Amd a10 6800k gaming review: AMD A10-6800K Review | Expert Reviews

Overclocking

The A10-6800K sample we have seems like a very good chip as we’ve seen some people online having problems getting a stable 5Ghz. That said, it also brings to light that not all Richland chips are good clockers and depending on your luck in the silicon lottery you may end up with a 5Ghz chip or a crappy one that craps itself with the mildest of tweaks. Moving on, we got our A10-6800K chip to 5Ghz and the IGP to 1015Mhz. We will use these settings for our overclocked tests in the section that follows.

Performance Testing – Gaming

Processor: AMD A10-6800K Motherboard: GIGABYTE GA-F2A85XN-WIFI
Memory: Kingston HyperX 10th Anniversary Edition DDR3-2400
Storage: Kingston SSDNow V300 120GB
PSU: Seasonic X-760W
Cooling: Phanteks PH-TC14PE
Monitor: LG E2350V

ADVERTISEMENT

For CPU and overall performance testing, please refer to our GIGABYTE GA-F2A85XN-WIFI Motherboard review. For this round of testing we’ll focus more on the gaming ability of the APU. In today’s gaming generation there are plenty of games that see action on a frequent basis and we’ve pulled the titles that we deem most representative of each gaming genres visual load. We include the overclocked performance for comparison, do note that mileage may vary.

[singlepic id=14265 w=650 h=600 float=center]
[singlepic id=14266 w=650 h=600 float=center]
[singlepic id=14267 w=650 h=600 float=center]
[singlepic id=14268 w=650 h=600 float=center]

I know you silicon freaks out there reading this right now have a sick grin in your faces seeing the results. But considering the market of such a processor, typical resolutions would hover in the 1360×768 or even just 720p resolutions. In our non-graphed tests, we did some runs with those resolutions with only Crysis 3 and Resident Evil 6 proving they’re really a challenge but at an average of 38-40FPS, the game is still playable. In the 1080p tests we have above, we see Battlefield 3 managing to rake-in playable frame rates. Torchlight II on the other hand, being the light game it is, proves to be no challenge for the APU. Games like DOTA2 or League of Legends will be easy task for the IGP and some older games will definitely run fine on it also.

CONCLUSION

For real processing tasks, most builders will opt for the faster Intel processors but for general usage, typical is the kind of consumers that goes by numbers and value. For the A10-6800K, being marketed as a 4.4Ghz chip is certainly something that a lot of not-so-informed consumers will easily go for. In a more practical scenario, familiar consumers will want an affordable system that can grind multimedia tasks and also handle some gaming would definitely want an APU and the A10-6800K does a bit of both without breaking the bank.

Let’s break down our scores:

Performance. As a builder of APU systems, I’ve come to understand the benefits of such systems when used in proper applications. In the case of the A10-6800K, potential consumers are mainstream enthusiasts looking for a light system to handle day to day tasks with occasional 3D gaming. In such instances, the A10-6800K delivers nicely putting into perspective the price of the system. More on that later, for now we feel that the A10-6800K’s computing and gaming performance is sufficient in light to moderate applications and 3D games. The overclocking potential also helps.

Build Quality. Nothing really much to comment here except that after going through 2 samples and managing to reach a stable 4.9-5Ghz easy, I’d say these chips are pretty good clockers which means they’re of seriously good quality.

Functionality. We gotta give it to AMD for squeezing out some more performance out of existing technology and with those improvements comes some good benefits. That said, the A10-6800K processor lends itself nicely to applications where a GPU isn’t really needed but some video horsepower could be useful. HTPCs and light gaming machines are some of the top possible usage scenarios as well as office PCs that demand some more level of power.

Bundle. Not really anything else to look for, but the bundled cooler is really a bit lacking and if you want to do some overclocking, you’ll end up going for aftermarket cooling. Would have been nice if AMD bundled the heatpipe stock coolers from the top-end Phenoms and FX procs.

Value. You’re gonna be looking at this at two different perspectives but ultimately its gonna end up as one: 1) you’re either looking to cheap out on getting a GPU and save yourself around 80USD in the process or 2) you just want a capable processor but don’t want to go for an Intel route because of the platform cost. Locally available for ₱7,050 in retail, its way below Intel’s Ivy Bridge and Haswell offerings and in terms of GPU performance is ahead by leaps and bounds. Computing power is another issue altogether but if you’re already compromising then we assume its not priority to have a high-performance processor. That being said, you’re also skimping on a discrete GPU which for AMD’s entry level is non-existent since APUs take up this market and NVIDIA doesn’t seem to bother providing any new solution aside from their GT series which start at around 80USD for a comparable graphics card.

In closing, the A10-6800K is a solid performing CPU and GPU and by solid we mean its got enough punch to be felt at the right weight division. That division is the HTPC and family desktop which would see varied usage but will generally be a gaming and multimedia setup. If you want a light system for the usage scenarios like those we mentioned the A10-6800K is your chip.

We give the A10-6800K our Value Award.

Tags: hardware

AMD A10-6800K Review — CPUAgent

The A10-6800K is one of AMD’s mid-range Desktop processors. It was released in 2013 with 4 cores and 4 threads. With base clock at 4.1GHz, max speed at 4.4GHz, and a 100W power rating. The A10-6800K is based on the Richland 32nm family and is part of the A10 series.

A10-6800K is also the successor of AMD’s last gen A10-5800K processor that was based on the Piledriver and 32nm process and was released in 2012.

Increased IPC improvements, along with the massive turbo boost of 4.4GHz mean that even in single core performance – long a weak link of AMD’s processors – comes within reaching distance of rival chips.

As the higher-priced version of the A10-6790B, the A10-6800K has higher base and Boost frequencies of 4.1 and 4.4 GHz, respectively. That’s an increase in base frequency and a bump to boost clocks, but the real advantage should lay in the higher Package Power Tracking (PPT) envelope, which is a measurement of the maximum amount of power delivered to the socket. The A10-6790B’s PPT tops out at 100W, while the motherboard can pump up to 142W to the A10-6800K at peak performance. That opens up much more aggressive boost behavior, on both single and multiple cores, that could widen the performance gap beyond what we see on the spec sheet.

Value seekers who aren’t afraid to press the Precision Boost Overdrive button and have sufficient cooling should look to the A10-6790B for roughly equivalent performance to the A10-6800K, particularly if gaming factors heavily into the buying decision. That could save you money, reinforcing our decision to give the A10-6790B an Editor’s Choice award.

One of the nice things about the AMD A10-6800K processors is that the retail boxed models come with a CPU cooler. So, you can pick something like the AMD A10-6800K up for $142 and don’t need to spend any extra money on CPU cooling.

The AMD A10-6800K retail boxed processor comes with the traditional ‘pancake’ CPU cooler. Nothing fancy, but it gets the job done on this processor which is rated at 100W TDP. You do not need to have an aftermarket cooling solution unless you want to.

Our look today at the AMD A10-6800K showed that it is a very capable processor. A 4-core processor sounds like it would be really under-powered these days, but we were pleasantly surprised with a snappy and very capable system. Having just 4 cores had this processor coming in at the back of the pack for heavily threaded workloads, but it performed better than some of its more expensive siblings in lightly threaded workloads where it shined thanks to its high base clocks.

If extended overclocking and boost frequencies are trivial matters to you, AMD also offers the A10-6790B at $259.79. It’s still outfitted with 4-cores and 4-threads, but clocks in at a slower 4GHz and maxes out at only 4GHz.

The A10-6800K clocks up to 4.4Ghz just as it promises on the box, and with AMD’s software you can take one of the cores all the way up to 4.5GHz. However, don’t expect to get much beyond that without seriously upgrading your cooling solution and manually tweaking voltages behind the operating system level.

Below is a comparison of all graphics cards average FPS performance (using an average of 80+ games at ultra quality settings), combined with the AMD A10-6800K.

Graphics Card	Price	Cost Per Frame	Avg 1080p	Avg 1440p	Avg 4K
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3090 24GB	$ 1,499	$ 13. 4	112.2 FPS	155.1 FPS	114.1 FPS
AMD Radeon RX 6900 XT 16GB	$ 999	$ 9.5	105.2 FPS	146.3 FPS	105.8 FPS
AMD Radeon RX 6800 XT 16GB	$ 649	$ 6. 6	99 FPS	137.7 FPS	99.6 FPS
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 Ti 20GB	$ 799	$ 8.2	97.8 FPS	137.9 FPS	105.2 FPS
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 10GB	$ 699	$ 7. 1	97.8 FPS	135.2 FPS	99.4 FPS
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3070 Ti 10GB	$ 599	$ 7.1	83.9 FPS	116.9 FPS	87.6 FPS
AMD Radeon RX 6800 16GB	$ 579	$ 7. 4	78.4 FPS	109 FPS	78.9 FPS
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3070 8GB	$ 499	$ 6.7	74.8 FPS	103.4 FPS	76.1 FPS
NVIDIA TITAN RTX 24GB	$ 2,499	$ 36.4	68. 7 FPS	98.1 FPS	72.6 FPS
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2080 Ti 11GB	$ 1,299	$ 19.4	66.9 FPS	95.5 FPS	70.6 FPS
AMD Radeon RX 6700 XT 12GB	$ 479	$ 7.3	66 FPS	92. 4 FPS	66 FPS
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3060 Ti 8GB	$ 399	$ 6.5	61.3 FPS	87 FPS	65.2 FPS
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2080 SUPER 8GB	$ 699	$ 11.5	60.7 FPS	85. 8 FPS	63.2 FPS
NVIDIA TITAN V 12GB	$ 2,999	$ 51.5	58.2 FPS	83.1 FPS	62.7 FPS
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2080 8GB	$ 699	$ 12.2	57.4 FPS	80.2 FPS	58. 6 FPS
AMD Radeon RX 6600 XT 8GB	$ 379	$ 6.9	54.9 FPS	76.9 FPS	55.6 FPS
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1080 Ti 11GB	$ 759	$ 14.1	53.8 FPS	76.5 FPS	56. 3 FPS
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2070 SUPER 8GB	$ 499	$ 9.3	53.4 FPS	73.9 FPS	54.3 FPS
NVIDIA TITAN Xp 12GB	$ 1,199	$ 22.8	52.7 FPS	73.9 FPS	55. 6 FPS
AMD Radeon VII 16GB	$ 699	$ 13.3	52.7 FPS	73.4 FPS	53.1 FPS
AMD Radeon RX 5700 XT 8GB	$ 399	$ 7.8	51.3 FPS	71.4 FPS	51.6 FPS
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2070 8GB	$ 499	$ 9. 9	50.6 FPS	69 FPS	51.4 FPS
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3060 12GB	$ 329	$ 6.5	50.3 FPS	69.7 FPS	51.8 FPS
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2060 SUPER 8GB	$ 400	$ 8. 4	47.9 FPS	64.3 FPS	47 FPS
AMD Radeon RX 5700 8GB	$ 349	$ 7.4	47 FPS	65.5 FPS	47.3 FPS
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1080 8GB	$ 499	$ 10.9	45. 7 FPS	62.6 FPS	45.3 FPS
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2060 6GB	$ 350	$ 7.8	45.1 FPS	59.1 FPS	42.4 FPS
AMD Radeon RX 5600 XT 6GB	$ 279	$ 6.3	44.4 FPS	61. 2 FPS	44.1 FPS
AMD Radeon R9 295X2 4GB	$ 1,499	$ 35	42.8 FPS	57.8 FPS	44.6 FPS
AMD Radeon RX Vega 64 8GB	$ 499	$ 11.7	42.7 FPS	59.4 FPS	42. 8 FPS
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1070 Ti 8GB	$ 409	$ 9.7	42.3 FPS	58 FPS	41.9 FPS
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 Ti 6GB	$ 249	$ 6	41.4 FPS	56.3 FPS	41. 4 FPS
NVIDIA GeForce GTX TITAN X 12GB	$ 999	$ 24.3	41.1 FPS	55.7 FPS	40.3 FPS
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 Ti 6GB	$ 279	$ 6.9	40.2 FPS	55.2 FPS	39. 8 FPS
AMD Radeon RX Vega 56 8GB	$ 399	$ 10	40 FPS	55.5 FPS	40.1 FPS
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1070 8GB	$ 399	$ 10.3	38.9 FPS	52.9 FPS	37.9 FPS
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 SUPER 6GB	$ 229	$ 6	37. 9 FPS	52.1 FPS	37.7 FPS
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980 Ti 6GB	$ 649	$ 18.1	35.8 FPS	48.8 FPS	35.2 FPS
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 6GB	$ 220	$ 6.2	35. 7 FPS	49 FPS	35.3 FPS
AMD Radeon RX 590 8GB	$ 279	$ 8.2	33.9 FPS	45.1 FPS	31.9 FPS
AMD Radeon R9 FURY X 4GB	$ 649	$ 20	32.5 FPS	46. 4 FPS	34.4 FPS
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER 4GB	$ 160	$ 5.1	31.1 FPS	42.5 FPS	30.6 FPS
AMD Radeon RX 5500 XT 8GB 8GB	$ 199	$ 6.5	30.8 FPS	41 FPS	28. 9 FPS
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980 4GB	$ 549	$ 17.9	30.7 FPS	41.4 FPS	30.1 FPS
AMD Radeon RX 580 8GB	$ 229	$ 7.6	30.1 FPS	39.9 FPS	28 FPS
AMD Radeon R9 Nano 4GB	$ 649	$ 21. 9	29.6 FPS	41.5 FPS	30.6 FPS
NVIDIA GeForce GTX TITAN BLACK 6GB	$ 999	$ 34.8	28.7 FPS	38.3 FPS	29.1 FPS
AMD Radeon R9 FURY 4GB	$ 549	$ 19. 7	27.9 FPS	39 FPS	28.4 FPS
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1060 6GB 6GB	$ 254	$ 9.1	27.9 FPS	37.4 FPS	27 FPS
AMD Radeon RX 5500 XT 4GB 4GB	$ 169	$ 6. 1	27.6 FPS	36.8 FPS	25.9 FPS
AMD Radeon R9 390X 8GB	$ 429	$ 15.9	26.9 FPS	37.4 FPS	27.4 FPS
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1060 3GB 3GB	$ 170	$ 6.4	26. 5 FPS	35.5 FPS	25.7 FPS
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970 4GB	$ 329	$ 12.7	26 FPS	34.6 FPS	26 FPS
AMD Radeon RX 480 8GB	$ 400	$ 15.8	25.3 FPS	34. 9 FPS	25.8 FPS
AMD Radeon R9 390 8GB	$ 329	$ 13.1	25.1 FPS	34.2 FPS	23.5 FPS
AMD Radeon RX 570 4GB	$ 169	$ 6.8	24.8 FPS	33.7 FPS	23. 8 FPS
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 4GB	$ 149	$ 6.3	23.7 FPS	32.2 FPS	23.2 FPS
AMD Radeon RX 470 4GB	$ 179	$ 8.1	22.1 FPS	30.2 FPS	21.8 FPS
AMD Radeon R9 380X 4GB	$ 229	$ 12. 3	18.6 FPS	25.2 FPS	18.5 FPS
AMD Radeon R9 285 2GB	$ 249	$ 14.9	16.7 FPS	22.7 FPS	15.7 FPS
AMD Radeon R9 380 2GB	$ 199	$ 12	16. 6 FPS	22.4 FPS	15.7 FPS
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti 4GB	$ 169	$ 10.4	16.3 FPS	22.2 FPS	16 FPS
AMD Radeon R9 280 3GB	$ 279	$ 17.2	16.2 FPS	22. 1 FPS	15 FPS
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960 2GB	$ 199	$ 12.4	16 FPS	21.5 FPS	15.3 FPS
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 3GB	$ 169	$ 12.2	13.9 FPS	18.7 FPS	13. 3 FPS
AMD Radeon RX 560 4GB	$ 99	$ 7.7	12.9 FPS	17.1 FPS	12.1 FPS
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950 2GB	$ 159	$ 12.6	12.6 FPS	16.7 FPS	12.3 FPS
AMD Radeon R7 370 2GB	$ 149	$ 12	12. 4 FPS	15.8 FPS	11.7 FPS
AMD Radeon R7 265 2GB	$ 149	$ 12.1	12.3 FPS	15.2 FPS	11.3 FPS
AMD Radeon RX 460 4GB	$ 140	$ 12.3	11.4 FPS	15. 2 FPS	10.8 FPS
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 750 Ti 2GB	$ 149	$ 13.5	11 FPS	13 FPS	9.7 FPS
AMD Radeon RX 550 2GB	$ 79	$ 8.8	9 FPS	12 FPS	8. 5 FPS
NVIDIA GeForce GT 1030 2GB	$ 79	$ 9.2	8.6 FPS	11.4 FPS	7.8 FPS

A10-6800K [in 16 benchmarks]

AMD
A10-6800K

Buy

• Interface
• Core clock speed
• Max video memory
• Memory type
• Memory clock speed
• Maximum resolution

Summary

AMD started AMD A10-6800K sales 4 June 2013 at a recommended price of $142. This is Richland architecture desktop processor primarily aimed at office systems. It has 4 cores and 4 threads, and is based on 32nm SOI manufacturing technology, with a maximum frequency of 4400 MHz and a locked multiplier.

Compatibility-wise, this is FM2 processor with a TDP of 100 Watt and a maximum temperature of 74 °C. It supports DDR3-2133 memory.

It provides poor benchmark performance at

3.16%

of a leader’s which is AMD EPYC 7h22.

A10
6800K

vs

EPYC
7h22

General info

A10-6800K processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and pricing.

Place in performance rating	1574
Value for money	0. 55
Market segment	Desktop processor
Series	AMD A-Series (Desktop)
Architecture codename	Richland (2013−2014)
Release date	4 June 2013 (9 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	$142	of 305 (Core i7-870)
Current price	$153 (1.1x MSRP)	of 14999 (Xeon Platinum 9282)

Value for money

To get the index we compare the characteristics of the processors and their cost, taking into account the cost of other processors.

• 0
• 50
• 100

Technical specs

Basic microprocessor parameters such as number of cores, number of threads, base frequency and turbo boost clock, lithography, cache size and multiplier lock state. These parameters can generally indicate CPU performance, but to be more precise you have to review its test results.

Compatibility

Information on A10-6800K compatibility with other computer components and devices: motherboard (look for socket type), power supply unit (look for power consumption) etc. Useful when planning a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one.

Note that power consumption of some processors can well exceed their nominal TDP, even without overclocking. Some can even double their declared thermals given that the motherboard allows to tune the CPU power parameters.

Technologies and extensions

Technological capabilities and additional instructions supported by A10-6800K. You’ll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

Virtualization technologies

Supported virtual machine optimization technologies. Some are specific to Intel only, some to AMD.

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel number of RAM supported by A10-6800K’s memory controller. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequency may be supported.

Graphics specifications

General parameters of GPU integrated into A10-6800K.

Graphics interfaces

Available interfaces and connections of A10-6800K’s integrated GPU.

Graphics API support

APIs supported by A10-6800K’s integrated GPU, sometimes API versions are included.

Peripherals

Specifications and connection types of supported peripherals.

Benchmark performance

Single-core and multi-core benchmark results of A10-6800K. Overall benchmark performance is measured in points in 0-100 range, higher is better.

Overall score

This is our combined benchmark performance rating. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.

A10-6800K
3.16

• Passmark
• GeekBench 5 Single-Core
• GeekBench 5 Multi-Core
• Cinebench 10 32-bit single-core
• Cinebench 10 32-bit multi-core
• 3DMark06 CPU
• Cinebench 11.5 64-bit multi-core
• Cinebench 15 64-bit multi-core
• Cinebench 15 64-bit single-core
• Cinebench 11.5 64-bit single-core
• x264 encoding pass 2
• x264 encoding pass 1
• Geekbench 3 32-bit multi-core
• Geekbench 3 32-bit single-core
• 3DMark Fire Strike Physics

Passmark

Passmark CPU Mark is a widespread benchmark, consisting of 8 different types of workload, including integer and floating point math, extended instructions, compression, encryption and physics calculation. There is also one separate single-threaded scenario measuring single-core performance.

Benchmark coverage: 68%

A10-6800K
3186

GeekBench 5 Single-Core

GeekBench 5 Single-Core is a cross-platform application developed in the form of CPU tests that independently recreate certain real-world tasks with which to accurately measure performance. This version uses only a single CPU core.

Benchmark coverage: 37%

A10-6800K
549

GeekBench 5 Multi-Core

GeekBench 5 Multi-Core is a cross-platform application developed in the form of CPU tests that independently recreate certain real-world tasks with which to accurately measure performance. This version uses all available CPU cores.

Benchmark coverage: 37%

A10-6800K
1531

Cinebench 10 32-bit single-core

Cinebench R10 is an ancient ray tracing benchmark for processors by Maxon, authors of Cinema 4D. Its single core version uses just one CPU thread to render a futuristic looking motorcycle.

Benchmark coverage: 20%

A10-6800K
3428

Cinebench 10 32-bit multi-core

Cinebench Release 10 Multi Core is a variant of Cinebench R10 using all the processor threads. Possible number of threads is limited by 16 in this version.

Benchmark coverage: 19%

A10-6800K
10077

3DMark06 CPU

3DMark06 is a discontinued DirectX 9 benchmark suite from Futuremark. Its CPU part contains two scenarios, one dedicated to artificial intelligence pathfinding, another to game physics using PhysX package.

Benchmark coverage: 19%

A10-6800K
4885

Cinebench 11.5 64-bit multi-core

Cinebench Release 11.5 Multi Core is a variant of Cinebench R11.5 which uses all the processor threads. A maximum of 64 threads is supported in this version.

Benchmark coverage: 17%

A10-6800K
4

Cinebench 15 64-bit multi-core

Cinebench Release 15 Multi Core (sometimes called Multi-Thread) is a variant of Cinebench R15 which uses all the processor threads.

Benchmark coverage: 14%

A10-6800K
326

Cinebench 15 64-bit single-core

Cinebench R15 (standing for Release 15) is a benchmark made by Maxon, authors of Cinema 4D. It was superseded by later versions of Cinebench, which use more modern variants of Cinema 4D engine. The Single Core version (sometimes called Single-Thread) only uses a single processor thread to render a room full of reflective spheres and light sources.

Benchmark coverage: 14%

A10-6800K
100

Cinebench 11.5 64-bit single-core

Cinebench R11. 5 is an old benchmark by Maxon, authors of Cinema 4D. It was superseded by later versions of Cinebench, which use more modern variants of Cinema 4D engine. The Single Core version loads a single thread with ray tracing to render a glossy room full of crystal spheres and light sources.

Benchmark coverage: 14%

A10-6800K
1.1

x264 encoding pass 2

x264 Pass 2 is a slower variant of x264 video compression that produces a variable bit rate output file, which results in better quality since the higher bit rate is used when it is needed more. Benchmark result is still measured in frames per second.  

Benchmark coverage: 12%

A10-6800K
23

x264 encoding pass 1

x264 version 4.0 is a video encoding benchmark uses MPEG 4 x264 compression method to compress a sample HD (720p) video. Pass 1 is a faster variant that produces a constant bit rate output file. Its result is measured in frames per second, which means how many frames of the source video file were encoded per second.  

Benchmark coverage: 12%

A10-6800K
111

Geekbench 3 32-bit multi-core

Benchmark coverage: 6%

A10-6800K
6774

Geekbench 3 32-bit single-core

Benchmark coverage: 6%

A10-6800K
2340

3DMark Fire Strike Physics

Benchmark coverage: 4%

A10-6800K
4160

Relative perfomance

Overall A10-6800K performance compared to nearest competitors among desktop CPUs.

Intel Pentium Gold G5400T
100

AMD A10 PRO-7800B
100

Intel Core i3-4170T
100

AMD A10-6800K
100

Intel Core i5-2400S
100

AMD PRO A12-9800E
100

AMD A8-7670K
100

Intel equivalent

We believe that the nearest equivalent to A10-6800K from Intel is Core i5-2400S, which is nearly equal in speed and lower by 4 positions in our rating.

Core i5
2400S

Compare

Here are some closest Intel rivals to A10-6800K:

Intel Pentium Gold G5400T
100

Intel Core i5-2400S
100

Intel Core i3-4170T
100

AMD A10-6800K
100

Intel Core i7-950
99.68

Intel Core i5-4570T
99.05

Intel Core i3-4160T
98.42

Similar processors

Here is our recommendation of several processors that are more or less close in performance to the one reviewed.

A10 PRO
7800B

Compare

A8
7670K

Compare

Core i3
4170T

Compare

Core i5
2400S

Compare

A10
7800

Compare

A10
7700K

Compare

Recommended graphics cards

These graphics cards are most commonly used with A10-6800K according to our statistics.

Radeon HD
8670D

11.8%

GeForce GTX
1050 Ti

8.2%

GeForce GTX
1050

4.9%

GeForce GTX
750 Ti

3%

GeForce GT
1030

2.8%

GeForce GT
730

2.7%

Radeon RX
570

2.2%

GeForce GTX
660

2. 2%

GeForce GTX
1650

2.1%

GeForce GTX
750

2%

User rating

Here is the rating given to the reviewed processor by our users. Let others know your opinion by rating it yourself.

Questions and comments

Here you can ask a question about A10-6800K, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.

Please enable JavaScript to view the comments powered by Disqus.

AMD A10-6800K and A10-6700 «Richland» APU Review

In 2011, AMD released their first APU architecture codenamed «Llano» which was eventually followed by its successor «Trinity» in 2012. The Trinity APUs were met with a positive response by consumers due to the value they offered.

Additionally and over the Llano APU, Trinity offered the latest 32nm Piledriver cores which brought x86 architecture and an enhanced Radeon graphics core. The Piledriver cores on the Trinity APU offered while not the best but adequate performance to power applications but the graphics power shined against Intel’s HD counterparts. The only downside remained the high power consumption that needed to be sorted out in a revision later on. The new revision launched three days after Intel released their Haswell processors which brought a new 22nm architecture enhancements but the major improvement on Intel’s front was not the compute performance but rather the graphics performance and overall power efficiency.

While Trinity’s graphic side was strong, the new revision had to tackle Intel on both the GPU front and power efficiency. Its time to see how the third generation APU revision of Trinity codenamed «Richland» fairs in our review.

The third generation APU platform from AMD is codenamed «Richland». While Richland is considered the successor to the Trinity APU, it still is technically the same architecture with the exact same design. AMD invested their time updating the Trinity architecture, tuning its graphics and power management features.

Essentially, the Richland APU is built on the same 32nm SOI process featuring 1.303 billion transistors on its die which measures 246mm2. The Richland APU makes use of upto four x86 Piledriver cores and the GPU side gets powered by the VLIW4 architecture. One would ask, if its the same thing as was Trinity, why did AMD bother to release Richland as a new platform?

The reason is the time been invested by AMD in tuning the APU architecture, enhancing its power efficiency and boosting the clock speeds far more than ever possible on and APU. These small yet abundant reasons made AMD opt for a new APU platform in 2013. Just like the Trinity APU, bringing the high-performance x86 architecture “Piledriver” wasn’t feasible for Richland APUs which had to accommodate a enhanced graphics core that would result in higher cost and inefficiency so a few features had to be cut down. The major thing that was cut out from the APU model was L3 cache since it was most demanding in power consumption and the least performance awarding. AMD’s APUs were limited to L2 cache since AMD chose efficiency over performance for their new Fusion platform. Like Trinity, Richland supports the latest instruction set from AMD — FMA4/3, AVX, AES, XOP.

A little naming and frequency boost update was received to the graphics side rather than a different architecture. AMD’s Trinity used the Radeon HD 7000 series integrated graphic chip, Richland APUs arrived with the new Radeon HD 8000 series IGP chips. In addition to the new naming, AMD also boosted the clock frequency on their Richland chips which resulted in faster gaming performance which we will see in the performance section of this review.

2 of 9

The most significant update still remained the power management features on the Richland APUs. Previous generations adjusted power between the CPU and GPU through balancing loads between both whether in functional, idle or turbo modes. This management is achieved by deploying several integrated micro-controllers on the APU die. Richland also makes use of the same controllers which sense and adapt to the nature of the cooling solution and ambient conditions and also power usage. In this case, if a CPU is performing with limited potential while the GPU is being bottlenecked, the CPU would be automatically boosted. The other case involves the GPU not being used and the CPU consuming too much power in which case the CPU power would be reduced. Similarly, if an application makes use of only two cores on the APU, the power management features would boost the clock speeds of those two independent cores to boost the performance. Temperature plays a major role here too with boosting the performance of both GPU and CPU when the temps are under limit but the APU throttle down to save power when they reach the TJ max limit.

These «Hybrid Boost» features help improve the power management on Richland APUs, so under the same TDP packages consumers get faster performance.

2013 AMD A-Series Platform Features:

• Turbo Charged x86 architecture featuring “Piledriver” cores
  • Supports up to 4 cores and support for the latest ISA instructions including FMA4/3, AVX, AES, XOP
  • Up to 2MB L2 cache per dual-core module (up to 4MB total)
  • Max Turbo Frequencies up to 4.4 GHz
  • Configurable via AMD OverDrive
• AMD Radeon HD 8000 Series GPU Cores
  • Featuring VLIW 4 architecture
  • Up to 384 shaders
  • Up to 844MHz
  • Up to 8xAA and 16AF support
  • Controllable via AMD OverDrive
  • DirectX11 Support
• New DDR3-2133 support on A10 APUs
• Enhanced AMD Turbo Core
  • More Frequency/Voltage levels for CPU and x86 cores
  • Temperature Smart Turbo Core
  • New bottleneck detect algorithms
  • Controllable via AMD OverDrive
• UVD and VCE
  • Video Encode and Decode Hardware to offload CPU
  • AMD Picture Perfect support with HD Post Processing technologies
• Support for latest display technologies
  • AMD Eyefinity2 technology for 3+1 monitor support
  • Display Port 1. 2 support

AMD RichlandTech Specs:

• Die size: 246mm2
• 1.303B Transistors
• Process: 32nm SOI
• Power reduction during HD media playback
• Unified Northbridge (UNB)
• Quad Core and Dual core configurations
• Updated AMD Radeon DirectX11 GPU
• Northern Islands GPU With Upto 384 Cores 2.0
• 3 dedicated display outputs
• 4 independent display controllers
• DisplayPort 1.2 with symbol rates of 1.62, 2.7 and 5.4 Gbit/s
• UVD and AMD Accelerated Video Converter
• IOMMU v2

The AMD FM2 Socket and A85X Chipset based motherboards support the latest Richland APUs. With this move, AMD offers an easy upgrade path to consumers currently using the Trinity processors. Users with Llano APUs can’t upgrade to FM2 since the new socket isn’t pin-compatible with the older processors.

However, AMD is still using the A55 and A75 chipsets on their new FM2 motherboards along with the latest A85X chipset codenamed “Hudson D4″ that unleashes complete features available on the Richland APU platform. The A85X chipset is going to be shipped with the high-end FM2 motherboards allowing upto 8 SATA 6GBps ports, four USB 3.0, ten USB 2.0 ports, High Definition audio and AMD CrossfireX support. AMD has arranged their new chipsets in three tiers; A55 Chipset for Entry FM2 solutions, A75 chipset for media users and gamers while the A85X chipset is targeted towards performance users who want to feast upon all the features available on the APU platform.

AMD has a total of five SKUs under its Richland platform of APUs, six of these APUs fall under the A-Series branding. Each processor under the A10/A8/A6 brand features a fully unlocked ‘K’ design which allows overclocking, should be noted that Intel does not offer fully unlocked K series chips in Core i3 and Core i5 processors except the top tier Core i5 processors so this allows users to gain more performance through overclocking.

The AMD Richland APU lineup is listed below:

Model	A10-6800K	A10-6700	A8-6600K	A8-6500	A6-6400K
Cores	4	4	4	4	2
TurboCore 3. 0	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
CPU Clock (Base/Turbo)	4.1/4.4 GHz	3.7/4.3 GHz	3.9/4.2 GHz	3.5/4.1 GHz	3.9/4.1 GHz
L2 Cache	4 MB	4 MB	4 MB	4 MB	2 MB
Unlocked Design	Yes	No	Yes	No	Yes
Integrated Graphics “Radeon”	HD 8670D	HD 8670D	HD 8570D	HD 8570D	HD 8470D
GPU Clock	844 MHZ	844 MHz	844 MHz	800 MHz	800 MHz
GPU Cores	384 Cores	384 Cores	256 Cores	256 Cores	192 Cores
DDR3 Frequency	2133 MHz	2133 MHz	2133 MHz	2133 MHz	2133 MHz
TDP	100W	65W	100W	65W	65W
Price	$142	$122	$112	$91	$69

Today we will be testing not one but two Richland APUs, the A10-6800K and A10-6700. Both Richland chips succeed their successors — A10-5800K and A10-5700. The A10-6800K is powered with four x86 piledriver cores and a VLIW4 architecture based Radeon GPU with 384 cores.

The A10-6800K comes with a clock speed of 4.1 GHz with Turbo core frequency boosting it upto 4.4 GHz which is quite fast for an accelerated processing unit. The HD 8670D graphics core operates at 844 MHz and can be configured to run at idle mode when not under operation or direct load from a demanding application. The graphics core can support “Dual graphics” allowing select motherboards that allow the features to pair up the graphics core with a discrete graphics solution allowing an operation similar to CrossfireX in which power can be utilized from both cores.

The A10-6800K comes with a TDP of 100W which is high compared to its counterparts from Intel but its due to the 32nm process which Intel’s Piledriver architecture is built around. Heat is the least of an issue for the new processors. The A10-6800K currently retails at an MSRP of $142 which is quiet a reasonable price for a chip that packs the CPU and GPU with fast clock speeds.

On the other hand we have the A10-6700 which as the name denotes is a locked chip which cannot be overclocked but comes at a price $20 cheaper than the unlocked A10-6800K at $122 US. Though it does makes some compromises on the CPU clock speed with 3.7 GHz base and 4.1 GHz boost but it is backed by a 65W TDP that could enable for some good budget level HTPC builds.

The GPU core remains the same as the A10-6800K with the HD 8670D die boasting 384 cores at a clock speed of 844 MHz. Fortunately the GPU core can be overclocked but with it the performance is 100% alike to the A10-6800K which is a good thing.

Processor	AMD A10-6800K AMD A10-5800K AMD A10-6700 Intel Core i7-4770K Intel Core i7-3770K Intel Core i3-3220
Motherboard:	Gigabyte F285X-UP4 Motherboard
Power Supply:	Xigmatek NRP-MC1002 1000 Watt
Hard Disk:	Intel SSD 520 Series 256 GB (OS) Seagate Barracuda 500GB 7200. 12
Memory:	4 x 4 GB Kingston HyperX 2133 MHz 10th Anniversary Edition Memory Kit
Case:	Cooler Master HAF 932
Video Cards:	AMD HD 8670D AMD HD 7660D Intel HD 4600 Intel HD 4000 Intel HD 2500
Cooling Solutions:	Corsair H60 Hydro Cooler
OS:	Windows 8 Ultimate 64-bit

We used the high-end Core i7 processors just to compare the fastest available graphics chip from Intel against the fastest graphics chip available on AMD APUs. The compute test was compared against an Intel Core i3-3220 which falls within the same price range as the A10-5800K.

Overclocking the A10-6800K and HD 8670D

Overclocking the A10-6800K was a fairly easy job, we just had to raise the multiplier from 48x without a minor voltage adjustment of 1.476V and the processor was overclocked to 4.8 GHz. This is a good improvement over the base speed of 4.1 GHz. The A10-6800K can easily reach around 4.8/5 GHz overclocked frequencies with better coolers. Although high-performance coolers don’t make a sense with a budget APU like the A10-6800K but those who still want extra performance can go for a nice cooler around the $49-$59 range.

We didn’t face any thermal throttling issues since our setup included the Corsair H60 which is adequate enough to handle overclocked loads. We also bumped the clock speed of the Radeon HD 8670D IGP to 1050 MHz from its stock 844 MHz limit. The overclock was stable for both CPU and GPU, the respective GPUz and CPUz screenshots can be seen below. We have included the overclock scores in the charts which are provided in the performance section.

AMD A10-6800K 4.4 GHz / Radeon HD8670D 1050 MHz Overclock:

X264 HD Encode Benchmark

This benchmark measures the encoding performance of the processor. It offers a standardized benchmark as the clip as well as the encoder used is uniform.

Cinebench R11.5

Cinebench is based on Maxon’s Cinema 4D. It is used to compare graphics as well as processor performance. We are using the CPU performance numbers for our comparison.

CineBench R11.5 OpenGL

Winrar Compression Test

7-Zip

Some might argue against using 7-zip’s compression and decompression benchmark as a ‘real world’ test. But if you try and think about it for a minute, the benchmark does show how fast the program will either compress or decompress, while negating the impact of disk transfers.

POV-RAY

SuperPI

Super PI is used by many overclockers to test the performance and stability of their computers. In the overclocking community, the standard program provides a benchmark for enthusiasts to compare “world record” pi calculation times and demonstrate their overclocking abilities. The program can also be used to test the stability of a certain overclock speed.

If there’s one really good thing about AMD’s APUs, its that they can run most of current generation games at a decent frame rate. That’s something which has not been possible on IGPs but with the recent introduction of more powerful solutions from both Intel and AMD, users can now get to play their latest games with a decent visual configuration and playable frame rates.

3DMark 2013

While 3DMark 11 was a success, 3DMark from Futuremark further pushes the boundaries of benchmarking utilies going all out with cross platform support which include Windows, Windows Phone, iOS, MAC and even Android. The utility comes with three benchmark tests configured for different tiers of high-performance PCs, Mid-range PCs/Tablets and smartphone devices.

3DMark 11

Futuremark released 3DMark 11 in 2011 bringing support for the latest DirectX 11 GPUs at that time. Since then, the benchmark tool is used widely for evaluating performance of high-end PCs.

3DMark Vantage

3DMark Vantage is still used to this date as a complete benchmark suite for GPU and CPU performance.

Resident Evil 6

Capcom brings the horror back to the screens with their blockbuster Resident Evil 6 title which was well received among the community. The game features three playable campaigns which include Leon, Chris, Jake and downloadable content for Ada Wong.

Tomb Raider

The Tomb Raider franchise was rebooted this year with the latest title in the long running franchise. The players start off their journey with a younger and under-trained version of Lara who goes off on her first survival action journey.

GRID 2

Grid 2 is the sequel to the highly successful racing game – GRID. While the game runs great on graphic cards, the developers have also optimized their coding for the latest Haswell processors with fourth generation HD graphics core which features AVX2/AVX and DirectX 11.1 support.

Metro Last Light

Metro Last Light once again puts us in the foots of Artyom, a survivor of the nuclear holocaust that shattered Russia. Metro: Last Light is considered as the best looking game to be released to date making use of intensive DirectX11 Tessellation, High-Res Textures, Global illumination lightning and more.

Sleeping Dogs

Skyrim

The Elders Scroll: Skyrim was released by Bethesda in fall 2011. The game featured one of the most largest worlds ever created in an Elders Scroll game taking the RPG genre to the next level.

When it comes to power consumption, it should be noted that while AMD has been focusing on increasing the IPC performance of their CPU core and boosting the GPU performance, Intel has opted to improve the power efficiency of their already powerful core processors.

Only a few days before AMD launched their Richland APUs, Intel unveiled the Haswell processors which are based on the most power efficiency 22nm architecture ever built by Intel. Reducing the power is one thing but Intel also boosted some good performance with their new HD Graphics chip so AMD had to tackle them in both fronts with their older 32nm process which could only had been tweaked to gain more efficiency.

Below, you can see that AMD has higher wattage compared to Intel processors due to its 32nm design which has got older, Intel on the other hand aims for 22nm with their Haswell and Ivy Bridge processors.

AMD’s Richland APU improves the power efficiency on AMD’s end but still lacks against Intel’s offerings. Kaveri APU which is planned for Q4 2013 would be based on the 28nm architecture and is supposed to improve performance and efficiency on all ends. But let’s just focus on the Trinity A10-6800K part and see how much watts it consumes in idle and load compared to its older Trinity siblings:

With this review completed, i want to say that APUs are the way forward for AMD and computing. AMD may not be the leader in x86 performance but they can definitely become one in the APU design and tech department. Its known that APUs currently power the next generation consoles from Sony and Microsoft, they power ultra low power tablets and netbooks and lastly the offer amazing value to desktop consumers with the A-series platform.

AMD Richland improves on the design of last year’s Trinity APU. It comes with more value than ever before and provides decent amount of performance for a refresh. The clock frequencies have gone up, the performance has gone up and the overall power consumption has been reduced by a fair amount. For the first time with Richland, AMD now offers select APU with SimCity from EA as a part of their gaming evolved program. The motherboards for the FM2 platform are easily within reach and if you already have an FM2 socket motherboard that you were using with Trinity, you can just take out the older APU and pop in the new one proving as an easy upgrade path.

Gaming performance is strong with AMD’s Richland A-Series APUs. I have been testing out gaming for weeks with the Richland A-Series APU. I tried Skyrim, Borderlands 2, Batman: Arkham City and SimCity which to my surprise ran perfectly well with decent amount of visuals. If someone is preparing a budget built with the aim to play older or current titles on smaller resolution monitors than A-Series should be their definitive choice. Some current gen games can even run at 1080P resolutions provided you have toned down AA and texture details but overall i was impressed.

There’s nothing bad at all about Richland, but when it comes to comparison with Intel AMD gets stuck on an older 32nm design which is obsolete by now. Their power consumption is still much higher compared to Ivy Bridge and Haswell processors. And the Haswell HD graphics chips have come on par with AMD’s offerings while the mobile Iris and Iris Pro graphics processors turn out to be a faster solution. Since Richland was a refresh, it was expected that it won’t offer incredible amounts of performance but it has provided decent value. What AMD has in plans for its next APU architecture is worth to be noted. Richland and Trinity are confirmed to be supported by the new FM2+ socket. The same socket would feature support for Kaveri, AMD’s next generation APU that comes with the latest x86 Steamroller cores based on the 28nm process and a brand new GCN based Volcanic Islands IGP that would almost match some discrete entry level solutions from the Radeon HD 7000 series. All eyes are on AMD’s Kaveri APU since other than its architectural changes, it also comes with HUMA and HSA enhancements which allow a easier memory sharing path along the CPU and GPU. So while Richland is the best APU now, Kaveri is going to be better and moving onward to 2015 we will see Carrizo, the next in line to replace Kaveri.

So all in all, AMD has a strong APU lineup for the upcoming years and about Richland itself, the new A-series APUs offer amazing value to consumers with impressive clock speeds and faster gaming performance in one complete package.

AMD A10-6800K & A10-6700 Richland APUs

A follow up to Trinity, AMD’s Richland APU architecture utilizes an intelligent power management system to hit higher clock speeds without increasing power consumption.

July 1, 2013 by Lawrence Lee

The A10-6800K and A10-6700 represent the best of what AMD currently has to offer in desktop APUs (accelerated processing units). They’re based on a new architecture, codename Richland, which is their third generation APU, a follow up to Trinity using the same FM2 socket. This is a bittersweet update as FM2 will begin to be fazed out late this year to make way for the next generation, Kaveri, which will require new socket FM2+ motherboards. Upgradeability has been a selling point for AMD in the past but those days are long gone, at least as far as their budget APU platform is concerned. FM1 lasted less than a year before it was succeeded and FM2 will not live much longer than that.

With the clock ticking on FM2, you would think they would need to make some drastic improvements to tempt users into investing in an almost redundant platform. Actually, Richland is very similar to Trinity on paper, more so than most processor architecture upgrades. Underneath the hood are the same Piledriver CPU packages and the “new” Radeon HD 8000 series graphics chips are simply rebadged HD 7000’s using the same Northern Islands core. What’s really changed is how things work inside.

Hybrid Boost, AMD’s new power management system, is the key feature that makes Richland an upgrade. The APU is outfitted with multiple sensors to monitor the thermal conditions of every component and region throughout the chip, giving Hybrid Boost plenty of information to make intelligent decisions regarding the adjustment of clock speeds and voltages. Richland also has more P-states and sub-states, that is more defined frequency/voltage levels, to switch between. This gives the system fine-grain control to eke out as much performance as possible when the need arises while staying within the defined power envelope. Hybrid Boost can also detect whether the CPU or GPU is bottlenecking work and adjusts the states of either chip accordingly.

So what does this mean to the end user? The crux of it is Richland can be run at faster clock speeds than Trinity without increasing the power draw, even though the main building blocks, the CPU and GPU cores, are identical. It’s essentially a free performance boost.

The pair of A10’s we’re testing today are the headliners, the A10-6800K and A10-6700. They have very high CPU clock speeds and the best graphics chip available, the HD 8670D, which features 384 Radeon Cores and a GPU clock speed of 844 MHz (a 44~84 MHz increase over Trinity’s flagship HD 7660D). The A10-6800K supports faster DDR3 memory with speeds up to 2133 MHz which is a nice boon for those running on integrated graphics (memory frequency is critical to IGP performance) and an unlocked multiplier for easier overclocking. The A10-6700 lacks these amenities but sports a lower TDP (65W vs. 100W) thanks primarily to a lower base CPU frequency. Lower-clocked quad core A8’s and a dual core A6 is also available.

When considering the cost of a system, the CPU is only part of the equation
as the price of motherboards varies greatly from platform to platform. In the
chart above, we added the current street price of the chips compared today to
those of an average compatible motherboard from Newegg.
The following criteria were used for the motherboards: retail versions, Asus/Intel/Gigabyte/MSI
branded, microATX/ATX form factor, SATA 6 Gbps and USB 3.0 controllers, and outrageously
priced models were omitted. The average motherboard price turned out to be
US$119 for LGA1155, US$105 for AM3+, and US$92 for FM2.

At US$150, the A10-6800K and A10-6700 are strategically priced between Intel’s quad core and dual core processors but AMD’s lower motherboard prices are what really give them an edge.

TEST METHODOLOGY

Common CPU Test Configuration:

• Kingston HyperX LoVo 4GB memory – 2x2GB, DDR3-1600 @ 1333 MHz, 9-9-9-24
• Asus EN9400GT Silent Edition
  graphics card – 512MB
• Western Digital VelociRaptor
  hard drive – 300GB, 10,000RPM, 16MB cache
• Seasonic
  SS-400ET ATX power supply
• Scythe Kabuto
  CPU cooler – stock fan at 800RPM
• Microsoft
  Windows 7 operating system – Ultimate, 64-bit

Common IGP Test Configuration:

• Kingston HyperX LoVo 4GB memory – 2x2GB, DDR3-1600 @ 1600 MHz, 9-9-9-24
• Western
  Digital Scorpio Blue notebook hard drive – 500GB, 5400RPM,
  8MB cache
• Asus
  BC-1205PT Blu-ray drive
• Seasonic
  SS-400ET ATX power supply
• Scythe Kabuto
  CPU cooler – stock fan at 800RPM
• Microsoft
  Windows 7 operating system – Ultimate, 64-bit

AMD AM3+ Platform:

• AMD FX-8150
  processor – 3. 6 GHz, 32nm, 125W
• AMD FX-8350
  processor – 4.0 GHz, 32nm, 125W
• Asus Crosshair V Formula motherboard
  – 990FX chipset
• Asus Sabertooth 990FX R2.0 motherboard
  – 990FX chipset

AMD FM1 Platform:

• AMD A8-3850
  processor – 2.9 GHz, 32nm, 100W, integrated Radeon HD 6550D graphics
• Gigabyte A75M-UD2H motherboard
  – A75 chipset

AMD FM2 Platform:

• AMD
  A10-6800K processor – 4.1 GHz, 32nm, 100W, integrated Radeon
  HD 8670D graphics
• AMD A10-6700
  processor – 3.7 GHz, 32nm, 65W, integrated Radeon HD 8670D graphics
• AMD
  A10-5800K processor – 3.8 GHz, 32nm, 100W, integrated Radeon
  HD 7660D graphics
• AMD A10-5700
  processor – 3.4 GHz, 32nm, 65W, integrated Radeon HD 7660D graphics
• AMD
  A8-5600K processor – 3.6 GHz, 32nm, 100W, integrated Radeon
  HD 7560D graphics
• ASUS F2A85-M Pro motherboard
  – A85 chipset

Intel LGA1155 Platform:

• Intel Core i7-3770K processor – 3. 5 GHz, 22nm, 77W, integrated HD 4000 graphics
• Intel Core i5-2500K
  processor – 3.3 GHz, 32nm, 95W, integrated HD 3000 graphics
• Intel Core i3-2100
  processor – 3.1 GHz, 32nm, 65W
• ASUS P8P67 motherboard
  – P67 chipset
• Intel DZ77GA-70K motherboard – Z77 chipset

Intel LGA1150 Platform:

• Intel Core i7-4770K processor – 3.5 GHz, 22nm, 84W, integrated HD 4600 graphics
• Intel DZ87KLT-75K motherboard – Z87 chipset

Discrete GPUs Compared: (using our 2012 GPU test system)

• HIS Radeon HD 5550 Silence – 550 MHz, 512MB GDDR5 @ 1000 MHz
• AMD Radeon HD 5570
  – 650 MHz, 1GB GDDR3 @ 900 MHz
• AMD Radeon HD 6570
  – 650 MHz, 512MB GDDR5 @ 1000 MHz
• ASUS GeForce GT 430 – 700 MHz, 1GB GDDR3 @ 8000 MHz
• Zotac GeForce GT 640 ZONE Edition – 902 MHz, 2GB GDDR3 @ 891 MHz

Measurement and Analysis Tools

• CPU-Z
  to monitor CPU frequency and voltage.
• SpeedFan
  to monitor CPU temperatures.
• Real Temp
  to monitor CPU temperatures.
• CPUBurn
  CPU stress software.
• Prime95
  CPU stress software.
• FurMark
  GPU stress software.
• Media Player
  Classic – Home Cinema to play H.264/VC-1 video.
• Cyberlink
  PowerDVD to play H.264/VC-1 video.
• Mozilla
  Firefox with Adobe
  Flash Player to play Flash video.
• Adobe
  Photoshop as an image manipulation benchmark.
• Eset NOD32 as
  an anti-virus benchmark.
• WinRAR as an
  archiving benchmark.
• iTunes
  an audio encoding benchmark.
• TMPGEnc
  Xpress as a video encoding benchmark.
• HandBrake as a
  video encoding benchmark
• Seasonic
  Power Angel AC power meter, used to measure the power consumption
  of the system.
• Custom-built, four-channel variable DC power supply, used to power
  and regulate the CPU fan.

Timed Benchmark Test Details

• Photoshop: Image manipulation using a variety of filters, a derivation
  of Driver Heaven’s Photoshop
  Benchmark V3 (test image resized to 4500×3499).
• NOD32: In-depth virus scan of a folder containing 32 files of varying
  size with many RAR and ZIP archives.
• WinRAR: Archive creation with a folder containing 68 files of varying
  size (less than 50MB).
• iTunes: Conversion of an MP3 file to AAC.
• TMPGEnc: Encoding a XVID AVI file with VC-1.
• HandBrake: Encoding a XVID AVI file with H.264.

3D Performance Benchmarks

• 3DMark11
  DirectX 11 benchmark.
• Unigine Heaven 3.0 DirectX 11 benchmark.
• Lost Planet 2 standalone benchmark, Test “A”.
• Aliens vs. Predator standalone benchmark.
• Crysis demo standalone benchmark.
• Sniper Elite V2 standalone benchmark.

Video Test Suite

Testing Procedures

Our main test procedure is a series of both CPU (timed tests of real-world applications) and GPU-centric (gaming tests and synthetics) benchmarks. System power consumption is measured during the CPU tests (an average of the first 10~15 seconds) and in various states including idle, H.264 and Flash playback and full CPU and GPU load using Prime95/CPUBurn and FurMark.

Certain services and features like Superfetch and System Restore are disabled
to prevent them from affecting our results. Aero glass is left enabled if supported.
We also make note if energy saving features like Cool’n’Quiet and SpeedStep
do not function properly.

Estimating DC Power

The following power efficiency figures were obtained for the
Seasonic SS-400ET used in our test system:

This data is enough to give us a very good estimate of DC demand in our
test system. We extrapolate the DC power output from the measured AC power
input based on this data. We won’t go through the math; it’s easy enough
to figure out for yourself if you really want to.

INTEGRATED GRAPHICS TESTING

Our first set of tests focuses on the integrated graphics. Each CPU/APU and motherboard combination was equipped with 4GB of RAM, a 500GB notebook hard drive and a Blu-ray drive.

IGP Energy Efficiency

On lighter loads, the A10-6800K and A10-6700 are slightly more efficient than their Trinity analogs, the A10-5800K and A10-5700. When playing video, Haswell was still king by a healthy margin.

On heavier loads, the A10-6800K used about the same amount of power as the
A10-5800K, so even a small performance boost would make it a more efficient
chip overall. On full synthetic CPU load, the 6800K used only 5W more than the
i7-4770K Haswell chip, but when it came to actual work in the form of video
encoding with TMPGEnc, both the Haswell and Ivy Bridge processors pulled way
ahead.

The A10-6700 exhibited much lower power consumption than its big brother, and in fact, the total draw actually decreased when we ran FurMark on top of Prime95 to stress the GPU and CPU simultaneously. We also observed that the power draw gradually fell off from when we started each test to when it ended by as much as 20W. This was caused by the CPU cores downclocking even though temperature was fine (15°C less than the 6800K). During the Prime95 + FurMark test, the CPU clock speed dipped to just 2.3 GHz. It seems that either the APU or motherboard throttled the clock speeds to artificially keep it within its 65W TDP specification.

There are no motherboard settings pertaining to thermal/power limits as there are on most Intel motherboards but we will test the 6700 on a different board in the near future to see if we can shed some light as to what exactly is responsible. We should also note that despite this issue all the performance numbers we generated was on par with our expectations.

IGP Performance

Note: Discrete GPUs were tested on our GPU testing platform which uses a
Core i3-2100, though CPU scaling shouldn’t be an issue given the relatively low level of GPU performance of the chips compared.

The new Radeon HD 8670D graphics controller is a minor upgrade over Trinity’s HD 7660D, but it’s enough to make it the fastest integrated chip we’ve tested. In our benchmarks, the A10-6800K and A10-6700 caught up to the GeForce GT 640 and Radeon HD 6570 in a couple of instances but generally both discrete cards were superior performers by a comfortable margin. It’s basically the equivalent of a US$50 graphics card, a budget model that’s limited to lower resolutions or less demanding titles if comfortable framerates are to be had.

CPU TESTING

Our CPU testing is conducted with a discrete graphics card (a GeForce 9400 GT) to eliminate integrated graphics as a variable, most notably with regards to power consumption. It’s also necessary for fairly comparing CPUs that do not have an onboard graphics such as Bulldozer and Sandy Bridge Extreme models.

CPU Performance

The A10-6800K and A10-6700’s higher clock speeds give them an obvious advantage over the A10-5800K and A10-5700. The performance gains were modest but what was most impressive was that the power management improvements appeared to be working. During our benchmarks, the difference in power consumption was usually very minor and often in Richland’s favor.

Overall, the 6800K and 6700 were midrange performers, a big step down from Intel’s quad core Sandy/Ivy Bridge parts, but a compelling alternative to AMD’s Bulldozer FX line. Richland’s high clock speeds gave it superior single-threaded performance while the Bulldozer chips only excelled at multithreaded workloads and were power hungry to boot.

CPU Energy Efficiency

If you run on discrete graphics, the A10-6800K and A10-6700 are more power efficient than competing processors near their US$150 price point. On heavy load, they’re roughly on par with the 5800K/5700 and the 6700 comes close to a quad core Sandy Bridge CPU.

For users with balanced workloads, we’ve determined what we call the “average power consumption” which assumes the system is used half the time for light load activities (an average of idle and H.264 playback) and the remaining half for heavy load (an average of the power consumption used running our six benchmarks). We believe this is a very common usage pattern for an average PC — they are often left on for long periods of time, doing little to no work.

In this scenario, Richland is an improvement over Trinity by a couple of watts.

For users with heavy workloads, the total power consumed while running our benchmark suite is of pertinent interest. The total power takes into account the energy efficiency of each CPU while running our benchmark tests as well as how quickly they complete each task. This simulates the power draw of a machine that is purely for doing work and shuts down when its job is finished.

The A10-6800K and A10-6700 finished our benchmarks quicker than their Trinity counterparts and did so using a tad less power. While nothing AMD produces comes close to Intel yet, Richland brings them a little bit closer.

CPU Performance Analysis

We arrived at our overall performance figures by giving each CPU a proportional
score in each real world benchmark with each test having an equal weighting.
The scale has been adjusted so that the A10-6800K is the reference point with
a score of 100.

Overall, all Richland delivered an average improvement of ~11% over Trinity in our CPU performance tests. Despite being short two cores, the Core i3-2100 has been shaming AMD’s budget quad core chips in our benchmark suite for some time thanks to its superb single-threaded performance — the A10-6800K is the first to finally overtake it.

These two new Richland APUs are clearly superior to their predecessors but they are also priced higher, so the overall value they offer is about the same. Of the processors compared today, only the lowly A8-5600K, an older Trinity-based US$100 APU, actually offers significant bang-for-your-buck CPU performance.

To determine performance per watt, we divided the overall performance score
by the average power consumption calculated earlier and again re-scaled with the A10-6800K
as our reference.

The faster, slightly more power efficient Richland APUs offer a sizable edge over Trinity in performance per watt. However, if electricity costs weigh heavy on your mind, Intel clearly prevails. More than two year since its release, Intel’s Sandy Bridge architecture remains a paragon of frugality in this regard.

FINAL THOUGHTS

With some tinkering on the Trinity
architecture, AMD has successfully squeezed out a nice performance boost
while slightly improving power consumption. Richland has higher clock speeds
but doesn’t use any more energy, resulting in a more efficient APU. The graphics
side of their product has also been buffed but to a smaller extent. Overall,
the bump in speed is similar to the move from Llano to Trinity, only this time
it doesn’t require a socket change. That being said, this is the final update
to FM2 platform before AMD launches their new FM2+ socket and APU architecture,
code-named Kaveri, later this year according to most sources.

Everything about Richland is better but it’s a collection of minor upgrades — there is no single impactful improvement or feature that truly makes it stand out against Trinity. In day-to-day operation, you’d be hard-pressed to distinguish between an A10-5800K and an A10-6800K. Furthermore, most of the new Richland line carry a bit of a price premium, so they generally are not better values than their predecessors. The only 6000 series chip that clearly offers a better bang-for-your-buck is the A8-6600K, which is faster by 100 MHz in base clock speed compared to the A10-5800K and carries a US$5 discount.

Trinity owners have no real incentive to upgrade to Richland, and for those
looking into a budget system, the decision between getting an old or new generation
APU may depend ultimately on how much money is budgeted for the processor. Complicating
matters somewhat is upgradeability or rather the lack thereof. After a year,
FM2 is on its way out, just like FM1 before it. (Editor’s Note: Keep
in mind that a CPU upgrade is much less attractive than it used to be —
compared to, say, a decade ago — even for PC enthusiasts. With current
hardware, there usually isn’t enough bang-for-the-buck in a CPU-only upgrade.)
On the Intel side, their dual Core i3 chips are still surprisingly competitive,
boasting better single-threaded performance and energy efficiency. Richland
and Trinity have the edge in graphics and the quad core models have a sizable
advantage in multi-threaded workloads. Which choice is better for any single
user depends on usage.

Our thanks to AMD for the A10-6800K and A10-6700 samples used in this review.

* * *

Articles of Related Interest
Intel Core i7-4770K Haswell Processor
AMD FX-8350 CPU: Piledriver Arrive
AMD A10-5700 APU: Trinity at 65W
AMD Trinity: A10-5800K & A8-5600K 2nd Gen APUs
Intel Core i7-3770 Ivy Bridge CPU
Intel Sandy Bridge Extreme: Core i7-3960X LGA2011 Processor

* * *

Discuss
this article in the SPCR forums.

AMD A10-6800K APU and more

AMD A10-6800K APU and more

• News
• Ratings
• Comments

Here a roundup of today’s reviews, including AMD A10-6800K APU reviews, The History Of The Hard Drive, What’s Wrong with the PlayStation Vita?, Choosing a Gaming CPU at 1440p: Adding in Haswell, and Scythe Mugen 4 review: finally a good successor to the Mugen 2?

Cooler Master Sonuz Headset @ Modders-Inc

Cooler Master has done an outstanding job bringing the Sonuz to market and would be a welcome addition to any gaming rig, or strictly used for music.

Read more: Cooler Master Sonuz Headset @ Modders-Inc

The History Of The Hard Drive @ ThinkComputers.org

In 1953, engineers in IBMs California-based laboratory invented the very first hard drive. Since that first disk drive, technological advances have been made at an astonishing rate, with data capacity increasing and size and price decreasing exponentially, year on year. 60 years on, the hard drives of today are unrecognizable from the first models, which took up an entire room. Hard drives today are measured in terms of gigabytes and terabytes, rather than megabytes-an amount of data that would have been almost unimaginable in the early history of computers. Here we take a look back at the evolution of the hard drive as it grew from 5MB to 4TB.

Read more: The History Of The Hard Drive @ ThinkComputers.org

ASUS Republic Of Gamers Maximus VI Hero Intel Z87 Motherboard Review @ Legit Reviews

ASUS is known for their quality, the Republic of Gamers motherboards and Graphics cards are known for an excessive amount of quality! Today we have one such board for you, the ASUS Republic of Gamers Maximus VI Hero Intel Z87 Motherboard. The ASUS ROG Maximus Hero is a Republic of Gamers board at a value price, well at least compared to other ROG motherboards. It retails well below the top branded ROG Maximus VI Extreme and will give those that couldn’t get an ROG board before, the opportunity now! Read on to see how our first ASUS Z87 Motherboard does!

Read more: ASUS Republic Of Gamers Maximus VI Hero Intel Z87 Motherboard Review @ Legit Reviews

Intel’s Haswell: Optimized For Mobility @ HotHardware.com

If Haswell’s debut on the desktop has left you feeling a bit flat, the company’s mobile efforts may be the pick-me-up you’ve been hoping for. If you step back and think about the entire CPU market, the last two years have been marked by tremendous shifts in consumer buying habits, as tablet sales skyrocketed and desktop/laptop sales have slumped. Intel recognized years ago that Atom, no matter how polished, would never be able to address the entire portable market — the usage scenarios between a laptop and a smartphone are just too wide. The company therefore decided to take a two-pronged approach to this brave new frontier of computing, with a new Atom architecture anchoring the ultra-low power segments while more traditional x86 cores were prepped for form factors no one at Intel dreamed of ten years ago.

Read more: Intel’s Haswell: Optimized For Mobility @ HotHardware.com

Cougar Spike @ techPowerUp

The combination of brand and name goes well with a compact gaming chassis. A fairly compact predator with the ability to strike at its opponents. Clocking in at a budget friendly $39.99, the Spike stands out in the crowd of other mATX cases.

Read more: Cougar Spike @ techPowerUp

What’s Wrong with the PlayStation Vita? @ TestFreaks

The PlayStation Vita is a great device for portable gaming but it’s not perfect by any means. I got mine at launch and in that time I’ve used it quite a bit and I’ve noticed many things both good and bad. Don’t get me wrong, I like the PS Vita, but there are some things that I don’t care for. So this started out as sort of a top ten list, a list of things that aren’t that great about the PS Vita. These are things that I’ve noticed in my time with it, and it’s a lot more than ten sadly. So are obvious, some aren’t, some are big and some are small, some people might find them a reason not to buy one, and some people might not care. We all know nothing is perfect though, most every device and gadget sounds much better in reviews and promotional material than it does when you actually get it in your hands. So read on to see what I found or think is wrong with the PS Vita…..

Read more: What’s Wrong with the PlayStation Vita? @ TestFreaks

Choosing a Gaming CPU at 1440p: Adding in Haswell @ Anandtech

A few weeks ago we released our first set of results to aid readers in deciding what CPU they may want for a new single or multi-GPU build. Today we add in some results for the top end Haswell CPU, the i7-4770K.

Read more: Choosing a Gaming CPU at 1440p: Adding in Haswell @ Anandtech

Gigabyte HD 7790 2GB (GV-R779OC-2GD) @ Bjorn3D

The Gigabyte HD 7790 (GV-R779OC-2GD) comes with Gigabytes own custom designed WINDFORCE x2 cooler, factory overclocked to 1075 MHz, and 2 GB of GDDR5. Does it worth your hard-earn money with the retailed price of $169.99, lets find out.

Read more: Gigabyte HD 7790 2GB (GV-R779OC-2GD) @ Bjorn3D

Garmin Nuvi 3597LMTHD Review @ TechReviewSource.com

The Garmin Nuvi 3597LMTHD sports a sleek design with a metal body and a 5-inch capacitive touch display. It has voice commands to make navigating easier and its spoken turn-by-turn directions are extremely natural sounding.

Read more: Garmin Nuvi 3597LMTHD Review @ TechReviewSource.com

Leetgion El’Druin Mouse Review @ Hardware Secrets

Known for its coolers and heatsinks, Thermalright branched into the gaming market with the Leetgion brand («elite legion» written in a fancy way). They first released an FPS mouse, the Hellion, and now the company enters the MMORPG territory with the El’Druin (the name definitely has an elvish flavor). It features 12 programmable buttons, 5,000 dpi of resolution, and two side disks that act like a second scrollwheel, and an analog stick from a console controller. We’ll first describe this unusual design and then proceed to testing its performance.

Read more: Leetgion El’Druin Mouse Review @ Hardware Secrets

GIGABYTE Z87-D3HP Review @ Vortez

We began our Intel Z87 venture by looking at GIGABYTE’s premium overclocking motherboard Z87X-OC. But today we will be looking at the opposite end of the scale by taking on an entry level model which focusses on helping those on a tight budget move to the new Haswell platform.

GIGABYTE’s Z87-D3HP will surprise many because it looks more expensive than it actually is. Many lower-end motherboards tend to cut back not only on features but also aesthetics but D3HP still oozes the quality of a higher-end model with its sleek matt black PCB and gun metal heatsinks. Ultra Durable 5 Plus comes as standard on this motherboard so consumers needn’t worry about the quality either. Can this really be too good to be true? Let’s find out!

Read more: GIGABYTE Z87-D3HP Review @ Vortez

Creative Sound Blaster ZxR Review @ Vortez

Creative and the Sound Blaster brand is synonymous with PC audio and today we take a look at the latest Sound Blaster flagship, the ZxR. Promising an unbeatable 124dB Signal to noise ratio and comprised of high grade components and materials, the ZxR comes with a fairly hefty price tag too. Supplied with a DBPro daughter board for an I/O expansion, the ZxR is set to offer unprecedented versatility for many users. Comparing cost to competition it may be hard to see how this can fit into the add in sound card market over what the primary competition has to offer so let’s take a look inside and see if it is worth the fuss.

Read more: Creative Sound Blaster ZxR Review @ Vortez

AMD A10-6800K and A10-6700 Richland APUs Tested @ HotHardware. com

A few months back, AMD unveiled a handful of mobile Elite A-Series APUs, formerly codenamed Richland. Those products built upon the company’s existing Trinity-based products but offered additional power and frequency optimizations designed to enhance overall performance and increase battery life. In addition to these optimizations, AMD also began offering a host of specialized software with their Richland APUs that’s leveraged their inherent strengths—namely, AMD Face Login, Gesture Control, Screen Mirror, and various video enhancement features like AMD Steady Video, Quick Stream, and Picture Perfect. The ultimate goal was to make AMD hardware and software more appealing to OEMs and consumers alike.

Today AMD is taking the same approach and launching a handful of new Richland APUs but for desktops and small form factor PCs…

Read more: AMD A10-6800K and A10-6700 Richland APUs Tested @ HotHardware.com

AMD A10 6800K review @ Guru3D

Hello, meet Richland. Ah yes, today another AMD A10 series APU processor review. A quick word on what they are, APUs are able to combine the potential of x86 and GPU together to enable a new class of experiences and compute performance on today’s PCs. You know, back in May 2012 AMD introduced a series of AMD A10 ‘Trinity’ APUs as mobile and notebook solutions. Trinity APUs where the the successor of the AMD A4, A6 and A8 Llano-processors. Today AMD marches onwards with Richland, basically in short wording this is a re-spin of Trinity. But before we start off this review, let me state this like we always do with APU reviews; see we are a bit of an enthusiast based website so I want to make it very clear here, the A10 and A8 APU processors are entry level to mid-range targeted processors, please do understand that very clearly. That means you are looking at reasonable desktop CPU experience versus (in AMDs case) a an enhanced integrated GPU, and all that for very interesting prices. But they are not intended as enthusiast class PC gaming rigs okay ?

As such today we test the A10 6800K APU for example, priced at roughly 135 to 145 EUR this is a four core processor with integrated graphics and motherboard chipset. Yeah, it really is a SoC. AMD released Richland to make their APUs a little more performance oriented for the PC crowd. The A10-6800K APU tested in this review is rated at 100W running at 4.1 GHz with a Turbo allowance towards 4400 MHz. For an APU these are seriously high frequencies. The A10 APU comes with a 4MB L2 cache and packs 384 Radeon (shader) cores with that embedded GPU running at 844 MHz, and that is slightly clocked faster then the A10 5800K (the previous flagship APU). Equipped with 384 Radeon (shader) cores, you might believe that by itself this is not a massive GPU, however in the IGP arena that’s serious performance as even the Intel’s new Haswell IGP can not compete with the performance that AMD can offer with the A10 APUs. The APU as expected is based on Piledriver cores, Piledriver simply put means the new 2nd revision of AMD’s Bulldozers cores, these are very similar to AMD’s FX series processors.

Read more: AMD A10 6800K review @ Guru3D

AMD A10-6800K and 6700 A-Series «Richland» Processor Review @ HiTech Legion

For every personality and budget there is a class of boat available. You have sailboats that are little day sailors to the massive yachts that celebrities own. Just like with boats there are computers for every personality type and budget. You have the enthusiast crowd that spends large amounts of money on hardware on a regular basis and likes to push their systems to the limit. Then of course you have your mainstream crowd that just want something to surf the internet on and maybe play some games at a reasonable frame rate. We can’t forget about the budget user either who can’t afford to spend $500 dollars on one component and need to get the most for their dollars.

AMD’s 2013 “Richland” A-series Desktop APUs includes two new chips the A10-6800K and A10-6700 processors. These processors are powered by AMD’s “Piledriver” 32nm compute modules. The A10-6800K is the top processor in the A-Series which is unlocked for performance tuning with a 100W TDP. The 6800K has four CPU cores with clock speeds of 4.1 GHz and turbo speeds of 4.4 GHz. The A10-6700 has a TDP of 65W and is only slightly slower at 3. 9 GHz and 4.2 GHz for the turbo. Both A10 models feature an integrated HD 8670D graphics core with 384 Radeon cores and GPU clock speeds of 844 MHz. The 6800K supports memory speeds up to DDR3 2133 MHz, while the rest of the series support memory speeds to DDR3 1866 MHz. With the AMD processors there is support for Eyefinity with up to 4 displays, to use all four displays one must be daisy chained on the DisplayPort 1.2 connection.

Read more: AMD A10-6800K and 6700 A-Series «Richland» Processor Review @ HiTech Legion

AMD A10-6800K APU Richland Processor @ Benchmark Reviews

So far, it seems that the early summer of 2013 is destined to be full of Intel Haswell coverage. Rather than consigning themselves to the shadows, AMD is quietly releasing two new members of their APU family. The next generation of APUs is being represented at the top by the A10-6800K and the A10-6700 Accelerated Processing Units, codenamed Richland. It has been about eight months since AMD released the last generation, Trinity APUs. When that happened, AMD took back the performance lead from Ivy Bridge in the sub-$150 CPU price range.

This has been AMD’s bread and butter for a while now, especially with their ability to pair discrete level graphics with their CPUs that totally decimate the onboard capabilities of their opponent. Haswell may change things, but for now, we’ll see where AMD is setting the bar for entry-level performance. In this article, Benchmark Reviews takes a hard look at the third generation of AMD APUs with the top end AMD A10-6800K Richland Processor.

Read more: AMD A10-6800K APU Richland Processor @ Benchmark Reviews

AMD Richland APU Launch Review: A10-6800K and A10-6700 @ HardwareHeaven.com

To tie in with Computex which takes place in Taiwan this week AMD are following Intels launch of «Haswell» with their own refresh. That comes in the form of «Richland», a new range of APUs which look to enhance what we have seen from the current generation «Trinity» parts. Today we take two of AMDs new «Richland» APUs through a selection of platform and gaming tests which include media playback and conversion, Crysis 3, Grid 2 and even a peek at PCMark 8.

Read more: AMD Richland APU Launch Review: A10-6800K and A10-6700 @ HardwareHeaven.com

AMD Richland Desktop Review; A10-6800K & A10-6700 Benchmarked @ Hardware Canucks

AMD has some catching up to do and Richland is their transitional solution between Trinity and Kaveri. It is also meant to shore up their performance metrics now that Intel has released their new Haswell architecture. In a way, this is AMD trying to steal a march on Intel since the Trinity to Richland refresh took just nine months while Intel’s cycles typically take 12 months or more.

Richland is actually a bit of a surprise since AMD’s product roadmaps never showed it until a short time ago. Simply put, GlobalFoundries’ 28nm manufacturing process delays and intrinsic revisions to upcoming architectures have pushed back the APU and CPU roadmap. This has necessitated the introduction of gap-filler products like Richland which are based on proven architectures.

While it may be a slight departure from earlier roadmap predictions, Richland still very much adheres to AMD’s Heterogeneous System Architecture or HSA. This amalgamation of CPU and GPU processing onto a single die will be the central focus for AMD far into the future but, judging from sales, potential customers haven’t quite embraced this approach. Luckily, the software is quickly catching up to hardware capabilities and soon we should see a painless transition towards more adaptable programs in the near future.

Read more: AMD Richland Desktop Review; A10-6800K & A10-6700 Benchmarked @ Hardware Canucks

AMD A10-6800K and A4-4000 Richland APU Review @ Techspot

Late last year we checked out AMD’s desktop version of Trinity, comprising Piledriver CPU cores along with an on-die Radeon HD 7000 Series (not Graphics Core Next) graphics processor.

Headlining the family was the A10-5800K with four cores clocked at 3.80GHz, a 4MB L2 cache and the Radeon HD 7660D. This was one of four quad-core Trinity parts made available at launch, along with a pair of dual-core APU’s known as the A6-5400K and A4-5300.

The A10-5800K debuted with an MSRP of just $130, pitting it at the time against the Core i3-3220. The end result was a typical Intel vs. AMD battle. While AMD had a clear cut advantage when it came to GPU performance, the CPU side of things was more closely contested.

Read more: AMD A10-6800K and A4-4000 Richland APU Review @ Techspot

KingSpec Challenger E3000 120GB SSD @ PureOverclock

It hasn’t been long since Nvidia’s last launch; in fact, it’s only been a week. Just 7 days ago saw the release of the GeForce GTX 780, a graphics card which managed to impress us with it convincing combination of gaming horsepower, innovative features, and strong overclocking. Kepler 2.0, as it turns out, looks to be a big winner.

And today marks the launch of the next in Nvidia’s gaming stable: the GeForce GTX 770. Not unexpected in its naming convention, but entirely unexpected by many in its swift follow-up to the flagship GTX 780. Looking to hit a very attractive gaming market at the upper end, though with a price tag of only $399, the GTX 770 looks nearly identical to its more powerful sibling, while maintaining the hallmark features at a lower price point. Truth be told, the price puts it squarely in the sights of the Radeon 7970, and we have a sneaking suspicion that Nvidia is looking to put the smackdown on the competition with this new card.

Read more: KingSpec Challenger E3000 120GB SSD @ PureOverclock

Stuffa Jacket @ NikKTech

When we first launched this project roughly 15 months ago we pretty much told everyone out there that we would seriously take into consideration review requests sent to us which is partially also the reason why we started testing wrist watches (although i have to admit that i like wrist watches as well). Of course we all knew that eventually some people would request reviews of products that don’t really belong in a technology related review site but being flexible is not a bad thing and so we decided to allow everything that may even slightly fit in one of our article/review categories. Fortunately our gadgets category allows us to fit a very wide range of product reviews regarding pretty much anything that can improve our daily lives and one such gadget is the Stuffa Jacket which we’ve been using for slightly over a month now with very positive results.

Read more: Stuffa Jacket @ NikKTech

Cooler Master Notepal U2 Plus @ LanOC Reviews

For the past few years Cooler Master has really been pushing their Notepal notebook cooling product line. They have introduced a wide variety of coolers with various cooling designs, different sizes, and for different uses. Even so, of their product line there has been one line specifically that I have been especially fond of. I have been using my Notepal U3 on my 18.4 inch notebook every time I travel. This is both because of its portability and also it’s cooling capabilities. Cooler Master is now introducing a new version of its U2, the Notepal U2 Plus. I’m not sure what they can improve on the original, but I’m excited to find out.

Read more: Cooler Master Notepal U2 Plus @ LanOC Reviews

Intel Core i7 4770K «Haswell» Benchmarks On Ubuntu Linux @ Phoronix

This past weekend I shared the first experiences of running Intel’s new Haswell CPU on Linux. While Intel Haswell is a beast and brings many new features and innovations to the new Core CPUs succeeding Ivy Bridge, there were a few shortcomings with the initial Linux support. It still appears that the Core i7 4770K is still being finicky at times for both the processor and graphics, but in this article are the first benchmarks. Up today are benchmarks of the Intel Core i7 4770K when running Ubuntu 13.04 with the Linux 3. 10 kernel.

I went over the initial Intel Haswell Linux details on Saturday. The initial support is there and overall it’s in fairly good standing and roughly comparable to where things were at in 2012 when Ivy Bridge launched. However, as far as where the support is at in currently released Linux distributions, there’s a lot better support to find out of the very latest upstream code. With the widely used Ubuntu 13.04, Haswell processors will work, but better support, features, and performance can be found with code not currently available through the standard repositories. This state is comparable to that of other Linux distributions released so far this year. Polished Haswell support coming to an «out of the box» Linux desktop won’t really be there until later in h3’2013.

Read more: Intel Core i7 4770K «Haswell» Benchmarks On Ubuntu Linux @ Phoronix

AMD Richland A10-6800K AND A10-6700 Review @ Bjorn3D

Not letting Intel grab all of the spotlight, AMD has officially released the desktop version of the upgraded Trinity APU codenamed Richland. While Richland does not bring any architectural change over the Trinity, AMD is able to deliver a decent amount of performance improvements by tuning the existing chip. We have got the top of the line A10-6800K and a 65W A10-6700 in our lab that we will put through our tests.

Read more: AMD Richland A10-6800K AND A10-6700 Review @ Bjorn3D

AeroCool Touch-2100 Fan Controller Review @ Madshrimps

The Touch-2100 Fan Controller from AeroCool comes with a responsive multi-colored display and 5 separate channels, from where we can fine-tune the fan speeds or adjust the alarm temperature for the thermistors. Each thermal probe can be attached to the surfaces of our choice with the help of the included adhesive and in case one of these fail, we always have replacements inside the accessory bag.

Read more: AeroCool Touch-2100 Fan Controller Review @ Madshrimps

Palit GeForce GTX 770 JetStream @ Hexus

The release of a new GPU series is an opportune time for add-in card (AIC) partners to launch a bevy of new boards. This has already happened with the GTX 780, launched last week, and there’s no reason why the just-introduced GTX 770 will be any different.

We’ve written ad nauseam of how much we like Nvidia’s latest heatsinks designed for enthusiast cards — they marry good looks, solid thermal performance and excellent acoustics into one tidy package — but as EVGA has demonstrated, custom-designed offerings can improve it further still.

Palit is certainly of the same thinking, believing it has the wherewithal to beat out the elegant reference cooler with respect to outright performance and low-noise operation. To that end the company sent us the pre-overclocked GTX 770 JetStream 2GB model for editorial consumption.

Read more: Palit GeForce GTX 770 JetStream @ Hexus

Cooler Master NotePal ErgoStand II Review @ Proclockers

With the current generation’s demand for better technologies and greater innovations, we all know the production or purchase of laptops isn’t going to decrease anytime soon. From the sounds of it, laptops are outselling pre-made desktops. So, it is only natural for companies to cater these types of users. Manufacturers like Cooler Master answer that need with various products. It you head over to their website, you will see they have a multitude of products geared just for laptop users.

Cooler Master just recently added another cooler/stand to their cooling lineup. The new multifunction item is the NotePal ErgoStand II. It is not only a cooler, it is also a stand to hold the laptop firmly and in an angle that addresses ergonomics. The NotePal ErgoStand II allows the user to adjust the height of the laptop stand for a more comfortable position and posture. It also helps in cooling the laptop with the 140mm fan mounted in it. Including a four-port USB hub and a removable mesh panel adds usability and functionality.

Read more: Cooler Master NotePal ErgoStand II Review @ Proclockers

Intel Core i7-4770K (22nm Haswell) @ Hexus

Is it too early to call Intel a semiconductor manufacturer in decline? Perhaps, yet in the consumer space there’s no ignoring the recurring signs. UMPCs barely got going, netbooks have been forgotten, and Ultrabooks aren’t doing enough to stall the steady decline in PC sales.

For the likes of Intel and Microsoft, who have long enjoyed the benefits of a symbiotic relationship, these are worrying times. Today, designing the highest-performance chips doesn’t guarantee success, and while Intel remains king of the desktop performance crown, there’s little competition and seemingly even less desire to raise the bar. Had AMD found a way to Bulldoze Intel’s Ivy Bridge, we most probably would have seen the arrival of an enthusiast-orientated Ivy Bridge-E, but such premium solutions are being neglected as a new battle takes place elsewhere.

Forget Moore’s law, it’s sod’s law that another three-letter foe beginning with the letter A is proving to be a thorn in Intel’s side. The decline in PC sales can be directly attributed to the rapid increase in sales of devices powered by cost-effective, low-power ARM microprocessors. Smartphone and tablet sales continue to soar and here’s the real kicker: consumers don’t care what powers these devices, what matters is that they’re typically cheaper than laptops, ultra-portable, and able to offer genuine all-day battery life.

Read more: Intel Core i7-4770K (22nm Haswell) @ Hexus

PC Specialist Vanquish R4 @ Hexus

The arrival of a new generation of Intel processors can be likened to the launch of a new Microsoft Windows operating system; it’s an occasion that can have a significant impact on the sale of new PCs. And fourth-generation Intel Core processor just has a nice ring to it, wouldn’t you say?

It’s Christmas come early for system integrators, whose marketing departments have new ammunition and understandably revitalised vigour. But looking beyond the razzmatazz, are the very latest chips advanced enough to warrant an instant upgrade? And will system builders use the technology to create rigs that are genuinely different?

To help shed some light on the matter, we’ve asked PC Specialist to send in its idea of a £1,000 gaming machine based on new Intel silicon and the UK-based system builder has duly obliged with the Vanquish R4.

Read more: PC Specialist Vanquish R4 @ Hexus

Scythe Mugen 4 review: finally a good successor to the Mugen 2? @ Hardware. Info

The Scythe Mugen 4 was introduced some time back, and at the end of this month it should finally be in stores. For years the original Mugen and especially the Mugen 2 were the most popular coolers on Hardware.Info due their outstanding cooling, low noise and affordable price. When the Mugen 2 was phased out and replaced by the Mugen 3, not everyone was happy. The Mugen 3 was basically a lower-cost version of the Mugen 2, and didn’t perform as well in our tests. The Mugen 3 PCGH Edition made up for this by using two fans that were much more silent, but it was more expensive than the Mugen 2. At the same time the competition was getting stronger, and especially Cooler Master has been doing its utmost to create a Scythe-killer.

Read more: Scythe Mugen 4 review: finally a good successor to the Mugen 2? @ Hardware.Info

KingFast E-Drive 120GB KF2510SCF 2.5″ SATA 3 SLC SSD Review @ ModSynergy.com

The Solid State Drive, or the SSD, has seen leaps and bounds over the years of advancement in drive controller and memory technology and it seems to have found its footing in the tech marketplace for the common consumer seeking to speed up their computer system like never before. The acceptance is shown through increasingly rising sales and the fact that main conventional spinning hard disk manufacturers are now looking into SSD technology as part of their future. You know that things are changing when HDD manufactures are thinking of integrating SSD technology into their product line-up.

All is not complete though as the SSD is still evolving as we speak with different types of NAND memory technologies being invented, tested, and offered such as TLC NAND, MLC and SLC variations with focus to Enterprise use, all addressing different segments, costs, longevity, performance. SSD technology was in its infancy a couple of years ago and has improved tremendously over the past couple of years, and it shows no signs of slowing down. There’s just so much more room to grow even in the intermediate stages. The same can be said with the advancement of offering higher capacity SSD drives on the market. Now there are SSD’s that can offer up to 1TB of space, the limitation that has plagued SSD perception in the past.

Read more: KingFast E-Drive 120GB KF2510SCF 2.5″ SATA 3 SLC SSD Review @ ModSynergy.com

AMD A10-6800K & A10-6700 Richland APU Review @ OCC

Overclocking capability seems to be on par with the last generation. I am convinced that had I a bit more time I could have gotten a bit more out of them, however the GPU side of things was as easily overclockable as ever. Reaching an easy 1.1GHz on either chip, it easily bumped the graphics capability up at least to the next discrete level for an easy 20% more performance.

Read more: AMD A10-6800K & A10-6700 Richland APU Review @ OCC

Notice

This topic is archived. New comments cannot be posted and votes cannot be cast.

How to customize Linux Mint 15 Cinnamon

AMD A10-6800K, A10-7800 and A10-7850K Processors

In January of this year, AMD introduced the next generation of APUs codenamed Kaveri . In the new APUs, the manufacturer tried to implement its most promising developments. The computing cores were transferred to the Steamroller architecture, the graphics unit was built according to the patterns of the progressive GCN, while the processors themselves are manufactured according to the 28-nanometer process technology. Let’s take example A10-7850K and A10-7700K let’s take a closer look at what the manufacturer’s new chips are capable of.

Steamroller Processor Architecture

Kaveri’s x86 processor block uses the Steamroller architecture, which should increase the APU’s compute performance. Evaluating the changes made, we can say that Steamroller is rather an evolutionary development of Piledriver, which is used in Trinity/Richland chips. Here, a modular dual-core structure is still involved, in which some of the blocks are common to both cores. In particular, we are talking about blocks for decoding instructions and floating point operations. This approach allows us to somewhat simplify the overall structure of the chip, however, under certain conditions, with multi-threaded loads, such a model causes downtime of computing units.

Steamroller tried to partially solve this problem by splitting the instruction decoder into two independent blocks for each core. This is one of the most dramatic improvements of the new architecture, which should increase the performance of the processor when working with integer calculations. The FPU still remains the same for both cores of the module, as does the fetch unit. However, some improvements have been made here as well. In particular, the prefetch block algorithm has been improved, from 64 KB to 9The instruction cache has been increased by 6 KB, and a number of secondary parameters have been optimized.

However, even for such changes, it was necessary to significantly increase the number of transistors. And this is one of the reasons why AMD is in no hurry to release processors that include more than two paired modules.

The Steamroller does not offer any additional instruction sets. In this regard, the new architecture repeats Piledriver.

Graphics Core Next (GCN) 9 graphics architecture0016

Kaveri processors have received an advanced Radeon R7 graphics unit, which uses the latest GCN 1.1 architecture, similar to that used for high-end GPU graphics cards from the Hawaii family.

For AMD APUs, the integrated graphics unit is much more than just a display tool. The video core, called Specter, occupies 47% of the area of ​​the entire crystal. In the maximum configuration, the Kaveri APU can contain 8 clusters, totaling 512 computing units. Recall that the Trinity/Richland chips used the VLIW4 architecture, and the number of shader processors did not exceed 384.

With powerful integrated graphics by the standards of integrated solutions, AMD claims 856 GFLOPS compute performance for the top Kaveri model, with the GPU accounting for more than 85% of the total power at 737 GFLOPS.

The graphics core also inherited improved video processing units. In particular, a unified UVD 4 video decoder and an improved VCE 2 encoding engine.

Given that the video core is based on the GCN architecture, the hybrid chip automatically receives support not only for DirectX 11.2, but also for the new low-level Mantle API, which allows more efficient use of GPU resources. In addition, the new APUs also feature a hardware DSP to implement AMD TrueSound. Support for this promises the opportunity to experience complex sound effects that will not load the computing unit. Of course, as in the case of Mantle, one cannot do without the due effort of software developers.

Reviews about A10 7850K

This is all, of course, interesting, but under such conditions when games are not optimized, such tests quickly lose their meaning. completely). We have a bad trend — the quality of the graphics is improving slightly, but the requirements are artificially inflated in order to buy new hardware.

drawing range, and landscape, this is really the most important, because if this is not the case, then even some objects will not be visible at long distances, and at short distances, it will be possible to shoot through textures, or not to shoot through the air, then there is a picture of the map crookedly stretched over the texture itself.

If you disable the integrated graphics, you get AMD Athlon X4 860K. I think such a percentage will not go badly paired with a Radeon R7 360. Well, if integrated graphics are not needed, then it’s better to take that Athlon X4 860K, since it’s cheaper. Well, the A10-7850K will go with the R7 250 in Dual Graphics for a super cheap system.

Do not take processors lower than this version of A10 honestly it’s such a crap that I still curse the day when the seller looking into my sincere children’s eyes said to me that this laptop will run all games until 2015 on ultras as a result I don’t I can run Black Flag even on the lowest

Tags:3. 7 GHz, 65W, A10 7850K, AMD, CPU

HSA concept

The previously listed features of the new APUs deserve special attention, but Kaveri finally implemented mechanisms that fill the catchy definition of «hybrid processor» with content. We are talking about the technological solutions necessary for the ephemeral concept of HSA (Heterogeneous System Architecture) to be put into practice.

Support for hUMA technology (Heterogeneous Uniform Memory Access) allows you to solve the problem of accessing heterogeneous computing units to a single address space. In this case, there is no need to separate the video memory that is available to the GPU and the system area that x86 blocks work with. The implementation of hUMA should significantly simplify the development of applications and, in particular, algorithms for connecting all APU resources.

Another important technology implemented in Kaveri is hQ (Heterogeneous Queuing). It allows you to increase the autonomy of all computing units. In this case, the GPU gets the right to create independent threads for parallel execution of code without additional control from the CPU, as it was before.

It is for this reason that AMD specifies the total number of CPU and GPU units, and not just x86, to indicate the number of computing cores (Compute Core) of Kaveri processors. As a result, the top model appears as a 12-core APU (4 CPU + 8 GPU).

However, HSA hardware support alone is not enough to take advantage of this configuration. A software ecosystem is needed, which is built at a slower pace. The OpenCL 2.0 framework, which was approved in November 2013, should make the work of programmers easier. Here, in fact, the foundations are laid for the effective use of heterogeneous computing, such as the use of a common address space, work with shared virtual memory, dynamic parallelism, and other functions. Applications that implement HSA will have to wait. Actual programs that already use GPGPU calculations for some functions still implement only the capabilities of OpenCL 1. 1 / 1.2.

Today, the number of applications that use heterogeneous computing, although growing, is still not growing as fast as we would like. In addition, not all algorithms can effectively use GPU resources, so the list of applications with appropriate optimization mainly includes packages for working with multimedia data. But among the applications that are used in everyday work, there are not so many striking examples.

Kaveri 9 processors0016

The new APUs are manufactured at Globalfoundries facilities at 28 nm standards. The manufacturer managed to set up the production of crystals using this technical process, but it turned out to be not so easy to do.

The fact is that due to the more complex architecture and modular design features, Kaveri contains 2.41 billion transistors, which is almost twice as much as Richland’s 32nm APUs (1.3 billion). If we take into account that the physical area of ​​the crystal remained practically unchanged — 245 vs. 246 mm² — the density of the transistor layout has almost doubled.

At launch, Kaveri’s chip line includes three APUs. The top model A10-7850K has a base frequency of 3.7 GHz with the ability to boost up to 4 GHz. The presence of the “K” index in the designation already habitually speaks of an unlocked multiplier, which makes it quite easy to force the processor. The graphic block includes 8 clusters with 512 calculators. The nominal frequency for the GPU is 720 MHz. The thermal package of the chip is 95 watts.

Model A10-7700K also has two twin x86 blocks, but the base frequency of the chip is reduced to 3.5 GHz, and the dynamic acceleration threshold is 3.8 GHz. The number of computing graphics clusters has been reduced to 6, so the number of shader units is 384. At the same time, the GPU frequency has not been changed — 720 MHz. The TDP of this APU is also within 95 W, and the “K” index in the model name is a sign that the chip allows overclockers to fool around.

The third model in the new APU line is the quad-core A8-7600 . This chip is interesting in that it allows you to configure the power consumption depending on the operating conditions. If you need maximum economy, the APU can operate at 3.1/3.3 GHz, keeping within the TDP of 45 watts. If performance is a priority, then the processor operates according to the formula 3.3 / 3.8 GHz, but its thermal package increases to 65 watts. The user can switch between modes on their own using the appropriate option in the BIOS of the motherboard. In principle, the idea of ​​reducing power consumption by lowering clock speeds is a classic example of downclocking, which is often used by enthusiasts if they need to reduce CPU heat. Regardless of the mode, the GPU with 384 computers on board (like the A10-7700K) runs at 720 MHz.

The older model A10-7850K is priced at $172, the recommended price for the A10-7700K is $152, while the A8-7600 will be offered for $119. AMD’s pricing policy for new APUs is up for debate. Recall that the top chip of the Richland line is offered for $142. The cost of the new flagship is 20% higher than that of its predecessor. Obviously, the manufacturer believes in the high potential of Kaveri, raising the upper price bar to actually the level of quad-core Intel processors.

For entry-level systems based on Socket FM2+, we offer the
AMD A55 chipset, which has been in service since the first Llano hybrid processors for Socket FM1. Recall that this chipset does not have built-in support for USB 3.0 and SATA 6 Gb / s, if necessary, these interfaces are implemented using additional controllers, but given the positioning of boards based on this chipset, this happens extremely rarely.
9 offered for midrange motherboards0006 AMD A78 . Functionally, it is analogous to the A75, which means that the chipset supports 4 USB 3.0 ports and has 6 SATA 6 Gb / s channels. However, even more popular is the AMD A88X with an eight-port SATA 6 Gb / s controller and the ability to split PCI Express processor lanes in x8 + x8 mode for CrossFire mode.

Considering the general positioning of the platform, the price of the most expensive models based on AMD A88X is $120-140, while the vast majority of boards cost no more than $100. And in general, the choice of boards with Socket FM2+ is quite large. The hotline.ua catalog currently contains more than four dozen devices of various form factors. Finding the right option will not be a problem.

Processors under FM2 + bring the ability to transmit a picture with a resolution of 4K via HDMI. In addition, the new APUs also received a PCI Express 3.0 controller, allowing for the first time to «loop» a high-speed bus within the AMD platform. Motherboards with an FM2+ connector based on the A78 and A88X, which appeared much earlier than the APU Kaveri, a priori support this feature, well, video cards with PCI-E 3.0 have been on sale for more than two years.

AMD A10-7850K and A10-7700K

To get acquainted with the capabilities of Kaveri, we used two models currently available — A10-7850K and A10-7700K. The processors are offered in boxes with a bright and rather stylish design.

The kit includes the processor itself in a clear plastic blister, a small sticker with a shaped logo, and a brochure with a quick installation guide. The APU comes with a stock cooling system.

The cooler includes a fairly simple aluminum heatsink that is blown by a 70mm fan. The total height of the cooler is 50 mm. In the area of ​​​​contact with the processor, thermal paste was initially applied in a «square-nested» way.

We used an MSI A88X-G45 Gaming motherboard during testing. According to the default CO control algorithm, the fan worked at 1800 rpm in idle mode. Under heavy load on an open bench, the rotation speed increased to 2900 rpm, while the processor temperature was kept at 65 C. The efficiency of such a CO is enough for the processor to operate in normal mode, however, for those who want to overclock the APU, as well as silence, a more efficient alternative will definitely be needed .

The boxed version of the A10-7850K retails for about $185, while the A10-7700K costs about $160. The A8-7600 was supposed to be on sale during the first quarter of this year, but at the time of writing this chip is still not available for purchase.

The A10-7850K processor has a frequency formula of 3.7/4 GHz, while in idle mode the chip frequency drops to 1700 MHz.

The graphics unit in the maximum configuration contains 512 computers, 32 texture modules and 8 rasterization units. The memory bandwidth depends entirely on the frequency of the system RAM. In dual-channel mode with a pair of DDR3-2133 modules, it is 34 GB / s. Of course, for a GPU of this level, the indicator is very low.

The A10-7700K is inferior to the flagship in x86 core clock speed. A pair of dual-core modules operate in 3.5 / 3.8 GHz mode. It is curious that without load, the APU frequency drops to 2000 MHz, and not 1700 MHz, as in the older model.

The graphics core of this processor includes 6 computing clusters for 384 shaders. The number of texture units has decreased to 24, while the number of rasterizers has not changed — 8. The GPU frequency of the already presented Kaveri models is 720 MHz. As for the memory bandwidth, in an identical system configuration with a 128-bit bus, it is still the same 34 GB / s.

Test stand and temperature

Test equipment:

• Corps: Open stand
• Maternal board: MSI FM2+ A888XM-E35
• ANAMOMA 2007
• CURGE , but with 2 heat pipes
• Thermal grease: Arctic Cooling MX-4
• RAM: Geil Black Dragon 2x4Gb PC3-17000 CL 10-11-11-30
• Hard drive: Toshiba 500gb 7200 32mb
• Power supply: Termaltake TR2 RX 1000w

The characteristics of the graphics adapter are no different from the younger A10-7800 processor.

The processor cover is perfectly flat, but despite the smoothed corners, the edge remains sharp. After applying the thermal interface and installing the cooling system, the subsequent removal is carried out only by shifting the cooler.

Complete system.

10 passes of Intel Burn Test on High and Very High presets. At standard frequencies, the processor passed the test without any problems, but when overclocked to 4.4 GHz, after reaching a temperature of 62 degrees at the High settings, it went into a cycle and showed a blue screen. Conclusion: the standard cooling system supplied in the box configuration of the product is not able to show good performance in overclocking. But applicable to the test, it is clearly seen that the processor has an extremely low heat pack and does not require expensive cooling systems.

Performance

To assess the capabilities of Kaveri processors, we have selected worthy opponents for new chips. First of all, this is the top model of the Richland family — A10-6800K. Comparison with the previous generation APU suggests itself. This APU is a good guideline. Intel processors are represented in this case by the Core i5-4440 model. One of the competitor’s most affordable quad-core CPUs, priced very close to that of the A10-7850K.

Starting with synthetic tests, first of all we evaluated the performance of the memory subsystem and APU caches of different generations.

It is worth noting that the data transfer rate when writing, reading, and also copying data to RAM in the case of Kaveri increased slightly, but the memory latency also increased from 67 ns to 77 ns. The speed of writing and copying in L1 has more than doubled, the work of the second-level cache memory has significantly accelerated, but, again, the delays have become slightly longer. How such optimization will affect in practice, the test results will show.

The first measurements show that APUs of the previous generation won’t let beginners relax, and the advantage of 400 MHz can in some cases neutralize architectural improvements. The minimal advantage of the A10-6800K over Kaveri chips in gaming synthetics and the 7-Zip archiver is another confirmation of this. At the same time, 28nm chips cope better with video encoding, despite the significant difference in frequencies. However, the rendering of the scene in Cinebench R15 demonstrates that brute force should not be ignored either. 400 MHz is 400 MHz.

Integer block improvements bring a very significant APU speedup in the Super Pi and wPrime benchmarks. And with chess combinations, Kaveri has gotten better, although with a quad-core Haswell carrier, they still play in different leagues.

After a series of stages in which APUs of different generations fought exclusively among themselves, the results of PCMark 8 tests come as a pleasant surprise. Rather, a good performance increase with the involvement of the GPU could well be predicted, but the good optimization of the test package for OpenCL rather even exceeded expectations. Heterogeneous computations on the march. A clear demonstration of how it can be, and this is not yet OpenCL 2.0 involved. The prospects are interesting, the only question is how long it will take for such results to be not a rare exception. There is still a lot of work to be done here.

Integrated graphics testing is a treat for AMD solutions. Hybrid chips have a noticeably more powerful graphics unit than that of Intel processors. Therefore, in this case, it is curious how much the new GPU is improved in comparison with the previous solution built into Richland chips.

In 3DMark tests, the performance gain is 26-33%. At the same time, even the built-in A10-7700K with 384 computers operating at 720 MHz turns out to be noticeably preferable to the integrated graphics A10-6800K, which contains an identical number of shader units and operates at a frequency of 844 MHz.

In real games, a lot depends on the engines used. In general, Kaveri look better, but the situation is different. The A10-7850K is 20% ahead of the A10-6800K in Bioshock Infinite, has a 36% lead in Bafflefield 4, and a more modest 11% in Thief. By the way, the latter allows you to activate the Mantle API. After that, the results of devices with GCN graphics improved by about 10% (the charts show indicators without Mantle). The exception to the general picture was Total War: Rome II, where the top model with the Radeon R7 could only come close to the results of the A10-6800K.

During the experiments, we also evaluated the impact of memory bandwidth on the performance of the graphics subsystem.

The obtained results are a clear confirmation of the very strong dependence of the indicators on the operating frequency of the memory. FPS can be increased up to 50% by using DDR3-2400 instead of DDR3-1333. In this case, we can say that a set of two DDR3-2133 modules is the minimum required if you plan to use integrated graphics. Faster modules are already more expensive, but in the same 2400 MHz mode, nominal DDR3-2133 kits often work quite normally after a slight increase in timings and supply voltage.

Synthetic tests

The need to test the computer processor appears in the case of overclocking or comparing characteristics with other models. The built-in tools of the operating system do not allow this, so you need to use third-party software. Popular representatives of such software offer a choice of several analysis options.

• 3DMark — Fire Strike Standard Graphics: 1042
• 3DMark — Fire Strike Standard Score: 998
• 3DMark — Ice Storm Standard Physics 1280×720: 22163
• 3DMark — Fire Strike Standard Physics 1920×1080: 2685
• Cinebench R15 -CPU Single 64Bit : 71
• Cinebench R15 — CPU Multi 64BIT: 193
• WINRAR: 1328 KB/C

Energy consuming

The declared level of TDP for both considered Kaveri models is the Kaver5 W, 5 W higher than the TDP of the A10-6800K, well, the Core i5-4440, according to the specification, should fit within the TDP of 84 W.

During the maximum load on the x86 computing units, the power consumption of the Kaveri chips is about the same as that of the previous flagship. But while playing Battlefield 4, the new APUs turned out to be noticeably more energy efficient. The Core i5-4440 is still far away, but if we recalculate the number of frames / s per watt of energy expended, then this ratio for the new AMD chips will look quite remarkable.

Overclocking

A more modern manufacturing process, as a rule, allows you to count on an improvement in the frequency potential of processors. However, alas, this is not an axiom. Seriously increased layout complexity, as well as almost doubling the density of transistors, affected the frequency potential of Kaveri. Despite the fact that APUs are manufactured according to the 28-nanometer process technology, you should not count on significant overclocking. Taking advantage of unlocked processors, after increasing the supply voltage by 0.1 V, we managed to increase the clock speed of both Kaveri chips to 4.4 GHz. Not bad, but nothing more. 32nm Richland processors can generally be accelerated to 4.6-4.8GHz, although we can see that they still have lower performance per MHz than Steamroller APUs.

It is also worth noting the overclocking feature of Kaveri. The new APUs have an improved power state regulation mechanism and various mechanisms to avoid overheating of the processor and keep the chip’s power consumption at a given level. In this case, a situation is possible when, under high load, the frequencies of x86 and GPU blocks will automatically decrease, reducing performance, therefore the value of large numbers in the CPU-Z screenshot will be leveled.

We also experimented with overclocking the A10-7700K graphics core. A10-7700K GPU clock speed increased from 720 to 1029MHz (+43%). Note that it is possible to increase the frequency with a certain discreteness, therefore it is difficult to obtain the limiting «stable megahertz».

As you can see, the graphics core has a significant potential for increasing the frequency, but with its increase, the performance does not scale as well as we would like. The fact is that the bottleneck of the graphics subsystem in this case is the memory bandwidth, which is very problematic to increase. Valid RAM mode is DDR3-2400. The Socket FM2+ platform does not provide other boost dividers. High-speed GDDR5 would be here, but, alas, this type of RAM as a system RAM is not yet foreseen even in the medium term.

Despite the very significant overclocking of the GPU, the performance gain is not that great. In synthetic applications, this is a good 20-25%, but in real games, the frames / c increased noticeably more modestly — 5-15%. Note that increasing the operating clock frequency of the GPU from 720 to 1029 MHz increased the power consumption of the system under graphics load by 15–20 watts.

Summing up

Summing up, with all the desire to avoid ambiguous assessments of new AMD chips, we can’t do it. The processor architecture of Steamroller is indeed more efficient than Piledriver, which often allows not only to level the difference in frequencies of older APU models of two generations, but also in some cases brings Kaveri to the lead. However, in computing tasks with a high load on x86 blocks, even new processors find it difficult to compete with Intel’s quad-core processors. However, there is a lot of power hidden in AMD APUs that can be unleashed using the HSA concept. We have to hope that software developers will increasingly move to the side of heterogeneous computing, given that OpenCL 2.0 makes it possible to significantly simplify this process without requiring serious sacrifices.

For gaming systems or powerful PCs with discrete graphics, Intel chips are still preferable. At the same time, Kaveri processors definitely deserve attention, especially when it comes to assembling a universal system, the owner of which will have enough opportunities for integrated video. APUs have a number of interesting features that do not lie on the surface. The new chips will also be a good choice if you are a techno-romantic at heart who wants to stretch the pleasure of buying over time, rejoicing at the good results of your system in the next optimized application. The price cut will add to the appeal of the new APUs, and it would be interesting to see a new wave of mid-range and entry-level hybrid chips.

AMD A10-7850K, A10-7700 and A10-6800K processors provided for testing by AMD, www.amd.com

Gaming application testing

Assassin’s Creed 4

An application from the well-known company Ubisoft passed the test with rather poor results, but since the game is cross-platform, even at high graphics settings with anti-aliasing disabled, without raising the processor’s operating frequency, quite acceptable results are seen at high resolution.

However, overclocking does not bring a noticeable increase in frame rate, although it slightly changes the performance for the better.

Battlefield 4

The fourth part of the popular multiplayer game from EA and Dice, showed excellent ratings, apparently due to cooperation with AMD, this result was obtained with a network packet sending rate (Ping) of approximately 130ms, with a decrease in this parameter, an increase in frames per second is possible . Raising the frequency also does not lead to a noticeable increase in the number of FPS.

Metro Last Light

In the popular shooter from 4A Games, you can immediately see the dependence of the performance and performance of the A10-7850K with different clock speeds. permission was not carried out due to high rates.

Thief

Developed by Eidos Montreal in 2014, the popular multi-platform game shows low, but quite acceptable results. It is worth considering the development used by AMD, Mantle, which has no analogues among competitors.

However, overclocking also does not add any noticeable performance, although at settings below «normal» the gameplay is quite good without any significant changes in picture quality.

characteristics A10-6800K APU (2013 D.RI), price, test, competitors

• Home
• >
• Processors
• >
• AMD
• >
• >
• >
• >
• >
• >
• >
• >
• >
• >
• >
• >
• >
• > . Ri)

Processor A10-6800K APU (2013 D.Ri) Marked by the manufacturer as: AD680KWOHLBOX.

Number of cores — 4.

A10-6800K APU (2013 D.Ri) core frequency — 4.1 GHz.

Price in Russia

Want to buy A10-6800K APU (2013 D.Ri) cheap? Look at the list of stores that already sell the processor in your city.

Family

• A10-6700 APU (2013 D.RI)
• A10-6700T APU (2013 D.RI)
• A10-6790K APU (2013 D.RI)

AMD A10-6800K APU ( 2013 D.Ri)

Game Speed ​​

Performance in games and similar applications, according to our tests.

The performance of 4 cores, if any, and performance per core has the greatest impact on the result, since most games do not fully use more than 4 cores.

The speed of caches and working with RAM is also important.

Speed ​​in office use

Performance in everyday work such as browsers and office applications.

The performance of 1 core has the greatest impact on the result, since most of these applications use only one, ignoring the rest.

Similarly, many professional applications such as various CADs ignore multi-threaded performance.

Speed ​​in heavy applications

Performance in resource-intensive tasks loading a maximum of 8 cores.

The performance of all cores and their number has the greatest impact on the result, since most of these applications willingly use all the cores and increase the speed accordingly.

At the same time, certain periods of work can be demanding on the performance of one or two cores, for example, applying filters in the editor.

Data obtained from tests by users who tested their systems with and without overclocking. Thus, you see the average values ​​corresponding to the processor.

Speed ​​of numerical operations

Different tasks require different CPU strengths. A system with few fast cores and low memory latency will be fine for the vast majority of games, but will be inferior to a system with a lot of slow cores in a rendering scenario.

We believe that a minimum of 4/4 (4 physical cores and 4 threads) processor is suitable for a budget gaming PC. At the same time, some games can load it at 100%, slow down and freeze, and performing any tasks in the background will lead to a drop in FPS.

Ideally, the budget shopper should aim for a minimum of 4/8 and 6/6. A gamer with a big budget can choose between 6/12, 8/8 and 8/16. Processors with 10 and 12 cores can perform well in games with high frequency and fast memory, but are overkill for such tasks. Also, buying for the future is a dubious undertaking, since in a few years many slow cores may not provide sufficient gaming performance.

When choosing a processor for your work, consider how many cores your programs use. For example, photo and video editors can use 1-2 cores when working with filtering, and rendering or converting in the same editors already uses all threads.

Data obtained from tests by users who tested their systems both with overclocking (maximum value in the table) and without (minimum). A typical result is shown in the middle, the more filled in the color bar, the better the average result among all tested systems.

Tests in games

FPS measured by us in popular games on AMD A10-6800K APU (2013 D.Ri) and system requirements. Please note that the official requirements of developers in games do not always match the data of real tests. Also, the result is strongly influenced by the overclocking of the system and the graphic settings in the game. We test at high settings in FullHD resolution to get numbers close to real gameplay.

The most popular config: motherboard for AMD A10-6800K APU (2013 D.Ri) — Gigabyte GA-F2A88X-D3H, graphics card — FirePro V4900, SSD — SSDNow V300 120GB.

Characteristics

The data is not yet filled in, so the tables may lack information or omit existing functions.

Basic

Manufacturer	AMD
Date of release The month and year the processor was released.	09-2015
Cores The number of physical cores.	4
ThreadsNumber of threads. The number of logical processor cores that the operating system sees.	4
Multi-Threading Technology With Intel’s Hyper-threading and AMD’s SMT technology, one physical core is recognized by the operating system as two logical cores, thereby increasing processor performance in multi-threaded applications.	Missing
Base frequencyGuaranteed frequency of all processor cores at maximum load. Performance in single-threaded and multi-threaded applications and games depends on it. It is important to remember that speed and frequency are not directly related. For example, a new processor at a lower frequency may be faster than an old one at a higher one.	4.1 GHz
Embedded Options Available Two housing versions. Standard and designed for mobile devices. In the second version, the processor can be soldered on the motherboard.	No

Video core

RAM

PCI

Data protection

Design

Competitors

Please note that competitors are selected automatically based on performance in a particular task. Therefore, some may puzzle you. We are improving our selection algorithm, treat with understanding.

Compare

AMD A10-6800K APU (2013 D.Ri) vs Intel Core i3-2125

AMD A10-6800K APU (2013 D.Ri) vs Intel Pentium G3260

AMD A10-6800K APU (2013 D.Ri) vs Intel Core i3-6100T

AMD A10-6800K APU (2013 D. Ri) vs Intel Xeon E5-2620 0

AMD A10-6800K APU (2013 D.Ri) vs Intel Pentium G3250

AMD A10-6800K APU (2013 D.Ri) vs Intel Core i3-3250

AMD A10-6800K — processor overview. Benchmarks and Specs

The AMD A10-6800K processor is based on a 32 nm process and Richland architecture. The base clock is 4.10 GHz and the maximum turbo clock is 4.40 GHz. AMD A10-6800K contains 4 processor cores. To make the right choice for upgrading your computer, check out the detailed specifications and test results. Please check your motherboard socket compatibility before choosing.

0.0
From 0
Hitesti Score

TOP 10 processors

Most popular on the site

Intel Celeron N4020
2x 1. 10 GHz (2.80 GHz)

AMD Ryzen 5 5500U
6x 2.10 GHz (4.00 GHz) HT

Intel Celeron J4125
4x 2.00 GHz (2.70 GHz)

AMD Ryzen 3 3250U
2x 2.60 GHz (3.50 GHz) HT

AMD Ryzen 7 5700U
8x 1.80 GHz (4. 30 GHz) HT

AMD Athlon Silver 3050U
2x 2.30 GHz (3.20 GHz)

Intel Core i3-1115G4
2x 1.70 GHz (4.10 GHz) HT

Intel Core i5-1135G7
4x 2.40 GHz (4.00 GHz) HT

AMD Ryzen 5 4600G
6x 3. 70 GHz (4.20 GHz) HT

Intel Celeron N4500
2x 1.10 GHz (2.90 GHz)

Buy here:

AliExpress

General information

AMD A10-6800K base and maximum clock speed, number of processor cores and threads. The more the better (marked in green).

Processor cores, base and turbo speeds

The overall performance of a processor can be easily determined based on its number of cores and threads, as well as its standard and turbo clock speeds. The more GHz, cores and L2-L3 cache a processor has, the better. Please note that high specs require a powerful cooling system and a quality chipset (check the VRM on the motherboard).

Clock frequency:	4.10 GHz		Number of cores:	4
Turbo (1 core):	4.40 GHz		Number of threads:	4
Hyper trading:	No		Acceleration:	Yes
Turbo (4 Cores):	4. 40 GHz

Internal graphics

Some manufacturers (most often Intel) supplement processors with graphics chips, this solution is especially popular in laptops, but ineffective in workstations and gaming stations. The higher the clock speed of the video card and the more memory on board, the better.

GPU name:		AMD Radeon HD 8670D
GPU frequency:	0.84 GHz		GPU (Turbo):	No turbo
Generation:	5		DirectX version:	11. 2
Execution units:	6		Number of shaders:	384
Maximum memory:	2GB		Number of monitors:	2
Technology:	32nm		Release date:	Q2/2013

Hardware codec support

Here we are dealing with specifications that are used by some processor manufacturers. These figures are mostly technical and can be disregarded for comparative purposes.

h364:		Decode
JPEG:		Decode / Encode
h365 8bit:		No
h365 10bit:		No.
VP8:		No
VP9:		No.
VC-1:		Decode
AVC:		Decode

RAM and PCIe

These are the memory standards supported by processors. The higher the standard and clock frequency with the amount of RAM, the better the performance and speed of the processor. It is also worth considering the possibility of memory operation in multichannel mode.

Encryption

Data encryption support

Thermal management and TDP

Technical details

These are key parameters that will help you determine which processor is best. Pay special attention to the release date, the technological aspects of the manufacturing process (measured in nanometers) and the third level (L3) cache.

L3-Cache:	4.00 MB		Technology:	32 nm
Architecture:	Richland		Virtualization:	AMD-V
Socket:	FM2		Release date:	Q2/2013
Price:	ca. 120 $

Devices compatible with this processor

You probably already know which devices use processors. It can be a desktop computer or a laptop.

This synthetic benchmark will help you determine the actual processing power of a single CPU core. Cinebench R11.5 is based on MAXON CINEMA 4D and uses various test scenarios

AMD FX-8310
8x 3. 40 GHz (4.30 GHz)

AMD FX-8150
8x 3.60 GHz (4.20 GHz)

AMD A10-6800K
4x 4.10 GHz (4.40 GHz)

Intel Xeon E5-2697 v2
12x 2.70 GHz (3.50 GHz) HT

Intel Core i5-4250U
2x 1. 30 GHz (2.60 GHz) HT

Cinebench R11.5 performs simultaneous cross-platform tests on all processor cores. Running realistic 3D scenes, this benchmark will unleash the full potential of your single-core Intel or AMD

processor

AMD A8-3870K
4x 3.10 GHz (No turbo)

Intel Core i3-7100H
2x 3.00 GHz (No turbo) HT

AMD A10-6800K
4x 4. 10 GHz (4.40 GHz)

Intel Core i7-6600U
2x 2.60 GHz (3.40 GHz) HT

AMD FX-4320
4x 4.00 GHz (4.20 GHz)

The latter is used to create 3D models and shapes. Cinebench R15 is used to benchmark the performance of single core processors. Hyperthreading capability is not taken into account. It is an updated version of Cinebench 11.5. Like all new versions, the updated benchmark is based on Cinema 4 Suite

software

Intel Core i5-4200Y
2x 1. 40 GHz (1.90 GHz) HT

Intel Celeron N4020
2x 1.10 GHz (2.80 GHz)

AMD A10-6800K
4x 4.10 GHz (4.40 GHz)

Intel Xeon E5-2609 v3
6x 1.90 GHz (No turbo)

Intel Core i5-4210Y
2x 1. 50 GHz (1.90 GHz) HT

Cinebench R15 can be used to test the performance of multi-core processors. The test produces accurate and reliable results. This benchmark is an updated version of Cinebench 11.5, which is based on Cinema 4 Suite soft.

Intel Pentium G4520
2x 3.60 GHz (No turbo)

Intel Core i5-7Y57
2x 1.20 GHz (3.30 GHz) HT

AMD A10-6800K
4x 4. 10 GHz (4.40 GHz)

Intel Core i7-4510U
2x 2.00 GHz (3.10 GHz) HT

Intel Core i3-3250T
2x 3.00 GHz (No turbo) HT

Geekbench 3 is a benchmark for 64-bit Intel and AMD processors. It uses a new power rating system for a single processor core. This software simulates real scenarios for accurate results

Intel Celeron G1830
2x 2. 80 GHz (No turbo)

AMD FX-9370
8x 4.40 GHz (4.70 GHz)

AMD A10-6800K
4x 4.10 GHz (4.40 GHz)

Intel Pentium G3450T
2x 2.90 GHz (No turbo)

Intel Pentium G3440T
2x 2. 80 GHz (No turbo)

Geekbench 3 supports multi-core AMD and Intel processors. Based on MAXON CINEMA 4D, it allows you to get the real comparative potential of the

processor

Intel Core i3-4350
2x 3.60 GHz (No turbo) HT

AMD FX-4350
4x 4.20 GHz (4.30 GHz)

AMD A10-6800K
4x 4. 10 GHz (4.40 GHz)

Intel Core i3-4330
2x 3.50 GHz (No turbo) HT

Intel Core i5-6360U
2x 2.00 GHz (3.10 GHz) HT

Geekbench 5 is the latest software. Completely new algorithms provide fairly accurate test results for single-core processors.

Intel Core i5-2520M
2x 2. 50 GHz (3.20 GHz) HT

Intel Pentium G2030
2x 3.00 GHz (No turbo)

AMD A10-6800K
4x 4.10 GHz (4.40 GHz)

Intel Pentium Gold 5405U
2x 2.30 GHz (No turbo) HT

AMD Athlon II X4 860K
4x 3. 70 GHz (4.00 GHz)

Geekbench 5 shows benchmark results for memory performance and multi-core processor speed. This takes into account the ability to hyperthreading.

Intel Core i5-4210M
2x 2.60 GHz (3.20 GHz) HT

Intel Core i7-5600U
2x 2.60 GHz (3.20 GHz) HT

AMD A10-6800K
4x 4. 10 GHz (4.40 GHz)

AMD Athlon 300U
2x 2.40 GHz (3.30 GHz) HT

AMD Phenom II X4 970
4x 3.50 GHz (No turbo)

We use the Blender benchmark to monitor CPU performance. Test results show how fast the device performs when performing multiprocessing tasks

Intel Core i7-5930K
6x 3. 50 GHz (3.70 GHz) HT

AMD Ryzen 5 1600
6x 3.20 GHz (3.60 GHz) HT

AMD A10-6800K
4x 4.10 GHz (4.40 GHz)

Intel Core i7-9750HF
6x 2.60 GHz (4.50 GHz) HT

Intel Core i7-9750H
6x 2. 60 GHz (4.50 GHz) HT

It tests all and general CPU performance (math calculations, compression and decompression speed, 2D&3D graphics tests). Please note that data may differ from actual situations.

Intel Core i5-6287U
2x 3.10 GHz (3.50 GHz) HT

Intel Core i7-4610M
2x 3.00 GHz (3.60 GHz) HT

AMD A10-6800K
4x 4. 10 GHz (4.40 GHz)

AMD FX-4320
4x 4.00 GHz (4.20 GHz)

AMD Athlon 200GE
2x 3.20 GHz (3.20 GHz) HT

This test measures the performance of integrated graphics on Intel and AMD processors. The result is the calculated processing power in Single-Precision mode FP32

AMD A10-7850K
4x 3. 70 GHz (4.00 GHz)

AMD A10-7800
4x 3.50 GHz (3.90 GHz)

AMD A10-6800K
4x 4.10 GHz (4.40 GHz)

Intel Core i7-4860EQ
4x 1.80 GHz (3.20 GHz) HT

Intel Core i7-4850EQ
4x 1. 60 GHz (3.20 GHz) HT

0.0
From 0
Hitesti Score

Share on social networks:

In order to leave a review, you need to login

Review AMD A10-6800K

Compare AMD A10-6800K

VS

Intel Pentium 7505

AMD A10-5700

AMD A8-7650K

AMD A10-5800K

Intel Core i9-10900KF

AMD A10-5745M

AMD A10-5750M

Intel Core i7-4750HQ

AMD A10-4657M

AMD A10-4600M

AMD Richland A10-6800K review.

Good for purchase, but not for replacement

It’s no secret that the computer components market is going through hard times. Many may note that the lull is now observed in the entire global economy, and not just in the market for computer components. Unfortunately, if there is a lull in the world economy, then there is an ominous silence in the market of computer components. This is due not only to the reorientation of users to mobile products, but also to a decrease in the severity of competition in the market for central processors. The announcement of the new AMD Richland A10-6800K was a vivid demonstration of this fact, as well as a couple of previous episodes by NVIDIA.

The modern computer market is so saturated that most of those who want to buy computers have already purchased them and the main demand is supported only by the office segment. In order to cause a home user to want to upgrade an existing personal computer configuration, it is necessary, at a minimum, to release a new product. NVIDIA recently announced the GeForce GTX 770 solution, which turned out to be a rebranded GeForce GTX 680 solution with higher operating frequencies. And the Intel Haswell product is essentially designed to compete with Intel’s Ivy Bridge solutions of the previous generation, because AMD’s competing products do not stand up to any criticism.

Traditionally, AMD’s position in the APU segment is strong, especially within the FM2 socket platform, which has a sufficient number of functional chipsets for its own implementation. Apparently, AMD considered that existing Trinity products for users would not be enough and decided to introduce new AMD Richland hybrid processors. The peculiarity of these processors was not at all what was expected from the company. She strengthened the integrated graphics unit and left the processor computing part practically without any intelligible changes. But it is the latter that is the weak link of AMD Trinity processors, and because of this, Intel’s Core i3 series solutions are often chosen instead of these processors.

Comparing its new product, AMD focuses users’ attention on the fact that its new product turned out to be revolutionary. The area of ​​the graphic unit is disproportionately larger than the area of ​​the graphic unit of solutions from Intel. The latter is quite predictable, because AMD continues to use the old 32 nm manufacturing technology, while Intel has long since switched to a thinner process and does not see any competition from the German giant.

The emergence of new AMD Richland processors, taking into account innovations in them, suggests that AMD has problems not only with the introduction of a more subtle technical process, but also with inventing faster microarchitectures. After all, it is enough to remember that it was the Athlon XP processor that made AMD the market leader, since Intel Pentium 4 processors could not compete even at higher frequencies — AMD had a more advanced architecture. To date, this advantage has not only been lost, but AMD does not represent any competition for Intel in the segment of solutions costing $220 or more. Thus, Intel independently dictates the market price of processors in the middle and upper price range.

The APU theme is a trump card for AMD to this day. For three years now, AMD’s APU line of GPUs have helped the company maintain consistent demand for its sub-$150 solutions. After all, these solutions have clear advantages in terms of the graphic component, and an undemanding user may well be limited to purchasing them and not pay extra for a separate video card. This move can be considered tactful, but by increasing the popularity of AMD APU processors, the company reduces the popularity and sales of cheap video cards worth up to $100. Unfortunately, or fortunately, Intel’s integrated graphics units are weaker than the integrated graphics units of AMD APUs. A comparison of the top solutions from Intel Haswell and AMD Richland shows that the graphics unit of the latter is faster. Nevertheless, the buyer should understand that when buying Intel Haswell, he gets the opportunity to buy a separate video card at any time and unleash its potential on his system, and in the case of AMD APU, the unleashing of the potential of gaming video card manufacturers is out of the question. The computing data unit of the processors does not shine with any performance.

Unfortunately, the announcement of the AMD Richland APU clearly showed us that the company has lost its passion for modifying the graphics units of its hybrid processors. By marking, the new AMD Richland APU solutions received AMD Radeon HD 8000 series graphics units. If you compare them with AMD Trinity, it turns out that they have not changed anything, that is, they are based on the VLIW 4 architecture, on which AMD video cards were still based Radeon HD 6900. Thus, AMD marketers want to slip the user a «duck» in the form of AMD Radeon HD 8000, when instead of it there is an integrated AMD Radeon HD 69 architecture00.

New AMD Richland processors, like the old ones, are manufactured according to the 32-nanometer architecture, thus 1.3 billion transistors occupy about 246 square millimeters. The latest generations of Intel processors are manufactured using a 22nm process, which makes these solutions not only more energy efficient, but also reduces their area on the plate, thereby reducing the cost of their production.

AMD Richland processors not only did not receive any technical innovations, but also retained the previous thermal packages of 100 and 65 watts of heat dissipation. With an increase in the nominal frequency of processor cores by 5-10%, this is not difficult, because solutions with an unlocked AMD Trinity multiplier were famous for their good overclocking potential, which indicated their «strength» margin.

In the case of the top processor AMD Richland A10-6800K, the manufacturer decided to change the RAM controller. The changes are only cosmetic and relate to the implementation of official support for DDR3-2133 RAM, which few people were interested in in practice. After all, solutions from the AMD APU series are bought by far from inveterate overclockers or «rich» users, so expensive memory with an operating frequency of 2133 MHz is unlikely to be preferred by purchasing memory with a frequency of 1866 MHz.

From all of the above, it becomes clear that the key advantage of the new AMD Richland processors is the preservation of full compatibility with socket FM2, which is implemented using the old proven AMD A85X, A75 or A55 chipsets.