bit-tech.net

AMD A8-3850 Review

Comments 1 to 25 of 87

Reply
chrismarkham1982 30th June 2011, 08:22 Quote
that certainly is pretty damn good for the projected price
V3ctor 30th June 2011, 08:36 Quote
It's really great... Great performance/price... Well done AMD
jakobfrimmel 30th June 2011, 08:43 Quote
YAY :)
confusis 30th June 2011, 08:51 Quote
If they throw one of these chips onto an ITX board I'll be sold.. Playing most games without a dedicated GPU! 100watts sounds heaps, but if you're only running a APU and no discrete gpu, its pretty low. Pico-PSU territory :)
Zinfandel 30th June 2011, 08:55 Quote
A3850 £105
Cheapest board £72
£177

MSI 760GM-P33 £37
Phenom II X4 840 £78
5770 £74

£189

There's no comp really is there...

Personally the only place I see a market for it is mini ITX and HTPC and only the HTPC is used for games as well. Certainly don't see the point of it in a budget gaming machine as you can clearly build better for the same ish price.
wafflesomd 30th June 2011, 08:57 Quote
My LAN party group has two fusion pc's for backup, just in case someone else wants to play mainly source games. They do really well with source engine games.
wafflesomd 30th June 2011, 08:57 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zinfandel
A3850 £105
Cheapest board £72
£177

MSI 760GM-P33 £37
Phenom II X4 840 £78
5770 £74

£189

There's no comp really is there...

Personally the only place I see a market for it is mini ITX.

Ok that's a good point.
Cei 30th June 2011, 08:58 Quote
That's a stonking result for the GPU - really impressive for onboard. Shame the rest of the CPU doesn't hold up though - imagine an Intel SB coupled with the AMD GPU tech?

I think this will definitely capture the low end/HPTC market though. Prices will drop over the next month as well.
Zinfandel 30th June 2011, 09:06 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by wafflesomd
Ok that's a good point.

If some agressive pricing happens then it might be able to compete in a desktop environment I guess. For £207 (Probably £200 on TO) you could have an i3 2100 and the 5770.

Could anyone ever really suggest FM1 over an i3, MSI board and a 5770 for the sake of £20 to £30?
tonyd223 30th June 2011, 09:26 Quote
Think about this - AMD, with so little money to compete against Intel, has just hit the ball out of the park. They have destroyed the sub £60 discrete graphics market where they probably weren't making much money anyway. They have hit on a proposition for the volume shifters to business which makes real sense - really competitive against Intel and their discrete gpu offerings. Only one thing needed now - accelerated applications that use CUDA. If AMD can get that right with generic business applications - your browser, your anti-virus, your email, your spreadsheet, your database, etc...

Well done AMD, but the work isn't over...
DbD 30th June 2011, 09:28 Quote
That's the big problem - it only makes sense if you don't buy a discrete gpu, and it's only a few more quid to get a system with one in. I can see for something like internet gaming cafe's it works well, but for someone buying their own pc? Either they aren't gamers in which case the i3 is faster for everything else, or they are gamers in which case they'd be much better off stumping up a few extra quid for a discrete card and preferably an i5. That machine would be a lot faster and the cpu will be fast enough for years meaning you just need to update your graphics now and again to stay current.

I think the true market for these chips is budget gaming laptops, for desktops can't see many buyers outside the hardcore fanboys.
thetrashcanman 30th June 2011, 09:31 Quote
wooohooo, well done AMD :D
Material 30th June 2011, 09:35 Quote
In truth I think the A8-3800 may be a more attractive option than the A8-3850 - It's got the same great GPU on board but has a significantly lower TDP and all you sacrifice for this is a few hundred MHz in base clock speed on the CPU. We've already said that if it's only CPU processing power you want then you're better off with the Intel CPU, so losing a little bit of CPU power isn't the end of the world (i.e. you're not looking at these CPUs because you want raw processing power).

It should be cheaper than the A8-3850 too which should make it better value too.

Unfortunately we didn't get any say over which processor AMD sent us for testing,
Nikols 30th June 2011, 09:35 Quote
I think they fall between two stools. The only use I can see for these in an enthusiast environment is in htpcs. They'll make their way into mainstream pcs alright and sell by the bucketload but they don't offer optimal performance as they still struggle on the 50% of tasks that mainstream users will use them for.
tonyd223 30th June 2011, 09:47 Quote
Think about the on-going developer platform - quad core pc's with discrete level graphics - look at the Steam stats to realise what an advance that'd be...
edzieba 30th June 2011, 10:02 Quote
Is something up with the table on page 1? I'm sure AMD aren't introducing four new sockets at once, and it doesn't make much sense for the 3850 and 3650 to both have a 100w TDP but the 3650 to have lower clock speeds for both CPU and GPU (as well as a smaller GPU)*. Methinks Excel's auto fill has been playing with it.

*Checked else where, turns out they do have the same TDP. That's weird.
kaiser 30th June 2011, 10:13 Quote
So no review to see how it performs with a discrete graphics card? Was it by any chance not worth testing? I myself am an AMD fanboi but even I have to admit that over £80+ there is just no point in buying their products.
TheLostSwede 30th June 2011, 10:14 Quote
Guys, get a different board, both Asus, Gigabyte and MSI have board with an external clock gen that allows you to overclock the APU's by quite some margin....
Aracos 30th June 2011, 10:16 Quote
Wow, that was some seriously good gaming performance for intergrated graphics, what does this say for Nvidia? Because at the end of the day that thing is better than most the sub £50 cards available, they'll lose their extreme budget market to AMD if this continues, maybe they'll have to combine with Intel to create a nvidia based onboard GPU :D
xaser04 30th June 2011, 10:24 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nikols
I think they fall between two stools. The only use I can see for these in an enthusiast environment is in htpcs. They'll make their way into mainstream pcs alright and sell by the bucketload but they don't offer optimal performance as they still struggle on the 50% of tasks that mainstream users will use them for.

What tasks that "mainstream" users run will cause this cpu to struggle?

We arn't talking about Atom like performance here we are talking decent quad core Athlon II X4 (640) performance which is more than enough for the majority of users.
Bindibadgi 30th June 2011, 10:28 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheLostSwede
Guys, get a different board, both Asus, Gigabyte and MSI have board with an external clock gen that allows you to overclock the APU's by quite some margin....

This.

All the top 3 use external clock gens to overclock - even our cheapest LE board does. You'll be able to crank everything up then. :)

The ES samples didn't require this, but ALL the retail chips do. ASRock are either saving money by leaving the extra chips off their boards OR they didn't catch this note. That's up to them to say.
mucgoo 30th June 2011, 10:32 Quote
A £300 PC which can do everything? including run every game currently available (admittedly on low settings)
Well done AMD
Zinfandel 30th June 2011, 10:41 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by mucgoo
A £300 PC which can do everything? including run every game currently available (admittedly on low settings)
Well done AMD

How is this different to how it's always been? You could build a perfectly capable PC for £300 5 days ago, and 5 years ago.
Phil Rhodes 30th June 2011, 10:42 Quote
Well, no. Well done Sony and Microsoft, for ensuring that "every game currently available" is a console port. To a console five years old.
REMF 30th June 2011, 10:46 Quote
good review, two questions:

1. mistake in table on page one; is there really a different socket for every A-series SKU (FS1/FS2/FS3/FS4)?

2. do the 65W A-series chips also support DDR3 1866, or is support limited to DDR3 1600?

cheers
Log in

You are not logged in, please login with your forum account below. If you don't already have an account please register to start contributing.



Discuss in the forums