question about AMDs APUs stigma

[Shadsy]

I dont get why people say APU are a waste. That they have an iGPU and you should only pair it with a low end card. I mean if you think about it Intel's CPUs are also APUs they also have an iGPU (Intel HD 4600) so why the hate? I know Intel CPUs do better at ST operations. but why the APU is for low budget builds stigma?

and I don't mean to flame, I am planing to make a new PC soon and I browsed high and low and all the comments I saw just made me kind of unsure if people are just hating AMD because of just being fanboys or if its just how it is. I want both to be sucessful because monopoly isn't good for anyone.

is it true that a 6800K is bottlenecking lets say a R9 290X /GTX 780
then Shouldn't an i5 4670K also bottleneck the cards?

thank you all
Greetings from Slovakia

 

[iceclock]

4670k be a better cpu. for the 290x and 780. if u going amd route 8350 ftw mang. but for pure fps i5 wins

 

[simon12]

APUs are only good for gaming on extremely budget systems as low end dedicated cards + budget non APU out perform them (with exceptions) and as soon as you want to upgrade there are no high end (arguably no mid range either) CPUs that work with the motherboards and upgrading the graphics card wastes the money spent on the graphics part of the APU. They are not bad just only suited to limited budgets with limited upgrade paths FM2+ may change this but may not.

 

[jaguarskx]

Basically it is due to the relatively weak CPU performance. It is less powerful than the Piledriver generation FX CPUs. The FX CPUs are weaker than Intel's Core i3/i5/i7. At least in terms of games performance the Piledriver FX series is generally about as powerful as the 1st generation Core i3/i5/i7 CPUs released back in later 2008. About two months ago someone wanted to upgrade from the i7-920 to the FX-8350 because he thought he was going to get better performance. I posted 10 - 12 game benchmarks with high end cards (either the GTX 680, GTX Titan or Radeon HD 7970 depending on the game) which included the i7-920 and FX-8350. The i7 beat the FX in a few of the benchmarks, the FX beat the i7 in a few other benchmarks and finally there were a few benchmarks that showed they provided nearly identical results (within 2 FPS of each other).

Those reviews also included a Trinity A8 or A10 APU (can't remember which one), and it was a non-competitor. It always had the lowest FPS of the three CPUs (FX-8350, i7-920, and whatever A8 or A10). The primary difference between Trinity and Richland generation is the official support for DDR3-2133 RAM.

 

[Shadsy]

I hope Kaveri or the next generation of the FX processors will make it better, I wish Intel and AMD where neck in neck, in benchmarks like with NVIDIA vs ATI/AMD, Its hard from me to choose a processor. Because I heard Haswell CPU are quite hot, mind I do not plan to OC and my budget is about 800 - 900 €. What would you guys recommend?

Thank you

 

[Calculatron]

I think the A10-6800K is still around $150? While the Athlon II 760K is around $90? That is $60 dollars you could place towards, say, a Radeon HD 7870 / R9 270X, which is around $200.

Even though one might have a hard time eking out an additional $140 from their budget, a lot of enthusiast-minded people don't see the sense in tossing away part of a product you paid for to get an upgrade down the line, which will cost you an aggregate sum more in the long run. It's not as clear-cut as that, though. The enthusiast-mindset also really pushes to get higher-end RAM which can add onto the cost as well. (G.skill is pretty good at keeping consistent prices, but other brands can have some scary price jumps.) Alternatively/additionally, with the money you saved (both from getting a non-APU and, if you want to take it to an extreme, from not investing in higher-end RAM) you could invest in an aftermarket cooling solution and gain extra CPU performance to help eliminate any bottlenecking one may experience.

On top of all of this, AMD APU-based processors are entry-level platforms and that doesn't help with informed people's decisions; maximum of four cores (which are actually two modules) without any level three cache can be limiting for people mostly interested in gaming. Why pay money for this when getting ahold of a decent AMD+ motherboard and an FX processor doesn't add much to the cost. The fact you can get an FX-8320 for $160 is actually kind of scary. It is the graphics card that really hits you in the pants when it comes to a computer budget.

However, a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush, and entry-level processors they may be, but they're still good enough to run newer games like BioShock Infinity and Tomb Raider. I, personally, didn't have any problem of running my A10-5800K for six months, then buying a second-half GeForce GTX 460 for around $40 and slapping it in there for a big boost in gaming performance. I haven't seriously dabbled in overclocking it yet (don't need to) but, one day I may.

Current day APUs are acceptable for the role they have currently: well-rounded, inexpensive solutions for the non-enthusiast. The biggest flaw they actually have is the results for Dual Graphics options. If this worked reliably as it intended, we would see a lot more people jumping for it. With the upcoming generation of APUs just around the corner, we'll see how innovations play out for the market. I think, as the concept evolves, it will become a more viable option.