I find it funny that you mention the memory interface of the discrete GPUs, but avoid to mention that the memory interface of the APUs videochip is even more crippled, since it uses far slower DDR3 RAM than those videocards and has to share the same interface with the CPU.

Those cards are dead for any distro with xserver > 1.13 at the moment if you plan to use the proprietary drivers. You may be able to use them with the free drivers, but performance on them (as the whole open source initiative from AMD) is a bad joke, not to speak from power-saving or video-decoding. That is more than a bit worrying, I would think.

How did you benchmark that? With the G210 testwed on the same system or tested in a different system?

Right. FWIW, my opinion is to avoid AMD at all. Their free drivers are bad, especially when it comes to power-savings and video-decoding. One would think that video-decoding, especially on low-end systems as the APUs are, is especially important. AMD's future when it comes to x86 CPUs is uncertain, at least for Linux (they just fired three of their Linux kernel developers, bought an ARM license and rumors are that in the future there will only be the APUs and ARM CPUs for the server market).
I would recommend to go for a cheap Intel CPU, when you need some gaming power add a cheap Nvidia card to the system. Better drivers, better CPU support.

The GPU part of the APU is not free (as in cost).

I wouldnt call the GPUs on them 'pretty good'....they are at best low end *more later*

Didnt you notice that the A55 chipsets have SATA-II not SATA-III and no USB 3.0? To get SATA-III and USB 3.0, you have to get an A75 chipset board which is more expensive than the AM3+ boards at the store you linked. To get a gigabyte you're looking at an extra 20 RON....

Like I said above, the GPU part of the A series isnt free. Sure, you can get an APU similar to the FX for similar prices...the APUs have a GPU, the FXs have L3 cache.

'Dual Graphics' on the FM2 systems, not crossfire. Very limited card selection. The 'which video output do I connect the video card to' with dual graphics APU setups is _stupid_-

http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/A..._Review/4.html

Which cards dual graphics with which APU is a giveaway on the relative power of the APUs. AMD has tried as best they can to equalise the performance of the APU and extra card. A4 and A6 APUs are roughly as powerful as a 6450.

Flexability, upgrade options, compatibility with AM3 CPUs.

LOL, 'DDR3 means its not that fast'? With the APU using main system RAM in DDR3 format, even if there is slightly more bandwidth to the APU its going to see a lot more use for ssytem I/Os.

A HD 6670 (270 RON) will eat any of the APUs alive-

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/...0k,3224-4.html

I cant find any comparison between the HD 6570 and APU. The only difference between the 6570 and 6670 is core and memroy clocks are a little lower..my guess it that the HD 6570 would also be faster than any of the APUs.

6670 (or better) + AM3 dual core would be faster for gaming than the APUs and about the same cost.

Yes, lower performance from the Intel HD series. Its a bit like saying that a snail is lower than a cockroach, they are both very low.

G210s are slow, slow slow. Even a 5450 is faster.

They are fine, for what they are. A niche CPU with unknown upgrade options, and limited power. Fine for some, and in some situations I actually recommend them....but only for very specific reasons (mainly super limited budget, or for use in low power consumption situations).

Actually the video card use slower RAM. FM2 A series, DDR3-1866 (apart from the A4 which is DDR3-1600). 6570, DDR3-1000 (thopugh I think there are 1334 versions). 6670, DDR3-1600.


APUs are still x86. IMO AMD will be moving to APU only chips in the future (though you will get stripped versions with no GPU like the 'fusion' Athlon II X2/X4s that no-one seems to have noticed).

Its not that different to intel putting video on the CPU. Well, a little different...now intel seems to be moving as ever toward 'top end expensive parts' (like intel MIC) where AMD seems to be moving more toward using the GPU porttion of ther chip more for normal users.

That is purely AMD leveraging the better video hardware they have IMO.

Hmmm.....better CPU support? AMD seems to support the CPU just fine with all OSes. Well, all that I've used anyway. Is this from worries about the GPU portion of the APU being supported long term?

Well, so far thats one 'get a FM*' opinion, one 'get AM3+' and one 'get LGA 1155'. Now all we need is some crazy to appear and tell us to get LGA 2011.

AMD supports the CPU in all OSes just fine now. They fired the kernel developers for their CPUs. So in the future newer AMD CPUs with new options will have to wait until someone in the FOSS community has such a CPU and implements the necessary changes in the kernel. IMHO, AMD practically leaves the desktop market, with exception of their APUs, but I think they will be aiming at laptops with that. In the future AMD will be mobile and server (with ARM on servers) only.

Just my opinion, of course, but I am sure that my next setup will be Intel+Nvidia, I am really annoyed (not to say pissed of) by AMD, and since I am someone that is seen as "Enthusiast" by the marketing people it may even be LGA2011.

They do seem to work on CPU related drivers as they submitted patches recently (they have more than 3 deveopers on Linux). Other than that, the guys working on graphics drivers dont seem to be affected.
What makes you think AMD leaves the desktop market? There are lots of speculations revolving around them, but they probably try to diversify, not move to another market altogether.

AMD would have to be crazy to leave desktop x86 for mobile devices (laptops, netbooks, smart phones etc.) Its the market where they are weakest.

They would have to be even crazier to leave x86 servers, or even to drop support for linux/BSD fo x86 servers.

The move toward making ARM chips, at least in some segments of the market, makes sense. I really doubt that AMD will drop x86 totally, at least over the next 5-10 years anyway.

I do not think that they will drop x86 completely, they will support it for their Opterons and for the APUs. But on the desktop they simply aren't comepetitive anymore. A few years back you had to go AMD when you wanted to have the best bang for the buck in the lower and mid-price segment. Not true anymore. A few years back they were competitive in the higher price segment. Not true anymore. A few years back they seemed to have a somewhat sane marketing strategy. Not true anymore. They can optimize the Bulldozer design for some generations, like they do now, but we both know how crappy that design is compared to Intel's designs. Damn it, you have to go 4 years back to find an Intel top of the line CPU that the FX8350 can beat in most benchmarks and they have problems to compete with Intel's current middle class.
Additionally, AMD runs out of money, they have to cut down costs and concentrate on the most valuable markets and I doubt that the Linux desktop counts for that.

I disagree with various bits and pieces about AMD posted above. There is some truth in what was said, however IMO its nowhere near as clear cut as TobiSGD makes it out to be.

That is a funny comment to appear on this thread. The one place that AMD does have a clear advantage is in lower end video performance.

If you want to use an APU without upgrade path you are right. If not, the integrated parts of the AMD mainboards are not faster than the HD4000. Keep in mnind that I am not talking about discrete cards here.
In the future AMD will concentrate to deliver APUs for game consoles and mobile/embedded devices for the consumer market and low-power CPUs for the server market. This is what makes the most sense from a commercial standpoint, as these are the markets where Intel has nothing to bring to the competition yet.
http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/amd-ka...ews-41330.html