LTITI, on November 10 2012 - 09:54 AM, said:
PS: On a different note, why the hell did you use Physx which treats AMD GPUs like fuzzy bunny_ Did they get sponsored by NVIDIA or something_
Well, it is a "The Way It's Meant To Be Played" title...
OneMoar, on November 11 2012 - 04:14 PM, said:
let me correct you yet again since you seem incapable of reading
the point was for ~350 bucks you said I could't build a machine capable of running this game well I just proved you wrong gg
No, my point was you have no business playing a modern, fairly demanding game on a $350 system. Unless you're on a console, of course. Spending $350 on a computer to play one game is silly. I'd want to play more than a few games. $750 is the minimum
any serious gaming computer should be.
On your system, it will run. It might even run somewhat competently. But the simple fact is that it's hampered by the CPU - and so while they'll get more speed with a GPU, you're then saddling a potentially good GPU with a ho-hum processor. Much better that they just get the Intel first thing, and have a CPU that will last at least 3 years.
OneMoar, on November 11 2012 - 04:14 PM, said:
1. the A10 is a CPU+GPU the gpu is far more powerful then anything Intel has on that side it is more then capable of running this at 720p on high settings/1080 on medium you can't compair a system with a dedicated gpu to one with out and in gaming tests the AMD Chip crushes Intels crappy gpu's into the dirt
...Nobody who is gaming in their right mind would use an IGP, whether AMD or Intel, to play games. Since you're going to nitpick about my choice of review site,
here's another. I will admit the A10-5800K fares better at this test, and while 720p is probably quite playable (based on 1024x768), 1080p is... well, not. 34 and 38 FPS are what most gamers would call "barely playable." Even with turning details down, the thing will struggle for bandwidth, and heavier sections have a chance of seriously fluctuating the framerates.
Also, let's not forget, while it's more powerful, it's also kicking way more heat - 100W is the only way you'll get something that powerful in there right now.
OneMoar, on November 11 2012 - 04:14 PM, said:
2. the reason for the 1866 ram is the above the APU's see a huge gain in FPS with faster ram
Differences: 3.4 FPS in Dirt Showdown, 6 FPS on Arkham City HQ, 3 FPS on Arkham City MQ. While it leaps (and continues to leap with each successive step), I think that article put it best: "it combines merely average CPU performance to best-in-class integrated graphics."
Or to put it another way, if it taxes the CPU, you're pretty screwed. If it taxes GPUs more, then you may be able to slip in. Either, however, are just plain bad ideas - a person who wants to PC game is going to buy an actual videocard, and they'll thus be much better off paired with an Intel CPU.
OneMoar, on November 11 2012 - 04:14 PM, said:
3.cut the fan-boy rabbit-fuzzy bunny before I drive up to buffalo with both my 2500k AND my AMD machine and put them side by side and watch as the AMD rig plays exactly the same as the intel where as the AMD rig didn't cost me 600 bucks
Well of course if you go strictly by IGPs, the AMD will win. That doesn't change the fact that no real PC gamer worth their salt is ever going to game on an IGP. They will want a real videocard.
OneMoar, on November 11 2012 - 04:14 PM, said:
4.nobody cares about single threaded performance name me one game that can't use at least two threads
Completely missed my point. AMD processors are strongest when you can break one task over several threads. This is because then each core has to do only a slice of the work. Since it has a nice, fast internal communication, it can do this lickety-split. Games, however, use threads that are heavily loaded and cannot be split - i.e; they're singlethreaded, but multicore. One thread might be strictly for video while a second thread does everything else - input, sound, and so on. As a result, one single core does all the work - and it's here where Intel kicks AMD's fuzzy bumpkin into the ground.
AMD would be strongest at things like movie encoding (which, indeed, it is much more competitive in) because you can split the work across multiple threads. Games don't do that; they load two threads down heavily, and maybe have two helper threads. In this case, AMD suffers horribly.
OneMoar, on November 11 2012 - 04:14 PM, said:
5. you lost all credibility with me when you quoted
anandtech seriously they call a difference of ~8fps a "total loss" when the APU costs less ... lol bias much ... specifically UT3 based games that flat-out hate having less then 4 threads to play with
8 FPS could well be a total loss, depending on what the benchmarks are - if both are pumping 125 FPS, it's not much of a difference, but if the winner is only getting 45 FPS, then yes, 8 FPS is a very big deal.
Also, I know for a fact I ran UT3 quite well on one of my older rigs, a Core 2 Duo E6750 with, at the time, a GeForce 8800 GTS 640, running at 1024x768:
It also did pretty fine when I upgraded that videocard to a GTX 285, and along with it, jumped to a 2048x1152 resolution:
So really, your argument is pretty much flat-out wrong. This is still about the best AMD processors will manage with this engine, because this is approximately the level their CPUs are capable of performing at now. These two shots, however, date from June 14, 2008 and May 5, 2009 respectively. On my current rig, UT3 would pretty much never dip below 60. Ever, unless there's some kind of massive overdraw or something.
OneMoar, on November 11 2012 - 04:14 PM, said:
O yea and before you call me a fanboy might wanna look up some of my posts on TPU where I slammed AMD for bulldozer
All fine and dandy (you'll note I never called you that), but I am wondering why you're trying to say a $350 PC will run this game well, when the simple answer is it won't. While its IGP is awesome and admittedly superior to Intel's, the simple fact is the
CPU sucks. It will all-around get worse performance in games than a comparable Intel one, and a IGP is not something most serious gamers will be gaming on. Casual, sure, but anyone who is going to play a game like Hawken will likely know at least a little bit about videocards and processors - it's the nature of the beast when it comes to PC games.
You're literally hinging "superior choice" on someone playing with an IGP. That's so cruel I don't even know where to begin.
The Intels can be had for similar price and, for that price, offer superior performance everywhere except the IGP, but it will use less power and last longer. Period. The IGP obviously is not going to run every game flawlessly, nor smoothly, but the same goes for the AMD offering, and saddling a gamer with an IGP is an absolute buzzkill. They're improving, but they're only about as powerful as a $80-90 videocard - about half of the performance they need to be before you can throw these kinds of assertions around.
Until they can compete with a $200 videocard at a minimum (and ideally, a $300 one), a PC gamer is still going to be shopping for both a CPU
and a GPU. In that sense, Intel is the best choice now, and for the foreseeable future.
OneMoar, on November 12 2012 - 08:59 AM, said:
thats just stupid you have a truck load of hardware and are barely maintaing 60FPS ...
In this case, I'd chalk it up partially due to lack of game optimization and partially due to AMD being slow at Catalyst updating. Once both of those happen, he'll likely be near 60 nearly constantly.
AMD cards are good hardware-wise. The problem is that AMD takes forever to update them for new games... meanwhile, nVidia just pushed out an update today that enables SLI and 3D Surround for GeForce owners. Being part of the TWIMTBP program is probably part of that, but even for games that aren't, nVidia would almost certainly get an update out faster than AMD, unless it's part of AMD's similar "Gaming Evolved" program.
Edited by DarkPulse, November 12 2012 - 05:47 PM.
0
Also according to that Steam page, Quadcores tend to gain about .66% per month, while duals fall .40% in that same timespan. Long story short, duals will be the majority for about the next year or so, then it's going to be quads. So it's really just a matter of older, dual CPUs being replaced by newer quads - at least, as far as 
