That may be true, but the point is that a discrete dgpu is still competition for an APU. One may decide that an apu is "good enough", but a dgpu is still competition for it, although be it at a slightly higher price point. Personally, I dont really buy the "I have to game right now, cant wait and save up a bit more money, cant afford games or a dgpu, but can afford a several hundred dollar PC to play free games on" scenario, but whatever.
Sounds like you did pretty good, and defiantly a good thing you did not get the G4560!
I don't know if you saw my post earlier, but I had always heard how CPU dependent BF is with lots of players so I decided to see just how much so.
I also tried the 3570k at stock clocks, and it still wasn't 100% smooth. It seems to need 4.0GHz+ all core to be smooth. IIRC at stock the 3570k only goes to 3.5GHz under all core. It doesn't sound like that big a difference until you realize over 4 cores that adds up to 2GHz of something multi-threaded enough to be able to use it.
So it sounds like an overclocked 4C4T is the minimum with 4C8T being ideal.
Yeah I did read all the posts, sorry if I didn't reply to them all, this thread got a lot more attention than I expected, but thanks for everyones replies anyway! In the end it did make me rethink getting the G4560 as I was worried how that would hold up in future titles, I had already come from a dual core (albeit one that lacks HT) and it was really struggling so I thought a quad core is probably the best bet in the long run. The i5 4460 is clocked a bit low at 3.2GHz, I actually had my G3258 at 4.2GHz but having only 2 cores really killed it in BF1, 2 extra cores trumps 1GHz clockspeed every day I guess.
In the end for me it simply came down to price/performance, at $100 for a full system including 8GB RAM and 1TB HDD I couldn't turn down the offer, I knew my cousin was probably taking 'unders', and just running some quick benches the i5 doesn't seem that far off the 2200G (ie. ~500 vs ~550 in Cinebench) If I had gone for the 2200G, the CPU costs $100 alone, plus another $80 for a motherboard and $120 for 8GB DDR4 3200... to me it just made more sense to pay about 1/3 the price for similar performance, yes it was used hardware but knowing my cousin the PC hardly got much use as he was mostly on his MacBook anyway.
The i5 4460 is clocked a bit low at 3.2GHz, I actually had my G3258 at 4.2GHz but having only 2 cores really killed it in BF1, 2 extra cores trumps 1GHz clockspeed every day I guess.
Noteworthy IMO are:
The apuS are far more modern than dgpu options remotely at this price point.
APUs have the very latest AMD; zen, vega, Fabric and architecture. It will grow. The alternatives are static.
Swapping ain't what it used to be.
We now have much smarter pre-emptive memory paging reads and writes to well cached nvme ssdS up to 34x faster than HDD, and 8x faster than sata ssd.
8GB of ram sounds worse than it is in reality.
The last time i checked prices a 2400g was the same cost as a good quality 1050 and a 2200g even cheaper than the 1030. Its like half price products.
Yeaa a 1050 is faster than a 1030 but so is a 1060 faster than a 1050. Hardly surprising. I dont know why a 1050 is the golden standard here i used to think the 1060/570 was the entry. But perhaps those new inflated gpu prices move the bar lower? Its just frightening it gets into contact with 4c/8t cpu then. Crazy stuff looking at the prices. If you go one tier performance down for the gpu you get a 4c/8t cpu for free. Think one year back...
Yeah but at today's dGPU prices, if I was building a new rig I would be looking at a the 2400G and use the iGPU until prices come back to being reasonable.The problem the 2200G OC, 2400G OC or the GT1030 OC, are petty much around the same level, the 2400G OC is bit better, but the GTX1050 can get easily 60% to 100% improvement over that, what in most cases it means it can play on 1080P at a rasonable amount of IQ on every game. What also means the pc can have the full 8GB of ram avalible.
The APU is mostly fine for 720P, good fps and IQ on almost every game(no PUBG), with a few exceptions that can play on 1080 rather well. But the GTX1050 is just a better option, even if paired with just an 2/4 CPU, you are going to be GPU limited for 1080p.
From my tests, G4560+GTX1050 will fly circles around any APU even with oc. 2C/4T have problems with 64 player MP of BF1, but so does 4/4. There is no contest here GTX1050 is just too good as a entry level dgpu and there is a chance that this level of performance will be on a GT2040/GT2030 this year.
BUT i would not recomend G4560, is expensive and a dead platform. The G5300 will probably return to $60 and AMD own 2C/4T will probably launch later this year.
Right now i would recomend an R3 1200 or 2200G + GTX1050. It really worth it.
And just forget about GT1030 its crap, its behind the GTX750TI, what was the entry mid-range dgpu of 2014!
As someone with a 30" 1600p60Hhz display I wouldn't go below a 1060(6GB) myself.Why would you waste money on 1050 trash when you could pay 70% more and get 100% more performance with a 1060?
Why would you waste money on 1050 trash when you could pay 70% more and get 100% more performance with a 1060?
Why would you waste money on 1050 trash when you could pay 70% more and get 100% more performance with a 1060?
And still tank playing bf1...like crazy. I take 720 any day over low cpu min fps. But yeaa 1050 is 1080 lowest end and 2400/2200 more 720. But damn 1060 is just another world too. Imo 1050 is stuck in a hard place. I game on one right now and imo it cant barely keep up 1080 at low in bf1. Its simply not a long term solution in anyway. Its extreme low value especially compared to a 2400g.There is a $140 right now on newegg, but yeah, the dgpus are expensive. But the thing is if we are talking about budget gaming, we cant really go to a 1060, unless we are talking about a high class budget gaming
These AMD apu perform OK for 720p IF you are willing to accept it... if you want to OC the IGP you need to go B350, keep that in mind, A320 IGP OC does not work.
And thats petty much all about it, a 2400G stock can run ACO on 1080p @ very low in the low 30 OR in 720p at "normal" in the high 30, low 40s. What would you choose?
Same is true for Witcher 3, its either 1080p @ low for low 30s OR 720p @ high in the low 40s. What would you choose?
This happens for every game i tested.
The only game (that is not esport) that i would play in the 1080p in low on a 2400G is BF1, because it looks really good even on low and it has very high fps. And GTA V that it also runs great on normal in 1080p you cant really add more details on just 2GB vram on GTA V,
So APU gaming is mostly that, 720P for anything that is not esport, except for a few exceptions. In other hand esport runs great on 1080p even on the 2200G.
An GTX1050 can offer a really acceptable 1080p experience in comparison, even if paired with something as a G4560.
Really? Lets look at the numbers. Say 150.00 for a 1050 and 125.00 for a cpu, or even 100.00 for a 2200. That is about 275.00. A 2400 is 170.00. So the 1050 combo is about 60% more expensive. (Based on the cpu/gpu only. Based on total system cost, it is only about 15% more expensive). It will give *at least* 60% more performance than the 2400, without the need for fast ram-- at least equal and probably better performance per dollar than the 2400. It is actually the 2400 that is in a bad spot, at least for gaming. If one is forced to game on the igpu, the 2200 is a better value, and if one wants to add a dgpu, the 1600 is a better value.And still tank playing bf1...like crazy. I take 720 any day over low cpu min fps. But yeaa 1050 is 1080 lowest end and 2400/2200 more 720. But damn 1060 is just another world too. Imo 1050 is stuck in a hard place. I game on one right now and imo it cant barely keep up 1080 at low in bf1. Its simply not a long term solution in anyway. Its extreme low value especially compared to a 2400g.
Well, if one really is on such a tight budget (and have to game right now and cant save up more money or cut some other expense), isnt the 70.00 more for the 2400 also "a lot of money"? Thus my contention that it is the 2400 that is in a bad place: if one is really budget constrained the 2200 is a better value and if he can afford any dgpu above the 1030 the 1600 is a better value.It makes me laugh how you come out with these percentages to make it sound like nothing. £100 is a lot of money to some.
3 years ago I wanted a PC but had a very low budget, so an a8 6600k system was all I could afford, and a £100 premium was a no go, doesn't matter about percentages. That system played all the games OK, for me, crysis 3, battlefield 4, grid etc:
These apu's are a good starting point for those people on a tight budget.
It makes me laugh how you come out with these percentages to make it sound like nothing. £100 is a lot of money to some.
3 years ago I wanted a PC but had a very low budget, so an a8 6600k system was all I could afford, and a £100 premium was a no go, doesn't matter about percentages. That system played all the games OK, for me, crysis 3, battlefield 4, grid etc:
These apu's are a good starting point for those people on a tight budget.
Well, if one really is on such a tight budget (and have to game right now and cant save up more money or cut some other expense), isnt the 70.00 more for the 2400 also "a lot of money"? Thus my contention that it is the 2400 that is in a bad place: if one is really budget constrained the 2200 is a better value and if he can afford any dgpu above the 1030 the 1600 is a better value.