AMD A8-3820 QC 2.5Ghz?

I'm looking to upgrade from my current Core2Duo to Quad Qore processor, I'm looking into Core i5 2500k performance and I was wondering how doesAMD A8-3820 QC 2.5Ghz compare to it.

I'm planning to pick add my current video card and I already purchased 8GB DDR3 memory.

The total price is 450$+tax for the complete build.

why would you get an APU if you already have a video card?

Good point, it already has the video card, I'll keep looking for comparable AMD CPU then. Since I plan to use my current video card, I don't really need the on-board.

Any suggestion for AMD quad Core? Similar to Core i2500K performance.

Good point, it already has the video card, I'll keep looking for comparable AMD CPU then. Since I plan to use my current video card, I don't really need the on-board.

Any suggestion for AMD quad Core? Similar to Core i2500K performance.

Sokol4ever

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819103961

$145 after teh promo code

Interesting, an 8-Core? I didn't even knew they made them yet. The price is excellent, It's been good four-five years since I build my current PC.

The technology is surprisingly quick this days. Thank you Gummi. :)

Good point, it already has the video card, I'll keep looking for comparable AMD CPU then. Since I plan to use my current video card, I don't really need the on-board.

Any suggestion for AMD quad Core? Similar to Core i2500K performance.

Sokol4ever

[QUOTE="Sokol4ever"]

Good point, it already has the video card, I'll keep looking for comparable AMD CPU then. Since I plan to use my current video card, I don't really need the on-board.

Any suggestion for AMD quad Core? Similar to Core i2500K performance.

Toxic-Seahorse

[QUOTE="Toxic-Seahorse"][QUOTE="Sokol4ever"]

Good point, it already has the video card, I'll keep looking for comparable AMD CPU then. Since I plan to use my current video card, I don't really need the on-board.

Any suggestion for AMD quad Core? Similar to Core i2500K performance.

04dcarraher

[QUOTE="04dcarraher"][QUOTE="Toxic-Seahorse"] There is no AMD CPU that has similar performance to a 2500K, the 2500K beats every AMD GPU for gaming last time I checked.Toxic-Seahorse

You also forget that when you are actually gaming, it isn't just the game you are running, but on the benchmark systems, they are clean.

[QUOTE="Toxic-Seahorse"][QUOTE="04dcarraher"] On multithreaded apps that utilize more then four cores the AMD 8 cores do beat the i5's and even i7 at times when in the same clockrate neighborhood. As for games Intel quad cores are on top 99% of the time besides one game. BF3 , the 8 core provides higher fps averages then an i5 on 64 man servers. GummiRaccoon

You also forget that when you are actually gaming, it isn't just the game you are running, but on the benchmark systems, they are clean.

[QUOTE="GummiRaccoon"]

[QUOTE="Toxic-Seahorse"] That's why I just said gaming, I know AMD's six and eight core CPUs perform better at a lot of tasks, but gaming isn't one of them. As for BF3, I didn't realize BF3 used more than 4 cores, that's cool.Toxic-Seahorse

You also forget that when you are actually gaming, it isn't just the game you are running, but on the benchmark systems, they are clean.

[QUOTE="Sokol4ever"]

Good point, it already has the video card, I'll keep looking for comparable AMD CPU then. Since I plan to use my current video card, I don't really need the on-board.

Any suggestion for AMD quad Core? Similar to Core i2500K performance.

Toxic-Seahorse

Most PC games can be run on a toaster these days. Just pick a processor and shaddup.

[QUOTE="Toxic-Seahorse"][QUOTE="Sokol4ever"]

Good point, it already has the video card, I'll keep looking for comparable AMD CPU then. Since I plan to use my current video card, I don't really need the on-board.

Any suggestion for AMD quad Core? Similar to Core i2500K performance.

ionusX

[QUOTE="ionusX"]

[QUOTE="Toxic-Seahorse"] There is no AMD CPU that has similar performance to a 2500K, the 2500K beats every AMD GPU for gaming last time I checked.Toxic-Seahorse

[QUOTE="Toxic-Seahorse"][QUOTE="GummiRaccoon"]

You also forget that when you are actually gaming, it isn't just the game you are running, but on the benchmark systems, they are clean.

C_Rule

Shh, no tears only dreams now

[QUOTE="C_Rule"][QUOTE="Toxic-Seahorse"] Good point. I figured whatever was running in the background wouldn't be stressful enough for extra cores to noticeably make a difference.NailedGR

Shh, no tears only dreams now

Interesting, an 8-Core? I didn't even knew they made them yet. The price is excellent, It's been good four-five years since I build my current PC.

The technology is surprisingly quick this days. Thank you Gummi. :)

Sokol4ever

[QUOTE="NailedGR"]

[QUOTE="C_Rule"] It's not... Unless you're like gummi and run VMs, render videos and game all at the same time...ionusX

Shh, no tears only dreams now

[QUOTE="Sokol4ever"]

Interesting, an 8-Core? I didn't even knew they made them yet. The price is excellent, It's been good four-five years since I build my current PC.

The technology is surprisingly quick this days. Thank you Gummi. :)

JohnF111

on a side note, can someone claim that AMD is falsely advertising the "8 core" CPUs then and run the chance of getting sued over it?

[QUOTE="Sokol4ever"]

Interesting, an 8-Core? I didn't even knew they made them yet. The price is excellent, It's been good four-five years since I build my current PC.

The technology is surprisingly quick this days. Thank you Gummi. :)

JohnF111

There is no word in the dictionary for how off this post is.

On a scale of 1-10 this is sarah palin.

[QUOTE="JohnF111"][QUOTE="Sokol4ever"]

Interesting, an 8-Core? I didn't even knew they made them yet. The price is excellent, It's been good four-five years since I build my current PC.

The technology is surprisingly quick this days. Thank you Gummi. :)

msfan1289

on a side note, can someone claim that AMD is falsely advertising the "8 core" CPUs then and run the chance of getting sued over it?

8 int cores are 8 cores. Old processors didn't even do floating point and had a math coprocessor.

AMD invented multicores and can call whatever they please a core.

[QUOTE="msfan1289"]

[QUOTE="JohnF111"] The Bulldozer core count is a little bit misleading though, the "cores" as AMD calls them are actually two 32bit cores put together into "modules" which are 64bit so you really have 4x 64bit modules and not 8 cores but putting that aside it's everything you could ask for without diving into thread heavy tasks already mentioned since you'll only really want to play some games.GummiRaccoon

on a side note, can someone claim that AMD is falsely advertising the "8 core" CPUs then and run the chance of getting sued over it?

8 int cores are 8 cores. Old processors didn't even do floating point and had a math coprocessor.

AMD invented multicores and can call whatever they please a core.

The issue is with games, its floating point operations are being calculated. 8 integer cores are great, but mainly for servers.

And AMD wasnt the first to do multiple cores in a non embedded space, IBM did.

[QUOTE="JohnF111"][QUOTE="Sokol4ever"]

Interesting, an 8-Core? I didn't even knew they made them yet. The price is excellent, It's been good four-five years since I build my current PC.

The technology is surprisingly quick this days. Thank you Gummi. :)

GummiRaccoon

There is no word in the dictionary for how off this post is.

On a scale of 1-10 this is sarah palin.

AMD agrees

[QUOTE="GummiRaccoon"]

[QUOTE="JohnF111"] The Bulldozer core count is a little bit misleading though, the "cores" as AMD calls them are actually two 32bit cores put together into "modules" which are 64bit so you really have 4x 64bit modules and not 8 cores but putting that aside it's everything you could ask for without diving into thread heavy tasks already mentioned since you'll only really want to play some games.JohnF111

There is no word in the dictionary for how off this post is.

On a scale of 1-10 this is sarah palin.

AMD agrees

Your understanding is so far off that there is no point in even trying to explain it to you.

[QUOTE="JohnF111"]

[QUOTE="GummiRaccoon"]

There is no word in the dictionary for how off this post is.

On a scale of 1-10 this is sarah palin.

GummiRaccoon

AMD agrees

Your understanding is so far off that there is no point in even trying to explain it to you.

So tell me about how AMD invented multiple cores

[QUOTE="GummiRaccoon"]

[QUOTE="JohnF111"]Off how so? I've looked it up and sure the chip does contain 8 cores, but they're not even full blown cores, it requires two of them to perform 64 bit calculations, this does improve floating bit performance but it's not traditional "cores" as we all know them to be. 4 modules = 4 cores by anyone's count. Stop flapping your gummi.

AMD agrees

way2funny

Your understanding is so far off that there is no point in even trying to explain it to you.

So tell me about how AMD invented multiple cores

Show me intels native dual and quad cores that came out before AMDs that aren't just 2 dies slapped together on one package.

And if you are referring to the power4s that is irrelevent to this discussion.

[QUOTE="way2funny"]

[QUOTE="GummiRaccoon"]

Your understanding is so far off that there is no point in even trying to explain it to you.

GummiRaccoon

So tell me about how AMD invented multiple cores

Show me intels native dual and quad cores that came out before AMDs that aren't just 2 dies slapped together on one package.

And if you are referring to the power4s that is irrelevent to this discussion.

[QUOTE="GummiRaccoon"]

[QUOTE="way2funny"]

So tell me about how AMD invented multiple cores

JohnF111

Show me intels native dual and quad cores that came out before AMDs that aren't just 2 dies slapped together on one package.

And if you are referring to the power4s that is irrelevent to this discussion.

Because talking about non consumer products isn't relevent.

You are kind of talking about the flex FP unit, which is 2 128 bit units that can do 256 bit calculations when added together, this is different than their 8 64 bit integer cores.

Nothing you said was even close to the target. If you were at a shooting range, you would be turned around shooting everyone else at the shooting range.

[QUOTE="way2funny"]

[QUOTE="GummiRaccoon"]

Your understanding is so far off that there is no point in even trying to explain it to you.

GummiRaccoon

So tell me about how AMD invented multiple cores

Show me intels native dual and quad cores that came out before AMDs that aren't just 2 dies slapped together on one package.

And if you are referring to the power4s that is irrelevent to this discussion.

You didnt tell me how AMD invented multiple cores

[QUOTE="GummiRaccoon"]

[QUOTE="way2funny"]

So tell me about how AMD invented multiple cores

way2funny

Show me intels native dual and quad cores that came out before AMDs that aren't just 2 dies slapped together on one package.

And if you are referring to the power4s that is irrelevent to this discussion.

You didnt tell me how AMD invented multiple cores

They invented it by releasing the athlon x2

[QUOTE="way2funny"]

[QUOTE="GummiRaccoon"]

Show me intels native dual and quad cores that came out before AMDs that aren't just 2 dies slapped together on one package.

And if you are referring to the power4s that is irrelevent to this discussion.

GummiRaccoon

You didnt tell me how AMD invented multiple cores

They invented it by releasing the athlon x2

Oh, when was that? 2005? Not 2001?

[QUOTE="way2funny"]

[QUOTE="GummiRaccoon"]

Your understanding is so far off that there is no point in even trying to explain it to you.

GummiRaccoon

So tell me about how AMD invented multiple cores

Show me intels native dual and quad cores that came out before AMDs that aren't just 2 dies slapped together on one package.

And if you are referring to the power4s that is irrelevent to this discussion.

[QUOTE="GummiRaccoon"]

[QUOTE="way2funny"]

So tell me about how AMD invented multiple cores

GummiRaccoon

Show me intels native dual and quad cores that came out before AMDs that aren't just 2 dies slapped together on one package.

And if you are referring to the power4s that is irrelevent to this discussion.

And why are facts irrelevent?

[QUOTE="JohnF111"][QUOTE="GummiRaccoon"]

Show me intels native dual and quad cores that came out before AMDs that aren't just 2 dies slapped together on one package.

And if you are referring to the power4s that is irrelevent to this discussion.

GummiRaccoon

Because talking about non consumer products isn't relevent.

You are kind of talking about the flex FP unit, which is 2 128 bit units that can do 256 bit calculations when added together, this is different than their 8 64 bit integer cores.

Nothing you said was even close to the target. If you were at a shooting range, you would be turned around shooting everyone else at the shooting range.

[QUOTE="GummiRaccoon"]

[QUOTE="GummiRaccoon"]

Show me intels native dual and quad cores that came out before AMDs that aren't just 2 dies slapped together on one package.

And if you are referring to the power4s that is irrelevent to this discussion.

way2funny

And why are facts irrelevent?

Because IBM does things like put 144MB of L3 cache on their processors which has no effect on consumer computing.

[QUOTE="GummiRaccoon"]

[QUOTE="JohnF111"] So you're choosing what multi core CPU's are and aren't relevant? You just said that AMD invented multicore and you just contradicted yourself. Oh and how is my understanding off? All I'm hearing from you is damage control "AAArgh it's 8 cores damn it because AMD said it is and they invented cores so they call them what they want ARGHH!!!!".JohnF111

Because talking about non consumer products isn't relevent.

You are kind of talking about the flex FP unit, which is 2 128 bit units that can do 256 bit calculations when added together, this is different than their 8 64 bit integer cores.

Nothing you said was even close to the target. If you were at a shooting range, you would be turned around shooting everyone else at the shooting range.

It isn't even close. you are saying the 8 32 bit integer cores combine to be 4 64 bit cores, confusing 1 module for 2 32 bit cores.

The 8 integer cores are all 64 bits. There was an additional functionality that they added to the floating point unit which is 128 bit (and pretty standard), the ability to combine to do 256 bit instructions, which is actually a positive thing not a negative.

So no, you were not close at all.

[QUOTE="JohnF111"][QUOTE="GummiRaccoon"]

Because talking about non consumer products isn't relevent.

You are kind of talking about the flex FP unit, which is 2 128 bit units that can do 256 bit calculations when added together, this is different than their 8 64 bit integer cores.

Nothing you said was even close to the target. If you were at a shooting range, you would be turned around shooting everyone else at the shooting range.

GummiRaccoon

It isn't even close. you are saying the 8 32 bit integer cores combine to be 4 64 bit cores, confusing 1 module for 2 32 bit cores.

The 8 integer cores are all 64 bits. There was an additional functionality that they added to the floating point unit which is 128 bit (and pretty standard), the ability to combine to do 256 bit instructions, which is actually a positive thing not a negative.

So no, you were not close at all.

[QUOTE="way2funny"]

[QUOTE="GummiRaccoon"]

GummiRaccoon

And why are facts irrelevent?

Because IBM does things like put 144MB of L3 cache on their processors which has no effect on consumer computing.

What does that have to do with anything?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MAJC

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UltraSPARC_IV

http://groups.csail.mit.edu/cag/raw/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/POWER5

All before AMD. You should probably stop being an AMD fanboy. AMD's done some great things but in no way did the invent multi core processors.

[QUOTE="GummiRaccoon"]

[QUOTE="JohnF111"] Oh I guess I got mixed up somewhere, been like a year since I read stuff about bulldozer for which I apologize... Anyway "kind of talking about" and "not even close to the target"... More contradiction from you.... :roll:JohnF111

It isn't even close. you are saying the 8 32 bit integer cores combine to be 4 64 bit cores, confusing 1 module for 2 32 bit cores.

The 8 integer cores are all 64 bits. There was an additional functionality that they added to the floating point unit which is 128 bit (and pretty standard), the ability to combine to do 256 bit instructions, which is actually a positive thing not a negative.

So no, you were not close at all.

Honestly, your understanding of this is still pretty low.

x86 processors have been 32 bit since 386s. The first 64 bit x86 processor was the Athlon 64 which was released in 2003. The first x86-64 intel processor were a revision of the prescotts.

You can run 32 bit windows on x86-64 processors, and honestly, you won't really see much of a difference except the ability to use more than 4GB of ram, there is PAE that allows 32 bit OSes to see more than 4GB of ram but it is buggy as hell.

[QUOTE="GummiRaccoon"]

[QUOTE="way2funny"]

And why are facts irrelevent?

way2funny

Because IBM does things like put 144MB of L3 cache on their processors which has no effect on consumer computing.

What does that have to do with anything?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MAJC

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UltraSPARC_IV

http://groups.csail.mit.edu/cag/raw/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/POWER5

All before AMD. You should probably stop being an AMD fanboy. AMD's done some great things but in no way did the invent multi core processors.

How does any of this pertain to x86?

[QUOTE="way2funny"]

[QUOTE="GummiRaccoon"]

Because IBM does things like put 144MB of L3 cache on their processors which has no effect on consumer computing.

GummiRaccoon

What does that have to do with anything?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MAJC

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UltraSPARC_IV

http://groups.csail.mit.edu/cag/raw/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/POWER5

All before AMD. You should probably stop being an AMD fanboy. AMD's done some great things but in no way did the invent multi core processors.

How does any of this pertain to x86?

You said multicore processors, not the first x86 multiprocessor. Did amd take the multicore processor idea and apply it to x86? Yes. Was the multicore processor idea theirs? No.

[QUOTE="JohnF111"][QUOTE="GummiRaccoon"]

It isn't even close. you are saying the 8 32 bit integer cores combine to be 4 64 bit cores, confusing 1 module for 2 32 bit cores.

The 8 integer cores are all 64 bits. There was an additional functionality that they added to the floating point unit which is 128 bit (and pretty standard), the ability to combine to do 256 bit instructions, which is actually a positive thing not a negative.

So no, you were not close at all.

GummiRaccoon

Honestly, your understanding of this is still pretty low.

x86 processors have been 32 bit since 386s. The first 64 bit x86 processor was the Athlon 64 which was released in 2003. The first x86-64 intel processor were a revision of the prescotts.

You can run 32 bit windows on x86-64 processors, and honestly, you won't really see much of a difference except the ability to use more than 4GB of ram, there is PAE that allows 32 bit OSes to see more than 4GB of ram but it is buggy as hell.

[QUOTE="GummiRaccoon"]

[QUOTE="JohnF111"] Then why say I was "kind of" talking about it. I made a mistake with all this x86 and 2x 128bit stuff, I stupidly made the assumption that x86 was 32 bit and confused the 256bit floating point calculations since x86 is synonymous with 32 bit thanks to Windows.JohnF111

Honestly, your understanding of this is still pretty low.

x86 processors have been 32 bit since 386s. The first 64 bit x86 processor was the Athlon 64 which was released in 2003. The first x86-64 intel processor were a revision of the prescotts.

You can run 32 bit windows on x86-64 processors, and honestly, you won't really see much of a difference except the ability to use more than 4GB of ram, there is PAE that allows 32 bit OSes to see more than 4GB of ram but it is buggy as hell.

I do forget things, but I don't go around teaching people things that I have trouble remembering.

[QUOTE="GummiRaccoon"]

[QUOTE="way2funny"]

What does that have to do with anything?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MAJC

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UltraSPARC_IV

http://groups.csail.mit.edu/cag/raw/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/POWER5

All before AMD. You should probably stop being an AMD fanboy. AMD's done some great things but in no way did the invent multi core processors.

way2funny

How does any of this pertain to x86?

You said multicore processors, not the first x86 multiprocessor. Did amd take the multicore processor idea and apply it to x86? Yes. Was the multicore processor idea theirs? No.

I see your point. I will put x86 in all of my posts for now on, even though no one has any reason to talk about anything other than consumer level processors on this forum.

[QUOTE="JohnF111"][QUOTE="GummiRaccoon"]

Honestly, your understanding of this is still pretty low.

x86 processors have been 32 bit since 386s. The first 64 bit x86 processor was the Athlon 64 which was released in 2003. The first x86-64 intel processor were a revision of the prescotts.

You can run 32 bit windows on x86-64 processors, and honestly, you won't really see much of a difference except the ability to use more than 4GB of ram, there is PAE that allows 32 bit OSes to see more than 4GB of ram but it is buggy as hell.

GummiRaccoon

I do forget things, but I don't go around teaching people things that I have trouble remembering.

[QUOTE="GummiRaccoon"]

[QUOTE="JohnF111"] Like I said I got confused with the terms and already knew the lecture the just taught but as mentioned, I was digging up things from a year ago from my head and a few things were switched around. You make it sound like you've never forgotten or confused something before.JohnF111

I do forget things, but I don't go around teaching people things that I have trouble remembering.

I don't care as long as people are actually realistic about what they say. I know it is embarrassing to get called out on being as blatantly wrong and biased as your post was.

The truth is, there is little need for any processor from either company over 100-150 dollars. So why all the pro intel propaganda? There is no reason for it and all the pro intel favoritism is going to lead to a one player market at which point we are all going to suffer.

A calm discussion of the pros and cons of each is fine by me, but total misrepresentations are bad for everyone.

[QUOTE="JohnF111"][QUOTE="GummiRaccoon"]

I do forget things, but I don't go around teaching people things that I have trouble remembering.

GummiRaccoon

I don't care as long as people are actually realistic about what they say. I know it is embarrassing to get called out on being as blatantly wrong and biased as your post was.

The truth is, there is little need for any processor from either company over 100-150 dollars. So why all the pro intel propaganda? There is no reason for it and all the pro intel favoritism is going to lead to a one player market at which point we are all going to suffer.

A calm discussion of the pros and cons of each is fine by me, but total misrepresentations are bad for everyone.