Overclock.net › Forums › Industry News › Hardware News › [GB] Gigabyte Launches The Ultra Compact PC.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

[GB] Gigabyte Launches The Ultra Compact PC. - Page 8

post #71 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by A Bad Day View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Domino View Post

Those benchmarks do show an Intel CPU, that is 3x the price of the AMD CPU, while showing much more then 3x the performance in most general, media, office, and light tasks outside of the gaming environment. True. At some cases it is nearly 10x the performance for only 3x the price.

Duckie, you do know that an A10 CPU barely competes with an i3m right? Let alone, is nearly on the same level as an Intel Pentium B980 in some CPU tasks.

Really?... I'm interested in any info that backs up your statement.

Or did you benchmark the CPUs with a RAID0 of 4 PCI-E SSDs?

Does average around 2-4x the performance in most benchmarks, yes!

What's your math like?

post #72 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by Domino View Post

Does average around 2-4x the performance in most benchmarks, yes!

What's your math like?



errm graphs shows an A10 competing against hyper threaded quads aka the i7. bias much? the A10 trades blows with the i3 and monsters it on the IGP side
post #73 of 78
That's one benchmark:

http://techreport.com/review/23662/amd-a10-5800k-and-a8-5600k-trinity-apus-reviewed/13




$320 (i7 3770K) / $130 (A10 5800K) = 2.46153846154

2.46153846154 * 10679 (A10's 7-Zip compression) = 26286.7692308

i7 7-Zip compression: 23732





post #74 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by A Bad Day View Post

That's one benchmark:

http://techreport.com/review/23662/amd-a10-5800k-and-a8-5600k-trinity-apus-reviewed/13




$320 (i7 3770K) / $130 (A10 5800K) = 2.46153846154

2.46153846154 * 10679 (A10's 7-Zip compression) = 26286.7692308

i7 7-Zip compression: 23732






So...did you notice the U in the original post?



We are dealing with mobile chipsets. The point being made in my original post was that AMD suffers from poor CPU performance; the gaps are larger on the mobile forefront. The price of an i3m laptop + GT640m is typically cheaper or identical in price as an A10-4800m setup while offering much more performance.

Who cares how much you want to handicap designs; in the end you have a project to finish and you look at the results. You ever wonder why AMD is so far in the gutter? The markets they have been competing in has been not in their favor. The old price-per-performance argument is a cop-out, it's more of a value-per-performance these days. Sure, if you spend 2-3x the price and get anywhere, depending on the applications, 2-10x the performance, the overall gain was definitely more valuable. Through in the projects that are time constraint, (as in rendering), if you render something 500 times (which is fair to say) at 2 minutes as opposed to 3.5 minutes, you're saving yourself around 12 and a half hours of rendering work, which is quite a lot of headroom here; let alone, headaches in spending 12.5 h less? Count me in!
post #75 of 78
Price?
post #76 of 78
Celeron processor OMG!! Why?
post #77 of 78
Where is the 3930 processor? Guess it doesn't count LOL
post #78 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by Domino View Post

So...did you notice the U in the original post?



We are dealing with mobile chipsets. The point being made in my original post was that AMD suffers from poor CPU performance; the gaps are larger on the mobile forefront. The price of an i3m laptop + GT640m is typically cheaper or identical in price as an A10-4800m setup while offering much more performance.

Who cares how much you want to handicap designs; in the end you have a project to finish and you look at the results. You ever wonder why AMD is so far in the gutter? The markets they have been competing in has been not in their favor. The old price-per-performance argument is a cop-out, it's more of a value-per-performance these days. Sure, if you spend 2-3x the price and get anywhere, depending on the applications, 2-10x the performance, the overall gain was definitely more valuable. Through in the projects that are time constraint, (as in rendering), if you render something 500 times (which is fair to say) at 2 minutes as opposed to 3.5 minutes, you're saving yourself around 12 and a half hours of rendering work, which is quite a lot of headroom here; let alone, headaches in spending 12.5 h less? Count me in!

Please explain why you started your initial argument with a picture of desktop chips.


EDIT: I also did a quick search for laptops with GT 640m that cost around $400 to $600. I haven't found any yet, but there are A10-4600m laptops in that price range, which is mainly occupied by Intel laptops without a dedicated GPU, or something like a GT 620m.

EDIT 2: I've played TF2 and Wargame: Airland Battle on a friend's A10 laptop, and coming from a person who owns a laptop with an i7 720qm (1.6 GHz) and an OC'ed Radeon 5730m, I enjoyed it. Now on my dad's new i5 Ivy Bridge laptop... Not so much.

If I was doing only rendering work, sure I'd get an i7 by itself. But I want a budget jack-of-all-trades laptop. The APUs seem to be the best option; the main issue is finding a good laptop model because OEMs are allergic to the APUs (Dell has hardly any AMD laptops).
Edited by A Bad Day - 6/5/13 at 9:23am
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Hardware News
Overclock.net › Forums › Industry News › Hardware News › [GB] Gigabyte Launches The Ultra Compact PC.