• Welcome to Overclockers Forums! Join us to reply in threads, receive reduced ads, and to customize your site experience!

Are the APUs/FM2 Worth it?

Overclockers is supported by our readers. When you click a link to make a purchase, we may earn a commission. Learn More.

Rydis

Member
Joined
Aug 30, 2005
Location
Bradenton, FL
If you dont plan to ever use integrated graphics, is it better to get a non APU processor? Or does it not affect it at all. Im asuming a non APU at the same speed/core would be cheaper then?

edit: Just realized I did under motherboards not CPUs if it could be moved please.
 
Well if you plan to add a 300$ video card later on that is not on the crossfire list for the apu, then all you did was buy an expensive quad core. As you might as well go with the fx series if you're just going for the processor.

I have owned both sides - the fx will be for gaming or normal desktoping, the apu is more for intro-med graphics for say htpc's or more "intensive" internet browsing. I use the fx and a crossfire card and then just run three monitors and it is usually just for internet browsing, vm's, etc. Then I have another in my htpc.
 
Well if you plan to add a 300$ video card later on that is not on the crossfire list for the apu, then all you did was buy an expensive quad core. As you might as well go with the fx series if you're just going for the processor.

I have owned both sides - the fx will be for gaming or normal desktoping, the apu is more for intro-med graphics for say htpc's or more "intensive" internet browsing. I use the fx and a crossfire card and then just run three monitors and it is usually just for internet browsing, vm's, etc. Then I have another in my htpc.

so the APU can crossfile as integrated and be good?

Have nvidia..so I guess I would need sli. Only using a 460GTX
 
so the APU can crossfile as integrated and be good?

Have nvidia..so I guess I would need sli. Only using a 460GTX

When they advertise crossfire, it is only 2-3 series (my sig has "best" card support for the A10 line), and they are cheaper series so do not expect much. The cards do not even require extra power if that says anything. So if your planning to max games, do not go for this thinking the gpu onboard will do it, even with the "crossfired" card.
 
The AMD APUs usen FX cores with the L3 cache removed and a GPU added in, if I'm not mistaken.
 
The AMD APUs usen FX cores with the L3 cache removed and a GPU added in, if I'm not mistaken.

Spot on.

If you're not planning to use the GPU portion of the APU, but are looking for a cheaper setup look at the 760k.
 
I see so the fx series then if I can get sub 100 or so. I dont mind dual core if actually quicker then a quad. Apu isn't for me. Disappointed might be last and might have purchase.. Been and 15 years
 
I see so the fx series then if I can get sub 100 or so. I dont mind dual core if actually quicker then a quad. Apu isn't for me. Disappointed might be last and might have purchase.. Been and 15 years

A dual is going to be quicker than a quad if the program does not support threads higher then 2. Even if clock is lower, it has double the channels to process. But that is the thing, processors really can not be used for their full potential unless your encoding files.
 
A dual is going to be quicker than a quad if the program does not support threads higher then 2.
Oh?

Which is quicker? A dual core at 3.5Ghz or a quad core at 3.5Ghz?
 
A dual is going to be quicker than a quad if the program does not support threads higher then 2. Even if clock is lower, it has double the channels to process. But that is the thing, processors really can not be used for their full potential unless your encoding files.

Yeah I'm aware. I mainly game and very few games even now utilize more then 2 cores which is why I'm ok with a cheaper dual core. Though no reason not to get a quad if speed is relatively the same. The fm2 cores looked ok the x4 series..but reviews are sketchy.. It runs very hot even without oc
 
Yeah I'm aware. I mainly game and very few games even now utilize more then 2 cores which is why I'm ok with a cheaper dual core. Though no reason not to get a quad if speed is relatively the same. The fm2 cores looked ok the x4 series..but reviews are sketchy.. It runs very hot even without oc

But your talking about future proofing.

Honestly if I were you, I would get an apu setup for $300ish, and then buy a xbox one/ps4 to game on.
 
But your talking about future proofing.

Honestly if I were you, I would get an apu setup for $300ish, and then buy a xbox one/ps4 to game on.

I'm still on a 5 year old rig that runs everything at max settings aside fromfew iI need to lower aa. Phenom x2 in sig and gtx 460 SE.

Quad cores have been around for years and still isn't taken advantage of outside editing and such. We got 8 cores now. So I was looking for best gaming performance that was an upgrade. I only game and watch hulu and such which us why I still think dual is ok if I can get cheaper then quad. My only reasoning. So for me..I don't think the apu is my best solution.

I have a ps4.. But most PC game I play..rather play on a PC or PC only.
 
I'm still on a 5 year old rig that runs everything at max settings aside fromfew iI need to lower aa. Phenom x2 in sig and gtx 460 SE.

Quad cores have been around for years and still isn't taken advantage of outside editing and such. We got 8 cores now. So I was looking for best gaming performance that was an upgrade. I only game and watch hulu and such which us why I still think dual is ok if I can get cheaper then quad. My only reasoning. So for me..I don't think the apu is my best solution.

I have a ps4.. But most PC game I play..rather play on a PC or PC only.

I am curious to know what your monitors res is, as curious to know how your maxing with a 460. But again, it is all to your preferences. You did ask for opinions.

Honestly I have had the "gaming" computers in the past but I do not have time to game intensively anymore. So I just have some apus that will support several monitors well, along with quad cores incase I have to do rendering, encoding, etc. Then I also have fileservers, vps in offsite locations, and an xbox, as it suits my gaming needs (just mute all other players).
 
I am curious to know what your monitors res is, as curious to know how your maxing with a 460. But again, it is all to your preferences. You did ask for opinions.

Honestly I have had the "gaming" computers in the past but I do not have time to game intensively anymore. So I just have some apus that will support several monitors well, along with quad cores incase I have to do rendering, encoding, etc. Then I also have fileservers, vps in offsite locations, and an xbox, as it suits my gaming needs (just mute all other players).

Its 1080p. I dont play games like bf4 or cod.. But it maxes path of exile, ff14 ( with lowered aa which I'm ok with), d3, dark souls, league of legends. I may drop to about 50 fps in some..which is still acceptabyto me. Dark souls us only exception but that has frame rate issues only any platform. New Vegas ran great max settings.

Skyrim I couldn't max without some frame loss but I was ok 720 at max. Though I just lowered some settings and did 1080. Was more the acceptable still

Honestly very few games are so graphic intensive to require 400 dollar cards to run nicely and most are fps..which I dont play :)

And yeah..just was looking for opinions and if the new apus were better for me or not. I'm not against quad core.. My phenom x2 is unlocked to a x4 b55. Was just saying if speeds same but was like 20-30 price difference.. I'd go with cheaper dual over quad simply because I could be just fine without
 
Last edited:
Its 1080p. I dont play games like bf4 or cod.. But it maxes path of exile, ff14 ( with lowered aa which I'm ok with), d3, dark souls, league of legends. I may drop to about 50 fps in some..which is still acceptabyto me. Dark souls us only exception but that has frame rate issues only any platform. New Vegas ran great max settings.

Skyrim I couldn't max without some frame loss but I was ok 720 at max. Though I just lowered some settings and did 1080. Was more the acceptable still

Honestly very few games are so graphic intensive to require 400 dollar cards to run nicely and most are fps..which I dont play :)

And yeah..just was looking for opinions and if the new apus were better for me or not. I'm not against quad core.. My phenom x2 is unlocked to a x4 b55. Was just saying if speeds same but was like 20-30 price difference.. I'd go with cheaper dual over quad simply because I could be just fine without

Honestly with the a8 alone I have played some of skyrim with lowered settings.. so it is all going to depend on what level of gaming you want to do.
 
Honestly with the a8 alone I have played some of skyrim with lowered settings.. so it is all going to depend on what level of gaming you want to do.

Yeah the consensus im getting is to not get a A-series cpu. I have a dedicated graphics card and since this format of the FM2 is being unable to be upgraded, might as well get a AM3 thats a bit cheaper but overall more powerful.
 
With the FM2+ platform, I wouldn't be surprised if AMD starts releasing APU's without the integrated GPU because of the possibility of 8 cores. I don't think AMD are going any further with the AM3+ socket.

And certain GPU's like the 6570, 6650 and even 7770 can be CFX'd with some of the APU's integrated graphics.
 
Back