Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop


Forgot your password?
AMD Hardware

AMD Launches New Richland APUs For the Desktop, Speeds Up To 4.4GHz 153

MojoKid writes "AMD recently unveiled a handful of mobile Elite A-Series APUs, formerly codenamed Richland. Those products built upon the company's existing Trinity-based products but offered additional power and frequency optimizations designed to enhance overall performance and increase battery life. Today AMD is launching a handful of new Richland APUs for desktops and small form factor PCs. The additional power and thermal headroom afforded by desktop form factors has allowed AMD to crank things up a few notches further on both the CPU and GPU sides. The highest-end parts feature quad-CPU cores with 384 Radeon cores and 4MB of total cache. The top end APUs have GPU cores clocked at 844MHz (a 44MHz increase over Trinity) with CPU core boost clocks that top out at lofty 4.4GHz. In addition, AMD's top-end part, the A10-6800K, has been validated for use with DDR3-2133MHz memory. The rest of the APUs max out at with a 1866MHz DDR memory interface." As with the last few APUs, the conclusion is that the new A10 chips beat Intel's Haswell graphics solidly, but lag a bit in CPU performance and power consumption.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

AMD Launches New Richland APUs For the Desktop, Speeds Up To 4.4GHz

Comments Filter:
  • I love my AMD (Score:5, Interesting)

    by WOOFYGOOFY ( 1334993 ) on Wednesday June 05, 2013 @12:43PM (#43915713)
    Bulldozer 8150. It rocks the house. Headroom still for a 8350 without having to change platforms- thanks AMD ! 189 bucks. Can't touch it for the price. Highly recommended.
    • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

      by CajunArson ( 465943 )

      Yeah! After waiting 4 months after Bulldozer launched to get that $189 price, and now waiting another 8 months after Piledriver launched to get the current $180 price, you got almost-as-good-at-Intel-in-a-couple-of-synthetic-benchmarks performance for the low low price of $369 in 2013!!!!

      Those blubbering morons who bought the 2600K in 2011 for $350 are stuck with outdated crap that will finally be eclipsed when steamroller launches next year*! What a ripoff!

      * Assuming that they spent extra for the K-series

      • I have the Piledriver and it is fast enough for my needs. Even the area where it is supposedly weaker, FP computation, I can do real-time ray-tracing benchmarks at 1/3 to 1/5th the speed of a 1Tflops GPU.

    • Re:I love my AMD (Score:5, Insightful)

      by gman003 ( 1693318 ) on Wednesday June 05, 2013 @01:06PM (#43915929)

      Depends heavily on use, though.

      Intel's been focusing on single-thread performance and power efficiency - Haswell basically did nothing for performance, giving a few percentage points of improvement, but dropped the power consumption down to the point that putting it in a tablet actually makes sense. Idle power was a particular focus.

      AMD's been focused more on multi-threaded performance, cramming a ton of cores onto one chip. In some cases that works well, but in others they suffer heavily. They also focused on integer, not floating-point, performance. Sadly, even when playing to AMD's strengths, Intel's process node advantage (and compiler advantage, oftentimes) lets them at least keep pace.

      I will agree that AMD has been much better at socket compatibility. My 2006 Intel motherboard is now three sockets out of date, while my similar-age AMD board would probably work with a current Bulldozer. And AMD's pricing, thankfully, reflects their performance. I might be getting one of the Richland chips for a low-cost SFF build I'm planning.

      • while my similar-age AMD board would probably work with a current Bulldozer.

        Yeah, no. That whole "socket compatibility" thing is long gone in AMD. Socket FM1 was released in 2011, FM2 in 2012, probably FM3 this year.

        Compare that with Intel's sockets 1156 (2009), 1155 (2011), 1150 (2013).

        Sure, AM3 is better, let's see how it works out with their next AM3+ release.

  • by intermodal ( 534361 ) on Wednesday June 05, 2013 @12:49PM (#43915761) Homepage Journal

    I'm trying to figure out right now whether office PCs will see the difference between AMD and Intel. It seems like as long as you install plenty of RAM, pretty much anything should handle a moderately multitasking business PC for at least a few years. I keep seeing posts of Intel vs AMD benchmarks, but even with the benchmarks being what they are, how much difference will a nontechnical end user really notice in an office environment? I run an AMD A8 quad core laptop at home, but it runs Linux and does just fine. I don't want to judge Windows performance based on my experience with Linux though.

    • I have a 2yr old core i3 laptop that runs office apps just fine. It'll do high def streaming just fine too. "Regular" office stuff just isn't all that strenuous.

      There are scenarios where you would see a difference, but they tend to be more technical editing or transcoding, source code compilation, database indexing, numerical simulation, etc.

  • Within about a month or so I'll be building a PC- initially when I started the process of selecting parts I was happy to go with an i5 from the last series, but now AMD and Intel both release their new guns...

    I'm not sure which to go with any more- still leaning towards Intel since I'll be getting a separate graphics card and I like their raw power, but at the same time, it's hard to beat the price on AMD.

    Good thing I've still got a month to mull it over.
    • AMDs heat kills it for me. I would rather spend money on the processor then extra cooling. With a stock cooler, Sandy and Ivy Bridge machines are almost silent.
      • Actually one of the comments I read about the Ivy Bridge i5 I was looking at mentioned how the fan was less than reliable, which is one of the reasons I'm quite glad these came out when they did, since I'd love to read the reviews without (immediately) spending more on cooling.

        You never had (cpu related) cooling problems with your intel machines? That would be quite helpful to know, actually!
        • I havent had heat issues since I upgraded everything to Sandy Bridge or above. Currently i have a i5-2500k in a Bit Fenix Prodigy case, a i5-2450S in an Antec ISK 300-150, a Celeron 1610 (Ivy Bridge) in an Antec ISK-110, and a i5-2400 in a mid tower case. All of them have stock cooling and work great.
          • Good to know, thank you! I think I'll still invest in a little extra cooling down the road for overclocking (especially if/when I decide to Crossfire), but considering how far over my original budget I've gone, if I can hold out on pushing my system for a while to save some money, I think I'll do just that.

            +1 Helpful, good sir.
    • I'm not sure which to go with any more- still leaning towards Intel since I'll be getting a separate graphics card and I like their raw power, but at the same time, it's hard to beat the price on AMD. Good thing I've still got a month to mull it over.

      You can get a cheat quad core AMD - the Athlon series of the FM2 socket come with disabled gpu and low price (70 euros or maybe lower for a quad).

      I have a A8-5500 and its just perfect for my needs. I run Linux on it and so far its flawless (even the maligned fglrx driver runs perfectly). The GPU in it handles everything i need and its runs cool&quiet with its DEFAULT heatsink (which is small).

      Anyway, i find all this benchmark wars a bit like pissing contests since, as PC sales too suggest, the curren

      • The main thing is that I'm hoping to run games off of these, so I need something with at least a bit of power- I know most of the cheaper ones out I can handle most anything that's put out these days, but I'm hoping to future-proof myself a little, or rather as much as is possible in my budget, since I'm getting this instead of any next-gen consoles. AMD's price is very enticing, and the out of the box clock speeds look pretty impressive, but it seems like the major selling point of this CPU over Intel, asi
  • A10-6800K GPU Cores..384
    Xbox One GPU Cores....768
    PS4 GPU Cores...........1152
    • The new consoles also have hUMA, which is a big step forward.
    • Here, have some more facts:
      Radeon 7870GE GPU Cores: 1280
      Radeon 7950 GPU Cores: 1792
      Radeon 7970GE GPU Cores: 2048
      Radeon 7990 GPU Cores: 4096

      Oh, and don't forget the clock speeds. The A10 and PS4 (and probably the Xb1) run at 800MHz, while many of the discrete cards run at 1GHz (only the 7950 runs at less, at 850MHz).

      • Err no I'm not a console fan at all. I'm only highlighting how slow the APU is compared to other APUs that AMD makes. If AMD wants APUs to be taken seriously they need to make them a little more compelling than entry level. AMD can do that, but they don't. AMD only makes entry level APUs for PC.
        • Sorry, must be spending too much time reading comments on other sites. Thought you were trying to "prove" how "PC gaming" "sucks", just like 80% of the guys on most gaming sites. Apologies.

          • by Xest ( 935314 )

            You can't really criticise people on other sites when you're doing the exact same thing they do - you're jumping at the guy like a rabid fanboy.

            FWIW I was always a PC gamer, I bought a 360 in 2006 and enjoyed a lot of games on it, I had an N64, Gamecube and Wii but never ended up playing them much largely playing PC or 360 instead. I'm back to PC gaming now, mostly Diablo 3, Starcraft 2, and Wargame (both versions).

            Is it really so hard to realise that all platforms have some decent games and that over time

  • by slashmydots ( 2189826 ) on Wednesday June 05, 2013 @08:24PM (#43920075)
    I got an overclocked A10 Trinity original to 4.3GHz stable at a mere 127 Fahrenheit after 1 hour of 100% usage using an aftermarket $20 cooler. The GPU registered a 6.4 graphics rating with 1600 MHz memory and 6.9 with 1866MHz memory. So the more you make it look like a graphics card with GDDR5, the more performance you got out of the graphics. So cue the angry rantings over bad graphics performance from the Kingston value line 1333 CL10 RAM users on forums.

    Anyway, that gaming grade computer was $575 retail at my shop and ran most modern games at medium to high settings. It blows away a GT430 and most GT440's so that's nice. Now if someone wants a doable graphics card with good video encoding speed to boot, boom, APU. These are amazing for that! Usually you're talking about a $500 computer going to $650 minimum to bump up the power supply to support a GTX640 or 650 minimum to even call it a gaming computer. Now you just swap an i3 out for a 4-core APU and tada, basic gaming computer.

Someday your prints will come. -- Kodak