[Alexko]

Originally Posted by liolio

Well I just read Ars technica review and it is less than underwhelming (by the way it looks a lot like a tech report review, they adopted the same methodology or there is partnership going on?).
For most user including gaming, the last pentium and cheap Hd6670 or Nv matching part (gtx 640?) is in the same ball park with regard to price, offers both better gaming performances and lower power consumption

It is a Tech Report review, they have a partnership.

That Pentium + 6670 couple would offer better gaming performance, but lower power? Perhaps lower peak CPU power, maybe even lower gaming power (though not by much) but significantly higher idle power. Without discrete graphics, Trinity idles very low: http://techreport.com/review/23662/a...pus-reviewed/7. Now, how often is your desktop idle, how often is it under full load?

Plus, that Pentium would be slower in most other apps.

Actually, I think Trinity makes a very nice desktop chip for people who are interested in some gaming, but not enough to want to get a discrete graphics card. That may not be a very large market, but it's there. And obviously, Trinity is not well-suited for people who need a lot of computing power, but that's actually a pretty small portion of the market.

[Blazkowicz]

Originally Posted by Malo

The only uses I have for A-series desktop parts are HTPC's (which they are the best at) and nettops for using in conference rooms at work.

a low cost "family gaming" desktop would still be interesting, the main appeal is all heat producing hardware is under the CPU cooler, so it's cheap to make silent and reliable.
a fan failure on the graphics card is less than fun (happened to a PC I built for my brothers with leftover parts and a new mobo)

[Blazkowicz]

Originally Posted by Alexko

Plus, that Pentium would be slower in most other apps.

To be fair, a quad core is useless, unless you're doing photo and video editing, or using audio software with synths/sequencers etc.
So, an APU is good for people who do multithreaded CPU intensive tasks and gaming on the side.

[liolio]

Originally Posted by Alexko

It is a Tech Report review, they have a partnership.

That Pentium + 6670 couple would offer better gaming performance, but lower power? Perhaps lower peak CPU power, maybe even lower gaming power (though not by much) but significantly higher idle power. Without discrete graphics, Trinity idles very low: http://techreport.com/review/23662/a...pus-reviewed/7. Now, how often is your desktop idle, how often is it under full load?

Plus, that Pentium would be slower in most other apps.

Actually, I think Trinity makes a very nice desktop chip for people who are interested in some gaming, but not enough to want to get a discrete graphics card. That may not be a very large market, but it's there. And obviously, Trinity is not well-suited for people who need a lot of computing power, but that's actually a pretty small portion of the market.

Well the pentium consumes more or less the same as a core i3 and hardware.fr measurements show that under max load situation the pentium hd6670 couple wins (not true idle as you pointed out) and is the same under F1.
Sad part is they could have used a HD7750 which perform significantly better than HD 6670 for the the power consumption (more costly though but still more than reasonable for a gamer on a budget)(Edit actually the hd 7750 consumes less idle / Edit) and I don't know how gt 650 fares, the GT 640 consume a bit less than the hd 6670 and still outperform Trinity by it self.

For the other uses well, I guess it heavily depends on what one does. I would say that for most users both are already good enough, I suspect that most PC users don't do anything performance sensitive including most gamers (for them outside of gaming). So if I were to give advices to a person that doesn't know anything and care for gaming, I would favor the pentium based set-up by a significant margins.
For my self, doing mostly browsing/emails/few offices works, it is also a better set-up.

[Alexko]

Originally Posted by Blazkowicz

To be fair, a quad core is useless, unless you're doing photo and video editing, or using audio software with synths/sequencers etc.
So, an APU is good for people who do multithreaded CPU intensive tasks and gaming on the side.

True. It helps a bit with file compression/decompression, but that's about it for common users. But at least it's future-proof.

[UniversalTruth]

Originally Posted by liolio

the GT 640 consume a bit less than the hd 6670 and still outperform Trinity by it self.

What about image quality? How does this low-end geforce (you know that geforces get worse when going from the top-of-the-line members to the low-end ones) fare against the Radeon?

Originally Posted by liolio

I suspect that most PC users don't do anything performance sensitive including most gamers. So if I were to give advices to a person that doesn't know anything and care for gaming, I would favor the pentium based set-up by a significant margins.

I am sensitive enough to detect how fast one processor is even with simple browsing or normal Windows use. Of course, a faster processor would mean a more fluent windows experience.

[liolio]

Originally Posted by UniversalTruth

What about image quality? How does this low-end geforce (you know that geforces get worse when going from the top-of-the-line members to the low-end ones) fare against the Radeon?

I mean search reviews for your self... The HD 6670 performs better still the GT 640 (ddr3) consumes less juice. Both beat trintiy on its own.

I am sensitive enough to detect how fast one processor is even with simple browsing or normal Windows use. Of course, a faster processor would mean a more fluent windows experience.

In which way trinity faster under that kind of load? Nothing benchmark tells us. And I suspect that you are not an average users.
For most users (I know including players, not hardcore though) that were to upgrade now (in a lot of case so from system running a 32bits OS as such with less of 4GB of RAM)(and yes people that pursache that kind of set-up for gaming are on budget/ don't upgrade that often), I' more than confident that games aside that a lot more ram (6/8 GB) and a good SSD would provide more perceived differences than the differences than the difference there is in absolute perfs between Trinity and a Pentium. /geek prism/ reality distortion.

[UniversalTruth]

Originally Posted by liolio

I mean search reviews for your self... The HD 6670 performs better still the GT 640 (ddr3) consumes less juice. Both beat trintiy on its own.

Not true.

Zotac GeForce GT 640- 178 points

http://www.anandtech.com/show/5969/z...-640-review-/6

AMD 6550D- 184 points
AMD 7660D- 199 points

http://www.anandtech.com/show/6335/a...-perspective/3

Radeon HD 6670- 201 points

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/...s,2925-14.html

[liolio]

Originally Posted by UniversalTruth

Not true.

Zotac GeForce GT 640- 178 points

http://www.anandtech.com/show/5969/z...-640-review-/6

AMD 6550D- 184 points
AMD 7660D- 199 points

http://www.anandtech.com/show/6335/a...-perspective/3

Radeon HD 6670- 201 points

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/...s,2925-14.html

What the hell are you talking about?
http://www.anandtech.com/show/6332/a...eview-part-1/2

The gt 640 out performs trinity IGP that is nothing to see here aside your biases. And by the way if I were to give advices I may push for the hd 7750 worth the few extra penny.

[swaaye]

Originally Posted by Alexko

True. It helps a bit with file compression/decompression, but that's about it for common users. But at least it's future-proof.

I think we've already reached the imagined multithreaded future.

[UniversalTruth]

Originally Posted by liolio

What the hell are you talking about?

About the simple fact that not everything begins and ends with pure (or poor) framerate.

Originally Posted by liolio

http://www.anandtech.com/show/6332/a...eview-part-1/2
The gt 640 out performs trinity IGP that is nothing to see here aside your biases. And by the way if I were to give advices I may push for the hd 7750 worth the few extra penny.

I don't even see their testing methodology. What processor was the GT 640 tested with?

[liolio]

Originally Posted by UniversalTruth

About the simple fact that not everything begins and ends with pure (or poor) framerate.

Haven't dig the reviews of that card much, only bring it into the discussion because it consumes less than a HD 6670. I missed something Nv's been caught using dirty tricks?
I haven't seen or read nothing like that for now.

I don't even see their testing methodology. What processor was the GT 640 tested with?

It seems like they use Trinity for all the tests, but methodology is a bit unclear on that one.
Anyway, a pentium and a hd 6670 is still the best set-up in that price range. Gt 640 allows for a bit lower power consumption. For extra bucks the best way to improve the conf is not to replace the pentium by a trinity but buy a hd 7750.

Sadly I've to agree with some reviewers, aside users that need the four cores for productivity reasons, the average users or casual gamers is neither as good off with a Pentium alone (save money) nor a pentium and a low/mid end discrete GPU.
Trinity and APU still fail to find their place in the desktop realm (as a laptop part I would say that Trinity is a pretty amazing part for casual (not as flash games players) gamers and plain gamers on a budget).

EDIT
I checked the retail prices, I would nuance a bit.
You may have a pentium G645 for 80$, the hd 6670 is 85$ =>165$
THe A10-5800K is 130$. The 35$ of the above set-up are worse it.
More disputable for the A10-5600k @ 110$ quiet some bang for the bucks here. And 55$ buy you quiet some stuffs, more or better RAM or better mobo, or a better case, may be a low capacity SSD.

As a side note you may find rebates that makes the first setting the most tempting /stock clearing of older parts.

[RedVi]

Originally Posted by kalelovil

We know that at least on the desktop it will use the same socket as Trinity, so that discounts triple channel memory.
It does however pack a GPU component around 50% faster than Trinity (33% more 'cores' and using an architecture ~15% more efficient per clock) so unless AMD plan to dramatically reduce the clock speed some sort of sideport (or eDRAM if it is ready) memory is the logical solution.

Not necessarily, the 7800 (GCN) series is faster than the 6900 (VLIW4) series across the board while having less memory bandwidth. It just depends how limited it turns out to be, 2133MHz DDR3 may be enough to net an average 40% actual improvement, which would be acceptable with a 50% theoretical.

[Blazkowicz]

If your hd 6670 at $85 is a ddr3 model, it's a garbage card.
I would consider a celeron g530 with a gddr5 radeon 7750 instead, because the 7750 really trounces even a gddr5 6770.

[cal_guy]

Originally Posted by liolio

Well I just read Ars technica review and it is less than underwhelming (by the way it looks a lot like a tech report review, they adopted the same methodology or there is partnership going on?).
For most user including gaming, the last pentium and cheap Hd6670 or Nv matching part (gtx 640?) is in the same ball park with regard to price, offers both better gaming performances and lower power consumption

The problem with the Pentium is that gaming performance tanks on some the newer games that use 4 or more threads. (admittedly using the a much more powerful graphics card and at 1080p)

[CarstenS]

Originally Posted by Blazkowicz

To be fair, a quad core is useless, unless you're doing photo and video editing, or using audio software with synths/sequencers etc.
So, an APU is good for people who do multithreaded CPU intensive tasks and gaming on the side.

Honest question: What kind of "mom-and-dad-style" image editors do actually use multiple cores? I know photoshop does and paint.net as well (at least for the benchmark) but both do not really qualify for "the average user", right?

[Alexko]

Originally Posted by swaaye

I think we've already reached the imagined multithreaded future.

Perhaps. Every now and then, an application will still go from being single-threaded to dual-threaded, or dual to quad. It sure is taking a long time, but I think it's an ongoing process, slow as it may be.

[I.S.T.]

Originally Posted by UniversalTruth

What about image quality? How does this low-end geforce (you know that geforces get worse when going from the top-of-the-line members to the low-end ones) fare against the Radeon?

Uh... image quality stays the same. Stop repeating 2001 stuff.

[UniversalTruth]

Originally Posted by I.S.T.

image quality stays the same.

Not according to HQV 2.0. It's an absurd to claim that image quality is constant, even moreso you have different companies implementing different solutions. But you are supposed to know it... Of course you will ignore it when you have the interest.

[jimbo75]

Originally Posted by liolio

It seems like they use Trinity for all the tests, but methodology is a bit unclear on that one.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/5969/z...-640-review-/9
http://www.anandtech.com/show/6332/a...eview-part-1/3

Crysis Warhead 1680x1050 Performance quality, Frost bench

640 review - 99.8, Trinity review - 100.5

Dirt 3 1680x1050 Medium quality

640 review - 69.7, Trinity review 71.4

Shogun 2 1680x1050 Medium quality

640 review - 55, Trinity review 54.8

Based on those results it looks extremely likely to be the same cpu as was used in the GT 640 review, which was an i7 3770K. The 7660D and Gt 640 would probably be very closely matched using the same cpu.

Anyway, a pentium and a hd 6670 is still the best set-up in that price range. Gt 640 allows for a bit lower power consumption. For extra bucks the best way to improve the conf is not to replace the pentium by a trinity but buy a hd 7750.

I disagree, and the recent techreport review concludes similarly -
http://techreport.com/review/23662/a...pus-reviewed/8

2 cores just don't cut it, and it's only going to get worse. If you want something cheap to pair with a 6670 you can always buy a Phenom II and overclock it. There basically isn't any reason to go with a Pentium.

[Blazkowicz]

Originally Posted by UniversalTruth

Not according to HQV 2.0. It's an absurd to claim that image quality is constant, even moreso you have different companies implementing different solutions. But you are supposed to know it... Of course you will ignore it when you have the interest.

but that is very specific. I don't understand what this video processing is for, these days I just play the source and to hell with options, the result will be poor or good because of the source itself.
I used to use ffdshow for divx playback though, a bit of gamma correction, deblocking, and "luma stuff" wihch made it look great and high contrast by manipulating the brightness levels but denatured it.

Now deblocking is part of the h264 codec I guess, processing is unavailable when I watch a youtube video (where it would be needed), and gamma, I do it system wide in the driver panel, a setting which affects everything video or not in my set up.

[Blazkowicz]

Originally Posted by jimbo75

I disagree, and the recent techreport review concludes similarly -
http://techreport.com/review/23662/a...pus-reviewed/8

2 cores just don't cut it, and it's only going to get worse. If you want something cheap to pair with a 6670 you can always buy a Phenom II and overclock it. There basically isn't any reason to go with a Pentium.

This particular page shows a Pentium G2120, a very fast two core, two thread CPU, doing strong performance on a particular game. Maybe you intended to link something else.
There's a simple reason to go with a Pentium, which is to get one around 50 euros. The competition is Athlon II X2 and dual core APU, those get murdered. Sure you can get better with more money, a FX 4320 would probably be good.
Intel could sell a 100 euro i5 if it wanted, by the way, this would make for a quite different market (AMD would disappear and sell only E-350)

[jimbo75]

Originally Posted by Blazkowicz

This particular page shows a Pentium G2120, a very fast two core, two thread CPU, doing strong performance on a particular game. Maybe you intended to link something else.
There's a simple reason to go with a Pentium, which is to get one around 50 euros. The competition is Athlon II X2 and dual core APU, those get murdered. Sure you can get better with more money, a FX 4320 would probably be good.
Intel could sell a 100 euro i5 if it wanted, by the way, this would make for a quite different market (AMD would disappear and sell only E-350)

Well I like to link to the beginning of the benchmarks so as not to get accused of cherry picking

The Ivy Bridge Pentium G2120 does well in Skyrim but in the following pages you can see it faltering somewhat (in a way that isn't shown in the simple fps charts). Anything lesser than the IB is just going to be worse.

The G2120 is a 3.1 GHz $99 chip which puts it firmly in reach of a C3 Phenom II on price, which would make a far more sensible choice for gaming on a budget. There might be an argument for an i3 + discrete but at the $50 range and discrete I'd probably still rather take a 5800K.

The G2120 is 18% faster (than the A10) in Skyrim, 5% faster in Batman, 4% slower in BF3 with the following quote -

So yeah, the FPS average tells us the difference between the Pentium G2120 and the A8-5600K is a single frame per second: 81 FPS versus 82. To take another swing at a deceased equine, the difference between the two is much larger than the FPS average suggests.

26% slower in Crysis 2

All of the CPUs are pretty competent, if you boil it down to our indicator of badness. The exception, of course, is the Pentium G2120.

So it's actually slower than the A10 in the average of these 4 games anyway, while just ending up ahead of the $109 A8-5600K. Imagine what that $50 pentium is going to be like...you just aren't going to get anything like the A10's performance over the majority of games, and with more and more mulithreaded engines coming it would be a poor choice of purchase for a low-end gaming system. Honestly you can get an A8 5600K for $110, why go with a $50 cpu and $60 gpu combo that simply will not compete with it in anything except the most weird single threaded games (looking at you Skyrim).

[hkultala]

Originally Posted by CarstenS

Honest question: What kind of "mom-and-dad-style" image editors do actually use multiple cores? I know photoshop does and paint.net as well (at least for the benchmark) but both do not really qualify for "the average user", right?

Practicall all that need more CPU power than some old pentium II had. Those on that run well on old pentium II do not use multiple cores.

So, no high single-thread performance needed for image editing.

[I.S.T.]

Originally Posted by UniversalTruth

Not according to HQV 2.0. It's an absurd to claim that image quality is constant, even moreso you have different companies implementing different solutions. But you are supposed to know it... Of course you will ignore it when you have the interest.

...So you're talking about 3D graphics image quality and using HQV2.0 to back that up?