• Happy holidays, folks! Thanks to each and every one of you for being part of the Tom's Hardware community!

AMD Richland APU Will Boost up to 4.4GHz

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Status
Not open for further replies.
If Richland will work with the 7000 series in Dual Graphics, the lowest possible model looks to be the 7750. I think anything above this would defeat the object of Dual Graphics due to the 8670D being too weak, let alone the CPU cores.

How does Resonant Clock Meshing stand to help at such high clock speeds? How are AMD planning on keeping power consumption at Trinity levels with the higher clock speeds all round... or is this going to prove an impossible task?

So many questions...
 
Typically you don't see a lot of talk about overclocking APUs, but what interests me is what implications this has for their next traditional desktop CPU iteration. Will the next FX series also be mostly or entirely above the 4GHz mark? It was mostly foreseeable that AMD would hit this mark given the clocks of their previous CPUs, but it's still interesting to see it actually delivered stock on a chip.
 
[citation][nom]crisan_tiberiu[/nom]4 cores, 4,4Ghz, 100w TDP, intrestin' .... lets see the performance of the CPU (we know that the GPU part will kill any Intel HD whatever..)[/citation]
It may kill Intel's integrated GPUs and make games from unplayable to almost playable but for those wanting a bit more it will again be no go because once you add proper PCI-e GPU you will see that AMD CPU will not be fast/good/smart enough to match Intel's CPU.
 
Looks pretty sweet to me. I just hope there is a pretty decent boost in CPU power. If AMD could get the CPU in these to perform close to an i3 in games, they would be a fantastic bargain for gaming budget builds, as the improved CPU could handle CPU intensive games and the integrated GPU + a dedicated card could handle GPU intensive games. I'll wait for the benchmarks and if these outperform the Pentium G series and come close to the i3's, I'll definitely put one in the budget living room PC I'm planning to build later this year.
 
These chips are really good value, probably not much difference in GPU power between it and the consoles, great for a cheap gaming system, 3rd CPU, $60 motherboard, $30 RAM, a $30 case, and a cheap hard drive, bargain!!
 
should be about a hd7750 plus an i3... if the prices are the same as last gen, and they make duel graphics work better, this could be almost a legit HD gaming platform for insanely low prices (the A10-5800k was a 720p gaming platform)
 
[citation][nom]sanilmahambre[/nom]Richland or trinity which is better[/citation]

Richland is essentially a higher clocked Trinity with a new GPU.

Unless if you find a Trinity laptop at a killer sale price during the summer, Richland wins hands down.
 
[citation][nom]downhill911[/nom]It may kill Intel's integrated GPUs and make games from unplayable to almost playable but for those wanting a bit more it will again be no go because once you add proper PCI-e GPU you will see that AMD CPU will not be fast/good/smart enough to match Intel's CPU.[/citation]

I've played L4D2 and Civ 5 on a friend's A10 laptop, and you can get a fairly decent graphics at $600-$700.

Beat that with an Intel laptop!
 
I think the real strength to the apu is the general use laptop where you want mobility as well as the ability to at least play games for around $600.
 
I thought richland was just trinity 2.0 and comes with VLIW4 graphics (same system as the radeon 6950/6970), not GCN graphics. Did something change?
 
[citation][nom]downhill911[/nom]It may kill Intel's integrated GPUs and make games from unplayable to almost playable but for those wanting a bit more it will again be no go because once you add proper PCI-e GPU you will see that AMD CPU will not be fast/good/smart enough to match Intel's CPU.[/citation]
Until you actually build the computer and realise that You can throw in a much better video card for the same price which would certainly wipe out any difference between the CPUs.

You, an enthusiast reading this site should know two crucial things. one, CPUs aren't meant for gaming, GPUs(Graphics Processors) Hence the name are meant for gaming, because gaming utilises graphics mostly. and Price is a big factor in building a computer. Unless you are have Several million in pocket change in the bank. Price is a factor for most people building a system. You want to compare an i7 to an FX? Sure the i7 will win the performance race. but considering that the i7 is roughly $150 more expensive than the FX, and that's just the CPU pricing i can take that money and buy a MUCH better video card. a 7950 vs a 7970 is mucch more worth my $150 IMO. Also. Intel boards are much more expensive and the feature sets on these boards aren't even as good. Comparing oranges to oranges (Can't say apples to apples. they're not apple computers) The Intel Sabertooth z77 vs the sabertooth 990fx, the 990fx is much cheaper. in my city, $244 for the intel vs $184 for the AMD board. I'll take my $60 and like i said, put it in video.

This is my Opinion.
 
[citation][nom]DEY123[/nom]I think the real strength to the apu is the general use laptop where you want mobility as well as the ability to at least play games for around $600.[/citation]

The APU can also be used in desktops. It sits between an Intel-only build (integrated GPU) and an Intel + High-end graphics card (7850 or 660 at least).

The main advantage it has over Intel + mid-low discrete GPU at the same budget is that the CPU can be easily OC'ed unlike the i3s or the low range i5s.

And BLCK OCing is more difficult and dangerous for obvious reasons.
 
[citation][nom]Marco925[/nom]Until you actually build the computer and realise that You can throw in a much better video card for the same price which would certainly wipe out any difference between the CPUs. You, an enthusiast reading this site should know two crucial things. one, CPUs aren't meant for gaming, GPUs(Graphics Processors) Hence the name are meant for gaming, because gaming utilises graphics mostly. and Price is a big factor in building a computer. Unless you are have Several million in pocket change in the bank. Price is a factor for most people building a system. You want to compare an i7 to an FX? Sure the i7 will win the performance race. but considering that the i7 is roughly $150 more expensive than the FX, and that's just the CPU pricing i can take that money and buy a MUCH better video card. a 7950 vs a 7970 is mucch more worth my $150 IMO. Also. Intel boards are much more expensive and the feature sets on these boards aren't even as good. Comparing oranges to oranges (Can't say apples to apples. they're not apple computers) The Intel Sabertooth z77 vs the sabertooth 990fx, the 990fx is much cheaper. in my city, $244 for the intel vs $184 for the AMD board. I'll take my $60 and like i said, put it in video.This is my Opinion.[/citation]

The only issue with that argument is if you throw in Source-based games, Starcraft 2, Total War series, Planetside 2, or any other CPU intensive games, then the GPU would matter less.

But an APU can be OC'ed unlike the i3s or low end i5s.
 
[citation][nom]Marco925[/nom]Until you actually build the computer and realise that You can throw in a much better video card for the same price which would certainly wipe out any difference between the CPUs. You, an enthusiast reading this site should know two crucial things. one, CPUs aren't meant for gaming, GPUs(Graphics Processors) Hence the name are meant for gaming, because gaming utilises graphics mostly. and Price is a big factor in building a computer. Unless you are have Several million in pocket change in the bank. Price is a factor for most people building a system. You want to compare an i7 to an FX? Sure the i7 will win the performance race. but considering that the i7 is roughly $150 more expensive than the FX, and that's just the CPU pricing i can take that money and buy a MUCH better video card. a 7950 vs a 7970 is mucch more worth my $150 IMO. Also. Intel boards are much more expensive and the feature sets on these boards aren't even as good. Comparing oranges to oranges (Can't say apples to apples. they're not apple computers) The Intel Sabertooth z77 vs the sabertooth 990fx, the 990fx is much cheaper. in my city, $244 for the intel vs $184 for the AMD board. I'll take my $60 and like i said, put it in video.This is my Opinion.[/citation]
Why are you comparing FX to i7? i5's are similar in pricing to the FX line, and still beat the FX in any gaming benchmark. i5's overclock well and use half of the power of similar FX chips.
 
once you add proper PCI-e GPU you will see that AMD CPU will not be fast/good/smart enough to match Intel's CPU.

What a Bunch of BS that is. But i bet Intel Loves him Dearly......
 
[citation][nom]hakesterman[/nom]once you add proper PCI-e GPU you will see that AMD CPU will not be fast/good/smart enough to match Intel's CPU.What a Bunch of BS that is. But i bet Intel Loves him Dearly......[/citation]

If you thought that was bad enough, take a look at the pro-Intel troll at the bottom of this article: http://wccftech.com/amd-launching-28nm-kaveri-apu-steamroller-cores-2013/

Huge flamewar...
 
I think it's impressive what AMD can do with on-chip graphics, but they need a die shrink. 100W for CPU + GPU just isn't a lot to work with at 32nm. They need to make a viable APU for good 1080p 60Hz gaming at PC medium in the sub-$500 market (entry-level desktops, student laptops, and consoles). They're getting there.

I love my i5-2500k (well not "love"), but we all need AMD to succeed in the APU/CPU market to keep Intel honest.
 
Are these APUs supposed to include Steamroller cores, or still Piledriver? I thought Steamroller was a bit further out, but I won't complain if they launch the cores now.
 
[citation][nom]silverblue[/nom]If Richland will work with the 7000 series in Dual Graphics, the lowest possible model looks to be the 7750. I think anything above this would defeat the object of Dual Graphics due to the 8670D being too weak, let alone the CPU cores.How does Resonant Clock Meshing stand to help at such high clock speeds? How are AMD planning on keeping power consumption at Trinity levels with the higher clock speeds all round... or is this going to prove an impossible task?So many questions...[/citation]

I'm always of the impression that due to the iGPU sharing memory with the system it's going to cripple pretty much any Crossfire that goes on. I suppose maybe with DDR4 or 2400+ DDR3 it might be a bit better, but it still can't match dedicated RAM speeds. I'd love to see them put some dedicated RAM on the APU.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom