[corresation]

Enthusiasts aren't generally using the onboard HD 4600 graphics -- the power profile of CPUs yield a reality that they remain seriously underpowered compared to standalone, 100s of W dedicated GPUs. But for those who do want to maximize the integrated graphics with Intel, the highest option for desktop chips is the Iris Pro 5200 (on the i7-4770R, for instance), which is some 60%+ faster than the 4600.

Nonetheless, these are usually targeted at business PCs and the like (hence the "9 out of 10". Businesses consume the overwhelming majority of PCs).

This article reads like a really bad press release. For instance-

"The new chips show that AMD is moving in a very different direction from Intel"

How so? Intel is fully embracing compute, is increasingly improving the onboard integrated graphics, and already has the beginnings of unified memory (http://software.intel.com/en-us/blogs/2013/03/27/cpu-texture...). Where is the big divide?

[sandGorgon]

fair point. Here's a more interesting benchmark [1]

Thus we’ve discovered and confirmed Kaveri’s biggest advantage over Richland, performance per watt. At the high-end Kaveri doesn’t have a lot to offer non-gamers but once you bring TDPs down into standard small form factor or laptop ranges the performance profile of AMD’s newest chip is a lot more competitive. At the present time Kaveri’s performance appears to be a little behind, but still near what we’ve seen from Intel’s ~45 Watt Iris Pro or GT3e graphics solution.

or [2]

It is interesting to note that at the lower resolutions the Iris Pro wins on most benchmarks, but when the resolution and complexity is turned up, especially in Sleeping Dogs, the Kaveri APUs are in the lead.

Seems that Kaveri might not beat intel on the desktop, but might do so on the laptop.

[1] http://semiaccurate.com/2014/01/14/difference-50-watts-make-... [2] http://www.anandtech.com/show/7677/amd-kaveri-review-a8-7600...

[cdash]

The 45 Watt version of kaveri isn't even out yet and is nothing more than a paper launch. The 15 Watt laptop version hasn't even paper launched yet. I really don't think that this is going to provide any advantage in the laptop space.

[gnoway]

One nitpick: it is not possible to really get Iris Pro on the desktop. The 4770R (all the R chips, actually) are FCBGA and not sold retail.

Maybe the big brand guys sell some desktops with Iris Pro, and I know Gigabyte has it in one of their NUC alternatives, but otherwise 'enthusiasts' can't get their hands on one

[corresation]

it is not possible to really get Iris Pro on the desktop

Current iMacs come with Iris Pro, and of course as you mentioned there are integrated products with it: While you can't buy it as a discrete chip at retail, you can certainly get Intel-equipped desktops with it, which was the point I was discussing.

Which is certainly by design by Intel, based upon an understanding their market: They put higher performance graphics in their mobile and FCBGA chips because those markets are where it is actually likely to be demanded -- from companies like Apple, or on a mobile where it is the primary graphics. When they sell a chip retail, it is overwhelmingly likely the buyer is going to be coupling it with a stand-along graphics card, so there really isn't much of a point.

Which is going to be the issue that AMD is going to come up against. They are selling something as an enthusiast chip while providing graphics capabilities that lie in that no-man's land of being overpowered for a standard business desktop, but underpowered for the market that is likely paying attention.

[gnoway]

I'm sorry that I completely ignored Apple. Although I am not sure I would consider someone buying an iMac (or any brand name prebuilt desktop system) to be an 'enthusiast.'

[nl]

Why not?

Downsides:

* It isn't a great gaming computer

* It isn't great value for money

Upsides

* It does give pretty decent performance (notably, it outperforms the new Mac Pro on some workloads)

* It looks attractive

* A prebuilt OS-X system means less futzing around with drivers etc

I don't play games (beyond the occasional Minecraft session with my son) and I'm not particularly price sensitive. I've built (many!) of my own computers, going back to a 386DX40, and I'm happy to do it again if I see a good reason. But at the moment I don't.

Desktop computers that seem attractive to me at the moment:

* Intel NUC

* iMac

What am I missing?

[gnoway]

This came off as much more judgmental than I intended, especially towards Apple which I respect as a company and whose products I admire from a design and integration perspective. I was also not trying to belittle Apple fans or customers of any of the other big name manufacturers.

I also really like OS X. As a FreeBSD user for many years, seeing OS X be successful is even a little gratifying because I know there's a lot of cross-pollination going on behind the scenes. I'm not a mobile/laptop kind of guy, but did use a MBP for a couple of years and it was without question the nicest laptop I've ever used. If I were to buy a laptop today it would probably be a Macbook Pro.

I've been building computers from parts for 30 years. I enjoy the research, part selection and construction aspect of the process. I like that I can go into the process with a specific set of criteria and come out with something that satisfies them exactly or, barring that, that I'm in control of the compromises. I like that if these criteria change or I find I made a mistake (more likely), I can just swap out a part and continue on. This is possible with most of the name-brand PC desktops, less so with the Apple products, but I like building it all myself the most.

Also, as a FOSS user, it's typical for hardware support to be an issue. Sometimes it feels like various industries either do not care about me as a user or actively want me to suffer; constructing a modern PC that doesn't have support issues is a challenge that brings a small amount of satisfaction when overcome. I understand if people think this is silly.

So, I consider myself an enthusiast. Given this explanation, hopefully my original comment makes more sense.

[bri3d]

You're forgetting about portable (notebook, tablet, etc.), where most personal computers are sold.

One reason I even consider buying a desktop anymore is that discrete-GPU notebooks tend to be enormous and/or awful. If AMD can produce an APU with reasonable graphics performance, I'll gladly buy a notebook with that in it rather than a new desktop rig.

[cdash]

This chip can't be used in a tablet and I would only consider this if I wanted a laptop to game on.

[zanny]

AMD already released Jaguar a few months ago, which is their gcn based ULP line: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AMD_Jaguar

[cdash]

Yes I know but it is a completely different architecture so thats a completely different topic.

[cgar]

Do enthusiasts include those looking to build a Home Theater PC?

[gnoway]

I just did this. Unless you're targeting something really high end with a lot of 4K and gaming, 4600 is more than enough to handle typical HTPC duties.

I'd certainly look at Kaveri today instead of Haswell for HTPC if I was doing it all over again though.

[tracker1]

I've gone integrated on my last two HTPC builds.. my current one is going on 5 years old now.. and have been considering a jump... ironically it's by far the slowest computer in my apartment, and the one I use the most.

Something like this really appeals to me.. I'd been keeping an eye on the F2 line, and will probably go that way, or maybe NUC for my next HTPC, it just feels like the NUC options are just a little under powered.

[gnoway]

The Gigabyte BRIX has an Iris Pro-equipped model if that's something you want.

In my case I wanted in-box optical and tv tuner, which eliminates the NUC stuff. There are a handful of right-sized 'htpc' mini-itx cases that enable this and a whole bunch of nice mini-itx boards now.