AMD "Richland" goiung up to 4.4GHz with Turbo.

[n0cturnal]

http://www.sweclockers.com/nyhet/164...pp-till-44-ghz

I guess that is AMDs way of battling the low IPC they usually suffer from.

The A10-6800K looks to be an excellent choice for semi-casual gamers on a budget.

GG misspelled topic.

[Deleted]

meh even when clocked higher it won't compensate enough for inherent non optimal core architecture.
also these things are heat machines for sure.
perhaps interesting for on a budget but the previous i5-2500k is likely very similar if not cheaper priced. (182 euro atm here)

[n0cturnal]

100W TDP hardly makes any heat issues at stock speeds.
Also the predecessor A10-5800k is priced at 115Euro and I expect this one to be priced similarly.

[Drunkenvalley]

It's not as if the AMD processors are actually behind in most real use. Linus was pretty early in pointing out that for gaming performance there was hardly a difference, and Tek Syndicate has mostly cemented the AMD CPUs to actually perform better in most of the titles they had to show.

Far as heat goes, that wasn't ever really gone into, but they did make a point about the power consumption; even at 5GHz, their math was basically just saying you saved 30 bucks over 3 years. For anyone who needs budget now, but can pay a minuscule amount more on the power-bill, it's pretty darn moot.

If the new CPU is decently priced and performs well, I wouldn't restrain myself from picking up one if I needed to build a quick PC.

[stalkerzzzz]

It's not as if the AMD processors are actually behind in most real use. Linus was pretty early in pointing out that for gaming performance there was hardly a difference, and Tek Syndicate has mostly cemented the AMD CPUs to actually perform better in most of the titles they had to show.

Here's the second video made by them that compares the FX 8350 and the 3570k http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4et7kDGSRfc. The part that I disagree with is the way they presented the money spent on energy. Who has his PC on for only 3 hours a day just idling?

[Drunkenvalley]

Here's the second video made by them that compares the FX 8350 and the 3570k http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4et7kDGSRfc. The part that I disagree with is the way they presented the money spent on energy. Who has his PC on for only 3 hours a day just idling?

I already saw it. 3 hour use did make me err, but 3 hours of gaming + 6 hours of idle is going to require very little power regardless, and not cost much more.

[n0cturnal]

Here's the second video made by them that compares the FX 8350 and the 3570k http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4et7kDGSRfc. The part that I disagree with is the way they presented the money spent on energy. Who has his PC on for only 3 hours a day just idling?

There is something wrong with the benchmarks in that video. Take Far Cry as an example, in their test the AMD destroys the Intel CPU, in all other test I've seen the Intel CPU comes out ahead.
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/...rk,3379-7.html
http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages...nchmark,7.html
http://www.techspot.com/review/615-f...nce/page6.html

[stalkerzzzz]

I have found some of results weird as well. Logan said that the poor performance of the FX-8350 in the first reviews that were done were caused by some poor optimizations and drivers and that now, after all these months, the CPU is performing better but I still don't understand why the Intel cpu results are so far from the results on other websites.

I also started to wonder why we aren't recommending the FX-6300 for a budget build. It is a bit more expensive then the i3-3220 but in most cases it performs quite close to the Intel cpu at stock clocks and in the end it can be overclocked. It will also perform better in multi-threaded games or applications as well.

[Drunkenvalley]

You should probably suggest it in Marest's thread. Whether chaud will take to recommend AMD or not is hard to know at this time.

A problem is that a lot of benchmarks are flawed to begin with. Many of the games seen on them are no longer relevant, while others are blatantly biased one direction or the other. So creating a good value of how good the CPU is is tricky.

[Yadrin]

The gap is larger in benchmarks vs what someone will notice. You take an individual that would buy that CPU (budget gaming/budget in general) probably wouldn't even notice the performance difference between AMD and Intel atm. Given same price ranges of course.

[DeltrusDisc]

I honestly find these updates and any progress made with their APUs far more interesting than their desktop CPUs (i.e. Bulldozer/Piledriver).

[Deleted]

The day they manage to get a decent APU consisting of a good quadcore and 7850/7870 combo is the day to really take these seriously, But this is a step in the right direction for people on a very limited budget and will allow those people to enjoy gaming who can't really afford an Intel/Dedicated GPU set-up.

[Drunkenvalley]

The day they manage to get a decent APU consisting of a good quadcore and 7850/7870 combo is the day to really take these seriously, But this is a step in the right direction for people on a very limited budget and will allow those people to enjoy gaming who can't really afford an Intel/Dedicated GPU set-up.

...or AMD/dedicated GPU setup. So let's just call it dedicated GPU setup.