Read more.Quote:
Is this the best sub-$200 chip?
Printable View
Read more.Quote:
Is this the best sub-$200 chip?
Doesn't matter how much better the IGP is, until they make getting a discrete card a choice rather than a necessity I will be going with the better CPU performance, and that means Intel, every time.
The main "problem" I see is that although IGPs are getting better, GPUs are killing them in the horsepower race, so much so that pairing a mid level CPU with a low to mid level GPU will give you more than satisfactory gaming capabilities for about the price of a decent CPU 5-7 years ago.
I remember paying about £300 for my core2duo back in the day, then another £300-500 (can't remember exactly) for an 8800, and after less than a year I couldn't run max settings.
Now I have a sub-200 quid quad core CPU that I got 3 years ago, and a pair of GTX 670s that are nearly 2 years old (admittedly nearly £700 for the pair...but SO worth it) and I still max out all settings at 1200p, and no doubt I will get at least another 2 years out of em - hell I reckon I'll need to up the resolution before needing more gruntmasters..
That's a plucky little i3 in there!
A friend is wanting a £500 gaming PC, is there much to beat that chip for around £100?
It seems even an intel Dual-Core coupled with a discrete GPU is better than sticking with the Kaveri part. Of course it's always ideal for a gamer to have a discrete GPU rather than sticking with integrated graphics.
I'm not bashing on AMD, in fact, I'd like to own a Kaveri system right now. The iGPU is already sufficient to play games on low@1080p. Well it's better than what I have now since I sold my GTX 660 a week ago.
I'm currently using intel HD 2000 graphics from my Core i3-2100 part right now and the only games I can play on it are Source(Valve) games at various settings and some more intensive games on a window @800x600 resolution (wth right?). On Dota 2 I currently have it all on the lowest graphics settings @720p. However, on older games like TF2 and Half-Life 2, I can max it out a bit but without AA and AF @1600x900.
Don't underestimate this rig, I finished Crysis in this with less than 15FPS haha.
Actually that's not really a bad choice, since it's better than the AMD quad core part in compute performance. But if he can, he should push it a bit to the i5 level. There's a ~5 frame discrepancy with dual cores and quad cores, depending on the game of course.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob_B
As for the GPU, you might be better of with a R9 270X, gives a better overall performance than the 7870 and GTX 660 Ti. Don't forget that Mantle goes with that, but at a later date probably.
*pats i3 on the back, pick of the bunch*
Butuz
Depends on the use of the pc as to which is the preferable cpu for me, although I'd always want the most grunt possible from a cpu.
If you know your going to build a gaming rig obviously the amd cpu isn't going to be great unless you bundle it with a compatible gpu to make use the dual graphics, even then results arn't great and you'd likely be better with the faster processor from what I can tell and gives you a bit more future proofing.
AMD's cpu's I'd probably prefer for a htpc type setup where it doesn't need the grunt but a good balance of cpu/gpu in a small space.
Slightly odd review to compare a £130 CPU with an £130 APU and come to the conclusion that the CPU with an additional £110 discrete GPU wins. Was that outcome not a given from the start? Why not compare the APU with a £60 CPU and £70 GPU? That would be a more interesting comparison. Or compare the APU in dual graphics with a 250x against the 4440 with the same 250x
Shock as £110 graphics card better at graphics than £130 CPU :)
As above, I'm surprised you picked that graphics card - surely a £60 one would make more sense here? Anyway a useful review, thanks.
Good to see the Core i5 CPUs slowly dropping in price and thanks for Hexus for doing a review on a cheaper Core i5 SKU.
An FX6300 or FX8320??Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob_B
I have specced a few builds with an FX6300 and a HD7870/R9 270 - they seem to work fine together.
Quote:
Originally Posted by robkewley
Jeez they can't do right for doing wrong! It says that the APU is better for gaming with no discrete card, with a discrete card then it's a whole different ball game.Quote:
Originally Posted by miniyazz
The review doesn't explicitly say what system had the 750 installed but we all know gaming performance would be better with either CPU.
The GTX 750 Ti was installed in the same system as the Core i5-4440.
The point here wasn't to show the obvious, that is, a £100-odd discrete card is better than the integrated graphics. Rather, it's the kind of card that we feel readers/users might want to install in, say, a £500 base unit. The gaming performance isn't just better - that would be true of a £60 card - it's on a whole other level.
Also, some people aren't well-informed enough to know that a proper discrete card is still required for buttery-smooth gameplay with latest titles set to high-quality settings and a 1080p resolution.
If you were getting > 100fps @ 1080p with the 750 Ti, then it's a far more powerful/expensive card than is "required for buttery-smooth gameplay with latest titles set to high-quality settings and a 1080p resolution." Apart from I assume the 750 Ti was actually benchmarked with the same (medium?) quality settings as the IGPs, rather than high settings?Quote:
Originally Posted by Tarinder
The 750 Ti results just feel a bit incongruous in the context of the rest of the review - particularly since the AMD system wasn't also benchmarked with the 750 Ti. It's hardly in the i5's favour if the A10 produces similar figures with a discrete GPU...! I know you can't benchmark everything, but one graph of the i5 v the A10, both using the 750 Ti, would really have made sense...
Tarinder, your at it again, why are you using that itx board with last years Bios and slow memory, try it with FM2A88X extreme6+ board with 2400 or 2600 clocked memory, then run some tests with HSA and watch the 7850k total wipe the floor with any i5 or i7, ahh but you can't can you, Intel won't work with HSA, and thats the point that you don't mention at all, so i'll say it for you. As HSA software becomes available this new groundbreaking technology is going to bring a hole new ball game into play that Intel is not part of. shock horror. and AMD are not the only ones working with HSA so it will happen.
http://wccftech.com/amd-kaveri-i54670k-benchmarks-showdown-continued-hsa-features-test/
the ram is CL10 2133 - so its the `rated` one for the APU but the board does support 2400 ram.
the board does have 2 newer bioses available - 1 is regarding target TDP , which could very help power useage!
A10 destroys the Intel CPUs in gaming, that's all you need to know.
http://cpuboss.com/cpus/Intel-Core-i5-4440-vs-AMD-FX-8320Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob_B
Basically, for anything bar the single-core performance, the £110 AMD 8320. Overclocks well, too.
8320? Really? I'd never have gone that far back. He's now told me the budget Inc monitor is about £750 so that changes things!
He wants the i5 4440 and a 660, nor sure to advise him otherwise?
My preference for a CPU would be i7x, i7, then FX8350, then high-end i5, then FX6300, then that tasty i3, then low-end i5, then a Kaveri chip. That's the scale I use depending on budget I pick from that list (for standard users - so no Xeons or Opterons considered). This all assumes a discreet GPU. AMDs undoing is the power consumption. People would tolerate more the single thread performance if the power draw were lower.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob_B
Anyone who wants just a media box and no GPU it seems either i5S, i3 or Kaveri chosen to suit their priorities of what they want it to do. The intels have the advantage in terms of cooling requirements provided the user can sacrifice the graphics and parallel compute power Kaveri offers.
Yet £30 to £50 more might give him a R9 270X,GTX760 or the upcoming R9 280.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob_B
Nvidia drivers tend to thread better than AMD ones too,and in Mantle enabled games,the drivers should thread better too.
Two of my mates with 100s of games between themselves,including many MMOs,have the FX6300 and FX6350 running at 4.3GH~ 4.4GHZ with a HD7870LE(close to an HD7950) and a GTX650TI Boost(around HD7850 level) respectively and seem fine running games at 1920X1080.
Don't get me wrong a Core i5 4440 and a GTX660 will be a capable setup,as I have a Xeon E3 1220 myself running a GTX660 too,but depending on the games,the AMD based setups might actually be a decent amount ahead IMHO.
Ahead CPU wise though? Is the 4440 not the best for this price range then seeing as the IGP isn't an issue.
Thinking ahead will it also not offer better future proofing sure to the socket over AM3+?
I'm on my phone so can't view many reviews or benchmarks but it seems strange we're debating a current gen i5 vs AMD from 2012 (?)
The Core i5 4400 is more expensive than the FX8320 - at least £25 to £30,and at least £50 more than a FX6300. That is really worth spending on the GPU.
Moreover,games are getting better and better threaded - surely that would mean the AMD CPUs are going to hold their own better?? :p
I assume your mate has no copy of Windows too??
Here is an example of a £500ish people I would do which includes a copy of Windows:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/B...A3P5ROKL5A1OLE
http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/B...A3P5ROKL5A1OLE
http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/B...A3P5ROKL5A1OLE
http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/B...A3P5ROKL5A1OLE
http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/B...A3P5ROKL5A1OLE
http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/B...A3P5ROKL5A1OLE
http://www.cclonline.com/product/115...D-OEM/SFT0434/
http://www.cclonline.com/product/554...tion-/PSU0202/
http://www.cclonline.com/product/662...Drive/HDD1190/
It still is around £518.
You are talking around £50 to £55 more for a Core i5 4440,which means cuts to the build.
Edit!!
Lets say you have Windows already.
That £71 saving would easily get a GTX760,an FX8320 and an XFX PRO 550W for around £528:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Nvidia-GeFor...eywords=hd7950
http://www.amazon.co.uk/AMD-FX8320-E...eywords=fx8320
http://www.amazon.co.uk/XFX-ATX-550-...s=xfx+pro+550w
If you stick with the FX6300 and XFX PRO 450W it will be under £500.
Thanks cat, I'll check those links properly later, a 270 instead of an X though?
He's happy to go over £500 so I think the i5 still looks good value. The 4440 plus the R9 270X seems a decent combination for ~ £280
Then it makes it a nearer £600 build for example.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob_B
Personally I think the FX8320 is better value if given a choice,especially since it can be overclocked. Heck,I think the FX6300 is even a better value choice when compared to the FX8320 and Core i5 4440.
The main thing with the Core i5 4440 is that it runs around 300MHZ to 500MHZ slower than a Core i5 4670,so you are easily looking at around a 10% to perhaps 15% performance reduction,plus Haswell has been known to throttle when pushed too far on the stock cooler.
Like I said my mates have FX6300 series based builds and they play games like SWTOR,etc and seem fine.
The Core i5 CPUs are nice,but at times I do think,they are a bit overhyped,and cheaper CPUs are kind of underhyped.
I always find spending much over £100 on a CPU a bit much for a budget gaming build.
However,as with all gaming builds,what sort of games his he playing??
BF4 is the one he's mentioned, and COD I imagine.
Of course the 4670 is faster, it's a £50 dearer chip :D I just have it in my head than an FX won't last as long before it's outdated and he's not going to be able to drop in a faster chip when he wants to upgrade like he could if he goes with the 4440.
If someone was to offer you the 4440 or 6300 or 8320, which would you take? Is the i5 simply not faster? Hexus like it over the current range of AMD offerings so are they wrong to suggest it's a decent 'budget' chip ?
He's unlikely to overclock as he's only just getting into the whole PC building thing.
My 6300+670 system will happily run bf4 on high well over 60fps without over clocking.
In terms of the article I still think it misses the point of kaveri a bit. One of the great things about it is that you can get a viable general purpose machine for occasional gaming (or mine craft sims etc) in the 300-350 quid range.
Pifast and stuff are fine, but the vast majority of users could happily do their day to day on core 2 duos provided they had enough ram.
In that choice if they were paying for it either the 4440 or 8320. 8320 has more grunt and cores probably better for long term if you get the best mobo out there in terms of USB3 sata6 PCI3 (ie the gen 3 sabretooth - but try and find one in the UK). 4440 better at single thread and usually intel have a greater range of mobo. I'd prob take the 8320 right now tbh. If it were an i7 it would be a no brainer. The i7 every time.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob_B
This.Quote:
Originally Posted by CAT-THE-FIFTH
Actually I think it is the perfect price point, and an opportunity missed.Quote:
Originally Posted by miniyazz
Using Scan's pricing today:
4670K is £175
Athlon X4 760K is £60, gainward 750Ti is £114, total £174.
OFC the funny part is that this depends on the idea of integrated graphics, Intel or AMD, is a waste of money for most of us Hexites who run desktop boxes not laptops.
Intel side of the coin would be E3-1220, which at £150 is pretty close to the FX8350 in cost. Close enough for a valid comparison benchmark.
Edit: I called the 4670K a 4670. Changes the economics a bit if you use the £13 cheaper non K version, but with a change of graphics card I think the idea is still valid.
My take-away from this review is that the i5-4670 gives around 15% more core performance than the i5-4440 but would only add £30 to the price of a system, which is only 6% more (on £500). On that basis, the first review had the right focus. Unless a budget definitely forbids the extra £30 plus the slightly higher electricity costs, it makes sense to get the 4670.Quote:
We've previously compared this A10-7850K to an Intel Core i5-4670 that costs an additional £30.
Price of a system? You need to compare cpu price, £130 vs £160, 19% more for that 15% increase.
Why would you take it out of context?Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob_B
Let's say that I'm building a workstation and the system without CPU is going to be £1000. Now let's say that I have a choice between a 4-core chip for £250 and a 6-core for £450 where the individual core performance is the same.
By your reckoning, £450/£250 = 1.8 is poor value for the 1.5 performance.
By my reckoning, £1450/£1250 = 1.16 is excellent value for the 1.5 performance.
Putting it another way, that's an extra half a computer for a mere £200 - and it's why I've got a 3930 instead of a 2600. ;)
Whether it's computer components or footballers, it's about how much they improve the system/team versus the increase in the system/team price. A star scorer may cost millions more than his team mates but if the team has already cost tens of millions, the differential will be acceptable if the team is that much better.
Of course it's more obvious when we talk about football teams and workstations but the same applies to humbler computers. 15% more oomph for 6% more ££ (or 1/7th extra computing for £30 instead of £70)? Yes, please. :)
Quote:
Originally Posted by devBunny
Absolutely, but only if you stay within budget.
It is very easy to slide down the slippery slope to better components than you need. Did it myself when I got the FX8350, having worked out the 6350 was what I needed. I did indeed do the calculation of increased system cost percentage vs performance percentage, and it came out in favour of the 4670K. So did I get it? Of course I didn't, that would have been financially irresponsible as I just didn't have the cash.
Decisions are way harder when money is a finite resource, which is why I think some of the odder component choices like Xeon E3-1220 and Athlon X4 760K CPUs are worth investigating. Not something that Intel and AMD want us to look at too closely though I suspect.
No it doesn't.Quote:
Originally Posted by WrATHZer0
Both CPUs still need a discrete card.
not at 720p - the APU is perfectly fine thereQuote:
Originally Posted by Willzzz
But is it the best?Quote:
Originally Posted by HalloweenJack
£135 for a 7850K (assuming you can buy one, last I looked everyone was sold out) vs £60 for an Athlon 760K and leaves £75 for a video card which is good for a 7770.
If you go right down the range then they start to look better value, but by that point you won't be gaming on them with half the shaders fused off.
Edit to add: These APUs are laptop chips. They make sense there, apart from I just bought an Android tablet that meets my mobile needs better than a laptop.
The A10 5800K is cheaper than an Athlon II X4 760K and an equivalent graphics card:
http://www.ebuyer.com/398761-amd-a10...-ad580kwohjbox
That is a cracking little chip, my daughter has one. The spec at the time was "what do I buy someone who has very low end gaming requirements and who keeps forgetting to turn the damned machine off".Quote:
Originally Posted by CAT-THE-FIFTH
Edit to add: I think this underscores how I feel about these chips. If the price is low enough, then there is a point. I couldn't part with over £100 though, I feel I am being pushed into "buy cheap buy twice" whether I like it or not.
It does if you're comparing IGP performance.Quote:
Originally Posted by Willzzz
And whether you 'need' a discrete card or not is subjective - APU IGPs generally offer far better gaming performance than you'd get from a 360/PS3, and more than a few people are happy playing games on those, myself included...
The A10 5800K is a good chip for around £85. The IGP is HD6570 GDDR3 level with 1600MHZ DDR3 and HD6670 GDDR3 level with faster RAM. No discrete card under £50 is really faster.
I have played games such as Portal 2 at max settings on it and it will run Minecraft fine.
http://images.anandtech.com/graphs/graph6332/50163.png
I think the Kaveri A10 CPUs are expensive down to supply and the fact there are loads of previous generation APUs still available. Quite often the A10 7850K appears to be out of stock at many retailers.
I expect once the older A10 APUs are low in stock,the A10 7850K should drop in price.
However for a compact machine where there is no room for a dicrete card,the A10 7850K makes great sense. IGP performance is on par with the Iris Pro IGP in the Core i7 4770R at higher resolution and yet it is cheaper. Combine that with the much lower power consumption when the IGP is used when compared to the previous generation,which makes cooling easier,it does makes the 45W/65W TDP A8 7600 even more attractive at its supposed sub £100 price.
I think you are more of an expert than I am on that, but do you really think on a machine so compact that it can't take a small graphics card that it will have enough airflow for a 100W cpu without sounding like a jet engine? My daughter's machine is in an SG02 case (shoebox for people with really large feet), and while the 5800K has worked great it gets far more noisy than I like at times, currently with the AMD heatpipe heatsink from an FX cpu on it. My wife's PC (965BE) is much quieter under load in basically the same case, I think because with a graphics card in there the heat is split across two fans. Still much louder than I would like.Quote:
Originally Posted by CAT-THE-FIFTH
Sometimes I think I should say stuff it and slap something like this on the side: http://www.carbuildersolutions.com/u...age-heater-fan
Would take some design work to interface a 5A fan to the motherboard PWM header, but would be whisper silent at the speeds it would need to run at and would look very steampunk. Might be a hard sell with the wife though :D
Its because the VLIW4 IGP was made for die area efficiency rather than power consumption.
http://www.hardware.fr/medias/photos...IMG0043981.png
http://img.hexus.net/v2/cpu/amd/Kaveri/A107850/2D.png
http://img.hexus.net/v2/cpu/amd/Kaveri/A107850/3D.png
The Hexus 2D numbers are under wPrime.
http://img.hexus.net/v2/cpu/amd/Trin...top/Power2.png
Earlier numbers using X264 which is less intensive,probably indicates better power consumption than some higher end IB CPUs under full load.
Remember,SB CPUs consume more power than IB and Haswell ones,but had no issue being in smaller cases.
The A8 and A10 are consume much less power in 2D and 3D,and more of the AMD motherboards are starting to have configurable TDP.
It depends on the cooler and case ventilation too of course. I've been using a Scythe Shuriken for a while now in my quiet system, both on a 5050e and now a '65W' Llano (which barely goes above 45W difference between idle and CPU+GPU load). It recommends 95W or below CPUs, and there are other good choices for higher TDPs, like this one I've just found after a quick bit of searching: http://www.frostytech.com/articlevie...articleID=2657
Have tried the Shuriken, and I think the Zalman is what I ended up with in my server down in the living room.Quote:
Originally Posted by watercooled
Am starting to think the way forward is to replace the ATX power supplies on these boxes with SFX PSUs with adapter plates. That would give more clearance to the CPU heatsink, possibly allow something of a decent size.
A mate did that in his Elite 120 and X4 760K based buid and it dropped noise a decent amount.Quote:
Originally Posted by DanceswithUnix
Nice, that might give me the confidence to spend money. I like small machines, but I can't stand noise!Quote:
Originally Posted by CAT-THE-FIFTH
"Proper gaming requires a discrete card, period."
There appears to be an error at the end of this sentence.
AMD no longer appeal to me, high power consumption, higher temps, lack of good matx motherboards - I'm currently looking at this 4440 chip and a H87 motherboard for my next build.