most gamers cant tell the difference between and unlabeled intel and AMD system anyway. so many are looking at synthetic benchmarks, they forget that most programs are not written for multicore processors anyway. ill stick with the cheaper costing AMD chips anyway.
One of Intel's main strengths is single threaded performance, so saying that most programs are not written for multicore is an argument for Intel not for AMD.Originally Posted by agello24
The cheap Intel chips are still way better for gaming than AMD if you have discreet graphics.
I'd way rather buy a cheap Pentium + 7770 than an A10 + 6670
And with the Intel option there's an easy upgrade path.
I would rather get a Core i3 or an A10 than a Pentium dual core.
With games based on older engines,a dual core is fine. However,newer engines work better with more threads. The Tech Report tested the G2120 and it did fine with a game like Skyrim based on an older engine but was not that great with both BF3 and Crysis2, with worse latency spikes than much older AMD and Intel quad cores and HT enabled dual cores. Frostbite 2,id Tech 5,CryENGINE 3 and the upcoming UE4 will all be multi-threaded engines. The latest UE3 based games alone do better with more threads.
Last edited by CAT-THE-FIFTH; 05-10-2012 at 06:29 PM.
Oh well absolutely. Anyone playing a modern demanding title like that would hopefully have a budget above the range of a Trinity based system.
I just don't see where Trinity fits in, it isn't sufficient imo for BF3, etc. so you are going to be limited to playing older games anyway, and if you are doing that I don't see why you are buying a brand new system that can't realistically be upgraded.
In a lot of non-gaming benchmarks it is competitive with something like my Core i3. The IGP enables a much higher level of casual gaming than with a more expensive Core i3 3225. I have a Core i3 2100 in my main rig and tested the A6-3670K(previous generation APU),and certainly was pleasantly surprised.
In games with newer engines the CPU will certainly be competitive enough. If you are budget limited you could simply get an A10 now,be able to play some titles in the first place and then add a graphics card maybe a year or two down the line. The IGP is around HD6670 GDDR3 with cheap 1600MHZ DDR3,so thats the equivalent of G840 and an HD6670 GDDR3 discrete card. I can see certain games where a G840 is a better choice,but IMHO I would think the A10 long term would be a better. Its the old E8400 vs Q6600 debate of sorts I suppose!!
On top of this more and more applications seem to be using the GPU accelerate performance - Adobe even has certified AMD IGPs to accelerate its Mercury engine. The A10 is a good all round package. The Core i3 has it strengths no doubt,otherwise I would not have got one last year,but it is not perfect IMHO.
On forums it is a common mistake to think every gamer buys a £150 to £180 CPU and spends £150+ on a graphics card. I certainly don't. Another issue with upgrading is also the cost. If you are willing to go secondhand,then you can get something cheaper now and then try to get a bargain later on. However,surprisingly a lot of people I know don't want to go secondhand but new and certainly are not interested in upgrading their CPU within only 18 to 24 months. The problem is with sockets having shorter lifespans,you mind find by the time the upgrade is wanted,secondhand is the only way forward.
Last edited by CAT-THE-FIFTH; 05-10-2012 at 06:56 PM.
I realise that the sort of specs people discuss on here aren't representative of all PC gamers, but there are budget discreet options that really don't cost substantially more.
A 7770 is going to yield better results than an APU+DG systems and is only £90, a cheap i3 is also £90.
That isn't really noticeably more expensive than an A10 + 6670.
I was talking more of the IGP alone. Dual graphics is patchy ATM,so until drivers improve,I don't think it is viable. The best scaling is with BF3 only with an HD6670 GDDR5 and that is halfway between an HD7750 and an HD7770,at 1920X1080.
However,on its own the A10 is still cheaper than a Core i3 3225 and the IGP is simply better for casual gaming,and for acceleration of non-gaming applications. As time progresses the latter is going to become more and more relevant. You will see this with Haswell and Kaveri next year.
I'm not saying that the A10 doesn't have it's place within a certain budget range, I'm just not convinced that that range consists of very many people.
Probably more people than you think,especially when you consider OEM desktops. I actually also have known more people as gamers over the last decade who have sub £100 cards,and qualify as casual gamers,as opposed to people like me who are hardware enthusiasts,and want to run the latest tech demo game at maximum settings. OTH,many of the frequent posters on Hexus certainly spend more than me on hardware - I have never spent more than £110 on a CPU or more than £150 on a graphics card either!
Moreover,the IGP benefits also go down the range,even to something like the £50 A6-5400K. According to TH,the IGP is around 10% slower than an A8-3850. In single threaded benchmarks it looks around around Pentium G630 level from what I see,so with the IGP acceleration of software,it is going to be quite interesting!
i was curious by this cpu but then in the end i went with 3570k
I really like what amd does, allways buying amd, costs less and you get better pc overall. Just wish the best for AMD, cause as it looks, it is not doing well.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Reply With Quote