Solved

Apu with GTX

Hi I’ve recently borrowed an apu from my friend to use since my new parts are still coming through the post.

The parts I borrowed are an APU A10-7700K with an FM2+ motherboard and 8GB of DDR3 at 1600Mhz which is kind of low end parts but it’s only temporary. My graphics card is the Asus GTX 1050 Ti strix edition and with the card installed and onboard graphics disabled I’m only getting around 30Fps in gta where as I was getting before 60 or more using an Fx 6300 with GTX 750 Ti.

I’m wondering if the APU is severely bottlenecking this GPU or if the APUs graphics are somehow overriding the GTX somehow but not too sure.
6 answers Last reply Best Answer
More about apu gtx
  1. Simple answer: The FX 6300 is faster that the A10, and ADDITIONALLY has two more cores.
  2. Since better part inside the APU is taken up by the IGPU, the CPU part of it has lower performance compared to the CPUs where better part is taken up by the CPU part and not IGPU part.

    Also, A10-7700K has lower performance than FX-6300,
    comparison: http://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/AMD-A10-7700K-APU-R7-Graphics-vs-AMD-FX-6300/m9888vs1555

    APU is good to use in a system that never uses a dedicated GPU.
  3. >>Aeacus: "APU is good to use in a system that never uses a dedicated GPU."
    I doubt even that. I had a A10-7800, and it had problems playing FullHD BluRay, not even speaking of gaming. And it grilled my SSD to death, but this most probably is more related to my small streacom passive cooling case (which i scrapped as well).
    I exchanged it for a FX 4320 together with a GTX 960 2GB and a really big ATX-case with silent cooling, and are happy since (both with BluRay and Gaming @ FullHD with reduced quality settings). Uses 100W more power, though.
  4. In the desktop PC segment, systems that never see a dedicated GPU are mostly office PCs and there, APUs can have better usage over CPUs that have lower performing IGPUs. In desktop gaming systems, dedicated GPU usage is common and PC is better off when using a CPU instead of an APU.
    Though, the main usage for APUs is in smaller and more energy-efficient systems, e.g laptops, notebooks, tablets etc.
  5. Seriously, your statements are true, i just let of my frustration with the A10 APUs.
    I'm really curious how TOM will judge on the new Ryzen 2x00G, and what they can accomplish.
    If ADM would do a Ryzen 2600G, that is, 6-core, 12 threads, 95W TDP, VEGA APU, optimized for FullHD gaming with medium details (regarding TDP and CPU/APU-frequency and accompanying memory settings), it is byebye for dedicated GPUs of 1050 and below, or RX 570 and below, and FullHD gaming is on its way to becoming a commodity. That day is coming closer anyway. Then, one day, miners can sit on their heaps of miner-cards, and low-budget-gamers wouldn't mind. Happy day that would be.
  6. Best answer
    @nchaliwan: Ignore our ranting, and in a nutshell: Your APU is bottlenecking.
    If you want to use a CPU from FX/A10 Generation, the number of cores is still important, but frequency is paramount. Choose one with 3.9 GHz+, and then with as much cores as possible.
    AM3+:
    - 4-core FX 4320/95W TDP/4GHz
    - 6-core FX 6350/125W TDP/3.9 GHz
    - 8-core FX 8350/125W TDP/4GHz, or maybe even FX 8370 (too expensive, for the low speed-bump to the 8350)
    annotation: Use 125W TDP CPUs only if your MoBo has a good reputation for standing the (literally) heat of that CPUs.
    FM2+:
    - 4-core AMD Athlon X4 870K/95W TDP/3.9 GHz, or better: X4 880K
    - 4-core AMD A10-7870K/95W TDP/3.9 GHz, or better: A10-7890K

    This assumes you have a MoBo with DDR3-RAM for each Socket, and don't consider upgrading to, i.e., Ryzen, as that would cost a new MoBo and (expensive) DDR4-RAM.
Ask a new question

Read More

Gtx