But an APU matched with a 20% CPU with inferior architecture? Is that worth it?
Also I would love to see the comparison of the APU found in that laptop with HD4000
But an APU matched with a 20% CPU with inferior architecture? Is that worth it?
Also I would love to see the comparison of the APU found in that laptop with HD4000
Guns are not about shooting, its about reloading.
There is different types of Trinity APUs, A6, A8, A10s. The A8 and A10 leaves the HD4000 far behind, MORE so if another discrete GPU is in there then hybrid crossfire takes over.
More less do not diss on Trinity, it has bite to it. The A8 and A10s are pretty much equal to the i3 mobiles.
Dude, please stop giving out your god-awful adivce.
1st, your build is awful, you could easily put an APU in there. You've got a 1x8GB memory, and I cba looking for other flaws, it's bad.
2nd, 100 dollar laptop, if you could find it, would be fine for internet browsing, word, etc.
3rd, GHZ AND CORES DO NOT EQUAL PERFORMANCE HOW MANY TIMES DO I HAVE TO TELL YOU?
Alright I realize that you could easily put an APU in there, it slipped my mind.
Yeah it freaking sucks...that is the point I was trying to make. Trying the same build for 400 dollars. It simply isn't worth it.
WHO in the right mind would buy a 100 dollar laptop for internet browsing, and then have a desktop.
And I am sure that you hold the APU in higher esteem than it deserves. I could be wrong.
So can someone please show me a bench mark comparion that actually shows which APU matches HD 4000?
AND I KNOW THAT GHZ AND CORES DOESN"T EQUAL PERFORMANCE.
i5 3570k is clocked at like 3.4 ghz, and the amd fx either 6300 or 4300 is clocked around 4, and yet the i5 beats them out.
So you expect me to believe that a AMD mobility, with a 20% lower clock will beat out an i3? The i3 will be the AMD at the same clock speed.s
Unfortunately in the next set Toms did not include Trinity in its comparison so its Intel vs AMDs old APUs.
Now lets take a look at CPU performance.
You actualy don't sacrifice CPU performance at all with Trinity vs Intels offerings in the same price range.
So you end up with similar CPU performance but a much better GPU games and any apps that use OpenCL AMD is going to destroying Intel.
Why do you keep saying things like, "It has more ghz"?
MY GOD GET THIS INTO YOUR MIND, CLOCK SPEEDS/CORES/GHZ DOES NOT MATTER. They're different architectures and stuff, I cba explaining, maybe someone who can be bothered with you will.
What he is trying to say is on the highend AMD has worse per clock performance it should apply to mobile and low end. He is not saying the GHZ alone matters.
To say GHZ does not matter at all it depends on how you use it in comparison.
You keep running under this assumption that "LOCK SPEEDS/CORES/GHZ DOES NOT MATTER."
I. Get. It. You obviously don't.
You seriously beleive that an AMD Quad Core 1.9 Ghz processor will match or beat a Intel i3 Quad Core processor at 2.4 Ghz? Really. You seriously believe that?
The thing is, you seem to believe that anything with a slower clock will be things with higher clocks.
Just. Because. Something has a lower clock doesn't mean it actually has a better articeture. The i3 has a better instruction set, clock speed, same core count, and superior articture. IT has the AMD beat.
This is mobile its a whole other ball game then highend desktop.
It will beat out the mobile I7 in game performance Intel can barley compete with Llano let alone Trinity.
-snip-
So the APU Gpu in the AMD will beat the HD 4000 in the i3?
If so then yeah he should go with the Best Buy one, unless he finds features/reviews/aspects of the Lenovo one worth it.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I always wanted to argue with a brick wall, I suppose the internet is the second best option.
So the APU Gpu in the AMD will beat the HD 4000 in the i3?
If so then yeah he should go with the Best Buy one, unless he finds features/reviews/aspects of the Lenovo one worth it.
No he should not go with the Best Buy laptop its HP and its from Best Buy.
Get the Lenovo (Well that should be a given...HP ;/ ). A 2.4 Ghz Intel will destroy (*Slightly beat) a 1.9 Ghz AMD processor. And Intel Graphics 3000 gets me about 30 fps on normal while hovering above my redstone builds (i5, so you will be much better off, especially when on the ground. I am sure that the APU vs HD4000 is comparative and roughly similar. (*APU is actually better)
You keep running under this assumption that "LOCK SPEEDS/CORES/GHZ DOES NOT MATTER."
I. Get. It. You obviously don't.
But they don't matter. Architecture, and number of instructions per clock cycle are what matters.
You seriously beleive that an AMD Quad Core 1.9 Ghz processor will match or beat a Intel i3 Quad Core processor at 2.4 Ghz? Really. You seriously believe that?
Lets take a history lesson shall we?
Not long ago, it actually was this way. And not long ago again, it was the opposite.
There was a point where in order for some AMD 6 cores to compete with a 2500k at stock 2.3GHz speed, they would need to be overclocked by quite a bit.
And there was another point in time, where in order for the pentium 3 to EVEN COMPETE with the AMD Athlon it would have had to run at over double clock speed.
But they don't matter. Architecture, and number of instructions per clock cycle are what matters.
Lets take a history lesson shall we?
Not long ago, it actually was this way. And not long ago again, it was the opposite.
There was a point where in order for some AMD 6 cores to compete with a 2500k at stock 2.3GHz speed, they would need to be overclocked by quite a bit.
And there was another point in time, where in order for the pentium 3 to EVEN COMPETE with the AMD Athlon it would have had to run at over double clock speed.
So yes, it can happen and has happened before.
Ghz, cores, instruction set, microarchitecture, IPC, etc are all aspects to be considered, none should be disregarded and none should be the sole deciding factor.
And yes I know the history actually (For the most part)
Yet welcome to the present.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I always wanted to argue with a brick wall, I suppose the internet is the second best option.
Ghz, cores, instruction set, microarchitecture, IPC, etc are all aspects to be considered, none should be disregarded and none should be the sole deciding factor.
And yes I know the history actually (For the most part)
Yet welcome to the present.
WTF are you talking about? Listen, none of that matters if you look at benchmarks. This guy will be playing Minecraft on the computer, he doesn't need a super powerful processor. An APU would be great for him. Works great for web browsing and playing Minecraft.
WTF are you talking about? Listen, none of that matters if you look at benchmarks. This guy will be playing Minecraft on the computer, he doesn't need a super powerful processor. An APU would be great for him. Works great for web browsing and playing Minecraft.
I realize. I don't understand what your problem is.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I always wanted to argue with a brick wall, I suppose the internet is the second best option.
Ghz, cores, instruction set, microarchitecture, IPC, etc are all aspects to be considered, none should be disregarded and none should be the sole deciding factor.
Not true, you can completely disregard cores for one, since for gaming no games use more than 1-2 cores/threads. Rarely a game will use more, but never will they fully utilize them. WoW for instances uses all cores of an available processor, but since it is a game and thus does not require much processing power in the first place, it's basically a single threaded load split up into multiple threads. There is no performance boost at all.
GHz is another thing that can be completely disregarded, as the frequency does not matter as much or really at all in the current generation of CPUs. It can pretty much be ignored.
A lower end FX at 3.6GHz will perform the same as a lower end pentium at 2.1GHz. For reasons like this, it simply does not matter.
And yes I know the history actually (For the most part)
So then you remember the intel 80486? Remind me again of what happened with that?
Yet welcome to the present.
You just spent an entire post disagreeing with me, now you are agreeing with me. Sense?
Not true, you can completely disregard cores for one, since for gaming no games use more than 1-2 cores/threads. Rarely a game will use more, but never will they fully utilize them. WoW for instances uses all cores of an available processor, but since it is a game and thus does not require much processing power in the first place, it's basically a single threaded load split up into multiple threads. There is no performance boost at all.
GHz is another thing that can be completely disregarded, as the frequency does not matter as much or really at all in the current generation of CPUs. It can pretty much be ignored.
A lower end FX at 3.6GHz will perform the same as a lower end pentium at 2.1GHz. For reasons like this, it simply does not matter.
So then you remember the intel 80486? Remind me again of what happened with that?
You just spent an entire post disagreeing with me, now you are agreeing with me. Sense?
What I am saying is that Ghz must be considered. Sorry but you seem to be implying that a 400Mhz 1 core processor could out perform a 4Ghz Quad Core.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I always wanted to argue with a brick wall, I suppose the internet is the second best option.
But an APU matched with a 20% CPU with inferior architecture? Is that worth it?
Also I would love to see the comparison of the APU found in that laptop with HD4000
Guns are not about shooting, its about reloading.
There is different types of Trinity APUs, A6, A8, A10s. The A8 and A10 leaves the HD4000 far behind, MORE so if another discrete GPU is in there then hybrid crossfire takes over.
More less do not diss on Trinity, it has bite to it. The A8 and A10s are pretty much equal to the i3 mobiles.
Alright I realize that you could easily put an APU in there, it slipped my mind.
Yeah it freaking sucks...that is the point I was trying to make. Trying the same build for 400 dollars. It simply isn't worth it.
WHO in the right mind would buy a 100 dollar laptop for internet browsing, and then have a desktop.
And I am sure that you hold the APU in higher esteem than it deserves. I could be wrong.
So can someone please show me a bench mark comparion that actually shows which APU matches HD 4000?
AND I KNOW THAT GHZ AND CORES DOESN"T EQUAL PERFORMANCE.
i5 3570k is clocked at like 3.4 ghz, and the amd fx either 6300 or 4300 is clocked around 4, and yet the i5 beats them out.
So you expect me to believe that a AMD mobility, with a 20% lower clock will beat out an i3? The i3 will be the AMD at the same clock speed.s
This is mobile its a whole other ball game then highend desktop.
It will beat out the mobile I7 in game performance Intel can barley compete with Llano let alone Trinity.
Average of 15 Titles
Mobile Intel HD 4000 36.2
Mobile AMD HD 6620G 36.4
Source
http://www.anandtech...n56vm-preview/6
Now lets take a look at the desktop.
Unfortunately in the next set Toms did not include Trinity in its comparison so its Intel vs AMDs old APUs.
Now lets take a look at CPU performance.
You actualy don't sacrifice CPU performance at all with Trinity vs Intels offerings in the same price range.
So you end up with similar CPU performance but a much better GPU games and any apps that use OpenCL AMD is going to destroying Intel.
What he is trying to say is on the highend AMD has worse per clock performance it should apply to mobile and low end. He is not saying the GHZ alone matters.
To say GHZ does not matter at all it depends on how you use it in comparison.
Okay. Listen. Now.
You keep running under this assumption that "LOCK SPEEDS/CORES/GHZ DOES NOT MATTER."
I. Get. It. You obviously don't.
You seriously beleive that an AMD Quad Core 1.9 Ghz processor will match or beat a Intel i3 Quad Core processor at 2.4 Ghz? Really. You seriously believe that?
The thing is, you seem to believe that anything with a slower clock will be things with higher clocks.
Just. Because. Something has a lower clock doesn't mean it actually has a better articeture. The i3 has a better instruction set, clock speed, same core count, and superior articture. IT has the AMD beat.
So the APU Gpu in the AMD will beat the HD 4000 in the i3?
If so then yeah he should go with the Best Buy one, unless he finds features/reviews/aspects of the Lenovo one worth it.
No he should not go with the Best Buy laptop its HP and its from Best Buy.
He would be better off with the lenovo one.
You were right with what laptop but for the wrong reasons.
He would be better off with something like this
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16834312242
He would be losing some CPU performance but gain in gpu performance
Yeah it does seem like a better balance. Amazing that you can get such a laptop for under 400 dollars!
Looks the part too
Except for those paint splatters on the scree--oh wait Win8 I forgot!)
And everyone thinks I'm crazy for getting my gaming laptop because of this.
Lets take a history lesson shall we?
Not long ago, it actually was this way. And not long ago again, it was the opposite.
There was a point where in order for some AMD 6 cores to compete with a 2500k at stock 2.3GHz speed, they would need to be overclocked by quite a bit.
And there was another point in time, where in order for the pentium 3 to EVEN COMPETE with the AMD Athlon it would have had to run at over double clock speed.
So yes, it can happen and has happened before.
WHAT WAIT NO. DON'T GET AN HP. DON'T DON'T DON'T GET AN HP.
STOP. Please do yourself a favor.
If you give us a budget, we can find you a good laptop.
Ghz, cores, instruction set, microarchitecture, IPC, etc are all aspects to be considered, none should be disregarded and none should be the sole deciding factor.
And yes I know the history actually (For the most part)
Yet welcome to the present.
WTF are you talking about? Listen, none of that matters if you look at benchmarks. This guy will be playing Minecraft on the computer, he doesn't need a super powerful processor. An APU would be great for him. Works great for web browsing and playing Minecraft.
EDIT: $400 build: http://pcpartpicker.com/p/wr1Y
Could be reduced to an A6 if that's too much.
I realize. I don't understand what your problem is.
GHz is another thing that can be completely disregarded, as the frequency does not matter as much or really at all in the current generation of CPUs. It can pretty much be ignored.
A lower end FX at 3.6GHz will perform the same as a lower end pentium at 2.1GHz. For reasons like this, it simply does not matter.
So then you remember the intel 80486? Remind me again of what happened with that?
You just spent an entire post disagreeing with me, now you are agreeing with me. Sense?
What I am saying is that Ghz must be considered. Sorry but you seem to be implying that a 400Mhz 1 core processor could out perform a 4Ghz Quad Core.
That is not what I am implying at all, please read what I have typed and stop shoving words in my posts.
So in otherwords, you should consider clock speed and core count when estimating the performance of a processor.