Wednesday, July 3rd 2013

AMD Readies a Pair of Energy-Efficient Socket FM2 APUs

AMD's A-series "Richland" APUs are great to have in HTPC builds, but their 65W to 100W TDPs can be a put-off for some. The company is working on a pair of energy efficient socket FM2 APUs based on the silicon, with TDP rated at 45W. The first of the two is the A10-6700T, which features a significantly lower CPU clock speed of 2.50 GHz, with an unknown TurboCore speed; and GPU clock speed of 720 MHz. It's not known if the chip is dual-core or quad-core, but given that quad-core non-K A10-6700 rates in at 65W, it's not improbable for A10-6700T to be one, as well. Also unknown is the stream processor count. Moving on, we have the A8-6500T. Its CPU clock speed is further lowered, to 2.10 GHz, and GPU to 720 MHz, like the A10-6700T, its CPU and GPU core/SP counts are under the wraps.

Source: Guru3D
Add your own comment

80 Comments on AMD Readies a Pair of Energy-Efficient Socket FM2 APUs

#1
torgoth
anyway thats not the source I was speaking of initially, it was someones personal temps on oc.net, either way only reason I said that is so maybe you double check before you use a heatsink without a fan, so you dont cause damage to your cpu.
Posted on Reply
#2
de.das.dude
Pro Indian Modder
umm.. passive cooling doesnt necessarily mean using any heatsink without a fan.
passive heatsinks are specially designed to create their own air flow, or utilize existing air flow.
Posted on Reply
#4
de.das.dude
Pro Indian Modder
i googled his name, seems to be he reviews everything from computers to airsoft guns

by: cdawall
Interesting enough his load temps with an oc are lower than stock even lower than the lower clocked 5800K
lol i didnt even see that XD
Posted on Reply
#5
torgoth
by: de.das.dude
yess 45W! finally we can get away with just a heatsink! no more fans!
by: de.das.dude
umm.. passive cooling doesnt necessarily mean using any heatsink without a fan.
passive heatsinks are specially designed to create their own air flow, or utilize existing air flow.
yeah passive cooling, glad u cleared it up

***


http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/amd-a10-6800k_9.html#sect0
related info > second paragraph after the 1st screenshot...
Posted on Reply
#6
unholythree
Iommu my friends.

My interest in Richland is mainly for the cheap access to new(ish) virtualization tech. Intel's chips are faster, there is little doubt of that, but you have to pay out the nose for any premium features.

The only thing I'm pissed about is that AMD seems to have broken their tradition of almost universal ECC support with these new fangled APUs.

In any case if I can build a whitebox VM server dirt cheap, and with low heat/power I'm happy to give AMD my money.
Posted on Reply
#7
de.das.dude
Pro Indian Modder
by: torgoth
yeah passive cooling, glad u cleared it up

***
http://www.xbitlabs.com/images/cpu/amd-a10-6800k/05.png

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/amd-a10-6800k_9.html#sect0
related info > second paragraph after the 1st screenshot...
and you point being? i still see 61C for the CPU...

if you are comparing the GPU temp, know that GPUs always run hotter than CPUs. 100C to a gpu is like 80C to a CPU..

a lot of GPUs stay at 90C load, with stock coolers.
Posted on Reply
#8
torgoth
by: de.das.dude
and you point being? i still see 61C for the CPU...

if you are comparing the GPU temp, know that GPUs always run hotter than CPUs. 100C to a gpu is like 80C to a CPU..

a lot of GPUs stay at 90C load, with stock coolers.
I see 118 :confused:

by: xbitlabs.com
By the way, the peak permissible temperature for the A10-6800K is 120°C, so our overclocking was limited by the cooler's performance.
Posted on Reply
#9
cdawall
where the hell are my stars
by: torgoth
I see 118 :confused:
First off amd is known for bad thermal sensors on die. The 118c you see is the on die sensor, socket temps only 61c for the Asus board. It is pretty obvious the on die sensors are wrong. 118c would crash not a question and if you look his normal temp is 56c while only pulling 84 watts. Yes that software is 100% believable.

Don't worry though the on die temp sensor for the video card reads as low as 2c and peaks at 29c. So somehow a couple nanometers away thr cpu is running triple that temp without bleeding over to the at times almost frozen gpu core.
Posted on Reply
#10
de.das.dude
Pro Indian Modder
by: torgoth
I see 118 :confused:
as already stated.. it would crash. google the system specs of the 6800k, its 74C.
check cpu world database.
Posted on Reply
#11
Ikaruga
by: drdeathx
I want what he is smoking
As a grown up man, I do not smoke anything, and since you are continuously insulting and disrespect me here, I'm seriously thinking about telling your name to one of my favorite script here, vbulletin:totalignore. I know you don't give a damn, just saying that you might find yourself talking to a wall one day.

The 5800K eats about 85W on stock at full load, and power consumption just skyrockets when you start OC-ing (achieving 130-150W is a piece of cake, really is). I would go for the slowest i5 + GTX650 any time tbh.
Posted on Reply
#12
james888
by: newtekie1
I find that hard to believe since my 5600K clocked to 4.0GHz on the stock cooler and temps didn't break 65°C.
My 5800k had 55c, but that was in an open air environment with the stock cooler.

by: TheinsanegamerN
the a10-5800k has been seen using as much as 161 watts at full load during gameplay.
My 5800k system uses 155w. That is the whole system under load.
Posted on Reply
#13
cdawall
where the hell are my stars
by: Ikaruga
As a grown up man, I do not smoke anything, and since you are continuously insulting and disrespect me here, I'm seriously thinking about telling your name to one of my favorite script here, vbulletin:totalignore. I know you don't give a damn, just saying that you might find yourself talking to a wall one day.

The 5800K eats about 85W on stock at full load, and power consumption just skyrockets when you start OC-ing (achieving 130-150W is a piece of cake, really is). I would go for the slowest i5 + GTX650 any time tbh.
That's nice this is a thread about AMD APU's no one cares that you would spend more money and get an i5+GTX650.
Posted on Reply
#15
TheinsanegamerN
by: james888
My 5800k had 55c, but that was in an open air environment with the stock cooler.



My 5800k system uses 155w. That is the whole system under load.
so was the 161w. that has the cpu, heatsink, asrock a85x motherboard, and ssd. of course, every chip is different, and different brands of ssd use different amounts of power. even so, everything else in that system pulls at most 35 watts.
Posted on Reply
#16
TheinsanegamerN
now, the real question: will the 45 watt a10 have a lower clocked a10-5800k gpu? and how does it compare to the 65 watt a10-6700?
Posted on Reply
#17
newtekie1
Semi-Retired Folder
by: TheinsanegamerN
so was the 161w. that has the cpu, heatsink, asrock a85x motherboard, and ssd. of course, every chip is different, and different brands of ssd use different amounts of power. even so, everything else in that system pulls at most 35 watts.
Why talk about full system load and try to estimate how much of that is actually the CPU? There are reviews that have measured just the CPU power consumption, so you don't need to estimate:


There you go, under load, 85w. The APU is consuming 85w. Either the 161w you saw was for an overclocked chip, or the rest of the system is consuming ~75w.
Posted on Reply
#18
de.das.dude
Pro Indian Modder
ofcourse his cooler wasnt properly attatched. his Overclocked load temps are lower than stock load temps.
Posted on Reply
#19
NeoXF
by: Ikaruga
As a grown up man, I do not smoke anything, and since you are continuously insulting and disrespect me here, I'm seriously thinking about telling your name to one of my favorite script here, vbulletin:totalignore. I know you don't give a damn, just saying that you might find yourself talking to a wall one day.

The 5800K eats about 85W on stock at full load, and power consumption just skyrockets when you start OC-ing (achieving 130-150W is a piece of cake, really is). I would go for the slowest i5 + GTX650 any time tbh.
So what you're saying is, a system that's twice as expensive is a more powerul option? Oh, would've never thought of that...


OK, for anyone who doesn't know or hasn't figured it out yet... A10-6700T is actually a desktop version of the mobile Richland A10-5750M... but with a 10W higher TDP... 2,5-3,5GHz CPU clocks, 533-720MHz GPU clocks and 1866MHz DDR3 support.

Also, here's a bonus:
Posted on Reply
#20
Bjorn_Of_Iceland
meanwhile enjoying some energy efficiency on my proc since day 1.
Posted on Reply
#23
Ikaruga
by: cdawall
That's nice this is a thread about AMD APU's no one cares that you would spend more money and get an i5+GTX650.
by: NeoXF
So what you're saying is, a system that's twice as expensive is a more powerul option? Oh, would've never thought of that...


OK, for anyone who doesn't know or hasn't figured it out yet... A10-6700T is actually a desktop version of the mobile Richland A10-5750M... but with a 10W higher TDP... 2,5-3,5GHz CPU clocks, 533-720MHz GPU clocks and 1866MHz DDR3 support.

Also, here's a bonus:
http://www.silentpcreview.com/files/images/amd-richland/igp-power2.gif
I love that everybody takes only the very last sentence of my comment(s) and go on with that. I was talking about the subject in my previous post, namely that AMD CPUs are simply leaking crap. They eat a ton of electricity and also heat up quite easy (but the IGP parts are decent ones tho). They are basically selling stuff in 2013 which is on par with what Intel had 5 years(!) ago, that a lot of time in computer technology terms tbh, and it should be half the price at least. The problem is that people keep buying from them only because they are cheaper, so they are not really forced to start producing better chips.

ps.: It's also must be noted that the i5+GTX650 combo is not really twice as expensive, because you have to OC the AMD chip while you can undervolt/clock the Intel+NV combo at the same time, and if you add up the difference in (let's say) three years of electricity costs, you might end up not that far perhaps.
Posted on Reply
#24
drdeathx
by: Ikaruga
As a grown up man, I do not smoke anything, and since you are continuously insulting and disrespect me here, I'm seriously thinking about telling your name to one of my favorite script here, vbulletin:totalignore. I know you don't give a damn, just saying that you might find yourself talking to a wall one day.

The 5800K eats about 85W on stock at full load, and power consumption just skyrockets when you start OC-ing (achieving 130-150W is a piece of cake, really is). I would go for the slowest i5 + GTX650 any time tbh.
Here is some power consumpton numbers. Keep in mind the 5800K is at 3.9GHz and Intel 3220 is at 3.3GHz....

These numbers we done with a dedicated 7970. Core for core your probably looking at 30-40 watt difference at 3.3GHz but you cannot. The difference really is not much. Don't get so bent out of shape too BTW.:slap:






This is also at full load on GPU and CPU where these numbers will never be hit in daily use thus the smoking comment... LOL
Posted on Reply
#25
Ikaruga
by: drdeathx
Here is some power consumpton numbers. Keep in mind the 5800K is at 3.9GHz and Intel 3220 is at 3.3GHz....

These numbers we done with a dedicated 7970. Core for core your probably looking at 30-40 watt difference at 3.3GHz but you cannot. The difference really is not much. Don't get so bent out of shape too BTW.:slap:

http://i435.photobucket.com/albums/qq77/AAdeath/Powerconsumptionidle_zps33065e40.png

http://i435.photobucket.com/albums/qq77/AAdeath/Powerconsumptionload_zpsd35dccce.png


This is also at full load on GPU and CPU where these numbers will never be hit in daily use thus the smoking comment... LOL
I do not have any idea (none whatsoever tbh), how this comes to this thread (and from where?), but an i3 PC which eats 95W when it's idle? Seriously..... 95W when it's idle? Are you trolling?
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment