A6, A8 AMD Llano Processor Use in Daily Life

[johntiger1]

I read somewhere that even the second-gen i3's are faster than the a8's in daily, casual life (like word processing, Internet etc.) Thus my question is this: Are A6s and A8s noticeably slower than i3's? Basically, would it be a huge difference in multitasking and using Word, and the Internet?

 

[Hazle]

i use the E2 variants at work and i can say they're pretty OK for basic tasks like report writing and web browsing. some minor hitch, but nothing serious, and again, this is from the lower end E2-3200. an i3 will most likely be faster in a number of tasks, save for any that uses the integrated graphics.

 

[agerrard680]

I don't think you'll see any difference in office programs, flash or internet browsing between those chips.

My desktop (AMD PII 965 x4 @ 4GHz) and laptop (P T4300 dual core 2.1GHz) both do the basics to the same standard. I think the HDD in the system would make more of a difference than CPU or GPU on these 'low level' tasks.

As a general rule Intel smashes AMD on CPU, but the APU's have the upper hand on graphics. Unless you're gaming, encoding or whatnot you're going to see the same performance on both chips though (frankly they are all overkill).

FYI I would favour A8's as they are more rounded systems. I very very rarely hit even 80% CPU usage on this old laptop doing office tasks, but it's not good enough to game on. I.e. system is graphics limited.

Go for the AMD setup and save some money. Plug that money into an SSD upgrade for the best experience.

 

[johntiger1]

But why (if there is no noticeable difference) bother making anything faster than an i3/A6? What programs use up enough processor to merit an i7? I know gaming is processor intensive, but isn't it mainly affected by the graphics card?

 

[Hazle]

But why (if there is no noticeable difference) bother making anything faster than an i3/A6? What programs use up enough processor to merit an i7? I know gaming is processor intensive, but isn't it mainly affected by the graphics card?

some games benefit from more cores than they would with two. there are a lot of applications outside of gaming and basic office work that fully utilizes the no. of cores, hyperthreading, clock speed, instruction sets, and so on and so forth, on a CPU like graphics rendering, photo/video editing, virtual machines or just simple massively crazy multi-tasking (we're talking 30+ programs, hundreds of tabs on your browser, running a minecraft server and 15 virtual machines all at once. yes, i'm just exaggerating, but who knows?). and sometimes people want these tasks done as soon as possible, being actually busy and all.

 

[johntiger1]

some games benefit from more cores than they would with two. there are a lot of applications outside of gaming and basic office work that fully utilizes the no. of cores, hyperthreading, clock speed, instruction sets, and so on and so forth, on a CPU like graphics rendering, photo/video editing, virtual machines or just simple massively crazy multi-tasking (we're talking 30+ programs, hundreds of tabs on your browser, running a minecraft server and 15 virtual machines all at once. yes, i'm just exaggerating, but who knows?). and sometimes people want these tasks done as soon as possible, being actually busy and all.

So..gaming only? I read somewhere that some games are optimized for single or dual core, so having four, less powerful cores actually decreases performance. performance.
Why doesn't Intel just make i3's and i7's (ie average user and heavy user) processors? (and similarly, A4's and A8's for AMD) Is an i5/A6 never a good idea/worth the extra money? (My logic of course being, if you really needed that extra processing power, only an i7 would be sufficient)

 

[amuffin]

So..gaming only? I read somewhere that some games are optimized for single or dual core, so having four, less powerful cores actually decreases performance. performance.
Why doesn't Intel just make i3's and i7's (ie average user and heavy user) processors? (and similarly, A4's and A8's for AMD) Is an i5/A6 never a good idea/worth the extra money? (My logic of course being, if you really needed that extra processing power, only an i7 would be sufficient)

The i5 has more features than the i3, such as better virtualization features.

Again, this really depends on the specific application, if the application can take advantage of all 8 thread the i7 features than it will be a great choice.

 

[Hazle]

So..gaming only? I read somewhere that some games are optimized for single or dual core, so having four, less powerful cores actually decreases performance.

i don't know where you read that single/dual core info, but i can assure you that is either one really old article or a badly written one with half a truth in it.

http/www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-fx-pentium-apu-benchmark,3120.html

http/www.tomshardware.com/reviews/diablo-iii-performance-benchmark,3195-6.html

http/www.tomshardware.com/reviews/skyrim-performance-benchmark,3074-9.html

http/www.tomshardware.com/reviews/deus-ex-human-revolution-performance-benchmark,3012-7.html

http/www.tomshardware.com/reviews/battlefield-3-graphics-performance,3063-13.html

dual cores are playable enough at the highest settings, especially in single player games like Arkham City, Deus Ex, BF3 campaign, Skyrim etc. there are a few exceptions, the current most notable being BF3 online maps; the more players there are, the more your frames per second falls drastically @Ultra with a dual core. RTS like starcraft 2 usually favors more cores, though still pretty playable with two.

however, as you can see, adding an extra 2 cores can make quite a difference, hence a better optimization at 4 cores. and getting 6-8 cores at the moment for $50-100 more will only yield a very small increase in performance (if any at all), and just isn't worth it for gaming alone. while others may argue 6 cores is the future especially with the next gen consoles getting near, it doesn't mean 4 cores will become obsolete for gaming, not in a long time anyway.

Why doesn't Intel just make i3's and i7's (ie average user and heavy user) processors? (and similarly, A4's and A8's for AMD) Is an i5/A6 never a good idea/worth the extra money? (My logic of course being, if you really needed that extra processing power, only an i7 would be sufficient)

the right balance of price and performance. games now DEFINITELY don't use the full potential of an i7,hence a waste of cash and an i3 while good enough, just doesn't bring out the full potential of some games, hence you have the i5. and even then, why spend $200-250 when you have little to exactly zero interest in overclocking, and are on a budget, when you can spend on a locked $180 i5? hence the large number of choices.

let me also assure you a CPU is simply more than just clock speeds and the number of cores; a 2.8ghz Quad core can perform better if not equally against a 3.3ghz dual core in some games, while the dual core may win in a few games. it really depends on how the games are coded; some will see higher performance with 4 cores than 2, some will rely on higher clock speed, some may not even care about your CPU at all.

my advice; NEVER take a CPU at face value. again core clock and no. of cores means little to nothing. if you look at my first link, you can see how a near $200 4-core, 3.1ghz FX-8120 performs equally if not less than a $90 or so dual core Pentium G840 at 2.8ghz. the only thing you can trust are benchmarks from multiple sites.

again, to reassure you; the Llano are good for every day use. don't expect anything too amazing gaming-wise at 1080p or more.

 

[amuffin]

I think he's talking about laptops...

 

[johntiger1]

Best answer selected by johntiger1.