Dent12/10 explain?

Intel is holding the performance crown since a very long time ago (at least it's a very long time in computer industry terms), unless we are about to discuss some promising moments from the last decade....... I'm afraid it was just a bad troll bait, which I'm not willing to bite on.

Dent1Money alone isn't restricting AMD from cranking out better performing processors. Its consumers. Why should AMD spend revenue to appease their smallest audience?

Their largest audience are all gone to mobile and handheld anyway, so this is not really a good point, especially not on a PC enthusiast site like TPU is. Money is what you need to buy up the best minds to make you a good cpu on the lowest levels, which is what AMD still lacks badly (imho). The very latest AMD cpu's are still only trying to compete with the good old Sandy Bridge (IPC wise).

APUs are the future of course, but we are just not there yet... If you want to game, you need a dedicated graphics card and a cpu with high IPC. That being said, you are still better off with a cheap dual core Pentium and a low-end dedicated GPU than going with an APU (assuming same budget ofc), and that's only because AMD still sucks on IPC wise. (Yes I know that some heavily multithreaded games will do better on an APU, but those games will make both struggle anyway, so it's useless to compare 7 vs 13-ish fps performances.) On the other hand, if you don't want to game, an i3 (with the built in HD graphics) will run everything just fine for you and will ask for much less in every other aspect (eg: power, heat, cost, etc)

So again, AMD needs to improve their IPC, which is still one of the most crucial aspect of any given CPU architecture. And I'm rooting for them that they will do:toast:

IkarugaIntel is holding the performance crown since a very long time ago (at least it's a very long time in computer industry terms), unless we are about to discuss some promising moments from the last decade....... I'm afraid it was just a bad troll bait, which I'm not willing to bite on.

But AMD have held more than 2 victories and Intel have had less than 10 victories. 2/10 is mathematically inaccurate. Right?

IkarugaTheir largest audience are all gone to mobile and handheld anyway, so this is not really a good point, especially not on a PC enthusiast site like TPU is. Money is what you need to buy up the best minds to make you a good cpu on the lowest levels, which is what AMD still lacks badly (imho). The very latest AMD cpu's are still only trying to compete with the good old Sandy Bridge (IPC wise).

APUs are the future of course, but we are just not there yet... If you want to game, you need a dedicated graphics card and a cpu with high IPC. That being said, you are still better off with a cheap dual core Pentium and a low-end dedicated GPU than going with an APU (assuming same budget ofc), and that's only because AMD still sucks on IPC wise. (Yes I know that some heavily multithreaded games will do better on an APU, but those games will make both struggle anyway, so it's useless to compare 7 vs 13-ish fps performances.) On the other hand, if you don't want to game, an i3 (with the built in HD graphics) will run everything just fine for you and will ask for much less in every other aspect (eg: power, heat, cost, etc)

So again, AMD needs to improve their IPC, which is still one of the most crucial aspect of any given CPU architecture. And I'm rooting for them that they will do:toast:

This is incorrect on numerous fronts.

When AMD was more competitive in the enthusiast market it didn't translate into revenue. Understandably AMD are reluctant to repeat the same mistake again.

The enthusiast market is a very small. What's better 100% of a 10% enthusiast market or capitalising on the remaining 90% of the CPU market?

APUs are here already, flooding the market in laptops, mobile devices, and consoles. Within the few months with the console launch there will be more APU in devices than CPUs.

Where you hoping that AMD left APUs alone so a competitor could steal their place and scoop 90% the market. Too much money on the table.


Your mistake is thinking AMD are working to please you. They work to please their share holders.

Dent1But AMD have held more than 2 victories and Intel have had less than 10 victories. 2/10 is mathematically inaccurate. Right?

This was a reference to a custom people are using on internet forums, like "10/10, would read again..."

Dent1This is incorrect on numerous fronts.

When AMD was more competitive in the enthusiast market it didn't translate into revenue. Understandably AMD are reluctant to repeat the same mistake again.

The enthusiast market is a very small. What's better 100% of a 10% enthusiast market or capitalising on the remaining 90% of the CPU market?

APUs are here already, flooding the market in laptops, mobile devices, and consoles. Within the few months with the console launch there will be more APU in devices than CPUs.

Where you hoping that AMD left APUs alone so a competitor could steal their place and scoop 90% the market. Too much money on the table.


Your mistake is thinking AMD are working to please you. They work to please their share holders.

I know of course how the market is layered, I did not start this yesterday (well, I'm not even sure if you are seriously think that I don't know this or you just making fun of me tbh) but again, this is a PC enthusiast site, and I have no interest in anything crappy or sub-par.
I have to call the famous bieber analogy here again, but it fits here so well: even if justin bieber is one of the most successful and mostly listened "musicians" worldwide, that doesn't mean that I will ever buy into that "product", nor it means that we don't need anything better just because those will never reach such a sales figures like what Bieber can do.

And, yes, I also understand that an economy which is based on consumerism will never favor produtcs what entusiast do, but again, I'm still only interested in the "good stuffs", which really brings the world forward.

IkarugaIntel is holding the performance crown since a very long time ago (at least it's a very long time in computer industry terms), unless we are about to discuss some promising moments from the last decade....... I'm afraid it was just a bad troll bait, which I'm not willing to bite on.

There have been faster AMD CPU's in the past, which is why he said "another".

IkarugaThis was a reference to a custom people are using on internet forums, like "10/10, would read again


I know of course how the market is layered, I did not start this yesterday (well, I'm not even sure if you are seriously think that I don't know this or you just making fun of me tbh) but again, this is a PC enthusiast site, and I have no interest in anything crappy or sub-par."

Nobody wants anything sub-par. You can still have excellent enthusiast CPUs without the pressure of beating Intel all the time.

You mentioned gaming in your previous posts, but AMD already have relatively cheap enthusiast CPUs which can handle games really well. Phneom II, Bulldozer, Piledriver are all more than enough for games for years to come, it's a given Steamroller will too even if it doesn't outperform Intel.

IkarugaI have to call the famous bieber analogy here again, but it fits here so well: even if justin bieber is one of the most successful and mostly listened "musicians" worldwide, that doesn't mean that I will ever buy into that "product", nor it means that we don't need anything better just because those will never reach such a sales figures like what Bieber can do..

Nice Analogy.

IkarugaAnd, yes, I also understand that an economy which based on consumerism will never favor produtcs what entusiast do, but again, I'm still only interested in the "good stuffs", which really brings the world forward.

It's impossible for a small segment to bring the world forward without being mainstream. If it wasn't for low energy chips we wouldn't have mobiles, smartphones, laptops and the world would be moving backward.

----

I believe in the next decade, we're are going to see high end APUs. Enthusiast grade GPUs and enthusiast grade CPUs on the same die.

Dent1I believe in the next decade, we're are going to see high end APUs. Enthusiast grade GPUs and enthusiast grade CPUs on the same die.

If TPU's post history could show very old posts too, you would see that I was already on the "APU train" a lot earlier than you would think. Yes this is the wheel of reincarnation thingy, the industry packs things together until one sub-component gets so complicated that it must be made dedicated... until we are so advanced again that it's time to make it an internal sub-component again..... and the wheel goes on... we are at the time when we gonna put the graphics into the CPU, which is an exciting moment indeed, but this doesn't change the fact that the CPU parts of AMD's APUs are just simply bad compared to intel CPUs, no other way around this imo...again you buy a Intel Pentium and a dedicated graphics card from the price of an APU and you get better performance in 90+% of the applications what people use the most.. so it's better performance and lower power consumption for the same price.. APUs are simply not fast enough atm because of their IPC performance.

IkarugaIf TPU's post history could show very old posts too, you would see that I was already on the "APU train" a lot earlier than you would think. Yes this is the wheel of reincarnation thingy, the industry packs things together until one sub-component gets so complicated that it must be made dedicated... until we are so advanced again that it's time to make it an internal sub-component again..... and the wheel goes on... we are at the time when we gonna put the graphics into the CPU, which is an exciting moment indeed, but this doesn't change the fact that the CPU parts of AMD's APUs are just simply bad compared to intel CPUs, no other way around this imo...again you buy a Intel Pentium and a dedicated graphics card from the price of an APU and you get better performance in 90+% of the applications what people use the most.. so it's better performance and lower power consumption for the same price.. APUs are simply not fast enough atm because of their IPC performance.

Exactly which APU's are you talking about here? Because you'd get the slowest Pentium plus a HD6570 (DDR3) at best for the price of a 6800K, and the 6800k would be faster than that, no ifs or buts. Not much faster, but faster.

AMD has a reason to make them .If an AM3+ motherboard owner have to spend money for a new motherboard may not see any reason to choose AMD over intel .AMD played price /performance card after losing performance crown and will lost this card for AM3+ owners.

This is a point of view another one is intel is not making bulk of income from high performance CPUs it is more like i3/ pentium /celerons if AMD FX cpus give performance around i5s it is more than enough a lot of people.

Unified CPU socket is another matter and it is nice but AMD need a stop gap solution for AM3+ owners

D3l1r1umThere will be no more AM3+ CPUs. AMD has no reason to make them. They can't compete with Intel in pure CPU-power, they admit it

FrickExactly which APU's are you talking about here? Because you'd get the slowest Pentium plus a HD6570 (DDR3) at best for the price of a 6800K, and the 6800k would be faster than that, no ifs or buts. Not much faster, but faster.

The current price of the 6800k is around $150 (and please let's not get into rebate-debate here, because the internet is a pretty big place when it comes to special sales), so you can get a pentium for $64 (also without rebate ofc). Now please tell me that you can't find something faster than the 6570ddr3 for $86.

IkarugaThe current price of the 6800k is around $150 (and please let's not get into rebate-debate here, because the internet is a pretty big place when it comes to special sales), so you can get a pentium for $64 (also without rebate ofc). Now please tell me that you can't find something faster than the 6570ddr3 for $86.

In most cases the extra cores are going to help in future and present release games ,and all in if you're gameing neither would Do so for a casual user the experience of the apu will be better less messing about less drivers but while surfing and watching content no difference.

theoneandonlymrkIn most cases the extra cores are going to help in future and present release games ,and all in if you're gameing neither would Do so for a casual user the experience of the apu will be better less messing about less drivers but while surfing and watching content no difference.

Those users who can't install drivers won't be able to handle any technical difficulties with an APU either, so this is pointless (btw, aren't Windows doing these kind of things automatically?).

Again, I'm all in for APUs since they are the future, but I just can't understand why people here are defending the current generation which still consumes more power while delivers less performance than two dedicated solution would do for the same price.

Just for the reference, I built a Pentium+GTX650 config for somebody (all new parts with warranty from special sales) at the time when the 6800K came out (I know it's not fair to compare special deals with a launch price, so this is just for the reference), but I can't ignore it, that the systems destroys the APU and it only eats 125W with extreme CPU+GPU burn load.

MelvisInteresting and good to see, lets hope it has the 15% performance increase over Piledriver as they have been claiming.

More like 30% from what I've heard.

Ikarugaagain you buy a Intel Pentium and a dedicated graphics card from the price of an APU and you get better performance in 90+% of the applications what people use the most.. so it's better performance and lower power consumption for the same price.. APUs are simply not fast enough atm because of their IPC performance.

IkarugaThe current price of the 6800k is around $150 (and please let's not get into rebate-debate here, because the internet is a pretty big place when it comes to special sales), so you can get a pentium for $64 (also without rebate ofc). Now please tell me that you can't find something faster than the 6570ddr3 for $86.

Doubt it.

The combined power consumption and heat output of a Pentium and a dedicated video card would exceed an equivalent APU. This is a major selling point of an APU.

A $64 dual core Intel Pentium would not outperform a Trinity quad core APU.

In some CPU benches even a i3 dual core (Core i3-3225) gets outrun by AMDs last generation four core Llano let alone the four core Trinity. If a Ivy Bridge dual core Core i3 is struggling to keep up in CPU benches how is a dual core Pentium going to?


And yes, before you say it, its AMDs four cores v Intels two cores. But you brought price into it and the only Pentium CPU that's $65 is the dual core.

And before you bring clock for clock or IPC or any excuse into it. I'm talking about overall performance. Because if a noob is using a computer they care about the end result.
hexus.net/tech/reviews/cpu/46005-amd-a10-5800k-trinity-apu/?page=4

What's all this talk about no more discrete Desktop CPU's? AMD will either release performance desktop CPU's on AM3+ or a new socket like AM4.

If AMD does not release discrete performance desktop CPU's, they will struggle IMO.
Many of us expect Steamroller and Excavator.

Dent1Doubt it.

The combined power consumption and heat output of a Pentium and a dedicated video card would exceed an equivalent APU. This is a major selling point of an APU.

A $64 dual core Intel Pentium would not outperform a Trinity quad core APU.

In some CPU benches even a i3 dual core (Core i3-3225) gets outrun by AMDs last generation four core Llano let alone the four core Trinity. If a Ivy Bridge dual core Core i3 is struggling to keep up in CPU benches how is a dual core Pentium going to?


And yes, before you say it, its AMDs four cores v Intels two cores. But you brought price into it and the only Pentium CPU that's $65 is the dual core.

And before you bring clock for clock or IPC or any excuse into it. I'm talking about overall performance. Because if a noob is using a computer they care about the end result.
hexus.net/tech/reviews/cpu/46005-amd-a10-5800k-trinity-apu/?page=4

We are talking about average joe here, who will browse the web and do some mild gaming, where the pentium with the dedicated card wins easy. Browsing the web is still mostly about ipc, so the intel will give a 'snapier' experience. And 80-90% of the games which are 'playable' with such a low-end graphics solution will also benefit more from a dedicated gpu. The apu will only win the benchmarks, but not the 'feel' of an average user with their everyday applications.

Dave did a superb review of the 6800k here, and it shows that the Apu (alone) eats 110w on stock and 147w when overclocked, but i saw much worse elsewhere.

IkarugaWe are talking about average joe here, who will browse the web and do some mild gaming, where the pentium with the dedicated card wins easy. Browsing the web is still mostly about ipc, so the intel will give a 'snapier' experience. And 80-90% of the games which are 'playable' with such a low-end graphics solution will also benefit more from a dedicated gpu. The apu will only win the benchmarks, but not the 'feel' of an average user with their everyday applications.

Browsing the web is not about IPC anymore. The requirements for a simple web browser such as IE or Chrome is so minuscule that it virtually wouldn't tax any modern CPU to any degree. To imply an APU isn't equally as snappy on a web browser is laughable.

If anything the four core APU would be snappier, as it'll better negotiate multitasking between the numerous opened web pages simultaneously and won't choke when you start introducing new background processes to the mix or when the Antivirus kicks in. Thus ensuring the user has a better overall experience.

The only significant bearing for "snapper" browsing experience would be internet connection downstream throughput and latency, and HDD read/write latency for loading up cached web pages.

IkarugaDave did a superb review of the 6800k here, and it shows that the Apu (alone) eats 110w on stock and 147w when overclocked, but i saw much worse elsewhere.

And how much wattage would a Pentium and a dedicated video card eat? Surely more.

Dent1And how much wattage would a Pentium and a dedicated video card eat? Surely more.

well, lets see....the pentium g850, a sandy bridge dual core, only pulls about 25-30 watt when you use a dedicated card. the amd hd 7750 pulls about 75 watts at full load. thats 105 watt. well make it 110 in case the card pulls more power when heated up. the a10-5800k pulls over 160 watt at full load during the same benchmarking scenario, and performs slower than the dedicated+intel combo.

in addition to that, the ivy bridge based pentium pulls slightly less than the sandy bridge, and haswell might be even better.

My 5800k at max load both cpu and gpu took 155 watts at the wall. Stock clocks. That seems pretty competitive in efficiency to intel I would think.

Dent1Browsing the web is not about IPC anymore. The requirements for a simple web browser such as IE or Chrome is so minuscule that it virtually wouldn't tax any modern CPU to any degree. To imply an APU isn't equally as snappy on a web browser is laughable.

If anything the four core APU would be snappier, as it'll better negotiate multitasking between the numerous opened web pages simultaneously and won't choke when you start introducing new background processes to the mix or when the Antivirus kicks in. Thus ensuring the user has a better overall experience.

It's absolutely not laughable, not at all. You would be surprised just how slow things can get at same places on the Internet. Flash games or High res videos might get a separate process now, but many things still don't (for security and other reasons) ...well, maybe they do on Chrome now with it's nice "threaded compositing", but there is absolutely no guarantee that Average Joe will use Chrome, nor I would recommend to do until it's going to be safe "again" btw, (even if I really like and respect what Google is doing for the world on other areas). Massive java scripts (which are still hard to get multi-threaded properly or heavy tabs like Reddit+RES suite with full of opened posts for several pages, and many security related things are still mostly about ipc, and believe me, they do can feel snappier on a faster processor sometimes, you should really try it yourself if you doubt it.
For example, I love to play QuakeLive with my buddies, and it loves the Pentium over the APU (and no, graphics is not really an issue with the idtech3 engine on current GPUs, it's the cpu which struggles). Again, this is more about games and not the browsing part.. almost all of the games which are "playable" on low end GPUs (read: more than 15 fps) will feel much better with a dedicated graphics card, and "much better" still might be an understatement here, because most of the games will run way much better tbh, like +10fps or more which is huge in terms of smooth gameplay experience.

Yes there are many things what Average Joe might do and what would feel better on the APU (and I honestly hope that these things will keep coming faster and faster in the future, because I do like APUs). For example, CIV5 would be playable around 20-25 fps and it would love the more cores, or L4D2 if you are the host and using many mods (but Source is already very fast on two cores too tbh), or handling compressed archives are also faster, or encoding videos with CPU only (not Xvid tho, which is single threaded iirc), etc.. so more and more things will get multithreaded which will - sooner or later - reach Average Joe too.. All I'm saying that perhaps it's too early to bow down front of the APUs, perhaps the next ones will worth it:toast:

Dent1And how much wattage would a Pentium and a dedicated video card eat? Surely more.

Hmm, a Pentium will eat 35W-ish if the IGP is not used .. So you have about 75W to spend on the rest. Now, a "monster" card (in low end terms ofc) like the GTX650 eats 65W-ish with furmark (and much less with normal loads) ... and that will leave the APU standing still in just about every game.... so you do the math.

TheinsanegamerNwell, lets see....the pentium g850, a sandy bridge dual core, only pulls about 25-30 watt when you use a dedicated card. the amd hd 7750 pulls about 75 watts at full load. thats 105 watt. well make it 110 in case the card pulls more power when heated up. the a10-5800k pulls over 160 watt at full load during the same benchmarking scenario, and performs slower than the dedicated+intel combo.

in addition to that, the ivy bridge based pentium pulls slightly less than the sandy bridge, and haswell might be even better.

yes sir;). The funny thing is that you can even fit a low power i5 there (if you are lucky), but I did not mention this because of the budget comparision:toast:

IkarugaIt's absolutely not laughable, not at all. You would be surprised just how slow things can get at same places on the Internet. Flash games or High res videos might get a separate process now, but many things still don't (for security and other reasons) ...well, maybe they do on Chrome now with it's nice "threaded compositing", but there is absolutely no guarantee that Average Joe will use Chrome, nor I would recommend to do until it's going to be safe "again" btw, (even if I really like and respect what Google is doing for the world on other areas). Massive java scripts (which are still hard to get multi-threaded properly or heavy tabs like Reddit+RES suite with full of opened posts for several pages, and many security related things are still mostly about ipc, and believe me, they do can feel snappier on a faster processor sometimes, you should really try it yourself if you doubt it.
For example, I love to play QuakeLive with my buddies, and it loves the Pentium over the APU (and no, graphics is not really an issue with the idtech3 engine on current GPUs, it's the cpu which struggles). Again, this is more about games and not the browsing part.. almost all of the games which are "playable" on low end GPUs (read: more than 15 fps) will feel much better with a dedicated graphics card, and "much better" still might be an understatement here, because most of the games will run way much better tbh, like +10fps or more which is huge in terms of smooth gameplay experience.

Yes there are many things what Average Joe might do and what would feel better on the APU (and I honestly hope that these things will keep coming faster and faster in the future, because I do like APUs). For example, CIV5 would be playable around 20-25 fps and it would love the more cores, or L4D2 if you are the host and using many mods (but Source is already very fast on two cores too tbh), or handling compressed archives are also faster, or encoding videos with CPU only (not Xvid tho, which is single threaded iirc), etc.. so more and more things will get multithreaded which will - sooner or later - reach Average Joe too.. All I'm saying that perhaps it's too early to bow down front of the APUs, perhaps the next ones will worth it:toast:

Hmm, a Pentium will eat 35W-ish if the IGP is not used .. So you have about 75W to spend on the rest. Now, a "monster" card (in low end terms ofc) like the GTX650 eats 65W-ish with furmark (and much less with normal loads) ... and that will leave the APU standing still in just about every game.... so you do the math.




yes sir;). The funny thing is that you can even fit a low power i5 there (if you are lucky), but I did not mention this because of the budget comparision:toast:

Yet again im all for opinion but you're bordering on boring the shit out of me now how you still wafflin about cheap pentiums for gaming because it would play the games You play ok.
Fine we get it now feck off its a 2014 chip release thread and You are now trolling regardless of intent.

theoneandonlymrkYet again im all for opinion but you're bordering on boring the shit out of me now how you still wafflin about cheap pentiums for gaming because it would play the games You play ok.
Fine we get it now feck off its a 2014 chip release thread and You are now trolling regardless of intent.

I did not troll, on the contrary, I was spot on the subject of the things people are addressed me with. .....but I can drop it if it makes you happy, I hope it will do.

Just for the reference, this was my original post in this thread:

IkarugaAMD will have a lot of money from the console sales, I hope this will show in their next chip's performance too. It would be really great to finally have a "faster than Intel" AMD architecture in the market.

TheinsanegamerNwell, lets see....the pentium g850, a sandy bridge dual core, only pulls about 25-30 watt when you use a dedicated card. the amd hd 7750 pulls about 75 watts at full load. thats 105 watt. well make it 110 in case the card pulls more power when heated up. the a10-5800k pulls over 160 watt at full load during the same benchmarking scenario, and performs slower than the dedicated+intel combo.

in addition to that, the ivy bridge based pentium pulls slightly less than the sandy bridge, and haswell might be even better.

If you are talking about wattage the a10-5800k is a quad core core and the Pentium g850 is a dual core. So relatively speaking the a10-5800k is still more efficient per core.

According to new egg the cheapest retail price for a 7750 is $89, and Pentium g850 is $89. That is $178. The a10-5800k is $129.

So you've proven the APU setup is cheaper and is more wattage efficient relative to the amount of cores both have. :)

AMD A10-5800K Trinity 3.8GHz (4.2GHz Turbo) Socket...
Intel Pentium G850 Sandy Bridge 2.9GHz LGA 1155 65...
HIS iCooler H775FN1G Radeon HD 7750 1GB 128-bit GD...

IkarugaIt's absolutely not laughable, not at all. You would be surprised just how slow things can get at same places on the Internet. Flash games or High res videos might get a separate process now, but many things still don't (for security and other reasons) ...well, maybe they do on Chrome now with it's nice "threaded compositing", but there is absolutely no guarantee that Average Joe will use Chrome, nor I would recommend to do until it's going to be safe "again" btw, (even if I really like and respect what Google is doing for the world on other areas). Massive java scripts (which are still hard to get multi-threaded properly or heavy tabs like Reddit+RES suite with full of opened posts for several pages, and many security related things are still mostly about ipc, and believe me, they do can feel snappier on a faster processor sometimes, you should really try it yourself if you doubt it.

I just used Chrome as an example, my comment could be about any browser.

IPC isn't going to make a difference on an internet browser period, it's too lightweight and not resource hungry enough to tax any modern CPU. Even if there was a way to measure the browsing experience across processors a human wouldn't be able to tell.

IkarugaFor example, I love to play QuakeLive with my buddies, and it loves the Pentium over the APU (and no, graphics is not really an issue with the idtech3 engine on current GPUs, it's the cpu which struggles). Again, this is more about games and not the browsing part.. almost all of the games which are "playable" on low end GPUs (read: more than 15 fps) will feel much better with a dedicated graphics card, and "much better" still might be an understatement here, because most of the games will run way much better tbh, like +10fps or more which is huge in terms of smooth gameplay experience.
Yes there are many things what Average Joe might do and what would feel better on the APU (and I honestly hope that these things will keep coming faster and faster in the future, because I do like APUs). For example, CIV5 would be playable around 20-25 fps and it would love the more cores, or L4D2 if you are the host and using many mods (but Source is already very fast on two cores too tbh), or handling compressed archives are also faster, or encoding videos with CPU only (not Xvid tho, which is single threaded iirc), etc.. so more and more things will get multithreaded which will - sooner or later - reach Average Joe too.. All I'm saying that perhaps it's too early to bow down front of the APUs, perhaps the next ones will worth it:toast:

We all know dedicated video cards are better for gaming.

Our argument is you'll struggle to build a cheaper rig with a dedicated CPU and GPU for the same price as an equivalent APU.

IkarugaThe current price of the 6800k is around $150 (and please let's not get into rebate-debate here, because the internet is a pretty big place when it comes to special sales), so you can get a pentium for $64 (also without rebate ofc). Now please tell me that you can't find something faster than the 6570ddr3 for $86.

Here the 6800k is €119. The cheapest Pentium is about €60. €60 does only get you a HD6570 new.

IkarugaJust for the reference, I built a Pentium+GTX650 config for somebody (all new parts with warranty from special sales) at the time when the 6800K came out (I know it's not fair to compare special deals with a launch price, so this is just for the reference), but I can't ignore it, that the systems destroys the APU and it only eats 125W with extreme CPU+GPU burn load.

Well no shit that would be faster. Here that setup would cost like €40 more than a single 6800k. A Celeron G450 + that would cost about the same, and then you'll have a bottleneck..

So, here where I live with the prices we have here, that APU makes tons of sense. TONS of sense, especially if you're a "light" gamer with a low res monitor.

FrickHere the 6800k is €119. The cheapest Pentium is about €60. €60 does only get you a HD6570 new.



Well no shit that would be faster. Here that setup would cost like €40 more than a single 6800k. A Celeron G450 + that would cost about the same, and then you'll have a bottleneck..

So, here where I live with the prices we have here, that APU makes tons of sense. TONS of sense, especially if you're a "light" gamer with a low res monitor.

yeah but what has any of this actually got to do with a chip being released in 2014:wtf: nothing , nothing at all, the new chip has a different gfx arch, imc and a different pciex structure so the north bridge has likely changed and the cpu will be an optimised stepping at least so it has enough new to make it a mystery performance wise until in a board.

and as i said Ikaruga if your gaming, build a gaming pc not a htpc or light game / surfing pc and to me a pentium aint worth shit in gaming and i used one not long ago to Just see(this point dosnt actualy matter any more then your love of them ,because its MY opinion based on the games I PLAY)

Super XPMore like 30% from what I've heard.

Now that would be awesome, but ill keep it at 15% just to make it more realistic and safe :)