I was planning to make a custom built pc. I was considering to use a Fusion Cpu. What do you think about it? Would you use something different?
I was planning to make a custom built pc. I was considering to use a Fusion Cpu. What do you think about it? Would you use something different?
Poor performance. Your better off getting a Ivy Core i5. You will get more power per dollar ratio. I hate to say that as I have been a AMD fan for 15 years or so, but the past few years they really have dropped in performance. Heck their new chips are not as fast as their Phenom X6 were.
Mac Mini: OSX 10.9 Mavericks, i7-3720QM 2.6Ghz, 16GB RAM, 1.25TB Fusion Array, Intel HD4000 iGPU
Photo Blog on Youtube: www.youtube.com/user/ExodistPhotoBlog
Linux User: 380654
I got a new barebones pc for my relatives and it has the cpu
AMD FX-6200 Bulldozer (Zambezi) 3.8GHz (Six Core) 32nm, AM3+ 8MB Cache
Seems like it is pretty good to me so far.
Actually, the Fusion processors have been getting decent reviews, mainly for their superior on-chip graphics compared to the Core-i's. Additionally, Ivy Bridge i5's are significantly more expensive than AMD Fusion. For example, NewEgg has the A8-5600K quad-core processor on sale for $99, while the least expensive i5 is $179. If the OP will be doing light gaming using the on-chip graphics he/she might be happier with a Fusion processor.
That being said, there are some notable disadvantages to the Fusion processors. First, if the OP is planning on using a discrete graphics card or is building a gaming rig then Intel is the way to go. Another disadvantage is power consumption - Intel Core-i chips are more power efficient than the AMD equivalents.
The reality is that, except in special cases, most users these days aren't taxing their CPU's, so there are probably better ways to enhance computer performance (such as replacing your boot drive with an SSD).
i just built a A8 5600k based system last week
the gpu does about 15fps on the heaven 3.0 benchmark on xubuntu 12.10 with the xswat ppa
20fps on medium
22fps on low
this is on a 1600x900 resolution using dvi
using ddr3 1866 cl 10
if the application is multi threaded it is slightly better than a i3 and the gpu is better than a Intel hd 4000
Last edited by pqwoerituytrueiwoq; January 14th, 2013 at 11:36 PM.
Laptop: ASUS A54C-NB91 (Storage: WD3200BEKT + MKNSSDCR60GB-DX); Desktop: Custom Build - Images included; rPi Server
Putting your Networked Printer's scanner software to shame PHP Scanner Server
I frequently edit my post when I have the last post
I've been doing a lot of research on this lately and there seems to be no general consensus about them ... but here's my opinion of all that I've read ...
The 22nm architecture on the third generation Intel Ivy Bridge processors is the most advanced on the market -- allowing the Intel CPU to run faster and more energy efficiently. This means that the cooling necessary is less for Intel chips and probably that you would get better laptop battery life out of Intel CPU's if all other factors are the same.
AMD has been focused on increasing the number of concurrent cores, trying to increase computing speed by generating more data streams and hyper threading them to process at the same time. This is all based on a 32nm technology (which is the same as Intel's second gen Sandy Bridge processor line) and runs at about the same pace.
Here is a CPU only benchmark list that I found while researching: http://www.cpubenchmark.net/high_end_cpus.html ... Remember, this list includes only processes within the CPU, which is only half of the equation
The other half of this the thought process involved in choosing your chips must be the graphics. AMD and Intel have both opened a new market of APU's with graphics processing integrated into the CPU. This is mostly useful where size is a factor -- laptops and the like. In comparing these chips, AMD generally takes the cake, offering equal or higher frame rates for the same money.
So, having laboriously searched the web to find everything I could, I finally settled on an AMD A10-4600 Quad Core processor for my new rig. I did this because the price was right for the amount of raw computing power I need (music production / video editing) in a portable format (17.3" laptop).
I do advise that you do your own research on the topic because you may disagree with the conclusions I drew and as hardware tech out paces software usage it becomes more of a personal opinion than anything that is noticeable in most applications. Please just remember as you are doing your research -- there are people out there comparing the most advanced Intel chips to the least advanced AMD chips to make Intel look better ... and vice versa ... so make sure you are looking at reasonable comparisons before you read the whole article (this could save you a LOT of time comparing apples to nuclear power plants). Best of luck!
APU are great, i dont think they have poor performance at all, they are comparable to the intel assuming you get one of the A-series. My daily Ubuntu system is an APU, never a single issue, very powerful.
Toshiba Satellite L875-s7230 / A6 2.7ghz dual-core piledriver w/ ATI Radeon HD 7520G / 8GB Corsair Vengeance DDR3-1600 RAM / 500 GB Seagate Momentus XT formatted JFS. >Wifi Drivers for this machine< My Deviant Screenshots
Last edited by Bandit; January 15th, 2013 at 07:17 AM.
Mac Mini: OSX 10.9 Mavericks, i7-3720QM 2.6Ghz, 16GB RAM, 1.25TB Fusion Array, Intel HD4000 iGPU
Photo Blog on Youtube: www.youtube.com/user/ExodistPhotoBlog
Linux User: 380654
from what i read eslewhere it seems that the case is:
Intel - CPU good, GPU descent
AMD - CPU descent, GPU good
same for low powered stuff.
but all these models amd has and their names are so confusing.... you have Fusion, FX, A8 whatever...so many of them and hard to even say which one is better or worse. gone are the old days when you knew that PIII is better than P2 and 486 is better than 386...
intel has corei and pentium (which is actually celeron). and you know that sort of i5 is better than i3, right?
and similar thing goes for graphics card. so many models and they are more or less similar in specs. and then i read a bit of testing and find otu that my old one is stronger than some new ones which now have same price as that old one cost me. doens't even make any sense....
and you have a number of sockets with no backwards compatibility.
Read the easy to understand, lots of pics Ubuntu manual.
Do i need antivirus/firewall in linux?
Full disk backup (newer kernel -> suitable for newer PC): Clonezilla
User friendly full disk backup: Rescuezilla
I'm a little bit less confused, but still, I don't understand one simple thing. APUs may be a good idea talking about laptops (in fact, I own a low priced A4 based laptop, and considering I had it for a very cheap price, it's very good). But talking about desktops, I can't see what's the point of integrating CPUs and GPUs.
Bookmarks