AMD's new A8-3850 chip offers CHEAP gaming on the PC thatTRASHES Intel

Except that AMD is still two gens behind in the CPU department.

cabose38

And how many gens is Intel behing in the GPU department. Oh wait, more like 7 generations. LOL. Their tech is worse than what is inside the Xbox 360 and PS3. That's how PATHETICALLY behind Intel is.

[QUOTE="dk00111"]

Except that those frames are going to drop rapidly when playing a CPU intensive game. Those stats are impressive for an APU, but for any serious gaming an Intel + discrete is going to be a better option. [QUOTE="Xtasy26"] Intel is actually HOLDING back PC gaming. It's just people buy into their marketing crap and unwittiingly buy crappy tech when AMD is VASTLY superiour to Intel.

Xtasy26

Intel isn't holding back PC gaming? Please tell me you are joking. What do you call flooding the market with crappy integrated GPU's that can barely run BLOPS. Even PS3/Xbox 360 is better at running games than Intel's best tech. That's how pathetic Intel's tech is.

[QUOTE="Xtasy26"]

[QUOTE="dk00111"] Seriously dude? You do realize that AMD started by pretty much copying Intel tech right? Don't get me wrong, the Llano chips are impressive as far as graphical power/price goes, but they're still far behind Intel when it comes to CPU power. Intel isn't holding back PC gaming by any means. They're raising the standard for CPU power, while Nvidia and ATI are raising the standard for GPU power. The Llano chips are just meant for budget gaming.

lowe0

Intel isn't holding back PC gaming? Please tell me you are joking. What do you call flooding the market with crappy integrated GPU's that can barely run BLOPS. Even PS3/Xbox 360 is better at running games than Intel's best tech. That's how pathetic Intel's tech is.

I am not sure if I agree. Do people really need a 2600K processor to run word, powerpoint. I will give this, Intel is a good marketing company that is good at deception.

[QUOTE="Baxhand"]

[QUOTE="Iantheone"] I wouldnt say that the difference is enough to declare one winner over another. They are pretty much even and when getting a 590 costs a couple hundred more for me its not worth the extra cost. ronvalencia

True. I will buy only nvida. Not a fanboy. I hate ATI drivers with a passion.

I wish their driver department was better :(

Havn't had a BSOD since windows xp pre-sp1. Those still exist.:P

I'd call it giving the market what it wants. For better or for worse, until intel's GPUs cost them business, there's no reason for them to change a successful product.lowe0

For the 'enthusiast' level, I'd agree, but for the entry level, they've just been giving pc garbage for ages, holding back the potential of entry gaming completely. Really, there's no reason for the enthusiast level processors to have a gpu in them, unless a game takes advantage of the extra gpu somehow... it's just wasted space on the die, better used for more cpu, since gpu's can transcode And play games, no reason to use the gpu features on a processor at that level really...

[QUOTE="ronvalencia"]

http://www.benchmarkhq.ru/cm30/runtest.html

ACER Iconia W500 tabletscores 9206 points in CaffeineMark 3.0.

From http://tinyurl.com/4xqo92g Acer Iconia A500 (NVIDIA Tegra 2) tablet scored 7447 in CaffeineMark 3.0.

ACER Iconia W500 tablet scores 1010.6 ms in SunSpider 0.9.1 i.e. beating both Intel Oak Trail tablet (1500 ms) and ASUS Eee Transformer Pad (NVIDIA Tegra 2, 1876 ms).

Quake 3 (1024x600, unknown settings, unknown map) benchmarks on Nvidia Tegra 2 tablets
http://www.anandtech.com/show/4067/nvidia-tegra-2-graphics-performance-update
Scores 44.9 - 46.0 FPS range.

ACER Iconia W500's
1. Quake 3 (1024x768, max settings, demo001 map) benchmarks scores 120 FPS.
2. Quake 3 (1024x768, max settings, demo002 map) benchmarks scores 116 FPS.

savagetwinkie

why are you listing performance which has NOTHING to do with what i said?

Well, this forum is about system wars.

Except that those frames are going to drop rapidly when playing a CPU intensive game. Those stats are impressive for an APU, but for any serious gaming an Intel + discrete is going to be a better option. [QUOTE="Xtasy26"] Intel is actually HOLDING back PC gaming. It's just people buy into their marketing crap and unwittiingly buy crappy tech when AMD is VASTLY superiour to Intel.

dk00111

Intel copied AMD's X86-64 ISA. AMD was founded in 1969 and entered Intel 8080 clone (reverse engineered) business in 1975.

"During this period, AMD also designed and produced a series of bit-slice processor elements (Am2900, Am29116, Am293xx) which were used in various minicomputer designs".

AMD's first in-house x86 processor was the K5 and was launched in 1996. Like Intel's Pentium Pro, AMD K5 includes CISC-to-RISC design.

I heard this chip is good for games... but when comparing benchmarks that don't need a gpu, this thing performs worse then an i3

I heard this chip is good for games... but when comparing benchmarks that don't need a gpu, this thing performs worse then an i3

AntiType

The i3 2100 is a lot faster than athlon II, which this essentially is. For games though it's pretty even and definitely beats it with the integrated chips. With a GPU though, Intel pulls ahead again.

So who is this CPU really made for ? Its also using a whole new socket which you have to wonder how much support it will get if any for a high end CPU. I cant really see any gamer buying this.

So who is this CPU really made for ? Its also using a whole new socket which you have to wonder how much support it will get if any for a high end CPU. I cant really see any gamer buying this.

GTSaiyanjin2

The mainstream, casual market that buys pre-built computers at Best Buy (Irony at it's best.)

It's not a high-end CPU and it's not made for us core PC gamers.

So who is this CPU really made for ? Its also using a whole new socket which you have to wonder how much support it will get if any for a high end CPU. I cant really see any gamer buying this.

GTSaiyanjin2

So who is this CPU really made for ? Its also using a whole new socket which you have to wonder how much support it will get if any for a high end CPU. I cant really see any gamer buying this.

GTSaiyanjin2

pre-built computers at Best Buy (Irony at it's best.)

ChubbyGuy40

I think its a good CPU for laptops and if you dont play to game much. Its definitely able to play games much better than intels offering, but it also gets out classed by a $60 GPU. Its a good value and its a CPU I would want in my laptop, but never for my desktop PC. Maybe now facebook games will evolve and now be rendered in 3D if this APU is successful :P

Is this supposed to be some sort of AMD ownage? lol.

[QUOTE="dk00111"]

Except that those frames are going to drop rapidly when playing a CPU intensive game. Those stats are impressive for an APU, but for any serious gaming an Intel + discrete is going to be a better option. [QUOTE="Xtasy26"] Intel is actually HOLDING back PC gaming. It's just people buy into their marketing crap and unwittiingly buy crappy tech when AMD is VASTLY superiour to Intel.

Xtasy26

Intel isn't holding back PC gaming? Please tell me you are joking. What do you call flooding the market with crappy integrated GPU's that can barely run BLOPS. Even PS3/Xbox 360 is better at running games than Intel's best tech. That's how pathetic Intel's tech is.

I think its a good CPU for laptops and if you dont play to game much. Its definitely able to play games much better than intels offering, but it also gets out classed by a $60 GPU. Its a good value and its a CPU I would want in my laptop, but never for my desktop PC. Maybe now facebook games will evolve and now be rendered in 3D if this APU is successful :P

GTSaiyanjin2

Laptops took over the majority sales for computers, so it's only natural APUs are going to be big hits. Laptop manufacturers placed orders for these months ago.

Is this supposed to be some sort of AMD ownage? lol.

Grawse

Considering this AMD chip beats the Intel SB for gaming performance with an IGP, and badly, yes. Yes it is. It's a huge advancement for the laptop sector and entry-level prebuilt desktops.

[QUOTE="Grawse"]

Is this supposed to be some sort of AMD ownage? lol.

ChubbyGuy40

Considering this AMD chip beats the Intel SB for gaming performance with an IGP, and badly, yes. Yes it is. It's a huge advancement for the laptop sector and entry-level prebuilt desktops.

[QUOTE="ChubbyGuy40"]

[QUOTE="Grawse"]

Is this supposed to be some sort of AMD ownage? lol.

Grawse

Considering this AMD chip beats the Intel SB for gaming performance with an IGP, and badly, yes. Yes it is. It's a huge advancement for the laptop sector and entry-level prebuilt desktops.

That's not the point of this chip. Even the i3-2100, the lowest from Intel, stands with the top of AMD's chips.

Thats all AMD is good for, budget gamers. i5750at4Ghz

Because Intel's chips aren't meant for gaming, that's what discrete graphics cards are for. Intel's graphics chips are meant for basic everyday tasks and multimedia in budget PCs, and for laptops, reducing power consumption in higher end laptops via Optimus. Think about it this way, SB is great for processing power, and a discrete graphics card is great for graphical power. A Llano is good at both, but not great at either and is cheaper. If you really feel confident about the Llano, try running a CPU intensive game such as BC2 or GTA4 and see how it holds up.

dk00111

From http://www.intel.com/technology/architecture-silicon/2ndgen/index.htm

New hardware-based media accelerators and graphics execution units deliver superior performance for gaming, HD video content, and 3D graphics.

BC2 would run fine on AMD A8-3850 i.e. Crysis 2, Modern Warfare 2, Need For Speed Hot Pursuit on A8-3850 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ZC0aTwAj70

AMD Llano A8 laptop playing Dirt 3

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SEbRoINvLe0&NR=1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NAYH4RiWnf8

[QUOTE="dk00111"]

Because Intel's chips aren't meant for gaming, that's what discrete graphics cards are for. Intel's graphics chips are meant for basic everyday tasks and multimedia in budget PCs, and for laptops, reducing power consumption in higher end laptops via Optimus. Think about it this way, SB is great for processing power, and a discrete graphics card is great for graphical power. A Llano is good at both, but not great at either and is cheaper. If you really feel confident about the Llano, try running a CPU intensive game such as BC2 or GTA4 and see how it holds up.

ronvalencia

From http://www.intel.com/technology/architecture-silicon/2ndgen/index.htm

New hardware-based media accelerators and graphics execution units deliver superior performance for gaming, HD video content, and 3D graphics.

[QUOTE="dk00111"]

Because Intel's chips aren't meant for gaming, that's what discrete graphics cards are for. Intel's graphics chips are meant for basic everyday tasks and multimedia in budget PCs, and for laptops, reducing power consumption in higher end laptops via Optimus. Think about it this way, SB is great for processing power, and a discrete graphics card is great for graphical power. A Llano is good at both, but not great at either and is cheaper. If you really feel confident about the Llano, try running a CPU intensive game such as BC2 or GTA4 and see how it holds up.

From http://www.intel.com/technology/architecture-silicon/2ndgen/index.htm

New hardware-based media accelerators and graphics execution units deliver superior performance for gaming, HD video content, and 3D graphics.

Because Intel's chips aren't meant for gaming, that's what discrete graphics cards are for. Intel's graphics chips are meant for basic everyday tasks and multimedia in budget PCs, and for laptops, reducing power consumption in higher end laptops via Optimus. Think about it this way, SB is great for processing power, and a discrete graphics card is great for graphical power. A Llano is good at both, but not great at either and is cheaper. If you really feel confident about the Llano, try running a CPU intensive game such as BC2 or GTA4 and see how it holds up.dk00111

You do realize that Intel has had something like 65% of the graphics market (consumer PCs only) with their craptastic integrated GPUs. Intel *IS* holding back PC gaming because they have the largest marketshare of graphics and do absolutely nothing to bring it forward.

With a budget PC, a low-tech user simply cant walk into a store and pickup a game. With Intel's IGP, its guaranteed they cant run it. If Intel at least set the bar higher than ground, then it could allow for greater adoption of PC gaming since anyone can confidently pick up nearly any title and expect to at least run the game.

Tim Sweeney, the lead programmer of EPIC, expressed the exact same opinion stating that its Intel that's held back PC gaming more than anything.

My biggest disappointmnet has been that AMD had not done this atleast 5 years sooner. But oh well. The point of Llano isnt to get 60+ FPS on Crysis, its to at least make the game playable on low-medium with moderate frame rates. Thats far better than what Intel has ever tried to achieve.

Is this supposed to be some sort of AMD ownage? lol.

Grawse

It's a win for PC gaming platform i.e. expand PC gaming HD market.. It's about time the PC platform uses it's massive market power for gaming.

[QUOTE="Xtasy26"]

[QUOTE="dk00111"] Seriously dude? You do realize that AMD started by pretty much copying Intel tech right? Don't get me wrong, the Llano chips are impressive as far as graphical power/price goes, but they're still far behind Intel when it comes to CPU power. Intel isn't holding back PC gaming by any means. They're raising the standard for CPU power, while Nvidia and ATI are raising the standard for GPU power. The Llano chips are just meant for budget gaming.

dk00111

Intel isn't holding back PC gaming? Please tell me you are joking. What do you call flooding the market with crappy integrated GPU's that can barely run BLOPS. Even PS3/Xbox 360 is better at running games than Intel's best tech. That's how pathetic Intel's tech is.

Intel SB Dual Core with 4 threads CPU (e.g.i5-2520M 35 watts) + NV Geforce GT540M (35 watts). i.e. GT540M is about on par with Radeon HD 5730M/6570M (26 watts)

VS

AMD A8-3530MX (45 watts)with 4 threads CPU(Radeon HD 6620M)** + Radeon HD 6570M**(26 watts)

**In CrossFireX mode.

This is meant for laptops and netbooks, and super budget Joe the plumber desktops for people that do nothing more than watch youtube and facebook, and sometimes herp and derp and buy crysis and expect it to run on their **** computer and then complain and bash pc gaming.

and sometimes herp and derp and buy crysis and expect it to run on their **** computer and then complain and bash pc gaming.

AlphaJC

[QUOTE="i5750at4Ghz"]Thats all AMD is good for, budget gamers. Xtasy26

And what is Intel good for? Oh wait...tech that is stuck in the 1990's. LOL.

This is meant for laptops and netbooks, and super budget Joe the plumber desktops for people that do nothing more than watch youtube and facebook, and sometimes herp and derp and buy crysis and expect it to run on their **** computer and then complain and bash pc gaming.

AlphaJC

Bad experience with PC gaming ussually leads to game consoles i.e. "BetaMax player" like device for games.

During Pentium Classic days, everyone who owns Pentium Classic based PC can run Quake1 with very little performance issues.

What's needed is a VHS player (i.e. multi-vendor)like device for games.

[QUOTE="AlphaJC"]

and sometimes herp and derp and buy crysis and expect it to run on their **** computer and then complain and bash pc gaming.

C_Rule

Its true man, this is what AMD is doing, giving Herp derp mainstream consumers a better option and less of a reason to piss and moan about pc gaming being tooo expensive, when us real gamers know wht we need to really experience games, deidcated CPU and a dedicated GPU, not this APU stuff.

[QUOTE="AlphaJC"]

This is meant for laptops and netbooks, and super budget Joe the plumber desktops for people that do nothing more than watch youtube and facebook, and sometimes herp and derp and buy crysis and expect it to run on their **** computer and then complain and bash pc gaming.

ronvalencia

During Pentium Classic days, everyone who owns Pentium Classic based PC can run Quake1 with very little performance issues.

Thats all AMD is good for, budget gamers. i5750at4Ghz

And what is Intel good for? Oh wait...tech that is stuck in the 1990's. LOL.

[QUOTE="ronvalencia"]

[QUOTE="AlphaJC"]

This is meant for laptops and netbooks, and super budget Joe the plumber desktops for people that do nothing more than watch youtube and facebook, and sometimes herp and derp and buy crysis and expect it to run on their **** computer and then complain and bash pc gaming.

AlphaJC

During Pentium Classic days, everyone who owns Pentium Classic based PC can run Quake1 with very little performance issues.

Quake1 just needs a basic SVGA PCI card and Pentium Classic i.e. the math compute side was done by the X87 FPU.

[QUOTE="Daytona_178"][QUOTE="Xtasy26"]

And what is Intel good for? Oh wait...tech that is stuck in the 1990's. LOL.

ronvalencia

an sandy bridge with a GeForce TI4200 LOL!!! remember those lol.

[QUOTE="ronvalencia"][QUOTE="Daytona_178"] You are kidding? Use a sandy bridge with a dedciated graphics card and it will destroy anything AMD currently has.AlphaJC

an sandy bridge with a GeForce TI4200 LOL!!! remember those lol.

[QUOTE="AlphaJC"]

[QUOTE="ronvalencia"] Bad experience with PC gaming ussually leads to game consoles i.e. "BetaMax player" like device for games.

During Pentium Classic days, everyone who owns Pentium Classic based PC can run Quake1 with very little performance issues.

ronvalencia

Quake1 just needs a basic SVGA PCI card and Pentium Classic i.e. the math compute side was done by the X87 FPU.

[QUOTE="Grawse"]

Is this supposed to be some sort of AMD ownage? lol.

ronvalencia

It's a win for PC gaming platform i.e. expand PC gaming HD market.. It's about time the PC platform uses it's massive market power for gaming.

[QUOTE="ronvalencia"]

[QUOTE="Grawse"]

Is this supposed to be some sort of AMD ownage? lol.

lowe0

It's a win for PC gaming platform i.e. expand PC gaming HD market.. It's about time the PC platform uses it's massive market power for gaming.

How about Angry Birds HD DX11 remake?

It's the same trend with the ARM handheld market i.e. GPU focus.

[QUOTE="Xtasy26"]

[QUOTE="mitu123"]

Isn't the Radeon 6990 better than than the GTX 590, or are they pretty even?

Baxhand

In some applications like Crysis Warhead Radeon 6990 beats it while in other game the GTX 590 beats it.

Wrong

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/308?vs=298

That is 2x 580's in sli vs 2x 6970 in crossfire.

Where does it win?

I didn't see a GTX590 or an AMD 6990 in there.

6990=/=2x6970's

590=/=2x590's

Accurately.

[QUOTE="Xtasy26"]

[QUOTE="Blacklight2"] Okay, I use an AMD processor but at least I'm not so far stuck up my ass to think that AMD is better than Intel. Intel supplies better products for more price but AMD offers products that are good but not as good for a little cheaper.Baxhand

I think you are. AMD products not as good? Then what do you call Intel's best tech having to resort to running BLOPS @1024x768 @ low settings so it could get "playable" framerates. That's what I call a LAUGHING stock of a tech. Intel is a MARKETING company above anything else.

Nvidia >>>>>>>>>>>AMD GPUs

I can post 100's of benchmarks to back these facts.

Show me one benchmark where an amd cpu even comes close to a sandy bridge.

You can't say that because both have been coming out with almost the same price vs. performance. What? Do you only pay attention to the Far Cry 2 benchmarks or something?

[QUOTE="Jolt_counter119"]

Now I just need to buy a high resolution monitor, sound card, new speakers, a pc compatible controller, and a better mouse on top of the desktop. Not cheap.

lightleggy

[QUOTE="dk00111"]

Because Intel's chips aren't meant for gaming, that's what discrete graphics cards are for. Intel's graphics chips are meant for basic everyday tasks and multimedia in budget PCs, and for laptops, reducing power consumption in higher end laptops via Optimus. Think about it this way, SB is great for processing power, and a discrete graphics card is great for graphical power. A Llano is good at both, but not great at either and is cheaper. If you really feel confident about the Llano, try running a CPU intensive game such as BC2 or GTA4 and see how it holds up.

ronvalencia

From http://www.intel.com/technology/architecture-silicon/2ndgen/index.htm

New hardware-based media accelerators and graphics execution units deliver superior performance for gaming, HD video content, and 3D graphics.

BC2 would run fine on AMD A8-3850 i.e. Crysis 2, Modern Warfare 2, Need For Speed Hot Pursuit on A8-3850 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ZC0aTwAj70

AMD Llano A8 laptop playing Dirt 3

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SEbRoINvLe0&NR=1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NAYH4RiWnf8

This page clarifies what they mean by "gaming": "Intel HD Graphics 3000 delivers immersive and casual mainstream gaming capabilities with entry-level discrete graphics card performance without an additional graphics card or chip."

Now, don't get me wrong, the new Llano chips are going to shake up the market and allow for gaming on lower priced laptops, and that's fantastic. I'm actually surprised how close it is to eing considered a mid-range graphics card.

My point is, the Llano chip is best as a standalone product. If you're going to get a discrete graphics card with it, you might as well get a SB, because the Intel will give you better processing power.

And I don't understand your post including the wattage. Doesn't that just prove my point that when paired with switchable graphics, the intel has lower power consumption?

[QUOTE="Xtasy26"]

[QUOTE="dk00111"] Seriously dude? You do realize that AMD started by pretty much copying Intel tech right? Don't get me wrong, the Llano chips are impressive as far as graphical power/price goes, but they're still far behind Intel when it comes to CPU power. Intel isn't holding back PC gaming by any means. They're raising the standard for CPU power, while Nvidia and ATI are raising the standard for GPU power. The Llano chips are just meant for budget gaming.

dk00111

Intel isn't holding back PC gaming? Please tell me you are joking. What do you call flooding the market with crappy integrated GPU's that can barely run BLOPS. Even PS3/Xbox 360 is better at running games than Intel's best tech. That's how pathetic Intel's tech is.

Whatever Intel's tech is meant for. I know one thing shoving high end processors down consumer's throat, even though they don't need it that does the consumers a disservice. At least with AMD's tech they could not only do their everyday applications but they could also GAME on it. Something that you can't do with Intel's tech.

"try running a CPU intensive game such as BC2 or GTA4 and see how it holds up."

Try running BC2 and GTA4 using Intel's CPU's + GPU's and see how Intel holds up. ;)

[QUOTE="ronvalencia"]

[QUOTE="dk00111"]

Because Intel's chips aren't meant for gaming, that's what discrete graphics cards are for. Intel's graphics chips are meant for basic everyday tasks and multimedia in budget PCs, and for laptops, reducing power consumption in higher end laptops via Optimus. Think about it this way, SB is great for processing power, and a discrete graphics card is great for graphical power. A Llano is good at both, but not great at either and is cheaper. If you really feel confident about the Llano, try running a CPU intensive game such as BC2 or GTA4 and see how it holds up.

C_Rule

From http://www.intel.com/technology/architecture-silicon/2ndgen/index.htm

New hardware-based media accelerators and graphics execution units deliver superior performance for gaming, HD video content, and 3D graphics.

Welcome to the world of Intel's marketing and downright LIES. It's becuase things like this where people (and I have personally know people) who go into Best Buy and spend $800-$1000 on a new Desktop PC with a suoped up Intel processors, gazzilions of RAM and HD space and when they come home they try to run games and whone "why" their new $800-$1000 PC, 3X the cost of an Xbox 360/PS3 can't run games. Oh yeah it's because it's using Intel's crappy GPU's like Intel's best GPU the HD 3000 which is WORSE than what they have in the Xbox 360 and PS3. Intel's is a marketing company not a technology company.

[QUOTE="Xtasy26"]

[QUOTE="i5750at4Ghz"]Thats all AMD is good for, budget gamers. Daytona_178

And what is Intel good for? Oh wait...tech that is stuck in the 1990's. LOL.

And put AMD's best GPU + CPU vs Intel's best GPU + CPU, AMD's will not only destroy Intel it will MURDER it. It would be like putting a High school basketball team vs the LA LAKERS.

Gamespot actually did a great review of AMD's A8-3850 vs Intel's Sandy Bridge:

http://www.gamespot.com/news/6322021/the-battle-for-budget-graphics-amd-lynx-vs-intel-sandy-bridge?tag=blog%3Bmore%3B1

As you can see AMD absolutely MURDER's Intel's Sandy Bridge. It get's TWICE the framerates vs Intel's best in games like Arkham Asylum at a price almost half that of Intel's best. Talk about Intel price gouging. Game's are UNPLAYABLE on Intel's Sandy Bridge that's how PATHETIC Intel's tech is. This is good news for entry level PC gamers or anyone who want's to get into PC gaming.