News
Buyer's Guide: The Best Monitors 
APU Duel: AMD vs Intel
Régis Jehl
Translator: Jack Sims
Updated: September 14, 2011
Translator: Jack Sims
Updated: September 14, 2011
| On the left, the blues, Intel and its Sandy Bridge range. These APUs arrived first on the desktop market (January 2011). | | | | | |
On the right, the greens, AMD and its Llano range. Released later (June 2011), this range claims to be fastest for gaming. |
 |
| | | | | | |
 |
| Processor: Intel i3 2105 | | | Processor: AMD A8-3850 |
| Clock: 3.1 GHz | | | Clock: 2.9 GHz |
| Number of cores: 2 (+2 virtual cores via HT) |
| | Number of cores : 4 |
| Graphics: HD Graphics 3000 |
| | Graphics: Radeon HD 6550D |
| DirectX: 10.1 | | | DirectX: 11 |
.jpg) |
| | | | | | |
 |
| Processor: Intel i3 2100 | | | Processor: AMD A6-3650 |
| Clock: 3.1 GHz | | | Clock: 2.6 GHz |
| Number of cores: 2 (+2 virtual cores via HT) |
| | Number of cores: 4 |
| Graphics: HD Graphics 2000 |
| | Graphics: Radeon HD 6530D |
| DirectX: 10.1 | | | DirectX: 11 |
| THE BACKGROUND |
.jpg) For this duel, we have gone for two Intel APUs and two others from AMD.On the Intel side, we've selected the Core i3 2100 and i3 2105. Both are dual cores clocked at 3.1 GHz with Hyper-threading. They differ in their integrated graphics solutions: HD Graphics 2000 on the first and HD Graphics 3000 on the second. |
| | | | | | |
 On the other side the AMD A8-3850 and A6-3650. These quad core APUs are clocked at 2.9 GHz and 2.6 GHz respectively.The first includes a Radeon HD 6550D, the second a Radeon HD 6530D. |
| This article aims to answer the following question: can we do without a discrete graphics card and use the graphics solution integrated with the CPU to play the latest titles? We put ourselves in the shoes of the occasional gamer who doesn't necessarily want to push all graphics details to a max. The games used are identical to those in the graphics card test protocol. We used two screen resolutions: 1280 x 720p and 1920 x 1080p (Full-HD). Two options settings were applied: minimum and medium details. Tests were also carried out on a Radeon HD 6790 graphics card, on sale for around £100, with the object of measuring any difference between one of the cheaper discrete cards and the integrated graphics solutions. Click on the 'view all our readings' links below to view our performance readings in detail. Finally we also looked at energy consumption and pure processing performance for each of the processors. |
| GAMING AT 720P: AMD WINS |
|
Whatever the game and whatever the level of details opted for, the AMD APUs are a long way ahead of the Intels. But do they allow you to play under comfortable conditions? Not really. For Intel, you definitely have to lower graphics settings to a minimum and even then, only half the titles tested were sufficiently fluid.
With the AMD processors, things are better, with some titles playable at medium quality settings and a few more than Intel at low quality. In any case, it's clear straight off that for recent titles it's best to get yourself a discrete card. |
| | | | | | | |
 Performance averages at 1280 x 720 pixels |
| Low details at 720p: view all our readings |
| Medium details at 720p: view all our readings |
| GAMING AT 1080P: AMD WINS |
|
No surprises here, AMD once again dominates but performance levels are insufficient for gaming comfortably with the games tested. The AMD solutions can however cope with less demanding titles such as Team Fortress 2 and, to a lesser extent, World of Warcraft (raids and dungeons excepted).
|
| | | | | | | |
 Performance averages at 1280 x 1080 pixels |
| Low details at 1080p: view all our readings |
| Medium details at 1080p: view all our readings |
| ENERGY CONSUMPTION: INTEL WINS |
|
Intel has a clear advantage here. At idle the AMD solutions draw between 5 and 9 Watts more at the socket, though all four solutions remain under 50 Watts.
During gaming, the AMD processors peak at over 130 Watts, while the Intel Sandy Bridges stay under the 100 Watt barrier. |
| | | | | | |
 Readings taken at the socket, for the whole machine, screen not included |
| PROCESSOR POWER: INTEL WINS |
|
Though not the main focus of this duel, we did nevertheless look at pure processor performance.
On average, the Intel solutions give 16% more than the AMD A8-3850 and 27% more than the A6-3650. Although they don't handle gaming well, the Intel solutions perform better in terms of pure power. |
| | | | | | | | |
| VERDICT: AMD WINS, FOR WANT OF A BETTER SOLUTION |
| To the question, 'Which AMD or Intel APU is best for gaming?' we would be tempted to answer 'None of them!'. The graphics performance given by the AMD APUs is certainly a good deal up on that of the Intels, but isn't yet enough to allow you to dispense with a discrete graphics card for comfortable gaming with the latest titles. | | | | | | | | | | | |
However, these solutions allow you to do without a discrete card under the £50 mark in the framework of desktop or multimedia use (HTPC). In the future, no doubt, APU performance levels will eclipse those graphics cards under £100 that will still be required for gamers using the current solutions. |
| Remember: the following links allow you to consult our CPU reviews (with Face-Offs and Performance Index) and Graphics Card Reviews (with Face-offs and Performance Index) as well as our Laptop/Netbook Reviews and Mini PCs. |
