AMD Athlon 5350 And AM1 Platform Review: Kabini In A Socket

Page 6 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Status
Not open for further replies.
... A difference of over 200% under full load and 400%...

:eek2:
That's amazing. I never would have thought it's that much.

And I've got an A6-1450 Temash quad notebook 1-1.4GHZ 2CUs 3-400MHz that rocks that same 8-20w power envelop - plays a mean R6 Vegas2, FEAR, ect

This bodes well for yet-heard-nothing-but-othing from Kaveri mobiles ... power-tuning on 6-8CUs might play Crysis.


 

godsucker

Honorable
Aug 22, 2013
6
0
10,510
This is just to show that other sites do find similar findings:
http://www.servethehome.com/low-power-processor-comparison-april-2014-roundup/
The Athlon 5350 tops out at 20W under full load. Needless to say that they use a picoPSU 150XT....
 

soulsatzero

Reputable
May 13, 2014
3
0
4,510
I spoke with a representative from AMD about this new AM1 series of processors. They are still based on the fx memory controller core platform. Please do your homework on the memory before you by one of these. Yes just like the eight core large cpu's that AMD hyped up so much and that we expected so much from all we really got was improved graphics with a slow memory processor. The memory processors in anything from AMD has been confirmed by the AMD representative to not have been updated since 2012. This is the latest ram configuration that they have: http://support.amd.com/en-us/kb-articles/Pages/ddr3memoryfrequencyguide.aspx . If you have a board with four slots you cannot run dual channel with anything over 1333 ddr3. Since Mark Paperback has been in control of AMD's R&D and technology dept as VP they have only been concerned with updating the GPU and not the memory controller. If his name sounds familiar, it should. He was working for Apple computer systems as head of R&D when the first I4 phones came out that had to have a rubber band wrapped around them to make them work. What does this mean for you, the end user? The graphics on your game will be FANTASTIC, however the program that is running your game will run slower than someone else that can take full advantage of a motherboards four slots and run 32 Gbs of 1866 ram. But on a good note you will get to watch yourself lose in vivid imagery.
 
A little harsh, don't you think? Especially with the AMD link confirming at least some of it (you can use two sticks, but not all four). Still, please refrain from what looks like name-calling. Thanks.

I do believe it is worth pointing out that I am running a pair of sticks of DDR3-1600, at that speed, on a Rev1 990FX Sabertooth...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.