That's for the gaming part when they aren't using the IGP. So you can see there is an IGP page, and a Gaming page. The IGP uses the integrated, the gaming page uses the 7970. I think they use the 7970 to isolate it and just what the difference is when you change the CPU.
Considering the exchange started with you claiming hearing of issues with AMD and XBMC in the XBMC forums, yes I'm going to focus on HTPC use.
Now we have this:
Wait so everyone knew anything works with XBMC?
Looks like a decent case for AMD when discrete graphics won't be used.
Oh, I see that now, thanks! Here's some graphs from the IGP page:
Looks like a decent case for AMD when discrete graphics won't be used.
All this talk got me interested, how much do these builds cost?
Has choices for AMD, Intel, whatever you want to use. Just read what it can or cant do under XBMC. It was updated recently so it should be relevant, although you can get some of the stuff cheaper than listed prices.OpenELEC (USA Pricing)
-----------
☆ Build #1. Intel Celeron 847 (2x1.1Ghz) / Intel HD Graphics ($218) --> Average CPU Mark: 1015
☆ Build #2. Intel Celeron 887 (2x1.5Ghz) / Intel HD Graphics ($238) --> Average CPU Mark: 1475
☆ Build #3. AMD Fusion E-350 (2x1.6Ghz) / AMD Radeon HD 6310 ($243) --> Average CPU Mark: 769
☆ Build #4. Intel Celeron 1007U (2x1.5Ghz) / Intel HD Graphics ($248) --> Average CPU Mark: 1561
☆ Build #5. Intel Atom D2700 (2x2.13Ghz) / Nvidia GT 520M ($286) --> Average CPU Mark: 838
☆ Build #6. Intel Atom D2700 (2x2.13Ghz) / Nvidia GT 520M ($308) --> Average CPU Mark: 838
Windows (USA Pricing)
---------
☆ Build #1. Intel Celeron G1610 (2x2.60Ghz) / Intel HD Graphics ($313) --> Average CPU Mark: 2609
☆ Build #2. AMD Liano A6-3500 (3x2.1Ghz) / AMD Radeon HD 6530D ($330) --> Average CPU Mark: 2068
☆ Build #3. AMD Richland A6-6400K (2x3.9Ghz) / AMD Radeon HD 8470D ($342) --> Average CPU Mark: N/A
☆ Build #4. Intel Core i3-3120M (2x2.50Ghz) / Intel HD 4000 ($388) --> Average CPU Mark: 3345
☆ Build #5. Intel Core i3-3225 (2x3.30Ghz) / Intel HD 4000 ($406) --> Average CPU Mark: 4375
All this talk got me interested, how much do these builds cost?
Oh, I see that now, thanks! Here's some graphs from the IGP page:
Looks like a decent case for AMD when discrete graphics won't be used.
Looks like a decent case for do something else with the box, unplayable frame rates ahoy!
Hence why I have ignored the AMD graphics performance in all but the A10 as I think if you lower that down to 720p you can get playable rates although I can't find benchmarks of this at the moment to confirm it.
The A4-4000 though you can forget playable rates on that. No point factoring in performance of something you cant use lol. Thank god someone else is understanding this and I'm not the only one.
it is but, IGP was a much bigger advantage for AMD, and the problem is, ivy/sandy i3-i5 used mostly GT1 (HD2000, HD 2500) and it was MUCH slower than llano or trinity,
now it looks like Intel is only going to use GT1 for the Pentium/Celeron(???), so any i3/i5 gets GT2 (like the HD 4600 from the i7)?
the $190 i5 haswell have the same IGP, so it's $40 more expensive than the 6800K, but the IGP is close, and the CPU performance is in a different league, it also uses less power...
Ya, I didn't quote that since I already stated they were good for graphics. I think that's pretty common knowledge. For you, you're looking for a case. I think the A10, after seeing the power consumption under load, I wouldn't get that case you were looking at since it's 80W power supply. I think even 150 is pushing it considering the A10 can consume quite a bit under load and you're looking for gaming.
Look at these 4 maybe?
http://www.directron.com/vl52021n2u.html?gsear=1
http://www.directron.com/mi100bk.html?gsear=1
http://www.amazon.com/MI-008-Tower-B.../dp/B001H0BA24
http://www.amazon.com/SilverStone-SG...ies/B0025VKQ60
All four of those have good enough power supplies and are mini cases. I thought about it for a mini gaming case when I first specced out since I wanted something that could do light gaming and use for HTPC. Then I just went all out and spent over 1000 dollars....
I have a cheap A10-5800K build - I can go run some benchmarks on it - I'm bored. Off work today.
It surprises people how well it can actually handle some games.
Edit - Misread.
The A4 has its place. I built my Father in law a "cheapest system possible" build with an SSD. It's used for web browsing, Facebook gaming and watching blu rays on a TV hooked up to it by HDMI. (also has a monitor). I got a A4 and a Motherboard used for $45 off local classifieds. It's would satisfy most casual users with this segment.
The G540 is probably the best el cheapo chip under $50.00 but you need a motherboard too.
Here is a simple build, with a SSD boot drive and Blu-Ray.
http://pcpartpicker.com/p/1cBA1
$357.11
Using MythTV for your OS/Software. If you want Windows, add whatever windows costs.
What do people do with these, replace their Wii for Netflix?
What about Intel Insider? Did that ever take off?
All this talk got me interested, how much do these builds cost?
AMD does have a niche where they're very strong, it's just in the sub $600 build range, probably even lower than that. It isn't a performance brand anymore, it's a budget orientated compromise brand. -BallaTheFeared
Modern game engines want more than 2 hardware threads, and are a stuttery mess without it. (And EA are building a very, very large number of games on their next-gen Frostbite engine, so this will get more and more common.) An i3 or AMD quad-core would be my baseline for a modern gaming rig.
EDIT: Oh, and another nice one:
You can see pretty clearly that the i3 is far more consistent than the Pentium, just through hyperthreading. And the APU chart looks like this:
And what is that with? A 7950. What does the APU look like with its IGP?
That's at 1280x720 with everything low.
So the Pentium occasionally pops up to 40ms at 1080p with everything High? (while getting an average of 12.3ms) At that resolution and graphics quality, the A10 would be at >40ms, period. (I figure it would be around 15FPS [66ms] average, as a 7770 is ~1/2 the speed of a 7950, and a 5570 is ~1/3rd the speed of a 7770. Under their 7770 review they show the 7770 getting 58FPS on Medium at 1080p. As the A10-5800k can't even pull that off (52FPS) while rendering less than half of the pixels and dropping down to Low, I'd say the 1/3rd probably holds.)
I'd take occasional stutters to 25FPS (which could probably be largely mitigated by turning down shadows) over running at less than 25FPS.
And what is that with? A 7950. What does the APU look like with its IGP?
That's at 1280x720 with everything low.
So the Pentium occasionally pops up to 40ms at 1080p with everything High? (while getting an average of 12.3ms) At that resolution and graphics quality, the A10 would be at >40ms, period. (I figure it would be around 15FPS [66ms] average, as a 7770 is ~1/2 the speed of a 7950, and a 5570 is ~1/3rd the speed of a 7770. Under their 7770 review they show the 7770 getting 58FPS on Medium at 1080p. As the A10-5800k can't even pull that off (52FPS) while rendering less than half of the pixels and dropping down to Low, I'd say the 1/3rd probably holds.)
I'd take occasional stutters to 25FPS (which could probably be largely mitigated by turning down shadows) over running at less than 25FPS.
It is obvious that you haven’t played BF3 MultiPlayer. If you had, you would know that you would better play at 720p Low with constant 16ms than 1080p High with 40ms. 40ms is a stuttering mess, you will stutter all over the place with FPS diving up and down constantly. Your aiming will be affected negatively, your situation awareness will be affected negatively and you will be frustrated because of all that. Because of your higher time frames your input lag will also be higher affecting your game play.
In sort, you don’t want 40ms in BF3 MP
It is obvious that you havent played BF3 MultiPlayer. If you had, you would know that you would better play at 720p Low with constant 16ms than 1080p High with 40ms.