bit-tech.net

AMD A10-6800K and A10-6700 (Richland) Reviews

Comments 26 to 50 of 62

Reply
RedFlames 5th June 2013, 15:37 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gareth Halfacree
I run Linux

Don't worry... we won't hold it against you... ;)

as for the AMD A-series... the lower end ones [A4/A6] are a bit pants for anything other than basic office work but the 'higher end' ones [A8/A10] are more than fine for most things you'd care to throw at a PC...

Sure gaming would probably benefit from a high[er] end intel [or AMD] chip, but that's not what the A-series is aimed at...
mucgoo 5th June 2013, 15:57 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by RedFlames
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gareth Halfacree
I run Linux

Don't worry... we won't hold it against you... ;)

as for the AMD A-series... the lower end ones [A4/A6] are a bit pants for anything other than basic office work but the 'higher end' ones [A8/A10] are more than fine for most things you'd care to throw at a PC...

Sure gaming would probably benefit from a high[er] end intel [or AMD] chip, but that's not what the A-series is aimed at...
http://vr-zone.com/articles/amd-trinity-a10-5800k-vs-intel-ivy-bridge-i5-3470-discrete-gpu-gaming-performance/17272.html
The 5800k seems to do just fine if you pair it with a discrete graphics card.
RedFlames 5th June 2013, 16:05 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by mucgoo
http://vr-zone.com/articles/amd-trinity-a10-5800k-vs-intel-ivy-bridge-i5-3470-discrete-gpu-gaming-performance/17272.html
The 5800k seems to do just fine if you pair it with a discrete graphics card.

I don't doubt it... a Xeon [well... most of them] will also game just fine... neither are really intended to be used for gaming though... so bemoaning their lack of gaming prowess [where there is any such deficiency] is missing the point somewhat...
dicobalt 5th June 2013, 16:30 Quote
I can't help but notice this:

A10-6800K GPU Cores..384
XO GPU Cores...............768
PS4 GPU Cores.............1152

:(
tonyd223 5th June 2013, 16:45 Quote
Will it run World of Tanks at 1080p? That's all I play now...
Anakha 5th June 2013, 16:47 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by GuilleAcoustic
First this is not "AMD top-end", look at the price ... and what about that "peasant" thing ? I know "peasants" that earns far more money than you ever will .... and not everyone is wiiling to buy or even need an i7 + GTX titan.

Okay, what is the current "AMD top-end"? If it's (Still) Piledriver 8250's, then they're getting their asses handed to them by Intel's 2-year-old mid-range i5s, let alone being anywhere near competing with current Intel offerings.

Seriously, AMD, wtf? I am highly disappoint. And this is speaking as a Bulldozer owner.
GuilleAcoustic 5th June 2013, 17:26 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anakha
Quote:
Originally Posted by GuilleAcoustic
First this is not "AMD top-end", look at the price ... and what about that "peasant" thing ? I know "peasants" that earns far more money than you ever will .... and not everyone is wiiling to buy or even need an i7 + GTX titan.

Okay, what is the current "AMD top-end"? If it's (Still) Piledriver 8250's, then they're getting their asses handed to them by Intel's 2-year-old mid-range i5s, let alone being anywhere near competing with current Intel offerings.

Seriously, AMD, wtf? I am highly disappoint. And this is speaking as a Bulldozer owner.

well, the i5 is not what I would call "a mid range cpu". This is for sure between i3 and i7, but for me the pentium's are entry level, the i3's are mid and the i5's / i7's are high range cpus.

Let's face it, most consumers, including the "gamers" don't even need an i5. And if I need beefy CPU for rendering / crunching, I'd build a render farm using thin ITX mobo's and low power i3's, something like that :

http://res.sys-con.com/story/jul12/2314120/BB-ITX84-rear_0.jpg
runadumb 5th June 2013, 17:54 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by dicobalt
I can't help but notice this:

A10-6800K GPU Cores..384
XO GPU Cores...............768
PS4 GPU Cores.............1152

:(

Oh dear, that is quite the gap. Wonder what Kaveri will be.
rollo 5th June 2013, 18:28 Quote
Id hazzard a guess the ps4 gpu is exclusive to it for a few years of its life.
Harlequin 5th June 2013, 19:43 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by runadumb
Oh dear, that is quite the gap. Wonder what Kaveri will be.

I reckon it`ll be 512 GCN cores = aka AMD 7750

unless they add some eSRAM ala XO
GeorgeStorm 5th June 2013, 19:45 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by SuicideNeil
Pathetic- AMDs top end is beaten ( senseless ) by low-mid range Intel chips that are 3 generations old. Graphics wise, sure, AMD is better if you stick with onboard graphics and don't mind gaming at low res and/or with the settings turned down ( hands up if you like this idea? ). For a kids 1st gaming PC AMD makes sense, or if you are a peasant wom for some reason wants to build a brand new PC but can't actually afford to properly, for anyone else though, heck no....

Not sure if it's a terrible troll or what.

For the lower end their products are pretty viable, most of their APUs will be fine for a daily pc.
phuzz 5th June 2013, 20:56 Quote
Oh AMD, please put out a competitive desktop chip sometime please. A two horse race would be so much better for us consumers.
Yslen 5th June 2013, 21:32 Quote
Not sure why the review is so positive tbh. Intels £92 CPU is considerably faster than AMD's £114 CPU. Even when you overclock the nuts off it, the i3 wins by a fair margin, and does so while using a third of the power.

The graphics are good compared to Intel, but both are pretty useless, and I doubt most people would see the difference between them in every day use. Both are fine for playing videos, neither is very good for gaming.

Regardless of the advantage in old Source games, I don't think the graphics are enough to give such a high score to these chips.
atc95 5th June 2013, 22:46 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonyd223
Will it run World of Tanks at 1080p? That's all I play now...

At high settings I can run wot on my secondary rig at 1200p at around 45 fps so yes it can!

The APUs are actually quite capable chips, not every person uses their pc for gaming so an apu is perfectly capable of 1080p video, browsing the web and a bit of softcore gaming. Intel dominate in terms of enthusiast processors but that is actually only about 20% of the PC market when you think about it. I would actually prefer it if kaveri was just a reiteration of richland using less power and producing less heat as the performance (for what it is intended for) is perfect. People who expect apus to have their place in a gaming rig are just wrong, if you desperately want to go with the fm2 socket, then the athlon II is a very capable chip that can just about hold its own at 4.8 ghz on a h60.
Harlequin 5th June 2013, 23:07 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yslen
Not sure why the review is so positive tbh. Intels £92 CPU is considerably faster than AMD's £114 CPU. Even when you overclock the nuts off it, the i3 wins by a fair margin, and does so while using a third of the power.

The graphics are good compared to Intel, but both are pretty useless, and I doubt most people would see the difference between them in every day use. Both are fine for playing videos, neither is very good for gaming.

Regardless of the advantage in old Source games, I don't think the graphics are enough to give such a high score to these chips.

srsly? troll post or what

the apu can play games perfectly well - not ` OMFG ULTRA` settings that cripple a titan , but well enough lower down the slider.


and that £92 i3 is aweful at gaming . I know as my wife is currently using 1.

and really - `clock the nuts of it`

no , no one buying these will do that - it will be stock 99% of its life.
Yslen 5th June 2013, 23:53 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harlequin
srsly? troll post or what

I disagree and am immediately labelled a troll? I was asking legitimate quuestions, not trying to wind people up.
Quote:
the apu can play games perfectly well - not ` OMFG ULTRA` settings that cripple a titan , but well enough lower down the slider.

The Skyrim benchmark shows that it's pretty unplayable. If you lower the settings, maybe it'll be okay, but that wasn't my point.

My point was that the score (over 80%) given to this APU is much too high, as though the ability to play old games somehow makes it competitive with Intel.

Perhaps there exist a select few who want to play games that are too much for an Intel GPU but will run on this APU, and who don't want to shell out the £40-50 extra for a graphics card equipped system. For those people, yes, perhaps 80% isn't unreasonable.

For the other 98% of people who will ever read this review, it should be more like 55-60% in my opinion. £114 for a CPU that doesn't come close to matching a £92 CPU should be scored accordingly.
Quote:
and that £92 i3 is aweful at gaming . I know as my wife is currently using 1.

Well, just about every benchmark I can find disagrees with you. The APU bottlenecks first, with better gaming performance from the Intel i3 every time.
Quote:
and really - `clock the nuts of it
no , no one buying these will do that - it will be stock 99% of its life

It's overclocked to over 4.7GHz in the article, that's why I mentioned it. The review clearly shows it with a large overclock competing against a stock i3, and still losing by quite a way. If nobody buying these is going to overclock them than they're even worse value for money.

As far as I'm concerned my conclusion is a valid one. These APUs are not a good buy for just about everyone. If you want 3D games, get an i3 and a graphics card. If you don't, get an i3. The APU is nowhere near as good in either of those two scenarios.

You are more than welcome to disagree with me, but please don't call me a troll again, thanks.
SuicideNeil 6th June 2013, 00:36 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by GuilleAcoustic
First this is not "AMD top-end", look at the price

They are the top end of the confirmed AMD desktop APUs, unless there is a longer list of desktop APUs somewhere that no ones mentioned?

Quote:

.. and what about that "peasant" thing ? I know "peasants" that earns far more money than you ever will .... and not everyone is wiiling to buy or even need an i7 + GTX titan.

Those APU are nice to build a compact develpment computer with some decent openGL support (for hardware accelerated visualisation or GPU computing for example).

If a PC is worth building, it's worth building well. And yes, I know the results are good enough for many people who only want to build a low end system, but in terms of gaming performance the results are indeed pretty poor, which makes me question why any enthusiast would give them a second glance...
fluxtatic 6th June 2013, 10:20 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harlequin
thing is - AMD can likely just come back with a consumer version of either the xbox or PS4 chip ; that and kavari is likely going to be 7750 or faster - on die ; not on package as intel have done.

if AMD wanted to go that route , then an MS `esque chip , with on package eSRAM and a 7850 ..... intel wouldn't know what to do.

Wouldn't work - the PS2/XO procs are based on Jaguar cores, which are the successor Brazos/Bobcat. They're quads (actually a pair of quads in the consoles) but they're clocked at 1.6GHz - unless they saved the magic for the low-end, you wouldn't be able to game in Windows on a Jaguar proc. I own two Bobcat boards - they're fine for what I use them for (home server and a PC going in my car), but they're not gaming boards.

The consoles are programmed closer to the metal - there isn't a gigantic OS in the way eating up resources, so you can get way better performance from a console compared to comparable PC hardware. At that, though, this will be the first generation to bear that out - the first XBox used an x86 proc, but nothing else has until this generation, and it's the entire generation. These consoles won't compare much better than lower-end PC hardware by the time they come out, but they'll squeeze impressive performance out of comparatively weak hardware.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SuicideNeil
For a kids 1st gaming PC AMD makes sense, or if you are a peasant wom for some reason wants to build a brand new PC but can't actually afford to properly, for anyone else though, heck no....

Could you sound more like an elitist *****? Not all of us are rolling in unlimited funds we can piss at computer hardware. Sorry if my $600 box doesn't meet your definition of 'built properly', guess that makes me the asshole, huh?
law99 6th June 2013, 11:06 Quote
I've got an A6 dual core for a media pc... now tell me what is bad about it?

65w part
Supports 3D playback @ 1080p
Bitstreaming via hdmi (I'm aware Intel can do this, but you are looking at ~£90 entry point???)

This world is more complicated than a lot of you black and white brigade like to make out. For instance, I'd more than likely end up with a discreet gpu in an itx build with Intel... so any trade off in wattage I saved, I'd lose in the addition of a gpu... as well as miss out on the opportunity to add a dual hd tuner(read I don't want a USB dongle)

And just to point something out to all you B&Ws*, I am firmly in the horses for courses camp. Hence my current "gaming" build is, in fact, an i5 3570k equipped with an AMD 7950 w/boost.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SuicideNeil
If a PC is worth building, it's worth building well. And yes, I know the results are good enough for many people who only want to build a low end system, but in terms of gaming performance the results are indeed pretty poor, which makes me question why any enthusiast would give them a second glance...

Just to rub a little salt in... so you want a cheap, does it all media centre pc for blu-ray playback? Why the hell would I go with Intel? All I'd be doing is spending an extra £50 or £40 for no more experience.

And don't use the word enthusiast as though it only has one connotation. A HTPC "enthusiast" will give more than a second glance. They'll probably hand over some cash too. Especially when similar money to an Intel part give you a slightly better gaming experience with no need to add a discreet gpu(where they'd still level off anyway). So letting, maybe their kids, play a light round of childrens games is an option.

And before you say it... This is not an appealing option.

*I'm going to start calling you B&Ws. As in black and white-ers. I like it because it tends to conform to an elitist ideal. And sounds like BMW which is obviously a similar idea... buying for the prestige, not just the performance and certainly not from any unique or artistic standpoint. (To clarify, I like BMW. I'd own one. But there is just as much fun to be had in all sorts of other areas)
Yslen 6th June 2013, 12:50 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by law99
Just to rub a little salt in... so you want a cheap, does it all media centre pc for blu-ray playback? Why the hell would I go with Intel? All I'd be doing is spending an extra £50 or £40 for no more experience.

Oh, I agree here. The low end models make a lot of sense. I love my E-450 laptop (I go on about it here often enough) and would happily build a media PC with one of the cheaper APUs.

It's the top end of the range I have issues with, or rather, the high score given to it in spite of its weak showing in the tests.
law99 6th June 2013, 15:17 Quote
But that is the very issue I have. Why would I pay, if I was planning on building a HTPC type machine that may play the occasional game on lower resolutions, £20 less for something that would require a dedicated GPU?

I implore you to go back and look again. The results suggest that it would be reasonable to play a game on medium or low settings, at amicable framerates for a paltry 96watts. So if I was say - and forgive me as I've only just learnt about and used one of these - to buy a Pico PSU for silent operation in a small form factor, what am I going to chose?

The product that for £20 less would need a dedicated GPU that consumes less than 74watts(all I have left from my 160w pico psu) to deliver a superior performance? Or spend £20 more and make room for a dedicated PCIe dual hd tv tuner? (or leave a free PCIe slot for use elsewhere)

I think the answer is pretty obvious. Despite the 'weak' performance in the test - which, given the needs of a build using this part are more than made up for and to be quite frank - the difference in perfromance sometimes is so low as to be not perceivable without measurement. And I'm afraid I'm going to reference somewhere else to compound what I'm saying: look at the productivity score and visit the testing methodolgy section to look at what programs are used
mucgoo 6th June 2013, 21:24 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yslen
Oh, I agree here. The low end models make a lot of sense. I love my E-450 laptop (I go on about it here often enough) and would happily build a media PC with one of the cheaper APUs.

It's the top end of the range I have issues with, or rather, the high score given to it in spite of its weak showing in the tests.

I agree it shows poor value compared to a 5800k. There isn't a 20% price bumps worth of improvement.
However I bet the 5800k/6800k remains a useable chip for general desktop use for longer than the an i3. Far superior graphics if hardware acceleration catches on and a quad core even if its slower per thread. The 5600k (33% less graphics units than 5800k) is only £70 and with cheaper AMD motherboard so wins by a margin on cost too. Anyway thats why I put it in my parents new £300 computer which probably won't get replaced for at least 5 years.
rollo 6th June 2013, 22:19 Quote
This is a high end forum in a way very few people are on low end computers on this forum, Everyone just about has spent £1k on there pcs minimum. Some have spent double or tripple that on them. Theres even foke with £2k-3k Alienware Rigs out in this forum.

As people have said for the Low end AMD is fine but if you have a discrete gpu for 1080p gaming and you must have AMD is a none entity. the i3 which is £93 does the same job in games as this chip does.

Lets get this clear niether AMD or Intels onboard will do 1080p gaming at any decent settings you would be better off on a xbox or playstation. You may not like this fact but its the truth however blunt it might be.

Of the 3 computers in my house I personally brought them all and handed them down once I was finished with them. My parents are on a core 2 duo system from the stone age, Guess what its still far to fast for them with a SSD equiped it flys through tasks like no tommorow for there very basic usages.

They will get my current gaming pc when I finally retire it and it will last them till 2020 id imagine before it will be showing its age for there very basic usage. ( which is the same thing 90% of the population use it for Word, Facebook, Email)

Compare the 5800k of AMD to this 6800k if i was buying either id buy the 5800k its a much better value for money chip that does the same in games - 1-2fps. I mensioned what it does in games as thats what people seem to be arguing as a benifit.

the 6800k might be faster in other things than its 5800k but nobody here has mensioned it they have just argued the onboard graphics abilities.

As for using jag as a Chip its clocked at 1.6ghz last i checked and they will struggle to scale it to mainstream speeds. ( no 1.6ghz cpu is going to run a modern game, on a pc they will just refuse to load stating you do not have the required minimum specs )
SuicideNeil 7th June 2013, 02:47 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by fluxtatic



Could you sound more like an elitist *****? Not all of us are rolling in unlimited funds we can piss at computer hardware. Sorry if my $600 box doesn't meet your definition of 'built properly', guess that makes me the asshole, huh?

Yuk, don't talk to me you peasant...

;)

My point was, for gaming, AMD doesn't make much sense as the results are.... not good, as we can all see. For HD video playback, my old AMD3 system was perfectly fine, so spending the extra on the 'top end' ( or low end ) new stuff from AMD doesn't seem worthwhile.

Onboard Intel graphics are worse than AMD ofcourse, but still fine for HD video playback- a 3 gen' old system would still be fine for a media center so again, buying the latest AMD stuff makes little sense as the CPU is still slower, and media playback improvement wouldn't make any difference as you wouldn't be able to appreciate the difference over the older Intel system. No one buys Intel for gaming without a discrete GPU anyway, so if you want to game, go Intel....

I used to be an AMD fan-boy, but I have seen the light...
Quote:
Originally Posted by law99
Just to rub a little salt in... so you want a cheap, does it all media centre pc for blu-ray playback? Why the hell would I go with Intel? All I'd be doing is spending an extra £50 or £40 for no more experience.

If you were starting from scratch, then sure- the current AMD option makes sense since it's cheaper than the current Intel option, just don't expect to do any real gaming on it.
Quote:

And don't use the word enthusiast as though it only has one connotation. A HTPC "enthusiast" will give more than a second glance. They'll probably hand over some cash too. Especially when similar money to an Intel part give you a slightly better gaming experience with no need to add a discreet gpu(where they'd still level off anyway). So letting, maybe their kids, play a light round of childrens games is an option.

That's what I said already- fine for low end gaming. Enthusiast is a broiad term, perhaps I should have been more specific and said 'gaming enthusiast'- who indeed would not really give AMD a second glance unless ££ was really so tight they couldn't afford to build something better ( or worth while... ).
Quote:

*I'm going to start calling you B&Ws. As in black and white-ers. I like it because it tends to conform to an elitist ideal. And sounds like BMW which is obviously a similar idea... buying for the prestige, not just the performance and certainly not from any unique or artistic standpoint. (To clarify, I like BMW. I'd own one. But there is just as much fun to be had in all sorts of other areas)

Why do people seem to think being elite is a bad thing? Being a snob is bad, looking down on people less fortunate is bad; I'm working class earning minimum wage, but I like to keep high standards where-ever possible- I wanted a decent gaming PC so I saved up and built one, what's wrong with not being enthusiastic about AMDs new offering which has relatively dire performance for my needs?

Also, BMW are scum for what they did to Rover- wouldn't touch them with a barge pole...
law99 7th June 2013, 10:50 Quote
Rover were awful anyway.

I don't think liking things that are the best is a bad thing, but, because of a gaming bias, people are jumping on the "AMD is not relevant anymore" band wagon and making spurious value comments without checking any facts on the matter or considering other positions, be it intended main function or whatever.

Sites like Bit-Tech have reviewed the APU honestly with a mean to understand it's function and place in the market. For low power gaming it fits the bill. The scores they give are relevant for the time and place.

If I want to build a media pc that can play some Diablo or Skyrim at 720p on a low preset without breaking 100 watts... I can with the 6700. I can play quite a lot of games actually at probably almost similar settings to an HD console... which I can't with an i3 without making more serious concessions, like losing HTPC functionality. (read: I don't want to sacrifice form factore. I don't want to lose an HD tuner pcie card. I don't want to use a discreet card)

In fact at the level of performance you get, I fail to understand how you couldn't arguably call it an "enthusiast" part, because, actually it is reasonably competitive. (probably because you are missing the point of intended use; be it form factor or whatever)

I read this forum and site and I am not on minimum wage. I have a fairly reasonable PC. I am interested in PC tech. Therefore, I'm interested in pretty much the whole thing, not just the range at the top. If there is an experience to have and you can't see past your GTX670 and core i CPU then that is your problem... this review is a review on the merits available to its price point. Not your £500+ gaming pc build.

It is to AMDs credit that the APU can invoke these arguments. The fact that they have an APU that is clearly playable in this market obfuscates your judgement. A quick look around the internet reveals I could play Bioshock infinte for instance, on the previous model at reasonable settings at 720p... is that a bad thing? What about the new model with slightly better power consumption? (why not look here at what anandtech are showing today?)

Then you start saying things like "if you were building from scratch" ??? What sort of justification is that? Are you saying that I should only buy second hand so that I can receive worse performance in the key areas I'd be looking at buying this APU for?

This argument boggles me. (Let alone before we look at it from the perspective of Bit-Tech who are doing a job of describing what we have now... which is considerable better than recycling a core2 if you want to do anything other than simple playback and spreadsheets and need a small form factor and tdp)

I don't want to use old tech for things it wasn't designed for with diminishing support. Which is basically what you are inferring. That I should dig out my 4200+ because it is good enough... which is hilarious really because the fact is; the argument flipped on its head. I have the money to go out an build a low power machine for an HTPC that can also be used for light gaming, with support for the latest features, and you want me to start recycling old stuff to ... I don't know what you want me to do??? It's like my head is caving in on its self trying to understand what you want from me or the rest of the public for that matter.

And I'm not unaware of the irony of the above statement - which is what further makes me feel like giving up typing as it is like a complete wallbash - the a10 series offers good enough processing for everything else... but the fact is, it is almost exemplary in the market it is trying to occupy at the given price point. Something that core2, i3 or Atom and Pentium cannot deliver.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SuicideNeil
I used to be an AMD fan-boy, but I have seen the light...

I'm one way for one reason, another for the other.

Also... yeah... sorry for rant. :D
Log in

You are not logged in, please login with your forum account below. If you don't already have an account please register to start contributing.



Discuss in the forums