AMD A10-5800k

[Piroko]

Properly yields. I can't see AMD having ANY interest in selling fully functional APU dies with only the CPU portion enabled. The Athlons are properly harvested from dies on which the GPU is defective for some reason...

I think they won't sell the Athlons in NA because they're unattractive. Intel processors are a lot more expensive across the board in most of Europe:
The cheapest IB Core i5s are 40€ more expensive than a FX6300, the FX8350 beats an i5 3570k and the 5800k beats most of Intels Core i3 lineup in price. Even if you take the more expensive FM2 boards into account, an Athlon2 x4 750k (70€-75€ boxed) will still be cheaper than any Core i3 processors (starting at ~100€ boxed).
If you can live with the drawbacks (higher power consumption, stock cooler worse) you can get a lot more bang from AMD below 150€.

 

[jacktesterson]

Because it's slow. That's why AMD sends their GPUs out with Intel systems to be reviewed.

Even AMD doesn't recommend it - at least their GPU team.

I agree with you for the most part.

If your going to buy a Top End GPU, why buy a APU? It doesn't make sense

Although in the majority of games, the A10 can drive a single 7950/7970 just fine compared to Intel.

Sorry about last night, I was just cranky. I still think though that if you bought the A10 and later added a bigger GPU, the user experience would be quite similar as long as your not benching or going xfire/SLI


I had a thread around a year ago where I had a GTX 580 with a A8-3850 for a few weeks just to mess with and it had no problems pushing the 580. I've had so many different setups its hard to keep track.

 

[Insert_Nickname]

I think they won't sell the Athlons in NA because they're unattractive. Intel processors are a lot more expensive across the board in most of Europe:
The cheapest IB Core i5s are 40€ more expensive than a FX6300, the FX8350 beats an i5 3570k and the 5800k beats most of Intels Core i3 lineup in price. Even if you take the more expensive FM2 boards into account, an Athlon2 x4 750k (70€-75€ boxed) will still be cheaper than any Core i3 processors (starting at ~100€ boxed).
If you can live with the drawbacks (higher power consumption, stock cooler worse) you can get a lot more bang from AMD below 150€.

The problem with the 750K+MB is that I can get an 3220+MB for ~100DKK (~13€) more. If I'm willing to drop down to a G2120 I'll save ~110DKK. It gets even worse if I'm willing to drop further down to a G2020. That'll save me ~275DKK (~36€). If we look at the Celeron G1610, its 375DKK (~50€). I'll loose overclocking, AVX and two integer cores, but how much effect that'll have is doubtful.

(note, this is based on current (today) danish pricing. I'm not sure its directly comparable to other countries)

 

[Piroko]

The problem with the 750K+MB is that I can get an 3220+MB for ~100DKK (~13€) more. If I'm willing to drop down to a G2120 I'll save ~110DKK. It gets even worse if I'm willing to drop further down to a G2020. That'll save me ~275DKK (~36€). If we look at the Celeron G1610, its 375DKK (~50€). I'll loose overclocking, AVX and two integer cores, but how much effect that'll have is doubtful.

Depending on the mainboard one would want to pick it's between 10 and 30€ difference in Germany for the 3220+MB. You can definitely go cheaper with Pentiums, but then I would argue that you'd lose quite a lot performance as well for small savings. As good as the IB cores are, with only two threads locked at 3.1Ghz you could just as well buy something used.

 

[Insert_Nickname]

Depending on the mainboard one would want to pick it's between 10 and 30€ difference in Germany for the 3220+MB. You can definitely go cheaper with Pentiums, but then I would argue that you'd lose quite a lot performance as well for small savings. As good as the IB cores are, with only two threads locked at 3.1Ghz you could just as well buy something used.

I wasn't saying the 750K is uncompetitive. That MB I was using for comparison is the ABSOLUTE cheapest Gigabyte (GA-H61M-S1 e.g. no features what-so-ever) available. For "feature equality" its actually pretty **** competitive, if you use a MB of the same cost. It gets even better when you factor in overclocking.

In fact even the "lowly" 5300 and 5400K are quite decent compared to similar priced Celeron/Pentiums. Not least with the very good iGPU...

http://www.pcgameshardware.de/Trinity-Codename-255654/Tests/A6-5400K-A4-5300-Trinity-Test-1045762/

The 5400K -just- manages to squeeze ahead of the G530 and the 5600K (quite similar to the 750K, higher base clock but lower turbo) is faster then the G860.

 

[SPBHM]

http://www.pcgameshardware.de/Trinity-Codename-255654/Tests/A6-5400K-A4-5300-Trinity-Test-1045762/

The 5400K -just- manages to squeeze ahead of the G530 and the 5600K (quite similar to the 750K, higher base clock but lower turbo) is faster then the G860.

excluding the IGP, only on the AES test the 5400K looks better from more than 10 tests

newegg prices 5400K $74.99, G530 $48.99
the only good thing about it is the IGP, but that's not always important, and the test was made using dual DDR3-1866, if you use single channel 1333 (which can easily be the case for cheap PCs) it will look far less impressive.

 

[sm625]

It doesnt really matter how fast you overclock an A10-5800K, because even at 7GHz (!) it still takes 14 seconds to do a superpi 1M run. You can do better than that with a stock pentium G860. lol ... seriously one can only laugh at this.

 

[Dark Shroud]

it still takes 14 seconds to do a superpi 1M run. You can do better than that with a stock pentium G860. lol

... seriously one can only laugh at this.

The only thing laughable is that you think SuperPi is still relevant when it uses old instructions.

 

[inf64]

I thought he was not serious(at first) but now that I read his post again,I actually think he believes that .

 

[Phynaz]

It doesnt really matter how fast you overclock an A10-5800K, because even at 7GHz (!) it still takes 14 seconds to do a superpi 1M run. You can do better than that with a stock pentium G860. lol ... seriously one can only laugh at this.

Well, if your job or pleasure consists of running superpi then we know you don't want a Trinity CPU.

 

[AtenRa]

Because it's slow. That's why AMD sends their GPUs out with Intel systems to be reviewed.

Even AMD doesn't recommend it - at least their GPU team.

The HD6950 and HD6870 will be the bottleneck in the majority of games and not the A10-5800K.

 

[Insert_Nickname]

excluding the IGP, only on the AES test the 5400K looks better from more than 10 tests

newegg prices 5400K $74.99, G530 $48.99
the only good thing about it is the IGP, but that's not always important, and the test was made using dual DDR3-1866, if you use single channel 1333 (which can easily be the case for cheap PCs) it will look far less impressive.

I thought the whole point of trinity was the IGP. You're certainly right that Intel is faster for general purpose computation.

Lets look at it from another angle. A Celeron G1610 currently costs 322DKK (5400K, 502DKK), now to get a discrete GFX card with better performance (HD6570) you'll have add 381DDK to the 322 you spent on the celeron. When you're working on a budget those 201DKK, can go a long way towards other parts. So in that sense the 5400K is decent.

 

[Hubb1e]

Even Tom's Hardware has switched to recommending 4 threaded chips for gaming. They were recommending the 2 thread Pentiums for a long time but have since seen that new games feature better threading and the Pentiums can no longer keep up. The i3 and the A10 trade blows then because hyperthreading keeps the i3 relevant, and the extra cores on the A10 help make up for a loss of per core performance. Both the i3 and the A10 are perfectly acceptable gaming chips today but the Pentiums are not anymore, unless you only plan to use this computer in the past. The 750K then makes a very good case for itself being as cheap as a Pentium but with 4 unlocked cores. The A10 makes less of a case for itself than the 750K because it's priced at parity with an i3 which has a better upgrade path, but the unlocked core still makes it a decent choice. As an AMD fan myself I'd get the A10 over the i3 and not look back, but I'd recommend the i3 to a friend for the upgrade path.

 

[LordA22m]

Has anyone used the 5800k in dual graphics with a 6670 video card? I read when they are combined (and OC'd im assuming) they equal the performance of a 7850 (ish)

I just bought the 5800k along with an Asrock mitx A85x board. I've got a tiny Apevia X-fit-100 case for them. The case restricts my options for a Video card obviously not to mention CPU cooling (im still working on what i can fit into the case for the CPU cooler. I didn't realize the back side of the power port on the rear of the case stuck out so much on the inside of the case)

Anyway, has anyone done dual graphics with those? Or what would be the best choice for dual graphics?

 

[SPBHM]

I thought the whole point of trinity was the IGP. You're certainly right that Intel is faster for general purpose computation.

that's the main thing, the APUs are attractive as long as you need something better than the Intel IGPs, but don't really need anything faster than the AMD IGP...

the OP thinks the A10 is the best choice even if you only use discrete graphics, and I disagree, now if you can find the 750K (or at least some other APU like the cheaper A8 with OC) for significantly less money FM2 is back as an interesting option for this use (with discrete graphics), apart from that I would recommend going for AM3+ or 1155, but of course the IGP may not cost a lot of money overall and it adds some flexibility, you can use the IGP for a time and upgrade to some other faster card later, but if you are building a new PC with the A10 and a discrete card, I don't know...

now going back to the Celeron and A4/A6, I can see most of the people buying this not really considering gaming, so saving the money with the Celeron probably makes sense.

So in reality I see the Trinity APU as the best choice for a really small portion of the market... someone who needs more than a HD2500, but no more than a 6670 DDR3 (for the A10), or 6450 DDR5 (for the A4), and I see some disadvantage in terms of platform (less upgrade options) and the fact that video performance is greatly influenced by the speed of the ram you are using...

Has anyone used the 5800k in dual graphics with a 6670 video card? I read when they are combined (and OC'd im assuming) they equal the performance of a 7850 (ish)

I don't see much value in using dual graphics, it's just crossfire, AFR, but with 2 GPUs with different performance... so it's even more complicated, and really, you will be exposed to all the CF software issues for overall such a "low" performance? it makes a lot of sense if you have a 7970 and want something faster... but for a single 7700 ($100) performance? I don't think so.


http://www.hardware.fr/articles/878-12/amd-a10-5800k-5700-a8-5600k-5500-apu-desktop-deuxieme.html


and OC is something that will give 15-30% at best I think, the 7850 is much faster and a better experience.

 

[LordA22m]

I was wondering if i run with Dual Graphics do i need to match the GPU/Ram speeds for the APU and the Video card? Or does it just go with the lowest speed between them like mismatched RAM used to? Or... lol, do i just get the highest clocks i can and the system will make the best use out of them combined?

 

[frozentundra123456]

Has anyone used the 5800k in dual graphics with a 6670 video card? I read when they are combined (and OC'd im assuming) they equal the performance of a 7850 (ish)

I just bought the 5800k along with an Asrock mitx A85x board. I've got a tiny Apevia X-fit-100 case for them. The case restricts my options for a Video card obviously not to mention CPU cooling (im still working on what i can fit into the case for the CPU cooler. I didn't realize the back side of the power port on the rear of the case stuck out so much on the inside of the case)

Anyway, has anyone done dual graphics with those? Or what would be the best choice for dual graphics?

Dream on. Crossfire is very hit or miss, and will give performance something less than a HD7750, for sure less than a HD7770.

 

[FalseChristian]

I really like the new FX line-up. The FX 8350 costs half of what I paid for my i5 2500K and has twice as many cores and is a little faster.

 

[Hubb1e]

In the real world most desktop computers are sold with integrated graphics. And most of these are going to families where some casual gaming is part of the equation. Intel's IGP in most of these boxes is basic HD graphics, HD2000, or HD2500 which are totally pathetic. Sure, the HD4000 can game ok, but not those other GPUs. The Trinity chips make a lot of sense in that market since they offer similar CPU performance with better GPU performance at every price point. As soon as you open one of those boxes up you void the warranty so it's daunting to add a discrete card even if you know how to. And then try to spec one with a real GPU and most of the time you're stuck with an Nvidia 520 that's slower than the HD4000 or your spending double the price for a basic GPU because the generic PCs only have 250W PSUs.

 

[Insert_Nickname]

that's the main thing, the APUs are attractive as long as you need something better than the Intel IGPs, but don't really need anything faster than the AMD IGP...

the OP thinks the A10 is the best choice even if you only use discrete graphics, and I disagree, now if you can find the 750K (or at least some other APU like the cheaper A8 with OC) for significantly less money FM2 is back as an interesting option for this use (with discrete graphics), apart from that I would recommend going for AM3+ or 1155, but of course the IGP may not cost a lot of money overall and it adds some flexibility, you can use the IGP for a time and upgrade to some other faster card later, but if you are building a new PC with the A10 and a discrete card, I don't know...

I'm inclined to agree with you there. I would certainly not recommend the 750K to anyone except people on a real hard budget. The 200DKK would mean the difference between a 7750/640 and 7770/650. Something you're much more likely to notice in games, then your CPU being slightly slower. Next step up would be i3 or 6300 depending on usage. For "real" gaming you need an i5 minimum.

now going back to the Celeron and A4/A6, I can see most of the people buying this not really considering gaming, so saving the money with the Celeron probably makes sense.

So in reality I see the Trinity APU as the best choice for a really small portion of the market... someone who needs more than a HD2500, but no more than a 6670 DDR3 (for the A10), or 6450 DDR5 (for the A4), and I see some disadvantage in terms of platform (less upgrade options) and the fact that video performance is greatly influenced by the speed of the ram you are using....

Oh, I'm not saying trinity is for everyone. People who just need a cheap email-web browsing machine will be fine with the HD2000/HD2500. But what trinity does enable is casual gaming (f.x. The Sims etc.) for not much more. HD2000/2500 performance really is pathetic. I know, I run one myself. Another thing you can forget on the HD2000/2500 (the Celeron/Pentium variety has clear video HD disabled) is any sort of image processing on video. It simply does not have the shading horsepower to do it. Even overclocked to 1500MHz...

I don't see much value in using dual graphics, it's just crossfire, AFR, but with 2 GPUs with different performance... so it's even more complicated, and really, you will be exposed to all the CF software issues for overall such a "low" performance? it makes a lot of sense if you have a 7970 and want something faster... but for a single 7700 ($100) performance? I don't think so.

http://www.hardware.fr/articles/878-12/amd-a10-5800k-5700-a8-5600k-5500-apu-desktop-deuxieme.html

and OC is something that will give 15-30% at best I think, the 7850 is much faster and a better experience.

I agree with you completely there. I simply can't see the point of hybrid crossfire, and dealing with potential driver issues, when you can just plug in a 7750/70 for not that much more...

 

[Phynaz]

The HD6950 and HD6870 will be the bottleneck in the majority of games and not the A10-5800K.

Keep telling yourself that. But don't tell me okay? Because I know better.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

I really like the new FX line-up. The FX 8350 costs half of what I paid for my i5 2500K and has twice as many cores and is a little faster.

I don't know if it's really faster.

It does use a lot more power. And careful with the cores... an 8 integer core / 4 FPU AMD chip is really not that different from a 4 full core / 8 thread Intel chip.

 

[AtenRa]

Keep telling yourself that. But don't tell me okay? Because I know better.

No matter what you want to believe, the HD6870 will be the bottleneck and not the A10-5800K in the majority of games. But you are free to believe otherwise.

 

[frozentundra123456]

No matter what you want to believe, the HD6870 will be the bottleneck and not the A10-5800K in the majority of games. But you are free to believe otherwise.

Depends on the image quality, resolution and game. I have an i5 and I can make Metro 2033 bottleneck it with a HD7770 if I lower the resolution enough. In some CPU intensive games, like Starcraft 2, Skyrim, some MMOs I would think the 5800K could be a bottleneck.

 

[frozentundra123456]

I don't know if it's really faster.

It does use a lot more power. And careful with the cores... an 8 integer core / 4 FPU AMD chip is really not that different from a 4 full core / 8 thread Intel chip.

I think which is faster would depend on the game/application that is being run. I am sure the 2500k is faster in some games and of course single threaded apps, while the 8350 is faster in heavily multithreaded productivity benchmarks and very close in newer heavily MT games.

I am also trying to figure out how the 2500k is "twice" the cost of an 8350.