I have the impression that you didnt follow AMD these last months, at least not on a technical point of view, why are you stuck on useless extrapolation from Carrizo when it s obvious that it s not the same silicon..?.
http://www.anandtech.com/show/10362/amd-7th-generation-apu-bristol-ridge-stoney-ridge-for-notebooks
So much for your "these clocks cant be sustained", looking at this graph you are just spreading fud, be it unwillingly, or at least i hope that it s not willfully..
So basically you claim that AMD has improved the performance per watt of Bristol Ridge (particularly with A12-9800) by > 60%?
62.6% improvement would be required to sustain the advertized clocks, even if the voltage would be identical as on Carrizo at 3400MHz CPU and 800MHz GPU frequencies.
Since they won't be (A12-9800 runs up to 1.5V VDD_C at default), I'm being extremely generous with these estimations
45W for 3.4GHz (+11.8%) and 40W for 800MHz (+38.5%) GPU figures used.
Also on Carrizo and newer, the CPU and GPU are not the only domains which take their cut from the total TDP budget
Since according to you I'm spreading "fud" (again), could you please prove that it is indeed the case? Or could you possibly prove that I have ever done such thing?
I'm sure that you will provide evidence that Bristol Ridge parts will sustain their advertized clocks at the default TDP, under maximum stress too? I'm not in a hurry so I can wait, as I'm sure you will deliver