A10 5800k vs. i3 3225

[nekko]

I am looking at building a new HTPC. It will NOT be used for gaming. Simply watching Blu Rays and sharing ripped movies from my computer to my PS3 in another room as well (with PS3 media server) and also for standard web browsing.
No dedicated GPU, this will be a Mini-ITX build!

I need help deciding which of the 2 CPU's will better suit me.

Or if you have any better options for less $ let me know as well!


Thanks

 

[ASHISH65]

Go for i3 3225 with hd graphics 4000.Though a10 igpu is better than hd graphics but i3 is better in cpu performance and hd graphics is more than enough for htpc rig.i will go with i3.

 

[logainofhades]

Either would be adequate for your needs. For HTPC I would go with the A10-5700 over the 5800 as it is a 65w part instead of a 100w one. Go with whichever one you can get all the features you want for the least price.

 

[nekko]

Do you think the AMD A4-5300 would even be enough?

 

[lazyboy947]

It prob is, but at least go for a quad core to be safe on the cpu side which is a a8/a10

 

[lostgamer_03]

Check this comparison by Tomshardware.

http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/gaming-processor-frame-rate-performance,review-32628-9.html

Here you can see the CPU performance with a dedicated GPU. the A10-5700k has a better integrated GPU, but what would you even use that for when you're actually not going to use the PC for nothing demanding. Actually you might be better off by buying a USB sized PC as the Rasberry Pi.

 

[nekko]

Want to be Windows based still. Since I will not be gaming I think that the i3 3225 will better suite me. Especially if Intel HD4000 will be enough for me to Transecode from PS3 media server to my PS3 and for everyday use and no gaming.

 

[ikaz]

The thing is Quad core should be better assuming the ripping or encoding application you plan to use support multicore (most good one do).

 

[tonync_01]

Want to be Windows based still. Since I will not be gaming I think that the i3 3225 will better suite me. Especially if Intel HD4000 will be enough for me to Transecode from PS3 media server to my PS3 and for everyday use and no gaming.

Go with an A8-5500, you get better graphics, save yourself $40 and the amd motherboards give you more features for the price.

 

[jaguarskx]

Eitther one would be fine to just watch movies. I would go with the i3-3225 fro lower power consumption.

Using a video encoding program that compatible with Quick Sync will greatly improve encoding performance.

 

[twelve25]

Go for i3 3225 with hd graphics 4000.Though a10 igpu is better than hd graphics but i3 is better in cpu performance and hd graphics is more than enough for htpc rig.i will go with i3.

i3 is NOT better in CPU performance. At least not on any benchmarks I can find. They are essentially equal. The A10 has better 3d graphics, but both will play media well.

One reason to go HD 4000 would be if you used Quicksync to acually rip on the HTPC. If not, then just go by price or power consumption or flip a coin.

P.S. you could probably step down to an A6 or a Pentium dual core and get the same performance for media playback.

 

[ASHISH65]

i3 is NOT better in CPU performance. At least not on any benchmarks I can find. They are essentially equal. The A10 has better 3d graphics, but both will play media well.

One reason to go HD 4000 would be if you used Quicksync to acually rip on the HTPC. If not, then just go by price or power consumption or flip a coin.

P.S. you could probably step down to an A6 or a Pentium dual core and get the same performance for media playback.

mostly they are equal but in day to day tasks i3 is faster.single threated perfomance is important for htpc rig.

see here-

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/675?vs=677

http://www.hardwaresecrets.com/article/A10-5800K-vs-Core-i3-3220-CPU-Review/1646/19

this is what the hardwaresecrets suggest: 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.
Therefore, if you won’t play any games at all and want to build a powerful
entry-level PC, we recommend the Core i3-3220 instead.

 

[logainofhades]

For just video playback, either will be fine though. I have an old Phenom II X2 560 and HD3870 for my video playback. CPU wise, I am far behind both of those chips. I wouldn't be surprised if I am a bit behind the A10 graphics wise. It really depends if he is going to actually rip the movies with this pc or another whether he needs the faster CPU or not.

 

[twelve25]

mostly they are equal but in day to day tasks i3 is faster.single threated perfomance is important for htpc rig.

see here-

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/675?vs=677

http://www.hardwaresecrets.com/article/A10-5800K-vs-Core-i3-3220-CPU-Review/1646/19

this is what the hardwaresecrets suggest: 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.
Therefore, if you won’t play any games at all and want to build a powerful
entry-level PC, we recommend the Core i3-3220 instead.

The funny thing is that none of their benchmarks support that theory.

 

[blobby91]

For media playback almost any modern CPU will be fine. I'm able to get 3D blu ray playback out of an old AMD Phenom X3 clocked at 2.2Ghz coupled with an AMD 6450. I would be tempted myself to go with whatever is cheapest overall, and probably would go for a slightly slower AMD APU for those uses for both power consumption and cost reasons.