AMD A10-5800K Capable of 6.50 GHz over LN2: Company

[chimonow]

Originally Posted by Jizzler

Nice, but how far did they get the GPU portion?

Quite a bit actually! By regrouping their SP's based on a 'newer' architecture they where able to create a 20-50% increase in graphics performance, along with a 10-25% boost computational horsepower! Check out Tomshardware.com for a 5800k review, and also check back to the tech sites for more reviews on the consumer versions!

[TheGuruStud]

Originally Posted by chimonow

Quite a bit actually! By regrouping their SP's based on a 'newer' architecture they where able to create a 20-50% increase in graphics performance, along with a 10-25% boost computational horsepower! Check out Tomshardware.com for a 5800k review, and also check back to the tech sites for more reviews on the consumer versions!

I am suspicious of this post and its account.

[chimonow]

Here goes the OEM benches if you haven't already checked them out! http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/...400k,3224.html

[tacosRcool]

must be nice to reach that speed. Now how much power will it consume?

[chimonow]

Originally Posted by TheGuruStud

I am suspicious of this post and its account.

Please don't be suspicious! lol, I am only here to help!

[chimonow]

Originally Posted by tacosRcool

must be nice to reach that speed. Now how much power will it consume?

65 watts and 125 watts! But what most people don't realize is that is won't be at that power requirement very long or hardly at all! Remember that when buying a 35w and a 55w ivy bridge CPU!

[Jizzler]

Originally Posted by chimonow

Quite a bit actually! By regrouping their SP's based on a 'newer' architecture they where able to create a 20-50% increase in graphics performance, along with a 10-25% boost computational horsepower! Check out Tomshardware.com for a 5800k review, and also check back to the tech sites for more reviews on the consumer versions!

Thanks, the relative increase is nice. But I was looking more for information on it's overclocking abilities, if available. Juggling some build ideas for the wife and kids.

[Mindweaver]

Originally Posted by Jizzler

Thanks, the relative increase is nice. But I was looking more for information on it's overclocking abilities. Juggling some build ideas for the wife and kids.

+1 Yea, I'm looking to upgrade my daughters Q9550/GTX285 with this chip, and a touchscreen monitor for Windows 8 if the numbers are there.. If I have to buy a graphics card then I'll probably go with a i3 or i5 22nm..

[chimonow]

Originally Posted by Jizzler

Thanks, the relative increase is nice. But I was looking more for information on it's overclocking abilities, if available. Juggling some build ideas for the wife and kids.

I am sure it won't be too far off from Bulldozer, Say on air 4.2-4.5 seams reasonable.. What system are you trying to build?

[mediasorcerer]

There is also this thing called price v performance!!! Thats where these chips may shine over intel!!

Thats what some folks forget when they compare just performance v intel, like the article implies i think?

[chimonow]

Originally Posted by Mindweaver

+1 Yea, I'm looking to upgrade my daughters Q9550/GTX285 with this chip, and a touchscreen monitor for Windows 8 if the numbers are there.. If I have to buy a graphics card then I'll probably go with a i3 or i5 22nm..

I will only recommend that if you plan on also going with a discrete GPU! A core i3 will be okay I believe... I just highly recommend you go with the very least a 6670 or higher!

[chimonow]

Originally Posted by mediasorcerer

There is also this thing called price v performance!!! Thats where these chips may shine over intel!!

Thats what some folks forget when they compare just performance v intel, like the article implies i think?

That is where AMD is looking out for Number 1! This is where they get most of their income! Most people don't need that much power!

[Patriot]

Originally Posted by Ikaruga

It's a hard choice: A 2500K with easy and smooth 4.7Ghz on air, or lets mess with an A10 APU and liquid nitrogen =]

Lol ...

Originally Posted by Ikaruga

It's a hard choice: A 2500K with easy and smooth 4.5Ghz on water, or lets mess with an A10 APU and liquid nitrogen =]

Fixed

Cherry/ golden chip may hit > 4.5Ghz on air... but most don't, not at temperatures/voltages that have a long term chip lifespan.

I will agree that 4.5 is painfully easy.
4.8 on water is quite easy... more requires a good board and good chip... and proper cooling.

I have seem many a dead SB and IB from those trying to make their chips into golden chips...
Stable for a few months then not even stable at stock...

(as a folder I value stable clocks over sky high...though seeing the sky is nice occasionally)

[Jizzler]

Originally Posted by chimonow

I am sure it won't be too far off from Bulldozer, Say on air 4.2-4.5 seams reasonable.. What system are you trying to build?

Going to start with at least one system, who it's built for will depend on how the APU's turn out.

Might go for a low-profile/low-TDP build with the A10-5700 and my youngest would use that system (nothing more demanding than Open Arena). Or if the A10-5800K can be easily pushed on air, might build it for my wife with an HD 6670 for Crossfire.

[largon]

Originally Posted by chimonow

65 watts and 125 watts! [...]

I'm sure tacosRcool meant power consumption when OC'ed to the said 6.5GHz, so it's somewhere around or north of 300W.

[okidna]

Gigabyte said that they can achieve 1500Mhz++ on the GPU clock (OC with LN2) with 3DMark Vantage scores over P10000 : http://www.gigabyte.com/microsite/31.../overview.html

[PopcornMachine]

I remember them making a big show of extreme overclocking of bulldozer a week or so before it's release.

And as most people here know, clock speed means nothing comparing architectures. That's the lesson we learned then, and I'm afraid will learn again.

[phanbuey]

Originally Posted by Dent1

Why is everyone always on AMD's case?

Intel has 10x the resources and they promote their processors with unstable LN2 overclocks too but nobody says nothing.

Because AMD always says crap like "Well our processor is better than Intel because of X" and X almost always turns out to be some BS that they made up (remember the "native quad core"?)... Where as intel is a bit more like "Our processor hit 6Ghz. Bam."

For example:

"...Overclocking abilities give AMD's sub-$150 chips such as the A10-5800K, A8-5600K, and A6-5400K an edge over similarly-priced Intel chips..."

So... basically our chips clocking higher = better than intel chips. which is most likely BS.

Its probably a great chip - just as long as you dont read the shiny box that promises magical super unicorn performance.

[Frick]

Originally Posted by phanbuey

Because AMD always says crap like "Well our processor is better than Intel because of X" and X almost always turns out to be some BS that they made up (remember the "native quad core"?)... Where as intel is a bit more like "Our processor hit 6Ghz. Bam."

For example:

"...Overclocking abilities give AMD's sub-$150 chips such as the A10-5800K, A8-5600K, and A6-5400K an edge over similarly-priced Intel chips..."

So... basically our chips clocking higher = better than intel chips. which is most likely BS.

Its probably a great chip - just as long as you dont read the shiny box that promises magical super unicorn performance.

But that is just marketing. And I'm quite sure that a madly overclocked sub $150 AMD chip can beat a $150 Intel chip at stock. Marketing is marketing, nothing new.

[alwayssts]

Originally Posted by Ikaruga

It's a hard choice: A 2500K with easy and smooth 4.7Ghz on air, or lets mess with an A10 APU and liquid nitrogen =]

As a 2600k user I realize I should shut the front door, but I look at it this way:

A 2500k will do 4.7ghz and have the graphics power of potentially 6450 (1875mhz) smooth and easy on air for $220.

A 5800k may do 4.7ghz and have the graphics horsepower of ~6570-6670 (> stock gt640) smooth and easy on air for $150.

2500k is probably around 15% faster per clock on the cpu.
5800k is probably around 300% faster (depending on bw dependency) on the gpu.

It's all relative to what someone is using their computer for and I fully realize that, but as a realistic package for many users, I like those ratios. I can't say I would notice 15% cpu performance most of the time, given when I ran my 2600k stock which would be fairly similar, but certainly recognize how much the iGPU in SB doesn't hack it no matter what you do.

Add a $50 gfx card to a 2500k, and you have the performance of an OC Trinity.
Add a $50 gfx card to a 5800k, you have the performance of a $100 graphics card.

Suddenly the performance/$ is completely skewed, and you have a half-decent gaming setup for less than the price of a 2500k.

Oh yeah, and from experience if you ever watch a 24fps video using SB, be ready for pain.
I am happy with the video performance/options of NI, Trinity is probably similar/better.

I think it is truly difficult to argue against AMD's realistic-usage proposition.

[Dent1]

Originally Posted by phanbuey

Because AMD always says crap like "Well our processor is better than Intel because of X" and X almost always turns out to be some BS that they made up (remember the "native quad core"?)... Where as intel is a bit more like "Our processor hit 6Ghz. Bam."

For example:

"...Overclocking abilities give AMD's sub-$150 chips such as the A10-5800K, A8-5600K, and A6-5400K an edge over similarly-priced Intel chips..."

So... basically our chips clocking higher = better than intel chips. which is most likely BS.

Its probably a great chip - just as long as you dont read the shiny box that promises magical super unicorn performance.

AMD never said that. That quote was added by "btarunr" the moderator to hype up the article.

Originally Posted by Ikaruga

It's a hard choice: A 2500K with easy and smooth 4.7Ghz on air, or lets mess with an A10 APU and liquid nitrogen =]

What makes you think Trinity can't achieve 4.7GHz on air too? (I'm not saying it can or cant)

[theoneandonlymrk]

Originally Posted by Mindweaver

Great achievement! But I would rather see it do 5ghz on air or aio watercooler(H50/H80/H100 and so on...). I don't see how AMD sees this as good PR.. It's like telling some one you have a car with 600hp! BUT it only keeps up with an average 300hp car...

i was temtpted to be sarky ala car comment, but ill stick to just agreeing with you as a usefull Oc shown on water or Air would both impress me more and interest me more.

[Super XP]

Originally Posted by Dent1

AMD never said that. That quote was added by "btarunr" the moderator to hype up the article.
What makes you think Trinity can't achieve 4.7GHz on air too? (I'm not saying it can or cant)

I believe Piledriver can easily hit over 5GHz on air. That RCM technology if implemented properly should give you much higher clocks with each increase making a big performance different. We shall see soon enough.

[Aquinus]

Originally Posted by Super XP

I believe Piledriver can easily hit over 5GHz on air. That RCM technology if implemented properly should give you much higher clocks with each increase making a big performance different. We shall see soon enough.

RCM makes the CPU power usage most efficient at the RCM's resonant frequency. It uses charge pumps to use otherwise wasted energy to supply the CPU again. It recycles CPU power, but the further the clocks get from the resonant frequency the more power it will consume. It will run best to the clock speed that the RCM is tuned to. Higher temperatures could also dampen the RCMs resonant frequency. I'm really curious to see how PD works out. I could care less about it outpacing Intel, the architecture is pretty neat and is a step in the right direction.

[Ikaruga]

Originally Posted by alwayssts

As a 2600k user I realize I should shut the front door, but I look at it this way:

A 2500k will do 4.7ghz and have the graphics power of potentially 6450 (1875mhz) smooth and easy on air for $220.

A 5800k may do 4.7ghz and have the graphics horsepower of ~6570-6670 (> stock gt640) smooth and easy on air for $150.

2500k is probably around 15% faster per clock on the cpu.
5800k is probably around 300% faster (depending on bw dependency) on the gpu.

It's all relative to what someone is using their computer for and I fully realize that, but as a realistic package for many users, I like those ratios. I can't say I would notice 15% cpu performance most of the time, given when I ran my 2600k stock which would be fairly similar, but certainly recognize how much the iGPU in SB doesn't hack it no matter what you do.

Add a $50 gfx card to a 2500k, and you have the performance of an OC Trinity.
Add a $50 gfx card to a 5800k, you have the performance of a $100 graphics card.

Suddenly the performance/$ is completely skewed, and you have a half-decent gaming setup for less than the price of a 2500k.

Oh yeah, and from experience if you ever watch a 24fps video using SB, be ready for pain.
I am happy with the video performance/options of NI, Trinity is probably similar/better.

I think it is truly difficult to argue against AMD's realistic-usage proposition.

I think you misunderstood me or just want to pick on me for some reason I have no idea about, but either way, here i go:

I did not (in any way) say that it's a bad CPU (or it's a bad buy, etc). We could have a conversation where we compare the pros and the cons of the two chips, but that's definitely not what I meant in my post.
The marketing guy was talking about overclockability, and mentioned the i5-2500k. If you overclock, you do it to gain extra performance, and that's something what we can measure. That chip has significantly larger TDP at 4.7Ghz, not to mention that how much more you gonna need to get 2500k@4.7Ghz-ish benchmark figures, because you gonna need a lot more, and that's not gonna be smooth nor easy for sure, let alone the extra noise and electricity bill what will come with it.

APUs are not for serious overclocking, it's a product which currently used for entirely different purposes. They might be the future of course, but we are not there yet. AMD knows that the cheaper and cooler i3-3225 with its HD4000 is targeting the same segment and does everything what the target audience is looking for, so they (understandably) try to emphasise on the overclockabilty of their chip to shift focus from the competitor product, so some people might find it harder to "argue against their realistic-usage proposition"

Again, please don't get me wrong, Trinity APUs are really useful nice products and they can be the better choice in many builds. All I said is that they are hopeless against performance monsters like the SB/IB-K series.