AVS Forum banner
1 - 12 of 12 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,704 Posts
Ok, and then there is HardwareSecrets.com which concludes:

There is good news and bad news about the new A-Series CPU from AMD we reviewed, the A8-3850.

The good news is that its integrated graphics controller is simply the best integrated solution we've seen so far. It was way faster than the Core i3-2100's and, on Lost Planet 2, it was even faster than a GeForce GT 430, making us suspect that it is optimized for DirectX 11 games. It was also faster than a GeForce GT 430 for applications that use the GPU for processing (GPGPU), such as converting video files using Media Espresso.


Also on the good side, applications that perform better with four real cores will perform better on the A8-3850 than on the Core i3-2100, which has only two real cores and two simulated ones, using Hyper-Threading technology.

The bad news is that, aside from gaming and 3D rendering, the Core i3-2100 is faster and, depending on the application, by a large margin.


So, if you are a gamer on a really tight budget, the new A8-3850 is a really nice option. But if you are an average user who won't play games, the Core i3-2100 is a better option.


http://www.hardwaresecrets.com/artic...-Review/1325/1
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,045 Posts
Discussion Starter · #5 ·
Better picture quality and much better at hitting 23.xxx seems like a compelling reason to get llano to me. With 3 core llano's coming out for probably $80-90 it seems move compelling. The main reason to go with intel is for cpu intensive applications.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
13,150 Posts
Again, show me proof on the better picture quality as it relates to 1080p video and not gaming.


This is all subjective.


And no one has even mentioned how horrible and buggy the ATI drivers can be.


Again, this is not clear cut. Both are fine albeit imperfect options for typical non-gaming HTPC use.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,045 Posts
Discussion Starter · #7 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by assassin /forum/post/20788129


Again, show me proof on the better picture quality as it relates to 1080p video and not gaming.


This is all subjective.


And no one has even mentioned how horrible and buggy the ATI drivers can be.


Again, this is not clear cut. Both are fine albeit imperfect options for typical non-gaming HTPC use.
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/...u,2959-21.html
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,704 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffkro /forum/post/20788117


Better picture quality and much better at hitting 23.xxx seems like a compelling reason to get llano to me. With 3 core llano's coming out for probably $80-90 it seems move compelling. The main reason to go with intel is for cpu intensive applications.

The most amazing thing is that the person here on the endless one-man crusade to prop up AMD is the one calling others "fan boys."


The poster doth protest too much, methinks. Are you trying to convince yourself? 'cause I don't think you're convincing anyone else.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,764 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zon2020 /forum/post/20788297


The most amazing thing is that the person here on the endless one-man crusade to prop up AMD is the one calling others "fan boys."


The poster doth protest too much, methinks. Are you trying to convince yourself? 'cause I don't think you're convincing anyone else.
Actually, I do believe you're the first to mention "fan boys" in this thread. - I stand corrected. He did mention this in his other thread.


Both Llano and Sandy Bridge suffice for a simple playback HD HTPC. It's just a matter of individual requirements that would swing the vote one way or the other. There's nothing wrong with either option. Both would be able to do the job unless you have some specific requirements (e.g. space/power constraints, stereoscopic 3D, MadVR, QuickSync, gaming, etc) in which case, you choose the CPU/APU that would suit your needs better.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,704 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by ilovejedd /forum/post/20788461


Both Llano and Sandy Bridge suffice for a simple playback HD HTPC. It's just a matter of individual requirements that would swing the vote one way or the other. There's nothing wrong with either option. Both would be able to do the job unless you have some specific requirements (e.g. space/power constraints, stereoscopic 3D, MadVR, QuickSync, gaming, etc) in which case, you choose the CPU/APU that would suit your needs better.

I agree with this.


No reason to get more than what you need either CPU- or GPU-wise.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
385 Posts
I just built a i3 sandybridge setup myself and it's amazing but the support for 3rd party filters and applications has me a little worried. My last htpc was nvidia based and worked with everything I threw at it. I've only been using the sandybridge for a few days and I haven't followed the threads here 100%, but if ATI works better with 3rd party then that should be a more critical consideration then which one looks better (subjectively).
 
1 - 12 of 12 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top