1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Hardware AMD A10-7800 Review

Discussion in 'Article Discussion' started by Dogbert666, 31 Jul 2014.

  1. Harlequin

    Harlequin Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    4 Jun 2004
    Posts:
    7,071
    Likes Received:
    179
    Apple are building their own ARM chips now - so that's them shut out - they have 64bit and access to the best powervr can offer.
     
  2. kent thomsen

    kent thomsen New Member

    Joined:
    9 Jul 2011
    Posts:
    38
    Likes Received:
    0
    @schmidtbag: No one "needs" a computer anyway, they/we WANT it. We WANT to waste our time on FB, we WANT to "play at 720p", we WANT to buy stuff on the web, we WANT to rant or the oposite on Twitter and Instagram, we don´t NEED it. We want it because it´s easy, we want it to forget our boredom for a little while, but first and foremost we want it, because the people in power wants us to.

    So everything with computers are a subjective choice, not a NEED-based one.

    Guess we all want the fastest computer for the buck. And, in that matter, it´s everyone in his own I believe
     
  3. schmidtbag

    schmidtbag New Member

    Joined:
    30 Jul 2010
    Posts:
    1,082
    Likes Received:
    10
    Speak for yourself - I do stuff with computers where my work actually matters and is actually a necessity, either because it pays my bills or (indirectly) saves someone's life. Most of that work is done on a Core 2 Duo or a quad core Xeon. I also used to do work in mainframes at IBM. Aside from online shopping, I actually don't do *any* of the things you mentioned. But suppose I did, an AMD A10 would be perfectly capable of doing *all* of those and then some. So it gets me to question why you think it isn't worth getting.

    For the record, I don't own an APU and I have no intention to own one myself, but, I have built computers for people using them because it suits their needs better than it suits mine.
     
  4. SchizoFrog

    SchizoFrog New Member

    Joined:
    5 May 2009
    Posts:
    1,574
    Likes Received:
    8
    The reason I find it hard to go the APU route is that I see it as entry level and in my experience (not just computers) entry level is exactly that... an entry in to a much bigger and more exciting world. It is a taste of what is possible without fully investing from the start. The problem is that this only goes two ways, you either don't like it and give up/move on or you quickly learn and want to do more than what you are able to do with your entry level equipment and so you need to invest further. It is based on this further investment that I feel the Intel route is still a better one. Why limit yourself to 720 gaming when your TV or monitor is going to be 1080 or higher, especially when 1080 gaming is accessible for a minimal amount (within £50 on top of the cost of an APU based system) of extra investment from the start?

    So your APU and board costs around £150. The unlocked Pentium is now under £45 on Scan and that's not even a Today only offer. So £45 for the CPU + £30 for the board = £75 leaving me £75 for a GPU. For about that money I can get an R7 260X or for less than £25 extra get the 750Ti.

    Now correct me if I am wrong but apart from 1 or 2 specific situations, wouldn't that second system option comprehensively beat the APU system? Does £25 more really break the bank for people? Not to mention that should they choose they can drop in a higher level i3 or even an i5 should they choose to compliment any further GPU upgrades.
     
  5. schmidtbag

    schmidtbag New Member

    Joined:
    30 Jul 2010
    Posts:
    1,082
    Likes Received:
    10
    Isn't the pentium noticeably slower at its default speed in most cases? Again, comparing strictly the CPU is never in-favor of AMD. AMD calls their products APUs for a reason - the CPU portion is roughly 1/4 of the entire die, and is slow enough that if they were to call the entire product a CPU, it would be a considerably worse product. That's like having a couch and being disappointed it doesn't double as a bed very well - if it were a bed, they'd call it that. I'm not sure what the pentium die looks like but if it's proportionate to an i7, then the CPU makes up roughly half of the surface, with the cache and memory controllers also being much heftier than AMD's. That being said, intel has a right to retain the name "CPU".

    Anyway my point is APUs are decent and worthy products, it just depends on what you use them for. If your workload is very CPU intensive, you've got the wrong product. If you've got a lot of OpenCL and GPU-accelerated tasks, an i5 (without a discrete GPU) is a poor choice. The products aren't really comparable.
     
  6. SchizoFrog

    SchizoFrog New Member

    Joined:
    5 May 2009
    Posts:
    1,574
    Likes Received:
    8
    I don't care if it is called an APU or a CPU, nor do I care about the proportions of the chip's internals, I care about it's performance and cost with regards to building a complete system

    Tom's did an article about overclocking the Pentium on the cheap using H81 chipsets that had updated firmware to allow overclocking without Z boards. I believe that Bit-Tech also covered the story that certain vendors (MSI and ASUS that I know of) were going to do this.
    http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/pentium-g3258-b81-cheap-overclocking,3888.html

    The board Tom's used was the MSI H81M-P33 which retails on Scan for less than £30 and was able to overclock the chip using a stock cooler to over 4GHz (4.4GHz was stable I think) without it overheating.
    http://www.scan.co.uk/products/msi-...iii-6gb-s-pcie-20-(x16)-d-sub-dvi-d-micro-atx

    As I stated above, I wasn't intending to use the iGPU of the Pentium as the budget then allows me to include a dedicated GPU that far outperforms the GPU capabilities of pretty much any APU on the market today and certainly that of the APU at this price point.
     
  7. Gareth Halfacree

    Gareth Halfacree WIIGII! Staff Administrator Super Moderator Moderator

    Joined:
    4 Dec 2007
    Posts:
    13,135
    Likes Received:
    2,244
    Two words: "power draw." An Intel plus dedicated GPU system will draw more power, at idle and at load, than an APU system. That's why I have an APU system; I don't do massively heavy computation often enough - bit of image editing, occasional need to compile a program from source which is faster on a four-core chip than a two-core chip regardless of IPC, play about with cryptography a bit, that sort of thing - to make the extra performance of the equivalently-priced Intel version worth the extra power draw. Also, I haven't looked for the purposes of this post but when I was shopping for my current system I found that the equivalently-priced Intel chips were more powerful than my APU in single-threaded use cases, but not by much, but all dual-core; my workloads scale brilliantly for multi-core, so buying a four-core APU means I get my tasks done considerably faster than if I'd bought a dual-core Intel with better IPC.

    If our theoretical shopper needs the best single-threaded performance for his or her buck and doesn't care about power draw? Sure, get the Intel plus a dedicated GPU.
     
  8. SchizoFrog

    SchizoFrog New Member

    Joined:
    5 May 2009
    Posts:
    1,574
    Likes Received:
    8
    Wouldn't that come under the '1 or 2 specific situations' Gareth? The main jist of previous comments that I was responding to was about cheap and simple PCs that were capable of gaming at 720 and above. Your needs are not using the APU for it's gaming potential and so the increase in cores suit you but as soon as gaming comes in to the equation the Intel system offers far more.
    Also, isn't more and more multi-threaded software being designed to use GPUs instead of the CPU now where possible? (Is that GPGPU?) So in that case too, wouldn't the far superior GPU also increase performance?
     
  9. Gareth Halfacree

    Gareth Halfacree WIIGII! Staff Administrator Super Moderator Moderator

    Joined:
    4 Dec 2007
    Posts:
    13,135
    Likes Received:
    2,244
    "Lower power draw" is no more a specific situation than "gaming potential" is - in fact, I'd argue it's considerably broader. Everyone can benefit from lower power draw at all times. Plus, who said I didn't game? According to Steam, I've got 33 games installed on the desktop right now - and that's not counting non-Steam titles.
    Nup. At least, none of the stuff I use. I can't compile a program on the GPU, I can't gzip/bzip2 compress an archive on the GPU, about the only place where GPGPU could potentially be used in my workload is for image editing - but waiting one second instead of two to rotate an image isn't going to mean I can knack off to the pub an hour earlier...
     
  10. SchizoFrog

    SchizoFrog New Member

    Joined:
    5 May 2009
    Posts:
    1,574
    Likes Received:
    8
    I can't argue with the power draw issue so fair point, same goes for the GPGPU argument, I did leave it open to be corrected. I did question about your gaming because you never mentioned that as a use for your APU system.
    Overall, looking at a general purpose PC used for website browsing, media playback and gaming I think I would still go with the Intel machine with a GPU rather than the APU. I don't think the multi-threaded nature of the APU would benefit that much if at all in general use and any benefits in gaming would be held back by the limited GPU power of the APU. I totally concede that some people have a use for an APU but that is not the average case of the average user.
     
  11. Harlequin

    Harlequin Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    4 Jun 2004
    Posts:
    7,071
    Likes Received:
    179
    did intel ever correct the hardware video playback bug they`ve ignored for 4 generations?
     
  12. schmidtbag

    schmidtbag New Member

    Joined:
    30 Jul 2010
    Posts:
    1,082
    Likes Received:
    10
    There's a video playback bug? I'm sincerely asking - I haven't used an intel IGP (or any IGP for that matter) on Windows in roughly 15 years. GPU accelerated video playback on linux either works fine or not at all, but isn't buggy.


    @schizofrog
    On the note of video playback, considering the commodity of FHD/UHD screens and people using computers to watch movies, an APU is actually ideal for the average user. The CPU portion, even on an A6, is good enough for the average user; albeit, if they take care of their computers. Intel graphics are good enough for video playback but I get the impression an i3 or a Pentium can't play anything beyond 1080p @ 24FPS (which, is good enough for the average user). That being said, an APU makes a better HTPC.

    With other non-gaming and non-video GPU-accelerated applications on the rise, APUs are very very slowly becoming more relevant to the average user. The problem is AMD was banking on this waaaay too early. But I suppose the nice and interesting thing is in a few years from now, modern APUs will actually become LESS obsolete.
     
  13. loftie

    loftie Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    14 Feb 2009
    Posts:
    2,912
    Likes Received:
    149
    I believe he's talking about Intel's inability to do a 23.976Hz refresh rate properly, if this is the case, when Anand did a review of Haswell last year it was fixed.

    http://www.anandtech.com/show/7007/intels-haswell-an-htpc-perspective/4
     
  14. SchizoFrog

    SchizoFrog New Member

    Joined:
    5 May 2009
    Posts:
    1,574
    Likes Received:
    8
    So again, correct if I am wrong but are you saying that regardless of the GPU installed, the Pentium G3258 can't play back 1080 video, even when overclocked but this APU can?
     
  15. schmidtbag

    schmidtbag New Member

    Joined:
    30 Jul 2010
    Posts:
    1,082
    Likes Received:
    10
    You're saying that as though the APU is incapable of playing 1080p video. But, even the Pentium's IGP can play 1080p video at stock speeds smoothly with some resources to spare.
     
Tags: Add Tags

Share This Page