Hardware Intel Haswell vs AMD Richland - the GPU test

I saw that in the bit-tech review of the A10, figures are given for the APU overclocked to 4.7GHz, and the APU at stock but with 2133MHz memory. Each gives a sizeable (~18%) increase, so combined they should give a very good boost. Any chance of that in the benchmarks?

 

frame rate for dual graphics? really?
...

frame rating...

 

Not really sure how this got to discussing cf and SLI issues. Bit techs testing on SLI and cf needs updating but they do say in the article that micro stutter is an issue.

There is a market for this sort of stuff but its a small market. The market for dual graphics will be close to 0 though. What does the AMD CPU + that Gpu cost and does it cost more than a budget intel + 7770 id imagine they are close. But the intel solution will be alot faster for pure gaming. ( intel CPU i3 3220 is £94 AMD CPU is aprox £113. Cheapest instock 6670 is £51 total cost aprox £164. Cheapest 7770 is £81 total cost £175)

Now that's a chart I'd like to see. For £11 the iintel solution at least in the benches I've seen will blow away any onboard Gpu including intels new 5200 r chip that's oem only. So your target market does not include any gamer as I'd spec the later intel system every day.

A 7850 is only £30 more than the 7770. And would offer near enough 5-6 times the performance of these onboard cards would actually allow 1080 gaming for a start.

 

Thank you bit tech

as someone else said - the majority of pc` sold in the world have on board (now on chip) graphics , and your article shows that yes , the onchip iGP (HD 8670) can do light gaming - and when coupled with a 6670 can actually get reasonable frame rates in some titles! thank you again for the time.



just because we have pc`s with radeon ultra bollox or nvida uber crap - doesn't mean most of the people who have a pc do.


btw the ram speed `thing` - the 5800k *only* officially supports 1866 ram - the 6800 raises that to 2133 ; it would be awesome to see 2133 ram , but cas9 1866 is the sweet spot now imo

 

Nah, you're totally right about this one actually.

The market for dedicated GPUs is only about 5% of the whole PC-market (including laptops and desktops that is).

I'm trying to tell this to the enthusiasts for like allmost 10 years in several forums and sites allready, but people are really subjective when it comes to this.

PC-gaming is a really small niche, especially when talking about games that require dedicated GPUs. Most people buy a PC between €/$300-500 and that's it. These days there's more laptops sold to endconsumers then desktops anyways. Most gamers play on a console since the days of the Atari 500. Even back then people laughed at me when I was playing around with a C64/C128 instead.

The IGP will get there sooner or later, especially when talking about games that don't try to mimic realistic graphics. Good games don't rely on realistic graphics anyways, but good game-concepts and you can clearly see that when looking at the MMORPG-market where WoW is still the biggest one allthough the graphics don't even match what can be done on an iPad these days.

Anyways, the biggest problem with the AMD APU at the moment is the lack of CPU-power compare to intel and this is keeping alot people from switching to AMD allthough their IGP is way better currently.

 

If you wanted a lower cost gaming system with a 7850, you could get an FX 6300 for less than an i3, and it'd easily outperform it in games. It also massively overclocks, while the i3 is locked.

The APUs offer dual graphics as an extra, it's not the focus of the marketing. I'd agree it's not worth it for many.

As for 1080 gaming, the A10-6800K APU can do >30fps in most games at medium settings and stock clock, and overclocked should manage it for almost any game.

 

jrs77


you average person who walks into pcworld doesn't know or care a hoot about jibbabytes or NVidia raydeons - they care about candy crush and how flash games don't work on ipads.

does pc go on facebook + you tube + Skype , can it open a text document , have anti virus - and maybe play half life 2 I just bought in the steam sale for the price of a banana? yes?

good then its a sale!!


and who cares if BT doesn't have raided SSD`s - 1 ssd is enough unless you stare at benchmarks all day.

 

Actually depending on what you do, RAIDing SSDs can actually slow down performance. The only time SSDs in RAID is a decent idea is if you have plenty of SATA ports to spare and you run programs that use large files (such as games).

However, the stupid thing is with many games today, you spend more time waiting for the loading screen to do it's fade-in, fade-out animation than you do for it to actually load anything. One funny example of this is Resident Evil 5, where it shows a little bit of the game history in the loading screens. I still have yet to fully read one of those messages, and this is with the game loading on a single mechanical HDD!

 

the only thing really an SSD does for games is when its loading levels - wow for example. in FPS it doesn't really help as a `map` only starts when all players are in , or games have preloading of levels (skyrim for example)


a PS3 shows very little benefit of an SSD over a HDD.

 

That's not strictly true. Many games only partially load a level fully into memory, instead requiring regular mini-loads as you progress through the level. An SSD can have quite an impact in these instances.

 

an SSD - raid SSD`s would make no difference


anyway


http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-can-ssd-upgrades-boost-ps3-performance

they tested a PS3 with both an HDD and an SSD....

 

Guys, I think the comment about the RAIDed SSDs was a reference to the insane amounts of storage speed needed for a frame capture system, not talking about the storage system in the testbed.

 

Interesting you mention that, as the first thing I tested on my A10 was Half Life 2 via Steam

(It ran at 60Hz vsync 1920x1200 max settings without any stutter)

 

Exactly. Also, the games I want to play on my living room PC aren't the same as the ones I want to play on my gaming rig.

Fifa for instance, perfect.

 

Yes I agree. Nevertheless, it's an interesting review. If this is the direction onboard graphics are going to take, then there might be potential in the future; but there's a performance gap to bridge.

 

If you're happy you're happy, but I suspect your choice of cpu has more to do with liking AMD then power usage. A10-5800K is hardly a low power chip, in fact it takes about twice the power at load an i3 would do:
http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/cpus/2013/06/05/amd-richland-review/8

 

Also, note that the power draw graphs show the AMD using more power because it has a much more powerful GPU - that's the natural compromise of higher performance. At idle the AMD system actually uses less power. Of course overclocked it's a different story but then you can't overclock the i3.

 

re Handbrake


from what I can remember - the OCL support isn't functioning anything like the Quicksync support.


try photoshop or premier cc for fully functioning OpenCL support.

 

We can all agree that theres a usage for these chips, but to state they are for gamers is misleading at best. You would struggle to get the 5 most popular pc titles to run at 1080 resolution on either of these setups which is the bear minimum if your connecting to a tv of some sort ( Which is how many famillys do cheap pcs they put it onto the kids bedroom telly which already does 1080 anyway)

top 5 by sales in the last year in pc gaming. ( all 5 have been tested at one point or another by various sites on different gpu setups )

BF3 no chance of running,
World of Warcraft Mists of panda land will run outside of a raid scenerio at least.
Diablo 3 it will run how well depends on the act your running it on and how many people your playing it with.
Crysis 3 no chance of running
Starcraft 2s expansion will once again run but your not gpu limited its cpu limited.

change the gpu from onboard to a 7770 and all will run add a 7850 to the mix and you can max out 3 of the 5 and have above console details in the other 2. all for not alot more than the price of the amd chip + the 6670.