Dual Graphics: Not Always Your Best Bet
I’ve seen plenty of situations where an underpowered processor limited graphics performance. In fact, Metro 2033 on the previous page looked like it was getting held back by AMD’s Stars architecture.
My first thought: if A8-3850’s four cores aren’t fast enough to keep up with the 400-shader graphics engine, adding a Radeon HD 6570 for $80 is going to be of limited utility. If we’re talking about discrete upgrades, wouldn’t it be crazy if matching a Core i3-2105 (similar price as the AMD chip) to the same add-in card yielded better performance, without the benefit of Dual Graphics?
In the following three graphics, Intel's HD Graphics 3000 performance is represented by the blue bar. The green bar is the comparison data from AMD's A8-3850 with a Radeon HD 6570 installed, and the grey bar is Intel's Core i3 running the same Radeon HD 6570.
The DirectX 9 game where Dual Graphics didn’t work anyway demonstrates pretty similar performance if you’re using an Intel-based machine or an A8-3850 with a Radeon HD 6570 add-in. Both configs make playable what was previously embarrassing performance from HD Graphics 3000.
And there’s the money shot. At all three resolutions, the Intel/AMD combination is faster than the AMD/AMD setup, despite the boost offered by Dual Graphics.
But as if to say “back at ya,” World of Warcraft favors the dual-GPU configuration in a big way. Maybe the game prefers four physical cores to two cores, or maybe there is no platform bottleneck in WoW, letting the Dual Graphics technology stretch out more effectively.
Either way, the difference between a Radeon HD 6570 and HD Graphics 3000 is night and day. Clearly, Intel’s integrated engine is incapable of reasonable frame rates at the minimum detail levels gamers want to use.
Current page: Dual Graphics: Not Always Your Best BetPrev Page Dual Graphics: How Does It Perform? Next Page Chipsets
Stay on the Cutting Edge
Join the experts who read Tom's Hardware for the inside track on enthusiast PC tech news — and have for over 25 years. We'll send breaking news and in-depth reviews of CPUs, GPUs, AI, maker hardware and more straight to your inbox.
Great review! Thanks TomsReply
Another win for AMD!Reply
So then what's the point of getting the Turbo Core versions when they are going to be Turbo Clocked slower then the none Turbo Clocked versions...Reply
SteelCity1981So then what's the point of getting the Turbo Core versions when they are going to be Turbo Clocked slower then the none Turbo Clocked versions...Reply
They don't want you to see better performance from a cheaper APU in single-threaded apps by pushing Turbo Core further ;-)
i really wanted see some amazing gains in the content creation department what with all that gpu power on chip... oh well games are fun too!Reply
I think this would be good for a young kid's PC. It would be enough to run educational software and a web browser. When he grows up to be a gamer it would be time to replace the whole machine anyway.Reply
... it's may be not the greatest APU for desktop... but it will be a powerful thingy in a laptop... the review was nice... but in the gaming department... would be nice to see a standard 15,x'' laptop resolution tests @ 1366x768... or something like that...Reply
Actually if you want good DDR3 1600 with aggressive timings, the Ripjaws X series memory that I have does DDR3 1600 at 7-8-7-24 at 1.5v, not all that expensive when it comes down to it either.Reply
This makes little sense. An Athlon II X3 445 ($75) and a HD 5570 ($60, on a good day you can get a 5670 for the same price) would provide better performance for the same price ($135) and not have to worry about the RAM you use.Reply
So is AM3+ going to be retired in favor of FM1 in the near future? Why are there chipset at all? Why isn't everything SOC by now?
Otherwise this is a very good CPU. If AMD has used 1 MB level 2 caches in their quads when they came out with the Deneb Propus die, they would be much more competitive.
stardude82This makes little sense. An Athlon II X3 445 ($75) and a HD 5570 ($60, on a good day you can get a 5670 for the same price) would provide better performance for the same price ($135) and not have to worry about the RAM you use. what about power consumption?Reply