best?

Sure, if you don't mind comparing a high end CPU with skimped graphics to a lower end CPU with better graphics, by all means go ahead and do your idiotic comparison. Comparing them only tell you the relative performance of Llano's GPU against the IGP of Sandy Bridge. This doesn't matter because no one with enough pride to call themselves a gamer (the whole point of Llano) would be stupid enough to use integrated graphics anyway.

Tell me, why would someone ignore the better Intel solution just because it's graphics isn't integrated? It is a stupid argument. If Llano had better graphics and/or prices, then you might have had a decent argument, but it doesn't so you have failed.

MY solution slaughters the A8 and is cheaper. You don't refute this, instead you say it is stupid to have a discrete video card. That is one of the most ridiculous things I've ever heard and I've proven many people wrong on these article comments, as has many other people. You have one of the worst and most idiotic comments I've ever had the displeasure of proving completely wrong and that's saying something, but I've explained why you are wrong.

Go ahead, keep telling the computer enthusiast that he doesn't know what he's talking about without actually proving him wrong because it really helps your credibility here. Surely I'm not a veteran here at Tom's with several badges in the forums because I know what I'm talking about.

Global rank: 329 out of 694680 (6993 points) That's copied and pasted from my profile, surely it doesn't help my credibility.

You can keep saying I'm wrong, but I'm not. I've been wrong before, but that is an uncommon thing here at Tom's and I know for a fact that I am correct.

 

[blazorthon]

... The 6770 is almost exactly half of a 6970, do you have any idea how much faster it is than the 6670 plus 6550D? it would slaughter it, perhaps by more than just 100%. However, you continue to dismiss me as irrelevant despite the fact only an idiot would try gaming on any Intel CPU without a discrete video card. In fact, Dirt 3 probably wouldn't even be playable at the minimum settings on any Intel CPU that is only using the IGP.

Yeah, the 6770 will probably be at least twice as fast as the 6550D+6670. I could look into this if you don't believe me, but you could also do it yourself.

Your entire argument is that a person should choose an A8 over an i3 and not use a video card. That is invalid because my suggestion of Celeron G530 or Pentium G620 paired with a discrete video card are cheaper than the A8 while beating it by around 100%. The A8 is NOT a CPU, it is an APU. Yes, there is a difference. You are getting the equivalent of a much cheaper CPU and GPU built into one $130 package, not a $130 CPU that just happens to have an IGP that equals a Radeon 5550.

In fact, the IGP IS a modified Radeon 5550 GPU that was given Blu-Ray playback compatibility.


Comparing the A8 and the i3 in this way is about as relevant as synthetic benchmarks. Only an idiot would use this comparison to choose either an i3 or an A8 because the i3 is not useful in this situation and the A8 is not the best option in this situation. Not that it matters, but the IGP of the i3 can be overclocked significantly.

Besides that, core count and thread count don't matter. The A8 is a 4 core 4 thread CPU, why don't we compare it to Intel's quad core 4 thread i5s? Which do you think is a better CPU? Obviously the i5s. What do you think will look better in your irrelevant comparison? The A8 will look better because of it's better IGP.

When you use the i5 in a situation that it is intended for, such as high end gaming, do you think that the A8 will win? Obviously not. The i3 would also win, it is NOT a low end CPU like the A8's CPU section. The Llano processors are literally half CPU, half GPU. You can look at a picture of the die of one if you don't believe me, like I said, I research this stuff and I've already seen several pictures of it.

You don't seem to care about the fact that the Celeron/Pentium plus discrete card is far better than the A8 and the i3 without discrete cards. If the A8 had a 6570, then it would close the gap, but it would cost more than the Intel solution. Since the A8 is obviously not the best value nor the best performer, it is obviously not the best option, yet you continue to defend it just because it is the best without a graphics card.

If the average person is too stupid to not get the better option that I have provided, then that is their own fault, not because they got a better product and value than what I suggested (which they didn't because they got a worse product and value anyway).

I don't know about you, but having a discrete card means double the performance of a more expensive system, then I go for the cheaper, faster, and more power friendly system.

 

[blazorthon]

By half of a 6970, I meant half in performance, not in the literal sense. Dual 6770 is roughly equal to the 6970, 4870X2, GTX 295, GTX 570, and GTX 480 in average performance between most games.

Of course, some games favor one vender and/or one generation over another and some older cards (4870X2 and GTX 295) don't do DX11, but performance wise thy are similar.

 

[blazorthon]

I didn't miss the part where you said that a 6770 is faster than a 6670+6550D, you said that you didn't think that the difference was like 100% and I told you that it was at least 100%. I never claimed that you said that the 6770 was slower, only that you underestimated the gap between it and the 6670+6550D. If you want to bring up the 6570 again, then it should be more like 150% faster than the 6550D+6570, if not more so.

Why should I complain about the gimped IGP on Intel CPUs? They are meant to have a discrete graphics card for people who want one for things such as gaming. The IGP on an Intel CPU is good enough for non-gamers and the like and that is where should be used. Also, Intel's IGP is the fastest at encoding/transcoding so it has it's uses beyond low end general purpose systems.

The fact that an A8 also can't play the more intense DX11 games says just as much as that Intel can't do it either.

You tripped yourself up when I assumed you were intelligent enough for me to not have to explain myself even further for you to understand. For overestimating you, I apologize. I hadn't realized that you have that much trouble with critical thinking.

If you want to bring mental problems into this then how about your problems for going on and on about an irrelevant comparison that doesn't matter because anyone who knows enough to do a little research into a purchase would not choose either option you have provided. You push so hard a poor option simply because it beats a system that is not a proper comparison.

 

[blazorthon]

Tom's just did an article that proves me completely right. Your argument that Llano should be bought instead of an i3 is completely irrelevant because neither Llano nor the i3 is the ideal solution for entry level (IE low end) gaming. A Celeron or Pentium plus a discrete video card are proven better by the article that came out just today and here's a link:

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/pentium-g620-amd-a8-3870k-radeon-hd-6670,3140.html

It shows that I underestimated both the Llano and the 6670+Intel solutions, but my solution still wins anyway.

It doesn't matter that the i3 alone won't beat the A8s alone because the i3 does not compete with Llano. i3 competes with FX and Phenom II. Celerons and Pentiums compete with Llano. Your argument is like comparing a Nvidia GTX 560 TI to a Radeon 6670 in a machine that doesn't have a PSU that can handle the 560 TI. The 560 TI is artificially gimped because it isn't in an ideal condition for it yet the 6670 is.

I guarantee that the 6670 will win here simply because the 560 TI isn't in a situation where it can flex it's muscles, not because it is better than the 560 TI.

The same is true for the i3 vs an A8. Stand-alone i3s are not in an ideal situation when used for gaming, yet you want to compare them in that situation.

Also notice the power usage differences here:

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/pentium-g620-amd-a8-3870k-radeon-hd-6670,3140-11.html

The A8 idles slightly lower than the Intel+Discrete system, but fully loaded it soars past the Intel system. Overclock the A8-3870K and it still doesn't meet the Intel system, yet it doubles it's power usage over stock. Considering that it already used more power, and then it doubles it, how much money are you willing to pour into the Llano machine to get performance still behind the Intel system?

Granted, overclocked it comes pretty close in the games and the A8 swamps the Pentium in a lot of the regular work, but not in gaming. Go ahead, recommend a more expensive product that costs even more over a year or two over the faster, cheaper option.

Remember, neither the Pentium nor the Radeon 6670 used were overclocked at all. If you want to pay for the additional power usage then you can also overclock the Pentium slightly and the 6670 significantly to fly past the overclocked A8 in the games.

 

[blazorthon]

Your right there i did assume that you would have some form of intelligence when discussing this matter, yet you have trashed tom's and there staff by calling the comparison they made as irreverent and stupid.

I find it very telling that only YOU are complaining about the comparison being invalid so much so that you would continue spreading falsehoods.

A i3+ 6570 is slower in games than a a8 3850 + 6570, your only argument is that the i3 gpu is not as good as amd gpu so you want to call it irrelevent. that is Intels fault for gimping the graphics. Everything else you are spouting is immaterial, like your deatribe about helping people and being a tom's vetern with big points. Weak very weak

However i will be more than happy to give you a little more leash so you can strangle yourself. You are so go at it.

I'm not trashing Tom's staff for comparing them i3 and Llano. I'm trashing you for thinking it matters that an A8 beats a lone i3. Why does it matter that the i3 has gimped graphics if only an idiot would use it in a gaming situation? The Intel solution I already stated over and over again is FAR better than both the lone i3 and better than an A8, even when it is overclocked.

You seem very latched onto a comparison between two computer parts from different budget ranges. Should I compare an i7 and a A8 as well and call the A8 better simply because it has a better IGP? No, because the i7 is also from a different budget range than the A8. It is stupid of you to think that it matters what graphics a CPU has if that IGP shouldn't be used for anything that needs decent or better graphics performance.

The only problem I have with Tom's staff is an occasional crap article that is really an advertisement in disguise (cough Kevin lying about free phones at Target cough) and serious offenders are few and far between. For the most part, I have great respect for Tom's and the things they do. After all, they do give us these articles, this site to communicate and help/be helped by other people, and they listen to us. Even more importantly, they did this all for free.

We all make mistakes, such as what you are doing now.

What I said such as what I've accomplished on this site and what I've done for others shows that I have credibility and have a clue about both this site and what I'm talking about when it comes to computer technology. I am not a veteran and among the top 350 out of 700,000 here by being stupid. Being a lower ranking member doesn't hurt credibility, but it doesn't help it. I'm not spouting anything about me being elite or such nonsense, only that I can prove that I have been consistently right and helpful here on Tom's. Take that as you will.

Yes, a lone i3 won't win in gaming against an A8. However, that doesn't matter. An i3 in a gaming machine should not be without a mid-range or high end graphics card because that is where it belongs, in mid-range and high end systems for gaming.

A lone i3 is for systems that need decent CPU power, but not much GPU power. It's IGP can also be great for low end encoding/transcoding machines because Intel's IGPs can fly past discrete cards in encoding/transcoding.

If you want an entry level gaming machine then there is NO better alternative to a Celeron or Pentium and a discrete card. Just because Intel has a higher end CPU that has gimped graphics, you ignore this. It doesn't matter that Intel has better CPUs that have gimped graphics. If you want to do it this way, fine.

How about we look at the integrated graphics on the Phenom II and FX motherboard? The best graphics they have is the Radeon 4290, also not DX 11 capable. In fact, it is worse than HD 2000, the graphics on most of the Intel processors. Let's compare an i3 with HD 3000 graphics to an FX-6100 with the Radeon 4290. The FX system is being used in a situation less ideal than the i3 because it not only has worse lightly threaded performance, but it also has weaker graphics.

I guarantee that the i3 system will win in this situation on anything that the systems can play. Do you like my comparison? It's the same as yours, using a CPU in a situation that is not ideal for what it is good at and it shows weakness despite the fact that given an ideal situation (highly threaded work) it flies past the i3 even though they have similar prices.

If you have a problem with Intel having weak graphics, do you have a problem with AMD having even weaker graphics on the majority of it's processors?

 

[blazorthon]

Where the hell did you get Atom and Brazos from? That article compares the desktop Llano A8-3870K with and without an overclock to the desktop Pentium G620 with a Radeon 6670, the Pentium plus Radeon being $10 cheaper.

The huge difference in power usage between the AMD and Intel system is more than enough to add up to over $50 in less than a year if you pay about the USA's national average per watt of power.

 

[blazorthon]

Sure, but that article only proves that the A8 is slower than an Intel Pentium plus Radeon solution that happens to be cheaper and uses less power.

 

[blazorthon]

My atom and brazos comment was in reply to your power comment. I do not care about power. I have a big carbon footprint

You don't need to care about power, but you are wasting more money that way. The amount of power used by the Llano system offsets any price advantage it could have, if it had one, which it doesn't. You should realize that over a year or two that the Llano system would end up costing more than the Intel system while still being slower than the Intel system.

 

[Onus]

I keep returning to the benchmarks in this article. AMD, you choked. When Piledriver comes out, I'm going to stick a fork in you; pretty sure you'll be DONE. I can hope not, but that isn't preventing me from accumulating the cash for a Z68+SB. The onus is on you to convince me to spend it on Piledriver instead. So far, you're only saved by the fact that a 990FX Sabertooth is too nice a board to simply scrap.