AMD A10-5800K APU Review: Trinity Comes to the Desktop

Hi,

Perhaps indeed the person which previously posted looked at the integrated tests, however to reach a conclusion that in Civ 5 there is a clear case for intel processors is really far fetched. Amd has 91 while direct competitor has 98 FPS. Waw this is really something and its worth mentioning in the conclusions. Like 91 fps is not very good and like everybody will use GTX 580 with this cpu. Also idle power consumption is awesome and this is what matters 80% of the time, while the stress is pretty decent for the performance. I think this apu deserves more than 80. For its class is really good.

Regards,
Mike

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.
The poster made no mention whatsoever about a comparison based solely upon graphics performance. That is either your perception, or a sophomore attempt at trolling the thread.

TechReport's conclusion from their comparison of the i3 3225 and A10-5800K tends to sum up nicely the relative merits of each:

"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"

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."

Seems to me the price mention was simply to show it was in the ballpark of the A10's price.

Pay attentinon before you start whining about flaming. Your post gets boring.

Dave

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...

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.

So where's the posting saying that HD4000 is better than the graphics in the A10?....Nowhere. Straw man argument....unless this...

...is actually your way of saying that the A8 and A10 are superior to the 3770K as an overall package.
No, thought not.

So while world + dog are comparing the whole package- price, compute, power, and graphics, you're basing your comparison one isolated aspect...graphics performance without regard for any other metric.

Feel free to keep up the personal jibes- they suit your posting. Just make sure the grammar is up to speed.

Yawn

Damn man you are long winded, and maybe a bit paranoid.
Look, a comment was made about integrated graphics. So I commented on that. I actually asked a question.

And as a side. The only place an AMD APU has an advantage is when its IG are put to use.

Dave

One test it would be very interesting to do is to create a task list that simulates an average person using the pc daily. Use some office programs, image editing, video conversion and play a bunch of games. Pick a few persons and let them do those tasks first with an intel cpu and then with an AMD one, don't telling them which one is which. Then ask them which system they would pick. That would be a REAL world test.
Also you must consider system build price in the equation.

Do you think a person may notice if the system opens office in 10 or 12 seconds? or if editing an image takes a few millisecond more to perform a task? however I do think you will notice a game running at 12fps or at 30. This is why I think A8 and A10 AMD products are great for people that wants to have a decent pc that can allow them to play games at avg settings and pc daily office/work tasks at a low budget.

For the majority of people, the differences wouldn't be deal breakers, or possibly discernible. The problem with that line of reasoning is that most people aren't going to notice the difference if the blind/double-blind comparison includes a 4-5 year old system. A Core 2 Duo/Quad or Athlon II still gets the job done, so if the criteria is end-user experience what's the point of upgrading?

Same deal I noted earlier in the thread.
Quad Core AMD: A10-5800K + A75/A85 board (A55's have no SATA 6GB) w/ reasonable onboard sound = ~$220
Dual Core Intel: G850 + H77 board + passive HD 6770 = ~ $215
Similar compute performance, and the Intel setup for the same money will give a much superior gaming experience.
You could go with a 65w dual core Trinity ( imo a better bet for HTPC), but likewise it's then competing against Sandy Bridge Celeron's

This APU could be the right choice for building my new slim HTPC

Can't talk about the Celerons, but a few month ago I had to build a pc for a friend, an architect. He uses autocad (2d mostly), office, some photo editing software, etc and occasionally games. I can say that with the A8 3850K he has been able to play CODMW, CODMWII, Prototype, Battlefield BC2, and a few others at medium settings. The Intel contender CPU at the moment was the i3-2120, with bad gpu, lame video drivers and 10% more expensive. With the difference I bought more high performance ram and in case he wants to go further in gaming he can add an inexpensive AMD6670 and do crossfire, that's not even a remote option for Intel. I really think it's way more possible that he needs more GPU than CPU since all the software he uses for work just fly on that CPU.
AMD won that budget hands down, I truly believe this APUs are a nice component for a budget pc.

Well, from my point of view for people that has a pc that still get it's job done and that performs the same a new budget build there would be almost no reason to upgrade, would be better to wait for another hardware generation, except they want to go for a more expensive build.

You dont buy APUs for hardcore processing, you buy them for budget gaming.

I AGREE! A silent PC is important -JL

I don't think people, including reviewers, really understand how to interpret power consumption figures. The stress test involved running Crysis which taxes the GPU, and the AMD system, while drawing 90% more power than an Intel Core i3 system, is performing more than 90% faster. So the figure that really matters, namely the performance/power ratio, is better on the AMD system. I think the performance-per-watt of AMD and Intel is pretty close.

This is a nice cpu with great video I own one and its sweet for 459.67 I pay for it.

At the end of the day, if you have run this cpu 24/7 with say 20% loading, and 50W excess peak power you'll average 10W/hr extra over the i5 (for less performance).

In the course of a year that'll be about 88kW-hr in utility bills ( at say $0.2 ) so $18 extra/year.

So the extra power would only justify buying the Intel after 5 years or more, (or if you ran it at 100% loading for a year ).