Dear forum members,
We are delighted to inform you that our forums are back online. Every single topic and post are now on their places and everything works just as before, only better. Welcome back!
Discussion on Article:
Contemporary APUs: AMD Trinity vs. Intel Ivy Bridge
Its sounds that Ilya Gavrichenkov is lying on his article, if you said "While 22nm could offer slightly lower power consumption"
If someone going to buy AMD Trinity, it better not to buy discrete graphis since thats the propose of AMD Trinity Low cost with better video capability than Intel.
Since AMD is at least 1 full node behind, they are not going to have a product that's competitive both on the CPU and GPU side. That's just not how physics works. You can continue to expect Intel having an APU with a faster CPU and AMD naturally offering a faster GPU solution but a weaker CPU. A sacrifice has to be made. Right now the GPUs inside AMD's APUs are too weak really to play modern games which is why most people are choosing an Intel i3 against A10 series. We'll see what happens once AMD brings out Steamroller cores and adds a lot more power to the APUs in the next 2-3 years.
I3 3225 CPU Burn only = 79 watts
ATI HD 7750 = 43 watts
ATI HD 7770 = 89 watts
i3 3220 = $130
i3 3225 = $145
HD7750 = $90-100
i3 3200 + HD7750 = $220 minimum
You cannot start comparing an i3 + discrete GPU to an A10 and ignore the cost factor. No one in the world is cross-shopping a $220 CPU+GPU combo against a $130 A10-5700 because an A10 or i3 target budget systems where cost is a big factor.
If you can afford to purchase an i3 + a discrete GPU worth $100, then of course none of the AMD's APUs makes sense. But that's not the market APUs serve at all.
Again, you seem to be confused what target market the APUs service. It is evident from this statement you made:
"Its sounds that Ilya Gavrichenkov is lying on his article, if you said "While 22nm could offer slightly lower power consumption""
He is not lying. The power consumption differential between similarly priced i3 3220 and A10-5700 is only 12W and yet the A10-5700 mops the floor with it in gaming or GPU related tasks. Therefore, someone who is interested in a budget gaming APU is better off with an A10-5700.
U think gamers are 98%?
I still think 98% of the processes a user does are CPU not GPU bound.
Therefore an i3 is the winner in these cases.
And if you still want both: high x86 performance and some GPU Performance there is still no solution to buying a i3 or i5 and a (cheap?) Graphicscard
Every discrete Radeon card I have tried with UVD3, is not able to HW accelerate 4K. In fact latest Radeon drivers are limited to 1080p only.
It showed something i was thinking for a while now, AMD and Intel are starting to be uncomparable.
Like x86, powerPC or ARM.
Because we use computers for longer than 1 year i would like to see the same, but totaly same comparison between Llano and Sandy Bridge. To see how does it had matured with latest drivers.
Realy exelent review.
you need 188.8.131.52.2618 driver to enable quick sync in MediaEspresso.
I checked it and GPUZ showes the GPU usage :-)
Same effect with sony vegas- choose the AUTOMATIC Encode mode or GPU and you will see GPU load 50%~80% during Render
Please XbitLabs- check it and write the findings!
I download a 4k test clip (ftp://publicusr:readpubli...stfiles_short_Version.zip).
I am using a HP laptop with A8-4500M and the display is 1600*900. While playing those 4k clips, the CPU stays at 11-17% most of the time. Not sure if the codec is playing any trick, as it may know my display has a very low resolution. I don't know if the CPU utilization would be higher, if this PC is connected to a 4k monitor.
Hi xbitlabs, could you describe in details how you did that 4k video test? If your results were true, it could have had a major implication for the whole PC industry in 2-3 years.
I must admit I didn't read every word so you may have said in the article but back in the Sandy Bridge days QuickSync only worked when you have a monitor attached to one of its outputs, is this still the case?
I will be buying a Haswell set up when it's out but will be using a dedicated GPU also, will the GPU on the CPU still function?
What would be better (mainly quality but also speed) new AMD card, nVidia, sticking with QuickSync or disabling all GPU acceleration and purely using x86?
For one of my grand sons, whilst there was an AMD A6-3670 here already which was about a year old this was to stop 2 kids trying to play on one machine. Now the newer i3 3220 is hardly ever used as the AMD machine appears to be the preferred unit for playing games on.
I even put an old HD5570 video card into the Intel unit to try and make up for the woeful graphics, this did not improve the game play at all, It cost me a newer HD 7770 card just to get it to have the same graphics as an older AMD cpu.
It is still not the preferred unit for the kids to play on. The only thing which it appears faster at is when using an USB stick. Other than that the Intel computer appears to be slower less user friendly. This was even more apparent when in my ignorance I changed both units to Win 8., a complete turn off for both the 12 and 14 went back to playing on tablets, once I ran the recovery and went back to the win 7 they started to use the units again.
They both have an dislike for the Intel toy even if they don't know what CPU's are in the machines as they visit during the weekends.I see no reason to change to Intel for my own use or the 10 units in the business.
But great article shows the strengths and weaknesses of each platform very well.
Overall, it looks like A10-5700 and i3-3225 are both worthy APUs.
a. Celeron g1620 + radeon 7850 1gb or
b. i3 3220 + radeon 7750 2gb
And while I am here, a big thank you for an excellent review which answered the questions that were worrying me.
Add your Comment
Enter your username and e-mail address. Password will be sent to you.