AMD A10 APU - 4MB L2 and no L3 but official support for DDR3-2133 100Wwashu wrote: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.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?
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 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
#1: 4400 MHz, 1.325V
#2: 4300 MHz, 1.25V
#3: 4200 MHz, 1.15V
4100 MHz, 1.xV?
#1: 3800 MHz, 0.9V
#2: 3200 MHz, 0.675V
#3: 2600 MHz, 0.45V
#4: 2000 MHz, 0.25V
#1: 4100 MHz, 1.425V
#2: 3800 MHz, 1.4125V
#0: 3500 MHz, 1.3xV?
#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.