Discussion in 'General Hardware' started by mr_scarface, Jun 20, 2012.
Was that really necessary...? :3eyes:
You are wrong on nearly all points.
The first part of your quote is a rant, so I'll start with your last statement, that for budget computers it's best to go with AMD APU's.
$110 = A8-3850
$109 = Intel G620 (which is equal or faster CPU wise, $64) and AMD 6570 (which is much faster GPU wise, $45)
I'm sorry but Intel has AMD beat on nearly every price point at the moment, including APU's; and uses less energy to do it.
Next, SATA ports. Yes, Intel has less SATA3 ports (2) by default than AMD on its lower class motherboards, but this doesn't matter in the scheme of things. I can assure you that 99.9% of people buying low-end motherboard are not going to be putting more than two SSD's on that system; in which case the SATA3 point is mute. Sure it would be nice to have more SATA3 on Intel, but it's not a dealbreaker.
true story, thats the only reason i can think of. unless u have some other reason. he threatens ppl and spreads misinformation.
yup, dont much matter, hes all talk behind his moms computer screen lol
That comparison doesn't quite work out. Intel G620 is a dual core processor while A8-3850 is a quad core (and actually the faster of the 2 in the majority of cases).... Plus the A8-3850 supports Hybrid Crossfire....while price competitive Intel boards don't support multi-gpu configurations or overclocking. If you buy based on performance/features....the A8-3850 easily wins.
He was wrong about the sckt 478 Pentium 4 and the original Celeron as well. I had both a 400mhz and 433mhz Celeron "back in the day"...neither of which had any problems doing anything. Also, the sckt 478 Pentium4 wasn't the original Pentium4....that was sckt 423, which was actually slower than it's Celeron counterpart.
For general purpose tasks the A8 is better, but if we are talking about gaming the Intel setup is much faster. Here's a review of both CPU's with discrete cards:
Now the iGPU in the A8-3850 is around the performance of a GT430. The AMD 6570 is much faster than the GT430; so the Intel setup will be faster for games; that's the purpose of getting a "Fusion" processor in the first place, right?
And let's be fair, if you are going to do Hybrid crossfire then you can afford an even better GPU on Intel side for a fraction of the power usage.
The only place the "Fusion" line has any hope is low-end laptops and very small HTPC's (once AMD gets their drivers together there). With laptops though their advantage is going to go away soon due to Ivy Bridge and the same goes with the HTPC's (notice: HTPC and not small gaming system).
The other advantage is that the Intel system offers you an upgrade path (Socket 1155, Core i3,i5,i7), whereas the A8-3850 has no upgrade path (socket FM1, the Phenom and FX series are socket AM3+).
Now if AMD were to drop the price further on their "Fusion" series then I can see them being really competitive with Intel, but at the current prices and Intel setup for a low-end gaming rig (as long as it's not a cheap mini-ITX in a tiny case) makes more sense.
Hybrid Crossfire is only worthwhile if the user has a low end GPU, otherwise it's a bit pointless....just like the ill fated Hybrid SLI from Nvidia.
The problem with that chart is that no system data is provided.... It's one of those "grain of salt" deals. World of Warcraft is probably the worst example as they claim "all details maxed, no AA"....ok, great, so not "all" details are maxed....and which rendering mode did they use? Which version was used for each test? The lack of any system information makes the test results questionable...
The z77 is hardly a 'low end' chipset. If anything, its high end. If you want to argue all chipsets are low end except the Socket 2011 x79, then lets look at the x79... oh wow, 2 SATA3 ports!
In terms of performance, as I said if looking at a budget CPU you won't be coupling it with a high end GPU, making just about every benchmark comparison out there moot when they do this. The best you should do is look at a discrete low to mid end card, and hence the crossfiring with a HD7670.
So what about the APU graphics performance of the A8? well, lets look at the following review:
Are you going to claim that this comparison is off some dodgy site? oh please do!
Even in the other tests, sure it doesn't quite match the i5-2500K in the CPU tests, but not should you expect it to! It actually does quite well all things considered.
If you look at the following page, yes the Intel i5-2500K does do a lot better, but like I was saying, you aren't likely to couple it with a GTX580 video card.
In terms of budget, the APU by itself or crossfired with a discrete low mid end card is the best BUDGET combination, the benchmarks even show it.
I'm talking the A8-3870K here. The A10-5800K is only a little faster on the CPU side of things, but is up to 50 percent faster with GPU stuff. So, couple that with the appropriate discrete card and you have a decent BUDGET computer. You can claim AMD is inferior because the new APU isn't much faster on CPU stuff than the old one, but what does that remind you of? 'Leaves of three, let it be'?
Did you even read my post before going off on your tirade?
I myself said that the A8 has a faster iGPU than the Intel iGPU, which is why I paired the Intel with a discrete card to begin with. Your point of CrossFiring the A8-3850 is mute due to the fact that now you are talking about adding another $45-$55 to the $110 CPU making the setup $155-$165 and increasing the power cost. In comparsion, I now can buy a $90-$100 GPU with the Intel G620 that would blow even the Hybrid crossfire out of the water and still use less power.
Here for comparison purposes is a 6570 in Hybrid Crossfire with an A8-3850, the average return is 12% over the discrete card by itself; so you basically payed $45 for a 12% boost
And in some cases you even get a performance decrease:
And in regards to the SATA3 ports, you are ignoring the fact that even low-end Z77 boards have more than two SATA3 ports. My own low-end Asrock Z77 Pro 4 ($110) has four (4) SATA3 ports and four (4) SATA2 ports which is more than I will ever use, especially SATA3.
Yes, most motherboards have more than 2 SATA3 ports, but you are paying EXTRA for it because its provided by a third party chip. Face it, Intel cheaped out, and the result is the end user has to pay more.
And I 100% agree with you there about the end-user having to pay extra, though not about the Intel cheaping out part; I'm sure they had a good reason why they couldn't offer more SATA3 ports even on their high-end chipset.
Most users only have at most 2 SSDs (if any) anyway and optical drives gain nothing from SATA 6.0Gb/s ports. Mechanical harddrives gain nothing from SATA 6.0Gb/s either....so, why is it such a big deal? Unless you're using SSDs....the ports make no difference to performance.
My board is at the low end of the enthusiast spectrum, but it has 6 SATA3 ports, USB3, e-SATA, 6+2 phase vrm, mosfet heatsinks, and a pimped out UEFI bios with lots of overclocking features...
Unfortunately though, it's blue.
And thats a g620...Add a G850/60......
And needing a 3rd SSD...Is not Budget...
Thanks for the link, affirms what I've been saying (and more) all along.
AMD's Fusion would be a great idea if it used less power, was cheaper and had more competitive CPU performance; unfortunately as it stands now, Intel's HD4000 is "enough" and the Fusion series is a product looking for a market.
Yea, 100watts stock...Thats more than 2600k...
That's most ridiculous reason you could come with. Despite the fact that i earn less then you (most probably), there is enough reasons to don't like (not hate) Intel Corporation not to mention money at all. As i said, you know nothing, and i will really stop wasting mine time on you. As i said, you can think what you want, and i will think what i said, that's enough, and we can leave it at this, and see it in future.
When you talk about finances, budget and so on, sure, i can agree with you that is quite harder for me to afford anything you mention (imported products only ofc...), because not all Countries base their economy on killing, bombing attacking just for natural resources..., and yet, US like to present self as number one power in the world, but they need 18+ other Countries to attack one tiny Country for it's rich natural resources... and when they can't do anything, and should attack on land, they are scared..., and they threat that will destroy one whole City with close to two millions people in it. That's how and why you can afford more than me. But that will not last forever i assure you. Cheers. I'm off from this topic really.
Again, i can't type for you, since you are not worth it... sorry.
regardless u still ramble about nonsense. You think AMD is any different as a corporation as intel is? Corporations only care about one thing. MONEY. They are NO different. Intel makes way more money because they make better and faster products, AMD is at no fault to their own for their current CPU predicament, its not intels fault.
Corporations only care about MONEY (well known fact). But i don't think at all about that, i just look at history, and from that, i draw mine conclusions. Please, don't drag me into this topic anymore, let's leave it on things we said, and see it in future platforms/software how good will work both i3 and FX platform. Then, if we remember, we can discuss, and you can tell me "I told you so..." or I can tall you that, we will see. Cheers.