bit-tech.net

Intel Haswell vs AMD Richland - the GPU test

Comments 26 to 50 of 53

Reply
Harlequin 2nd July 2013, 21:05 Quote
jrs77


you average person who walks into pcworld doesn't know or care a hoot about jibbabytes or NVidia raydeons - they care about candy crush and how flash games don't work on ipads.

does pc go on facebook + you tube + Skype , can it open a text document , have anti virus - and maybe play half life 2 I just bought in the steam sale for the price of a banana? yes?

good then its a sale!!


and who cares if BT doesn't have raided SSD`s - 1 ssd is enough unless you stare at benchmarks all day.
schmidtbag 2nd July 2013, 21:13 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harlequin

and who cares if BT doesn't have raided SSD`s - 1 ssd is enough unless you stare at benchmarks all day.

Actually depending on what you do, RAIDing SSDs can actually slow down performance. The only time SSDs in RAID is a decent idea is if you have plenty of SATA ports to spare and you run programs that use large files (such as games).

However, the stupid thing is with many games today, you spend more time waiting for the loading screen to do it's fade-in, fade-out animation than you do for it to actually load anything. One funny example of this is Resident Evil 5, where it shows a little bit of the game history in the loading screens. I still have yet to fully read one of those messages, and this is with the game loading on a single mechanical HDD!
Harlequin 2nd July 2013, 21:16 Quote
the only thing really an SSD does for games is when its loading levels - wow for example. in FPS it doesn't really help as a `map` only starts when all players are in , or games have preloading of levels (skyrim for example)


a PS3 shows very little benefit of an SSD over a HDD.
Meanmotion 2nd July 2013, 21:58 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harlequin
the only thing really an SSD does for games is when its loading levels - wow for example. in FPS it doesn't really help as a `map` only starts when all players are in , or games have preloading of levels (skyrim for example)


a PS3 shows very little benefit of an SSD over a HDD.

That's not strictly true. Many games only partially load a level fully into memory, instead requiring regular mini-loads as you progress through the level. An SSD can have quite an impact in these instances.
Harlequin 2nd July 2013, 22:01 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Meanmotion
That's not strictly true. Many games only partially load a level fully into memory, instead requiring regular mini-loads as you progress through the level. An SSD can have quite an impact in these instances.

an SSD - raid SSD`s would make no difference


anyway


http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-can-ssd-upgrades-boost-ps3-performance

they tested a PS3 with both an HDD and an SSD....
Valinor 2nd July 2013, 23:21 Quote
Guys, I think the comment about the RAIDed SSDs was a reference to the insane amounts of storage speed needed for a frame capture system, not talking about the storage system in the testbed.
teppic 2nd July 2013, 23:25 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harlequin
jrs77


you average person who walks into pcworld doesn't know or care a hoot about jibbabytes or NVidia raydeons - they care about candy crush and how flash games don't work on ipads.

does pc go on facebook + you tube + Skype , can it open a text document , have anti virus - and maybe play half life 2 I just bought in the steam sale for the price of a banana? yes?

good then its a sle!!

Interesting you mention that, as the first thing I tested on my A10 was Half Life 2 via Steam :)

(It ran at 60Hz vsync 1920x1200 max settings without any stutter)
law99 3rd July 2013, 10:07 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gareth Halfacree
Quote:
Originally Posted by DbD
In reality there is basically 0 market for ultra budget igp gaming desktops. Either you don't really care and any integrated is fine, or you care and you buy a cheap discrete card.
I beg to differ. You've missed off a small market segment there - and I know you have, because I'm in that very segment: people who want a low-power system capable of playing a few games.

My desktop is an AMD A10-5800K, because I wanted something that drew less power than my old Intel and GeForce combo yet would still allow me to play games from the Humble Bundle and similar - even if I have to turn the settings down a bit, or run at a non-native resolution. In that, I excelled: for £500, I got a system with specifications that matched my requirements (A10-5800K, motherboard with at least one PCI slot for a legacy card I use, 16GB of reasonable-speed RAM, SSD, SATA optical drive to replace my old IDE one, nice quiet case and a few extra cooling fans) and performs brilliantly. More importantly, it draws significantly less power than my old system, both at idle and under load.

Job done, happy customer. If it starts to struggle with the type of game I play, I may stick a cheap graphics card in there - a passively cooled one, for preference, as my rig is near-silent at the moment and I wouldn't want that to change - but for now I'm gold.

Exactly. Also, the games I want to play on my living room PC aren't the same as the ones I want to play on my gaming rig.

Fifa for instance, perfect.
t5kcannon 3rd July 2013, 10:27 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by SchizoFrog
I am still not convinced that building a 'gaming machine' of any description is worth while with onboard graphics. I would much rather have an Intel CPU and a separate GPU, even if it is a little more expensive. The long term benefits make it worth while to me.

Yes I agree. Nevertheless, it's an interesting review. If this is the direction onboard graphics are going to take, then there might be potential in the future; but there's a performance gap to bridge.
DbD 3rd July 2013, 10:39 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gareth Halfacree
Quote:
Originally Posted by DbD
In reality there is basically 0 market for ultra budget igp gaming desktops. Either you don't really care and any integrated is fine, or you care and you buy a cheap discrete card.
I beg to differ. You've missed off a small market segment there - and I know you have, because I'm in that very segment: people who want a low-power system capable of playing a few games.

My desktop is an AMD A10-5800K, because I wanted something that drew less power than my old Intel and GeForce combo yet would still allow me to play games from the Humble Bundle and similar - even if I have to turn the settings down a bit, or run at a non-native resolution. In that, I excelled: for £500, I got a system with specifications that matched my requirements (A10-5800K, motherboard with at least one PCI slot for a legacy card I use, 16GB of reasonable-speed RAM, SSD, SATA optical drive to replace my old IDE one, nice quiet case and a few extra cooling fans) and performs brilliantly. More importantly, it draws significantly less power than my old system, both at idle and under load.

Job done, happy customer. If it starts to struggle with the type of game I play, I may stick a cheap graphics card in there - a passively cooled one, for preference, as my rig is near-silent at the moment and I wouldn't want that to change - but for now I'm gold.

If you're happy you're happy, but I suspect your choice of cpu has more to do with liking AMD then power usage. A10-5800K is hardly a low power chip, in fact it takes about twice the power at load an i3 would do:
http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/cpus/2013/06/05/amd-richland-review/8
Gareth Halfacree 3rd July 2013, 10:48 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by DbD
If you're happy you're happy, but I suspect your choice of cpu has more to do with liking AMD then power usage.
With all due respect, you're dead wrong. I have absolutely no bias towards any particular chipmaker. My last PC? As I said, an Intel with Nvidia graphics. My laptop? Also an Intel, although the model I had before was an AMD something-or-other.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DbD
A10-5800K is hardly a low power chip, in fact it takes about twice the power at load an i3 would do:
http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/cpus/2013/06/05/amd-richland-review/8
I'm afraid you've forgotten a little something there: I was looking for a chip that would draw less power than my old Intel and GeForce combined. The power draw on the linked review is for the processor only. If I had bought a Core i3, I would have also needed a discrete graphics card - which would have bumped up the power draw considerably. For the record, my desktop draws ~30W idle and ~105W under full CPU/GPU load - as measured by my UPS.

There's also the fact that the A10-5800K outperforms the Core i3 for my workload, largely thanks to the fact that I run Linux. Linux is incredibly efficient at using multi-core processors - even if I'm running single-threaded tasks, I can use something like GNU Parallel to execute the task in parallel across all four processor cores. Were I to have picked up a dual-core Intel chip, I would have got sub-par performance - despite it equalling or bettering the A10 on single-threaded benchmarks. Had I opted for an Intel quad-core chip, on the other hand, my budget would have increased significantly.

So, feel free to disagree with me all you want - although I suspect it has more to do with your dislike of AMD than actually knowing anything about my reasoning behind my purchase.
Meanmotion 3rd July 2013, 11:16 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gareth Halfacree
Quote:
Originally Posted by DbD

Also, note that the power draw graphs show the AMD using more power because it has a much more powerful GPU - that's the natural compromise of higher performance. At idle the AMD system actually uses less power. Of course overclocked it's a different story but then you can't overclock the i3.
Harlequin 3rd July 2013, 12:10 Quote
re Handbrake


from what I can remember - the OCL support isn't functioning anything like the Quicksync support.


try photoshop or premier cc for fully functioning OpenCL support.
rollo 3rd July 2013, 12:15 Quote
We can all agree that theres a usage for these chips, but to state they are for gamers is misleading at best. You would struggle to get the 5 most popular pc titles to run at 1080 resolution on either of these setups which is the bear minimum if your connecting to a tv of some sort ( Which is how many famillys do cheap pcs they put it onto the kids bedroom telly which already does 1080 anyway)

top 5 by sales in the last year in pc gaming. ( all 5 have been tested at one point or another by various sites on different gpu setups )

BF3 no chance of running,
World of Warcraft Mists of panda land will run outside of a raid scenerio at least.
Diablo 3 it will run how well depends on the act your running it on and how many people your playing it with.
Crysis 3 no chance of running
Starcraft 2s expansion will once again run but your not gpu limited its cpu limited.

change the gpu from onboard to a 7770 and all will run add a 7850 to the mix and you can max out 3 of the 5 and have above console details in the other 2. all for not alot more than the price of the amd chip + the 6670.
blackerthanblack 3rd July 2013, 12:23 Quote
Another point to note to those that think that there is no market or that this is irrelevant to BT is that although on these forums many of us will have reasonable spec PC's, there are many of us who don't have the budget for it or have other priorities. We may also build PC's for friends and family who will have strict budgets or want to use their PC's more for other things and place less importance on gaming than we generally do.

I would have jumped at one of the APU's when I was building PC's a few years back - it would have saved hassle when people asked me to build a PC stating a strict low budget, or that they definitely did not play games - only to have them mention a few months later that they could not get some game they were now into running on their PC.

With an APU in there they would have been able to run the game there and then without spending more money - and a year or so down the road they could splash out a little extra to keep the PC running what they wanted, or to give them that extra wow factor.
Harlequin 3rd July 2013, 12:31 Quote
Rollo your totally wrong. My kids have a 6670 and they play wow @ 1400x900 at high preset and 2xaa and still get 30+fps.

Bf3 iz also very playable at medium.

Itz down to your perception of what is good and playable. A 5850 gets 30 fps in wow at ultra 1080p with aa.
Meanmotion 3rd July 2013, 12:47 Quote
All told, I feel another feature coming on...
Shirty 3rd July 2013, 12:47 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by rollo
We can all agree that theres a usage for these chips, but to state they are for gamers is misleading at best. You would struggle to get the 5 most popular pc titles to run at 1080 resolution on either of these setups which is the bear minimum if your connecting to a tv of some sort ( Which is how many famillys do cheap pcs they put it onto the kids bedroom telly which already does 1080 anyway)

top 5 by sales in the last year in pc gaming. ( all 5 have been tested at one point or another by various sites on different gpu setups )

BF3 no chance of running,
World of Warcraft Mists of panda land will run outside of a raid scenerio at least.
Diablo 3 it will run how well depends on the act your running it on and how many people your playing it with.
Crysis 3 no chance of running
Starcraft 2s expansion will once again run but your not gpu limited its cpu limited.

change the gpu from onboard to a 7770 and all will run add a 7850 to the mix and you can max out 3 of the 5 and have above console details in the other 2. all for not alot more than the price of the amd chip + the 6670.

Even if your assertions are all true (which they aren't strictly speaking - ever heard of lowering the resolution and detail settings?) the concept of buying one of these and a discrete GPU sort of defeats the object. These APUs are not designed to max out AAA titles, they're designed to give a good low detail boost to some setups, where graphical horsepower is not the be all and end all...

If you need more than that then yes, Intel + discrete probably is the way to go, but that market is not where these APUs are aiming.
Harlequin 3rd July 2013, 13:26 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Meanmotion
All told, I feel another feature coming on...


You'll never please all of the people all if the time!


Good article though
GaryP 3rd July 2013, 13:47 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shirty
I read a statistic somewhere that 86% of personal computers in the world are not used for gaming in any meaningful capacity. Of the 14% that are, only 21% have a dedicated GPU..... FACT !

I have edited it for you to make it become factual.
law99 3rd July 2013, 13:57 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gareth Halfacree

So, feel free to disagree with me all you want - although I suspect it has more to do with your dislike of AMD than actually knowing anything about my reasoning behind my purchase.

Yes... it normally ends up breaking down to this
teppic 3rd July 2013, 14:26 Quote
All the reviews are consistent in saying that this is suitable for gaming at lower settings or lower resolutions, with older games running fine maxed out at 1080. The various benchmarks are showing that overclocked and with faster memory, performance is on par with a discrete HD 6670. That means it's reaching its aim - budget level gaming. So for people to say that it's not capable of gaming does seem illogical at best.
runadumb 3rd July 2013, 18:10 Quote
I built a A10 5800K as a HTPC and as gaming rig. It plays plenty of games (super meat boy, Rayman, Trackmania 2) perfectly fine and for games where M&K is a must or I need raw power I have my Desktop PC.

Doesn't hurt that I have it loaded with emulators either, gaming bliss :p
Super Mario Sunshine looks ace at 1080p


Now that AMD have the next console generation sown up I think I will stick with their APU's for that setup. I'm very interested in seeing how close to the PS4 the Kaveri GPU is. Current rumour is only around 40% so I may keep my current system for a few generations yet.
Gradius 3rd July 2013, 20:12 Quote
CPU+GPU will never works! Imagine the heat boost it will get every generation? Totally impractical.
technogiant 5th July 2013, 09:09 Quote
It's clear the best choice for a low cost balanced rig would be a budget intel cpu paired with a moderately priced graphics card from either camp....that way you benefit from intels better cpu power, their dedicated QSV hardware and the ability to do gpgpu when required with any card of your choice not being restricted by what you can pair with AMD's apu.

All this time and effort developing hybrid cpu/gpu and the best choice is still separates.....jeeesh!
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