AMD Launches New Flagship APU With Wraith Cooler

Status
Not open for further replies.

dyevad

Distinguished
Jun 23, 2010
4
0
18,510
0
Is this going to end up in the CPU performance per dollar cost chart? I love those things. I have an 8 core 8120. How much better does this CPU perform?
 

hst101rox

Reputable
Aug 28, 2014
436
0
4,810
14
Is this going to end up in the CPU performance per dollar cost chart? I love those things. I have an 8 core 8120. How much better does this CPU perform?
A couple % better, linear with clock speed increase.

Their Zen CPUs for 2016/2017 might bring a good jump in performance and efficiency though.
What is the difference between the Wraith cooler and the 'New 125w thermal solution'? EDIT: Basically the non-wraith just doesn't have the fan shroud, so a bit more noise, says Anand.

Since the new APU and CPU have just about the same CPU core clockspeeds, and the same TDP, I suppose the APU will throttle down the CPU core clocks if the GPU is heavily utilized. Or it's let it go beyond the TDP if temps are fine?
 

RedJaron

Splendid
Moderator
An 880K won't perform any better than a properly cooled and overclocked 860K. But an 860K has difficulty even matching a Haswell i3. I've done a fair amount of experimenting with 860K and given it every reasonable chance to shine. The problem is that getting them overclocked where they can take on an i3 requires spending additional money on a quality mboard and CPU cooler. By the time you do so, you've spent as much or more as you would've on a regular i3 platform. In general, it's not worth it.

If the 860K gets the 7870K treatment and receives the new cooler without increasing its cost, it will get a nice bump in value. But even then, I don't see them as much more than a good way to get a quad-core CPU for those on the smallest and tightest of budgets. If you can stretch your money at all to afford an i3 or FX-6300, those are far better CPUs.
 

nix27

Reputable
Jul 28, 2014
36
0
4,530
0
When is the last time AMD actually released a new product instead of just squeezing out more performance from already existing products and renaming them? What is happening with AMD?
 

IInuyasha74

Splendid
Moderator


Exactly, that is really the problem with it. At $94.99, it actually costs more than the FX 6300!
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819113286

Granted, you will want a better cooler with that as well, but the FX 6300 is a respectable CPU with decent performance and easily outperforms any of the FM2+ CPUs. So the 880K is going to be a hard sell. I actually neglected to mention in the article that the 860K actually has AMD's new 95 W TDP thermal solution, and doesn't really need an aftermarket cooler anymore either unless you get one of the older boxed units. So that gives it an even larger advantage against the 880K.

Long story short, AMDs other products are too competitive for the 880K to really get a position in the market.

@hst101rx: Please read the article, there isn't any real difference. Just the removal of the shroud. Cooling performance, noise production, etc. all remain unchanged.
 

IInuyasha74

Splendid
Moderator


I'm not sure which specific CPU you are talking about, but I'd think you are best to keep your 8120 for now, as it should have overall better performance.

That is not to say, however, that it is going to be substantially faster. The 8120 used the first generation Bulldozer architecture, while all of these processors mentioned above use the third generation Steamroller architecture, which has significant improvements in clock speed and IPC. These CPUs don't have L3 cache too. As such, without having both on hand to test, I can't say for sure how they will stack up against each other, but the FX 8120 should still come out on top because of its additional cores.
 

Calculatron

Honorable
Apr 3, 2013
2,240
0
12,460
384
If they can create a 65 TDP that is pretty close to the original A10-7850K, I wonder if they could have created a six-core part that fit within the 95 TDP threshold?

This probably would have taken resources that they did not want to spend, and would have only worked on the higher-end A88X, in case it required a good VRM, but I am sure there would have been a decent market for those types of processors. Especially if they made them with Excavator cores.
 

ta152h

Distinguished
Apr 1, 2009
1,207
2
19,285
0


I'm not sure which specific CPU you are talking about, but I'd think you are best to keep your 8120 for now, as it should have overall better performance.

That is not to say, however, that it is going to be substantially faster. The 8120 used the first generation Bulldozer architecture, while all of these processors mentioned above use the third generation Steamroller architecture, which has significant improvements in clock speed and IPC. These CPUs don't have L3 cache too. As such, without having both on hand to test, I can't say for sure how they will stack up against each other, but the FX 8120 should still come out on top because of its additional cores.


I'm not sure which specific CPU you are talking about, but I'd think you are best to keep your 8120 for now, as it should have overall better performance.

That is not to say, however, that it is going to be substantially faster. The 8120 used the first generation Bulldozer architecture, while all of these processors mentioned above use the third generation Steamroller architecture, which has significant improvements in clock speed and IPC. These CPUs don't have L3 cache too. As such, without having both on hand to test, I can't say for sure how they will stack up against each other, but the FX 8120 should still come out on top because of its additional cores.


I'm not sure which specific CPU you are talking about, but I'd think you are best to keep your 8120 for now, as it should have overall better performance.

That is not to say, however, that it is going to be substantially faster. The 8120 used the first generation Bulldozer architecture, while all of these processors mentioned above use the third generation Steamroller architecture, which has significant improvements in clock speed and IPC. These CPUs don't have L3 cache too. As such, without having both on hand to test, I can't say for sure how they will stack up against each other, but the FX 8120 should still come out on top because of its additional cores.
The 28nm process was not designed for high clock speeds, and certainly do not reach the same clock speeds as the Piledriver based 32nm. But, 1st gen, maybe.

Having said that, saying the 8120 will not be faster in the vast majority of real world uses. First of all, it doesn't really have 8 cores, it has four modules each with two quasi cores each. Each module only had set of decoders on Bulldozer, whereas Kaveri each core has its own.

Plus, Piledriver had substantial improvements over the original Bulldozer, and of course Kaveri improved it a bit more.

Given the difference in clock speed as well, and the overall performance when running applications that run 8 threads would probably slightly favor the 8120, but not by that much.

The big issue is, using 8 cores at once isn't very common at all, and single-threaded performance is generally much more important. And on that, the 880K is around 50% faster. And that's true for anything up to four cores, give or take a few points here and there. You'd have to need 7 or more cores to show any advantage for the 8120.

Also, the L3 cache is so incredibly slow, even AMD has said it does not substantially improve performance.
 

IInuyasha74

Splendid
Moderator
Right, the 28 nm process is designed for higher chip density not higher clock speeds, but you are mistaken about the clock speeds. The FX 8370, which is the highest clocked FX 8000 Series processor, with its 125W TDP has a base clock of 4 GHz and a turbo clock of 4.3 GHz, so it is actually clocked slightly lower than the A10-7890K (base clock 4.1 GHz/Turbo 4.3 GHz). The highest clocked Richland (a slightly improved variation of Piledriver), the A10-6800K, has a base clock speed of 4.1 GHz and a turbo of 4.4 GHz, so it is very slightly faster, but the difference of 100 MHz is extremely small.

I also never said the FX 8120, which is a 1st Gen Bulldozer part, would be slower in any test what so ever. It should be faster in a great number of tasks because of its L3 cache and its additional cores. Yes, I know that that the FX 8120 uses AMD's MCM design, as does Kaveri (Steamroller). It is wrong to think that the cores inside of Steamroller are not the same in that aspect, as it also uses two MCMs.

The 880K will not have 50 percent higher single-threaded performance clock-per-clock than 1st Gen FX part. AMD itself stated the generational performance improvements from Bulldozer to Steamroller are around 30 percent. It might reach that performance thanks to a higher clock speed, but it will not perform that much better clock per clock. This is also not taking into account the L3 cache which FX processors have, and it does substantially improve performance depending on the work load. Gaming shows a great deal of difference, as do certain non-gaming applications. Link somewhere that says otherwise.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/piledriver-k10-cpu-overclocking,3584-8.html

Here you can see a Piledriver FM2 CPU (x4 750k) fighting against the FX-4350, which is essentially the same CPU but with L3 cache. The FX-4350 is clocked at 4.2 GHz (turbo), while the x4 750K is tested at multiple speeds including one overclocked to 4.3 GHz, and as a result should outperform the FX-4350 slightly at this setting. Instead, you can see on several tests that the FX-4350 clocked 100 MHz lower outperforms the X4 750K by a wide margin. Cache on the CPU takes up a considerable amount of space on the CPU. If it didn't actually help, AMD would have stopped producing chips with it long ago, as it would make their processors considerably less expensive to produce. But it improves performance, hence why it is there.
 
These new models with very modest bumps in clock speed makes me wonder if the ZEN models are being delayed longer then expected. Still APUs are not good for gaming rigs even with a 200Mhz bump and a new cooler.
 

Rexolaboy

Reputable
Jul 14, 2015
9
0
4,520
1
An 880K won't perform any better than a properly cooled and overclocked 860K. But an 860K has difficulty even matching a Haswell i3. I've done a fair amount of experimenting with 860K and given it every reasonable chance to shine. The problem is that getting them overclocked where they can take on an i3 requires spending additional money on a quality mboard and CPU cooler. By the time you do so, you've spent as much or more as you would've on a regular i3 platform. In general, it's not worth it.

If the 860K gets the 7870K treatment and receives the new cooler without increasing its cost, it will get a nice bump in value. But even then, I don't see them as much more than a good way to get a quad-core CPU for those on the smallest and tightest of budgets. If you can stretch your money at all to afford an i3 or FX-6300, those are far better CPUs.

Why would you compare a 860k with an I3? the 860k costs as much as an Intel Pentium
 

RedJaron

Splendid
Moderator

If you bothered reading my article I linked, you'd know the answer to that. But for others' consideration...

Because they are each one of the cheapest consumer-oriented, four-thread capable CPUs their respective manufacturers offer. And because most people, like you, consider only the CPU cost, not that of the entire platform. When comparing performance value, you need to include the cost of any part specifically required for that particular CPU to work in your intended use. Typically that means at least the mboard and cooler ( sometimes RAM as well ).

If you're leaving the 860K at stock clocks and don't put any investment into it, it's a fine low-budget chip. But a lot of people see the unlocked multiplier as the gateway to low-budget goodness. Overclocking an 860K in any kind of meaningful way typically means buying an aftermarket CPU cooler for the extra heat and a higher-end mboard that can handle the increased power draw ( as I show in that article, an overclocked 860K draws more power than an overclocked i7-4790K ). An i3 can be dropped into all but the cheapest mboards and still perform great on its stock cooler.

So consider the total cost. $120 i3 + $45 H81 means $165 total for the a bare bones platform. A bare bones OC-able 860K build means a $75 CPU and $20 cooler, leaving only $70 left for a good OCing FM2+ mboard before you're spending more on the weaker CPU than you would on an i3. The lowest boards I'd even try OCing an 860K on run about $55 minimum, meaning you're only $15 under, or 9% less, than the price of an i3. And I've proven that the i3 will give you better then 9% additional performance. With the FX-6300 dropping to around $95 ( I've actually seen it cheaper than an 860K when on sale, ) the 860K is in a very small niche.

Thus, back to my recommendation. If you have an extremely tight budget and need a four-thread CPU, the 860K left at stock is not a terrible way to go. You can even add a slight OC on the stock cooler, provided your case has proper airflow. But if there's any way you can add $25 to your budget, an i3 or FX-6300 is a much better option.
 

alextheblue

Distinguished
Apr 3, 2001
3,078
106
20,970
2
200 MHz increase to the base clock and a 300 MHz boost to the Turbo frequency.
I believe you have that backwards.

If you have an extremely tight budget and need a four-thread CPU, the 860K left at stock is not a terrible way to go. You can even add a slight OC on the stock cooler, provided your case has proper airflow. But if there's any way you can add $25 to your budget, an i3 or FX-6300 is a much better option.
The same can be said about a lot of things. :D If you just spend a little more you can get a faster graphics card! Anyway, for those that don't overclock, some of the Athlons still provide decent value even on an FM2+ platform - though personally I think at this point you'd be crazy to bother with FM2+ OR AM3, since AM4 is just around the corner.

For those that are OK with a mild OC, as you mentioned, that's good too. You can even do a mild OC on a cheap board without touching voltage. If you're sticking with mild OCing only, even a $40-50 Asrock or Asus A68H board would be fine. I also would say that if you were considering overclocking with an 860K and a $20 aftermarket cooler, you might as well get the 880K. It comes with the new Wraith-without-a-shroud heatsink, so you could just take the $20 you were going to spend on an aftermarket cooler and get higher stock clocks, for essentially the same price.

But yes any substantial overclocking on FM2+ only makes sense if you just want to overclock for the fun of it and you're a tightwad.
 

IInuyasha74

Splendid
Moderator


Ah yes I do, thanks for catching that.

Honestly, I think the best value on FM2+ is that 7870K with AMD's Near-Silent 125 W TDP Thermal Solution (which is the official internal name for the cooler that is essentially the Wraith Cooler without the shroud). At $139.99 with a decent $60 board, you are up to $200 total and you already have a decent cooler, CPU, iGPU and board. Toss an extra $30 PSU, $20 budget case, $30 budget HDD and $50 for a better 2x4 GB memory kit and you end up with a PC under $350 that can play games a lot of games at medium settings.
 

RedJaron

Splendid
Moderator

It can be said, but the scale of the improvement in this particular case is huge. We're talking as much as 40% better overall system performance ( depending on workload ) for spending 10% extra money. I can't think of a single GPU jump that makes that much difference for that little money. Also, the CPU will help in every task, not just gaming.
 

gggplaya

Distinguished
Jan 27, 2011
1,034
77
19,390
18
When is the last time AMD actually released a new product instead of just squeezing out more performance from already existing products and renaming them? What is happening with AMD?
It's called ZEN, AMD's next generation platform. It takes years to develop and retool their facility to create, plus Millions or Billions of dollars. It's supposed to start selling next year. They are thinking long term, you are simply thinking short term.
 
The FM2+ is not a good way to go for a good gaming rig there is no real good upgrade path. Even AMD is not supporting it going to the ZEN AM4 later this year. The CPUs popped out are to just tie AMD homers over until late October. Not sure where you are getting a decent hard drive for $30 hope it isn't a refurbished. A 500GB hard drive is $40 wholesale, I do think you can get an 8GB kit for less then $50, but I don't know a good power supply for $30. If you are making a real gaming system you need to plan for future upgrades (like adding a GPU) and any PS you can buy for $30 isn't in the conversation. And a $20 case... An APU rig is for low-end to low medium gaming. It may play the old games okay but why spend money on a dead-end platform? If you like AMD wait for ZEN you'll have lots of options if what we have heard so far is true.
 

IInuyasha74

Splendid
Moderator


...seriously? Try looking at sites that sell computer hardware.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00272NHP4/ref=olp_product_details?ie=UTF8&me=
http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?Submit=Property&Subcategory=14&N=100167523%20600003290%20600003306%20600003321%20600003312%20600003326%20600237350%20600003298%20600003311%20600003279%20600003316%20600003288%20600003300%20600003280%20600543907%20600003297%20600003307%20600003289%20600003324&IsNodeId=1&IsPowerSearch=1&OEMMark=0,N,1

If you can't find a new HDD under $30, you aren't even looking. There are decent power supplies around $30. The Corsair CX 430 is a popular one. It isn't the best PSU out there, but it isn't terrible, and there are others at a close price that frequently run on sale.

The poitn about not having an upgrade path is a mute issue. The majority of systems will never have a CPU upgrade even if there is an upgrade path available. Typically because the cost of upgrading out weighs the reward, unless you have an extremely low-end CPU to begin with. There is no legitimate reason short of a CPU failure that someone that owns an FM2+ Athlon X4 CPU or A10 APU will ever need to upgrade it. They will need to upgrade to a new system eventually, but there isn't any reason to upgrade on the same platform. Most users that buy Intel have the same situation, as there is little reason to ever upgrade a Core i5 or Core i7 to a higher-end CPU on the same socket. Chances are before there is a legitimate reason for a CPU upgrade, the system will be several years old and a full system upgrade will make more sense. There is also no reason to have a dedicated GPU on an APU, as not having to buy a graphics card is the entire reason for the APUs existence.

You seem to have completely missed the comment I was making was for being a low-end budget gaming PC using the 7870. Yes, more expensive cases, PSUs, hard drives and other faster hardware is nice to have, but on a budget APU system, there is little reason to go over what I was listing. The reason someone should buy it, is if they don't have $400+ to spend on a better computer, being the entire reason to get a budget PC in the first place. For those users, Zen will probably make little difference.

Also, just to point it out, the ABSOLUTE WORST thing anyone ever building a PC can do is build it with future upgrades in mind, as it will always end badly and cost more than building the entire system at the same time. The idea of a future proofed, upgrade able PC is a myth that tricks people it to making poor choices when buying a PC, and should never be recommended.
 

alextheblue

Distinguished
Apr 3, 2001
3,078
106
20,970
2
It can be said, but the scale of the improvement in this particular case is huge. We're talking as much as 40% better overall system performance ( depending on workload ) for spending 10% extra money. I can't think of a single GPU jump that makes that much difference for that little money. Also, the CPU will help in every task, not just gaming.
Ah but if you look at the boards I was suggesting, you are saving a lot more than 10%. I've seen people do OCs on them, too. Should have zero issues with a stock or near-stock rig at stock voltages.
I Honestly, I think the best value on FM2+ is that 7870K with AMD's Near-Silent 125 W TDP Thermal Solution (which is the official internal name for the cooler that is essentially the Wraith Cooler without the shroud). At $139.99
When discussing APUs, yes I feel you are correct. That would be a great choice for an all-around machine on the cheap, e-Sports/MOBA and other mild gaming. That's probably among the best bang for the buck, especially given the number of shaders and the GPU clock. You can overclock the GPU too, but if you do get fast RAM.

Red and I were discussing rigs where it's assumed you're getting discrete graphics. In those cases it makes sense to drop the GPU side and put the savings towards a better budget GPU. I think at a given low-end budget I could craft a very competitive AMD solution built off an 880K (I prefer that over the 860K because of the free shroudless-Wraith cooler).

With that said, again, wait a month or so for AM4 platform. I get where you're coming from on upgrades... and you're not incorrect in many cases. But there have been times where I've been able to build/obtain something on the cheap immediately and then slap in a faster CPU and GPU later for a low price. Did it in the socket 7 days (Pentium 166MMX to K6-2 400), did it in the Socket A days (Duron 750 to Athlon XP ~1800+), and once on Socket 739 (single core Athlon ~3200+ to dual-core FX-60 on a killer deal).

So it's worked out for me before, sometimes intentionally (Duron) and other times just as a stroke of luck. AM4 is like getting the Duron now, it's all you can afford and it is good enough to get you by. When Zen hits you have a powerful upgrade option. Plus then you don't have to rip everything out. I would much rather do an in-place CPU and/or GPU upgrade than to have to gut a machine, especially my daily driver.
 


Interesting point of view, of course I disagree with a lot of what you are saying. I sell hard drives everyday and I'm sorry I seem to have missed these great $30 hard drives. Please provide me with a link so I can check them out. The Corsair CX 430 power supply is an okay model but doesn't it usually run from $40 to $55 in price not $30.

And no one ever does a CPU upgrade that is an interesting point considering all the post from people asking what CPU they can upgrade their systems too I see on THG all the time. I guess I'm one of the few that see those post and the ones that I really feel sorry for are the poor guys that bought APUs "gaming systems" begging for an upgrade to make them run better. So some that buy the APUs because they are misinformed about how they will perform are desperately wanting to upgrade, so they can play a new game or play their favorite game at a good FPS. Unfortunately for them there is no real upgrade. I do agree that those that buy an Intel i5 or i7 have no reason to upgrade they are running a very good platform and don't need the CPU upgrade. Mine still runs great by the way. However some have bought Pentiums and OC them to get into the Haswell platform back in the day so they are prime candidates for a upgrade to an i5 or i7, and yes they do exist I've sold to many of them. As to the APU being great because it eliminates the need for a discrete VGA card, well you stick with the APU graphics and I'll stick with my discrete VGA card and lets see who can play the high-end games at a good FPS and has a smile on their face.

There is more to upgrading a system the just swapping out the CPU, there is upgrading the RAM, adding a GPU or upgrading the GPU there is adding an SSD. Getting a new hard drive and even going to a new case and a new power supply. And don't forget now you and even upgrade to Windows 10, seems like a few ways to upgrade to me.

When I build a gaming PCs I always want to offer a build that can be upgraded in the future if the customer wants too. Selling a customer a dead-end system is okay as long as the customer is aware of the fact that he won't be able to play newer more demanding games but on the lowest setting with an APU in some cases that is fine in many cases when the customer is aware of it they want to know what their options are.

If a customer comes to me with a $400 budget for a gaming computer I normally tell them to get a console unit (that has a APU in it). If they come to me and say they have $400 and want to get a gaming system they can upgrade later when they have more money. I'll spend as much time as it takes to give them the best options and I can guarantee it won't include a APU or a $30 hard drive or a $30 power supply. I don't deal in junk, just good quality products. I learned years ago garbage in gives you garbage out. If a guy has an office and ask for a good option for a work computer there are lots of options usually they don't play games at the office so regular integrated graphics are fine a APU isn't needed.

Future proofing your PC is easy just play the same games and use the same programs and your good, lol. It very wise to buy your computer parts with an eye to what you plan to do with it in the future. Making smart choices to give you the maximum ability to expand your computer's abilities to add new components or to options to your computer isn't the absolutely the worst thing you can do, not doing so is.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY