Fast RAM and APUs

[Luke7]

I know that using fast RAM increases the graphic perfromance of AMD's APUs by some margin but I was wondering if anyone knew whether or not that fast RAM would have an impact on performance when using an APU with a discreet GPU (not Xfire).

Also what do you guys think of the gigabyte FM2+ board? http://www.scan.co.uk/products/gigab...dvi-d-hdmi-atx

[jimbouk]

First up, if you're not using the GPU part of the APU then why are you going with an FM2+ platform and not AM3+? Probably get more bang for buck.

Can't find the link to the Hexus article about FM2 and RAM speed, but it would be interesting to see whether all the benchmarks were for games or also general usage.

Edit: found it: http://hexus.net/tech/reviews/cpu/46...ds-faster-ram/. Just focussed on the gaming side of things. I would assume then that FM2 scales the same as AM3 (ie not worth it) for general usage with faster ram.

[Luke7]

Because FM2+ offers features that are unavailable on AM3+ at this time such as: PCIe 3.0 (while not much use compared to 2.0 @x16 its still nice to have) HUMA when Kaveri is realeased and therefore steamroller and I think FM2+ will still be around when AM3+ has been scrapped. Also speculation is that the Kaveri A10 will perform on par with the FX6300 which when considering the previously mentioned, in my mind at least, makes FM2+ potentially better (in some respects) and definately more exciting and something I want to support than the aging AM3+

Edit: also thanks for the reply and clearing the RAM speed situation up a little.. I'm with you on the scaling issue, though Hybrid Xfire is an interesting option (probably no xfire with a R9 280X though.. maybe if I'm lucky.. GCN and all that)

[DanceswithUnix]

Yeah, I wondered about that sort of stuff.

AM3+ offers L3 cache, which some games love.
FM2+ will be around until DDR4 goes mainstream, probably in about a year?

In the end I saved a bit and went FX8350. Can't see any FM2+ quad core catching that

I don't do crossfire, so PCIe3 isn't an issue. Power efficiency might be a win though.

[jimbouk]

I went FM2 for my media PC. It made sense to have the APU and performance didn't have to be that good.

For the desktop I have a AM2 board and am just about to upgrade to AM3+. For me the choice of affordable high performance CPUs won me over. FM2 just topped out too low for a main rig with dedicated graphics.

A year ago Hexus reported that AM3 and FM2 would be here until next generation till they merged. I haven't been keeping up with the socket news but there seems to be life left in the old girl still :-)

[Luke7]

With recent news articles in mind, I thought it was time for a little thread necromancy! A change in topic title or posting this in the other APU thread I have going would perhaps be more appropriate but nonetheless.. I've been thinking...

My current rig is a Phenom II X4 955BE @~3.7Ghz (Blue screen of death if I go any higher unfortunately) 8GB of RAM and a MSI R9 280X, all running on a 750W corsair PSU (which will be replaced soon under warranty - because of buzzing coil noise... Good customer service at corsair) anyway - I believe my MB and CPU are holding back my GPU somewhat, probably my MB most actually, it only has SATA II, not brilliant for gaming.

Essentially I'm looking to upgrade soon and it probably will be to the A10-7850K (with a nice OC) and a decent MB, reason being that the future looks bright for the APUs - with Kaveri we see the IGP increase to 47% of the total die, 28nm, steamroller and the numerous purported benefits available from using an APU, AMD GPU & mantle (I've heard a huge amount on this matter and I don't know what is conjecture, speculation and just plain nonsense - for example, being able to have the bulk of the rendering don on the discreet gpu and some work, such as physics, on the IGP).

From what I have been able to learn so far, even a current Richland A10 isn't really a downgrade from the aging 955, and from my situation it looks even better - So FM2+ should be pretty darn good for me and with good timing. As you may have noticed by now most of this is simply me thinking aloud but I was wondering what thoughts anyone had on what I have said and also on being an early adopter of FM2+ (obviously I will read reviews first - I don't want to end up with some complete flop of a chip) or any such tech?

[HalloweenJack]

sata 2 makes no squat in gaming - even an SSD isn't held back that much.

amd uses more pcie lanes than intel - so 2 x pcie 2 run at full speed , and even so they are not saturated anyway - pcie3 only really helps with tri or quad sli setups.


so what is it about your gaming you want to change??

[Luke7]

Well I have read else where that SATA II vs SATA III with the same SSD make a huge difference - though I do understand the most noticeable difference is in boot times, having said that, games such as Skyrim benefit hugely with things such as texture load times (i.e things suddenly popping into view during game play vs them just being there as they should.. don't even mention the engine though) and from what I've read its just generally smoother. Also I feel that I should mention I run ENB on Skyrim so any extra performance is welcome (I believe this is where the MB and CPU really hold me back.. I should be achieving more frames than I am doing given my GPU). Additionally there is a vague chance I will Xfire at some point in the future.

Other than that I do like the option with newer CPUs to have a range of Frequencies available - I set one office pc to utilize between (I believe) 1.6 and 3.6Ghz depending on application demand - I have no idea how beneficial this is to my energy bill but I like it anyway.

My current MB also has the problem of the wifi card taking up a slot directly under my gpu effectively blocking airflow to one fan and thus creating more heat. More annoying than anything.

There isn't really a whole lot I want to change about my gaming - just my machine - while smoother and higher frame rates are always nice I think that part of my problem is that I like building machines just as much as using them

[HalloweenJack]

the only time sata 3 is noticeably faster is if your moving huge video files to another sata 3 drive - 90% of pc useage is small file sizes , so just by getting an SSD you`ll notice a speed increase.

if you play MMO`s , then `zoning` will be a lot faster , and levels load faster in BF4 - but they make no difference once the level or zone has loaded

the sinle biggest upgrade for `snappiness` of a pc is an SSD. all IMO ofc

[DanceswithUnix]

Well if you can hold off until January then I'm sure the situation would be clear.

But my expectation: If you want better energy efficiency then the APU is fine. If you want better performance, then you need an FX8350 or go Intel i5/i7.

FM2+ platform life is limited by when DDR4 memory goes mainstream, so none of the existing platforms are a good bet long term.

[Luke7]

So you are saying SSD over new build? I'll be honest I was thinking of getting the Samsung 840 Evo anyway any thoughts on 120 vs 250gb? I know the 250gb has a better write time but what difference does that really make? Also is the 120gb big enough for windows plus a couple of games?

[mikeo01]

I found 128GB to be plenty (118GB usable). You'll have around 110GB to play with (ish).

250GB SSDs are of course faster, but depends if you need it really. Software wise games take up the most, still I have a lot of games on my SSD. Personally stick the ones that'll benefit from the SSD (real time texture loading, games you always play) and stick the rest on a hard drive. As mentioned SSDs feel nice anyway but gaming wise just means you'll hit the menu screen quicker and stuff.

I opt for the 120GB SSD unless you really want to stretch your budget I'd say no lower than a 120GB though. You'll still run out of space on a 120GB regardless.

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

What motherboard do you have ATM??

[Luke7]

Well if you can hold off until January then I'm sure the situation would be clear.

But my expectation: If you want better energy efficiency then the APU is fine. If you want better performance, then you need an FX8350 or go Intel i5/i7.

FM2+ platform life is limited by when DDR4 memory goes mainstream, so none of the existing platforms are a good bet long term.

A valid point - Thinking about it an FX build would be cheaper anyway which leaves more cash for a new build when DDR4 roles around. I guess a kaveri A10 is going to cost a bare minimum of £130 probably closer to £150 if not more considering its improvements over Richland + between £60 - £90 for a good mobo whereas, an 8320 with a 970 MB is already cheaper...

Urgh if only I had bought a MB that could support AM3+ properly and not weird parts that aren't commercially available :S

[Luke7]

What motherboard do you have ATM??

This beast... http://www.gigabyte.com/products/pro...px?pid=3833#ov Rev3.1

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

This beast... http://www.gigabyte.com/products/pro...px?pid=3833#ov Rev3.1

The motherboard is your limitation for overclocking.