TechReport and ExtremeTech are both reporting that the A6-6310 has a 2.4 GHz turbo and a 2.0 GHz base clock. The rest of the Beema processors don't implement turbo.
Even if Mullins is a farce, the more believable Beema parts are still a really solid update IMO.
A6-5200 -> A6-6310 (20% higher CPU [turbo], 33% higher GPU, TDP from 25W > 15W)
A4-5000 -> A4-6210 (20% higher CPU, 20% higher GPU)
E1-2500 -> E2-6110 (2x cores, 7% higher CPU, 25% higher GPU)
E1-2100 -> E1-6010 (35% higher CPU, 15% higher GPU)
Well, at a 15W TDP the main problem is that intel has full blown Haswell U and Y core CPUs at 11-15W TDP which are far superior in performance. It really isn't even a contest past 10W TDP, intel wins hands down with Haswell there. Although AMD will obviously market it as a lower cost, lower performance chip for lower end devices. Cuz AMD isn't going to touch Haswell past 10W TDP, isn't going to happen. Oh. Oddly enough. Those full blown Haswell core i5 CPUs with 11-15W TDP are getting 12 hours of battery life in the macbook air. I'd say it's a safe bet that AMD isn't going to touch that performance of Haswell architecture nor remotely match the efficiency/battery life.
All of that is fine on the surface, if those 15W TDP parts can deliver decent PPW and provide "decent" performance with 7+ hours of battery that could be okay. While they can't match Haswell, they can still deliver a decent product alternative. And as annoying as the lack of battery life tests are on these chips, more choice is better than less choice for competition.
Anyway... I'm more interested in the 5W tablet parts in terms of what battery life they offer at the given performance, which as mentioned, AMD has prohibited reviewers from sharing. So basically the metric that matters for mobile cannot be determined until a device actually pops up using the chip. As mentioned earlier you can take any architecture from the past year and make it dominate the benchmarks with aggressive turbo clockspeeds. The question is, at what battery life does it get those benchmarks at. 3 hours? 4 hours? If that's the case, then 3-4 hours is pathetic. Performance / turbo clockspeeds will just be crippled to get battery life to acceptable levels, in other words the 7+ hour area. Obviously AMD doesn't want us to know. And if they don't want to share it, well, i'd say not good. But like everything AMD, we'll just play the waiting game and wait for history to repeat I suppose.
That said I could see these being decent replacement chips for desktop kabini. But for mobile, AMD is not going to beat haswell past 10W TDP and I don't see the 4-5W TDP tablet parts having great performance per watt or battery life. I really wish an actual "real world consumer" device could be tested using the chip, because that would give us relevant mobile data. Right now we have no relevant mobile benchmarks, period. Everything is put in context by battery life when it comes to mobile benchmarks.