AMD A10-5800K APU for Socket FM2

[cadaveca]

To read this review go to: http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/FM2_APU_Review/

[Assimilator]

The most appropriate graphs:



A10-5800K @ 4.4GHz / 100+W can't touch i5 2500K @ 3.3GHz / 95W in multi-threaded scenarios.



A10-5800K @ 4.4GHz / 100+W can't even match Pentium G850 @ 2.9GHz / 65W in single-threaded scenarios. And G850 is half the price of AMD's chip.

That is just sad, no other way to put it.

[Absolution]

Its a pity though that they decided not to ramp up the GPU in the FM2 just because they are comfortably ahead of Intels HD4000 series (even with their Llanos).

New processor, new motherboard, and not so great 3D performance improvement (when paired with the 6670) over the prev generation is a drag. C



ould be understandable if they were going for the tick-tock philosophy, but thats an Intel thing only right?

Tl;dr: Wanted to see these "new" 7000 series cores to be paired with 7000 series cards in dual graphics mode.

[Absolution]

I also dont understand why there is an inconsistency in the comparison of benchmarks.

Why is an intel mobile chip included in the power test?


Why is the A10-5800 (with DG) included with no comparison with a 3850 (with DG)?


In some cases, the 3850 with DG is there but not the A10 with DGL...

[Frick]

Originally Posted by Assimilator

I'll just leave this here:

http://images.anandtech.com/graphs/graph6347/50408.png

And I'll counter with this:



And lets not forget this:



And the cheapest i3 at Newegg is $119.99, which is damnable close to the $122 for the top A10. The A10 is slower in some aspects, quicker in others, on par on most and devestating in GPU performance. In the end it depends on your needs of course, but for a general purpose (with some gaming going on) chip it's great.

[xenocide]

Originally Posted by Assimilator

That is just sad, no other way to put it.

That's one benchmark. The thing that confuses me is that Trinity seems to have faster IPC than Llano, but be worse in heavily threaded benchmarks even being clocked higher at stock speeds. This means the Piledriver design still suffers from scheduler problems--just as Bulldozer did. I'd love to see an A10-5800K vs. an FX-4150 comparison.

At $125, it is a great entry level CPU, but if Intel can step their iGPU Game up with Haswell (which they are trying very hard to do) even improvements like this wont be enough for AMD. This does offer an excellent budget solution for light gamers though.

Originally Posted by Frick

http://images.anandtech.com/graphs/graph6332/50112.png

I just want to point out though, as time goes on Intel seems to be making greater gains in GPU performance than AMD is. From HD3000 to HD4000 we see a 52.5% gain in performance. By contrast, from the 6550D to the 7560D you see a less than 5% gain, and even from the 6550D to the 7660D you only see a gain of about 17.5%.

[Absolution]

Originally Posted by Assimilator

The most appropriate graphs:

http://images.anandtech.com/graphs/graph6347/50409.png

A10-5800K @ 4.4GHz / 100+W can't touch i5 2500K @ 3.3GHz / 95W in multi-threaded scenarios.

http://images.anandtech.com/graphs/graph6347/50408.png

A10-5800K @ 4.4GHz / 100+W can't even match Pentium G850 @ 2.9GHz / 65W in single-threaded scenarios. And G850 is half the price of AMD's chip.

That is just sad, no other way to put it.

The i5 is for $219, the A10 is for $130. The A10 is priced against the Core i3 3220 (Dual core) - also for $130.

Considering the performance is on par, has better graphics and more cores, AMD's offering is a better choice for a budget system. The question is how much of an improvement it is for existing FM1 users, not much.

[symmetrical]

Originally Posted by Assimilator

The most appropriate graphs:

That is just sad, no other way to put it.

*sigh*

I don't even want to start with the amount of retardation going on here.

[symmetrical]

Originally Posted by Absolution

The i5 is for $219, the A10 is for $130. The A10 is priced against the Core i3 3220 (Dual core) - also for $130.

Considering the performance is on par, has better graphics and more cores, AMD's offering is a better choice for a budget system. The question is how much of an improvement it is for existing FM1 users, not much.

It is an improvement when it comes to the GPU side, which IMO with these chips is one of the more important aspects of it. And at only $122, it's priced accordingly.

[50eurouser]

AMD can't challenge Intel in ipc/single threat performance now but they offer more cores. It's wrong to compare different priced cpu's. A10-5800K is a 2 module 4core apu which is in general comparable to i3's. Pentium/Celeron 1155 just suck, intel has removed every usefull extra i5/i7 have, named AXV/Turbocore/Oc etc. I aslo bet it's a bad invest a dual-core these days like a G8xx series as it will end up with pretty crappy performance in modern multitheat games like Max Payne 3 / Battlefield 3 MP etc. Hanswell will have to challenge AMD Kaveri GCN next year and not Liano/Trinity. Intel HD4000/2500 3rd Gen. iGpu can't even compare with Liano in Game Perf. or image quality, it will take some time for amd to match intel's ipc performance.

[Frick]

Originally Posted by xenocide

I just want to point out though, as time goes on Intel seems to be making greater gains in GPU performance than AMD is. From HD3000 to HD4000 we see a 52.5% gain in performance. By contrast, from the 6550D to the 7560D you see a less than 5% gain, and even from the 6550D to the 7660D you only see a gain of about 17.5%.

On the other hand Intel's offerings were abysmal to begin with. I don't think they can keep up with that in the long run.

[Atom_Anti]

Nice testing and good thoughts. Although I've expected more tests, after I was told you likes to include everything.

Originally Posted by Assimilator

The most appropriate graphs:

Chinbench are to most un-appropriate graphs, that program cannot use Piledrivers cores. And actually for what are you using this synthetic craap?

[Dent1]

Originally Posted by xenocide

I'd love to see an A10-5800K vs. an FX-4150 comparison.

Read The Guru of 3D. The A10-5800k beats it out the FX4100 in pretty much everything.

http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages...iew_apu,1.html

[Absolution]

Originally Posted by Frick

On the other hand Intel's offerings were abysmal to begin with. I don't think they can keep up with that in the long run.

My point exactly.

To sum it up (gaming).

1. Discrete graphics high end > i3 3220 is better if your okay with 2 cores

2. Discrete graphics mid (or paired for A10+6670) > Cant find a review, but I suppose A10 will be better ( i noticed that at toms hardware review, the test setup included the 6670, but only to pair up with the A10. Core i3 results were limited to its iGPU only... sad)

3. iGPU > A10 is better

[AlienIsGOD]

Until I see regular Piledrivers in 6 and 8 core versions im not interested

[Mussels]

reading the review and enjoying it, but the intro seems kinda long and rambling.

[BigMack70]

Nice review. Personally, I don't know that I see any market for this outside of maybe an HTPC in the desktop world. In my opinion, unless you're building an HTPC, the only reason to even have a desktop these days is for serious gaming or serious computing tasks that are far beyond the capabilities of something like an APU or an HD 6670.

Laptops outfitted with an APU or similar can do pretty much all casual computing/gaming tasks at a decent price, so I find the laptop versions of these chips to be a bigger deal.

[darkangel0504]

http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...75#post5140875

loooooool

[Dent1]

Originally Posted by BigMack70

Laptops outfitted with an APU or similar can do pretty much all casual computing/gaming tasks at a decent price, so I find the laptop versions of these chips to be a bigger deal.

I agree. You can have the same casual performance on the laptop APU equivalent. I guess it's cheaper to buy/build a rig around an APU than it is to buy a laptop? Or maybe there are a few casual gamers whom like the security of upgrading it in the future? I guess from AMD's point of view they are trying to make money in the desktop arena rather than resolve our practicalities.

^ darkangel0504. Is that good or bad? What do those Vantage scores tell us?

Originally Posted by darkangel0504

GPU score

NUHHHH. But is it good or bad. How does it compare to other products?

[ensabrenoir]

:OH MY GOSH THIS IS INCREDIBLE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! UNBELIEVABLE!!! AMD....GRAPHICS........RUle........ nothing new here folks keep it moving......keep it moving......

Seriously though.... a step in the right direction...just wished Amd took bigger steps and walked a whole lot faster. The future is in laptops ultra books and tablets. Keep running Amd Keep running

[darkangel0504]

Originally Posted by Dent1

I agree. You can have the same casual performance on the laptop APU equivalent. I guess it's cheaper to buy/build a rig around an APU than it is to buy a laptop? Or maybe there are a few casual gamers whom like the security of upgrading it in the future? I guess from AMD's point of view they are trying to make money in the desktop arena rather than resolve our practicalities.

^ darkangel0504. Is that good or bad? What do those Vantage scores tell us?

GPU score

[Fourstaff]

Very impressive for beating FX 4100, not so impressive but still good power consumption figures. Bring it down by 30% and I think we have a no brainer recommendation for budget systems.

[Frick]

Originally Posted by Fourstaff

Very impressive for beating FX 4100, not so impressive but still good power consumption figures. Bring it down by 30% and I think we have a no brainer recommendation for budget systems.

IMO we still have. Throw some light gaming on it and it'll still deliver.

[Mussels]

and now that i've read the whole thing:


yes, these arent a huge deal in the desktop market, for TPU users.

But just for a moment, imagine this: every cheap-ass desktop, laptop, netbook and nettop with enough performance to run 3D games on low to medium settings.


my laptop has an A6 APU, and i can play starcraft II on it. getting serious gaming done on integrated graphics is pretty mind blowing.

[ensabrenoir]

Originally Posted by Mussels

and now that i've read the whole thing:


yes, these arent a huge deal in the desktop market, for TPU users.

But just for a moment, imagine this: every cheap-ass desktop, laptop, netbook and nettop with enough performance to run 3D games on low to medium settings.


my laptop has an A6 APU, and i can play starcraft II on it. getting serious gaming done on integrated graphics is pretty mind blowing.

No doubt this should make AMD(and me ) a boat load of money. If this don't lock down the entry level market translate into huge profits Amd should give up tech and just make shoes or something.