What do you guys think of AMD's APUs

When I look at the specks of some of these 500-600 dollar and the GPU component of the chip seems pretty good for what you pay for, much better than Intel "Extreme" Graphics. Seems like you have to pay at least 750 for an intel laptop if you don't wanna get stuck with one that uses their crappy extreme graphics. But I've also been out of the loop on GPUs and CPUs for a looooong time, which is why I'm asking you. I'm a big PC gamer, but I'm also on a very tight budget and these look pretty attractive to me.

How is the support and drivers for APUs? Do you think the future of APUs is bright considering that both PS4 and Xbox One are going to use them?

 

Warning: this is my opinion, you don't have to flame me, but you don't have to agree either

AMD is still years behind Intel. Funny how Quad-Core i5's can go toe to toe with 8 Core 220W monsters like the FX 8350. And AMD chips run hot.

Find a laptop with an Intel CPU and a low end Nvidia/Radeon GPU, Optimus is way better than AMD's graphics solution.

 

its quite simple they exist, they are good enough for some people, clearly insufficient for others

 

For a budget system, they're a decent choice. For your "average user" (Internet, Office, music/video, that sort of thing), I doubt that the Average Joe could honestly subjectively tell the difference.

Now, if you're the type that genuinely needs a huge amount of CPU (VMs, scientific computing, particularly CPU-intensive games, etc), then sure, APUs are not going to be the best. But you're barking up the wrong tree, too.

Anyway.... to answer OP's questions. The drive support, from what I read, is pretty good for low- to mid-end graphics. You can check on the integrated GPUs on sites like NotebookCheck to compare/contrast with Intel's integrated GPUs.

 

They are better than Intel GPUs, but imho they are placed at the wrong spot. Either you buy Integrated graphics to not do GPU work, or you stick with a dGPU for an extra boost in performance.

 

Or the third option could be to buy something with just enough CPU power, bit more GPU power, but not have to spend extra on a dGPU. Playing older games usually does fine without a dGPU, for example.

Everything has their place in the market.

 

APU's are fine for casual gaming, but if you want to play the latest and greatest, APU won't really cut it.

 

i play rome 2 and shogun 2 causally, they won't run it well

 

Those aren't casual games. They eat CPU power for breakfast and Rome II has crappy optimization and brings high-end desktops to their knees.

I like APU systems a lot as they occupy a very nice price and performance segment halfway between the bargain basement notebooks and netbooks and the midrange systems with Intel CPU's and midrange discrete GPU's. A $600-$700 system with an A10-5750M performs a lot better than the cheapo $300-$400 dollar offerings and it's only when you move into the typically $900-$1000 territory with Intel quad-cores and GT 740M/750M or 8770M/8850M that you get the next performance jump.

It's hard to find an Intel system at the same price as the AMD APU system that will outperform it in games and that is where the latter's greatest strength lies. Maybe in CPU power the Intel will win, but at the end of the day most games will be GPU-limited on these systems anyway.

 

By casual games, I meant like flash games, older titles, not so mainstream titles. Heck I know people who game SC2 on pretty high settings with the newest APU's. I used to play the newest shooters and games, hence I spent the money for my M17x R2, but now I only play older titles and less demanding games, kinda overkill.

 

then send the m17x r2 to me!

but Im a casual gamer, I just don't play those flash games. actually Im so casual that my steam library only reached 50+ titles this year and because I got some discounts here and there, and I have that account since 2008, my origin account has only 5 games.

but anyway total war is much more demanding than 99% of the games out there

 

Since this is seeking opinions, I prefer the Intel with a low end Nvidia. But it depends on what games you play... The Intel iGPUs have come a long way. I haven't seen enough real world benchmarks on the Intel 5200 to say where it fits in price/performance wise.

 

The price-to-performance ratio of the low-end discrete GPU's is a joke and at that point you might as well get a fast APU as it will perform better. Iris Pro is clearly the fastest iGPU at the moment but it is very expensive and hard to find. Because it is an Intel GPU you would have a very hard time convincing me to make the switch from AMD/Nvidia and lose out on things like driver support, hardware/software compatibility, and image quality options. I've never used Intel graphics in any meaningful way so it would feel very foreign to me to try to navigate the very barebones and limited Intel HD Graphics Control Panel instead of Catalyst Control Center or Nvidia Control Panel.

 

For the right price, I can ship it to you.

 

Keep in mind, I am a gamer, so I stick with the higher end... My next computer will be Intel cpu with Nvidia 780M. Never had a problem with Nvidia.

 

1. The Iris pro has a value of 60$, maybe less if you splice off the 4600HD. If you take a 4700HQ (4600HD) and a 4750HQ (Iris), both same CPU, there is a 60$ in the price difference. Thats really good bang for buck, but it brings along a whole slew of problems, like heat, and the fact that it is only present inside quad-cores, which generally go inside laptops with strong dGPU's (iris pro = 640M).

2. Imho, Nvidia/AMD drivers are just better than Intel ones, and they are updated more frequently.

 

I'm talking about the prices of laptops with Iris Pro, not how much the chip actually costs.

 

A proper high end amd apu will perform great for gaming at 720p. And a lot cheaper too.

Sent from my G2

 

Ok, so how much better than my current Hp with Turion II and 1gb dedicated HD4650 would it be? Because I'm a pretty hardcore gamer and it handles just about everything I throw at it, usually on medium settings. Battlefield 3's singleplayer even runs fine at med settings, although the lower framerate (upper teens, lower 20s) is too much of a handicap to be competitive in the game's multiplayer.

 

IMHO AMD's APUs would be much better, if their TDP was 45W (or even higher) instead of 35W, allowing higher clocks and better balancing of CPU vs GPU performance.

Just my $0.02

 

a lot better, can't put on numbers

 

HD 8650G in the A10-5750m or A10-5757m is a bit faster than the HD 7670m or nVidia GT 630m. So I'd say it's quite a bit faster. And the four cores will help with BF3 quite a bit. BF3 eats four cores or more easily.

I agree entirely. That and they need to support 2133MHz DDR3. That would really help the GPU performance considerably.