Discussion in 'Article Discussion' started by brumgrunt, 24 Oct 2012.
Agree with you ! What bugs me the most is the tone of full ATX FM2 mobos. I really think they should focus on mATX at max, and mITX should be widely available (which is not the case right now). We need affordable, small, with no useless features motherboards, keep the size and price low, but do not forget the quality.
I absolutely concur. I'd love to build my parents and several friends a small and hip looking all-purpose PC - low gaming demands, some HTPC interest, mainly office and photo juggling.
It is sad that I have not seen one product announcement that would feature WiFi on an FM2 Board. It is desperate, however, that there's still not one m-ITX FM2 Board available - in Germany that is.
Matx and itx boards for £60, throw that sexy Cooler Master Elite 120 case in the mix, and perhaps a power supply with short cables (I know Silverstone do a 500w but there must be someone else?) And it starts to make sense for a machine you don't play with - a computing appliance like an HTPC, or Grannies computer...
Yep I really want to buy one but I'm not going to unless they have the mITX motherboards (I'm looking at the asrock model) available. Seems like AMD have been pretty silly with this to be honest. If intel released this chip you could bet your bottom dollar they would make sure the right boards were available for release or at most a week afterwards.
As it stands the chip is a bit of a chocolate teapot.
I want mITX with mPCIe (for Wifi + BT card) and mSATA to drop a 256GB SSD into it .... zero cable mobo (except PSU .... or drop a nice pico psu), add bluetooth keyboard and mouse ... om nom nom
The issue here isn't with AMD but with the partners. AMD have chosen to take a corporate collaborative strategy, deciding that "partner" means "collaborator" and not "vassal" the way Intel and Nvidia do. AMD takes more of a hands-off approach to dealing with partners, letting them make their own business, economic and marketing decisions. Intel and Nvidia take a very different strategy.
You could argue that this is probably due to their weaker position, but I would disagree, and I think their history would dispute this argument. AMD has a history dating to before their recent troubles of not strong-arming their partners.
This is one of the benefits of being an AMD partner, you get to make your own product choices and AMD gets to develop a more responsive eco-system around their products, which also costs them less money in kick-backs, incentives, "marketing reimbursements" and "development programs" which provides various forms of funding. AMD puts options down in front partners, which they will either take up and run with or they won't, but it really is a bit of a scatter-gun approach. How many AMD initiatives have we had where we thought "that could be good" and then it went nowhere?
The down side is that AMD exerts less control over the products that bears their name and has little say over the products, message and marketing.
On the other side Intel and Nvidia get greater control of the message and the marketing and have far more influence over products and their development, but they pay for the privilege of doing so. If they want more of a certain form factor then they can force the matter, whether through "incentives" or coercion. AMD does not/can not do the same (you can choose which option it is).
And being a partner of Intel and Nvidia can be a good thing too. They will provide engineering resources (money and people) and marketing resources (money and people), and while AMD will do it too, their efforts do not have the depth of resources given. Especially Intel's, whose "resources" have a measurable effect to a hardware company's financial results.
While I personally favour the AMD approach because it better reflects my own personal values, business has ethics not morals, so there is no correct path to take with partners.
And if I'm going to be honest, my mouse cursor hasn't hesitated over the "Buy" button worrying about Intel's or Nvidia's partner relations. So long as the relationship isn't abusively violent (which might prompt me to call the police, battered partners are no joking matter), this isn't a reason to stop me going Intel/Nvidia.
I have a Llano 3870K in my 2nd PC and love it, plays TF2 brilliantly. I so want a 5800K and would have snapped one up at release had there been an itx board as I want it to go on a shelf where matx just won't fit. It's shocking that non of the mobo makers thought to get an itx ready for launch and baffling that half the boards are atx. Comes to something when the niche your product fills just isn't catered for.
I've been disappointed the lack of m-ITX boards, as well. Before I ran with my wild-hair car PC, I'd intended my next build to be a replacement of my wife's aging Athlon 64. It's currently an micro-ATX mid-tower on the coffee table in the living room (we haven't turned on our TV in probably 3 years.) At the moment, I'm dead set on it being m-ITX. Aside from that, Trinity would be a stupidly good fit for her purposes. If I have to, I may compromise with another micro-ATX in a more appropriately-sized case (her computers so far have all been my hand-me-downs), but the lack of m-ITX boards has, for the first time, had me considering jumping to the dark side and building an Ivy Bridge system.
I'd even settle for one of those tiny pre-built systems but no one makes them either.
My experience with the A10-5800K so far:
It's quicker than my old E8400, especially when I'm running dozens of things simultaneously - which is most of the time - and having four cores (and scads of memory, which is by-the-by) makes it more realistic for me to leave one or more VMs running in the background. It's also bleedin' low power: socket draw while typing or browsing t'internet oscillates between a minimum of about 86W to a peak of about 91W, including the monitor. By contrast, my E8400 with GeForce 9800GT single-slot card idled at about 129W - so I'm saving a not-inconsiderable amount of electricity, and my UPS will run longer before shutting the system down. Peak power draw including monitor, measured while running the Unigine Heaven benchmark, hit about 175W.
Driver support in Linux is a bit sketchy - which is only to be expected, given how new the chip is. Most things work fine under the latest kernel, but AMD's binary-blob drivers do have a few glitches. Particularly annoying is a problem taking screenshots under the Cinnamon DE - although this isn't exclusive to the new APUs, as it affects any AMD GPU running the Catalyst closed-source driver package. Oh, and the heatsink is cheap and nasty with a base that fails to even cover the entire heatspreader.
Overall, I'm pretty pleased - and as AMD works on its drivers, most of the little glitches should be ironed out. If I get tired of the relatively slow graphics performance - Heaven gets about 7fps at stock settings running at 1920x1080 - I'll stick in a Radeon HD 6670 and see how much of a pain Dual Graphics is under Linux.
I built a small u-atx for school work with a 3850. It is so quiet I frequently use it as a HTPC and music server. Haven't played games on it yet though. I used to sell computers at a local store and this is what most users are looking for, a simple plug and play box. Side by side with intels budget offerings, I noticed a difference in video quality with AMD holding the advantage, particularly with multi-monitor set ups. I also built one for my dad because it does what he needs very well.
I just hope AMD can keep it together in spite of intel's best efforts to knock them out completely.
Other thoughts, we frequently want the latest, greatest hardware and I used to be able to afford it. This isn't as fast as I want but for how I use it it does my school work, mostly large office files and plays my music and email and video and... all without a hitch. I have higher grade parts all bought on sale, seasonic x-series ps, well featured Gigabyte mb, 8g 1866, ssd, lian li case... I typically get 2-3 mb through a case and ps. I still want a faster cpu but AMD has hit a sweet spot. I have to say my unicomp keyboard has been one of my best buys it games well according to my son and is easy to type fast and is much quieter than my cherry kb.
I have a question, did someone test it with Minecraft ? I'm willing to know if the A10 APU can handle it alone (no discrete GPU) at 1080 resolution ? Due to huge size and budget restirction, this could be my solution.
EDIT : I think I found the answer
But, if people have expereicne with it handling small games (Minecraft, Terraria, Bit trip runner, Orc Must Die, League of Legends, etc.) I'd be more than happy with some return on experience
Separate names with a comma.