# AMD A8-3850 Fusion GPU Performance Analysis



## W1zzard (Jul 7, 2011)

AMD's new A-Series processors promise high performance integrated graphics that works well for productivity and gaming. In our article we take a closer look at 3D performance of the A8-3850 processor, test it in Dual Graphics mode and investigate the effect of memory clock, memory timings, UMA memory size and overclocking.

*Show full review*


----------



## caleb (Jul 19, 2011)

Nice review. I like the comparison of 3 theoretic setups very much.


----------



## Bjorn_Of_Iceland (Jul 19, 2011)

You think this will reach the netbook scene?  or are those for the upcoming Deccan?


----------



## tonyd223 (Jul 19, 2011)

What a great review - thanks for all the time and effort. So, from what I can see, the A8-3850 only makes sense if you're buying a vanilla pc for vanilla pc work - an office PC, where some gpu acceleration would be nice, but you're not going to go to a full graphics card...


----------



## Trackr (Jul 19, 2011)

tonyd223 said:


> What a great review - thanks for all the time and effort. So, from what I can see, the A8-3850 only makes sense if you're buying a vanilla pc for vanilla pc work - an office PC, where some gpu acceleration would be nice, but you're not going to go to a full graphics card...



That's what I was thinking too..

But with the loss of performance compared to Sandy Bridge, it doesn't seem worth it.

That is, unless your programs gain more from GPU performance...

But then, you'd probably get a graphics card.


----------



## HTC (Jul 19, 2011)

It seems AMD still has a long way to go where APU with crossfire is concerned: it's actually worse to add a discrete card on many occasions then it is to simply use the discrete card.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Jul 19, 2011)

Great review W1zz. Tough one to make I bet considering this is new waters.

Anyway I think the APU is pretty much where is should be for a first gen. APU is the future and as a first step I think its a damn good one.

Oh and marketing is marketing. Always delete at least 10% of the "Facts" to get a better picture. I'm still trying to get 30mpg out of my car


----------



## Jonap_1st (Jul 19, 2011)

what's differences between "AMD HD 6670" and "AMD Fusion A3850 + 6670"?

are the first one use sandy bridge as the processor?


----------



## W1zzard (Jul 19, 2011)

Jonap_1st said:


> what's differences between "AMD HD 6670" and "AMD Fusion A3850 + 6670"?
> 
> are the first one use sandy bridge as the processor?



the first one is just the hd 6670 installed in the fusion system and running as only, primary card.

the second is the igp and the hd 6670 working in dual graphics (crossfire)


----------



## aBigRat (Jul 19, 2011)

I think this w1zzard guy haven't done the review honestly.
1. A motherboard for AMD Athlon X4 640 has its own integrated graphics, so why we need a HD 6450 for internet browsing?
2. I didn't see any HD5770 in the review, then I saw HD5770 stated in the conclusion. why HD5770, not HD6670?
3. A8-3850 iGP is equivalent to a HD5550 DDR3. For entry level gaming, it is more than enough to play while other two systems need HD 5550s to match its speed.
4. Electricity bills


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Jul 19, 2011)

aBigRat said:


> I think this w1zzard guy haven't done the review honestly.


----------



## Red_Machine (Jul 19, 2011)

aBigRat said:


> I think this w1zzard guy haven't done the review honestly.



Wow, that was so full of fail I can't think of a coherant retort.


----------



## reverze (Jul 19, 2011)

the no cuda/physx is actually a positive thing. cant wait for the unlocked version.


----------



## W1zzard (Jul 19, 2011)

aBigRat said:


> A motherboard for AMD Athlon X4 640 has its own integrated graphics, so why we need a HD 6450 for internet browsing?



that's a good point, there are indeed cheap am3 motherboards with integrated graphics which could further offset the cost of that system.

geforce 6150 which is popular for these motherboards can barely handle aero.
those dirt cheap motherboards often dont have any digital output (analog VGA only)


----------



## Jonap_1st (Jul 19, 2011)

W1zzard said:


> the first one is just the hd 6670 installed in the fusion system and running as only, primary card.
> 
> the second is the igp and the hd 6670 working in dual graphics (crossfire)



1. A3850 + mobo + 6670 : $290++
2. 2100K + mobo + 6670 : $250++

(2) is cheaper and faster for daily application, but for graphic performances, (2) is not far enough behind (2) configuration. 

first i dont believe this review. but now, i think i get your conclusion


----------



## Semi-Lobster (Jul 19, 2011)

The 11.6 hotfixes are designed specifically for the Fusion based GPUs, a lot of the 'problems' with the crossfire setup with the A-3850 and the 6670 seem to stem from drivers rather than raw power. Great review! Thanks!


----------



## W1zzard (Jul 19, 2011)

Semi-Lobster said:


> The 11.6 hotfixes



i used the driver from june 28, not the launch day driver


----------



## dir_d (Jul 19, 2011)

Couple years and fusion will be a monster. AMD needs to pair this with BD for it to become popular. Intel has AMD surrounded but AMD has the potential to change the game very quickly and beat intel in the market where it counts, Mainstream.


----------



## DeerSteak (Jul 19, 2011)

dir_d said:


> Couple years and fusion will be a monster. AMD needs to pair this with BD for it to become popular. Intel has AMD surrounded but AMD has the potential to change the game very quickly and beat intel in the market where it counts, Mainstream.



That's what Trinity is for, and it'll come eventually, and hopefully it'll maintain socket backward compatibility.


----------



## W1zzard (Jul 19, 2011)

i seriously doubt that for the forseeable future, processor integrated graphics can be faster than a low-end card.

igps will get better, but so will discrete gpus. both are using the same technology, architecture and production process. heat density limits will always limit IGP performance.

i see the big advantage in massive cost savings. why should a 250 mm² silicon die with cpu+gpu cost significantly more than a 250 mm² silicon die with just a cpu?


----------



## DeerSteak (Jul 19, 2011)

Is it all the same production process?  I know Redwood is 40nm, but I thought all of Llano was 32nm?


----------



## TheLaughingMan (Jul 19, 2011)

Just curious about in game numbers from the APU when you overclocked it. I didn't see any of the overclocked figures on the real world gaming charges.


----------



## W1zzard (Jul 19, 2011)

DeerSteak said:


> Is it all the same production process?  I know Redwood is 40nm, but I thought all of Llano was 32nm?



A-Series uses Redwood architecture, on a 32 nm process.



TheLaughingMan said:


> Just curious about in game numbers from the APU when you overclocked it. I didn't see any of the overclocked figures on the real world gaming charges.



i don't have any data for that, but any gpu limited game should scale similarly


----------



## devguy (Jul 19, 2011)

W1zzard said:


> that's a good point, there are indeed cheap am3 motherboards with integrated graphics which could further offset the cost of that system.
> 
> geforce 6150 which is popular for these motherboards can barely handle aero.
> those dirt cheap motherboards often dont have any digital output (analog VGA only)



I think he was referring to a cheap 780G/790GX/890GX type motherboard with the HD 3200/4200 to run Aero like a champ, and offload 1080p.  Those are pretty decent for office machines.  Ex: cheap and no need for an HD 5450.

Thank you for you memory comparison on Llano!  It was nice to see that timings had almost no effect on the APU, and that it was all speed (kinda the opposite of most AMD CPUs).


----------



## TheLaughingMan (Jul 19, 2011)

Well, for the Productivity and Internet Browsing catagory, why get the A8-3850? I say drop down to the A6-3650 which will shave off $30 and put the price in line with the i3 setup. While CPU performance would suffer, it would still have much better graphics for GPU accelerated web browsers, Flash based games, HTML5, and GPU accelerated programs like Photoshop.

I am actually using the A6 right now and for a basic system it is far more than enough muscle for Win7 64-bit.


----------



## Casecutter (Jul 19, 2011)

W1zzard said:


> i seriously doubt that for the forseeable future, processor integrated graphics can be faster than a low-end card.
> 
> igps will get better, but so will discrete gpus. both are using the same technology, architecture and production process. heat density limits will always limit IGP performance.
> 
> i see the big advantage in massive cost savings. why should a 250 mm² silicon die with cpu+gpu cost significantly more than a 250 mm² silicon die with just a cpu?



Working from the hypostasis... that it's about gaming or fast CPU computations is the misnomer.

First will AMD still be developing/offering IGP motherboards?  Will they necessarily offer low-end discrete cards that are intended to compete with their APU line.  While could Nvidia make any money offering what will become low-end discrete (approx GT430) that betters APU performance (that will improve)?

IGP’s will get better?... I think that boat sailed.  Nvidia would need to get serious at building a competitive IGP mobo and then price that package competitively; it wasn’t happening before this, why would the picture be any rosier going forward?  Intel is behind offering less competitive (siamese) on-chip graphic’s.  It appears they have yet to find that path over at least the next two years to offer anything more than GMA. They could catch-up; although they’ll need a (new) graphic architecture, which they’d need to totally integrate that onto an ever smaller die to be a challenger.

Is it priced competitively… no, as that would hurt only AMD. They’ll need to work down stock of CPU’s and IGP motherboards before they start really turning up the heat in the aftermarket, but you can bet they are hyper-aggressively working the OEM’s.  If they hit the 250 mm² and have the process/foundry in full swing before Intel get on the tracks the low end computer market will be AMD.


----------



## [H]@RD5TUFF (Jul 19, 2011)

Yawn weak performance I expected more for that price, great review as always though.


----------



## _JP_ (Jul 19, 2011)

Great review.
My conclusion is that the IGP desperately needs side-port memory, to gain some of the extra performance it is lacking right now..


----------



## Casecutter (Jul 19, 2011)

[H]@RD5TUFF said:


> Yawn weak performance I expected more for that price, great review as always though.



"Weak" how do you sumise that from his review?  Weak where?

Sure other reviews that cover more CPU related tasks I agree, but for CPU/GPU chip performance only on the gaming titles provided it would appear better than a 880G and comperable AMD CPU, though that costs much less as of right now.

Here an A6-3650 2.6Ghz against i3-2105 Sandy Bridge Z68 platform on a good mix of CPU/GPU testing, but the Intel set-up is $30 more. 
http://www.legitreviews.com/article/1655/1/


----------



## yogurt_21 (Jul 19, 2011)

looks promising, far more performance than other igp's. Cost could still be better but it just launched so that could change.


----------



## newtekie1 (Jul 19, 2011)

Really, it isn't surprising, AMD/ATI IGPs have always been more powerful than Intel's.

But an IGP doesn't need to be powerful.  Can it run HD Video?  Can it run office apps? and Intel's IGPs can do both of those tasks, so people will be happy with them.  The users looking to do anything more will use a descrete graphics card.

The sad thing is how you see people saying how much more powerful this APU is than Intel's IGP offerings.  Big deal.  It still isn't powerful enough to play any recent game with reasonable settings at a reasonable resolution.  I guess if you like playing games at 800x600 it is good, but I don't really enjoy that.  100% better than 10FPS is still unplayable, and that is basically what this amounts to...


----------



## Casecutter (Jul 19, 2011)

newtekie1 said:


> I guess if you like playing games at 800x600 it is good, but I don't really enjoy that.  100% better than 10FPS is still unplayable, and that is basically what this amounts to...



So why spend time doing this review?


----------



## swaaye (Jul 19, 2011)

_JP_ said:


> Great review.
> My conclusion is that the IGP desperately needs side-port memory, to gain some of the extra performance it is lacking right now..


Sideport was actually used to reduce power consumption. By accessing that memory instead of going through the CPU, the CPU could idle more. It was super slow memory though (32-bit bus I think) and did not improve performance much at all.


----------



## Pestilence (Jul 19, 2011)

Why such expensive boards? You can get an H67 and an A75 board starting at 69.99


----------



## [H]@RD5TUFF (Jul 19, 2011)

Casecutter said:


> "Weak" how do you sumise that from his review?  Weak where?
> 
> Sure other reviews that cover more CPU related tasks I agree, but for CPU/GPU chip performance only on the gaming titles provided it would appear better than a 880G and comperable AMD CPU, though that costs much less as of right now.
> 
> ...



I expected more simple as that, and the CPU is too weak.


----------



## _JP_ (Jul 20, 2011)

swaaye said:


> Sideport was actually used to reduce power consumption. By accessing that memory instead of going through the CPU, the CPU could idle more. It was super slow memory though (32-bit bus I think) and did not improve performance much at all.


It was a dedicated frame-buffer that could come in th from of GDDR3 chips (there was regular DDR2 too, IIRC). I'm sure there was a performance increase in vRAM I/O. Not that it would matter much on the HD3xxx/4xxx IGPs, but I could perdict an improvement in these new ones, after all, their discrete counterparts were designed to use GDDR3 and GDDR5.
Oh, and the bus width for the side-port was 16-bit, BTW.


----------



## wiak (Jul 20, 2011)

If you can live with the absolute minimum in graphics performance you could even consider an Athlon II motherboard with integrated graphics and save another $50. But consider that these options might not even have DVI/HDMI output and can barely handle Windows Aero effects.

btw this is more true for atom/older intel chipset that can bearly run aero 


hehe, well i have a 780G mb and a athlon II 240e, and my aero runs fine, and the mb also has DVI and HDMI
the Radeon HD 3200 has 40 shaders mind you and decoding of blur-ray in hardware to boot


btw nice review 
alot more informative than other sites


----------



## DrunkenMafia (Jul 20, 2011)

aBigRat said:


> I think this w1zzard guy haven't done the review honestly.
> 1. A motherboard for AMD Athlon X4 640 has its own integrated graphics, so why we need a HD 6450 for internet browsing?
> 2. I didn't see any HD5770 in the review, then I saw HD5770 stated in the conclusion. why HD5770, not HD6670?
> 3. A8-3850 iGP is equivalent to a HD5550 DDR3. For entry level gaming, it is more than enough to play while other two systems need HD 5550s to match its speed.
> 4. Electricity bills



And the award for "Biggest fail on your very first post on a forum" goes to.................... aBigRat...


----------



## seronx (Jul 20, 2011)

There is couple issues in this review but most of those issues have been touched already

thanks for the great review


----------



## Pestilence (Jul 20, 2011)

aBigRat said:


> I think this w1zzard guy haven't done the review honestly.
> 1. A motherboard for AMD Athlon X4 640 has its own integrated graphics, so why we need a HD 6450 for internet browsing?
> 2. I didn't see any HD5770 in the review, then I saw HD5770 stated in the conclusion. why HD5770, not HD6670?
> 3. A8-3850 iGP is equivalent to a HD5550 DDR3. For entry level gaming, it is more than enough to play while other two systems need HD 5550s to match its speed.
> 4. Electricity bills



I pay 60 dollars a month for electricity and it's 90 degrees out everyday.


----------



## jamsbong (Jul 20, 2011)

For me, if I was to build a cheap gaming system that is the price of a console. I might as well get a console.

PC gaming has always been expensive especially compared to console. But with the money spent, you get to overclock your hardware, spend a lot of sweet DIY time building your PC, run games with Max details ON; full HD; Vsync on and enjoy this high maintenance machine for the next 3 years.

In an PC enthusiast point of view the following example is a good investment. I've bought the Zalman Reserator in 2004 and use it for to watercooled my CPU and GPU. Today, that watercooling system is still 100% working and completely dust and noise free. So my investment $550/8 years = $68.75/yr and getting cheaper the longer I use it.

I know we all need to work within a budget but I think cheapest price isn't always the best choice.


----------



## HalfAHertz (Jul 20, 2011)

Awesome job as alwaysW1z.Tho to be honest I expected a tad better clocks from the 32nm process. Stillyou've got to hand it to the AMD team - it's no easy task to fit together a fully fledged DX11 GPU and 4 CPU cores on a single die. Let's just hope we start seeing the benefits sooner than later with some nice OpenCL programs.


----------



## Casecutter (Jul 20, 2011)

HalfAHertz said:


> Stillyou've got to hand it to the AMD team - it's no easy task to fit together a fully fledged DX11 GPU and 4 CPU cores on a single die.


Amen...
Who else will have all that any time in the next two years?  It’s been a desired ambition to achieve, fully integrate the two and AMD has provided that realization.  While sure it's not the zenith, as a starting point it’s a job that should be commend and not sloughed off. Look back like 4 years ago, a hot P4 and 8800GS was considered a decent gaming machine… this one chip bests' that and on substantially less power, that’s progress! Finally at the end W1zzard did in an almost a commiserate tone, concluded with that.

It’s almost is like some folks are be happy with slot CPU and RIVA 128 on AGP... :shadedshu


----------



## Disparia (Jul 20, 2011)

Thank you Wizzy for the review, especially with the Crossfire numbers! Out of all the other sites with reviews, I've only seen one other with them.

My wife's Athlon II 250 / HD 5670 combo plays whats she wants at 1650x1050. If the A8-3850 was out when I put her system together 8 months ago, I would have certainly gone this route. Smaller case, less power, less noise. But since the perf is so similar, will just have to wait for Trinity.


----------



## madseven (Jul 21, 2011)

Jonap_1st said:


> 1. A3850 + mobo + 6670 : $290++
> 2. 2100K + mobo + 6670 : $250++
> 
> (2) is cheaper and faster for daily application, but for graphic performances, (2) is not far enough behind (2) configuration.
> ...



Your prices are way too high for the AMD platform.  It's cheaper than the Intel platform and has better/more features.


----------



## madseven (Jul 21, 2011)

W1zzard said:


> i seriously doubt that for the forseeable future, processor integrated graphics can be faster than a low-end card.
> 
> igps will get better, but so will discrete gpus. both are using the same technology, architecture and production process. heat density limits will always limit IGP performance.
> 
> i see the big advantage in massive cost savings. why should a 250 mm² silicon die with cpu+gpu cost significantly more than a 250 mm² silicon die with just a cpu?



It's not when you consider the platform cost.  cpu+mb+ram+video card vs apu+ram+mb to get the same amount of performance.  The price is justified.


----------



## madseven (Jul 21, 2011)

newtekie1 said:


> Really, it isn't surprising, AMD/ATI IGPs have always been more powerful than Intel's.
> 
> But an IGP doesn't need to be powerful.  Can it run HD Video?  Can it run office apps? and Intel's IGPs can do both of those tasks, so people will be happy with them.  The users looking to do anything more will use a descrete graphics card.
> 
> The sad thing is how you see people saying how much more powerful this APU is than Intel's IGP offerings.  Big deal.  It still isn't powerful enough to play any recent game with reasonable settings at a reasonable resolution.  I guess if you like playing games at 800x600 it is good, but I don't really enjoy that.  100% better than 10FPS is still unplayable, and that is basically what this amounts to...


Read up on some other reviews and you'll see AMD's APU is in a class of it's own.  No Intel cpu and mb can touch it


----------



## madseven (Jul 21, 2011)

Just to point something out.  Llano is a 10 year old architecture cpu with a modern gpu.  It's a stop gap for Trinity (Bulldozer CPU and modern GPU).

 People love to knock down AMD and expected so much more.  To a point I did too (expect a lot) seeing this as a new product, but realistically, when you look at what's inside their APU you shouldn't knock them but instead praise them for what they're offering compared to Intel...Old CPU with modern graphics that beats the crap out of Intel in everything (graphics wise).

If Trinity is what I think it will be, Intel will be in a wolrd of hurt


----------



## Jonap_1st (Jul 21, 2011)

madseven said:


> Your prices are way too high for the AMD platform.  It's cheaper than the Intel platform and has better/more features.



way too high from what?

A3850 : $140
cheapest FM1 mobo : $70
cheapest HD6670 : $80
total : $290 

2100K : $110
cheapest 1155 mobo : $60
cheapest HD6670 : $80
total : $250

even when A3850 being crossfired with 6670, it wont give much improvement on graphic performance over 2100K setup beside it got $40 more expensives. to make it even worse dual core 2100K still faster than A3850 on daily application such a calculating, editing, and decoding.

next time read the review carefully and do some research for it. its not about "the class of its own", but for how much your money will worth for the best setup you can buy..


----------



## Casecutter (Jul 21, 2011)

Jonap_1st said:


> even when A3850 being crossfired with 6670, it wont give much improvement on graphic performance over 2100K setup beside it got $40 more expensives...


But again that whole hypostasis of buying an APU platform to add a 6670 is just stupid.  Sure it’s a feature, but right today it's not the premise most intelligent folks intend to build around. (AMD marketing has some blame on that)

Today you're buying into an APU as you don't intend to use a discrete card.  While the choices are; 880G with Phenom II X4 840 3.2GHz (very cost effective ~$180), or Intel GMA on a 1155 H61 (yea they're are cheap boards, but exceptionally dated _IMO_). However if you pick an _"as good quality equivalent manufacture" _with some features to the FM1 mobo you're looking at minimum $70. While today a more evenhanded preference would be the Z68 if you're buying/building an i3 today. I find that CPU is $125, while mobo’s start at $100). Not working with the Z68 is like saying there’s still 760G motherboards... for contrast.

So, you have $195 for the i3/H61 with "on chip" GMA (adequate) graphics, while the APU/mobo (class leading graphic functions) for from what you show $210.  Use the latest Z68 mobo and you're at $225. 

That's the true picture.


----------



## newtekie1 (Jul 21, 2011)

Casecutter said:


> So why spend time doing this review?



Well, I for one think it is good to know that the IGP that everyone seems to think is super powerful is really unable to play any real modern DX11 game.  That alone is worth doing the review for.


----------



## Jonap_1st (Jul 21, 2011)

Casecutter said:


> But again that whole hypostasis of buying an APU platform to add a 6670 is just stupid.  Sure it’s a feature, but right today it's not the premise most intelligent folks intend to build around. (AMD marketing has some blame on that)



put a lot of expectation on A3850 to playing decent games with decent framerates is also stupid as it sound. that's why if you want to play it, you still need discreted gpu to add more horsepower. 

you see on wizzard review.. and everybody here already knew that playing anything with framerate below 30fps is equivalent to annoying. still you can get decent framerate but you have to set it to low resolution or disable some option, which is can sacrifice your enjoy on viewing beautifull looking games. put in on question : why do you had 19" monitors when you can only play game with 1024x768 res?



> Today you're buying into an APU as you don't intend to use a discrete card.  While the choices are; 880G with Phenom II X4 840 3.2GHz (very cost effective ~$180), or Intel GMA on a 1155 H61 (yea they're are cheap boards, but exceptionally dated _IMO_). However if you pick an _"as good quality equivalent manufacture" _with some features to the FM1 mobo you're looking at minimum $70. While today a more evenhanded preference would be the Z68 if you're buying/building an i3 today. I find that CPU is $125, while mobo’s start at $100). Not working with the Z68 is like saying there’s still 760G motherboards... for contrast.
> 
> So, you have $195 for the i3/H61 with "on chip" GMA (adequate) graphics, while the APU/mobo (class leading graphic functions) for from what you show $210.  Use the latest Z68 mobo and you're at $225.



actually it's funny to see you suggest me to compare "only" CPU-onboard gpu with changing NB from 1155 to Z68 to get the same feature like FM1 does, while its clear that Z68 had none onboard video configuration..


----------



## devguy (Jul 21, 2011)

newtekie1 said:


> Well, I for one think it is good to know that the IGP that everyone seems to think is super powerful is really unable to play any real modern DX11 game.  That alone is worth doing the review for.



While there's nothing incorrect with what you said, bear in mind that DX9 console ports outnumber PC DX11 games at least 10:1, and even the modern DX11 games have some fallback to DX9.  With at least DDR3-1600, the AMD A8-350 usually can achieve at least 30fps at 1680x1050 or below with no AA and low-mid quality for most DX9 games.  That in MY opinion, is quite impressive for an IGP.

Several older games it can rock 1080p without breaking a sweat!


----------



## W1zzard (Jul 21, 2011)

devguy said:


> That in MY opinion, is quite impressive for an IGP.



it certainly is, but it doesnt change that you can build a faster and cheaper system if you are not concerned with small form factor, possibly even older technology


----------



## Jonap_1st (Jul 21, 2011)

devguy said:


> While there's nothing incorrect with what you said, bear in mind that DX9 console ports outnumber PC DX11 games at least 10:1, and even the modern DX11 games have some fallback to DX9.  With at least DDR3-1600, the AMD A8-350 usually can achieve at least 30fps at 1680x1050 or below with no AA and low-mid quality for most DX9 games.  That in MY opinion, is quite impressive for an IGP.
> 
> Several older games it can rock 1080p without breaking a sweat!



yes, its quite impressive. i admit that when lookin someone playing crysis 2 with APU on youtube. 

but still, price means everything..


----------



## devguy (Jul 21, 2011)

W1zzard said:


> it certainly is, but it doesnt change that you can build a faster and cheaper system if you are not concerned with small form factor, possibly even older technology



Agreed.  However, the technology is quite new, and I forsee a price drop before too long.  New stuff is always priced more expensive than the old stuff, even without a difference in performance (thinking of HD 6770 vs HD 5770).


----------



## Tatty_One (Jul 21, 2011)

Madseven, learn to use either the multiquote or edit buttons please, no need for triple posts, I like to keep me drawers tidy!


----------



## Casecutter (Jul 21, 2011)

newtekie1 said:


> Well, I for one think it is good to know that the IGP that everyone seems to think is super powerful is really unable to play any real modern DX11 game.  That alone is worth doing the review for.


Ah, who here thought that... or figured AMD would out their 100+ graphic card market with a APU and while doing it more power efficiently. 



Jonap_1st said:


> put a lot of expectation on A3850 to playing decent games with decent framerates is also stupid as it sound. that's why if you want to play it, you still need discreted gpu to add more horsepower.
> 
> you see on wizzard review.. and everybody here already knew that playing anything with framerate below 30fps is equivalent to annoying. still you can get decent framerate but you have to set it to low resolution or disable some option, which is can sacrifice your enjoy on viewing beautifull looking games. put in on question : why do you had 19" monitors when you can only play game with 1024x768 res?





Casecutter said:


> So why spend time doing this review?





Jonap_1st said:


> actually it's funny to see you suggest me to compare "only" CPU-onboard gpu with changing NB from 1155 to Z68 to get the same feature like FM1 does, while its clear that Z68 had none onboard video configuration..


I'm not talking graphics, more 6x SATA *6Gb/s*, *Raid* 0/1/10/JBOD, *2-PCI- E connectors* (x16/x4), Memory Support/Max, 2x *USB 3.0*, fan headers... For $95 a ASUS F1A75-M LE FM1 is much more feature rich than say the ASUS P8H61-M LGA 1155/H61 at $85.


----------



## Jonap_1st (Jul 21, 2011)

Casecutter said:


> Ah, who here thought that... or figured AMD would out their 100+ graphic card market with a APU and while doing it more power efficiently.
> 
> I'm not talking graphics, more 6x SATA *6Gb/s*, *Raid* 0/1/10/JBOD, *2-PCI- E connectors* (x16/x4), Memory Support/Max, 2x *USB 3.0*, fan headers... For $95 a ASUS F1A75-M LE FM1 is much more feature rich than say the ASUS P8H61-M LGA 1155/H61 at $85.



if you, me, and the other were not talking about graphic here, then what this thread is all about?

APU or 2100K setup are targeted for user who have limited budget and looking for cheap setup, so it's waste if you have a rich features motherboard but don't have any money to buy more hardware and put them all to together to make it look like super computer.

$70 H61 with 2 x USB 3.0 and 2 x SATA 6Gbps is enough for most of basic user..


----------



## Casecutter (Jul 21, 2011)

Jonap_1st said:


> yes, its quite impressive. i admit that when lookin someone playing crysis 2 with APU on youtube.
> 
> but still, price means everything..





Casecutter said:


> Amen...
> Look back like 4 years ago, a hot P4 and 8800GS was considered a decent gaming machine… this one chip bests' that and on substantially less power, that’s progress!


And back in the day 8800GS commanded like $150 and went to it knees on Crysis


----------



## Casecutter (Jul 21, 2011)

Jonap_1st said:


> if you, me, and the other were not talking about graphic here, then what this thread is all about?


It is about APU/IGP preformance, and always the most new feature for your money and upgrades down the road.  



Jonap_1st said:


> APU or 2100K setup are targeted for user who have limited budget and looking for cheap setup, so it's waste if you have a rich features motherboard but don't have any money to buy more hardware and put them all to together to make it look like super computer..


Why I said testing the 6670 should not part of the hypostasis being suggested. 



Jonap_1st said:


> $70 H61 with 2 x USB 3.0 and 2 x SATA 6Gbps is enough for most of basic user..


What manufacture offers that?


----------



## Jonap_1st (Jul 21, 2011)

Casecutter said:


> What manufacture offer that?



i dont want this thread to be out of topic. so please discuss only about the gpu, not mobo.

if you want some reference for hardware price include the full specs, try find some well-known online shopping. w1zz had mentioned *the site* on his analysis, which i got it from there..


----------



## TheLaughingMan (Jul 21, 2011)

While it is true new stuff is more expensive, the numbers show it is the motherboard mainly causing the different is system price, not the CPU/GPU combo. Excluding using another IGP with significantly lower numbers and keeping it in the realm of similar performance (i.e. 6450 minimum) is a good place for the APU to shine. Its that $35 different in mobo price that is killing it and that will only last for a short while. Soon we should get boards with the A55 (no USB3 and no FIS based switching) to close that gap.


----------



## Casecutter (Jul 21, 2011)

Jonap_1st said:


> i dont want this thread to be out of topic. so please discuss only about the gpu, not mobo.
> 
> if you want some reference for hardware price include the full specs, try find some well-known online shopping. w1zz had mentioned *the site* on his analysis, which i got it from there..


As thought the H61 is past its prime, not a competitive in price or features.
And I don't find where the W1zzard mentions the site he pulled such figures did I mis-it?
I noticed he used a $130 1155/H67; not that it significantly changes graphics performance it's just that's way North of $60! The Intel system CPU/Board combo used works out to $265 and 6670 on that!  Finally I just noticed W1z never ran the Intel system with the 6670 so we can't compare anything performance on that!  
ASUS P8H67-M EVO (REV 3.0) LGA 1155 Intel H67 HDMI...
It’s about the "total package" while I provided P/N’s and use Egg on pricing. You can Check!


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (Jul 21, 2011)

aBigRat said:


> y HD5770, not HD6670?



because their the same exact thing

good review what you on about he tested and got the results himself



Tatty_One said:


> even, learn to use either the multiquote or edit buttons please





to be fair the multiquote seems quite fineky ive not sussed it yet either


----------



## _JP_ (Jul 21, 2011)

*I'm curious...*

...where did you get that conclusion from?


----------



## Casecutter (Jul 21, 2011)

_JP_ said:


> ...where did you get that conclusion from?



Who?


----------



## Jonap_1st (Jul 21, 2011)

Casecutter said:


> As thought the H61 is past its prime, not a competitive in price or features.
> And I don't find where the W1zzard mentions the site he pulled such figures did I mis-it?
> I noticed he used a $130 1155/H67; not that it significantly changes graphics performance it's just that's way North of $60! The Intel system CPU/Board combo used works out to $265 and 6670 on that!  Finally I just noticed W1z never ran the Intel system with the 6670 so we can't compare anything performance on that!
> ASUS P8H67-M EVO (REV 3.0) LGA 1155 Intel H67 HDMI...
> It’s about the "total package" while I provided P/N’s and use Egg on pricing. You can Check!



you already knew that site  
but ASUS price is always higher, same like Gigabyte and MSI because they were premium products. try looking for some other option like Biostar and Asrock, both are still worth considering.. 

talking about comparing, seing a review it's better for not just from one place, there's a site that have made a comparison between A3850 and 2100K graphic performance when being combined with discreted gpu. eventhough they used geforce card instead radeon, it clearly shows that A3850 setups couldn't given any much improvement over 2100K setups. to make it even worse, on a few games A3850 got slower framerates.


----------



## Tatty_One (Jul 21, 2011)

theoneandonlymrk said:


> to be fair the multiquote seems quite fineky ive not sussed it yet either



It's simple, there are a couple of ways you can do it, the way I do it is to click on the multiquote button against all the posts you want to quote, the multiquote buttons will become highlighted, then click the quote button on the most recently posted of the ones you have multiquoted and you get your quote posting box with all the quotes in there, you can then reply between each quote in response..... hope that makes sense.


----------



## W1zzard (Jul 21, 2011)

Casecutter said:


> And I don't find where the W1zzard mentions the site he pulled such figures did I mis-it?



looks like you missed it indeed.


----------



## _JP_ (Jul 21, 2011)

Casecutter said:


> Who?


This:


theoneandonlymrk said:


> aBigRat said:
> 
> 
> > why HD5770, not HD6670?
> ...


FYI, HD 5770 != HD6670.


----------



## Casecutter (Jul 21, 2011)

W1zzard said:


> looks like you missed it indeed.


Ah, found it... I would've thought it be a hotlink and getting click rich!

So you use a $130 1155/H67 for testing, but the lowest priced 1155 of $55 to make a cost comparision.  



_JP_ said:


> FYI, HD 5770 != HD6670.


5770 *≠* 6670 _(yea I believe we were to ignore that rat)_
(Tip: Type 2260, then hold ALT, then "x" once, release ALT and you'll get ≠ within Word or rich text format... not here had to cut/paste) 

While I don't believe Llano provides for C-F "Hybrid" (or whatever this is called) with a card higher than a 6670.

Here's a question: will the board power down the discrete card and use only the APU when 3d load is not stringent?


----------



## W1zzard (Jul 21, 2011)

Casecutter said:


> So you use a $130 1155/H67 for testing, but the lowest priced 1155 of $55 to make a cost comparision.



i was too cheap to buy a new motherboard just for testing. since there will be no performance difference between the motherboards, there was no reason to, anyway



Casecutter said:


> While I don't believe Llano provides for C-F "Hybrid" (or whatever this is called) with a card higher than a 6670.



it does not, and hd 5770 is 50% faster than hd 6670


----------



## Casecutter (Jul 21, 2011)

Jonap_1st said:


> there's a site that have made a comparison between A3850 and 2100K graphic performance when being combined with discreted gpu. eventhough they used geforce card instead radeon, it clearly shows that A3850 setups couldn't given any much improvement over 2100K setups


Ah, Ok I could believe that... As that would kill the graphics of the APU (no C-F Hybrid enabled) and run the Geforce only, so that's even more stupid.
So the Intel took it sure, but what's its efficiency?


----------



## Casecutter (Jul 21, 2011)

W1zzard said:


> it does not, and hd 5770 is 50% faster than hd 6670


Exactly, and you'd need 6-pin power, so at that point it loses any real merit in a low power design of the whole APU concept.


----------



## extrasalty (Jul 22, 2011)

Great review as usual. 

Most people that buy assembled systems wouldn't care about synthetic bechmarks, crossfire or add-on cards all together. They will never open the case in its entire lifetime to clean it, let alone upgrade it. Those same people play Sims and WoW and for them the only thing they can notice is if the game works or not. In fact, the customers for this type of system would most likely not even ask us, the local enthusiasts, for advice when buying it.

I think AMD's new platform is a dream for the OEMs. Less assembly, less cost for cooling, less cost for bulky cases, it plays games and it's much faster than competing IGP- that's great news for the bottom line.


----------



## Jonap_1st (Jul 22, 2011)

_JP_ said:


> This:
> 
> FYI, HD 5770 != HD6670.



actually 5770 = 6770



Casecutter said:


> Ah, Ok I could believe that... As that would kill the graphics of the APU (no C-F Hybrid enabled) and run the Geforce only, so that's even more stupid.
> So the Intel took it sure, but what's its efficiency?



lets say they used $75 GT430 on A3850 it would be $285 cost setup (A3850+mobo+GT430), if you want to say they should make apple to apple comparison which can be means using setup that cost the same, it still cant beat 2100K which by price margin is $25 cheaper and you can make a better setup with (2100K+mobo+GTS250) plus your memory can be 100% dedicated for your system and not been eaten up if you enable APU

i'm saying like this because i was dissapointed when seing hybrid crossfire performance, why two gpu being crossfire'd (A3850+6670) is slower than one which discreted gpu (6670) was running alone?

if you look again gaming benchmarks on this review, you will understand how bad it was..


----------



## Casecutter (Jul 22, 2011)

Jonap_1st said:


> lets say they used $75 GT430 on A3850 it would be $285 cost setup (A3850+mobo+GT430), if you want to say they should make apple to apple comparison which can be means using setup that cost the same, it still cant beat 2100K which by price margin is $25 cheaper and you can make a better setup with (2100K+mobo+GTS250) plus your memory can be 100% dedicated for your system and not been eaten up if you enable APU
> if you look again gaming benchmarks on this review, you will understand how bad it was..



But this review had no i3/H67 platform testing other than with its own GMA graphic, so we don't know how bad it was.  Here's what I'll give you the i3 with say a $75 mobo and the GT430 (~$50) which is comes out $250 vs just the A3850 set-up ($210) under gaming. That's a guantlet.

If you want more gaming you would step away from the APU, and go with Phenom II X4 840 3.2GHz, 880G and 6770 at $300   Then honestly a GTS250, are they still on the market, while can't match the 6670


----------



## Damn_Smooth (Jul 22, 2011)

Jonap_1st said:


> i'm saying like this because i was dissapointed when seing hybrid crossfire performance, why two gpu being crossfire'd (A3850+6670) is slower than one which discreted gpu (6670) was running alone?
> 
> if you look again gaming benchmarks on this review, you will understand how bad it was..



Simple driver issues that will be fixed. I agree that they should already be fixed, but better late than never.


----------



## madseven (Jul 22, 2011)

Jonap_1st said:


> way too high from what?
> 
> A3850 : $140
> cheapest FM1 mobo : $70
> ...



If you were to build a budget system, why would you need to purchase a separate video card? Why a 6670? AMD is in a class of its own. APU+mb+ram way cheaper and better performance (video wise) than an Intel system.  Intel system would require discrete gpu to match AMD's APU.
Since you mention worth for what you can buy, the Intel system will not have SATA 3 (6Gb/s) or USB 3 for that matter.
Also cheapest 2100 that I've found is $120. Cheapest A3850 Ive found is $125.


----------



## Tatty_One (Jul 22, 2011)

Jonap_1st said:


> sorry for double posting, got wrong click. please delete this post~



You can delete it, simply go to Edit and delete, I don't moderate this sub forum so can't.


----------



## Jonap_1st (Jul 22, 2011)

Casecutter said:


> But this review had no i3/H67 platform testing other than with its own GMA graphic, so we don't know how bad it was.  Here's what I'll give you the i3 with say a $75 mobo and the GT430 (~$50) which is comes out $250 vs just the A3850 set-up ($210) under gaming. That's a guantlet.
> 
> If you want more gaming you would step away from the APU, and go with Phenom II X4 840 3.2GHz, 880G and 6770 at $300   Then honestly a GTS250, are they still on the market, while can't match the 6670



yes there were no test on i3/H67 on this review, but like i said before there were one trusted site that had done tested it.. 

i3 2100 : $125
cheapest H61 (usb3+sata6gbps) : $60
cheapest GT430 : $60
total : $245

A3850 : $140
cheapest FM1 : $70
cheapest GT430 : $60 < i added one discreted gpu to balance graphic performance
total : $270 

now lets take a look on benchmark that i got from that site 












P.S : i pick on H61 instead H67 because for graphic performance they were not much differences..

if you want to switch cpu and change it with phenom for focusing gaming performance, phenom 840 even $155 phenom 970 cant beat i3 2100






i'm not defending intel nor attacking AMD. but here, i'm just show you the reality when it comes to raw cpu power that effect gaming performances.  

A3850 is not best the choice for IGP right now, if you want better option just pick A3650 instead and overclock it. with just stock heatsink you can reach 3.8Ghz without breaking a sweat.. 

i guess these whole arguments ends up here. this my last respon to your post. thx 



madseven said:


> If you were to build a budget system, why would you need to purchase a separate video card? Why a 6670? AMD is in a class of its own. APU+mb+ram way cheaper and better performance (video wise) than an Intel system.  Intel system would require discrete gpu to match AMD's APU.
> Since you mention worth for what you can buy, the Intel system will not have SATA 3 (6Gb/s) or USB 3 for that matter.
> Also cheapest 2100 that I've found is $120. Cheapest A3850 Ive found is $125.



intel dont have it? then what is this?

ASRock H61ICAFE LGA 1155 Intel H61 HDMI SATA 6Gb/s...

BIOSTAR H67MU3 LGA 1155 Intel H67 HDMI SATA 6Gb/s ...

yeah it got better performance on video wise, but the result it still a dissapointment. if you want to play decent games with better framerates your only option is go for discreted gpu




Tatty_One said:


> You can delete it, *simply go to Edit and delete*, I don't moderate this sub forum so can't.



i guess i missed those point before  thanks for the tips..


----------



## madseven (Jul 22, 2011)

Sorry but links don't work.  I never disputed Intel's CPU Performance, but for a person who would want an all around budget system which would allow them to work and play games (better bang for the buck) then the AMD would be a better choice.  CPU IS fast enough (It's between an Athlon x4 645 and Phenom II x4 840) and GPU is between AMD 6450-6550.

And the person who said you could only play games at 800x600 I beg to differ.  I hope that they are referring to the Intel Chip and not the AMD APU.  Intel GPU sucks period.
No DX11, crappy drivers and practically zero support.  If you want links to various reviews comparing Intel vs AMD APU I can give you plenty.

One more thing, the benchmark you posted, did you see the 2100 igp vs the amd APU in Lost Planets. That's the budget system. No discrete gpu required.  For intel to catch up they have to get an additional discrete GPU vs AMD's APU only. Added cost for Intel "budget" platform.   Look at the beating Intel is taking.  Now imagine a game in dx11..  Oops, I forgot, Intel can't play games in dx11.  There is no support.

Once again, Intel has better CPU performance but is it really comparable to AMD's.  Remember, although it is a new chip (AMD's APU), it is based off an old (10yr old) architecture vs a new architecture from Intel.  With that being said, I would have expected at least 10 times the performance from and Intel CPU beating an AMD CPU in  performance, in which case it is not.

One thing I forgot to mention is that A3850 has a deficit of 200Mhz vs Intel 2100. AMD is supposedly going to release an A3870 (3.1GHz)with unlocked multiplier (black edition) and maybe at the same price point of the current A3850.


----------



## Jonap_1st (Jul 22, 2011)

madseven said:


> Sorry but links don't work.  I never disputed Intel's CPU Performance, but for a person who would want an all around budget system which would allow them to work and play games (better bang for the buck) then the AMD would be a better choice.  CPU IS fast enough (It's between an Athlon x4 645 and Phenom II x4 840) and GPU is between AMD 6450-6550.
> 
> And the person who said you could only play games at 800x600 I beg to differ.  I hope that they are referring to the Intel Chip and not the AMD APU.  Intel GPU sucks period.
> No DX11, crappy drivers and practically zero support.  If you want links to various reviews comparing Intel vs AMD APU I can give you plenty.
> ...



the meaning of budget system is not justified by the way you want to add another discreted gpu or not. as long as you can get better bang for the buck that's the true meaning of being a "budget system".

sure it will add another cost to the platform if you add discrete gpu, but it's not just because Intel had to catch up, but it will surely demolish APU performances alone. that's why that site give a chance to AMD setup for putting another discrete gpu so it would be fair because both setup got the same cost. so where's the beating that Intel got while both setups got the same discrete gpu? 



> Now imagine a game in dx11..  Oops, I forgot, Intel can't play games in dx11.  There is no support.



like the APU itself can handle full dx11 games?



> One thing I forgot to mention is that A3850 has a deficit of 200Mhz vs Intel 2100. AMD is supposedly going to release an A3870 (3.1GHz)with unlocked multiplier (black edition) and maybe at the same price point of the current A3850



200Mhz more clock speed doesn't give very significant improvement over graphic performance. because bumping the framerate only works when you upgrade system RAM to faster speed. 

there's no reason to sells BE version if current A3850 still cost $140, at least AMD cut the current A3850 price, so A3850 BE replaced those price point..


----------



## madseven (Jul 22, 2011)

The only way intel could compete in a gaming environment with their cpu vs AMD's APU is if they add a discrete video card otherwise they get killed.

www.anandtech.com
www.techreport.com

Budget system is trying to get the most bang for your buck(you have only x amount to spend) and the most bang for your buck comes from AMD. You get better gpu performance, slightly lower cpu performance, usb 3, and sata 3 compared to an intel system.

A normal person may or may not see a difference in cpu performance but they definitely will notice a difference in gpu performance.


----------



## Jonap_1st (Jul 22, 2011)

madseven said:


> The only way intel could compete in a gaming environment with their cpu vs AMD's APU is if they add a discrete video card otherwise they get killed.
> 
> www.anandtech.com
> www.techreport.com
> ...



here i discussed about A3850 performance itself the not entire APU's line. that why i suggested before to pick A3650 instead A3850..


----------



## TheLaughingMan (Jul 22, 2011)

Far Cry 2 is a back chose for this as it is a well known Intel bias game. I could post charts from the same website or from here of games that are AMD bias. It would prove nothing.

I have both APU's right now. I have no probably running Portal 2 maxed out on the A6 @ stock by itself. So you will have to define "decent games" for me. And just as a reference, A6 @ stock will play Bad Company 2 on medium at 1366 x 768 @ around 38 FPS (just enough for me to be somewhat effective on the field).


----------



## Jonap_1st (Jul 22, 2011)

TheLaughingMan said:


> Far Cry 2 is a back chose for this as it is a well known Intel bias game. I could post charts from the same website or from here of games that are AMD bias. It would prove nothing.
> 
> I have both APU's right now. I have no probably running Portal 2 maxed out on the A6 @ stock by itself. So you will have to define "decent games" for me. And just as a reference, A6 @ stock will play Bad Company 2 on medium at 1366 x 768 @ around 38 FPS (just enough for me to be somewhat effective on the field).



that graph only tells that phenom x4 cant beat 2100 on stock, no pun intended..

decent games that i talked before is the game that use full dx11 support. portal 2 dont need powerfull pc to run it smoothly since the game requirement its not that demanding, even intel HD2000 can run this game.

but just like you said. eventhough you had to sacrifice some graphic option if it was enough for you. it should be fine..


----------



## Casecutter (Jul 22, 2011)

Jonap_1st said:


> there were one trusted site that had done tested it.. now lets take a look on benchmark that i got from that site
> 
> A3850 is not best the choice for IGP right now.
> 
> yeah it got better performance on video wise, but the result it still a dissapointment. if you want to play decent games with better framerates your only option is go for discreted gpu.


I like that FryCry, LostPlant B-M’s.  Who’s review is that from, as I'd like to peruse it all?  The results shown by those two graphs shows that a discrete card "can" under the right conditions give better results.

If this APU isn't providing the best integrated graphics what does?

As to "if you want to play decent games with better framerates your only option is go for discrete gpu".  You’re stating "obvious" and something that was never questioned in this discussion.  Although, that comes at a price... cost of a card, maybe a PSU, and finally efficiency.  Such assertions move this out from the whole APU/IGP concept. As they say, "If you want to play... you have to pay"!  There's always that "brass ring", but it's also a continually moving target. Just embrace the idea this is an brilliant step-forward!

The issue… is you have yet to settle on a single theme relevant to the topic making this exigent discussion, and why such debate persists.

My points:
1) A review of this magnitude didn’t properly position APU/IGP performance in the market as I see it today.  The reader didn’t need to see “new” demanding Dx11 titles bringing any of these to submission (readers here know 6670/GT430 are hard pressed to provide any playable FpS). It provided nothing other than scare the un-educated away from the merits of this new technology.
2) AMD’s providing the “Cross-Fire-ability” is welcome, but not going to provide any real world improvement for playing the titles shown by the review.
3) To achieve anything approaching graphically demanding like this review, the i3/GMA graphics will need at least a $50-60 VGA card to start to be competitive with an APU. 
4) As shown by various other reviews memory speed and timings will “promote” A8 performance (at not anymore price considering the DDR market).  Properly deciding on memory and timing is a worthwhile consideration.

Sincerely
Cc


----------



## Jonap_1st (Jul 22, 2011)

Casecutter said:


> I like that FryCry, LostPlant B-M’s.  Who’s review is that from, as I'd like to peruse it all?  The results shown by those two graphs shows that a discrete card "can" under the right conditions give better results.



H*rdwareSecrets



> If this APU isn't providing the best integrated graphics what does?



A3650



> 2) AMD’s providing the “Cross-Fire-ability” is welcome, but not going to provide any real world improvement for playing the titles shown by the review.



hope they will fix the driver soon..



> 4) As shown by various other reviews memory speed and timings will “promote” A8 performance (at not anymore price considering the DDR market).  Properly deciding on memory and timing is a worthwhile consideration.
> 
> Sincerely
> Cc



memory timings had no effect of performance, memory clock did..


----------



## Steevo (Jul 22, 2011)

I would use this only for work builds as 4Gb of RAM and this would run training videos and office, and aero and other shitty flash/java based apps and do it all without breaking a sweat, while still pulling less from the plug.


The last three quad core machines I installed only pull 56W from the plug during windows startup, and a amazing 23W idle.


----------



## TheLaughingMan (Jul 22, 2011)

The A8-3850 is the most powerful IGP on the market, period.

AMD always fixes crossfire issues with new hardware in the next update.


----------



## Casecutter (Jul 22, 2011)

TheLaughingMan said:


> The A8-3850 is the most powerful IGP on the market, period.
> 
> AMD always fixes crossfire issues with new hardware in the next update.



AMD might not have C-F issues with non-Dx11 titles or for Dx11 titles not used here like BC2. Crysis here scale decent with the 6670, while something like CoD4 might play at 1680x 4xAA 16xAF closer to a 5750. There’s just not enough data here to provide a good analysis.  But your right I’m sure there are plenty of tweak that aren’t just carrying over from the normal C-F driver instructions.

Actually looking a these recent B-M's for Crysis I a bit surprised it the A8+6670 did 31 Fps, by previous numbers that's 10fps more than a 5750/Gtx550ti. 
http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Sapphire/HD_6450_Passive/11.html


----------



## Jonap_1st (Jul 22, 2011)

Casecutter said:


> Actually looking a these recent B-M's for Crysis I a bit surprised it the A8+6670 did 31 Fps, by previous numbers that's 10fps more than a 5750/Gtx550ti.
> http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Sapphire/HD_6450_Passive/11.html



are you sure about the link? where's the A8?


----------



## Casecutter (Jul 22, 2011)

Jonap_1st said:


> are you sure about the link? where's the A8?


Ah, the A8 numbers are found in this review...The other just graphics... keep thinking it should come to you.


----------



## aBigRat (Jul 22, 2011)

Jonap_1st said:


> way too high from what?
> 
> A3850 : $140
> cheapest FM1 mobo : $70
> ...



A3850 : $140
cheapest FM1 mobo : $70
total : $210 

2100: $110
cheapest 1155 mobo : $60
cheapest HD5550 : $50
total : $220

That's my point, and there is no K version of 2100.
Overall performance of A8-3850 still beats the i3-2100 with lower CPU+GPU TDP.
MF1 mobo is much better than a "cheapest" H61.


----------



## Casecutter (Jul 22, 2011)

aBigRat said:


> 2100: $110
> cheapest 1155 mobo : $60
> cheapest HD5550 : $50
> total : $220



On Egg right today the i3-2100 Sandy Bridge 3.1GHz is $125
Intel Core i3-2100 Sandy Bridge 3.1GHz 2 x 256KB L...
A the bare minium 1155/H61 mobo is $60 though for that this Asrock has SATA6Gb, USB3.0
ASRock H61ICAFE LGA 1155 Intel H61 HDMI SATA 6Gb/s... 
While I'd be more inclined to this OC 5570 1GB 128-bit DDR3 for $56 (-AR$10) [5550 are $55 -AR listing right now]
GIGABYTE GV-R557OC-1GI Radeon HD 5570 1GB DDR3 PCI...
Total = $241


----------



## madseven (Jul 23, 2011)

lets not forget that you wont get an intel chipset with the same features offered by AMD's motherboard (usb 3 sata 3)


----------



## Jonap_1st (Jul 23, 2011)

Casecutter said:


> Ah, the A8 numbers are found in this review...The other just graphics... keep thinking it should come to you.







aBigRat said:


> A3850 : $140
> cheapest FM1 mobo : $70
> total : $210
> 
> ...



sorry for my typo..
yeah FM1 is better. but still, what else do you want from budget system? 2 USB 3.0 and 2 Sata 3.0 is enough for me..



madseven said:


> lets not forget that you wont get an intel chipset with the same features offered by AMD's motherboard *(usb 3 sata 3)*



how many times do i have to tell about it :shadedshu



>


----------



## madseven (Jul 23, 2011)

I saw that.  I stand corrected thank you.


----------



## aBigRat (Jul 24, 2011)

Jonap_1st said:


> sorry for my typo..
> yeah FM1 is better. but still, what else do you want from budget system? 2 USB 3.0 and 2 Sata 3.0 is enough for me..
> 
> 
> ...



Actually, A75 chipset is for H67, not H61.
The upcoming A55 chipset with the price of $50~60 will do the job. 
And the price of 2100 is 120, not 110.


----------



## Jonap_1st (Jul 24, 2011)

aBigRat said:


> Actually, A75 chipset is for H67, not H61.
> The upcoming A55 chipset with the price of $50~60 will do the job.
> And the price of 2100 is 120, not 110.



what makes it different when it comes graphic performances? 
comparing xxx socket to xxx socket is confusing enough for some people since the main point to show who's the fastest is only for cpu and gpu. motherboard only work for providing support for the both..

A55 is cheap, but you have to sacrifice usb 3.0 and sata 3. sure if you compare that feature to the latest H61 who already support that 2 things. well.. the answer is clear.

for 2100 price, that's my mistake..


----------



## bostonbuddy (Jul 25, 2011)

Looked into one of these for  a htpc,
the egg has no fm1 m-itx mobos.
This better change soon, would only use one of these in a low power m-itx app


----------



## Strider (Jul 30, 2011)

Cant wait to get my hands on these to give them a try for myself. Would make for an inexpensive "general" build for average everyday computing and gaming. 

The only thing I don't like about this specific review is they consider no Cuda or PhysX support a negative. Really?

Cuda is not a "support", it's a brand name. Nvidia calls its processing cores and GPU computing Cuda, AMD calls them Stream Processors and Direct Compute. One is not better than the other, they can both do the exact same things, this is all about the software and driver support. Not the technology itself. Cuda simply gets more attention and overly hyped. Not that its a bad thing by any means, just hate it when it's represented as a negative if something does not have it. It's far from necessary in any respect.

The other point is PhysX. Of course there is no PhysX support on an AMD chipset, it's an Nvidia proprietary engine. PhysX is not the only physics engine on the planet, hardly any mainstream games use it anymore, most use their own engine or a Havoc based one. The PhysX engine can run on any GPU, the ONLY reason it will not run on an AMD/ATI GPU is purely political. Nvidia will not allow it unless they are paid for it. Hence why most game developers do not use PhysX. AMD was beating Nvidia in video card sales the last time I looked, developers are not in a hurry to alienate a vast portion of their customer base. heh 

Beyond that, great review. Like I said, I want to get my hands on one of these setups and mess around with it myself. lol


----------



## aBigRat (Jul 30, 2011)

Strider said:


> Cant wait to get my hands on these to give them a try for myself. Would make for an inexpensive "general" build for average everyday computing and gaming.
> 
> The only thing I don't like about this specific review is they consider no Cuda or PhysX support a negative. Really?
> 
> ...



Yes, you got thing right about Nvidia CUDA support. AMD still have FireStream to compete. So why doesn't GPU-Z have AMD FireStream support checkpoint in it?
And about PhysX, I only see as an unlock key for some extra details in some games, no more. Strong GPU like GTX580 or HD 6970 is strong enough to handle these details. The thing is if your GPU is not a Nvidia GPU, the games with PhysX will pass these details to CPU forcefully.
With some games you clearly need two strong Nvidia Cards to have PhysX enabled because those cannot be played on just one card. The FPS will be heavily dropped down to nearly un-playable with very high settings for the GPU has to handle the PhysX details as well. That proves that a GPU with PhysX is just a mere GPU like another non-physX GPUs no more. And AMD wants it to be available on its GPUs? pays for the license just like SLI  and no GPU modification is needed to be made.


----------



## Strider (Jul 30, 2011)

I highly doubt AMD will pay for PhysX. Like I said, it's hardly used anywhere anymore and is not the only physics engine out there. Like I said, it's a great engine, but it's not what Nvidia wants the consumer to believe it is. 

Any 4800 series, 5800 series, or 6900 series GPU from AMD/ATI can handle the same exact level of physics the PhysX engine can produce as their Nvidia counterpart cards can. It's all marketing, pure and simple. Any non-Nvidia GPU is detected, PhysX is either disabled or offloaded to the CPU. The PhysX engine has one serious limitation, it was not coded to run on the CPU, it never was. Ageia coded it to run on a separate PPU "Physics Processing Unit". These were basically just a separate GPU. When Nvidia purchased the PhysX engine from Ageia, they simply incorporated it to run on the standard GPU. 

You used to be able to run modified drivers to "trick" the engine into running on an ATI GPU, something you can not do anymore. So some people who wanted PhysX ran hybrid setups. ATI primary GPU and a separate Nvidia GPU for PhysX alone. Then Nvidia blocked that as well. However, due to negative customer response, they later removed that block. 

So all in all, you can see why I am not a PhysX fan, or Nvidia fan for that matter. I know everyone has their preference for their own reasons, and there are a lot of hardcore fans on both sides of the fence. However it's clear that AMD is doing something right and Nvidia is not.
They used to all but dominate the gaming world, not anymore, they are loosing more and more sales to AMD. 

=/


----------

