It is currently Sat Sep 20, 2014 1:04 pm

All times are UTC - 8 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 33 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: MSI A88XM GAMING: Premium FM2+ Motherboard
PostPosted: Sun Jun 01, 2014 11:18 am 
Offline
SPCR News Editor

Joined: Thu Feb 10, 2005 11:20 am
Posts: 2175
Location: TN, USA
washu wrote:
Quote:
So look at the list of processors AMD makes the last time they introduced a new FX CPU at 95W or below was December 2012. The most interesting one on that list for me is

FX-6300 C0 6/3 3.5 GHz 3.8 GHz 4.1 GHz 95 W 2012-10-23

is the A10-7850K the fastest APU they have offered yet?

A10-7850K ?? 4 3.7 GHz N/A 4.0 GHz 95 W 2014-01-14

assuming a game plays nice with 2 cores but doesn't get any gain for the 3rd or higher core (which is common in gaming) and you are using the same discrete graphics in a PCIe x16 slot are these two CPUs roughly on par for gaming or is the difference in core design enough to make the FX CPU still better? If so how much faster does the APU have to be to offset the design difference vs the older FX CPU?

The A10-7850K actually has the "better" core design over the FX-6300 so is slightly faster clock-for clock. I say "better" because it is still a pretty bad design, just refined a bit more. AMD really has no excuse for the Bulldozer/Piledriver/Steamroller core design. They already watched Intel make the same mistake with the P4/Netburst, beat Intel at the time because of it, then went and made the same mistake. Lying about what counts as a core doesn't help any either.

If you must stay with AMD then the more interesting chip for you would be the A10-6800K. It has the same core design as your FX-6300, but a higher clock so it would be faster at single/dual thread tasks. It has a weaker GPU than the A10-7850K, but you have already said you would not be using it.


AMD A10 APU - 4MB L2 and no L3 but official support for DDR3-2133 100W
AMD FX6300 CPU - 6MB L2 and 8MB L3 but official support for DDR3-1866 95W

surprising that the A10-6800K has a similar TDP but way lower Pstate voltages

A10-6800K
boosted
#1: 4400 MHz, 1.325V
#2: 4300 MHz, 1.25V
#3: 4200 MHz, 1.15V
nominal
4100 MHz, 1.xV?
reduced
#1: 3800 MHz, 0.9V
#2: 3200 MHz, 0.675V
#3: 2600 MHz, 0.45V
#4: 2000 MHz, 0.25V

vs

fx6300
boosted
#1: 4100 MHz, 1.425V
#2: 3800 MHz, 1.4125V
nominal
#0: 3500 MHz, 1.3xV?
reduced
#1: 3000 MHz, 1.225V
#2: 2500 MHz, 1.125V
#3: 2000 MHz, 1.025V
#4: 1400 MHz, 0.9V

Look at the 2000 MHz comparison 0.25v vs 1.025v and it isn't a typo. The APU has less cache, less cores, and has a year in stepping changes / design improvements. So just reading email or browsing the web it'd be a lot easier to run silent with a A10-xxxxK than a FX-xxxx of comparable cpu ability.

but after you ignore the power differences it looks like the performance would be near even between the two, worse in some, better in others, no reason to switch from one to the other due to the costs involved.

http://www.cpu-world.com/Compare/385/AM ... -6300.html

jump to the A10-7850K and you go from 32nm to 28nm process, a year newer in design and still no big change in performance if you add a dedicated graphics card. The integrated graphics are better, the TDP dropped 5W.

http://forums.amd.com/game/messageview. ... did=171032 has some benchmarks with all 3 cpus in the mix.


but all in all I don't see any of these 3 CPUs being a bottleneck for graphics cards that play in the sub 100W arena that silent PC users tend to play in. Sure you'll get your ePeen boys that won't play with anything less than a $x00 graphics card (and every one has to one up the next and say their limit is $200 higher than the guy before them), but this isn't an arms race. You don't have to have the fastest GPU on the planet.

I'll be looking for the next faster CPU and GPU over the next few months or years but I won't be looking to break the 100W barrier on either one.

oh and if AMD or Nvidia is listening just because you break the 75W barrier doesn't mean the next stop has to be 150W. I have a Gold rated ~600W PSU and I have all the possible power connectors. I'm just looking for the best video card I can get without a fan (think GoGreen edition from powercolor as my ideal). If you make it 150W no one will put out a fanless version. If you make a 80W or 95W that requires the rear power connector that can still be done on a fanless card. And don't wimp out at a 55W TDP on your below 75W target, if I decide to avoid the 150W card I don't want to drop to 55W, give me power efficiency and bang for the buck and feel free to drop it on either side of that 75W line. Start your design goal at exactly 75W and if it has to vary up or down a few watts you can use that to decide which side of the line it falls on. Or just say that APUs have killed the sub 75W market and target 80W and make it use a power connector no matter how efficient it really is. I don't care about the connector itself, I don't care if it is a 2 slot or 3 slot solution (2 slot without fan or 3 slot with insanely quiet fans at something like 500 RPM). I just want the best video card I can get and still have a quiet system.

_________________
.
Please put a country in your profile if you haven't already.
This site is international but I'll assume you are in the US if you don't tell me otherwise.
RAID levels thread http://www.silentpcreview.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=388987


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: MSI A88XM GAMING: Premium FM2+ Motherboard
PostPosted: Mon Jun 02, 2014 6:51 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jun 13, 2007 10:12 am
Posts: 3009
Location: ITALY
washu wrote:
quest_for_silence wrote:
so as they said about 7850 "benchmark indicated lower single-core performance", the statement: - "The A10-7850K actually has the "better" core design over the FX-6300 so is slightly faster clock-for clock" - seems somehow questionable.

You didn't read that review very carefully. The A10-7850K looses to the A10-6800K in single core benchmarks simply because of lower clock speed. In pure one thread tasks they are effectively the same at the same clock speed. Where the Kaveri CPU wins is when more than one thread is running on the same module. Because of the shared resources within an AMD module, a second thread will slow down the first. Kaveri reduces, but does not eliminate this slowdown. As the review you linked shows, when multiple threads are being used the 7850K wins over the 6800K even with the clock speed difference because it can scale better. As long as there is more than one thread running (which on a modern OS is always the case) Kaveri will be faster clock for clock. That is the "better" core design. In a lot of cases the higher clock of Richland negates that, which is why I suggested that to dhanson865 if he is looking for a pure 1/2 thread improvement over his FX-6300.

There really isn't anything with exactly the same clock between Kaveri and Richland. The closest would be the A10-7800 and the A8-6500 with turbo off. Both would then be 3.5 GHz. In a true single thread test they would be the same. In the real world the background threads of your OS would slow down the 6500 more than the 7800, making the Kaveri the winner. In anything really using multiple threads the 7800 would beat the 6500 handily.


Thanks for your own sound (re)analysis, washu: even so, (the trade-off between clock and IPC in Kaveri when more threads are running within the same module, with reference to Richland and Vishera, and which deposes for a better clock-for-clock performance for the newer APUs), I don't see the overall scenario as anyhow favourable for an AM3+-to-FM2 transition (for a system with a mid-to-high-end videocard, not even for a 1/2 thread improvement).
Other people (I hope more skilled than me) seem to share not so-dissimilar thoughts ( with some more in-depth reasoning I won't quote directly, but that you may read in the original reviews) on those recent A10s:

Hardware Canucks
Quote:

Guru 3D
Quote:

Hardware.fr (that's an automatic translation for non french readers, original here)
Quote:


"Kaveri improvements" look like a label for a mixed bag of results: in real life it seems slower than Richland on some single-threaded task like Cinebench, it looks like faster on SuperPi and others, but it lags behind FX-6300 almost in any game when an high performance discrete graphics is involved (see the french review when running a GTX-680). Even efficiency wise the canadians say: "The A10 7850K provides a disappointing counterpoint by consuming nearly as much as the 32nm A10 6800K", while also in the french review the 7850K looks neck-by-neck with the FX-6300 (which is usually better than Richlands too). So, it would not seem that there is a clear condition where the newest APU may shine over their older Vishera brothers, even better, in my humble opinion a transition from AM3+ to FM2 should provide an overall improvement close to negligible, if any (again, with reference to an higher powered discrete graphics setup).
Currently the only reason I see to switch on the APU bandwagon is just to downsizing the whole rig physical dimensions (but that's a rather dismal reason, IMO).

_________________
Regards,
Luca


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: MSI A88XM GAMING: Premium FM2+ Motherboard
PostPosted: Mon Jun 02, 2014 7:38 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Nov 19, 2009 10:20 am
Posts: 475
Location: Ottawa
quest_for_silence wrote:
. So, it would not seem that there is a clear condition where the newest APU may shine over their older Vishera brothers, even better, in my humble opinion a transition from AM3+ to FM2 should provide an overall improvement close to negligible, if any (again, with reference to an higher powered discrete graphics setup).
Currently the only reason I see to switch on the APU bandwagon is just to downsizing the whole rig physical dimensions (but that's a rather dismal reason, IMO).


Let me be clear that I never stated that going from AM3+ to FM2 would be an overall win. I only said it might help in a few specific situations, and then only marginally.

My position on APUs in general is that they currently are a bad idea. In CPU performance they are easily beaten by cheaper processors. At the same price they get destroyed in CPU performance. Better GPU and CPU performance can be had for the same money. If they were significantly cheaper then they would be good, but they are too expensive for what you get.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 33 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2

All times are UTC - 8 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group