can this pc run crysis 3 multiplayer on a 1080p and wat games can i play with this?? thank you

No.
The HD8570 is a fairly low-end graphics card. It might be able to play Crysis 3 on lower quality settings and if so you'd be better off lowering the resolution to 1280x720 or at most 1600x900.

You really should look at DIFFERENT games though. My advice is try a bunch of DEMOS from Steam to get a feel for what you can handle.

The ORANGE BOX for example is a pretty good deal through Steam (HL2 + EP1,2 + TF + Portal) and would probably run okay on your setup.

I recommend turning VSYNC OFF for most games and tweaking the quality to get about 40FPS.

APUs are made for LOW COST, LOW POWER, LOW USE (performance) systems, for example help grandma get facebook. They are NOT made for 'Gaming Rigs'. No you can't "upgrade" it either, you have to get a new PC, because you have to replace the Mobo to use a different CPU (i.e. FX-8xxx).

APUs (A6,A8, A10) target market was for tablets and other portable devices. Why on earth some companies believe they should use them in desktop PCs I haven't a clue EXCEPT to be a cheap way to upgrade people from their 2005-2009 PCs that are finally dying.

Disregard the entire quoted / above comment, some people just have to hate.

An APU based system was not made for phones and tablets and they can play most non-twitch games without issue. While they won't blow your mind with eye dazzling graphics, they will entertain your for endless hours on the cheap as long as you don't expect to play demanding titles at high resolution with lots of eye candy.

As for "upgrading." Your system has a stand alone video card already (HD 8570), that can be replaced if you can quantify spending the $'s for a better video card.

See the review/comparison here. Your system's video card is now know as the R7-240 for reference.
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/radeon-r7-240-and-250,3717-2.html

The short answer is yes it will play crysis 3 at 1080P, but you might not like the results.

To check what games the 8570 / R7-240 meet the requirements of try futuremark's "Games" page for your video card.

http://www.futuremark.com/hardware/gpu/AMD+Radeon+HD+8570M/games
http://www.futuremark.com/hardware/gpu/AMD+Radeon+R7+240/games

Happy Gaming!

Dale: No I am not hating, I am providing exactly as it stated by AMD and by actual testing of the APU, video card or not, the APU itself will be the choke point be it a 8570 or a R9 or a Titan.

First off if you follow the links of the Wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AMD_Accelerated_Processing_Unit) you will see where the origins and design started and still focused on. Now while given AMD does say it also is used for desktops and supposed gaming (think they legally have put themselves in a bind like back when the 'comptuers' were supposed to be able to run 'Vista' when they couldn't) http://www.amd.com/us/solutions/desktops/Pages/desktops.aspx when actually put the test it hardly is in the 'spirit' of the statement.

http://www.hardwaresecrets.com/article/A10-5800K-vs-Core-i3-3220-CPU-Review/1646/19
"You have to understand, however, that depending on the game, you won’t be able to achieve a good frame rate (i.e., a good gaming experience) even when lowering all image quality settings to their minimums. From the games we ran, we achieved a terrific frame rate on StarCraft II (almost 80 frames
per second), a good frame rate on FarCry 2 (around 40 frames per second), and a playable frame rate on DiRT3 (36 frames per second). However, on Battlefield 3 and Borderlands 2 the frame rate was below 20. ...Similarly to what we learned with the previous generation of AMD APUs, the A10-5800K lags behind its competitors in general processing performance. The Core i3-3220 is faster than the A10-5800K for day-to-day operations." **NOTE THE GAMES TESTED AND WHEN THEY WERE RELEASE**

As mentioned in other threads, APUs are great if your gonna play 2009 and older games, the demands won't push on the 'CPU' half of the APU. Remember a computer stores code on the HDD, to be read in chunks by the RAM to be passed to the CPU to process and assign the specific hardware to utilize that code. So even if you got a R9/Titan and plugged it in, you have a 5400RPM HDD you will take forever to load chunks of data BEFORE the RAM gets it. If your running slow / cheap RAM it takes longer for it to gather the HDD passed code BEFORE the CPU gets it. Then the CPU has to process and decide 'what happens to this code' (does it make music, does it pass over the NIC, does it need rendering, etc.) ALL BEFORE the R9/Titan/8570/whatever gets a chance to do rendering.

Hence why games played after 2010 require more 'meater' CPUs like the FX line, or iCore, NOT the APUs. I was VERY disappointed that CES and E3 all AMD came out with was more APUs instead of a better challenge to the Haswell chipset. Current scores ACROSS ALL TESTS shows that the most expensive AMD CPU (FX-8350) is JUST in front of the 'low end' i3 Haswell and behind the i5 Haswell, and still nothing challenging i7s. Unless they come up with a HyperThread-like solution, I feat AMD has give in and no longer interested in this marketspace (given that some major companies have stopped making Consumer PCs now, I dont' blame them either).

In addition, the A10 6700 is a decent quad core on par with an Athlon 750k so after a little GPU upgrade you'll see much better results in games at 1080p

The new GTX 750/750 Ti cards should technically work well with that 300W OEM PSU given their low power consumption, though you could always get a beefier PSU and GPU at the same time

In short, no that current setup is a little too weak for Crysis 3 at 1080p regardless of how low you tone the settings down, with a decent GPU and maybe PSU upgrade, you should see decent results at higher settings

The only APUs I would trust with running any game well at low settings 1080p would be the Kaveri chips

whats the point of this build?
apu with hd 8570

not at all good 1

Prebuilt systems, what else can you say? :lol:

just to squeeze money out of us

the others are pretty much right. This is a weaksause system, which won't game well at 1080p. It can game SOME at 1080p... but they sorta ripped you even sticking that gpu into the system and then likely charging you for it. The on chip graphics of the APU are about as good as the video card... and dual graphics doesn't really work with that a10-6700.

As for the folks talking about the chip being a "bottleneck" that's not really true. In a single gpu system at 1080p there is almost no droppoff in using that a10 if you were to get a new gpu. Don't let the fanboys get you down. It's not an amazing cpu, but it's good enough to game in 1080p... with a better gpu.

The real trick is the power supply. Your system has a 300W power supply, this sorta limits you to low power gpus. Assuming you don't want to buy a new PSU, i would suggest you look long and hard at one of the new nvidia 750ti gpus to replace that 8570.

You should not buy this computer if you want to play games on it.

Well you could add in a new PSU and GPU for under $400, that CPU will hold back this GPU in many games, but it's still a world of difference

Bear in mind this PSU is usually more expensive, should still add together to be around $300 or so normally

PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant / Benchmarks

Video Card: Asus GeForce GTX 760 2GB Video Card ($239.99 @ Newegg)
Power Supply: XFX 550W 80+ Bronze Certified ATX Power Supply ($25.99 @ Newegg)
Total: $265.98
(Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available.)
(Generated by PCPartPicker 2014-02-21 22:27 EST-0500)

Hold back in what way? That cpu will hit 60fps at 1080p with a 760in pretty much every game on the market on ultra settings (yes, yes, i know crysis3 you'll have to turn the settings down to high to get there but still). Its what you'd call "good enough". Now if the OP has a 1080p monitor with 120hz refresh rate then we can start to have discussion about "holding" back the gpu.

I probably should have phrased it better, hold it back a little rather than hold back (wouldn't have recommended it if it would actually "bottleneck" much, I'm not that stupid) :lol:

I never said significantly, but compared to a modern i3 or i5 it definitely will hold it back a fair bit in CPU intensive games or games which rely heavily on single threaded performance (namely MMOs, and others such as Arma, DayZ, Skyrim and Metro, for instance will be a pretty big difference, as well as shoddily optimized games like AC3 and AC4), in most other games it will be a small difference for now at least

Regardless of CPU Crysis 3 will still bring a 760 to its knees on very high settings (high settings looks amazing enough as it is anyway), but since this topic was about Crysis 3, it will hold it back a bit, though thankfully Crysis 3 has some decent CPU scaling (the 6700 would be a little more powerful than the 4170 and Phenom and the 680 is roughly 15% quicker than a stock 760)

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/crysis-3-performance-benchmark-gaming,3451-8.html

It's what I'd call the sweet spot and the maximum I'd recommend for that CPU, I didn't actually mean it in the traditional "hurr durr bottleneck big time" that most people like to throw around, just worse results than its Intel equivalents for many games

Though good thing we're getting more multithreaded games, it gives OEM buyers a chance at gaming at least

I dunno maybe my viewpoint is skewed, I am looking at it like a investment "FORWARD". So if I am going to plunk down hundreds of hard earned dollars into a PC rather then just buying a console (where you have NONE of these issues and will work a decade later on the 'newest' titles without any upgrade necessary - See PS3/360s!) then I should be looking at not just OLD games that it can play, but what it can play today and forward.

I mean, BF4/CODGhosts/AC4/HM Absolution/ etc. are '2013' games, we are in 2014, and by this time next year (2015) these will be 'very old titles' just as much as BF2/COD4MW3 and so on are very old titles now. But in 2015 would I honestly be recommending a Nvidia 6xxx card and a i3-3xxx CPU because they can play the games at 'playable' low settings. Which brings up another point.

If I am going to spend $400 or $800, I think how this will be useful when BF5 comes out, or maybe BF6 will this be 'playable'. My/Average Joe Consumer 'playable' is normally based on the Youtube/Advert gameplay video performance and visual details we see, so normally at least 45FPS, 1080P and HIGH graphics levels as the 'standard'. I REFUSE to accept crapping down to 720p/1024x768/etc. Low settings to achieve better then 15FPS as a "PLAYABLE" standard MANY forum posters believe is fine enough. WHY on EARTH would I accept that when for less then $200 I can get a console that plays the SAME GAME HELL BETTER visually then that? Makes no economical sense to me.

SO my recommendations are on these basis, what is the best dollar value, best 'standard Joe Consumer expected gameplay', and not necessarily futureproof, but will be playable going forward. Realistically for any older games a simple $249 i3 PC from Walmart, toss in cheap GPU and then the PSU to support it and most 'old' games are (as mentioned) perfectly fine for very little cost. But then if that is what your playing, that is still MORE expensive then buying a PS3/360 console for less then $200 and have many MORE titles not available to the PC and never ever have to worry about any of these issues, if your worried about playing 'old titles'.