BF3 Gpu comparison

A4-5300 is a very entry-level CPU, though it has higher freq it still be beaten by Pentium G620 or G2020. Its IGP, 7480D, is just like a HD 6470 with higher memory bandwidth. So u won't get on well on BF3 even in lowest settings 'cause this game is GPU intensive.

I'm afraid that u may have to upgrade at least your CPU to Athlon X4 740/750K and then a strong GPU to play this game. Could u provide the spec of your mobo and PSU?

if your cpu isn't powerful enough, it doesn't matter what video card you get - it will always be waiting for the CPU to catch up. that cpu seems to be limited to 15-20fps. if you get a better cpu, it will be your video card that will be limiting the fps, but hopefully they will be in the region of 40-60fps.

I'm afraid I have to agree with the others, a dual core A4-5300 is going to struggle with Battlefield 3. Primarily though, the GT 620 is very slightly better than the HD7840D, but both are *way* underpowered for BF3. A GT 640/650 or AMD 7750 would be an absolute minimum really.

Unfortunately I can't predict quite how much of a bottleneck your CPU is but you could try opening task manager in the background and tab out when playing and see what the CPU usage graph looks like? Playing BF3 I would expect both cores on an A4-5300 to be maxed out. You could try using GPU-Z to do the same thing for GPU usage as well, using both of those you might get an idea where the bottleneck is but I wouldn't take any findings as 100% accurate..

Good analysis and examples. But most of the games in testing are GPU-intensive though and I bet this guy won't spend so much on GPU like a HD 7950.

To keep his rig in pace it still needs a decent enough CPU.

I agree, the choice of games is too skewed towards the GPU.
Anyway, his choices are:
1) Stick with current parts and just play games it can handle.
2) Spend a little more for a better graphics card (disable the APU's GPU).
3) Buy a new PC.

Not much he can do to replace the CPU as I believe it's an FM2 socket so he'd have to buy another APU I believe. APU's are great if that's all you need, but not a good idea for gaming.

@photonboy: not exactly. Athlon II x4 740/750k is designed for a FM2 socket and removed the GPU (Can be considered a A8-5500/5600k without 7560D GPU). He could choose them if he won't change his mobo. And then pair with a HD 7750 GPU

A4-5300 isn't a good idea. He could have chosen A8/A10 to get a moderate IGP. Also, RAM matters esp. for A8/A10's IGP. I'm not sure if this guy's rig enables dual-channel memory 'cause obviously he uses 2 different memory sticks.

Just because your socket is likely FM2, does NOT mean it will support any FM2-capable CPU. You will absolutely need to contact the manufacturer to see what CPU/APU's are compatible. In some cases this requires a BIOS update BEFORE you swap APU/CPU's.

If you have an all-in-one solution, I'm not sure what GRAPHICS options you have either. Even if certain cards fit, your PSU is likely not easily upgradable.

Upgradability seems to be a problem. Basically you have a computer that is meant for non-gaming tasks and not really meant to be upgraded.

One option MAY be to get the best APU possible, the A10-6800K. Again though, you have to check for:
a) compatibility (see manufacturer)
b) Power Supply can handle any upgrade (usually all-in-one's have an adequate PSU only for the shipped parts)

I tested Torchlight on my sister's HD6450 just for fun, and I considered that barely playable at the lowest settings. Torchlight is NOT a very demanding game. The HD6450 is slightly BETTER than your iGPU at about 1.25x at the same frequency (based on texture unit number). So, not a lot of games I can recommend for the A4-5300 unfortunately.

But it's an AIO, guys. This dude should have told us first. 'cause AIO means no upgrade solution. He may need to build a new rig to satisfy his need.

I agree, and discussed that above.
However, he somehow added a different graphics card. Unless he builds a new PC, I think his cheapest solution is the A10-6800K (if supported, again discussed).

*My advice is to consider getting a PS4. You've got a nice non-gaming PC which will cost a minimum of $150 to upgrade and even then it's barely adequate for many games as you can see here for the A10-6800K:
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/amd-a10-6800k_6.html#sect0

The PS4 really is awesome. At $400 it should provide game quality similar to a $1000 PC especially once the new architecture is better utilized.

PS4 Cons:
- game prices higher
($60 new; $40 used roughly) compared to Steam's discounts (no info on Gaiki PS3 titles once that gets running via cloud streaming)
- Many Mouse/Keyboard style games won't be available (like StarCraft 2)
- some monitors won't support it (I believe you need an HDMI input, possibly with HDCP support)
(Does your AIO support a compatible video input? DVI might also be optional if you can support separate audio but can't say until released).
- optional: $60 PS Plus required for playing online multi-player (I think that's reasonable though to support the cost)
- optional: $60 for the PS EYE if that's something you want (XBOX ONE is $100 more but the Kinect is included)
- not a full PC for non-gaming tasks (but you've got one already)

PS4 Pros:
- low cost versus PC
- no upgrade costs
- no tweaking and other software issues. Just works.
- MUCH BETTER than basic specs (such as GPU) would suggest.
- Video sharing easy.
- BluRay/DVD support for movies
(probably 48Hz/2D, 96Hz/3D with a software upgrade for titles like The Hobbit and future titles)
- 4K picture support (video too?)
- "always on" standby mode for fast start, offline downloads
- no Internet requirement to play single player games
- much smaller and quieter than similarly performing PC

People will argue "it's a medium PC only" etc, but you simply can't build a comparable PC Gaming rig for the price. Take off $60 for the controller and $100 to replace a standalone 3D BluRay player and that's $240 to build a PC that may even match a rig with a GTX770 (a $420 graphics card) for well optimized games. Not kidding there, but we'll have to wait until it's released for more info. The 8GB of Shared RAM and tweaked AMD GPU will be key factors, though the GPU will probably take a few years before it's fully optimized.

(A 48Hz/96Hz 3D BluRay player doesn't exist AFAIK yet. They may easily start at $200 when released).

SUMMARY:
If a PS4 sounds doable, then I highly recommend it. As a computer technician I have a very good idea of its capabilities and I'm really impressed.

I'm buying a PS4 even though I have a great GTX680 rig. I have way too many games thanks to Steam sales (at $5 or $10 I'd say "I'll get my money's worth" but now I have no time to play those games ever), but I will buy a couple for when I want to sit in the living room on the couch; I don't yet have a BluRay player and the one I want is an LG with great media support and USB HDD input but it's $225 over half way to a PS4 (though I have to wait to see if the PS4 supports MKV etc which you can just guess how I got). The XBOX ONE is also interesting, but I estimate it's gaming performance to be about 75% that of the PS4. Microsoft has some interesting ideas with the high number of CLOUD servers, Kinect, and Satellite/Cable passthrough but none of these interest me much.

I absolutely wouldn't buy a PS4 if I didn't need a standalone BluRay player and still might not, but if my MKV etc files work I'm sold. (My sister has kids and I told her to look at the XBOX ONE in 2015 to see if any good Kinect educational software exists.)

**Please don't start FLAMING ME here. I'm just listing the facts. I really do think it's pointless to upgrade his AIO PC. Other than building an expensive PC, I think the PS4 is a really good alternative for all the points above.**

Impressive man. I am getting out of date now (I still keep a 12-yr laptop though it remains unplayable). U next gen guys will take full advantage with next gen gamings, I believe.