AMD A12-9800 Review: Infecting The AM4 Platform
- Thread starter Steve
- Start date
GreenNova343
Posts: 454 +336
FYI, if you point out an error in an article and it is subsequently corrected as in this case, your post will usually be deleted since it is no longer necessary. Happens all the time and thanks for your correction.
Hey, no problem. I wasn't sure originally if I had missed something or if Steven had just mistyped something. Was the first time I actually a) posted the 1st comment on a topic, & b) actually found a potential mistake, so I didn't know what to expect.
GreenNova343
Posts: 454 +336
I could see that. HTPCs are all about small sizes & focusing on media & light-to-medium gameplay, so a mATX-based build -- or better yet, a Mini-ITX-based build -- where you may not have the space/power to put in a discrete GPU (or may not even need one) would probably be good.
It would be nice to actually see a more in-depth comparison of the Pentium G4560 vs. this Bristol Ridge APU, focusing on builds where you don't have a dedicated GPU. The Pentium seems to have the edge in a lot of the CPU-based application benchmarks, but they noted that without a dedicated GPU the Bristol Ridge APU smacked the Pentium into the ground.
I think it would be better to pit the G4600 vs. Bristol Ridge. It's not only cheaper than the G4560 in many places (such as Newegg) but has a much faster GPU (HD Graphics 630 vs. 610). I'm also really interested in how the A8-9600 fares.
As for integrated GPU and HTPC, I find that the lack of HDMI 2.0 in motherboards is a problem. For AMD, I don't know of any HDMI 2.0 motherboards, and for Intel I remember finding only full ATX ones, though I vaguely remember a very costly mini-ITX that might have one. In any case, nothing you'd use with a cheap APU. Although I did run a 4K TV with a G4560 for a while (4K@30Hz) and it wasn't that bad. I had thought it won't be usable, but it was (not for 4K gaming, naturally, but desktop and video). Still, there's no doubt that a low end GPU is a major improvement all around.
That highly depends on its real power consumption, as well as performance. The A12-9800 is supposed to be 65W, but from Steven's testing it takes almost as much power (in this particular situation) as the 95W Ryzen 5 1600X. Most CPU's there are '65W', from the Ryzen 3 1200 to the A12-9800, and that's a huge range of real world power consumption. I won't be surprised if the A10-9700e surpasses the R3 1200 in real world power draw, and possibly reach into 1300X territory. (I'm hoping not more than that, but who knows.)
I'd guess that the A10-9700e loses to the Pentium G4600 big time in CPU performance and power draw, and is about equal in games with the IGP. Just a guess; would be interesting to test it, but won't surprise me. And the G4600 is cheaper.
This article was totally crap. AMD APU gets 20/100 when it's 2-3 times faster on games than Intel's solution? So Pentium G4560 should get at most 10/100.
Comparisons like "XXX CPU+YYY GPU is much faster" are not valid because it makes no sense comparing integrated graphic solutions against discrete graphic solutions.
So, what is MUCH faster/better CPU+GPU combo for games at $110 range when leaving discrete graphic solutions out of question? Good luck finding that.
Comparisons like "XXX CPU+YYY GPU is much faster" are not valid because it makes no sense comparing integrated graphic solutions against discrete graphic solutions.
So, what is MUCH faster/better CPU+GPU combo for games at $110 range when leaving discrete graphic solutions out of question? Good luck finding that.
First of all, you're ignoring all the non-games stuff, where the Pentium is much better, but let's assume for now that gaming is the only thing that matters.
First thing, the article's comparison is flawed, and I agree that it's hard to draw good conclusions based on it. The Pentium G4560 has a particularly weak GPU. A Pentium G4600 should perform much better, and even if it will end up weaker in some cases, it is a $90 CPU vs. the $110 of the A12-9800.
And if you will still feel that $20 is worth it for the extra gaming performance A12-9800, then why not buy an Athlon X4 950 + GeForce 1030 for $130 and have even better performance? The discrete GPU option is certainly a valid one.
So yes, under certainly very strict conditions the A12-9800 has some value, but I feel that these aren't real world conditions. If one values more than gaming performance, then Intel is the way to go, and if one values only games, then spending a little bit more on discrete graphics is the way to go. The A12-9800 is neither here nor there.
My 9800 had other numers from power consumption. Cpu+8gb 2400+mouse/keyboard+25" LCD+router+120mm fan (and the one from cpu cooler) I had around 44W idle and 142,31W peak from cinebench. That is checked from the wall. Dunno if that's only me but Steven here had other numbers but I don't know how he check power consumption.
A12 is more than fast enough for basic use and for more demanding scenarios nobody consider dual core. So we can quite safely ignore that CPU side. Also AM4 platform is much more future proof than LGA1151.
What if you are building very small system where discrete graphic card does not fit?
With 20/100 score logic, Intel's Iris Pro should also get something like 10/100 because it's Very expensive (around $250 or so) and so you can get much more gaming performance buying without Iris Pro + discrete chip. Still Iris Pro has pretty big market. Why? Because GPU integrated to CPU takes much less space than CPU + discrete GPU.
So when talking about very small computers where you cannot fit even small discrete card, A12-9800 has real world value and giving it 20/100 proves again this site's pointing system is broken. We have seen same BS before (Nvidia Maxwell die shrink gets 100/100).
I expect upcoming Raven Ridge gets at most 50/100 because Ryzen 3 + discrete graphic card is much faster and not much more expensive "(y)".
The point system is subjective, and therefore indeed something that can be argued with. It depends on what parameters the reviewer thinks are important, and also, as for any review, depends on what the reviewer chooses to test.
I don't think there's any real world desktop system that would fit an APU and won't fit a graphics card. I have a half height system, and most GeForce 1030 cards would fit well in it (I use a low profile RX 460). If you're talking about a small custom case that doesn't even fit a low profile card, I don't think anybody would fit such a power-hungry APU in one.
Really, the main reason someone would buy an A12-9800 is that he's an AMD fan, is waiting for Raven Ridge, doesn't mind wasting money on an interim APU, and is so anti-NVIDIA that he's willing to sacrifice gaming performance and not spend money on a GeForce 1030.
That's not to say that Bristol Ridge in general has no place, or that the A12-9800 won't be attractive at a lower price point, but as it stands, I do agree that the A12-9800 is not a worthwhile buy. 20/100? Perhaps a little exaggerated. But I would certainly give it a failing score.
Scores are always subjective but there should be some kind logic with scores.
Very small PC's like Intel's NUC's are very small and there is simply no space for discrete graphic card or even discrete GPU. TDP is big high for small computer but still this APU is far from being totally useless.
This CPU is around cheapest option to build usable AM4 platform, with upgrade planned later. It's possible to get Athlon + some ultra crap GPU but then gaming performance is even lower than it's with this APU. There's one good reason. Raven Ridge will be much better but as Raven Ridge is not yet available, this makeshift APU will make it until 1. Raven Ridge is available and 2. offer decent integrated GPU that is missing on Ryzens.
It's not worthwhile buy for many but still it's much faster than Intel's integrated GPU solutions at same price point and more than fast enough for everyday use. So 20/100 is way too low score.
Very small PC's like Intel's NUC's are very small and there is simply no space for discrete graphic card or even discrete GPU. TDP is big high for small computer but still this APU is far from being totally useless.
This CPU is around cheapest option to build usable AM4 platform, with upgrade planned later. It's possible to get Athlon + some ultra crap GPU but then gaming performance is even lower than it's with this APU. There's one good reason. Raven Ridge will be much better but as Raven Ridge is not yet available, this makeshift APU will make it until 1. Raven Ridge is available and 2. offer decent integrated GPU that is missing on Ryzens.
It's not worthwhile buy for many but still it's much faster than Intel's integrated GPU solutions at same price point and more than fast enough for everyday use. So 20/100 is way too low score.
I did some digging around, and looks like the A8-9600 is about 10% slower in games. I see no point paying $40 extra for those 10%. Either buy the A8-9600 for $70 or buy the Athlon X4 950 + GeForce 1030 for $130. The A12-9800 at $110 is rather pointless.
As for the NUC, it's not a desktop PC, and the A12-9800 is completely irrelevant to it. Devices of that form factor are custom made, and use low power CPU's, not something power hungry like the A12-9800.
As I said before, Bristol Ridge may be relevant for some devices, and it's certainly serving well alongside Stoney Ridge in laptops, but this particular variant just isn't worth buying. It's kind of a pity that it was the one getting reviewed, but it's sort of a flagship product for this line, even if it's the least worthy of that line.
Last edited:
Flagship models are always overpriced, A12-9800 is no exception. I really cannot remember single case where buying flagship CPU or APU would be good choice when considering price/performance ratio, so that comparison against slower but cheaper model is quite pointless.
Watercooled A12-9800 system easily goes into smaller box than any system with discrete card.
It's not worth buying but flagship CPU's are NEVER worth buying and still flagship CPU's don't get 20/100 scores but much more. Problem is not that A12-9800 is too expensive but very low score although it's quite easily fastest integrated GPU solution around $100 price range. Fastest at it's price range but not worth buying = 20/100 "(y)"
GeforcerFX
Posts: 1,091 +547
I gotta say the review doesn't make a whole lot of sense. You tested integrated at only 1080p, when most APU's play games at 720p, not saying don't test 1080p but more than one resolution would have been nice. Even stranger is you didn't bother to compare it to what it replaced, no A10-7860k or 7890k or straight 7800? Just much higher and more expensive CPU's, except the r3 1200 and G4560 none of the other cpus really make sense being in this review for comparisons. I feel like you really didn't want to do the review from the way you started your video, like you were being bugged by people to do it so you threw it through some benchmarks. I get what AMD's doing, it gives people am4 apus, it lets them dump excess stock and it brought down the entry point to am4 (the whole bristol ridge line). But the flagship is better than 20 points, and even if the value wasn't great maybe having the A8-9600 in there would have been a good idea to show what value is in the line.
Show me one system that fits an A12-9800 and doesn't fit a discrete GPU and I'll concede the point. Not that it would make sense to spend such money and design for this chip, but I don't even believe you can buy something like this.
As for flagship models, they're worth buying, they're just not good value for money. If you want the best, you buy a flagship model. The A12-9800, on the other hand, is not the best. It's the best of Bristol Ridge, but Bristol Ridge is, in comparison with anything that's not an APU, pretty bad. For $20 more you can get a much better gaming combo (with Bristol Ridge). There's no rational reason to buy this particular APU, and all your arguments pretty much boil down to 'maybe there's a system where you can't use anything better', without actually showing that such a thing exists.
I'm not sure why you keep defending it. I understand that you're angry with the 20/100 score, but as I've said before, if you can buy an APU that plays games nearly as well for $40 less, and a CPU+GPU combo for $20 more that performs much better in games, then the A12-9800 just isn't something worth buying.
My point was that integrated GPU solutions always take less space than discrete GPU solutions. And so, if one is planning to build integrated GPU solution for AM4, it's impossible to test it without integrated GPU. There are currently very few AM4 systems without discrete GPU for obvious reasons.
And? if you need integrated GPU solution, faster options for gaming on $100 price range are:
So I really expect Raven Ridge will get at most 50/100 because discrete GPU is still faster. This solution is easily best integrated GPU solution for gaming on it's price range, not bad at all.
Here I list every integrated GPU solutions that are worth buying if comparison is against CPU+GPU combo:
Pretty empty list again.
Nobody needs an integrated GPU solution. That's pretty much the point. It's useful if you don't need gaming (or other GPU processing tasks), otherwise it's a compromise. An integrated GPU solution may be useful if it saves space, but you can't save space with the A12-9800! An integrated solution may be useful if it saves money, but the A12-9800 is at a particularly bad performance/price place.
I'm still not able to comprehend why you're pretending that there's any constellation where an A12-9800 is useful when you can't show a single real world case where it would make sense to buy it.
G4560, if you don't need gaming, or have low demands for gaming (it does pretty well for casual gaming).
A8-9600, if you're interested in gaming but can't afford (or you're saving for) a discrete card, and looking for a future CPU upgrade.
These are pretty reasonable buys. Integrated GPU is a compromise. Sometimes you don't really need more, sometimes you just can't afford more at a particular point in time, but you always know that you get something less for your money. The point of an APU is getting something cheap. The A12-9800 fails this criterion. It's not expensive, but it's much closer in price to a discrete GPU solution than to the A8-9600, which is very close to it in performance.
Raven Ridge is an architecture, not a particular chip. Raven Ridge will likely be a good solution for mobile. But the case for an APU on desktop is a lot flimsier, because the main thing going for a desktop APU is price. So like with Bristol Ridge, price will determine whether Raven Ridge is worth it. Like Bristol Ridge, it might get lower scores because a much better discrete solution is available at a price that's not far off. I find that reasonable.
True, there are other considerations for an APU, such as power and space. If the top of the line Raven Ridge will have low enough power consumption and beat low profile low end discrete cards like the 1030, then there may be arguments for it. But that's just not the case for the A12-9800.
Last edited:
If nobody needs integrated GPU, then why AMD is putting quite powerful GPU into Raven Ridge? There are uses for integrated GPU's and you can save space with A12-9800 as it takes much less space than CPU + any discrete GPU.
Using this same logic, nobody would buy CPU like that one http://ark.intel.com/products/87718/Intel-Core-i7-5775R-Processor-6M-Cache-up-to-3_80-GHz
Yeah, it has "only" 65W TDP but price is also three times more than A12-9800 ($348.00). While you consider integrated GPU's useless, neither Microsoft, Sony, AMD or Intel does so.
Question was comparing integrated against CPU+GPU combo. Either of those have no match against even cheap discrete GPU when considering price/performance ratio.
A8-9600 is much better choice in terms of price/performance ratio, but as I already proved, buying flagship model never makes sense in terms of price/performance. So just bashing flagship model "for being too expensive" should apply to every flagship CPU models, something I haven't seen.
I'm here referring to desktop version of Raven Ridge, ie. AM4 Ryzen with GPU. For system builders APU's are great as Raven Ridge allows to make motherboard without chipset so it should be huge hit. So again I don't find reasonable to compare discrete GPU's against integrated ones, as integrated CPU's have some uses where discrete solutions just cannot compete.
I doubt Raven Ridge would beat low end discrete cards unless power consumption will be quote low. While I agree A12-9800 cannot compete with price against discrete solutions, it's still fastest integrated GPU solution for AM4 and also fastest integrated GPU solution for around $100 price range. So that's not total crap as 20/100 tries to say.
Because of mobile. Same as Bristol Ridge. Mobile is the largest market, and AMD needs a solution there. Bristol Ridge was optimised for mobile, that's why the A12-9800 is worse than the FM2+ APU's. This is an OEM market, where in general cost and marketing matters a lot more than performance, and Bristol Ridge and Stoney Ridge are good enough for that. But there are also frugal enthusiasts in the market for laptops, and Raven Ridge may be able to address them in a way that Bristol Ridge only does to an extent. APU's are also useful for OEM desktop systems, which is a smaller market than laptops, but is marketed at people who aren't performance conscious.
I think I'm at the point where I don't think I have much more to add to illuminate the picture more, which is usually where I stop responding to trolling.
Last edited:
Exactly. There are Bristol Ridge based APU's for mobile and they are actually not very bad choices. A12-9800 is also Bristol Ridge based so considering those, A12-9800 got low score here because 1. it's flagship model and thus overpriced, 2. discrete solutions are better and 3. it should be mobile part (not desktop).
Too bad 1. applies to every flagship CPU model, 2. applies to every integrated graphic solution and 3. there are very few integrated GPU solutions for AM4. Not much reasons remain for abysmal 20/100 score. So basically score is trying to say AMD should not have released any integrated GPU solutions for AM4 until Raven Ridge arrives. Less alternatives = better "(y)".
Some people can't afford to buy expensive pc from scratch. When buying case+psu+mb+ssd+ram+cooler it all adds up.
Last part of equation in my country is apu a8 9600 for 60$ or g4600 for same price(including difference in 1151 h110 and am4 b350 mb prices). I choose a8 from these 2 options so I can play some games right now with higher performance. And next month I will buy gtx 1050. Let's say I will lose like 10-15 fps in some games compared to g4600 + 1050. Who cares if it still smooth enough and replaced with ryzen next year.
Last part of equation in my country is apu a8 9600 for 60$ or g4600 for same price(including difference in 1151 h110 and am4 b350 mb prices). I choose a8 from these 2 options so I can play some games right now with higher performance. And next month I will buy gtx 1050. Let's say I will lose like 10-15 fps in some games compared to g4600 + 1050. Who cares if it still smooth enough and replaced with ryzen next year.
PierreJG
Posts: 6 +1
For me it goes about price to performance.I am busy setting up a pc for my friends kids.They range from 7-14 so I am looking to setup a pc with some old classics like we grew up with and some car/sports games.Now my Plan was to go with an i3 7100 but its 1k more expensive so I opted for the 9800.
First I can upgrade it later when we want to to Ryzen.I am just setting the benchmark so we can go big later.It's 1k cheaper and it has gpu so technically I am saving 2.3k in total.The kids won't need more than what this cpu will do.I am still sitting with an FX 4170k and people nag me to upgrade but it does exactly what I need it to.I will never use the full potential of a Ryzen.I may upgrade to ryzen 3 later but for now I am still good.
PS.I can still Run Rise of the tomb raider on this pc with an rx 550
First I can upgrade it later when we want to to Ryzen.I am just setting the benchmark so we can go big later.It's 1k cheaper and it has gpu so technically I am saving 2.3k in total.The kids won't need more than what this cpu will do.I am still sitting with an FX 4170k and people nag me to upgrade but it does exactly what I need it to.I will never use the full potential of a Ryzen.I may upgrade to ryzen 3 later but for now I am still good.
PS.I can still Run Rise of the tomb raider on this pc with an rx 550
Similar threads
- Locked
