Read more.Quote:
Core or Ryzen? We take a closer look.
Printable View
Read more.Quote:
Core or Ryzen? We take a closer look.
Should be Review: Intel Core i3-8350K not Review: Intel Core i7-8350K - You have since fixed it after I posted =)
As an upgrade from an older platform AMD *seems* to be a better all round choice to me. If I was to upgrade my m-itx system for example it is an AM1 based setup and the itx boards are quite a lot cheaper on AM4. A nice 2400G would be a great step up in every way ;)
I still have not seen any review sites or channels,test the new APUs with FreeSync - is there some technical or driver issue ATM?? There are now monitors for around £90 which would do it:Quote:
Originally Posted by 3dcandy
https://www.novatech.co.uk/products/...paign=products
AFAIK,they go down to 48HZ,but looking at some reviews,but if you are aiming for 60FPS in a game,that should help relieve some of the load off the IGP.
Edit!!
35HZ in this review actually:
https://uk.hardware.info/reviews/641...specifications
It won't be used for gaming, it gets used for projection mapping at gigs and VJ stuff ;)
Surely a laptop might make more sense?? :pQuote:
Originally Posted by 3dcandy
But I am still perplexed that I have not seen a single review,test these APUs with a FreeSync monitor. Surely if you were to be able to get down to 35HZ~48HZ without tearing,that should help with the gaming experience??
Need multiple outputs etc. A laptop of the required specs is way more expensive when I have the case, keyboard, monitor, psu etc.
Also I still use vga for the projectors as long cable runs of hdmi/dp are very expensive and again I have the cables and projectors. VGA over a long cable run the quality drops a little but I have a VGA booster/splitter which nicely helps that out. The projectors aren't HD and they aren't that modern simply because it works out cheaper with bulb costs etc.
It appears from a quick look that perhaps driver issues are preventing decent benchies with Freesync. Also some reviews have noticed some very real instability issues with certain software that is only just being ironed out as we speak, so again perhaps that has hampered things
On page 1, would it be possible to put an AMD table up which includes details and prices ? I know it's bordering on too lazy, just makes it easier to compare at a glance.
Yeah,it would be useful to know if FreeSync has problems with the APUs,since I have not seen much mention of it so far,"just" the general stability issues,which are hilarious in their own right,since the laptops had those a few months ago,so there really isn't an excuse months later for the same IGPs to still have problems.Quote:
Originally Posted by 3dcandy
More just appears to be a bit rushed as far as I can see. AMD sometimes struggles with these sorts of things against the might of Intel. They fix them fairly quickly though
Well the APUs have existed in laptop form since October/November and these are the same APUs,but with higher base clockspeeds and socketed.Quote:
Originally Posted by 3dcandy
Thus the fairly - though this seems to be more a software vendors issue from what I've read
According to scan, the 8350K is cooler-less - has intel changed the box contents for the K chips?Quote:
Still, we're happy to see that both Intel and AMD have made strides into improving the performance of their mainstream CPUs, and both companies offer basic air coolers inside the packages that are backed by three-year warranties.
I bang on this drum every intel review, but they haven't fixed the situation by releasing cheap motherboards yet so I'll keep at it: the 8350K is more expensive than a 1600. £160 for the chip, £20 for a decent heatsink, and £90 for a motherboard comes out ahead of the ryzen system (£180 for the chip, £70 for a decent board, and £1.50 more for faster RAM if you're sticking to the rated frequencies). The 8350K is a bit faster as a CPU than the 2400G in games, but as a CPU the 1600 is better hands down.Quote:
Upping the financial ante from £100 to £150 or so brings the Core i3-8350K and Ryzen 5 2400G into focus. AMD wins out financially, as the supporting motherboard is certainly cheaper than the Z370 required by Intel, and the Ryzen 5 has more stock poke due its eight threads, but Intel overclocks much better. Swings and roundabouts. We'd recommend the Intel chip if going down the discrete video card route and AMD if building a CPU-centric computer.
I'm having trouble bringing myself to even read cpu reviews at the moment.
Results that don't have microcode/patch fixes applied comparing with other cpus in a similar position. Yes we can see how they are relative to one another but not actual, at the end of the day, real performance.
When the dust settles none of these current figures will be relevant no matter what Intel 'reckon' the hit may be.
These chips are a product looking for a reason to exist. As a budget solution, they cannot compete with AMD's APU'seither in performance nor price. They are not fast enough to be of any use as either a production or a gaming system. Added to that - The 5-10% (at least) performance penalty when patched.
I cannot see who would actually buy them.