Originally Posted by BizzareRide
AMD may not go anywhere, but HD5200 is quite literally 100x faster than Intel GMA of just a few years ago. Where's the AMD chip that 100x faster than the 4870? They're competing in an area that they didn't exist in and that does take away from AMD, Nvidia, Imagination Tech.
The difference being AMD IGPs have always been somewhat good (I even played FO:NV happily at 1080p on a HD4200 that I overclocked, with sideport DDR3 as well as my normal DDR3) while Intel GMAs were pretty crap up until the x4500, which still wasn't good...It just wasn't as advisable to grab a cheap GeForce 6200 or something over it anymore.
Even with the x4500 series, you still had driver issues.
Admittedly, this PC is hardly the best example (A bunch of other ones in the same lab get BSODs fairly randomly, for example) and it may not be Intels fault here but their drivers still aren't up to the standard set by AMD and nVidia.
Originally Posted by sumitlian
Ok, wiki specs tells memory bus width for HD 8670D is 128 Bit and it depends on the system's memory size and frequency (Obviously it acts as an iGPU). So what do they mean by 128 bit of bus width ?
Isn't DDR3 limited to 64 bit per channel only, exactly like our computers are doing
Dual channel is why. Socket 2011 effectively would have a 256bit bus.
Originally Posted by HanSomPa
Something simple and reliable? That's exactly my point. You can easily spend 500-600$ on an Intel option. See, not everyone plays games. The majority of students at college, and by majority I mean 90%, do not play games that warrant a dedicated GPU. Intel offers a better experience from that perspective and I agree. When the majority of your time is spent browsing, watching video, 1080p, and office work. You rmoney is better spent on a superior screen, superior CPU, and a more style design. Aesthetics do matter(Which is why I'd never get caught with a gaming laptop).
This! My girlfriend was looking for a new PC and while she does game, I recommended one with an AMD APU...She plays 99% of her games on her desktop (i5 3570k @ 4Ghz, HD7850) but the AMD APU was a superior option in terms of stability vs performance vs battery life, she never notices any difference between it and her previous Core i3 340m in performance but notices that her battery lasts a hell of a lot longer than it did (Previous laptop also had a HD5670m) especially if she's playing Minecraft on it.
Originally Posted by HanSomPa
Documents? Office work? Accounting programs? Watching movies? Browsing the Internet? Torrenting? The only real application you can use the APUs for is budget multi-media. Even for intensive photoshop, CAD work I'd rather borrow a workstation computer, or use a campus workstation rather than use a slow laptop solution on a budget. So we're left with light multimedia work. Which, I don't care if you want to admit it or not, is gaming. That's pretty much it. Are there other applications that could benefit from extra GPU muscle? Yes, but again, they are a niche.
All of those situations you mentioned would run equally as well on an Athlon64 x2 as they would on a Core i7 4930k, and as you said..."Even for intensive photoshop, CAD work I'd rather borrow a workstation computer, or use a campus workstation rather than use a slow laptop solution on a budget."
You won't notice the difference in anything but gaming, and even if you just play Minecraft the APU will be a quicker solution than the Intel. What about drivers, too? Intels still aren't as good as AMDs in terms of stability or options, they're not bad (Certainly they were much
worse a few years ago and Intel is definitely working on this issue and seems to be fixing it) though.
You're also forgetting about future AMD APUs and HSA, the faster GPU will make a big difference when that happens.
CPU speed simply does not matter anymore for most people, to simplify it I'll use desktop parts as an example...For your typical person who is doing facebook, youtube, tumblr, etc, listening to music, typing up something in word, maybe working on a excel database, an AMD A4 5300 (Dual Core, slowest and cheapest APU AMD has) with an SSD would be faster than a Core i5 3570k, overclocked to 5Ghz with a HDD. The order of bottlenecks for general use such as the stuff you mentioned is HDD > User > Everything else.
And remember, if you can't actually get to a workstation for that intensive photoshop, CAD, etc work then a quad core AMD APU will be just as fast if not faster than the competing Core i3, the i3 has a per core performance advantage but once you go over two threads then the AMD APU will start to pull ahead as CMT gains more than HT by the nature of its design.
Originally Posted by A Bad Day
Unless if Intel's counters with more marketing.
Six months ago in a triple-story shopping mall in the outskirts of Chicago, there was a large Dell kiosk located in an hub area where three other branches connect.Every
single Dell laptop banner had an i3/i5/i7 logo. And not one
AMD laptop was found. Almost all of the featured laptops lacked a dedicated GPU except for a handful of Alienware laptops. They also had other advertisements scattered around the mall, all
of them featuring the i3/i5/i7 logo.
Heavy marketing (with the assistance of the OEMs) and the relatively lack of AMD marketing would allow Intel to weather the storm and respond accordingly with Broadwell. Or not at all if they decide to go all-in against ARM/Qualcomm/Samsung.
That's not true for everywhere, though; I know there's quite a number of AMD APU laptops going around here.