AMD Fusion A8-3850 GPU Performance Analysis

[extrasalty]

Great review as usual.

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

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

[Jonap_1st]

Originally Posted by _JP_

This:

FYI, HD 5770 != HD6670.

actually 5770 = 6770

Originally Posted by Casecutter

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

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

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

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

[Casecutter]

Originally Posted by Jonap_1st

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

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

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

[Damn_Smooth]

Originally Posted by Jonap_1st

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

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

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

[madseven]

Originally Posted by Jonap_1st

way too high from what?

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

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

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

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

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

[Tatty_One]

Originally Posted by Jonap_1st

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

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

[Jonap_1st]

Originally Posted by Casecutter

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

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

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

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

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

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





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

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



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

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

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

Originally Posted by madseven

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

intel dont have it? then what is this?

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

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

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

Originally Posted by Tatty_One

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

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

[madseven]

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

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

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

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

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

[Jonap_1st]

Originally Posted by madseven

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

like the APU itself can handle full dx11 games?

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

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

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

[madseven]

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

www.anandtech.com
www.techreport.com

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

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

[Jonap_1st]

Originally Posted by madseven

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

www.anandtech.com
www.techreport.com

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

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

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

[TheLaughingMan]

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

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

[Jonap_1st]

Originally Posted by TheLaughingMan

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

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

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

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

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

[Casecutter]

Originally Posted by Jonap_1st

there were one trusted site that had done tested it.. now lets take a look on benchmark that i got from that site

A3850 is not best the choice for IGP right now.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sincerely
Cc

[Jonap_1st]

Originally Posted by Casecutter

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

H*rdwareSecrets

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

A3650

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

hope they will fix the driver soon..

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

Sincerely
Cc

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

[Steevo]

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


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

[TheLaughingMan]

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

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

[Casecutter]

Originally Posted by TheLaughingMan

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

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

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

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

[Jonap_1st]

Originally Posted by Casecutter

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

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

[Casecutter]

Originally Posted by Jonap_1st

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

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

[aBigRat]

Originally Posted by Jonap_1st

way too high from what?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Casecutter]

Originally Posted by aBigRat

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

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

[madseven]

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

[Jonap_1st]

Originally Posted by Casecutter

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

Originally Posted by aBigRat

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

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

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

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

Originally Posted by madseven

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

how many times do i have to tell about it

[madseven]

I saw that. I stand corrected thank you.