Let's talk about APU's

[cheezewhisperer]

Just watched a video by Linus:

and at 6:13 he is saying in a nutshell that AMD's apu outperforms an i7-4770k.

At least that's what I gather from the info there.

 

I'm promptly confused in some things and would like some feedback.
1: I was about to buy a i7 4770k, but a a10-7850K AND a8-7600 both out-perform it?
2: So instead of going Intel(I'm currently AMD) and getting "MOAR POWA" instead of "Bang for Buck".......I'm actually better off going AMD again for more power AND bang for buck?
3: Linus says it lacks in the cpu dept cuz of the gpu added to it but i-series "cpus" are already doing this so they're basically apu's too right? OR that an apu is what intels have been for a while?
4: Doesn't that mean that Intel i3-i7 have just as much cpu power as the new AMD apu's?
5: So, as of now, the "winner" in the cpu-socket dept is AMD?
It just seems to me that Intel hasn't done much being revolutionary as AMD has.

Btw all this has NOTHING to do with dedicated gpu's, that's for another topic lol. I'm just trying to understand the new market with these apu's coming out.
 

PLEASE correct me if I'm wrong and thank you for answering any of my questions.

[SAV1OUR]

linus is talking about the graphics power of the APU the graphics from the apu would do better then that of the 4770k's but with a gpu the 4770k would do better 

[brownninja97]

Just watched a video by Linus:

and at 6:13 he is saying in a nutshell that AMD's apu outperforms an i7-4770k.

At least that's what I gather from the graph there.

 

I'm promptly confused in some things and would like some feedback.

1: I was about to buy a i7 4770k, but a a10-7850K AND a8-7600 both out-perform it?

2: So instead of going Intel(I'm currently AMD) and getting "MOAR POWA" instead of "Bang for Buck".......I'm actually better off going AMD again for more power AND bang for buck?

3: Linus says it lacks in the cpu dept cuz of the gpu added to it but i-series "cpus" are already doing this so they're basically apu's too right? OR that an apu is what intels have been for a while?

4: Doesn't that mean that both Intel i3-i7 have just as much cpu power as the new AMD apu's?

5: So, as of now, the "winner" in the cpu-socket dept is AMD?

It just seems to me that Intel hasn't done much being revolutionary as AMD has.

Btw all this has NOTHING to do with dedicated gpu's, that's for another topic lol. I'm just trying to understand the new market with these apu's coming out.

 

PLEASE correct me if I'm wrong and thank you for answering any of my questions.

Amds intergrated gpu is superior to the i7 or intels altogether, however and this is a big however, the i7 and i5 in other programs and performance with a gpu completely destroys the apus, its one hell of a beat down, general rule of thumb is that if you will get a gpu then dont get a apu.

[Goldilock]

it is good for multi monitor user in budget.

[ShadowCaptain]

The AMD APUs dedicated roughly 50% of the CPU to graphical tasks, lets say you build 2 PCs, one with an AMD APU, one with an i7 4770k, and loaded up a game. Graphically the AMD APU would perform better. However anything processor related will be much slower, so general performance is worse. Then if you upgrade that PC to have a dedicated graphics card, the i7 will smash the APU, because now 50% of the APU is being unused, you just have a slow CPU

 

Unless you only need basic graphics, or are on a very strict budget, APUs do not make much sense for an enthusiast build

 

Edit: also yes some intel CPUs are essentially APUs too, especially those ris pro graphics, in same cases it is actually as powerful as the AMD APUs,-  however processors like the 4670k, and 4770k only have the lower end integrated gpu like the 4400  

[cheezewhisperer]

linus is talking about the graphics power of the APU the graphics from the apu would do better then that of the 4770k's but with a gpu the 4770k would do better 

I get what you're saying, AMD apu is better than 4770k with onboard graphics, but 4770k outperforms the apu if it works with a discreet graphics card. That doesn't make much sense to me tho. If they were side by side with onboard alone, and the apu works better, shouldn't the apu outperform the 4770k more with a discreet graphics card?

[SAV1OUR]

I get what you're saying, AMD apu is better than 4770k with onboard graphics, but 4770k outperforms the apu if it works with a discreet graphics card. That doesn't make much sense to me tho. If they were side by side with onboard alone, and the apu works better, shouldn't the apu outperform the 4770k more with a discreet graphics card?

the 4770k will do better with a gpu 

the apu will do better without a gpu 

[Mooshi]

To be blunt, Intel's built in graphics suck..a lot.

[cheezewhisperer]

The AMD APUs dedicated roughly 50% of the CPU to graphical tasks, lets say you build 2 PCs, one with an AMD APU, one with an i7 4770k, and loaded up a game. Graphically the AMD APU would perform better. However anything processor related will be much slower, so general performance is worse. Then if you upgrade that PC to have a dedicated graphics card, the i7 will smash the APU, because now 50% of the APU is being unused, you just have a slow CPU

 

Unless you only need basic graphics, or are on a very strict budget, APUs do not make much sense for an enthusiast build

 

Edit: also yes some intel CPUs are essentially APUs too, especially those ris pro graphics, in same cases it is actually as powerful as the AMD APUs,-  however processors like the 4670k, and 4770k only have the lower end integrated gpu like the 4400  

Isn't that the same for Intel i-series? When coupled with a discreet gpu, the apu/intel wouldn't use half of it's assets?

From what I gather, ur saying that a 4770k is better suited for computing heavy tasks more-so than gpu tasks, and AMD's apu is vice versa?

And that is why a 4770k would be better than a apu cuz it'd be a cpu intensive device coupled with a discreet gpu for the gpu intensive stuff?

[cheezewhisperer]

To be blunt, Intel's built in graphics suck..a lot.

I hear ya, so the Intel's are better processors for processing not so much for graphics, but the apu is better for graphics and not so much processing correct?

[ShadowCaptain]

Isn't that the same for Intel i-series? When coupled with a discreet gpu, the apu/intel wouldn't use half of it's assets?

From what I gather, ur saying that a 4770k is better suited for computing heavy tasks more-so than gpu tasks, and AMD's apu is vice versa?

And that is why a 4770k would be better than a apu cuz it'd be a cpu intensive device coupled with a discreet gpu for the gpu intensive stuff?

 

No because very little of an intel CPU is used for graphics, in some APUs it is over 50% of the chip

 

When we say APUs are better for graphics, they are still rubbish, barely capable of playing games at medium settings at 720p, 

[Izaya Orihara]

I hear ya, so the Intel's are better processors for processing not so much for graphics, but the apu is better for graphics and not so much processing correct?

Yes. 

[LukaP]

I hear ya, so the Intel's are better processors for processing not so much for graphics, but the apu is better for graphics and not so much processing correct?

Intel has muuuuuuch more powerfull cpu cores (2-3 times as powerful) so its way better at 90% of the tasks its going to do, but intels integrated gpu is rubbish when it comes to games.

Amd on the other hand has 50% of the cpu die dedicated to a graphics procesor that uses the same arch as their discrete solutions, but their cpu cores are much weaker in comparison to intels.

This means that for gaming on only the chip, an apu will do better, but as soon as you add a discrete gpu the intel cpu will beat it in just about everything.

But if you are a designer/editor/we, then even without the gpu, the intel cpu will win as its just better at rendering and other compute tasks.

And to the Hsa argument. As long as intel doesnt implement it as well (which will be never, since their gpus just aren't powerful enough) there will not ve many commercial products/software that will utilise it, since intel controls such a large percent of the market.

[harrynowl]

Well if you can afford a 4770K and a good discreet graphics card (R9 290, GTX780) than that's still a much better option than the APU.

 

If you intended to use onboard graphics, APU wins.

 

Also in a few years time the onboard R7 GPU built into the APU could be leveraged for compute task, that's capable of many more FLOPS than a traditional CPU and could in theory, be a lot faster.

[Opcode]

Just watched a video by Linus:

and at 6:13 he is saying in a nutshell that AMD's apu outperforms an i7-4770k.

At least that's what I gather from the info there.

 

I'm promptly confused in some things and would like some feedback.

1: I was about to buy a i7 4770k, but a a10-7850K AND a8-7600 both out-perform it?

2: So instead of going Intel(I'm currently AMD) and getting "MOAR POWA" instead of "Bang for Buck".......I'm actually better off going AMD again for more power AND bang for buck?

3: Linus says it lacks in the cpu dept cuz of the gpu added to it but i-series "cpus" are already doing this so they're basically apu's too right? OR that an apu is what intels have been for a while?

4: Doesn't that mean that Intel i3-i7 have just as much cpu power as the new AMD apu's?

5: So, as of now, the "winner" in the cpu-socket dept is AMD?

It just seems to me that Intel hasn't done much being revolutionary as AMD has.

Btw all this has NOTHING to do with dedicated gpu's, that's for another topic lol. I'm just trying to understand the new market with these apu's coming out.

 

PLEASE correct me if I'm wrong and thank you for answering any of my questions.

1. The i7-4770k is the flagship of Intel's 8 series chipset, no chip from AMD's desktop platform (AM3+) can compare to it (other than the FX-8320+ in heavy threaded number crunching workloads).
2. AMD does hold good value, tho it depends on what the intentions of the machine are. You can get a Haswell i3 for what it would cost for a FX-8320, and it will out perform even the FX-8350 in gaming more than 80% of the time.
3. It lacks in the CPU department simply because AMD opted for a large portion of the die to be dedicated to the iGPU. This forced AMD to remove components that are critical to CPU performance such as L3 cache which takes up a lot of die space. It was either remove L3, or cut back on core count. A dual core APU isn't appealing to a budget gaming enthusiast, plus the two extra cores offers more performance than the L3 cache could ever account for. Technically the "i" series processors from Intel are APU's in their own retrospect, tho Intel simply doesn't call them a "APU".
4. No, the i3-i7 series provide much more grunt CPU power than AMD APU's.
5. AMD is currently the "winner" in the APU department. Providing both decent CPU and GPU power on the same chip. Tho they still lack core performance, which even today is driving AMD's budget value into the ground (unlocked Pentium is coming soon).

To answer all of your questions with one answer in layman's terms. Intel is the king of IPC, they provide the best CPU performance you can get on the market right now. AMD is the king of APU's, they provide the best graphics performance on the market that's packed together with a CPU. Tho in the real world, a G3220 and a R7 260X would offer better gaming performance than a A10-7850k while costing the same price.

 

If you were going to buy a i7-4770k then you might wanna specify what your intentions are with it and how much you plan on spending to accomplish them intentions.

[ShadowCaptain]

What Opcode said 

 

also if you fancy a read

http://www.anandtech.com/show/7677/amd-kaveri-review-a8-7600-a10-7850k/12

 

a good look at amds latest kaveri APU as you can see even a low end card couple with a "normal" cpu edges way ahead of the APU pack, also some intels integrated graphics do an ok job here too - but they are priced MUCH higher than the amd APUs

[Paralectic]

I don't think there are valid reasons to put an APU in a desktop without a discrete GPU.

[cheezewhisperer]

Ok thanks very much for all the info everyone!

I know now that hands down Intel is better for my needs since I already own a Radeon 7970. I thought that the apu would work better xfire/sli better than just 4770k but that 4770k just blows the apu away with a discreet gpu lol.

[LukaP]

Ok thanks very much for all the info everyone!

I know now that hands down Intel is better for my needs since I already own a Radeon 7970. I thought that the apu would work better xfire/sli better than just 4770k but that 4770k just blows the apu away with a discreet gpu lol.

Yes get a intel cpu. Just one more advice, IF you are only gaming, get a 4670k, it will save you money while not at all reduce performance

[cheezewhisperer]

Yes get a intel cpu. Just one more advice, IF you are only gaming, get a 4670k, it will save you money while not at all reduce performance

If I had Google Chrome, Pandora, about 1 or two other apps, AND a game running at the same time.....wouldn't I be better off with a chip with better multithread performance like 4770k?

[LukaP]

If I had Google Chrome, Pandora, about 1 or two other apps, AND a game running at the same time.....wouldn't I be better off with a chip with better multithread performance like 4770k?

Yeah you would. My case was for a gaming only machine

[SkilledRebuilds]

I don't think there are valid reasons to put an APU in a desktop without a discrete GPU.

I agree, I still rock the Sandy bridge i3+iGPU for my HTPC. Because I need no more, when video encoding I was thinking maybe get a new platform (Fm2+)

Then the new APU's dropped.. No point doing a side/down-grade. Especially on the fact that you can pick up 2nd-3rd generation i3 & i5 Intel CPU's around 2ndhand for peanuts (at times) , and they still outperform most AMD CPU's these days.

[cheezewhisperer]

Yeah you would. My case was for a gaming only machine

Thanks for the advice. I'm no poweruser so I might consider the 4670k just for it being like $100 cheaper. For that price difference, I could turn off some stuff lol

[LukaP]

Thanks for the advice. I'm no poweruser so I might consider the 4670k just for it being like $100 cheaper. For that price difference, I could turn off some stuff lol

Yeah for a 100$ you could get a nice ssd aleady hehe

[TERAFLOP]

1. The i7-4770k is the flagship of Intel's 8 series chipset, no chip from AMD's desktop platform (AM3+) can compare to it (other than the FX-8320+ in heavy threaded number crunching workloads).
2. AMD does hold good value, tho it depends on what the intentions of the machine are. You can get a Haswell i3 for what it would cost for a FX-8320, and it will out perform even the FX-8350 in gaming more than 80% of the time. <------ This is simply not true
3. It lacks in the CPU department simply because AMD opted for a large portion of the die to be dedicated to the iGPU. This forced AMD to remove components that are critical to CPU performance such as L3 cache which takes up a lot of die space. It was either remove L3, or cut back on core count. A dual core APU isn't appealing to a budget gaming enthusiast, plus the two extra cores offers more performance than the L3 cache could ever account for. Technically the "i" series processors from Intel are APU's in their own retrospect, tho Intel simply doesn't call them a "APU".
4. No, the i3-i7 series provide much more grunt CPU power than AMD APU's.
5. AMD is currently the "winner" in the APU department. Providing both decent CPU and GPU power on the same chip. Tho they still lack core performance, which even today is driving AMD's budget value into the ground (unlocked Pentium is coming soon).

To answer all of your questions with one answer in layman's terms. Intel is the king of IPC, they provide the best CPU performance you can get on the market right now. AMD is the king of APU's, they provide the best graphics performance on the market that's packed together with a CPU. Tho in the real world, a G3220 and a R7 260X would offer better gaming performance than a A10-7850k while costing the same price.

 

If you were going to buy a i7-4770k then you might wanna specify what your intentions are with it and how much you plan on spending to accomplish them intentions.

Game developers chose the FX 8350 over not simply an i3 but an i5 3570K.

https://linustechtips.com/main/topic/10522-game-developers-choose-amd-over-intel-for-gaming/

Most recent games already list the AMD 8 core CPUs (FX 8000 series) in their recommended specifications.

http://www.ign.com/articles/2014/04/07/watch-dogs-recommended-specs-revealed

http://www.polygon.com/2014/1/20/5326664/thief-pc-system-requirements-released

The FX 8320 which costs the same as an i3 4330 is twice as powerful and is unlocked for overclocking which allows you to clock it to FX 8350 speeds on the stock cooler without spending any extra on cooling and simply by changing one setting in your motherboard, while the i3 is completely locked.

http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=AMD+FX-8320+Eight-Core

http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=AMD+FX-8350+Eight-Core

http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=Intel+Core+i3-4330+%40+3.50GHz

You also need to remember the game console connection. Developers make games for the consoles then port them to the PC. Well what's interesting now that the console hardware is AMD based and you can pretty much buy the equivalent of this hardware in any pc store.

This means that by simply opting for an AMD platform you're going to get all the console optimization benefits giving AMD hardware an edge.

http://linustechtips.com/main/topic/42309-amd-cpus-will-gain-performance-boosts-due-to-next-gen-consoles-according-to-john-carmack/