AMD Richland avaiable at Newegg

[SPBHM]

I've been impressed by a few OC results, but apart from that...
the gain is really small, and the price was increased... that's not very exciting... and now we know FM2 boards are not compatible with Kaveri.

 

[Enigmoid]

Based on the comments Anand made on their Pipeline bit on it, you don't really need more CPU than this for the vast majority of gaming unless you have two high end GPU's.

If you are running CF 79xx on with your APU, that's just a crazy mismatch of parts.

That AT article is silly. Recommending an A series cpu to be paired with a 7970 ghz is just stupid. Many games will be held back

 

[Rvenger]

If you're not going to overclock then the A6700 looks to be quite a sweet little chip (in this market). It has about the same performance as the 5800k but with great power savings.

'snip'

BF3 tested on medium with 1333 MHz RAM, when tested with 2133 MHz RAM, it adds about another 10 fps.

source: http://www.ozeros.com/2013/06/review-amd-apu-a10-6800k-y-a10-6700-richland/10/

Looks like AMD has the TDP spec in check now.

 

[inf64]

That AT article is silly. Recommending an A series cpu to be paired with a 7970 ghz is just stupid. Many games will be held back

Did you read the article? That reviewer tested those CPUs, he didn't make stuff up as he went.

 

[Gikaseixas]

That AT article is silly. Recommending an A series cpu to be paired with a 7970 ghz is just stupid. Many games will be held back

Why silly? If there's evidence just accept it. I was surprised too but would never label it stupid.

 

[Concillian]

That AT article is silly. Recommending an A series cpu to be paired with a 7970 ghz is just stupid. Many games will be held back

Why is it stupid? If you have a budget that doesn't allow more CPU this is precisely the trade-off one should make. The whole article demonstrates that you don't NEED a killer CPU to get good performance in most games... but video cards are often worth every penny in terms of usable performance.

An A-series / 7970 absolutely is the right decision compared to an i5 / 7850 or 7870. It absolutely will give you better overall gaming performance.

Is an i5 / 7970 better? Of course it is, but it also costs more and gives very small benefit in MOST (but not all) games. Is an i3/7970 better? Most of the benchmarks show that the quad A-series performs better than an i3... so the correct recommendation absolutely is the A-series.

This is what I don't get about people hanging out in the CPU forum. They seem incapable of really understanding that real people make trade-offs. Not everyone is going to drop all the cash necessary to be on the bleeding edge. If you're willing to take just a small step back from ultimate performance, you can actually do fairly well on a more moderate budget.

 

[frozentundra123456]

Why silly? If there's evidence just accept it. I was surprised too but would never label it stupid.

I would not call it "silly" but definitely incomplete and perhaps misleading. Basically what it shows is if you crank the resolution enough, you can overpower a single card.

Since the author himself said something like 4% of users game above 1080p, then by his own admission, his data does not apply to over 90% of users.

He should have tested at 1080p as well, since that is what most games use, and use a wide variety of games, including some newer titles that are both cpu and gpu intensive, and some other titles such as RTS games (and MMOs and other online games) that are more cpu intensive.

I also question his conclusion to use the APU, because the i3 was equal to or faster in all but one game tested. You could extrapolate it would perform poorly in certain games, but from the data he showed, it is the equal or slightly faster overall than the cpu he recommended.

 

[frozentundra123456]

Why is it stupid? If you have a budget that doesn't allow more CPU this is precisely the trade-off one should make. The whole article demonstrates that you don't NEED a killer CPU to get good performance in most games... but video cards are often worth every penny in terms of usable performance.

An A-series / 7970 absolutely is the right decision compared to an i5 / 7850 or 7870. It absolutely will give you better overall gaming performance.

Is an i5 / 7970 better? Of course it is, but it also costs more and gives very small benefit in MOST (but not all) games. Is an i3/7970 better? Most of the benchmarks show that the quad A-series performs better than an i3... so the correct recommendation absolutely is the A-series.

This is what I don't get about people hanging out in the CPU forum. They seem incapable of really understanding that real people make trade-offs. Not everyone is going to drop all the cash necessary to be on the bleeding edge. If you're willing to take just a small step back from ultimate performance, you can actually do fairly well on a more moderate budget.

Yes everyone makes tradeoffs, but I question the advisability of saving in the range of 50 dollars in a 1000 dollar system to get a cpu lower than an i5 or perhaps FX6300. I also question whether a person that will purchase a 1440p monitor will not be able to afford an i5 or above cpu.

The main problem I see with the article is that he should have tested a wider range of games and used a resolution that most people play at, or at least have made a clearer qualification regarding the limits of the testing.

 

[alexruiz]

Why is it stupid? If you have a budget that doesn't allow more CPU this is precisely the trade-off one should make. The whole article demonstrates that you don't NEED a killer CPU to get good performance in most games... but video cards are often worth every penny in terms of usable performance.

An A-series / 7970 absolutely is the right decision compared to an i5 / 7850 or 7870. It absolutely will give you better overall gaming performance.

Is an i5 / 7970 better? Of course it is, but it also costs more and gives very small benefit in MOST (but not all) games. Is an i3/7970 better? Most of the benchmarks show that the quad A-series performs better than an i3... so the correct recommendation absolutely is the A-series.

This is what I don't get about people hanging out in the CPU forum. They seem incapable of really understanding that real people make trade-offs. Not everyone is going to drop all the cash necessary to be on the bleeding edge. If you're willing to take just a small step back from ultimate performance, you can actually do fairly well on a more moderate budget.

Facts don't go well with blind fanboyism, hence why he attacks it.

Back on topic, to be honest, the AT article was just ok, because it is still missing key wording. Instead of "In games that require more CPU power..." the right wording should be "in games that require more CPU IPC per core, but cannot fully use all the CPU cores..." that would clear a lot of confusion.

Edit: Your comment about less CPU and more GPU is completely accurate,as well as your assessment of the typical ATer :up:
The tech sites themselves, however, are at partial fault. To truly convey the right message, all the tech sites need to write in big red bold letters that their CPU gaming tests assumes similar video cards, that the CPU difference matters if the GPU is similar, and that is the GPUs are different, GPU matters more... That way we won't end with owners of i7s paired with GTX460s bashing AMD for poor gaming performance

 

[alexruiz]

Yes everyone makes tradeoffs, but I question the advisability of saving in the range of 50 dollars in a 1000 dollar system to get a cpu lower than an i5 or perhaps FX6300. I also question whether a person that will purchase a 1440p monitor will not be able to afford an i5 or above cpu.

The main problem I see with the article is that he should have tested a wider range of games and used a resolution that most people play at, or at least have made a clearer qualification regarding the limits of the testing.

You are correct, in a $1000 system range, less than an i5 / FX8320 is probably not a good idea. But what if we are limited to $500? or 600? 800?

ps. I don't think the difference in price between an i5 + mobo vs an FX6300 + mobo is $50 only. Even at microcenter, it would be closer to $80.

 

[blckgrffn]

4670k + ASRock Pro4 Z87 = $305 in my cart. (MC)

6350 FX + ASRock Extreme3 970 = $187 in my cart. (MC)

Yeah. I'll take $120 more in GPU, please. Or 16GB of ram. Or nearly a 240+ GB SSD instead. And that is ignoring cheaper, viable options on the AMD board. I don't know that I would go with the cheaper options available through MC for 1150 right now.

That's if we are on a strict budget, of course

 

[SPBHM]

4670k + ASRock Pro4 Z87 = $305 in my cart. (MC)

6350 FX + ASRock Extreme3 970 = $187 in my cart. (MC)

Yeah. I'll take $120 more in GPU, please. Or 16GB of ram. Or nearly a 240+ GB SSD instead. And that is ignoring cheaper, viable options on the AMD board. I don't know that I would go with the cheaper options available through MC for 1150 right now.

That's if we are on a strict budget, of course

what is the price for b85, 4570s, 4570? that's what I would be looking at if you need to save some money.

 

[frozentundra123456]

You are correct, in a $1000 system range, less than an i5 / FX8320 is probably not a good idea. But what if we are limited to $500? or 600? 800?

ps. I don't think the difference in price between an i5 + mobo vs an FX6300 + mobo is $50 only. Even at microcenter, it would be closer to $80.

Yea, but you are not going to be gaming at 1440p on a 800.00 system. He should have tested at more mainstream resolutions and in a wider variety of games. In fact I think Metro 2033 was unplayable with a single card at that resolution.

 

[SiliconWars]

It's ok, a decent drop-in upgrade but I agree that the price is a bit high. Games are so badly bound by memory bandwidth Kaveri needs something extra or it'll just be a waste.

 

[BallaTheFeared]

4670k + ASRock Pro4 Z87 = $305 in my cart. (MC)

6350 FX + ASRock Extreme3 970 = $187 in my cart. (MC)

Yeah. I'll take $120 more in GPU, please. Or 16GB of ram. Or nearly a 240+ GB SSD instead. And that is ignoring cheaper, viable options on the AMD board. I don't know that I would go with the cheaper options available through MC for 1150 right now.

That's if we are on a strict budget, of course

I'd take higher mins with the slower vga.

 

[SiliconWars]

I'd take higher mins with the slower vga.

You got any proof that a 4670K with $120 slower VGA has higher minimums?

 

[BallaTheFeared]

I image that would be pretty easy, even the 8350 dogs badly in mins for many titles.

$120 is the difference between a 7970 and 7950, I think you should try harder.

 

[SiliconWars]

I image that would be pretty easy, even the 8350 dogs badly in mins for many titles.

$120 is the difference between a 7970 and 7950, I think you should try harder.

So no proof, gotcha.

 

[BallaTheFeared]

Proof of AMD chips not holding mins as well as Intel with the same gpu, or a review that compares an i5 with a 7950 vs a 8350 with a 7970?

 

[SiliconWars]

Anyone can find "proof" of either cpu not holding minimums as well with the same gpu.

 

[BallaTheFeared]

Ok?

My personal experience lead me to my comment, would you like me to prove that too?

There is no big secret AMD has poor single thread performance, it stands to reason they'd suffer more in min fps than Intel. I'm not making some wild out in left field comment here, and you asked for an example so I gave you one.

I'd rather have an i5 and a 7950 than a 6100 and a 7970, of course my build would be totally different, I would never buy a mother board with a one year warranty for instance.

 

[Durvelle27]

I'd take higher mins with the slower vga.

so you'd take an i5 w/ GTX 650 and low fps vs FX 6350 w/ HD 7870 XT

 

[SiliconWars]

There are certain combo's that make more sense but not ALL do.

I would take a 7950 and i5 over a 6100 and 7970 as well, but in the majority of cases that $120 saved with a 6350 and faster graphics card would get you a huge fps boost (including minimums). It's only when you move up to the fastest cards and start paying the enthusiast tax that it starts to make sense, at which point you're not going to be going AMD anyway.

In a entry level PC thread, this kind of point doesn't need to be made.

 

[BallaTheFeared]

so you'd take an i5 w/ GTX 650 and low fps vs FX 6350 w/ HD 7870 XT

No, there were no stipulations on price at the time.

 

[Concillian]

Yes everyone makes tradeoffs, but I question the advisability of saving in the range of 50 dollars in a 1000 dollar system to get a cpu lower than an i5 or perhaps FX6300. I also question whether a person that will purchase a 1440p monitor will not be able to afford an i5 or above cpu.

The main problem I see with the article is that he should have tested a wider range of games and used a resolution that most people play at, or at least have made a clearer qualification regarding the limits of the testing.

I'd probably get a FX6300 and not an A series. A 6300 is the ~same price as an A series and will OC to a point where Metro is getting over 50 FPS at low resolution. That's adequate for what is one of the more advanced games on PC.

That's already $100 cheaper than an i5.

I'm doing pretty well on an overclocked i3-530. No real complaints, but I'm not playing the bleeding edge games. I play games I get for $10 on steam or other sales. Currently playing The Witcher 2 and I may not be playing max settings, but pretty good looking settings and getting good performance.

I definitely don't advocate a top end CPU for gaming... it's a waste unless you're throwing good money after bad just to have an awesome computer.

I also don't think it's right to bring the cost of the complete system into the equation. You can "justify" any number of marginal upgrades by looking at the percent of the whole system. $50-100 more on a video card is also a small percentage of the total, A marginal upgrade of SSD is another $20-40 and easy to justify that way, $50 more on a motherboard is easy to justify that way... suddenly you're dropping $200-400 more on small upgrades of each component.

No, I haven't bought a complete system in over 15 years, real people do upgrade piecewise when they can, and you should make decision based on a realistic combination of pieces people would replace.

I also don't think it unresonable to have a pricey monitor with a midrange tower. Monitors last 5 years at a minimum, maybe even up to a decade or two. They aren't obsoleted in the way that performance hardware is. I think it's pretty reasonable to expect someone to drop $500 on a 1440 panel and expect to use it for 5-10 years through 3-5 sub $200 CPUs over it's lifetime.