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

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.

 

I'm just dreamin' of that

 

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....

 

guru3d have shown 1 thing which BT`s ancient benchmark ` suite` cannot hope for - when you enable AVX and OCL , this chip KILLS the best IB-E in encoding.


http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/amd_a10_6800k_review_apu,14.html

 

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.

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

 

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-tri...70-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...

 

I can't help but notice this:

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

 

Will it run World of Tanks at 1080p? That's all I play now...

 

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 :

 

Oh dear, that is quite the gap. Wonder what Kaveri will be.

 

Id hazzard a guess the ps4 gpu is exclusive to it for a few years of its life.

 

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

unless they add some eSRAM ala XO

 

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.

 

Oh AMD, please put out a competitive desktop chip sometime please. A two horse race would be so much better for us consumers.

 

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.

 

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.