I understand that a lot of the Ivy Bride solutions do not have Intel HD 4000 Graphics and the ones that do, are not competitors. However, my irk, is that you are comparing AMD's most powerful APU solution against weaker Intel ones.
Valid point!!Use the i3-3225 for a valid comparison as it uses the 4000 graphics. $144
http://ark.intel.com/products/65692/Intel-Core-i3-3225-Processor-3M-Cache-3_30-GHz
I agree about invalid comparisons - Use the i3-3225 for a valid comparison as it uses the 4000 graphics. $144
The i3 3225 vs A10 comparison is obviously a price, or price/performance, or price/watt comparison...since the poster actually noted the i3's price.I agree about invalid comparisons - Use the i3-3225 for a valid comparison as it uses the 4000 graphics. $144
Seeing as a 3770K with 4000 graphics got thumped by the low end A8-3850 of the previous generation I am curious what makes you think that a i3-3225 has a prayer against the A10's of this generation?
Dave
You might be surprised to see that the A10-5800K beats the Core i3-3225 in overall performance, while the A8-5600K ties it. Trinity's strength here comes from its four integer cores (versus two for the Intel competition) and the fact that our CPU performance suite is very nicely multithreaded, as a rule. Trinity's per-thread performance is still a significant weakness, but AMD has priced the A10-5800K and A8-5600K appropriately, given their performance. Just don't forget that Trinity is matching the Core i3-3225's benchmark numbers by carving out nearly double the power envelope for itself.
Click over to the discrete gaming scatter, and you'll see something of a remix of our recent CPU gaming article. To those folks who requested the inclusion of a Core i3 the next time around: you were right. The Core i3-3225 is one heckuva budget gaming chip, faster overall than any CPU in AMD's lineup. The Trinity-based APUs aren't terrible for gaming, but their pokey per-thread performance can impact the smoothness of frame delivery.
I think you're the one not paying attentinon - nowhere in any post is anyone saying that the HD4000 is better than AMD's graphics. What they are saying is that the best compute + the best graphics at the closest pricing to the A10 is a better comparison. Now let us revisit...Pay attentinon before you start whining about flaming. Your post gets boring.
Neither of which contradict what I said. All I see is some people looking at a better all-rounder in the Intel camp for comparison purposes...performance isn't just about graphics- even graphics card comparisons aren't just about graphics."Why not something more current such as a processor with intel 4000 graphics?"
"However, my irk, is that you are comparing AMD's most powerful APU solution against weaker Intel ones"
So where's the posting saying that HD4000 is better than the graphics in the A10?....Nowhere. Straw man argument....unless this...dividebyzero - I dont know what you are looking at but the 2 quotes here are right above the post I quoted where Guest said "Use the i3-3225 for a valid comparison as it uses the 4000 graphics."
...is actually your way of saying that the A8 and A10 are superior to the 3770K as an overall package.Seeing as a 3770K with 4000 graphics got thumped by the low end A8-3850 of the previous generation I am curious what makes you think that a i3-3225 has a prayer against the A10's of this generation?