HardOCP News
[H] News
- Joined
- Dec 31, 1969
- Messages
- 0
For those of you interested, the crew at TechSpot have a budget CPU round-up posted today that pits AMD's Kabini versus Intel's Bay Trail.
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
Budget CPU Roundup
- Thread starter HardOCP News
- Start date
MisterHipster
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Jul 16, 2008
- Messages
- 503
AMD > Intel...
Especially on this one.
Especially on this one.
CreepyUncleGoogle
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Mar 10, 2013
- Messages
- 6,871
I wonder if the AMD processors would do any better if they had a second memeory channel to work with. It didn't seem to help the low-power Celeron much.
Since you mention "Especially on this one", you mean that AMD is better than Intel in "normal" sockets too?
I haven't bought or shopped for a new computer in a couple of years. Has AMD really gotten better and isn't a few years behind Intel anymore? The last time I checked, AMD were cheaper because they were in every way inferior compared to Intel.
Dayaks
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2012
- Messages
- 9,774
Since you mention "Especially on this one", you mean that AMD is better than Intel in "normal" sockets too?
I haven't bought or shopped for a new computer in a couple of years. Has AMD really gotten better and isn't a few years behind Intel anymore? The last time I checked, AMD were cheaper because they were in every way inferior compared to Intel.
You still "get what you pay for" IMO.
If I wanted low power that did nothing then I would've gone with Intel but since I wanted something usable and versatile I'm very happy I went with A10-7850K. The power consumption seems off for the A8-7600 since system power consumption under load with CPU and iGPU is same as A10-7850K which is ~115W.
Since you mention "Especially on this one", you mean that AMD is better than Intel in "normal" sockets too?
I haven't bought or shopped for a new computer in a couple of years. Has AMD really gotten better and isn't a few years behind Intel anymore? The last time I checked, AMD were cheaper because they were in every way inferior compared to Intel.
No, AMD catches up in some scenarios by throwing more power at the CPU. Where AMD is really good as it their APU's, where you can build a cheap gaming computer. Only problem is those use excessive power as well.
This article points out that AMD is on fairly equal footing at the sub $50 CPU front, intel is still MUCH better at single threaded and terrible on the GPU front. The only problem is for $5 more you get a Celeron G1820, which decimates all of these processors, sucks down 20 more watts but it still very fan-less capable.
That's exactly what I was thinking. A basic H81 motherboard costs ~$50, and a G1820 costs ~$50. The top AMD CPU/Motherboard reviewed costs in the same ballpark within $5, however the G1820 is far superior as a CPU & system platform. The Intel GPU falls behind, but that's largely irrelevant as neither really is playable in games. 11 FPS vs 8 FPS, whoop-dee-doo! Both GPUs can accelerate video playback, etc. which is all this class of GPU performance is good for, so even though the AMD has a performance lead GPU performance wise it's functionally a wash.
D
Deleted member 184142
Guest
This.
I had a friend looking for a low end build and he wanted to go AMD and I asked why and he brought up better GPU and I asked him what that "better GPU" was going to do for him that the Intel could not....He had no answer. In the lower end, all you are going to get is video playback, and that is it, anything better and it still can't do anything useful and is just wasted space. Before I wanted to do a low end build myself for a pfsense build, I wanted to do it because I wanted to mess with AMD and I have a MC near by. So I looked at what they have and started researching and just felt let down by the performance gap, I could do the Intel build for about $10 bucks more that would just destroy any of the AMD options in the same bracket, I really want to love AMD...I just can't find a reason to.
skiddy
2[H]4U
- Joined
- May 31, 2003
- Messages
- 2,725
The main socket Celeron/Pentiums have been impressive since they migrated over to the core-i platforms.
From a pure performance standpoint, the AM1's do seem to edge out Bay Trails in most categories. Although iGPU performance in relation to games (in this niche market) seems completely worthless. As already mentioned, a S1150 Celeron would mop the floor out of any of these for the same price, with the only AM1 benefit being power load with iGPU.
The A8/A10 APU's are impressive chips for what they are, but I still couldn't press myself to buy one even if I was building a budget gaming PC. I'd settle for an i3/i5 + mid range discrete card any day. The APU dual graphics doesn't compete with that setup. And from a multimedia standpoint, the difference is negligible - Intel HD graphics does a fine job at that.
From a pure performance standpoint, the AM1's do seem to edge out Bay Trails in most categories. Although iGPU performance in relation to games (in this niche market) seems completely worthless. As already mentioned, a S1150 Celeron would mop the floor out of any of these for the same price, with the only AM1 benefit being power load with iGPU.
The A8/A10 APU's are impressive chips for what they are, but I still couldn't press myself to buy one even if I was building a budget gaming PC. I'd settle for an i3/i5 + mid range discrete card any day. The APU dual graphics doesn't compete with that setup. And from a multimedia standpoint, the difference is negligible - Intel HD graphics does a fine job at that.
Unknown-One
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2005
- Messages
- 8,909
How do you figure, exactly? A Core i3 thrashed everything else in the review on both raw performance AND performace-per-watt...
He's right. AMD > Intel
i3-4130 consumes ~27% less power under load but is useless at half the performance of A8-7600 for iGPU gaming. You'll end up adding a discrete GPU to i3 which would drive up cost even more along with higher power consumption.
Unknown-One
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2005
- Messages
- 8,909
Still not seeing your point here. If you care at all about gaming, you'll add a discreet GPU no matter what CPU you pick from the group they tested in this review.
But really, that's entirely beside the point. Lets not forget that you can't actually buy an A8-7600 yet (they wont be released until the second half of 2014). Meanwhile, the i3-4130 can be purchased right now...
If you care about gaming on a budget the A10-7850K is fine without discrete GPU. BF4 averages ~40fps at 1920x1080 and ~60fps at 1600x900. i3-4130 is a useless desktop CPU with netbook graphics performance.
CreepyUncleGoogle
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Mar 10, 2013
- Messages
- 6,871
I think the A series processors are a really good idea and I like the fact that AMD is paying a lot of attention to iGPU performance, but I don't get why you think the i3 is useless. A lot of people are out there getting by with much slower processors and graphics (I have an Atom n270 and GMA950 which is good enough for anything but modern games..in fact, it runs some really old stuff, plus is okay on Pogo.com) and it doesn't bother them at all.
Unknown-One
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2005
- Messages
- 8,909
Which is totally irrelevant, as the A10-7850K was not part of this roundup.
The A10-7850K is also a 95w brute with a $185 pricetag, so I'm not sure why you're bringing it up in a thread covering low-power budget processors.
And yet, it absolutely owned its peers on raw CPU performance as well as performance/watt.
Only thing keeping the 4130 from being an across-the-board winner in this roundup is overall GPU performance... but that's not really all that damning either. None of the gaming benchmarks they did are what I'd call "playable," which effectively means AMD might as well have nerfed their graphics a bit to get their TDP (performance/watt ratio) under control while delivering a functionally equivalent user experience.
PornoSatan
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Sep 3, 2004
- Messages
- 3,493
i3's are beasts in their own right. It'll give you the same single threaded performance as an i5/i7 at a fraction of the TDP. Who cares if its multi-threaded performance isn't the absolute "best"? It's still got acceptable multi-threaded performance for most general things, it's a freakin dual core WITH hyperthreading.
People don't give i3's enough credit.
skiddy
2[H]4U
- Joined
- May 31, 2003
- Messages
- 2,725
iGPU gaming performance is pretty much the only thing AMD beats Intel at. He has to hang onto something. As I mentioned before, gaming performance on the processors in this review (aside from the A8 7600) are nearly irrelevant because the numbers are abysmal.
But other than that, I really only see APUs viable for the following:
- SFF builds where you want light/medium gaming and discrete card expansion is simply impossible
- Low end notebooks that give you light/medium gaming capabilities
- Very very strict build budgets that need to have gaming capabilities (going 'used' would still be a better option for this)
Power consumption doesn't even fall on that list because an i3-4130 + 750ti would have less power draw at load than a 7850k. Hell, a 4770k + 750ti would use about as much power as a 7850k.
APU's are a niche market in my opinion. I really can't see a mainstream use for them, and I still can't find a good reason to recommend AMD CPU's over Intel counterparts. (this is coming from someone who used AMD exclusively for nearly 9 years).
Unknown-One
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2005
- Messages
- 8,909
Yeah, same point I was making. All of these chips deliver below-bar gaming performance, so having slightly faster graphics performance when EVERYTHING else about the chip is worse than its competitor isn't all that compelling.
Would have made more sense for AMD to cut down the GPU farther and try and get their TDP closer to intel's offerings. For almost all use cases, that's the better configuration.
Don't forget x86 tablets... but even there, performance / watt is king. Raw performance at the cost of infalted power consumption = poor battery life.
skiddy
2[H]4U
- Joined
- May 31, 2003
- Messages
- 2,725
Yep, completely agree - I was basically regurgitating what you said
.Exactly, which is why I didn't mention them. If you want a gaming tablet, x86 isn't really a viable option at this point in time. AMD has always had a track record of poor TDP which is a good reason as to why they haven't succeeded in the mobile/notebook markets.
hardware_failure
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Mar 21, 2008
- Messages
- 1,370
+1.
Woe is me, missing the days when AMD was competitive with intel. These new AMD chips just plain suck. I have built a number of AMD APU systems (both F1 and F2) over the last few years and they already show significant age with their suckyness, making me regret not spending ~$40 more for decent intel budget builds.
The article is spot on saying that if you want to spend absolute bottom dollar you can go AMD but if you can spend a little more pretty much any offerings from intel are going to offer better bang for the buck.