- Aug 25, 2007
- 8,445
- 0
- 30,780
AMD's A10-5800K Trinity APU Overclocked to 7.3 GHz
- Thread starter JMcEntegart
- Start date
- Status
SteelCity1981
Distinguished
- Sep 16, 2010
- 1,129
- 0
- 19,310
ekho
Honorable
- Aug 3, 2012
- 51
- 0
- 10,630
Just remembered the days AMD was more powerful than Intel instead of lower clocks and even lower/equal L2 Cache. This is absolutely not bad, but at this time it's like candy-bars you give them to the babies. Maybe IPC is way more important, what I'm gonna say is AMD's whole architecture is not too bad but not so good at TIHS time also and plus nanometer side(Z60 is a 40nm, why?....) and delays that mostly happens theses recent years for AMD's chips are killing the company, IMO :-S
[citation][nom]spookyman[/nom]And still a i-2500k will beat it at stock speed.[/citation]
Without an add-on graphics card the A10 doesn't need an overclock to Piledrive the 2500k in gaming. And given the 2500k is nearly twice the price, that's pretty sad.
Without an add-on graphics card the A10 doesn't need an overclock to Piledrive the 2500k in gaming. And given the 2500k is nearly twice the price, that's pretty sad.
noblerabbit
Distinguished
- Oct 14, 2010
- 312
- 0
- 18,780
long live AMD! (currently running Phenom II x6 @ 3.5GHz, picked that up for $90, and serves me well)
[citation][nom]spookyman[/nom]And still a i-2500k will beat it at stock speed.[/citation]
Actually no, it doesn't. It might beat it at stuff like excel, winzip, and single threaded apps. but people buying an APU aren't buying one for that. They are buying it for gaming. Try building a sub $500 gaming PC with a 2500k and it will get raped by the A10 for the same price. Your statement is like saying a $40,000 Mustang Cobra isn't any good because an $80,000 Corvette is faster..... you ignorant troll you.
Actually no, it doesn't. It might beat it at stuff like excel, winzip, and single threaded apps. but people buying an APU aren't buying one for that. They are buying it for gaming. Try building a sub $500 gaming PC with a 2500k and it will get raped by the A10 for the same price. Your statement is like saying a $40,000 Mustang Cobra isn't any good because an $80,000 Corvette is faster..... you ignorant troll you.
ojas
Distinguished
- Feb 25, 2011
- 2,924
- 0
- 20,810
Yay so now people are pointing that the A10 beats a SNB i5 because its IGP is better?
I know what you guys are trying to say, but i'm sure when someone says something like this...
[citation][nom]spookyman[/nom]And still a i-2500k will beat it at stock speed.[/citation]
...it's an x86 to x86 comparison that's being talked about.
[citation][nom]fuzznarf[/nom]Actually no, it doesn't. It might beat it at stuff like excel, winzip, and single threaded apps. but people buying an APU aren't buying one for that.[/citation]
Even applies to multi-threaded applications...
@Article: When do we get to see the 10GHz clock speeds Intel promised so long ago? Even with an OC, i mean.
Anyway, if someone's interested in an extremely in-depth article about Haswell, head over here:
http://www.anandtech.com/show/6355/intels-haswell-architecture
I know what you guys are trying to say, but i'm sure when someone says something like this...
[citation][nom]spookyman[/nom]And still a i-2500k will beat it at stock speed.[/citation]
...it's an x86 to x86 comparison that's being talked about.
[citation][nom]fuzznarf[/nom]Actually no, it doesn't. It might beat it at stuff like excel, winzip, and single threaded apps. but people buying an APU aren't buying one for that.[/citation]
Even applies to multi-threaded applications...
@Article: When do we get to see the 10GHz clock speeds Intel promised so long ago? Even with an OC, i mean.
Anyway, if someone's interested in an extremely in-depth article about Haswell, head over here:
http://www.anandtech.com/show/6355/intels-haswell-architecture
Just like the good old days with the P4. Fast clock and poor performance. I wish they kept making the Phenom 2 x6 and brought them to 32nm and released them at 4GHz then they would have a performer. I'd rather use their older tech then their current till they get the problems with their newer architecture worked out.
Two different things are going on here. The A10 is a budget chip and isn't designed for anything beyond 'good enough' performance. We're talking for people who are coming from consoles to play on a PC for the first time. However, the second you step beyond basic budget and spend any sort of money on the computer... the i5 will destroy the A10 in every area. The A10 is aimed for people who want 'cheap' and the i5 is aimed for people who want more out of their computers than integrated graphics can provide.
Now if AMD would step away from the silliness of trying to reinvent Netburst... they could have a killer chip on their hands due to their integrated GPUs being so good. Until then, let's wait to see how much GPU performance increases on the low end Intel side when Haswell is released.
Now if AMD would step away from the silliness of trying to reinvent Netburst... they could have a killer chip on their hands due to their integrated GPUs being so good. Until then, let's wait to see how much GPU performance increases on the low end Intel side when Haswell is released.
[citation][nom]ojas[/nom]Yay so now people are pointing that the A10 beats a SNB i5 because its IGP is better?I know what you guys are trying to say, but i'm sure when someone says something like this......it's an x86 to x86 comparison that's being talked about.[/citation]
The A10 and i5 are in different categories, one is for budget, one is for high end. You can not directly compare a GTX 670 against a Radeon 7770.
If I was going for a budget build, I will not pick the i5 because that would require a dedicated GPU.
The A10 and i5 are in different categories, one is for budget, one is for high end. You can not directly compare a GTX 670 against a Radeon 7770.
If I was going for a budget build, I will not pick the i5 because that would require a dedicated GPU.
Wisecracker
Splendid
- Jan 15, 2007
- 8,103
- 17
- 31,965
[citation][nom]spookyman[/nom]And still a i-2500k will beat it at stock speed.[/citation]
I suspect you might regret that statement when running software with OpenCL/GL-based enhancements.
I suspect you might regret that statement when running software with OpenCL/GL-based enhancements.
silverblue
Distinguished
- Jul 22, 2009
- 1,199
- 4
- 19,285
[citation][nom]tajisi[/nom]Now if AMD would step away from the silliness of trying to reinvent Netburst... they could have a killer chip on their hands due to their integrated GPUs being so good.[/citation]
They're not. They could never hope to have the same length pipeline, for a start, plus NetBurst was actually a very delayed architecture that was meant to come before P3 (someone haul me up here if that was actually debunked). The only comparisons between the two are the high clock speeds (deliberate) and the high power usage (not deliberate in design and only in implementation, and lessened somewhat with Piledriver). I suppose, if you really wanted to make a third comparison, that'd be that using both cores within a module can seriously harm overall performance, much like the initial implementations of HyperThreading, however AMD have recognised the fault and fixed it with Steamroller. Still, the high clock speed would have helped mitigate that a little.
They're not. They could never hope to have the same length pipeline, for a start, plus NetBurst was actually a very delayed architecture that was meant to come before P3 (someone haul me up here if that was actually debunked). The only comparisons between the two are the high clock speeds (deliberate) and the high power usage (not deliberate in design and only in implementation, and lessened somewhat with Piledriver). I suppose, if you really wanted to make a third comparison, that'd be that using both cores within a module can seriously harm overall performance, much like the initial implementations of HyperThreading, however AMD have recognised the fault and fixed it with Steamroller. Still, the high clock speed would have helped mitigate that a little.
[citation][nom]ojas[/nom]Even applies to multi-threaded applications...@Article: When do we get to see the 10GHz clock speeds Intel promised so long ago? Even with an OC, i mean.Anyway, if someone's interested in an extremely in-depth article about Haswell, head over here:http://www.anandtech.com/show/6355 [...] chitecture[/citation]
Good show, Chap!... Take what I said out of context when you quoted me, convenitently leaving off the "FOR GAMING" part.... then end it with a nice off-topic link. Jolly good show!
Good show, Chap!... Take what I said out of context when you quoted me, convenitently leaving off the "FOR GAMING" part.... then end it with a nice off-topic link. Jolly good show!
cRACKmONKEY421
Distinguished
- Dec 27, 2010
- 78
- 0
- 18,630
People really buy APUs for gaming? I mean I know that's the point, but really? You're definately not playing high end games at high resolutions. Just as in the past, maybe a sub $500 gaming computer is better off with AMD parts, but a $500 gaming computer is still a sub-par gaming computer even if you made the very best use of your money. People using i5 2500K for gaming and not adding in an extra graphics card are obviously just wasting their money. Not very useful to compare gaming performance without adding a video card, because any serious gamer adds a video card. And as soon as you add the same video card to both, the i5 still blows away anything AMD has. If the on-chip video were the only option, then and only then would AMD chips look more appealing. That's why A10 is compared to i3 instead of i5. The i5 people usually buy additional graphics cards.
luciferano
Honorable
- Sep 24, 2012
- 1,513
- 0
- 11,810
[citation][nom]chicofehr[/nom]Just like the good old days with the P4. Fast clock and poor performance. I wish they kept making the Phenom 2 x6 and brought them to 32nm and released them at 4GHz then they would have a performer. I'd rather use their older tech then their current till they get the problems with their newer architecture worked out.[/citation]
P4 had crap performance even with its huge frequency advantage. Piledriver has pretty good performance and can beat Intel's i3s quite well instead of losing all around and Trinity has IGPs that can be several times faster than Intel's. Also, I'd take Piledriver on 32nm over 10h on the same process any day. Bulldozer was bad, but it just needs to be ironed out. Look at Trinity, that A10-5800K beats the FX-4100 and it does so without any L3 cache and lower power consumption despite an IGP that is more than half of the Trinity APU die. That's just with one generation that fixed some of the minor issues, just you wait until Steamroller and Excavator tackle some of the major issues.
P4 had crap performance even with its huge frequency advantage. Piledriver has pretty good performance and can beat Intel's i3s quite well instead of losing all around and Trinity has IGPs that can be several times faster than Intel's. Also, I'd take Piledriver on 32nm over 10h on the same process any day. Bulldozer was bad, but it just needs to be ironed out. Look at Trinity, that A10-5800K beats the FX-4100 and it does so without any L3 cache and lower power consumption despite an IGP that is more than half of the Trinity APU die. That's just with one generation that fixed some of the minor issues, just you wait until Steamroller and Excavator tackle some of the major issues.
luciferano
Honorable
- Sep 24, 2012
- 1,513
- 0
- 11,810
[citation][nom]cRACKmONKEY421[/nom]People really buy APUs for gaming? I mean I know that's the point, but really? You're definately not playing high end games at high resolutions. Just as in the past, maybe a sub $500 gaming computer is better off with AMD parts, but a $500 gaming computer is still a sub-par gaming computer even if you made the very best use of your money. People using i5 2500K for gaming and not adding in an extra graphics card are obviously just wasting their money. Not very useful to compare gaming performance without adding a video card, because any serious gamer adds a video card. And as soon as you add the same video card to both, the i5 still blows away anything AMD has. If the on-chip video were the only option, then and only then would AMD chips look more appealing. That's why A10 is compared to i3 instead of i5. The i5 people usually buy additional graphics cards.[/citation]
An i5 without a graphics card is almost twice as expensive as an A10-5800K and A10-5700. An i5 with a discrete card worth having to compare with it (nothing less than a Radeon 7850 IMO) is already $300 more expensive than these A10s in CPU and graphics and would probably be paired with a more expensive motherboard (let's throw in another $40-80 for that) and a more powerful and probably more expensive PSU (I'd just throw another $15-25 in for that). You'd probably also want a better case, so how about another $10-25 there, maybe more for people who want extravagant cases. At the end of the day, it might be around twice as expensive as an A10 build.
One thing that people are forgetting here is not only does Trinity provide an open door to high-value cheap gaming, but it provides a door with a good upgrade path. Once you want more performance than say an A10 and a Radeon 6670 can deliver, you sell the 6670 to get a better graphics card such as a 7850 or an equivalent to it from a future generation at a slight *discount*. You also disable the IGP of the A10 and use the huge thermal headroom increase for some serious overclocking. It wouldn't beat a current i5, but it can easily beat a current i3 by a great margin. That simply isn't something that Intel offers.
An i5 without a graphics card is almost twice as expensive as an A10-5800K and A10-5700. An i5 with a discrete card worth having to compare with it (nothing less than a Radeon 7850 IMO) is already $300 more expensive than these A10s in CPU and graphics and would probably be paired with a more expensive motherboard (let's throw in another $40-80 for that) and a more powerful and probably more expensive PSU (I'd just throw another $15-25 in for that). You'd probably also want a better case, so how about another $10-25 there, maybe more for people who want extravagant cases. At the end of the day, it might be around twice as expensive as an A10 build.
One thing that people are forgetting here is not only does Trinity provide an open door to high-value cheap gaming, but it provides a door with a good upgrade path. Once you want more performance than say an A10 and a Radeon 6670 can deliver, you sell the 6670 to get a better graphics card such as a 7850 or an equivalent to it from a future generation at a slight *discount*. You also disable the IGP of the A10 and use the huge thermal headroom increase for some serious overclocking. It wouldn't beat a current i5, but it can easily beat a current i3 by a great margin. That simply isn't something that Intel offers.
nbelote
Distinguished
- Oct 5, 2009
- 953
- 0
- 19,160
For someone looking to get into PC gaming? Say you have a friend who has heard you and some other friends talk about Guild Wars 2 or whatever and wants to play it with you, but his computer is too old to handle anything but Facebook? Sure, that guy needs an A10-5800k. If, in the future, he wants to keep playing but wants the game to look better, tell him to buy a HD 7850 or something. Later on down the road, when newer games come out and he's now one of the PC gaming crowd he can be introduced to a better FM2 CPU and some serious graphical horsepower.
These APUs weren't necessarily designed with that purpose in mind, but it easily fills the hole. They definitely suit a purpose well, but for we enthusiasts? No, steer clear (unless you're looking for a super-cheap laptop that can handle some light gaming... those A10 laptops go for about $500 if you look hard enough).
These APUs weren't necessarily designed with that purpose in mind, but it easily fills the hole. They definitely suit a purpose well, but for we enthusiasts? No, steer clear (unless you're looking for a super-cheap laptop that can handle some light gaming... those A10 laptops go for about $500 if you look hard enough).
vittau
Distinguished
- Oct 11, 2010
- 221
- 0
- 18,690
I'm not sure of the viability of this, but I just had this idea of a "gatling" processor:
Suppose you have 20 total cores, but only keeps 4 active cores at any given time. After every couple million instructions, the processor would switch current active cores to let the others cool down. Maybe even monitor each core's temperature individually to choose which ones to use next.
I know this would take some serious cache replacement algorithms, and a couple other smart tricks due to increased die size, but who knowns, maybe it would allow much higher clocks.
It would also be scalable depending on applications (no. of active cores X clock).
We are reaching that point where we have to think of EVERYTHING we possibly can.
Suppose you have 20 total cores, but only keeps 4 active cores at any given time. After every couple million instructions, the processor would switch current active cores to let the others cool down. Maybe even monitor each core's temperature individually to choose which ones to use next.
I know this would take some serious cache replacement algorithms, and a couple other smart tricks due to increased die size, but who knowns, maybe it would allow much higher clocks.
It would also be scalable depending on applications (no. of active cores X clock).
We are reaching that point where we have to think of EVERYTHING we possibly can.
- Status
TRENDING THREADS
-
-
-
Question Help needed with connecting an external monitor to my laptop ?
- Started by ciotime
- Replies: 13
-
-
Discussion What's your favourite video game you've been playing?- Started by amdfangirl
- Replies: 4K
-
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram