If you cared about all that at once, you probably want an HTPC or a laptop. At least on the HTPC end, you face stiff competition from modern consoles (which are APUs from AMD, so it's not really a loss). In a laptop, I can see it being very useful, but the market is pretty used to seeing a WOW 4GB GT620M and not realizing how crappy it really is. They want to see bigger numbers on a sticker than the neighboring computer.As its been said, let's not pretend these APU are something they are not. Clearly they are not a good option for people who want to use a discrete GPU, period. There are better options.
But as a package and when size, thermals, power is a constraint, they are unmatched in their own category.
Toms (DE) showed how much the low power kaveri loves bandwidth:
Looks like a good replacement for casual PC that I have:
Athlon X2 2.2GHz + HD4670 1GB DDR3
Single Chip that also has 4 powerful CPU Cores
Why people doesnt say the same thing when it comes to Intel Reviews ??
You can buy a G3220 + HD7790 for less than just the Core i5 4670K and have faster gaming performance vs HD4600. :whiste:
The Kaveri is not a CPU, it is an APU. You pay for having the fastest iGPU in a 95W TDP Single Chip that also has 4 powerful CPU Cores, you pay more for added features like TrueAudio etc.
Why people doesnt say the same thing when it comes to Intel Reviews ??
You can buy a G3220 + HD7790 for less than just the Core i5 4670K and have faster gaming performance vs HD4600. :whiste:
I think we can say somethings about Kaveri:
- It won't change much of the desktop market, except for budget gamers.
- It's no smaller than its predecessors, so margins should still be bad, and should make AMD vulnerable on the bottom market to Intel pricing,
- It will suck big time on mobile, especially because there we will have Broadwell, not Haswell as the main competitor.
In the end, 2014 is more of the same for AMD big core line: Market share bleed and PR spin.
Its obvious that their big core line is completely dead. And the cats family already seems to be in trouble. I wonder what AMD will actually base its future on. The consoles will keep the company running in one way or the other for the next 7-10 years. But at that time the dGPU is close to, if not already gone. And ARM servers, thats not exactly looking bright either.
Its obvious that their big core line is completely dead. And the cats family already seems to be in trouble. I wonder what AMD will actually base its future on. The consoles will keep the company running in one way or the other for the next 7-10 years. But at that time the dGPU is close to, if not already gone. And ARM servers, thats not exactly looking bright either.
People keep on saying dGPU is dead or close to dead for so long, its not gonna happen.
On the same node, a massive 550mm2 GPU die that has the potential to use 400W is going to destroy an iGPU on performance. Unless you belong to the camp that feels there's a certain level of performance that is magically "enough" and people will no longer want extra.
I dont, because soon 4K res will be standard and not even the best GPU can handle it yet. Moving forward, 4K res at 120hz. Or wide angle curved monitors. Or heck, more fancy game engines will continue to push the hardware.
There's a LONG way to go for iGPU to be competitive even at 1080p, we've finally reached a point where an APU can handle 1080p at medium settings at around 37-40 fps in modern games. When are we going to get iGPU that can push 4K res at ultra settings at 60 fps?
I do agree AMD's CPU division is doomed, they have shown no signs of making a leap in IPC so their CPU are worthless for high end usage. But this is where their APUs need to take over, they need design wins on mobile to ensure future survival.
People keep on saying dGPU is dead or close to dead for so long, its not gonna happen.
On the same node, a massive 550mm2 GPU die that has the potential to use 400W is going to destroy an iGPU on performance. Unless you belong to the camp that feels there's a certain level of performance that is magically "enough" and people will no longer want extra.
I dont, because soon 4K res will be standard and not even the best GPU can handle it yet. Moving forward, 4K res at 120hz. Or wide angle curved monitors. Or heck, more fancy game engines will continue to push the hardware.
There's a LONG way to go for iGPU to be competitive even at 1080p, we've finally reached a point where an APU can handle 1080p at medium settings at around 37-40 fps in modern games. When are we going to get iGPU that can push 4K res at ultra settings at 60 fps?
I do agree AMD's CPU division is doomed, they have shown no signs of making a leap in IPC so their CPU are worthless for high end usage. But this is where their APUs need to take over, they need design wins on mobile to ensure future success, thats something they haven't been able to do with Llano or Richland.
Definitely not a great time to be an enthusiast when AMD's latest has all the power of an overclocked Q6600 + 8800 GTS.
That was early 2007. Seven years.
Can the limited demand for 500mm^2 space heaters sustain the dGPU market? The market for anything less than a HD7770 has already been killed by integrated graphics. Broadwell GT4 will aim even higher. The mass market volume is in the low end parts- there's a reason why NVidia are desperately trying to make Tegra into a viable business.
On the same node, a massive 550mm2 GPU die that has the potential to use 400W is going to destroy an iGPU on performance. Unless you belong to the camp that feels there's a certain level of performance that is magically "enough" and people will no longer want extra.
At this point, I'm thoroughly convinced that AnandTech's perceived bias is all in people's heads. People will believe whatever they want in order to feel persecuted.
It's pretty clear that a lot of fans have some sort of persecution complex. When their brand loses, it's because of ridiculous reasons, such as:
1) Reviewer was paid off
2) Intel bias
3) nvidia + Intel "axis of evil" bias
4) Intel paid the website off
5) Intel compiler tricks
Just roll with it. For some, the perception of being persecuted is easier than accepting the fact that a new product just isn't that great.
I see you have faith Intel can keep on shrinking down the node without issues or on time even.
As long as people are willing to pay $600 or even $1,000 for a fast discrete, it certainly is viable. If it gets to a point where it isn't, there are gamers who will always want the best and are willing to pay a higher price for it. Look at super cars for example.
HD7770 is low end and has been for a long time with rebadges at that perf levels. If and when iGPU kill it too, the current mid-range will become the new low-end. I've read a market analysis report that found several years ago, the price range for mid-range dGPU was ~$200. Now its been shifted to above $300.
You just described the demise of the high end GPU market.
Sportscars- bad analogy. Sportscars are a visible status symbol and icon of conspicuous consumption, and a 20 year old sportscar can often be more valuable than a brand new one. How much do you think you will get for a GTX Titan in 20 years' time? The price really can't survive being pushed much higher. Even on a tech enthusiast forum like this, what percentage of users were actually willing to pay the initial $1000 price for a Titan?
You're also ignoring the matter of shared R&D costs. The high volume low-end market subsidises R&D, developing the same GCN/Kepler cores that go into the high end cards. End of low end sales = reduction in R&D funding for dGPUs.
And the "pushing the low end higher" story is pretty ridiculous. A HD7770 is low end now? A 100W, 123mm^2 chip is the low end? How high can you push the definition of low end before you run out of die size and TDP budget? By pushing the definition of "low end", what you are actually describing is the gradual shrinking of the dGPU market. Those people who used to buy things like the HD6570, HD5450, HD6450 aren't all buying HD7770s now; they're using integrated graphics. That's a segment of the market that is gone forever, and isn't coming back.
Even bringing up enthusiast market segment in an APU discussion means you expect too much, way too much, out of a 250mm2 die that has half half and goes for cheap.
Thats nonsence, the i5 4670K will slaughter the G3220 on CPU
No, seven years.
Could you imagine being on a Celeron 300A and TNT in 2006? Great setup for 1999, but in '06 I was on a X2 5200+ (which was down to a ~$120 processor) and I shortly thereafter got the aforementioned 8800 GTS, which in 320MB flavor was only $300. Putting a 300A and TNT onto a single chip in 2006 would not have been performance that would be on anyone's radar. Asking $190 for it would've been absurd.
Yet here you are drooling over a $190 C2Q + 8800 GTS because it's branded "AMD."
Anand did the exact same thing with the Iris Pro review tested low quality at low res, them scaling up quality and resolution at the same time.
I dont remember anyone complaining about "bias" back them.
Thankfully Anand doesn't test hardware only for you. He tests it for people who are actually relevant, like me. In order to put together builds for people I need to know where the performance lies in relation to alternatives, and nobody tests discrete GPUs on Low.
Honestly, your complaints don't hold up to the barest of scrutiny. If games can be scaled down to be playable for the notebook reviews, why do you need to see them scaled down to see if they're playable on a desktop APU?
Oh gee, I wonder if I there is any setting that would allow me to play Skyrim at better than 21.6 FPS on an A10-7870K? How ever could I figure this one out?
You're desperate to get one word that you can use in your internet fanboy arguments: "Playable." But the tailor-made settings you ask for are useless to everyone else because nothing else is benched at those settings.
I actually thought the article showed kaveri in the best light possible vs a discrete solution, since it compared it to the 6570 rather than to a HD7750. And there were playable settings tested in every game except COH.
Anand generally tested 768p med and 900p high. There were a few 1050p high tests. And in every test except metro fps at the highest settings were over 25 fps for the top card (650m), generally around 30-40.
768p medium and 900p high generally got acceptable framerates. (And anand also compared iris to a 650m at 900/1250 mhz, the FASTEST 650m on the market, overclocked beyond stock and with GDDR5 to test intel's claim of ~ 650m performance. This was anti-intel if anything).
Compare that to kaveri. 1280 x 1024 on low. This is not a common resolution and kaveri gets 60 fps+ in every test except CoH. Its a useless resolution and at useless settings. 1050p high is pushing playability and 1080p extreme is useless because everything is a slideshow. Toms used better settings (generally) but TR also used sub 30 fps settings.
He is testing igp's not dgpu's. The one or two dgpu's are also not playable at 1080p extreme.
1280 x 1024 is not really a playable resolution (a resolution that will be relevant and used by anyone). Make is 1366 x 768, 900p, or 1080p are playable fps.