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
drdeathx
by: Fourstaff
Yes you are right. How I arrived at the conclusion that the 3570K idles less than 20w below the 5800K is beyond me, but its probably in some obscure test which involves undervolting and underclocking (and consequently not apples to apples comparison). Anyways I was trying to highlight the fact that power consumption can indeed make a difference in price (and, situationally, cooling costs), something which people should be aware of rather than brush it under. Works perfectly fine in the States where electricity is cheap and plentiful, but over this side of the pond electricity is quite a lot more expensive.
The 3570K is NOT the same apple as you said.... I have no idea why your comparing power consumption from a chip that is over $200 and a more expensive platform. If someone is that concerned about power consumption, they can easily downclock and undervolt and CPU or APU. This discussion is worthless comparing the 2.

by: newtekie1
I finally managed to find my Kill-a-Watt:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v296/newtekie1/5600KPowerIdle.jpg~original

This is Rig2 in my sig so:
4.4GHz CPU Overclock
1013MHz GPU Overclock

Idle...50w! And this is driving 3 monitors.
Very nice Tekie. Every time the Trinity discussion comes up, those that argue against it.. don't own one.... It is all their conjecture.
Posted on Reply
#2
NeoXF
by: arbiter
With that being said, NO ONE would pair one the LOWEST end i3 cpu's with a top of the line gpu. its an Oxymoron
I would, if given a budget of 500 bucks for CPU and GPU, exclusively for gaming (which I'd generally spend on)... it'd be i3-3240 + R7970, not i5-3570K + R7870... of which I'm pretty sure, in 90% of the scenarios, would be a great deal faster then the latter setup.


Anyway, as I've said before... A10-6700T looks like a desktop version of the A10-5750M, same CPU clocks, same GPU clocks, same IMC speed support, just 10W more on the TDP (dunno why...).

This plus a nanoITX FM2 board and fast RAM would make a great SteamBox, LOL.
Posted on Reply
#3
newtekie1
Semi-Retired Folder
by: drdeathx
Very nice Tekie. Every time the Trinity discussion comes up, those that argue against it.. don't own one.... It is all their conjecture.
Exactly, and a lot of them think that overclocking AMD APUs will cause the power consumption to go "through the roof", but since I left all the power saving features enabled and just raised the multiplier and load voltage, the idle power consumption stays pretty reasonable. And since this machine sits idle 90% of the time, it just sits there sipping power, it isn't gobbling down power like some say that it will.

I figured it out, at that power consumption, running 24/7/365(because this is my server), this machine will cost me ~$55 a year to run. Even if the 3220 consumes marginally less power at idle(and I don't believe it does) it isn't going to make but a few bucks difference. The power consumption argument is pretty pointless.

I went with the APU over the 3220 because it gives me the great power consumption while idle AND the much more powerful CPU and GPU when I need it. Oh, yeah, and the AMD build was cheaper.
Posted on Reply
#4
NeoXF
by: newtekie1
I went with the APU over the 3220 because it gives me the great power consumption while idle AND the much more powerful CPU and GPU when I need it. Oh, yeah, and the AMD build was cheaper.
I'm also guessing the FM2 motherboard is quite a bit more feature packed than what you would have gotten on a crappy H61 or B75 tops, 1155 motherboard for the Intel setup...
Posted on Reply
#5
newtekie1
Semi-Retired Folder
by: NeoXF
I'm also guessing the FM2 motherboard is quite a bit more feature packed than what you would have gotten on a crappy H61 or B75 tops, 1155 motherboard for the Intel setup...
Definitely, all SATA 6Gbps ports, 6 USB3.0 ports on the back and 2 more front panel, dual PCI-E x16, overclocking/voltage control options out the ass, debug LED, onboard power/reset buttons...oh and the board only costs $80!
Posted on Reply