Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Solved

APU vs CPU + GPU Build & loss in CPU performance?

Last response: in CPUs
Share
April 17, 2014 3:34:27 AM

Background:

This is a first time build just for fun and my own personal project, wont be used for gaming but could potentially dabble in a bit of PC Gaming in the future but nothing crazy. I don't know to much about GPUs and CPUs but i am picking it up daily. And will be using this build to just simply learn more.

Goal:

To build a machine for quick calculations (floating points) and be used for light security testing ie on systems I will be developing.

Enquiry:

Since this build isnt something urgent and isnt really a MUST but rather just a personal project where ill throw 500-600 into a build. I was thinking of using a APU instead of a CPU & GPU for AWHILE until i finish my studies then buy a GPU later along side with the APU.

or should I

Just go with just a CPU and GPU and not waste my time?

These are the 2 products ive been looking at being the starting point of my build (CPU & APU)..

CPU:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...

APU:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...

**EDIT**
Pretty much i am asking is does this APU perform the same if not better than this CPU even though it has integrated graphics? and in future if adding a decent GPU with the APU be the same if not better performance than having the CPU and GPU together?


Thanks in advanced :) 

a b à CPUs
April 17, 2014 4:09:30 AM

I'll just put a quick reply:

Link

Personally a "NO" for both CPU's... indeed if the goal is a machine for pure calculations then Intel had both faster and energy efficient CPU's. But it really depends what is that gonna be used for and do you actually need so much "horsepower", maybe the price range can be a variable in this puzzle thus putting those AMD CPU's as an option.
m
0
l

Best solution

a b à CPUs
April 17, 2014 5:03:33 AM

Ra_V_en said:
I'll just put a quick reply:

Link

Personally a "NO" for both CPU's... indeed if the goal is a machine for pure calculations then Intel had both faster and energy efficient CPU's. But it really depends what is that gonna be used for and do you actually need so much "horsepower", maybe the price range can be a variable in this puzzle thus putting those AMD CPU's as an option.


Actually that might not be the case in this situation, the OP specifically said he wants a processor to perform floating point calculations. This is something that GPU cores are particularly good at, therefore an APU processor should in theory (depending on the software coding of course) perform significantly better. Also (again depending on the software) the current crop of AMD APU's have strong GPU performance than the Intel counterparts. Floating point calculations is actually one of the things AMD actually excels at over Intel generally.

So to answer your question I would suggest (on the limited information) to go with the A series chip over the Athlon.
Share
Related resources
a b à CPUs
April 17, 2014 5:08:01 AM

LOL might have to make an instant retraction on that, just looking at some benchmarks and the I3-4330 smashes the A10 at floating point calculations according to CPU world!
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
April 17, 2014 5:08:42 AM

Although in my defence the A10 is about 15% faster at floating point calcs than the 750k :D 
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
April 17, 2014 5:19:18 AM

GPU cores are GPU cores and as far as some dedicated software doesn't use OPENCL, CUDA or other fancy API layer there is no use of that horsepower.. so again look at CPU hierarchy chart and see yourself... A few years old C2Quad has similar potential than those AMD's
m
0
l
!