Originally Posted by Mr.N00bLaR
I'm not sure I understand why people are saying an i3 would have been a better comparison? I'm assuming the i5 would run this game better than an i3 with the same GPU.. Why wouldn't you want to highlight a CPU at allegedly i3 price that delivers around i5 performance (as it pertains to gaming)? It might have been nice for more cpus to be test instead of just two with this benchmark.
EDIT: Wow, didnt check the dx11 racing/sim games. Thats quite a difference but still, this chip wont cost much.
The i5 3470 sells at $200 while the A10-5800k sells at $140. Athlon II variants that skip the graphics and sell just the CPU but with the same level of stock speed and overclocking will sell for even less than $140. So, yes, the i3 would have made for a better comparison in some ways.
But when you see the A10 catching up to the much more expensive i5 in more scenarios and know that there's further headroom to be had through overclocking, I guess you can turn some heads that way. When you look at some realistic scenario comparisons i.e. with the higher resolution screens and settings turned up, the A10 matches the i5.
What's more is that the power consumption on the A10 should be just as good as the i5 or better (at least I'm sure this comparison can be made with the 65W TDP A10-5700, not as sure about the 5800k)