Jump to content
|Topic||Stats||Last action by|
|Nintendo Direct 12/18/13||
|Qualcomm Employee: Apple's 64-Bit A7 Chip 'Hit Us In The Gut'||
|Neowin's Official Minecraft Server||
|You can't be Santa -- Santa is White||
|FiOS App for XBox One||
Posted 26 November 2012 - 08:51
Posted 26 November 2012 - 18:47
Posted 28 November 2012 - 01:25
Posted 30 November 2012 - 12:49
In our application tests, we were surprised how similarly the A10-5800K and Core i3-3220 performed. There was little difference between them in Excel while the Core i3-3220 provided superior WinRAR performance and the A10-5800K gave superior Photoshop CS5 results. Things were also close in our encoding benches, with the A10-5800K doing a tad better in Handbrake and slightly worse in TMPGEnc 4.0 XPress.
Posted 30 November 2012 - 13:06
Performance wise, I'd go with the Core i5. Since you don't game, either can deliver smooth HD playback. I would recommend a cheapo graphics card down the road, always best to have a dedicated GPU, even if it's not very powerful/not used for gaming.
thanks for that info peteruk
so what about the comparison between the Intel Core i5 3330 and the a10 5800k?
Posted 30 November 2012 - 13:13
AMD Athlon XP 3500 2.2GHz
ATI Radeon 9600Pro
Posted 30 November 2012 - 19:03
Posted 01 December 2012 - 19:36
Posted 18 December 2012 - 20:37
hey nexusline.. many thanks for your links. 6 cores? heres me thinking im almost at my peek at running it down to 2 choice of the i5 and the A10 however how come the cpu you have in that bundle is cheaper than the other 2 that has been suggested and how does it compare?
for some reason i can hardly see any information with regards to the i5 3330 cpu. I did however find a video comparing the fx-6100 to the i5-2500 which shows that the i5 is a higher performer but costs quite a bit more. which is true in this instance of the version too.
Im starting to slide towards the A10 due to cost and performance however im hardly a gamer. would i still benefit at all? or is really the i5 the way to go?