The 7650k is going to launch at ~$100 which is a great deal for 2M Steamroller + 3CU GCN. Mantle/DX12 should be great on those chips.
For a sneak preview of what I mean, overclock the heck out of one, put in a 290x, and then run the GPGPU benchmarks under AIDA64. Watch it use the iGPU and 290x at the same time . . .
$105 is much better pricing that what we normally see from AMD.
However, we also need to take into consideration the following things:
1.) The Athlon x4 860K is cheaper (MSRP is $84 as best I can tell) and with higher base clocks than A8-7650K. Also since the Athlon x4 860K does not have to share its stock cooler with an iGPU, it will be able to make better use of its unlocked multiplier for stock cooler overclocking. We can also be certain Athlon's cpu will not throttle when the dGPU is being used.
2.) In order to make full use of the iGPU for gaming A8-7650K will need the fast clocked dual channel 2 x 4GB DDR3 2400 memory (current price gap between that and 2 x 4 GB DDR3 1600 is $13 on Newegg).
So at this point, we are at $34 price difference when comparing a comparably equipped (2 x 4GB RAM, stock cooler) Athlon x 4 860K to a (2 x 4GB RAM, stock cooler) A8-7650K.
Then after that we still have these additional things to consider:
3.) Athlon x4 860K has the advantage of not needing to use a 2 x 4GB kit. (Many dGPU budget gaming set-ups only have 4GB single channel.)
4.) How much does the A8-7650K cpu throttle under iGPU gaming load using the stock cooler? (Remember that Athlon x4 860K won't throttle and can, in fact, be overclocked with the stock cooler)
I think that is pretty interesting and I'm glad it can do that, but it is still an extremely niche benefit.
I think there is a bi-modal distribution on how much graphics horsepower people want. There are people who don't game, and they don't care much about graphics. Then there are people who game, and they want a lot of graphics horsepower, and usually go with discrete GPU. AMD's problem is their APUs target the segment in between, and it's not clear who the target audience there is.
I think there is a bi-modal distribution on how much graphics horsepower people want. There are people who don't game, and they don't care much about graphics. Then there are people who game, and they want a lot of graphics horsepower, and usually go with discrete GPU. AMD's problem is their APUs target the segment in between, and it's not clear who the target audience there is.
Pure conjecture here.....but could anyone see Intel throwing AMD a lifeline here, aka Microsoft doing the same for Apple in the 90s?
'The enemy you know is better than the enemy you can imagine?'
According to steam survey at some point during 2014, the most common video cards people game with where HD 4000 and HD 3000 from intel. That means there are lots of people that game on these while an AMD APU system would suit their needs better. AMD has the right product but the target group usually ignores this or even ignores that AMD exists altogether. This group buys "intel inside" because of brand recognition or whatever they find in the store which is usually intel. AMD is fighting the unwinnable war with APUs , they should change approach imho.
No. But I think they are being somewhat cautious not to drive AMD out of business.
No. But I think they are being somewhat cautious not to drive AMD out of business.
I would expect most of those are laptop gpus. Not much selection there from AMD. Their laptop igpus are still better than intels, but the lead is less because of TDP constraints, and you give up a lot of cpu performance vs an i7.
(snip) might as well start dishing out big core APUs with tiny igpus priced very aggressively.
Regardless, most AMD laptops were/are way better gaming machines than intel HD 3000/4000 ones. AMD has the right products for this significant crowd but absolutely no way of getting market share. They will never win, it is pointless, might as well start dishing out big core APUs with tiny igpus priced very aggressively.
I went looking for an amd laptop recently, bought one too, but it was a cheap piece of crap, which is all Best Buy had in the way of AMD laptops. The CPU and such was fine, what it was encased in was built to a crappy price point.
I returned it for an Intel based one at almost 3x the price, if I could have paid 2x for an AMD based example of the same quality I would have, but there were none to be found. I suppose this is a Marketing failure. Shame.
I went looking for an amd laptop recently, bought one too, but it was a cheap piece of crap, which is all Best Buy had in the way of AMD laptops. The CPU and such was fine, what it was encased in was built to a crappy price point.
I returned it for an Intel based one at almost 3x the price, if I could have paid 2x for an AMD based example of the same quality I would have, but there were none to be found. I suppose this is a Marketing failure. Shame.
(snip) might as well start dishing out big core APUs with tiny igpus priced very aggressively.
For desktop, I think that makes the most sense but with the caveat that the new APU with tiny iGPU has greater CPU performance (think hexcore as an example) than the old big core APU with the larger "but still in-between size" iGPU. That, and the new big core APU with tiny iGPU would be cheaper to produce (see earlier posts, including #255 for some details).
AMD could then sell a dGPU (fabbed at GF) to go along with the new big core small iGPU APU for folks that are interested. (As I mentioned in earlier posts, it appears having cpu and gpu separate from each offers better value and performance for gamers compared to a single larger die in a 100 watt socket.)
Then for certain niches in mobile, AMD can focus on larger iGPU chips like Carrizo. However, I still think that might a tough road as well. (Intel has such a strong process advantage, and that process advantage helps power efficiency which is most prized in mobile.)
In the meantime, I have to wonder (with the WSA currently penalizing AMD) if selling Kaveri chips at even bigger discount, but with higher volume makes sense? They are paying for the wafers anyway, so it would be possible. With that mentioned, I do realize there are implications to doing that could affect the value of existing APU inventory or any future big core large iGPU APU plans AMD may have for desktop. But then again, I don't believe at this time Big Core APUs with their large "in-between" iGPUs belong on desktop anyway so effectively I think the latter would be a moot point.
$105 is much better pricing that what we normally see from AMD.
However, we also need to take into consideration the following things:
1.) The Athlon x4 860K is cheaper (MSRP is $84 as best I can tell) and with higher base clocks than A8-7650K. Also since the Athlon x4 860K does not have to share its stock cooler with an iGPU, it will be able to make better use of its unlocked multiplier for stock cooler overclocking. We can also be certain Athlon's cpu will not throttle when the dGPU is being used.
2.) In order to make full use of the iGPU for gaming A8-7650K will need the fast clocked dual channel 2 x 4GB DDR3 2400 memory (current price gap between that and 2 x 4 GB DDR3 1600 is $13 on Newegg).
So at this point, we are at $34 price difference when comparing a comparably equipped (2 x 4GB RAM, stock cooler) Athlon x 4 860K to a (2 x 4GB RAM, stock cooler) A8-7650K.
Then after that we still have these additional things to consider:
3.) Athlon x4 860K has the advantage of not needing to use a 2 x 4GB kit. (Many dGPU budget gaming set-ups only have 4GB single channel.)
4.) How much does the A8-7650K cpu throttle under iGPU gaming load using the stock cooler? (Remember that Athlon x4 860K won't throttle and can, in fact, be overclocked with the stock cooler)
Secondly,
A8-7650K = $105
2x 4GB 2133MHz = $58
Total = $163
Athlon 860K = $84
4GB 1600MHz = $33
HIS R7 240 1GB GDDR-5 = $59
Total = $176
The only dGPU that will keep you close to the same overall price is the HIS iCooler Boost H240FC1G Radeon R7 240 1GB 128-Bit GDDR5 currently at $59 after rebates. It only has 1GB of ram but it is GDDR-5.
The problem is that Mantle uses more than 1GB and games will stutter like hell with Mantle enabled so even if the dGPU is faster you will not be able to use Mantle.
If you going to use a dGPU then none of the Kaveris will throttle the CPU.
P.S. Even AMD's dual graphics thing doesn't make sense because video cards much better than the ones they suggest using (for dual graphics) are priced only slightly higher but have much better capability.
As I have said before, Athlon + dGPU is faster but you also compromise with less System Ram (4GB), higher power usage, inability to use a Slim SFF Case and higher price over the A8-7650K.
This. It's impressive how AMD misread the market around 2006-2007 when they started to work on fusion. It's already 2015 and we are heading towards the 4th generation of APUs, and all in all the APU as AMD saw it is still a poor value proposition for consumers and OEMs coupled with a hard to swallow cost structure for AMD.
We can only wonder if AMD kept tied to this strategy instead of a more iGPU gradual approach a la Intel out of stubbornness or if they thought an APU with smaller graphics capacities would fetch an even worse value on the market. My guess is that the value wouldn't be that lower (because I see main driver for price segmentation is the CPU and perf/watt, not the iGPU) but the cost structure would be much more improved.
APUs and SoCs seem like the ideal solution for the laptop market, where total power consumption is king and thermal limits mean that the bandwidth bottleneck is not so pronounced. But AMD just don't have the means to compete with Intel on perf/W, not with their process gap and the Bulldozer architecture. Intel have moved full steam ahead into APUs, with their latest Broadwell laptop chips having over half of the die devoted to graphics- they beat AMD at their own idea.