Skylake vs A10 AMD

[Teabaghead]

Benchmarks are not everything to me.

Real world usage is. I have seen the AMD perform and i cannot see any issues with it. Gaming is good. Desktop usage is good. Side by side with an intel seems the same to but i am no expert. Not everyone lives off of benchmarks.

 

[svenge]

Benchmarks are not everything to me.

Real world usage is. I have seen the AMD perform and i cannot see any issues with it. Gaming is good. Desktop usage is good. Side by side with an intel seems the same to but i am no expert. Not everyone lives off of benchmarks.

PROTIP: Stating your ignorance isn't exactly the best way to advance AMD's cause.

 

[Arachnotronic]

Benchmarks are not everything to me.

Real world usage is. I have seen the AMD perform and i cannot see any issues with it. Gaming is good. Desktop usage is good. Side by side with an intel seems the same to but i am no expert. Not everyone lives off of benchmarks.

Congratulations on your new system; enjoy!

 

[Teabaghead]

PROTIP: Stating your ignorance isn't exactly the best way to advance AMD's cause.

Ignorance!? Lol.

Some people are more hung up on Benchmarks than real day usage!

If i put an AMD system down next to an Intel and you didnt know the spec i am sure in day to day use you would never be able to tell the difference. :thumbsup:

 

[Arachnotronic]

Ignorance!? Lol.

Some people are more hung up on Benchmarks than real day usage!

If i put an AMD system down next to an Intel and you didnt know the spec i am sure in day to day use you would never be able to tell the difference. :thumbsup:

I would notice a difference in high performance applications.

By the way, not everybody buys computers just to surf the Web and check e-mail (i.e. everyday usage). This is an enthusiast forum and many people here care about CPU performance in situations that are CPU intensive.

For these users, Intel processors -- as the benchmarks show -- will deliver a generally better user experience than AMD processors.

 

[Teabaghead]

I would notice a difference in high performance applications.

By the way, not everybody buys computers just to surf the Web and check e-mail (i.e. everyday usage). This is an enthusiast forum and many people here care about CPU performance in situations that are CPU intensive.

For these users, Intel processors -- as the benchmarks show -- will deliver a generally better user experience than AMD processors.

Thats a fair comment.

 

[MiddleOfTheRoad]

I would notice a difference in high performance applications.

For these users, Intel processors -- as the benchmarks show -- will deliver a generally better user experience than AMD processors.

Not really.

An AMD Processor with a superior dedicated video card will mop the floor with an Intel processor running a slower video card. If the user saved $150 by using an FX-8350 instead of a Core i7 4790K..... Then invested that extra $150 on a better dedicated card (running a GTX 970 instead of a GT 740 for example) -- the better user experience went to the person running the AMD processor (FX 8350 with GTX 970 versus i7 / GT 740).

 

[Arachnotronic]

Not really.

An AMD Processor with a superior dedicated video card will mop the floor with an Intel processor running a slower video card. If the user saved $150 by using an FX-8350 instead of a Core i7 4790K..... Then invested that extra $150 on a better dedicated card (running a GTX 970 instead of a GT 740 for example) -- the better user experience went to the person running the AMD processor (FX 8350 with GTX 970 versus i7 / GT 740).

Strange argument. You are basically saying that top Intel CPUs cost more than AMD's best. I agree; you have to pay more for better products.

But the argument falls apart when you realize that you can buy a Core i3-6300 for about the same price as an FX-8350 and get a better gaming experience in many cases.

 

[MiddleOfTheRoad]

But the argument falls apart when you realize that you can buy a Core i3-6300 for about the same price as an FX-8350 and get a better gaming experience in many cases.

The key word is many. There are many games that stutter on dual cores (even ones with hyperthreading). The FX-8350 may not offer the peak frame rates in single threaded games like the i3, but it will stutter less in the majority of games.... thus, providing the better gaming experience.

If I built a Skylake setup, I would buy no less than an i5. I definitely would rather have the unlocked FX-8350 over the locked i3.

 

[Teabaghead]

I always thought that as an intergrated GPU the AMD APUs were better than intel? Unless you are talking about the Iris Pro Graphics 6200 ones?

Correct me if i am wrong (Which i probably am!)

 

[LTC8K6]

I always thought that as an intergrated GPU the AMD APUs were better than intel? Unless you are talking about the Iris Pro Graphics 6200 ones?

Correct me if i am wrong (Which i probably am!)

HD530 of Skylake hangs in there pretty good now.

As always with an igp, the system ram has a big effect.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/skylake-intel-core-i7-6700k-core-i5-6600k,4252-9.html

 

[TheELF]

The key word is many. There are many games that stutter on dual cores (even ones with hyperthreading). The FX-8350 may not offer the peak frame rates in single threaded games like the i3, but it will stutter less in the majority of games.... thus, providing the better gaming experience.

If I built a Skylake setup, I would buy no less than an i5. I definitely would rather have the unlocked FX-8350 over the locked i3.

Yeah but if (and that is a very big if) you get stutter you can use vsync or otherwise limit your FPS to get rid of the stutter,is there anything you can do to get higher FPS if the shortcoming is in the CPU? NO!

 

[Teabaghead]

With Intergrated GPU in the AMD APU CPUs there is no shortcoming regarding FPS. Looking at reviews it does very well indeed.

 

[AtenRa]

Yeah but if (and that is a very big if) you get stutter you can use vsync or otherwise limit your FPS to get rid of the stutter,is there anything you can do to get higher FPS if the shortcoming is in the CPU? NO!

1. Overclock the CPU, unfortunately you cannot with the Core i3.
2. Lower the Image Quality settings of the game that are havy on the CPU.

 

[Yuriman]

With Intergrated GPU in the AMD APU CPUs there is no shortcoming regarding FPS. Looking at reviews it does very well indeed.

As long as you're fine running less than half of your monitor's native resolution and reduced graphical settings to boot, and still getting variable framerates (frequently in the 30's or less), then yes, integrated graphics will provide a satisfactory experience.

 

[ericlp]

I asked the same questions 2 years ago...

I got the I3 3220 ivy bridge...

and

an A10 I built for my dad...

My problem wasn't money... was I am on a solar set up, but, I also wanted to play games at low power...

Anyway, the A10 doesn't really or isn't really that fast for modern games...

The i3 with a dedicated video card, in my case an a 777 AMD, yes the 777 card isn't that fast but it's also fast enough to play modern games at well, medium graphics levels without sucking down a huge amount of power.

So.... For me..... the i3 with a dedicated GPU was the winner choice.

But, on the other hand if I only had 160 bucks to spend........ I would have gone with the AMD APU setup. It is way faster than the i3 onboard crap GPU... Upgrade path is bullshit, since.... I usually build a new system every 2-3 year anyway. If I'm gonna upgrade, I'm gonna see what better chips, might as well, just buy a new system and sell off the parts for whatever you can get.

So.... yeah, you'd be better off with a AMD if you have a tight budget. Another thing that is BS, the intel fan boy's will tell you the power on a a10 is 95 watts (true) and the power for i3 suck down 35 watts... But add in that 100-200 watt video card... there goes that crapshoot.

This all being said, I am extremely happy with my I3 and 777 card setup, I've played farcry 3 and 4 at moderate levels and my didn't have to run the generator to do it! Solar is the way to go! The 777 card is an amazing card that sips power. But will pull the watts in heavy gaming.

Anyway... go with the AMD ... If you can't afford a GPU card...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fmHCCOJBdE0

Go with i3 if you can spare an extra 100 bucks for a GPU card.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6b5hxmibmao

 

[TheELF]

1. Overclock the CPU, unfortunately you cannot with the Core i3.
2. Lower the Image Quality settings of the game that are havy on the CPU.

1. That is not a choice for the AMD APUs, it is a necessity so that you can run threads at at least celeron speeds.
According to your own tests even the A10-7850 @ 4,35 is barely any faster than the g1820 when it comes to running a thread!
http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=37868274&postcount=2
http://i.imgur.com/01RzpQt.jpg

2.This you can do on any CPU,in fact why don't YOU do that whenever you are testing things?

 

[TheELF]

Anyway... go with the AMD ... If you can't afford a GPU card...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fmHCCOJBdE0

LoL

Config used: (Res:1280x1024,Low preset,Fullscreen) max:20 FPS avg:14-15 FPS
Best Config: (Res:800x600,Low preset,Windowed) max 35 FPS avg:25-30 FPS

 

[TeknoBug]

The i3 6300's performance is identical to my i5 3550, that's how good the Skylake i3 are, don't get thrown off by "dual core", it has 4 threads which performs like a quad core.

i3 can be OC'd on proper motherboards.

 

[MiddleOfTheRoad]

Yeah but if (and that is a very big if) you get stutter you can use vsync or otherwise limit your FPS to get rid of the stutter,is there anything you can do to get higher FPS if the shortcoming is in the CPU? NO!

Uh, the last time I checked... It was called overclocking. Which the i3 can't do in a meaningful way.

Notice how the same CPU goes from 92 to 121 frames per second. It's Magic.
With the i3 -- you are stuck at stock clock for better or worse. Fiddling with bus speeds only does so much.

I don't buy locked chips.

 

[MiddleOfTheRoad]

i3 can be OC'd on proper motherboards.

With the locked multiplier, it's extremely limited. For the extra cost of the better motherboard, the money is probably better spent on just getting the unlocked i5.

 

[Headfoot]

Ignorance!? Lol.

Some people are more hung up on Benchmarks than real day usage!

If i put an AMD system down next to an Intel and you didnt know the spec i am sure in day to day use you would never be able to tell the difference. :thumbsup:

I would absolutely be able to tell the difference. I am using a 2500k @ 4.5ghz and Fallout 4 drops massively in frame rate in certain areas due to CPU limits. I walk over to my brother's computer with a 5820k and 2133 DDR4 and I can instantly tell his CPU is faster because Fallout 4 doesnt drop like that. We have the same video card.

Also he loads into maps faster in multiplayer games.

Also his computer plays Dragon Age Origin better.

Also his computer multi-tasks much better when a modern game is open and alt-tabbed in the background.

It's pretty immediately obvious. And that's between a 2500k @ 4.5ghz and a stock 5820k...

 

[Arachnotronic]

I always thought that as an intergrated GPU the AMD APUs were better than intel? Unless you are talking about the Iris Pro Graphics 6200 ones?

Correct me if i am wrong (Which i probably am!)

Intel has made big strides in its iGPU performance, but from a consumer perspective (i.e. iGPU perf/$), I still think AMD has the lead here.

 

[Teabaghead]

Fair enough, in gaming i agree.

 

[Abwx]

Uh, the last time I checked... It was called overclocking. Which the i3 can't do in a meaningful way.

Notice how the same CPU goes from 92 to 121 frames per second. It's Magic.
With the i3 -- you are stuck at stock clock for better or worse. Fiddling with bus speeds only does so much.

I don't buy locked chips.

http://www.computerbase.de/2015-10/intel-core-i5-6500-5675c-4690-test/3/#diagramm-f1-2015-1080p


I read above that the 5820K is good for gaming, so the FX is even better given the min fps...