# AMD A10-7860K 65W APU



## cadaveca (May 2, 2016)

AMD's APUs have been refreshed, some now featuring lower power consumption and a new thermal solution, so they draw less power and are quieter. AMD's A10-7860K supports HSA, DirectX 12, Vulkan, and Mantle. With a maximum turbo clock of 4.0 GHz, the AMD A10-7860K isn't just a CPU, it does graphics, too.

*Show full review*


----------



## Absolution (May 2, 2016)

Did AMD request not to include similarly price parts (performance numbers) from the competition?


----------



## dj-electric (May 2, 2016)

I would really like to see this against the Core i3 6100


----------



## suraswami (May 2, 2016)

Nice Review.

"There are definitely times where it stomps all over an Intel i7-6700K and its integrated GPU, and that i7-6700K costs about three times as much."  can u elaborate a bit?


----------



## cadaveca (May 2, 2016)

Absolution said:


> Did AMD request not to include similarly price parts (performance numbers) from the competition?



Nope. The paragraph before the results explains why.

Poke Intel to supply me with parts, and I'd gladly review them and then would be able to include them in such reviews. I don't review stuff that I/TPU paid for.



suraswami said:


> Nice Review.
> 
> "There are definitely times where it stomps all over an Intel i7-6700K and its integrated GPU, and that i7-6700K costs about three times as much."  can u elaborate a bit?



3D. Take a look at the recently posted MSI laptop review for numbers. You took a single sentence out of a paragraph, and made it seem out of context, since the next sentence answers your question.


----------



## GoldenX (May 3, 2016)

Can it be set to a 45w TDP like the A8-7600?


----------



## cadaveca (May 3, 2016)

GoldenX said:


> Can it be set to a 45w TDP like the A8-7600?


Probably, since AMD rates it as 45W - 65W. However, that might require proper BIOS support, which the board I used for testing does not have that I could see.


----------



## suraswami (May 3, 2016)

cadaveca said:


> Nope. The paragraph before the results explains why.
> 
> Poke Intel to supply me with parts, and I'd gladly review them and then would be able to include them in such reviews. I don't review stuff that I/TPU paid for.
> 
> ...



I understood what you meant, but was hoping to see comparison numbers.  Was also trying to understand in what tasks the APU was better than the 6700K.

I will check out the MSI laptop review.


----------



## cadaveca (May 3, 2016)

suraswami said:


> I understood what you meant, but was hoping to see comparison numbers.  Was also trying to understand in what tasks the APU was better than the 6700K.
> 
> I will check out the MSI laptop review.


I totally understand. It may have seemed like I was saying your comment was misplaced, but what I mean is that I thought this part of the conclusion covered that for most people.



> That's one thing to keep in mind; here we have a chip built on a rather old process, and in 3D, it still beats Intel's offerings in nearly every instance. Yet there can be no question that Intel's solutions are clearly the choice for CPU-focused tasks or when high performance is required.



That said, you've highlighted how that might not be enough, so thanks for the feedback. Next time I'll have exact examples that show what I'm talking about, rather than expecting that people know how this rather old design works, or doesn't work.

Like, this APU is truly nothing more than a re-released chip with lowered power consumption and a new cooler. I wrote the review looking at those aspects of the chip only; power consumption and the cooler. This chip in particular has been reviewed at most other review sites since February, and those sites do in the most part, compare the APU to other offerings. AMD sent me this chip a couple of weeks ago; not back in the end of January like with those other sites.


----------



## Jism (May 3, 2016)

I miss the OC part. They should easily do 4GHz and higher. Defenitly impact on CPU performance.


----------



## GoldenX (May 3, 2016)

From my testing with an A8 7650k, the cpu oc dies when you need to use the GPU, APM gives priority to the GPU in case you're near the TDP.


----------



## Jism (May 3, 2016)

So that TDP is fixed on that CPU? No way you could exceed the TDP that's bin setup in the bios?

I've bin on high-end AM3+ for a long time, and awaiting the new ZEN platform. I have'nt checked FM2 at all with the APU stuff going on.


----------



## cadaveca (May 3, 2016)

Jism said:


> I miss the OC part. They should easily do 4GHz and higher. Defenitly impact on CPU performance.


The chip used in the review can OC to 4.6 GHz easily enough (@ <1.45V). However, as @GoldenX mentioned, when using the iGPU, APM affects things, as does the cooler's ability. So OC is limited by the cooler with this chip, as I mentioned in the review.

I truly feel that if AMD wanted me to focus on OC, they would have sent the A10-7890K, which includes the Wraith cooler. Maybe I'll get one of those next.


Jism said:


> So that TDP is fixed on that CPU? No way you could exceed the TDP that's bin setup in the bios?



You can disable APM in most FM2+ board BIOSes. However, this allows the chip to exceed the included cooler's ability (rated for 95W, which is pretty accurate by my testing).


----------



## GoldenX (May 3, 2016)

If you disable APM, turbo, and cool and quiet, then you can, but to me it's not good to have the cpu in a fixed frequency.


----------



## Jism (May 3, 2016)

> I truly feel that if AMD wanted me to focus on OC, they would have sent the A10-7890K, which includes the Wraith cooler. Maybe I'll get one of those next.



The stock cooler is proberly great, for it's daily usage, but any oc'er would go for a high end air or watercooler.



> If you disable APM, turbo, and cool and quiet, then you can, but to me it's not good to have the cpu in a fixed frequency.



with a fixed frequency? My X6 thuban is running for almost 1.5 year on 4.2GHz now (original 2.8GHz). Aside for a proberly higher electricity-bill for running idle with a high usage, chips are designed to take a certain clockspeed all day.

(Sorry something went wrong here with the forum).


----------



## GoldenX (May 3, 2016)

Yeah I know, but I don't like the idea of an APU in that kind of load. The FM2+ motherboards have a limit of 100w tdp, a fixed frequency oced apu can damage the vrm. It's not like on an AM3 or AM3+ motherboard, where the limit can vary from 140 to 220w or even more.


----------



## cadaveca (May 3, 2016)

GoldenX said:


> Yeah I know, but I don't like the idea of an APU in that kind of load. The FM2+ motherboards have a limit of 100w tdp, a fixed frequency oced apu can damage the vrm. It's not like on an AM3 or AM3+ motherboard, where the limit can vary from 140 to 220w or even more.


That's why I made a comment in the review about the board's VRM being a full 25c hotter than the APU, measured using an IR thermometer.  A board's VRM capability will affect OC-ability in the long-term for sure.



Jism said:


> The stock cooler is proberly great, for it's daily usage, but any oc'er would go for a high end air or watercooler.



Sure. But for daily uses, a 95W-capable cooler on a 65W chip means either you OC a little bit, or you have a silent system. Given AMD's marketing for these newer APUs, silence is their intent. You do also need to think about the board's ability, as mentioned above.


----------



## FlanK3r (May 3, 2016)

did you test overclocking?


----------



## hojnikb (May 3, 2016)

Can someone explain me the purpose of those chips ?
They have no upgrade path, single core performance still sux and while you have to use fast dual channel ram, it's iGPU performance is still limited by ram bandwidth quite a bit.

So not really good for gaming on a budget, cpu isn't the best.. Why would someone pick this over something like i3 6100 ? or even g4400/4500 for that matter.


----------



## FlanK3r (May 3, 2016)

Its easy cause  family PC for daily usage (few games at middle resolutuion, photos, videos, social pages etc.)
Example you cna buy modern and cheap A88XM-A, this APU, 2x 4GB DDR3 2133 RAM, some HDD, some 300W PSU and thats all.

You thinking wrong about FM2+ cause A88X chipset is cheaper than modern Intel boards with similar technical value. FM2+ is technicaly very similar as Z87/Z97 chipset. And look at cheaper Athlon 860K/870K/880K. These CPUs are  OK with some GTX950/R7 370 without CPU limitation. And in games  are scores very similar as i3-6100 with same graphics card. If you dont believe, you cna find results at Google. Small example  test at Hardwarecanucks. i3-6100 price is almost double of 860K Maybe your argument will be power consumption. OK, around 30W more at Athlon. But compared it to the reall money per month. Electry energy is not so expensive. Your PC could working in hard load maybe 2-3h in day....Not all 24 hours  In idle are  consumption very similar.

PS: Pentium is  worse choice because today are 2 threads  limited in many cases (some games, some practice work)


----------



## hojnikb (May 3, 2016)

>Its easy cause family PC for daily usage (few games at middle resolutuion, photos, videos, social pages etc.)

Something than can a g4500/i3 6100 do with ease just as well.

>Example you cna buy modern and cheap A88XM-A, this APU, 2x 4GB DDR3 2133 RAM, some HDD, some 300W PSU and thats all.

You can get an i3 setup for as similar money or even less, because you dont need fast ram.

>You thinking wrong about FM2+ cause A88X chipset is cheaper than modern Intel boards with similar technical value. FM2+ is technicaly very similar as Z87/Z97 chipset.

What value does a Z97 like chipset hold for a casual user ?

>And look at cheaper Athlon 860K/870K/880K. These CPUs are OK with some GTX950/R7 370 without CPU limitation.

That entirely depends on the game. Also if one choses to upgrade such system, with i3 it can simply swap the cpu and is good to go for another couple of years. With athlon, its already a bottleneck for lots of games.

>i3-6100 price is almost double of 860K

But you need a gpu for athlon to use it in a dGPU less system.

>Maybe your argument will be power consumption. OK, around 30W more at Athlon. But compared it to the reall money per month. Electry energy is not so expensive. Your PC could working in hard load maybe 2-3h in day....Not all 24 hours  In idle are consumption very similar.

Electricity cost depends highly on where you live actually.


If you really think about it, APUs make very little sense outside of very niche uses.
If you're after an all arounder, i3 is a better value simply because it offers better cpu performance, upgrade path and decent iGPU as well. Not to mention support for all of the video codes, that will be used in the future (namely vp9 and hevc 10 bit).


----------



## hojnikb (May 3, 2016)

If you think about it, if intel ever decided to use their HD550 gpu in their desktop lineup (its certainly possible, because they already have a dual core die with this gpu for mobile) in pentiums and i3s, it would kill the only advantage AMD currently holds with its APUs -- iGPU performance. And they might just do that, if bristol ridge poses a threat.


----------



## cadaveca (May 3, 2016)

FlanK3r said:


> did you test overclocking?


4.6 on traditional cooling max as I posted above. No iGPU OC at all.



hojnikb said:


> If you really think about it, APUs make very little sense outside of very niche uses.
> If you're after an all arounder, i3 is a better value simply because it offers better cpu performance, upgrade path and decent iGPU as well. Not to mention support for all of the video codes, that will be used in the future (namely vp9 and hevc 10 bit).


i3 CPU have some problems in 3D and driver releases are seldom; that is not an issue with an APU.

My kids have none of the concerns you raised.

I set up a friend with an A10-6800K and a 780 Ti. It plays games fine, slow single-core performance or not. Is the 780 Ti limited by the APU? You bet. But the cost was perfect for him, so that's that. Most "normal users" still have no idea about such things, and most store sales people can't be bothered or don't know themselves to educate users on differences in products; they care about the profits only, especially if they are working commission. My local store has Pentium G3258 @ $90, and then the next Intel chip is $164 (i3-4160). There are 10 AMD CPU/APU options between those two Intel chips. IF you want to spend less than $150 and get a quadcore, you buy an AMD APU.


----------



## hojnikb (May 3, 2016)

>IF you want to spend less than $150 and get a quadcore, you buy an AMD APU.

Quasi quadcore, just like i3. But with intel, you at least get strong single core performance and upgrades.


----------



## cadaveca (May 3, 2016)

hojnikb said:


> >IF you want to spend less than $150 and get a quadcore, you buy an AMD APU.
> 
> Quasi quadcore, just like i3. But with intel, you at least get strong single core performance and upgrades.


Irrevelant if you can't afford the $165 that it(an i3 CPU) goes for locally. AMD is all about providing low-cost options, even if that means slightly less performance. Not everyone needs the top performance they can get; some just want maximum savings, and that's where AMD is useful. You may not see it that way, but it is how it is.


----------



## hojnikb (May 3, 2016)

cadaveca said:


> Irrevelant if you can't afford the $165 that it(an i3 CPU) goes for locally. AMD is all about providing low-cost options, even if that means slightly less performance. Not everyone needs the top performance they can get; some just want maximum savings, and that's where AMD is useful. You may not see it that way, but it is how it is.



If you want maximum saving, you pick a celeron and the cheapest 1150/1151 mobo. And >50$ cpus from intel are usually better than amds.
And whoever is selling entry level i3 for 165$ is ripping people hard.

If you look regular prices, that are not from 3rd world countries, you see that A10 apus are priced similarly than i3s.


----------



## cadaveca (May 3, 2016)

hojnikb said:


> If you want maximum saving, you pick a celeron and the cheapest 1150/1151 mobo. And >50$ cpus from intel are usually better than amds.
> And whoever is selling entry level i3 for 165$ is ripping people hard.
> 
> If you look regular prices, that are not from 3rd world countries, you see that A10 apus are priced similarly than i3s.


Celeron and Pentium chips are dualcores. If you want a quadcore for the same price, AMD is the answer. I live in Canada, which is far from a 3rd world country, and I linked my local retailer that doesn't have stock of Intel CPUs to match AMD's offerings. I'm not defending AMD here; I'm merely stating facts. There's a $70 price gap between the available Pentium chip and the cheapest i3 CPU, and within that gap are the majority of AMD APU/CPU options for the FM2+ socket. Go a bit higher, in cost, and you get AMD's 8-core CPUs vs Intels i3 CPUs. You have 3x i3 Intel chips @ $165-$170, and then at $185 is the FX-8320E.


----------



## hojnikb (May 3, 2016)

Why would you want quad core if you need your PC for basic use ? They you're better off buying atom/amd am1 cpus, because you get 4 cores for peanuts.

As far as pricing gap is concerned, you have G4500 with a much beefier iGPU, that sits between regular pentium and i3.

So intel has covered pretty much all pricepoints. But people tend to forged about those cheaper cpus, because they are sooo fixated on core count and  frequency (even though for basic use less more powerful cores is almost always better).

And lets not forged about the fact, that amd still does not support HEVC/VP9 on their iGPUs, so those pcs will be useless in years to come.


----------



## Disparia (May 3, 2016)

Cool. I have an A8-5500 and A88X setup for my home server. Enough oomph to watch Youtube/Netflix/HBONow while ripping, transcoding, and various other services (http, db, file shares) so I'm not itching to upgrade, but if the A10-7860K were to ever go on sale I could buy one for some mild benefits.

There were plenty of viable options for my needs, so it came down to a very minor reason - can get 8 native SATA ports with the A88X. I have no hate for the i3, simply APU won me over by a small margin at the time in this particular situation. The dollar and performance differences were not big enough to sweat over. Since then I've built myself an i5 and my next project will do very well with an i3 or an APU; will decide on it when I cross that bridge.


----------



## Casecutter (May 3, 2016)

Let me first say not for gaming but a home use computer that multi tasks from video watching to perhaps light digital photo manipulation Corel PaintShop Pro or Gimp.

If you start from a i3-6100 today, I would think I'd need to go at least a H170 and can go DDR4, the H110 is just to budget to back a the i3 6100.  So CPU/Mobo/2 x 4Gb DDR4-2133 would here in the USA be a $230 ballpark.

I'm finding this the AD786KYBJCSBX pricing out about $115, back with a decent GA-F2A78M-HD2 (rev. 3.0)  as low as say $45 and 2 x 4gb Mushkin Stealth DDR3-2133 for $37 all that for $197.

When it comes to someone building a M-ATX box for the above use... IDK sure the i3 has mad single core, though weaker GPU proficiency.  Would "seat of the pants" daily use really show there's either of such a build being noticeably snapper?  I would say NO!  That said $33 more for new DDR4 and a LGA1151 mobo has merit.

But then there's that nagging dilemma, your always feeling like you want to drop something close to $100 more for the likes of a GTX 750, just so there's not that feeling of being saddled with Intel HD 530 Craphics!



hojnikb said:


> G4500 with a much beefier iGPU, that sits between regular pentium and i3.


The Pentium G4500 Skylake Dual-Core 3.5 GHz has the same Intel HD 530.  A Dual Core to multi task the like of ripping, transcoding isn't it's shining.


----------



## GoldenX (May 3, 2016)

And Intel GPU drivers aren't good at gaming, they are full of glitches. Whatever can be said about AMD drivers, they are far better in that aspect.
I miss Nvidia doing chipsets...


----------



## hojnikb (May 3, 2016)

Casecutter said:


> Let me first say not for gaming but a home use computer that multi tasks from video watching to perhaps light digital photo manipulation Corel PaintShop Pro or Gimp.
> 
> If you start from a i3-6100 today, I would think I'd need to go at least a H170 and can go DDR4, the H110 is just to budget to back a the i3 6100.  So CPU/Mobo/2 x 4Gb DDR4-2133 would here in the USA be a $230 ballpark.
> 
> ...



G4400 contains HD510, while G4500 has 530, which is twice as fast.
As far as ripping and trascoding is concerned, you have quick sync, that can do that without any cpi load at all.


----------



## yogurt_21 (May 3, 2016)

what was the full test system cost?


----------



## GoldenX (May 3, 2016)

Quick Sync, AMD VCE and Nvidia CUDA are horrible ways of transcoding. Sure, they are fast, but that's it, the quality is always bad. If you need to transcode, try to always use the CPU.


----------



## petedread (May 3, 2016)

Well that was just about the most annoying conversation I have seen this year.

It is to easy to forget about the AMD route, glad I saw this review because A APU could be ideal for what I want to do. And the 4 cores will be better than the 2 core Celeron for what I have in mind. And super quiet for added bonus.


----------



## Casecutter (May 3, 2016)

hojnikb said:


> G4400 contains HD510, while G4500 has 530, which is twice as fast.


I was just indicating the i3-6100 and G4400 are the same iGPU

While don't keep up on iGPU's, my understanding was HD510 is a little more than the old top end of Integrated HD4000.  Going from the 9500 GT DDR2 to GT 730 GDDR3 is not quantitatively faster to 2016 standards.


----------



## Grings (May 3, 2016)

I like these chips, but decent a88x boards are never stocked anymore (in the uk at least)


----------



## Farmer Boe (May 3, 2016)

Great review Dave. I've been using APU's since the first FM1 socket mobo's came out and couldn't be happier for the prices I paid. I use APU's in almost every system I build for people who are looking for a value based system and haven't heard any complaints yet. Just sucks our CDN dollar is so low right now so even the APU's are getting expensive compared to what we paid 1-2 years ago.


----------



## cadaveca (May 3, 2016)

yogurt_21 said:


> what was the full test system cost?


I wish I could accurately tell you that, but too many of the parts I used are not available for purchase any more. Spec out a 400W-500W PSU, board, the APU and 8 GB of 2133 MHz ram, you have your answer (minus OS and case, of course). I don't exactly use cheap PSUs or cases for testing in, so an exact list wouldn't be fair for anyone.



petedread said:


> Well that was just about the most annoying conversation I have seen this year.
> 
> It is to easy to forget about the AMD route, glad I saw this review because A APU could be ideal for what I want to do. And the 4 cores will be better than the 2 core Celeron for what I have in mind. And super quiet for added bonus.



That's one added selling point that AMD didn't have before. This new cooler is pretty darn good for a stock cooler, never mind on a 65W chip.


----------



## H82LUZ73 (May 4, 2016)

The high end AM3+ Wraith cooler is pretty awesome too,I should see if it is also made by Cooler Master like the red fan wraith APU cooler.
Dave Awesome review ,AMD Fm2/ fm2+ chips i am looking at to upgrade my dads system,He only uses it for solitaire and Internet stuff,would save him some money on a gpu and he could always just use one of my old 6970`s .


----------



## cadaveca (May 4, 2016)

H82LUZ73 said:


> The high end AM3+ Wraith cooler is pretty awesome too,I should see if it is also made by Cooler Master like the red fan wraith APU cooler.
> Dave Awesome review ,AMD Fm2/ fm2+ chips i am looking at to upgrade my dads system,He only uses it for solitaire and Internet stuff,would save him some money on a gpu and he could always just use one of my old 6970`s .


Probably won't even need the 6970. These APUs aren't the quickest out there, but they are capable of doing most mundane tasks, as well as being able to do 3D, even if it's merely 30 FPS @ 1024x768... there's no rendering errors in what they provide. Unfortunately, there's still many things that just don't run on Intel chips at all, but if that wasn't the case, I wouldn't be able to say these chips are good value for the money.

I'm actually happy enough with this APU that I'm going to ask for more AMD CPUs for review, and some boards, too.


----------



## yogurt_21 (May 4, 2016)

cadaveca said:


> I wish I could accurately tell you that, but too many of the parts I used are not available for purchase any more. Spec out a 400W-500W PSU, board, the APU and 8 GB of 2133 MHz ram, you have your answer (minus OS and case, of course). I don't exactly use cheap PSUs or cases for testing in, so an exact list wouldn't be fair for anyone.



Looks like ~500$ including windows likely 650ish if you need keyboard mouse monitor, etc. 

considering a decent zbox is ~700$ not including hard disk, memory, windows, or keyboard mouse or monitor that's not bad at all. I still miss the old athlon xp days where a 500$ complete gaming system was possible.


----------



## Casecutter (May 4, 2016)

I'm really considering a new home machine if AMD offer a Desktop “Carrizo” architecture, with GCN 4 "Polaris GPU on a AM4 motherboard.  With the AM4 upgrade path will have a great boon

I think that a Zen with GCN 4 could be the real awakening for people.  Actual 1080p better-than “entry” gaming from an APU with a >65W TDP would be a huge boost!


yogurt_21 said:


> Looks like ~500$ ... considering a decent zbox is ~700$


What's a zbox for $700?  There's the Zotac Mini PC, but those aren't but like 150'ish.  For $500 you should make this APU box and get a SSD & HDD, Win10 OS included.


----------



## Grings (May 4, 2016)

GoldenX said:


> And Intel GPU drivers aren't good at gaming, they are full of glitches. Whatever can be said about AMD drivers, they are far better in that aspect.
> I miss Nvidia doing chipsets...



I miss Nvidia's AMD chipsets, their Intel ones can go to hell...


----------



## GoldenX (May 4, 2016)

Grings said:


> I miss Nvidia's AMD chipsets, their Intel ones can go to hell...


True.
I still work with Geforce 7025 chipsets (Nforce 630? I don't remember), they were very popular here. If the owner has kids, I overclock the IGP to try and help a little 
Funny how those old bricks have a Windows 10 capable driver, and an AMD HD4200 (DX10.1) doesn't.

My brother's Celeron G1820 is great as the cheapest Vulkan CPU/GPU/APU/whatever (in Linux only for now), the A6-7400k is a bit more expensive here, and the AM1s are too slow for games and emulation. But anything higher than that and an APU is a better option to a Pentium or Core i3 (at least with our prices).


----------



## D.Crepit (May 4, 2016)

hojnikb said:


> Can someone explain me the purpose of those chips ?
> They have no upgrade path, single core performance still sux and while you have to use fast dual channel ram, it's iGPU performance is still limited by ram bandwidth quite a bit.
> 
> So not really good for gaming on a budget, cpu isn't the best.. Why would someone pick this over something like i3 6100 ? or even g4400/4500 for that matter.



In essence, because its like comparing a
Jeep to a Ferrarri.  Both will get you
to the corner store in nearly the same
time, and both will get you as many
tickets as you like.

I've built what I consider to be a basic
general purpose desktop with only this
chip ( no separate GPU ).  It performs
essentially like AMD says it will.  And
really, in most instances, against my 
i7- 6 core and a dual Nvidia GPU, 
you won't see much of a difference.  
Now if you want to get into really serious 
gaming and other stuff, "Obviously" 
AMD is a none starter.


----------



## Casecutter (May 4, 2016)

A quick look on PC PartPicker and with the APU/Mobo/Memory I discussed above I can add; a Silicon Power S60 120Gb SSD, a Seagate Barracuda 1TB HDD.  Then go with a Cooler Master N200 MicroATX Mid Tower, with a Corsair CX 430W 80+ Bronze Certified Semi-Modular I get a to $348.71 after discounts, Rebates and shipping


----------



## xorbe (May 5, 2016)

The only comparison that I could draw is that it is 43.3% (at 1/2 the watts) as fast in Cinebench as the 8350 introduced 4 years ago.  (4/8)*(3.6/4.5) indicates about an 8% improvement in throughput since then.


----------



## cadaveca (May 5, 2016)

xorbe said:


> The only comparison that I could draw is that it is 43.3% (at 1/2 the watts) as fast in Cinebench as the 8350 introduced 4 years ago.  (4/8)*(3.6/4.5) indicates about an 8% improvement in throughput since then.


one thing to keep in mind that L3 cache, which is present on the 8320, does allow faster processing as well (since there is more data available, faster). So with an APU not having any L3 and L2 only, the actual difference in core performance is limited a bit, and the difference in a CPU with Steamroller cores should be a bit more than that.

But I could be wrong... need to get one and test it to find out!


----------



## GoldenX (May 5, 2016)

In the Phenom II (vs Athlon II x4), the 6MB of L3 added from 7 to 15% more performance.


----------



## H82LUZ73 (May 11, 2016)

Jeep to a Ferrarri.

What is there to compare? they are both owned by FIAT you know.

Dave good to know when i do get around to building a FM2+ build,I guess it took you by surprise.This is good that we will hopefully get a great in depth Zen review.


----------

