Read more.Battle at sub-£100.
Read more.Battle at sub-£100.
So you've tested an overclockable chip focused on graphics in a non-overclocked state against an unoverclockable chip focused on CPU power?
The integrated graphics results are interesting, but the rest of the article doesn't seem to have been thought through very well.
For me the most interesting comparison would have been against the other GPU focused £90-100 options. i.e. a £30-40 Haswell/Skylake Celeron or Pentium and a £60 GT 730 GDDR5. How much CPU performance, if any, do you lose? How do the graphics compare?
The memory frequency is a weird one. My MSI mobo says it will only support 2133mhz, however the board and the 7870k actually support 2400mhz (which is currently running perfectly as I'm typing). The memory is limited via BIOS. I flashed my BIOS and could no longer run at 2400mhz so I quickly rolled back and re-gained performance.
Would have liked to have seen some overclocked figures especially with the new heat sink and fan. Every CPU I buy normally includes a £15-£20 cooler by default.
I could love to see some applications performance in those reviews, like how the CPU can handle photoshop and other pro apps.
who needs extra single core performance? AMD A10-7860 Rules, those extra FPS are what consumers on a budget need.
I feel like I'm missing out after buying the 7850k a couple weeks back :/
Testing games in 720p would be more revealing for integrated graphics.
The more you live, less you die. More you play, more you die. Isn't it great.
the major problem with AMD is the confusing chipsets and sockets
Can we please have a review of the 845? A review comparing equivalent priced systems would be interesting as well - say £200 worth of motherboard, ram, cpu (and GPU if the budget can fit it) from intel and AMD, then see who comes out on top, since intel motherboards are frequently more expensive than AMD ones
ETA: A88 boards go for £40ish, while Z170 boards like the one used start at £80ish
Last edited by Xlucine; 15-04-2016 at 05:38 PM.
I feel the same, not sure many people would play the latest games at 1080p on integrated graphics? Much more likely to have a cheaper monitor or adjust resolution down.
It would have been nice to see some info on temperatures as well, unless I'm being really stupid I couldn't see any mention of it.
Main - Intel Core i5 2300 @ 3.5GHz, 8GB DDR3 1333Mhz RAM, Asus P8P67 Pro, Coolermaster iGreen 600w, GTX 480, Antec One Case
I'm not so sure - I tend to think people gaming on intergrated graphics are ones just gaming on the PC out of the box with no fiddling with things, and as such, are probably quite high in number. So it'll be whatever resolution is native to their monitor. True, there are still some 720p displays out there, but I think most people buy 1080p now. (Steam hardware survey might be quite useful here).
Good point, but you can see power usage, which equates to the same thing ultimately.It would have been nice to see some info on temperatures as well, unless I'm being really stupid I couldn't see any mention of it.
Kind of, but as we have seen with recent Intel chips, poor quality TIM under the heatspreader can affect the transfer of heat to the cooler. Realistically this is only a significant issue if you are overclocking or constructing in an environment that can be starved of airflow (ITX cases for example) but the construction of the chip package can play a factor into the temperature as a separate variable to the power usage.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)