Why has fusion got such bad rep?

I'm just wondering why fusion has got a bad reputation.
Or am I just listening Intel fanboys whimpering over AMD again as It's soo common these days.

I've seen on YouTube the a8 (which is around the same price as a i3) slicing through crysis and b3, NSF hot pursuit, etc....

Yet in the reviews I read that there's not a chance for any decent gaming using integrate graphics of the APU?

Hang on...if crysis 2 is classed as "light gaming" - then what the hell are you playing?

Some guy said he could slice through mw3 at 1080p maxed out- yes albeit not the most graphically advanced game,but, c'mon it's not like it's argybirds or anything(I hate that game soo much).

Bearing in mind I can't play hot pursuit on my 9800GT.... At 800x600

Soo.... Why have these cpu's got such bad rep?

I'm looking at building a small itx intermediate gaming rig- I don't want a heavy dedicated GPU taking up power and flooding the computer with necessary heat....

Apu a good choice....


Don't say an i5 is better- it's twice (YES TWICE) the price- if it wasn't better then the A8- I would cry....

Not exactly twice the price. The A8-3870k is $140, the Core i5-2500k is $220. Twice the price would mean the Core i5-2500k costs $280. however, don't forget that there are lower models such as the Core i5-2300 for $185.

I would say it gets a bad rap because the of the relatively weak CPU core. It's based on the older Athlon II core which is about 10% weaker than the Phenom II core. But I believe AMD tweaked the core a little bit so let's say the Llano CPU core is only 5% slower than the Phenom II core. However, the Phenom II core is about 20% less powerful then a Sandy Bridge Core i3/i5/i7. If you are looking to do something that is CPU intensive, then you probably want something better than an A8-3870k if you can afford to do so. If you want more processing power then you need simply get something better than Llano.

As for games, most games are dependent on the graphics card than on the CPU. However, some games need both a powerful CPU and GPU Skyrim's and I believe BattleField 3's performance improves with a more powerful CPU. Anandtech's benchmarks has shown that using the same video card (whichever it is) the Core i3-2100 performs better in games than the A8-3850 @ 1680 x 1050. Of course, at higher resolutions, the difference between the two will be less since the video card makes a bigger difference as the resolution increases. But in games that are more CPU intensive like WoW and Star Craft 2 the Core i3 would still have a big advantage.

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/399?vs=289

The main advantage the Llano APUs have over Intel's Sandy Bridge is the integrated graphics core. Intel's HD 3000 is basically equal to a Radeon HD 5450 (without DX11 support) while the graphic cores in Llano APUs basically ranges from a Radeon HD 5550 to a Radeon HD 5570 depending on the model you are talking about. Additionally, it allows for XFire with up to a Radeon HD 6670 for an equivalent performance of something in between a Radeon HD 6750 and HD 6770.

Llano fits in a niche market. If you want an inexpensive gaming PC then Llano would be it because you don't have to buy a graphics unless you want eye candy / high resolution. Throwing in a relatively inexpensive video card like the HD 6670 will give you a better boost in a Llano APU system than a Core i3 system because of XFire. But once you install a faster Radeon HD graphics card or any nVidia card, that XFire advantage is lost. And you basically a have fast graphics card coupled with a relatively slow CPU core.

At that point people start considering the Core i3 (or i5 if they wanna stretch their budget a bit) or the Phenom II to be paired up with a Radeon HD 6750 / HD 6770 or faster card or if they want to go with nVidia instead because those cores are more powerful than what Llano has.

http://www.tomshardware.com/review [...] 20-10.html