Why do fools insist AMD is better when its not ? - Page 5

I think I agree with that, plus once the gpu is at a point where I can't see a difference on the screen, I personally don't see any point in investing in more graphics power, and I'd rather have my money go towards greater processing power, or else buy a cheaper processor.

The point, for me, is even clearer on my desktop builds. Since I don't game and am not doing any CAD or animation or commerical graphics or video, the integrated graphics of an Intel chip are way way more than I need for business applications, surfing the web, editing video, viewing or editing photographs,etc. So my money goes towards buying more (typically way too much) cpu. Current SB and IB i5s make great desktops for me. But getting more graphics processing power would provide me with no benefit at all, and I would see no reason to sacrifice cpu power for additional graphics power that I neither need nor will ever see.

A question is whether these cpus provide enough graphics power for realistic desktop gaming. My guess is that they won't, in which case a gamer would need to buy a discrete card anyhow and then the cpu choice is about processing power. Although I suppose the ability to combine a discrete card with the integrated gpu provides a tangible benefit and may allow the purchase of a cheaper discrete card. Other than for gaming, though, I'm having a hard time figuring out what real world advantage you get from the admittedly much stronger AMD iGPU over the adequate-for-most-non-gaming-purposes Intel iGPU.
Edited by Zon2020 - 6/14/12 at 3:39pm

Desktop gaming, probably not. From the couch at 720p? Yep, Llano should be quite acceptable. Should be plenty for old school emulators resampled to 1080p, too. As for purchasing a cheaper discrete card for Hybrid CrossFire, you'll get better overall performance for the same price by going with an Intel CPU + slightly better discrete GPU. If there's any chance you might buy a discrete GPU, you're better off going with Intel. Really, the only strength of Llano is its integrated GPU. If that's not enough, you're better off looking at something else.

By the way, were you the one who plays console emulators? To be specific, PS1? If so, what emulator and plug-ins do you use? With Clarkdale, I'm forced to get a discrete GPU because Intel's graphic drivers don't support OpenGL2 properly (I use Pete's OpenGL2 plug-in with custom shaders). I can't stand the graphics on the software and Direct 3D plug-ins (anti-aliasing doesn't seem to be working properly under Windows 7). Wondering if the OpenGL2 issue has been fixed with Sandy Bridge. Thanks!

+1

i3 is a fair comparison to a "quad core" trinity. bulldozer cores are modular design, in reality a "quad" core bulldozer is really a 2 core floating somewhere in between hyper threading and 4 cores, they're not really 4 true cores, I think AMD marketing did themselves a disservice by marketing them as 4 cores or 8 cores.
It is ****** that trinity changed socket, it would be nice to see them maintain socket between Llano and trinity, maybe it has something to do with the switch between stars cores and bulldozer core although they maintained sockets between AM3 and AM3+ I hope they don't go down Intels road of switching out sockets every time there's a new release.

Forgive me if I ignore some of the more rabid Intel fanboy posts here.

Please point me to where there are rabid intel fanboy posts that don't have at least some fact to back them up.

If anything the posts about the potential promises of an AMD processor that doesn't even exist (yet) seemed much more fanboyish.

Exactly, they make a good HTPC chip and are perfectly designed for laptops, they do casual gaming very well and have enough processing power for most people's needs. I'm sure they are no good for hardcore gaming, nor would they be good for someone who does massive amounts of encoding or needs sheer CPU power for running 10000 excel spreadsheets. But then they are not trying to be a chip for that. Depending on a person needs an Intel cpu and a video card might be the way to go, or just a cpu and no gpu or a trinity/llano chip.

It has its niche, maybe some don't want to accept that, but it is true and I would recommend a trinity or llano chip to anybody who does casual gaming on an htpc and wants to spend the least amount of coin possible.

Sure. But you can do this on the HD3000 and soon on the HD4000 as well which will give you a much better CPU and easier path to upgrade in the future. I just still don't see where the AMD offering is superior. And as I and others have said if you are really interested in 3D, Madvr or gaming just get a G620 and a discrete card for not a whole lot more --- if any --- money and have a much more capable HTPC now and in the future.

Full disclosure: We build and sell both Intel and AMD so I don't really have a reason to prefer one over the other.

The fact that people are still spouting that Llano is no good for casual gaming even after the facts have been posted

http://www.legitreviews.com/article/1649/13/

I haven't said anything about trinity as fact other than the benchmarks for its use in laptop are good and show reasonable promise for the desktop. It is certain Intel fanboi's badmouthing a product they don't even know.

It depends what games you're playing on it. Current triple A titles in high res with AA, nope. Kid's games like Lego titles, yup. That pile of older games and indie titles you picked up at the last Steam sale? Perfect. Most games released now for PC are console ports anyway, so the hardware demands aren't as tight if you keep the settings reasonable.

My main gaming rig is a q9550 core2quad with an HD6850, both overclocked, FWIW. The kids play on the A6 Llano htpc.

The A8 doesn't make a good HTPC chip. It runs WAY too hot in Mini-ITX builds that I have done.

And I tried 3 CPU coolers including 2 aftermarket coolers.

Again, how is this better than the G620 and a cheap gaming card? For a laptop sure --- I get it. For a HTPC I don't get it when there are better options.

Don't you see that Ivy Bridges main focus was improving the integrated GPU? Why would they do that if they weren't scared of what AMD was offering?

That makes absolutely no sense. They improved the GPU because they could. Why wouldn't they?

Couldn't an Intel fanboy same the exact same thing about the AMD CPU?

That's a really weak argument and I thought the same thing the first time I read it in that review.

If you're building in a mini ITX case... everything is going to be warmer. Personally I would never build a mini ITX system, I've had enough experience of xbox rrod to know that cramming electronics into a small case so it will look a little fancier is a bad idea.

I can't comment on your personal experience since I don't know, but here's some wattage/temperature results of it in a normal case, runs no hotter than any other chip



http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum/hardware-canucks-reviews/44338-amd-a8-3850-apu-review-llano-hits-desktop-22.html

The gains made in cpu performance for Ivy Bridge were minimal and this is after a die shrink, the focus was on the integrated graphics. It was the right move for intel and they did it because they were worried that AMD would tip things in their favour due to their better onboard graphics. And yes AMD is focusing more on the CPU to catch up with Intel... That is how it is, that is why we need both companies and why it irks me when I read someone bashing one over the other (though it seems to be mostly Intel fans bashing AMD)

Maybe that's why AMD only has 18% of the market. The majority of HTPCs that we sell are in Mini-ITX cases and we have absolutely no issues with the Intel chips (even the i5/i7) or the Llano A6. An ITX build as a bad idea? That goes against HTPC in general.

In fact my "Frankenstein" build that I posted about numerous times here at AVS had an i3 2100, Two 2TB hard drives and and SSD with pretty good results in an ITX form factor...



Let's just say that I have built a LOT of HTPCs in my day and have never run into any issues with heat until I tried to use the A8.

Agree 100% about needing both companies. But there is a reason that AMD has hinted they are getting out of the desktop market. What they have been offering just isn't working as well as the Intel offering. BTW Intel isn't doing anything out of the ordinary. They are sticking to their "tick tock" strategy that they always use.

+1. 100% of the cases and barebones we sell are mini-ITX. They're elegant and low power. They might run warmer than a big tower system but still well within tolerances. They take minutes to put together and are inexpensive. A nice aluminum case, low power CPU/GPU combo, quiet low profile fan, SSD, ODD, 4-8G of RAM and a DC-DC powerboard with external AC adapter and you're good to go. 30-40W reading on the Kill-A-Watt. All my favorite things.

Would like to mention, while the A8-3850 has acceptable gaming performance, it's also the second most expensive Llano available. If I had a $100-120 budget for CPU+GPU and was building an HTPC with a slight gaming bend, I would choose the Celeron G530 + HD 6670 instead. It would give much, much better gaming performance compared to the HD 6550D iGPU on the A8-3850.

I think the A4-3400 and A6-3500 are more interesting options for the HTPC crowd. The HD 6410D graphics on the A4-3400, unfortunately, is still way too little GPU power except for simple games. Sure, it's 50% faster than graphics found on SNB Pentiums but when that means a game now runs at 10.1 FPS instead of 6.5 FPS, that essentially means squat. The one thing going for the A4-3400 is AMD appears to have better GPU drivers (I think there are some games that won't even start on Intel iGPU). The A6-3500, imho, is the most interesting chip in the line-up. HD 6530D graphics (only slightly lower gaming performance compared to the A8-3850/HD 6550D), 65W TDP and ~$70 price tag. It's at performance parity with the Celeron G530 (~$50) + HD 6450 (~$35) which costs $85 for most folks without a MicroCenter nearby.

To be fair the A6-3500 "regular" price is $80.

So is that $5 difference worth the substantial upgrade path that the G530+6450 platform offers? To me this is a no brainer if you are a frugal gamer. If you want it for Madvr then its a little more blurry.

The one place it might make a difference is a case w/o an expansion slot.

I have no idea however what kind of games you can play with a A6-3500 you cannot play with a G530 to onow if it matters.

For my particular situation I've described in the past -- the weird 1080i Comcast NBC football combing, judder and frame drops behavior -- the AMD GPU definitely fixes that, even a HD5450, so it matters there. That's ok for my livingroom PC that's microATX. I dropped in a $25 card and no more problems. It's now a G530 + HD5450 and it's great.

However, If I went super small with something like the E-i5 case with no expansion slot then the A6-3500 would be my best bet -- the best GPU for the lowest TDP for the money. The A6-3500 runs a bit warmer than a G530 in that case (which may be CPU cooler related for all I know -- apples and oranges) but it's still fine.
Edited by StardogChampion - 6/14/12 at 7:49pm

Yeah, the facts have been posted. Here's what Xbitlabs had to say after testing the top-of-the-line Llano:

"However, our tests showed that even the flagship Llano processor, AMD A8-3870K, still doesn’t allow to completely give up entry-level graphics accelerators. Hybrid processors from AMD fit perfectly into the gaming notebooks concept, but their graphics is not fast enough to desktop applications. In the typical desktop 1080p resolution AMD A8-3870K processor can’t deliver acceptable fps rate even with lowered image quality settings. And overclocking doesn’t save the day.

Therefore, when your gaming system budget is severely limited, it makes more sense to bet on traditional configurations using an inexpensive processor and an entry-level graphics accelerator. For example, a system with Intel Pentium G850 and an AMD Radeon HD 6670 will provide better 3D performance than the hybrid AMD A8-3870K processor that costs about the same amount of money."

And what is "casual gaming" anyhow? It sounds like some phrase made up by people who recognize it can't do REAL gaming. Is it a synonym for half-assed gaming? Is what you're saying is that it won't do real gaming, but it sure is better than Intel at half-assed gaming?

And who does this "casual gaming"? Is it a big market? Are there a lot of people out there who say "well I know these companies spend a lot of time and money producing absolutely amazing sound and graphics for these games, but I prefer the Sega Genesis look"? I guess I just don't know any of those people. Everyone who I know who games, or whose kids game, want to experience the full graphics of the games they spent a lot of money to buy. I don't know anyone who's into half-assed gaming. And so, as Xbitlabs said, even if their budget is limited they buy discrete video cards.

It wasn't me. But I might be interested in looking into it. Is there a good website that explains this whole world of emulators?

At least the A6-3500 is at price and performance parity as the G530+HD6450. The A4 and A8 just don't make much sense. The A4 is still too underpowered to make a difference while the A8 offers less performance than a similarly priced Intel CPU + discrete GPU solution. For me, the A6-3500 is the only thing on AMD's Llano line-up that makes sense on the price/performance front. Although, lack of upgrade options would make LGA-1155 my choice if I'm able to add a discrete GPU.



Yeah, would be a nice option for cases w/o expansion slots. Unfortunately, there's not much choice for FM1 M-ITX boards (only saw the ASRock on Newegg). As mentioned earlier, AMD has better GPU drivers so Llano at least has that going for it. I actually had pretty high hopes for Llano initially but ultimately decided that it's not for me. The thing that irked me most is gaming power consumption. From reviews, it uses around the same power at load as an Intel Celeron/Pentium SNB + discrete budget GPU. That meant I could: a) stick to the tiny case I wanted and spend $80 extra for a PicoPSU + adapter or b) choose a different case with higher wattage power supply. Option B generally meant there's space for a discrete GPU so I just nixed the Llano build.



http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/amd-fusion-intel-core-i3_7.html#sect0

Some games become borderline playable on the HD 6530D.

I think a lot of the casual gamers are now playing on their Androids, iPods, iPhones and iPads instead of on the PC. I'd say casual gamers are a bigger market than hardcore gamers. It's just hardcore gamers are the ones willing to pay major bucks for games.


I reckon that's the key here. While everyone would prefer to experience "full graphics", unfortunately, there are plenty of folks who are limited by pesky things such as budgets, etc. I think Llano is a decent option for people buying laptops or $300 OEM desktops. Building your own though, there's very little cost savings going with Llano over Celeron/Pentium SNB regardless of whether you add a discrete GPU or not. Besides, realistic graphics is not the be-all and end-all of gaming. They add to the experience but surely gameplay matters more?

Some random variables not being mentioned: the OEM 3850 is currently going for $90. I haven't used an OEM cooler for a socketed cpu for any of my builds, ever. AMD has luckily maintained cooler compatibility for seemingly forever. I had planned upgrading my 775 to SB last year, and found I'd have to source a new backplate for my Scythe Ninja HSF because intel saw fit to change the mounting holes a couple of mm in the transition. In Intel's favor, the G530/630 probably run cool and quiet with their oem coolers.

I don't have a 3850, but I've read it undervolts well. My A6-3500 currently runs stable at 1.125 Vcore.

Also, budget dGPUs often come with tiny, whiny fans. Buck up a little and you'll get a passive cooler however.

None of these factors will likely apply to builders who sell systems, but to DIYers, they'll help sway a decision. I'd venture to guess that with undervolting and proper cooling selection you'd get an A8 running in an ITX case w/o an expansion slot.

Another point regarding 'casual' games, WoW is still pretty popular and shows respectable performance with these APUs.
Edited by Ruiner - 6/15/12 at 5:38am

Unless you only have a bottom end GPU such as the HD 6450 (most only come with heatsink), a passive cooler could significantly add to the size and may not fit tiny Mini-ITX cases. On the upside, low-end cards with relatively quiet fans do exist. I've had good luck with MSI cards. EVGA and XFX, not so much.


On that note, SC2 should also run acceptably on Llano. It's probably not enough for High settings but it should at least do Medium which is a major improvement over Low (the only thing Clarkdale can manage with consistently acceptable frame rates, no idea about Sandy Bridge). I have no doubt Diablo 3 would be quite playable at 720p, too.

Tom's hardware found with an A8-3850 that "at 1680x1050, it’s possible to get fluid frame rates, so long as you’re willing to dial down the graphics quality to Good and leave AA disabled". So I guess the question is how many people actually consider that to be "respectable performance" that they would actually choose over adding a discrete video card. I don't think many.

They also concluded "It goes without saying that this isn’t technology for enthusiasts. Even mainstream gamers with $500 bucks to spend on hardware can do better than the best integrated graphics we’ve ever seen. The fastest Llano-based APU is aimed squarely at entry-level desktops and all-in-ones—folks with $400 or $500 for a complete machine. For anyone else, quicker options are available at only marginally higher prices."

That's basically the same thing that Xbitlabs concluded after testing the A8-3870K, when they said "Therefore, when your gaming system budget is severely limited, it makes more sense to bet on traditional configurations using an inexpensive processor and an entry-level graphics accelerator. For example, a system with Intel Pentium G850 and an AMD Radeon HD 6670 will provide better 3D performance than the hybrid AMD A8-3870K processor that costs about the same amount of money."

The point of this is that "it can play games" isn't really a differentiator if it can't play games at levels most people would find acceptable and if you can do better for about the same money with a cheaper cpu and discrete card. I think anyone buying a machine to play games today is going to buy a discrete video card, and thus "it plays games better than Intel" may be entirely true but also entirely irrelevant if you have to buy a discrete video card for acceptable gaming with either one.

Playing games on cheap generic 15" laptops is a different story and Llano probably has an edge there (however big that market might actually be).

If what you say is true, then those casual gamers aren't even part of the market for these chips and are irrelevant to the discussion. Those left behind playing PC games on PCs aren't going to be satisfied dialing back the quality of their games when for the same money they could buy a discrete video card that will give a much higher quality experience.

Did you use the 100W 3850 APU rather than the 65W 3820 APU? There's no reason why a 65w intel cpu will run significantly cooler than a 65w AMD cpu especially if you have tried many different aftermarket coolers. Everything I've read about them indicates the opposite, that they run fairly cool.


Also in regards to ITX case, I'm not a fan since you have to have the external power brick, I'd rather have a case like the Silverstone GD05 or the one I use nmediaPC 6000S. Plenty of room for extra HDD's, (no need to run NAS or RAID setup somewhere else) no problems with cooling, plenty of room for a beefy videocard if you want it. Each to there own I guess but since there's already AV gear in the living room one more piece doesn't make a difference.

I guess people that go with the ITX are the kind that want BOSE cubes too.
Edited by matteos - 6/15/12 at 9:51am

The unlocked 3870k's pricing probably makes it attractive only to dedicated AMD fans and overclockers. The $90 OEM 3850 is a more reasonable comparison here.
A G530 and HD6570 is a fair comparison (assuming MC pricing for the pentium). I'd guess they'd trade places in benches depending on how multi-core friendly the game is.

I'm not a WoW player, but I've read many play on pretty mediocre hardware. CS and TF2 are still pretty popular and undemanding. The last steam hardware survey showed Intel HD graphics in 8% of systems. That's pretty high.

No you don't. There are a ton of small ITX cases with internal PSUs.

At one extreme there's a whole cult following of people building gaming machines in the Silverstone Sugo SG05 with people cramming in GPUs like GTX 680s and Radeon 6990s along with i7s. (I don't think these "are the kind that want BOSE cubes too")
The case comes with your choice of a 300 or 450W SFX PSU, both 80 Plus certified.

Or you can get the nice small Antec isk 300-150 that has a built in 150W PSU.

Or something like the boxy Thermaltake Element Q that has a 200W SFX PSU.

The choices are endless, and you don't have to use an external power brick unless you want to.