# AMD A10-5800K Capable of 6.50 GHz over LN2: Company



## btarunr (Sep 28, 2012)

AMD's new A10-5800K "Trinity" APUs, launched earlier this week, are capable of extreme overclocking, something similarly-priced Intel processors can't claim, according to Adam Kozak, desktop products manager with the company. According to Kozak, the roughly $150 A10-5800K are capable of 6.50 GHz overclocked speeds, when augmented with liquid nitrogen cooling.

Overclocking capabilities give AMD's sub-$150 chips such as the A10-5800K, A8-5600K, and A6-5400K an edge over similarly-priced Intel chips. The cheapest overclockable chip from Intel's current lineup is the $220 Core i5-2500K. Based on the "Trinity" silicon, the A10-5800K ships with clock speeds of 3.80 GHz, which go up to 4.20 GHz with TurboCore. The chip features an unlocked base clock multiplier, which makes overclocking possible.





*View at TechPowerUp Main Site*


----------



## Harlequin_uk (Sep 28, 2012)

would love to see them actually benchmark anything at that speed rather than just switch it on and post a screen shot....


----------



## joyman (Sep 28, 2012)

It would be interesting to see if Trinity will be better memory clocker than Llano.


----------



## 1Kurgan1 (Sep 28, 2012)

Harlequin_uk said:


> would love to see them actually benchmark anything at that speed rather than just switch it on and post a screen shot....



That's not a stable speed, most likely stable enough for CPU-Z, just like any other WR clocks. Usually WR clocks and WR Benching clocks aren't at the same speeds. Just like the worlds strong bench presser we'll say, benches his max once. They don't say, "how about you use a more realistic, lower weight and do many reps", because that's not what he is there to do at that time.


----------



## dj-electric (Sep 28, 2012)

This PR is bad and AMD should feel bad.


----------



## NC37 (Sep 28, 2012)

Didn't Llano go to 8Ghz?


----------



## HumanSmoke (Sep 28, 2012)

NC37 said:


> Didn't Llano go to 8Ghz?


No. Around 6G was about it as much as I recollect. You're probably thinking of Bulldozer which cracked 8G in the lead up to it's launch...obviously AMD have processor launches to a set PR/marketing routine


----------



## de.das.dude (Sep 28, 2012)

AMD PR..... *facekeyboard*


----------



## Frick (Sep 28, 2012)

I don't really see how this is bad PR. It's not awesome, but I for one think these things are pretty interesting (not practical or usable, but interesting).


----------



## renz496 (Sep 28, 2012)

can't they promote the processor way better than this? that extreme overclocking potential is useless if you can't use it on daily basis. people who are going to use this processor 'properly' are not going to break world record everyday


----------



## Dent1 (Sep 28, 2012)

Dj-ElectriC said:


> This PR is bad and AMD should feel bad.






renz496 said:


> can't they promote the processor way better than this?



Why is everyone always on AMD's case?

Intel has 10x the resources and they promote their processors with unstable LN2 overclocks too but nobody says nothing.


----------



## mediasorcerer (Sep 28, 2012)

I think the point of the article is, that at least for the price, it's capable of being overclocked, whereas the similar intel offering is quite a bit more expensive for the same feature,  thats what i got from it.

Its a good thing intel has competition from amd, otherwise we would be paying possibly a lot more for intel chips? [Does that make sense?]


----------



## nt300 (Sep 28, 2012)

The box art looks sweet. it must be fast.


----------



## mediasorcerer (Sep 28, 2012)

nt300 said:


> The box art looks sweet. it must be fast.



I got intel myself, but id reckon[guessing here pls] its probably way fast enough for 80% of mst comp users out there really.


----------



## Aquinus (Sep 28, 2012)

Dent1 said:


> Why is everyone always on AMD's case?
> 
> Intel has 10x the resources and they promote their processors with unstable LN2 overclocks too but nobody says nothing.



+1: Yeah, and no one bashes Intel when they overclock an i7 to 7.5ghz with HTT disabled and only 1 core enabled. Give AMD a break, jeez.


----------



## 3870x2 (Sep 28, 2012)

I think I will use these for my next work computer build, simply because they are interesting.

Also, what is up with people on AMD about bad PR?


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (Sep 28, 2012)

mediasorcerer said:


> I think the point of the article is, that at least for the price, it's capable of being overclocked, whereas the similar intel offering is quite a bit more expensive for the same feature, thats what i got from it.



+1 and exactly

Proof then as if it were required that this Pr bumph has a point ,the same point the article mentions YOU CAN OC THESE QUITE WELL, yeh its in big but needs some highlighting for some to understand, why people have to have a dig all the time at AMd without really even haveing a reason/point is starting to get annoying and tiresome.:shadedshu



eg



Dj-ElectriC said:


> This PR is bad and AMD should feel bad.




your comments bad and you should feel bad about it, its an opinion without any actual point ie why in your opinion was this bad PR anyways(no i dont actually want to know but if your going to post at least bother with an actual reason)


Fish and chips are great, but apples and pairs are horrid


----------



## Mindweaver (Sep 28, 2012)

Great achievement! But I would rather see it do 5ghz on air or aio watercooler(_H50/H80/H100 and so on..._). I don't see how AMD sees this as good PR.. It's like telling some one you have a car with 600hp! BUT it only keeps up with an average 300hp car...   

*EDIT: AWW the love/Hate relationship with me and AMD.. hehehe Tell me again how much better your product is on paper than theres?..hehehe*


----------



## chimonow (Sep 28, 2012)

*On a quad per core, Awesome!*

If this is every core overclocking on even LN2 then this is pretty damn AMAZING! Everyone has to take into account that most CPU overclocker's who break the world record are only oc'ing one core! To see this core break the 6.5ghz mark on all four cores within the boundries of LN2 would be a record within itself!


----------



## Konceptz (Sep 28, 2012)

I think the whole point is that if a quad with great integrated graphics can reach that kind of speed on LN2...imagine what it can do on a good water / high end air setup. That chip costs less then $150.


----------



## Aquinus (Sep 28, 2012)

Mindweaver said:


> EDIT: AWW the love/Hate relationship with me and AMD.. hehehe Tell me again how much better your product is on paper than theres?..hehehe



Ever compile a full application from source using AMD's compiler optimizations? FMA3 and XOP bring a lot to the table when they're actually used, like two FP (single precision) ops per clock instead of just one per module. FMA3 is really what brings FP optimizations to forefront and next to nothing uses it. 

Instead of using Intel's compilers and libraries, give AMD's a try: http://developer.amd.com/TOOLS/CPU/Pages/default.aspx
Oh wait, they're only for Linux. Doh!


----------



## brandonwh64 (Sep 28, 2012)

These chips are not glory kings or speed demons. These chips are for someone that wants a LIGHT CHEAP gamer or HTPC/Small platform. If you want massive frame rates or low PI scores. Go with your gut and get intel SB/IB.

After that being said, I will probably pick the 5800K up for a HTPC.


----------



## LDNL (Sep 28, 2012)

I think we all know what the current amd architecture is capable of. Those numbers never mean anything until theyve gone through the grinder.


----------



## xenocide (Sep 28, 2012)

Dent1 said:


> Why is everyone always on AMD's case?
> 
> Intel has 10x the resources and they promote their processors with unstable LN2 overclocks too but nobody says nothing.



The way I see it, is that in recent years AMD has prioritized high clocks and limited releases of benchmarks--generally ones that favor them.  I mean, with the Preview's they authorized sites to do GPU benchmarks (with a suggestion of games) and overclocking tests, but told them they were not allowed to do tests of the CPU itself.  This is clearly AMD covering up what they already know and embracing their successes.  Everyone knows the iGPU of Trinity will be substantially better than the iGPU on IB, what people are worried about is an underpowered CPU and high power consumption.

With Trinity in particular the overclocking is almost irrelevant since it is primarily going to be an entry level CPU/GPU setup for budget gamers and a good alternative for HTPC's.  Neither are categories of people that would want to be running extreme overclocks.  There's also the fact that since the fiasco that was Netburst, people aren't fooled by high clock rates if the performance isn't there.  Netburst really proved that just because you have a CPU running at double the clock rate of your competitor, it doesn't always make it better.


----------



## Aquinus (Sep 28, 2012)

LDNL said:


> I think we all know what the current amd architecture is capable of. Those numbers never mean anything until theyve gone through the grinder.



Someone has to fill that grinder, software doesn't write itself so it's in the hands of the developer to optimize their software and as a developer, I tend to be lazy. Not in the sense that I write bad code, but weighing the costs and benefits. I've converted some FP calculations in code at work to run as a lower-precision integer operation just because integer ops run faster than floating-point and the level of precision that FP offers isn't necessary.

How much slower do you think 25.35 + 32.55 runs than 2535 + 3255? The only time that turns into a FP number is when the user sees it. Otherwise multiplying a integer will be fast since all you have to do is shift the bits and maybe add a single number.


----------



## Mindweaver (Sep 28, 2012)

Aquinus said:


> Ever compile a full application from source using AMD's compiler optimizations? FMA3 and XOP bring a lot to the table when they're actually used, like two FP (single precision) ops per clock instead of just one per module. FMA3 is really what brings FP optimizations to forefront and next to nothing uses it.



What does that have to do with my comment or the OP?  I said it was great.. I just want them to do 5ghz on air... I use AMD in a lot of my systems and always have.. Now go bark up someone else's tree...  Remember you can like something and still want it to do better... You settle for shit and you'll get shit... 

*EDIT: AND before AMD people go crazy.. hehehe I'm not calling AMD shit.. Again I like/love AMD's products... *


----------



## mediasorcerer (Sep 28, 2012)

So we may be relatively safe to presume if they really did get it up to or over  6 on dry ice, then its probably possible for the home user with air or water to achieve maybe between 4-5 ghz?-[yes?]

If thats the case, this may be quite a good chip in home applications and this is just my opinion, have not tried them out myself of course.

Its all about price v performance, as far as i know.

Yeh why do folks chip out on amd? If they didnt make these chips, intel might walk all over us , we as consumers, need the competition, its only good for us really.


----------



## chimonow (Sep 28, 2012)

Aquinus said:


> Ever compile a full application from source using AMD's compiler optimizations? FMA3 and XOP bring a lot to the table when they're actually used, like two FP (single precision) ops per clock instead of just one per module. FMA3 is really what brings FP optimizations to forefront and next to nothing uses it.



Exactly! Although we wont be seeing the full benefits of the following until we hit an actual heterogeneous architecture! But we will be seeing more performance per clock per core per mesh than anything before! That's what's great about AMD though, More support and a bit more Performance for close to equal price!


----------



## Ikaruga (Sep 28, 2012)

It's a hard choice: A 2500K with easy and smooth 4.7Ghz on air, or lets mess with an A10 APU and liquid nitrogen =]


----------



## brandonwh64 (Sep 28, 2012)

People comparing a SB/IB to an APU are not seeing the big picture here.


----------



## chimonow (Sep 28, 2012)

Well matters really, I mean it is based off of bulldozer, the only thing that has changed really is the amount of instructions per clock, The core is still the same! By using some tech that they use on their gpu's, they were also able to reduce TDP! This publication doesn't really reveal anything.. As bulldozer was already able to hold and reach a world record on one core! It all depends on if they were able to reach  it on 2 or 4!


----------



## Ikaruga (Sep 28, 2012)

brandonwh64 said:


> People comparing a SB/IB to an APU are not seeing the big picture here.



Would you please elaborate which part of the picture we are missing? Do you think that we don't know what's an APU good for? The point is that we are commenting about a news here,  where the PR guy himself compared it to a 2500K overclockability wise.


----------



## brandonwh64 (Sep 28, 2012)

chimonow said:


> Well matters really, I mean it is based off of bulldozer, the only thing that has changed really is the amount of instructions per clock, The core is still the same! By using some tech that they use on their gpu's, they were also able to reduce TDP! This publication doesn't really reveal anything.. As bulldozer was already able to hold and reach a world record on one core! It all depends on if they were able to reach  it on 2 or 4!



Yes it maybe based on BD but you are talking about a chip that has a CPU and GPU sharing ONE die. It is good at what it was made for not to compete with the FX series OR the I5/I7 series.


----------



## chimonow (Sep 28, 2012)

Konceptz said:


> I think the whole point is that if a quad with great integrated graphics can reach that kind of speed on LN2...imagine what it can do on a good water / high end air setup. That chip costs less then $150.



Even with integrated graphics on a Core i5 or i7 with LN2 that shouldn't be too much of a problem, But seeing how AMD's GPU is twice to three times as fast and takes up a bit more power this I guess is to be expected! Although I am sure we will be seeing another world record sometime soon with this APU!


----------



## Mindweaver (Sep 28, 2012)

brandonwh64 said:


> People comparing a SB/IB to an APU are not seeing the big picture here.



I don't know buddy... SB/IB = CPU and Graphics.. APU = CPU and Graphics... I don't get why AMD had to call there's an APU and not just a CPU... I think it just confuses the public when going to buy a new pc.. Should Intel call there SB/IB chips something other than a CPU.. Maybe a IPU?... It does offer more than just a CPU... Who else is going to break the APU world record?


----------



## brandonwh64 (Sep 28, 2012)

Mindweaver said:


> I don't know buddy... SB/IB = CPU and Graphics.. APU = CPU and Graphics... I don't get why AMD had to call there's an APU and not just a CPU... I think it just confuses the public when going to buy a new pc.. Should Intel call there SB/IB chips something other than a CPU.. Maybe a IPU?... It does offer more than just a CPU... Who else is going to break the APU world record?



But there is a HUGE difference between HD3000 and 7660D in terms of processing power


----------



## chimonow (Sep 28, 2012)

brandonwh64 said:


> Yes it maybe based on BD but you are talking about a chip that has a CPU and GPU sharing ONE die. It is good at what it was made for not to compete with the FX series OR the I5/I7 series.



Oh I understand that completely! It was made to compete for the lower end.. The i3's the Pentuims, Celerons and so on! But one may wonder.. Why have they upgraded to the A85 chipset which splits the x16 pci x-press lane? To contend with INTEL! Yes, But to do that they would have to have a CPU that is worth it! Or just give people who know what they are buying a great deal! People who know their computers now days, Know that 2 660's or 7870's on even x8 - x8 express2.0 will produce the best possible graphics for even a multi-monitor setup at the highest in-game qualities! x2.0 - 16x provides 3%/ x3.0 provides up to 5% increase.


----------



## chimonow (Sep 28, 2012)

brandonwh64 said:


> But there is a HUGE difference between HD3000 and 7660D in terms of processing power



You mean graphics power! Yes their is! The 7660D is 50%-120% better! Matters the application! But in actual Computational power, Intel wins Bar-None!


----------



## Mindweaver (Sep 28, 2012)

brandonwh64 said:


> But there is a HUGE difference between HD3000 and 7660D in terms of processing power



True man and I get that, but there is a HUGE difference between the CPU's as well in terms of processing power(_Intel being the winner_). Plus they are not overclocking the 7660D.. Just the CPU.. I'd rather them overclock the 7660D and keep the CPU as is... That chip will shine then. I don't think AMD sees the big/picture... Overclock the 7660D to play games 60+fps or even 30+fps... The big/picture is to have a CPU/GPU aio and lose the addon graphics card.. right? Well overclock your 7660D over a 1ghz and tell everyone how great it is... Because they are overclocking the one thing that doesn't make it an APU..


----------



## bencrutz (Sep 28, 2012)

chimonow said:


> But one may wonder.. Why have they upgraded to the A85 chipset which splits the x16 pci x-press lane?



added feature.
amd just provide options.
if there's no crossfire support, i think people would then start complaining why the heck there's no crossfire available for FM2?


----------



## chimonow (Sep 28, 2012)

chimonow said:


> Oh I understand that completely! It was made to compete for the lower end.. The i3's the Pentuims, Celerons and so on! But one may wonder.. Why have they upgraded to the A85 chipset which splits the x16 pci x-press lane? To contend with INTEL! Yes, But to do that they would have to have a CPU that is worth it! Or just give people who know what they are buying a great deal! People who know their computers now days, Know that 2 660's or 7870's on even x8 - x8 express2.0 will produce the best possible graphics for even a multi-monitor setup at the highest in-game qualities! x2.0 - 16x provides 3%/ x3.0 provides up to 5% increase.



Though depending on the CPU will greatly increase results! In this day and age, Intel with a discrete GPU will win! I am an analysts, This is my job! 2 Years ago I would have suggested AMD, but now as it stands.. Untill AMD releases their second Gen APU's, Intel is still the way to go if you plan on going with a discrete GPU. AMD is the better choice for the everyday consumer though!


----------



## bencrutz (Sep 28, 2012)

Mindweaver said:


> True man and I get that, but there is a HUGE difference between the CPU's as well in terms of processing power(_Intel being the winner_). Plus they are not overclocking the 7660D.. Just the CPU.. I'd rather them overclock the 7660D and keep the CPU as is... That chip will shine then. I don't think AMD sees the big/picture... Overclock the 7660D to play games 60+fps or even 30+fps... The big/picture is to have a CPU/GPU aio and lose the addon graphics card.. right? Well overclock your 7660D over a 1ghz and tell everyone how great it is... Because they are overclocking the one thing that doesn't make it an APU..



i think we should wait and see...

"Also new is the ability to clock the GPU via AMD OverDrive, a feature that was sorely missing from previous FM1 parts."

might be able to OC the GPU


----------



## brandonwh64 (Sep 28, 2012)

I was talking to dave last night and I would love to see an 8core, with 7970 APU LOL. that thing would be like 300W chip LOLZ


----------



## Super XP (Sep 28, 2012)

Dent1 said:


> Why is everyone always on AMD's case?
> 
> Intel has 10x the resources and they promote their processors with unstable LN2 overclocks too but nobody says nothing.


Are people forgetting that AMD's APU's blow the competition out of the water. Once again, AMD's last management team made wrong decisions and now the new team have been working hard to rectify the mistakes. 

If Bulldozer today was the Athlon 64 then, AMD would have taken the desktop performance crown. That was a different AMD then.

I don't think I need to get into AMD innovations that forced Intel to follow.
64-bit, Dual-Core, Quad-Core, Octa-Core, L2 cache, DDR, APU, Module and so on. Thank You AMD for pushing INNOVATION even though it could put you out of business. I call that Balls Of Iron.
---------------
Currently Phenom II is dead. As long as future AMD CPU's outperform Bulldozer, that IMO is progression. Just wait until those added instructions start being utilized, then you will see real gains.


----------



## Dent1 (Sep 28, 2012)

xenocide said:


> I mean, with the Preview's they authorized sites to do GPU benchmarks (with a suggestion of games) and overclocking tests, but told them they were not allowed to do tests of the CPU itself.
> With Trinity in particular the overclocking is



But you don't know what meetings are taking place in AMD's headquarters.

AMD could have a 5-billion dollar contract with OEMs waiting to be signed next week. Perhaps potential negative attention or even positive attention regarding CPU specific benchmarks could influence the signing of those contracts.

In a situation like that. Do they let reviewers do the write up, or do they sign the 5 billion dollar contract? - If I was the CEO I know what I would do.


----------



## chimonow (Sep 28, 2012)

bencrutz said:


> added feature.
> amd just provide options.
> if there's no crossfire support, i think people would then start complaining why the heck there's no crossfire available for FM2?



There is only 2-3 boards within the FM1 factor that support CF! 1-2 of them support SLI! Only Bulldozer supports SLI. So for AMD to support this in their FM2 FF they must be sayin hello to their middlend buyers! Which means their not only going after the low-end but the middle end! People who know their shit, who are looking at limited funds will choose AMD once again! The economics of this are great for AMD, A person who can get a system really cheap and then up grade to their choice of components over time is how AMD makes alot of it's money! Most people have to also remember that AMD has about 1/20th of what Intel has as 'Funds'! So for them, This is pretty damn AMAZING!


----------



## Disparia (Sep 28, 2012)

Nice, but how far did they get the GPU portion?


----------



## brandonwh64 (Sep 28, 2012)

Jizzler said:


> Nice, but how far did they get the GPU portion?



I don't think they OCed it. Just CPU from what I can tell


----------



## Konceptz (Sep 28, 2012)

Nobody knows yet how these will compare to the intel's CPU so anything said at this point is pure speculation. Its obvious that people dog AMD, but in all honesty...If I can hit 4.6ghz on the A10-5800K, add in a dedicated GPU or even 2 (due to the rumored hybrid tri-crossfire), I'm sold. You can spend $300 alone on a CPU and get maybe a 2-3 sec noticeable real world increase. These benchmarks you see between AMD and intel are ususally done on benchmarks optimized for intel's instruction set so of course intel is going to win, but bottom line. I've used overclocked bulldozers and overclocked SB and IB chips, on SSDs 1866 DDR3, and the difference is so minimal, its hardly noticeable at all. If anything, the extra intel cost is the most noticeable difference.


----------



## Disparia (Sep 28, 2012)

brandonwh64 said:


> I don't think they OCed it. Just CPU from what I can tell



AMD's PR is bad, and they should feel bad 

Oh well, suppose I'll wait til official release for some numbers.


----------



## chimonow (Sep 28, 2012)

Jizzler said:


> Nice, but how far did they get the GPU portion?



Quite a bit actually! By regrouping their SP's based on a 'newer' architecture they where able to create a 20-50% increase in graphics performance, along with a 10-25% boost computational horsepower! Check out Tomshardware.com for a 5800k review, and also check back to the tech sites for more reviews on the consumer versions!


----------



## TheGuruStud (Sep 28, 2012)

chimonow said:


> Quite a bit actually! By regrouping their SP's based on a 'newer' architecture they where able to create a 20-50% increase in graphics performance, along with a 10-25% boost computational horsepower! Check out Tomshardware.com for a 5800k review, and also check back to the tech sites for more reviews on the consumer versions!



I am suspicious of this post and its account.


----------



## chimonow (Sep 28, 2012)

Here goes the OEM benches if you haven't already checked them out!  http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/a10-5800k-a8-5600k-a6-5400k,3224.html


----------



## tacosRcool (Sep 28, 2012)

must be nice to reach that speed. Now how much power will it consume?


----------



## chimonow (Sep 28, 2012)

TheGuruStud said:


> I am suspicious of this post and its account.



Please don't be suspicious! lol, I am only here to help!


----------



## chimonow (Sep 28, 2012)

tacosRcool said:


> must be nice to reach that speed. Now how much power will it consume?



65 watts and 125 watts! But what most people don't realize is that is won't be at that power requirement very long or hardly at all! Remember that when buying a 35w and a 55w ivy bridge CPU!


----------



## Disparia (Sep 28, 2012)

chimonow said:


> Quite a bit actually! By regrouping their SP's based on a 'newer' architecture they where able to create a 20-50% increase in graphics performance, along with a 10-25% boost computational horsepower! Check out Tomshardware.com for a 5800k review, and also check back to the tech sites for more reviews on the consumer versions!



Thanks, the relative increase is nice. But I was looking more for information on it's overclocking abilities, if available. Juggling some build ideas for the wife and kids.


----------



## Mindweaver (Sep 28, 2012)

Jizzler said:


> Thanks, the relative increase is nice. But I was looking more for information on it's overclocking abilities. Juggling some build ideas for the wife and kids.



+1 Yea, I'm looking to upgrade my daughters Q9550/GTX285 with this chip, and a touchscreen monitor for Windows 8 if the numbers are there.. If I have to buy a graphics card then I'll probably go with a i3 or i5 22nm..


----------



## chimonow (Sep 28, 2012)

Jizzler said:


> Thanks, the relative increase is nice. But I was looking more for information on it's overclocking abilities, if available. Juggling some build ideas for the wife and kids.



I am sure it won't be too far off from Bulldozer, Say on air 4.2-4.5 seams reasonable.. What system are you trying to build?


----------



## mediasorcerer (Sep 28, 2012)

There is also this thing called price v performance!!! Thats where these chips may shine over intel!!

Thats what some folks forget when they compare just performance v intel, like the article implies i think?


----------



## chimonow (Sep 28, 2012)

Mindweaver said:


> +1 Yea, I'm looking to upgrade my daughters Q9550/GTX285 with this chip, and a touchscreen monitor for Windows 8 if the numbers are there.. If I have to buy a graphics card then I'll probably go with a i3 or i5 22nm..



I will only recommend that if you plan on also going with a discrete GPU! A core i3 will be okay I believe... I just highly recommend you go with the very least a 6670 or higher!


----------



## chimonow (Sep 28, 2012)

mediasorcerer said:


> There is also this thing called price v performance!!! Thats where these chips may shine over intel!!
> 
> Thats what some folks forget when they compare just performance v intel, like the article implies i think?



That is where AMD is looking out for Number 1! This is where they get most of their income! Most people don't need that much power!


----------



## Patriot (Sep 28, 2012)

Ikaruga said:


> It's a hard choice: A 2500K with easy and smooth 4.7Ghz on air, or lets mess with an A10 APU and liquid nitrogen =]



Lol ...



Ikaruga said:


> It's a hard choice: A 2500K with easy and smooth 4.5Ghz on water, or lets mess with an A10 APU and liquid nitrogen =]



Fixed

Cherry/ golden chip may hit > 4.5Ghz on air... but most don't, not at temperatures/voltages that have a long term chip lifespan.

I will agree that 4.5 is painfully easy.  
4.8 on water is quite easy... more requires a good board and good chip... and proper cooling.

I have seem many a dead SB and IB from those trying to make their chips into golden chips...
Stable for a few months then not even stable at stock... 

(as a folder I value stable clocks over sky high...though seeing the sky is nice occasionally)


----------



## Disparia (Sep 28, 2012)

chimonow said:


> I am sure it won't be too far off from Bulldozer, Say on air 4.2-4.5 seams reasonable.. What system are you trying to build?



Going to start with at least one system, who it's built for will depend on how the APU's turn out.

Might go for a low-profile/low-TDP build with the A10-5700 and my youngest would use that system (nothing more demanding than Open Arena). Or if the A10-5800K can be easily pushed on air, might build it for my wife with an HD 6670 for Crossfire.


----------



## largon (Sep 28, 2012)

chimonow said:


> tacosRcool said:
> 
> 
> > must be nice to reach that speed. Now how much power will it consume?
> ...


I'm sure *tacosRcool* meant power consumption _when OC'ed_ to the said 6.5GHz, so it's somewhere around or north of 300W.


----------



## okidna (Sep 28, 2012)

Gigabyte said that they can achieve 1500Mhz++ on the GPU clock (OC with LN2) with 3DMark Vantage scores over P10000 : www.gigabyte.com/microsite/319/images/overview.html


----------



## PopcornMachine (Sep 28, 2012)

I remember them making a big show of extreme overclocking of bulldozer a week or so before it's release.

And as most people here know, clock speed means nothing comparing architectures.  That's the lesson we learned then, and I'm afraid will learn again.


----------



## phanbuey (Sep 28, 2012)

Dent1 said:


> Why is everyone always on AMD's case?
> 
> Intel has 10x the resources and they promote their processors with unstable LN2 overclocks too but nobody says nothing.



Because AMD always says crap like "Well our processor is better than Intel because of X" and X almost always turns out to be some BS that they made up (remember the "native quad core"?)...  Where as intel is a bit more like "Our processor hit 6Ghz. Bam." 

For example:

"...Overclocking abilities give AMD's sub-$150 chips such as the A10-5800K, A8-5600K, and A6-5400K an edge over similarly-priced Intel chips..."

So... basically our chips clocking higher = better than intel chips.  which is most likely BS.

Its probably a great chip - just as long as you dont read the shiny box that promises magical super unicorn performance.


----------



## Frick (Sep 28, 2012)

phanbuey said:


> Because AMD always says crap like "Well our processor is better than Intel because of X" and X almost always turns out to be some BS that they made up (remember the "native quad core"?)...  Where as intel is a bit more like "Our processor hit 6Ghz. Bam."
> 
> For example:
> 
> ...



But that is just marketing. And I'm quite sure that a madly overclocked sub $150 AMD chip can beat a $150 Intel chip at stock. Marketing is marketing, nothing new.


----------



## alwayssts (Sep 28, 2012)

Ikaruga said:


> It's a hard choice: A 2500K with easy and smooth 4.7Ghz on air, or lets mess with an A10 APU and liquid nitrogen =]



As a 2600k user I realize I should shut the front door, but I look at it this way:

A 2500k will do 4.7ghz and have the graphics power of potentially 6450 (1875mhz) smooth and easy on air for $220.

A 5800k may do 4.7ghz and have the graphics horsepower of ~6570-6670 (> stock gt640) smooth and easy on air for $150.

2500k is probably around 15% faster per clock on the cpu.
5800k is probably around 300% faster (depending on bw dependency) on the gpu.

It's all relative to what someone is using their computer for and I fully realize that, but as a realistic package for many users, I like those ratios.  I can't say I would notice 15% cpu performance most of the time, given when I ran my 2600k stock which would be fairly similar, but certainly recognize how much the iGPU in SB doesn't hack it no matter what you do.

Add a $50 gfx card to a 2500k, and you have the performance of an OC Trinity.
Add a $50 gfx card to a 5800k, you have the performance of a $100 graphics card.

Suddenly the performance/$ is completely skewed, and you have a half-decent gaming setup for less than the price of a 2500k.

Oh yeah, and from experience if you ever watch a 24fps video using SB, be ready for pain.
I am happy with the video performance/options of NI, Trinity is probably similar/better.

I think it is truly difficult to argue against AMD's realistic-usage proposition.


----------



## Dent1 (Sep 28, 2012)

phanbuey said:


> Because AMD always says crap like "Well our processor is better than Intel because of X" and X almost always turns out to be some BS that they made up (remember the "native quad core"?)...  Where as intel is a bit more like "Our processor hit 6Ghz. Bam."
> 
> For example:
> 
> ...



 AMD never said that. That quote was added by "btarunr" the moderator to hype up the article.



Ikaruga said:


> It's a hard choice: A 2500K with easy and smooth 4.7Ghz on air, or lets mess with an A10 APU and liquid nitrogen =]



What makes you think Trinity can't achieve 4.7GHz on air too? (I'm not saying it can or cant)


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (Sep 28, 2012)

Mindweaver said:


> Great achievement! But I would rather see it do 5ghz on air or aio watercooler(H50/H80/H100 and so on...). I don't see how AMD sees this as good PR.. It's like telling some one you have a car with 600hp! BUT it only keeps up with an average 300hp car...



i was temtpted to be sarky ala car comment, but ill stick to just agreeing with you as a usefull Oc shown on water or Air would both impress me more and interest me more.


----------



## Super XP (Sep 28, 2012)

Dent1 said:


> AMD never said that. That quote was added by "btarunr" the moderator to hype up the article.
> What makes you think Trinity can't achieve 4.7GHz on air too? (I'm not saying it can or cant)


I believe Piledriver can easily hit over 5GHz on air. That RCM technology if implemented properly should give you much higher clocks with each increase making a big performance different. We shall see soon enough.


----------



## Aquinus (Sep 28, 2012)

Super XP said:


> I believe Piledriver can easily hit over 5GHz on air. That RCM technology if implemented properly should give you much higher clocks with each increase making a big performance different. We shall see soon enough.



RCM makes the CPU power usage most efficient at the RCM's resonant frequency. It uses charge pumps to use otherwise wasted energy to supply the CPU again. It recycles CPU power, but the further the clocks get from the resonant frequency the more power it will consume. It will run best to the clock speed that the RCM is tuned to. Higher temperatures could also dampen the RCMs resonant frequency. I'm really curious to see how PD works out. I could care less about it outpacing Intel, the architecture is pretty neat and is a step in the right direction.


----------



## Ikaruga (Sep 28, 2012)

alwayssts said:


> As a 2600k user I realize I should shut the front door, but I look at it this way:
> 
> A 2500k will do 4.7ghz and have the graphics power of potentially 6450 (1875mhz) smooth and easy on air for $220.
> 
> ...



I think you misunderstood me or just want to pick on me for some reason I have no idea about, but either way, here i go: 

*I did not (in any way) say that it's a bad CPU (or it's a bad buy, etc)*. We could have a conversation where we compare the pros and the cons of the two chips, but that's definitely not what I meant in my post. 
The marketing guy was talking about overclockability, and mentioned the i5-2500k. If you overclock, you do it to gain extra performance, and that's something what we can measure. That chip has significantly larger TDP at 4.7Ghz, not to mention that how much more you gonna need to get 2500k@4.7Ghz-ish benchmark figures, because you gonna need a lot more, and that's not gonna be smooth nor easy for sure, let alone the extra noise and electricity bill what will come with it.

APUs are not for serious overclocking, it's a product which currently used for entirely different purposes. They might be the future of course, but we are not there yet. AMD knows that the cheaper and cooler i3-3225 with its HD4000 is targeting the same segment and does everything what the target audience is looking for, so they (understandably) try to emphasise on the overclockabilty of their chip to shift focus from the competitor product, so some people might find it harder to "argue against their realistic-usage proposition"

Again, please don't get me wrong, Trinity APUs are really useful nice products and they can be the better choice in many builds. All I said is that they are hopeless against performance monsters like the SB/IB-K series.


----------



## suraswami (Sep 28, 2012)

hopefully this OCs to decent 4.5+ Ghz without sucking neighboring states power grid  and puts enough smile on my face


----------



## Super XP (Sep 28, 2012)

Ikaruga said:


> Again, please don't get me wrong, Trinity APUs are really useful nice products and they can be the better choice in many builds. All I said is that they are hopeless against performance monsters like the SB/IB-K series.


Perhaps in a CPU intensive benchmark, but in Graphics, Trinity rules hands down. And we are talking about overall performance with no outside interference; Trinity is a better solution in terms of price/performance.


Aquinus said:


> RCM makes the CPU power usage most efficient at the RCM's resonant frequency. It uses charge pumps to use otherwise wasted energy to supply the CPU again. It recycles CPU power, but the further the clocks get from the resonant frequency the more power it will consume. It will run best to the clock speed that the RCM is tuned to. Higher temperatures could also dampen the RCMs resonant frequency. *I'm really curious to see how PD works out. I could care less about it outpacing Intel, the architecture is pretty neat and is a step in the right direction.*


This design should eventually pay off in the long run. Hopefully by the middle of 2013, people will say WOW, good job AMD, now we understand


----------



## 1d10t (Sep 28, 2012)

Dent1 said:


> Why is everyone always on AMD's case?
> Intel has 10x the resources and they promote their processors with unstable LN2 overclocks too but nobody says nothing.



well said...
Nobody say's nothing in articles regarding VIA while them too,boasting their capabilities. 



bencrutz said:


> added feature.
> amd just provide options.
> if there's no crossfire support, i think people would then start complaining why the heck there's no crossfire available for FM2?



and yet people still whining about lack of PCIe 3.0 and 16x16x bandwidth 
PS:thanks for invitation


----------



## Super XP (Sep 28, 2012)

1d10t said:


> well said...
> Nobody say's nothing in articles regarding VIA while them too,boasting their capabilities.
> and yet people still whining about lack of PCIe 3.0 and 16x16x bandwidth
> PS:thanks for invitation


True, and Welcome to TechPowerUP


----------



## Assimilator (Sep 28, 2012)

ITT: people bitching that Intel pulls the same LN2 overclocking stunts as AMD.

If that's true, why do I never hear about this from Intel PR; while every time AMD releases a new CPU, they claim it overclocks like a demon on LN2?

Maybe it's because - once again - the CPU part of their APU, aka the most important part, isn't competitive and they're frantically trying to distract people from this fact?

Just throwing that out there... use it, don't use it...


----------



## seronx (Sep 28, 2012)

So @ 6.5 GHz with LN2 Trinity is Cinebench R11.5 benchable?


----------



## Harlequin_uk (Sep 29, 2012)

lets see some of these LN2 jockey`s actually bench at these clocks then.....


----------



## HTC (Sep 29, 2012)

seronx said:


> http://www.sweclockers.com/image/re...ries_0011_Layer+7.jpg?t=paneBanner&k=9c75e774
> 
> So @ 6.5 GHz with LN2 Trinity is Cinebench R11.5 benchable?



If the 68% more in cinebench is true, doesn't it mean it scales VERY well?

More CPU benches are needed to make a proper judgment on this but it sure does look good.


----------



## Ikaruga (Sep 29, 2012)

Super XP said:


> Perhaps in a CPU intensive benchmark, but in Graphics, Trinity rules hands down. And we are talking about overall performance with no outside interference; Trinity is a better solution in terms of price/performance.



No, that's absolutely not what the context was. Look up what I wrote. The choice between an easy solid 4.7Ghz SB performance on air vs an AMD APU @6.5Ghz on LN2(!) and the reactor you need, (not to mention the fairness of the comparison since the 2500K was launched almost two years ago). It's clearly not the better solution* in that context*.


----------



## Super XP (Sep 29, 2012)

Ikaruga said:


> No, that's absolutely not what the context was. Look up what I wrote. The choice between an easy solid 4.7Ghz SB performance on air vs an AMD APU @6.5Ghz on LN2(!) and the reactor you need, (not to mention the fairness of the comparison since the 2500K was launched almost two years ago). It's clearly not the better solution* in that context*.


Oh, so you were stating a joke.


----------



## Ikaruga (Sep 29, 2012)

Super XP said:


> Oh, so you were stating a joke.



I found it funny indeed, but it wasn't me who stated it.


----------



## DRDNA (Sep 29, 2012)

Wow....


----------



## 1d10t (Sep 29, 2012)

Super XP said:


> True, and Welcome to TechPowerUP



thank's mate 



Assimilator said:


> If that's true, why do I never hear about this from Intel PR; while every time AMD releases a new CPU, they claim it overclocks like a demon on LN2?
> 
> Maybe it's because - once again - the CPU part of their APU, aka the most important part, isn't competitive and they're frantically trying to distract people from this fact?



no,but the board maker does.
you can see here if they haven't changed the slides...

http://www.msi.com/product/mb/#/?sk=Socket 2011 (Intel i7)
http://www.asus.com/Motherboards/Intel_Socket_1155/Intel_Z77
http://www.asrock.com/microsite/OCFormula/

they bashing each other claiming can reach 7 Ghz.it is good for them or good for intel?

CPU might important,but not the most.on to question,which software or games that any mediocre quad-core can't handle?if you have an opt,what would you like to choose,upgrade to i7 3770k or GTX 660Ti?
let just leave PR be,it's their job


----------



## seronx (Sep 29, 2012)

Next AMD Headline involving clocks:  
*AMD plans to introduce 10 GHz chips by 2016.*

Edit: Added 1 year to be super accurate.


----------



## Nordic (Sep 29, 2012)

I thought the goal of an apu was to not have a cpu and gpu in one die, but the performance of a gpu working with a cpu. So that gpu performance becomes cpu performance. I know it isn't that way yet, but one day maybe.


----------



## seronx (Sep 29, 2012)

james888 said:


> I thought the goal of an apu was to not have a cpu and gpu in one die, but the performance of a gpu working with a cpu. So that gpu performance becomes cpu performance. I know it isn't that way yet, but one day maybe.


The goal of the APU is to:
Have the CPU do serial tasks efficiently.
Have the GPU do parallel tasks efficiently.

The idea is to place parallel tasks on the GPU because they work great on parallel tasks.  While placing serial tasks on the CPUs because they work great on serial tasks.

A10-5800K FP SP GFlops: 4 Cores * 8 Flops * 3.8 GHz = 121.6 FMA SP GFlops
7660D FP SP GFlops: 6 Cores * 128 Flops * 0.8 GHz = 614.4 FMA SP GFlops


----------



## Nordic (Sep 29, 2012)

seronx said:


> The goal of the APU is to:
> Have the CPU do serial tasks efficiently.
> Have the GPU do parallel tasks efficiently.
> 
> The idea is to place parallel tasks on the GPU because they work great on parallel tasks.  While placing serial tasks on the CPUs because they work great on serial tasks.


Much better said.



seronx said:


> A10-5800K FP SP GFlops: 4 Cores * 8 Flops * 3.8 GHz = 121.6 FMA SP GFlops
> 7660D FP SP GFlops: 6 Cores * 128 Flops * 0.8 GHz = 614.4 FMA SP GFlops


So you can combine those numbers for total of 736 FMA SP GFlops? If so how does that compare to a 2500k.


----------



## OneMoar (Sep 29, 2012)

sooo tl;Dr amd's latest chip clocks 6Ghz but loses to a 3750k that clocks 3.3 yeaaaaa thats some quality product you got there AMD
good lord they think they would have learned from bulldozer 
moar clock speed != MOAR performance
the only thing moar clock speed grants you is higher power consumption and heat
the reason we see AMD driving to push the clock speeds up is they they fired all the engineers that told them otherwise .... and they now lack the talent to design efficient  chips they are so far in the hole that its gonna take one or two more generations for them to climb back-out for all of AMD's pr bullshit we have yet to see ONE CHIP from them that lived up to expectations
\
bottem line is when there top end part is getting soundly beaten by offerings from intel that are only ~25-50 bucks more  
the people that are looking for performance tend to look REALLY hard at there wallets.

if I went out and built another pc today and was gonna spend >600 bucks. it would be intel because I know in ~4 years that THAT 3750k I bought today will still be-able to offer good (gaming)performance. with amd its a crap shoot  if you don't believe me pull of some benchmarks of a Q8400 Vrs a Phenom II 940 yes most titles are very playable and there is less then a 20Fps difference but 20Fps can make the difference between playable and a slideshow ... 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I used to be a AMD guy like you but then .... I got a 2500k ..... and a wakeup call


----------



## NeoXF (Sep 29, 2012)

Am I the only one that finds it weird that A8-5600K and A10-5800K are so close in GPU performance? It's 256 760MHz shaders vs 384 800MHz shaders after all... I smell bottleneck...





OneMoar said:


> sooo tl;Dr amd's latest chip clocks 6Ghz but loses to a 3750k that clocks 3.3 yeaaaaa thats some quality product you got there AMD
> good lord they think they would have learned from bulldozer
> moar clock speed != MOAR performance
> the only thing moar clock speed grants you is higher power consumption and heat
> ...



QQ some "moar" maybe?


----------



## Dent1 (Sep 29, 2012)

NeoXF said:


> Am I the only one that finds it weird that A8-5600K and A10-5800K are so close in GPU performance? It's 256 760MHz shaders vs 384 800MHz shaders after all... I smell bottleneck...



Bottleneck by what? The CPU performance?

The GPU is only a 7660D, not powerful at all. People are running slower Athlon IIs and Phenom IIs and Bulldozers on faster dedicated GPUs and they are not being bottlenecked.


----------



## NeoXF (Sep 29, 2012)

Dent1 said:


> Bottleneck by what? The CPU performance?
> 
> The GPU is only a 7660D, not powerful at all. People are running slower Athlon IIs and Phenom IIs and Bulldozers on faster dedicated GPUs and they are not being bottlenecked.



Uhm... IDK... drivers (yes, I do want to remind people that APUs, like GPUs, are very susceptible to underperforming drivers), system/iGPU memory bandwidth?


















*VERSUS*






And these are just some random pics I picked up to exemplify with.


Yeah, sure looks like all those extra 128 graphics cores (and MHz) are being fully tapped out in most cases. :rollseyes:


----------



## Super XP (Sep 29, 2012)

NeoXF said:


> Uhm... IDK... drivers (yes, I do want to remind people that APUs, like GPUs, are very susceptible to underperforming drivers), system/iGPU memory bandwidth?
> 
> http://images.anandtech.com/graphs/graph6332/50163.png
> 
> ...


And you are comparing games? How about none game applications. Anyhow this is but a small number of games you've selected. Though I do agree the GPU specs are almost identical. There should have been more of an overall and distinctive performance difference between them. 


james888 said:


> Much better said.
> So you can combine those numbers for total of 736 FMA SP GFlops? If so how does that compare to a 2500k.


Within the APU, both CPU & GPU can communicate a lot more efficient.


----------



## Dent1 (Sep 29, 2012)

NeoXF said:


> Yeah, sure looks like all those extra 128 graphics cores (and MHz) are being fully tapped out in most cases. :rollseyes:




But as you pointed out earlier the difference is 256 760MHz shaders vs 384 800MHz shaders  between the A8-5600K and A10-5800K. More than likely the GPU just isnt scaling well in general.

We've seen situations with dedicated video cards where increasing the shader count doesn't scale e.g. the 9800GT and 9800GTX or the 4830 and 4850. Similar performance despite the increased shader count. But back in 2009 nobody said CPU bottleneck we just excepted scaling isnt linear.


----------



## Super XP (Sep 29, 2012)

I was hoping for a more powerful Trinity APU such a based on the HD 7800 series but a tuned down version so they reach there power requirements. I guess for HDTV and mild gaming, AMD's tapped heavily in the OEM with its current offerings.


----------



## Ferrum Master (Sep 29, 2012)

Dent1 said:


> But as you pointed out earlier the difference is 256 760MHz shaders vs 384 800MHz shaders  between the A8-5600K and A10-5800K. More than likely the GPU just isnt scaling well in general.
> 
> We've seen situations with dedicated video cards where increasing the shader count doesn't scale e.g. the 9800GT and 9800GTX or the 4830 and 4850. Similar performance despite the increased shader count. But back in 2009 nobody said CPU bottleneck we just excepted scaling isnt linear.



As far I've played with APU, the bottleneck is the crappy memory controller, therefore the margin between those gpus isn't very big. It wasn't with G92 and RV770 like that. No magic involved. If AMD had something similar as Intel's memory bandwidth, then it would become more fun.


----------



## Super XP (Sep 29, 2012)

Ferrum Master said:


> As far I've played with APU, the bottleneck is the crappy memory controller, therefore the margin between those gpus isn't very big. It wasn't with G92 and RV770 like that. No magic involved. If AMD had something similar as Intel's memory bandwidth, then it would become more fun.


You can also add AMD's lack luster cache structure that they've been messing with per each generation but choose not to fix. If AMD can re-design both the IMC and cache, they'll be way better off in both efficiency and performance.


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (Sep 29, 2012)

OneMoar said:


> if I went out and built another pc today and was gonna spend >600 bucks. it would be intel because I know in ~4 years that THAT 3750k I bought today will still be-able to offer good (gaming)performance. with amd its a crap shoot if you don't believe me pull of some benchmarks of a Q8400 Vrs a Phenom II 940 yes most titles are very playable and there is less then a 20Fps difference but 20Fps can make the difference between playable and a slideshow ...



< some people are still running phenomIIx4 core cpu's , some have dual graphics attached to them and this one guy would like to say shut up, learn how to setup and Oc a pc right, my Pc has zero issues playing any game maxed out and i have no issues at this time with stuttering or low fps on any something the intel Epeen crew need to consider is many are doing ok on what Amdbashers are now allegeing to be totally inadequate, stop arguing about Bs Amd work fine on the crappy ports and even pc orig games out today

i bet i could pop over to the intel hits 7Ghz thread and not sea the same people moaning about Ocing on Ln2 there or its relevance.


----------



## Dent1 (Sep 29, 2012)

OneMoar said:


> if I went out and built another pc today and was gonna spend >600 bucks. it would be intel because I know in ~4 years that THAT 3750k I bought today will still be-able to offer good (gaming)performance. with amd its a crap shoot  if you don't believe me pull of some benchmarks of a Q8400 Vrs a Phenom II 940 yes most titles are very playable and there is less then a 20Fps difference but 20Fps can make the difference between playable and a slideshow ...
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> I used to be a AMD guy like you but then .... I got a 2500k ..... and a wakeup call




I've had my Athlon II X4 620 for over 3 years now. Not a single game it can't run maxed out. I run dual GPUs and don't suffer from poor frame rate or bottlenecking. I will most likely still run this CPU for another year. When I do replace it'll be because of my itch to upgrade rather than the performance. 

So yh, 3+ years running a CPU that cost me £70 back in the day and still going strong. AMD is really ripping me off 

Name one midrange to high end AMD CPU that did not last 4 years from its release? - That is right you can't. Sit down.


----------



## Ferrum Master (Sep 29, 2012)

Super XP said:


> You can also add AMD's lack luster cache structure that they've been messing with per each generation but choose not to fix. If AMD can re-design both the IMC and cache, they'll be way better off in both efficiency and performance.



Mate, they need to design better 90% of the things in their CPU's  Let us spice up the things.

Situation right now reminds me of the late K7 days. Thunderbird, Palomino, Thoroughbred A/B and Barton... Same old guys, same old critters in terms of performance margin... I had them all, they actually so sucked tech wise, although P4 sucked also altough they are now like these tractors(couldn't hold my self with this deja vu), I loved the Tualatin much.

They need to scrap everything again. That's my only suggestion... Their hybrid path they currently are introducing is for the sake of servers, to introduce a universal computable machine model doing simple math on GPU and complex on x86 part, no additional TESLA or Larrafailbree, but they are rushing too fast in my opinion, they have not the balls for it now. To me it is all useless, they are half baked stillborns from Frankensteins lab.

And currently no useful software is made for it either OS wise. If M$ or Linux will introduce a heterogeneous OS that really uses data smartly and decides witch calculation it will be like, at last a OS from the new century. A winrar extraction, antivirus or even the heck pr0n video - hey GPU wake up and work, or even a dedicated ARM part in the CPU whatever it will be like just a simple math and same with the doing complex math CPU. Then yes yes - only apu's FTW. CPU is a dinosaur from stone age to me then as for a buyer.
So the salt is, that the data scheduler in the APU must be very tightly binded with the OS kernel. And apps should be compiled that way also with certain flags. And yes, we have a revolution. Greener world, less electricity bill, and the heck a faster cooler computer. So we are mimicking what mobile devices will actually do in near future. Still now for all mobile OS'es, GPU only does the UI part and still taxing with large I/O and memory overhead, so OS wise it is like a workaround still, not a new approach. Intel is an idiot and makes it even worse, for android introducing a recompiler on the fly to use ARM apps on their stupid/hot x86 crippled Atom. It is complete a nonsense evolution wise.

Intel can afford that due to their fab technology that currently only they had in the world. They can build a CPU like that any moment actually. But they are lazy, as there is NO competitor, they just die-shrink what they have = invest zero money in R/D and sell! = profit still counts as win, despite the stupid way how it was achieved.

AMD could do this and evolve only notebook mobile solutions and save money and R/D for desktops, and make simple behemoth chips like K8 was. It is funny to see that this chip still performs worse than a proper K10.5. I still think that the best thing was using GPU integrated in North Bridge for office home theater systems. Beat me if I am wrong...


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (Sep 29, 2012)

Ferrum Master said:


> Beat me if I am wrong...



great sugestion 90% of what Amd have designed is right, its the last 10% they need to perfect, and coders wont necessarily have to code specifically for either gpu or cpu if Amd get their(HSA) hypervisor Api in place and doing its job right as they plan to.


----------



## Super XP (Sep 29, 2012)

OKAY, let me beat you 
You make some valid points, but let me elaborate by providing a link and on why this unique CPU Architecture was the right choice for AMD's future. 



> Taking some lessons from the graphics arm of the company and their successful Radeon brand, AMD is applying that train of thought to processors.





> For the past several decades we saw processor design follow a fairly simple routine.* A new generation of architecture is released, and there are a few minor updates to the architecture other than moving to smaller process nodes.* Around the seven year mark a brand new architecture is then introduced, updates are applied, and then the cycle starts over again.* These massive jumps in technology are complex and expensive, and they take tens of thousands of man hours to complete.* While the advantages of going with a clean sheet design are many, if a basic decision is made that turns out to be flawed or counterproductive, then years of design work are wasted.* AMD appears to be trying to move away from this design paradigm, as the risks of making such a poor decision is nearly catastrophic for the company.* Instead, AMD is looking at a more conservative, though accelerated, route.* Essentially AMD is looking at major, yearly updates for their processor architectures.* Instead of small updates over the years culminating in a massive redesign, they are taking many smaller steps in between.* Much like AMD did with their process technology, they are applying this to the design methodology.* This means small, meaningful changes on a very regular basis.* This philosophy allowed AMD to stay within spitting distance of Intel and their formidable process lead, and their products (historically) have been in the same rough performance range with similar TDPs


http://www.pcper.com/reviews/Editorial/AMD-Vishera-and-Beyond-New-Design-Philosophy-Dictates-Faster-Pace

AMD will fix this new Micro-Architecture, and by the time Excavator or even Crane comes out, AMD should be either on par or faster than Intel IMO.


----------



## Ferrum Master (Sep 29, 2012)

theoneandonlymrk said:


> great sugestion 90% of what Amd have designed is right, its the last 10% they need to perfect, and coders wont necessarily have to code specifically for either gpu or cpu if Amd get their(HSA) hypervisor Api in place and doing its job right as they plan to.



I still suppose their APU is very very costly to make, they aren't making proper money from desktop users at all from this all FM platform in my opinion. There for I still think these processors are just a beta versions fed to the market for debugging purposes to say we are still alive(for investors). The real thing still is in the blueprints. But you know, no money no R/D no tech talents etc. They are profiting only from server cpu's. If they will suck more... ARM will soon catch them... and you know what might happen.

Supervisor? Yeah a wet dream, it would be nice I still haven't got my degree , life sucks in some places man. 

But we all have to agree... software in the current generation wise is bullcrap, and all overbeefed hardware is compensation for the poor coding style. It is some kind of illness and plague. BTW I've read some conspiracy stuff elsewhere that most software is written poorly for AMD due to intel bribes and is truly intentionally written poorly for AMD's memory stack. 



Super XP said:


> AMD will fix this new Micro-Architecture, and by the time Excavator or even Crane comes out, AMD should be either on par or faster than Intel IMO.



Yeah I've told already that these current CPU's are half baked stillborns from Frankensteins lab.


----------



## Ikaruga (Sep 29, 2012)

Dent1 said:


> I've had my Athlon II X4 620 for over 3 years now. Not a single game it can't run maxed out. I run dual GPUs and don't suffer from poor frame rate or bottlenecking. I will most likely still run this CPU for another year. When I do replace it'll be because of my itch to upgrade rather than the performance.
> 
> So yh, 3+ years running a CPU that cost me £70 back in the day and still going strong. AMD is really ripping me off
> 
> Name one midrange to high end AMD CPU that did not last 4 years from its release? - That is right you can't. Sit down.



I'm a little sceptical that you are not experiencing CPU's limitations with a X4-620. Every test on the the web I can find shows otherwise. Even the cheap i3 is about 25-40% faster in games (measuring minimum frame rates, and that's what's most important for gamers). 
TH did a quite unbiased test on this after AMD fans raged about their infamous "sandy bridge has game"  article.

I'm happy that you are satisfied with your CPU (it's a good one after all), but looking at the additional power costs you had to pay in those years and the performance you got as a return, perhaps it doesn't look that outstanding anymore if you compare it to the competition.


----------



## Ferrum Master (Sep 29, 2012)

Ikaruga said:


> I'm a little sceptical that you not experiencing CPU's limitations with a X4-620.



Mate, it all depends on the game itself. So the subjective user experience for each of us and the taste and style how we are using our PC's. In many scenarios AMD is sufficient enough.


----------



## Ikaruga (Sep 29, 2012)

Ferrum Master said:


> Mate, it all depends on the game itself. So the subjective user experience for each of us and the taste and style how we are using our PC's. In many scenarios AMD is sufficient enough.



I'm with you of course, and I understand and agree as well, but I replied to his post and look at the sentence and what it means:





Dent1 said:


> Not a single game it can't run maxed out. I run dual GPUs and don't suffer from poor frame rate or bottlenecking.


 He has a very good CPU indeed, and it's awesome that he is happy with it. I'm just pointing out that perhaps other good things can be also out there


----------



## Dent1 (Sep 29, 2012)

Ikaruga said:


> I'm a little sceptical that you are not experiencing CPU's limitations with a X4-620. Every test on the the web I can find shows otherwise. Even the cheap i3 is about 25-40% faster in games (measuring minimum frame rates, and that's what's most important for gamers).
> TH did a quite unbiased test on this after AMD fans raged about their infamous "sandy bridge has game"  article.
> 
> I'm happy that you are satisfied with your CPU (it's a good one after all), but looking at the additional power costs you had to pay in those years and the performance you got as a return, perhaps it doesn't look that outstanding anymore if you compare it to the competition.




Those reviews were done at 1920x1080. Back when I bought my Athlon II X4 over three years ago very few people played at that resolution.

1920x1080p is only now becoming popular and it's still isnt the norm. I game 1440x900.

Also that review has just a single 6850, whereas currently I'm running a two 5850s (CF); And my CPU is OC'd. So my experienced might be enhanced.

My point was that even a midrange CPU 3+ years ago is still going strong. For OneMoar to imply that AMD CPUs can't last 4 years is nonsense.


----------



## Ikaruga (Sep 29, 2012)

Dent1 said:


> Those reviews were done at 1920x1080. Back when I bought my Athlon II X4 over three years ago very few people played at that resolution.
> 
> 1920x1080p is only now becoming popular and it's still isnt the norm. I game 1440x900.
> 
> ...



The lower the resolution, the higher the CPU-limitation will show, but let's forget it 
I did not meant to offend you, and I'm really rooting for AMD to be successful and do some awesome CPUs like the SB/IB series, because the greater the competition is, the better for us


----------



## Dent1 (Sep 29, 2012)

Ikaruga said:


> The lower the resolution, the higher the CPU-limitation will show, but let's forget it



Yes I'm aware lower resolution put less stres on the GPU.

Generally speaking, minimum, maximum and average frame rate will still increase as you lower the resolution. e.g. Crysis 52.9 FPS at 1024x768 and only 26.2FPS at 1900x1200

http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/HIS/HD_5850/10.html



Ikaruga said:


> I did not meant to offend you, and I'm really rooting for AMD to be successful and do some awesome CPUs like the SB/IB series, because the greater the competition is, the better for us



I'm not offended


----------



## Ikaruga (Sep 29, 2012)

Dent1 said:


> Generally speaking, minimum, maximum and average frame rate will still increase as you lower the resolution. e.g. Crysis 52.9 FPS at 1024x768 and only 26.2FPS at 1900x1200


I just replied to what you said. What I meant is that they actually favored AMD with the high resolution, because the gap looks smaller.


----------



## Super XP (Sep 29, 2012)

I had an Athlon 64 for a long while, and boy did it serve me well. It crunched though games like butter. DOOM 3 being one of them along with Half Life II or do I have my time line wrong.


----------



## MikeMurphy (Sep 29, 2012)

I loved the Llano chips, and am on the fence as to whether I built my HTPC with Trinity or save a couple bucks and jump into an FM1.

I think the answer is Llano / FM1.


----------



## trickson (Sep 29, 2012)

Oh Yeah some more good PR from AMD. Nothing like some fluff to sell there junk.


----------



## ensabrenoir (Sep 29, 2012)

Super XP said:


> OKAY, let me beat you
> You make some valid points, but let me elaborate by providing a link and on why this unique CPU Architecture was the right choice for AMD's future.
> 
> 
> ...




Only if intel goes on vacation until then.... It haswell lives up to their claims....like most of intels cpus do then pile driver crane and  steam shovel will be  a moot point.    Sorry......a delorean with carbon fiber is still a delorean.  Amd should not market their apu or cpus as performance  parts.  They need the best value or the greener angle.  The gpus are their performance parts.


----------



## Nordic (Sep 29, 2012)

ensabrenoir said:


> Only if intel goes on vacation until then.... It haswell lives up to their claims....like most of intels cpus do then pile driver crane and  steam shovel will be  a moot point.    Sorry......a delorean with carbon fiber is still a delorean.  Amd should not market their apu or cpus as performance  parts.  They need the best value or the greener angle.  The gpus are their performance parts.



I know most of what we know of haswell is rumors so far, but I read somewhere that haswell was only going to be a small net increase in performance because intel would drop the tdp again. At least as stock.


----------



## ensabrenoir (Sep 29, 2012)

james888 said:


> I know most of what we know of haswell is rumors so far, but I read somewhere that haswell was only going to be a small net increase in performance because intel would drop the tdp again. At least as stock.



I think haswell biggest problem will be that it will out perform 2011 which im in the middle of a new build.  Intel dosent want to but its competing against itself and its gonna cost them money. So were getting neutered products.   And yes an eight core sb e wouldve most likely been  a 200watt part


----------



## Jurassic1024 (Sep 29, 2012)

Good article, but as for the overclock-Meh. Wake me when they get to 10GHz. Marketing to the 1% of the people that are actually extreme overclockers, does nothing for real consumers.

*moving on*


----------



## Super XP (Sep 29, 2012)

trickson said:


> Oh Yeah some more good PR from AMD. Nothing like some fluff to sell there junk.


Yes because you rather have Intel as the only player in the game so they can wonderfully continue to Un-Innovate. So while AMD's pushing innovation through the roof whether it be successful or not, Intel will continue to copy them. Thank you AMD for giving Intel a kick in the aris once in a while.

AMD's two unfortunate situations within the CPU industry cost them time and money. But they've recovered. 1) Barcelona & 2) Bulldozer. Barcelona being a modified design based on a previous, where as Bulldozer coming from outer space and hand crafted by Aliens.  All AMD needs to do now is rectify this space age design and flourish.


----------



## erocker (Sep 29, 2012)

Few posts have been cleaned due to someone not being able to not insult others in their post.


----------



## Aquinus (Sep 29, 2012)

trickson said:


> Edit: Said some nasty things that were edited.



Angry much, jeez. Tone it down a notch or two, will you? Oh, Trinity OCs on LN2 like a mother. It's how much it OCs on LN2 because I'm willing to bet that it's going to scale just as well on air, meaning it will OC better than Llano. I agree that LN2 benchmarks are bullshit to begin with because honestly it's just a "look what I can do," move. So all in all, we should reserve judgement for when Trinity actually comes out and our friends here at TPU can do their job and provide a very sexy review on the CPU. Until then, claims are claims, nVidia did the same thing before the 680 came out and it didn't prove to be as powerful as they hyped it up to be, granted it is a very fast GPU.

So lets just hope this is an indication that AMD is starting to produce better CPUs and leave it at that. No cursing, no flaming, and an honest answer about what this article says says, because I really hope AMD can deliver. Maybe I just like the underdog, but just remember, just because AMD chips aren't as fast as Intel's in all circumstances by no means says that AMD produces a bad processor. It's important that everyone understands that. AMD and Intel are both companies that are worthy of praise, regardless of which one might be better. Respect is the name of the game.


----------



## trickson (Sep 29, 2012)

This is the best thing since sliced bread.


----------



## xenocide (Sep 29, 2012)

Super XP said:


> Yes because you rather have Intel as the only player in the game so they can wonderfully continue to Un-Innovate. So while AMD's pushing innovation through the roof whether it be successful or not, Intel will continue to copy them. Thank you AMD for giving Intel a kick in the aris once in a while.
> 
> AMD's two unfortunate situations within the CPU industry cost them time and money. But they've recovered. 1) Barcelona & 2) Bulldozer. Barcelona being a modified design based on a previous, where as Bulldozer coming from outer space and hand crafted by Aliens.  All AMD needs to do now is rectify this space age design and flourish.



I've addressed this issue a million times but I'll do it _again_;

If Intel were the only maker of CPU's, you would still see new technology as time went on, otherwise nobody would ever upgrade, meaning Intel would bleed dry.  Monopolies only really work in fields where people have to buy a product multiple times; things like Electricity, Internet, Oil.  Monopolies in those areas cause the consumer to get screwed because people *NEED* to buy Gasoline to get to and from jobs, they need to heat their homes, and power their lights and refrigerators.

If Intel knocked AMD out, they would have to compete with a much larger and more powerful foe--Intel.  Intel never directly compares to AMD, because they don't really have to worry about it.  It's not like with, say Aspirin, where you see commercials of them going "Tylenol is x% more effective than Advil!"  If there were no performance gains to be had, people would stop buying Intel's products across the board.  This would destroy Intel in no time flat.  Every day people don't drive Intel and AMD to innovate, and the competition probably has minimal effect too (duopolies are just as--if not more--dangerous as monopolies).  The best analogy is The Joker and Batman in The Dark Knight--Intel *needs* AMD around, to keep them from destroying themselves.

The industry as a whole drives these companies to innovate.  Software Developers, Web Developers, Film Editors, Audio Engineers, these people need more powerful hardware a shit load more than your Grammy does.

Also, 'Space Age' design?  There's no way you actually _believe_ that, nobody could be that ridiculous...


----------



## Super XP (Sep 30, 2012)

> Also, 'Space Age' design? There's no way you actually believe that, nobody could be that ridiculous...


I was being sarcastic. I've been preaching about both AMD & Intel needing each other for ages now. Anyhow your point was well received, Thank You,


----------



## eidairaman1 (Sep 30, 2012)

Aquinus said:


> just remember, just because AMD chips aren't as fast as Intel's in all circumstances by no means says that AMD produces a bad processor. It's important that everyone understands that. AMD and Intel are both companies that are worthy of praise, regardless of which one might be better. Respect is the name of the game.



I agree with you on that, AMD for awhile has been producing parts that meet a wide array of demands for a lower price. In Business environments ive been seeing standard terminals using AMDs, its because they can be bought in bulk for less than the equivalent Intel parts.

Businesses to me make up the biggest market of the Traditional PC because of the Number they Need at once. Businesses will always go with the lowest price parts for their general terminals and even servers. Only the science community goes for anything faster which makes for a smaller percentage of businesses. Enthusiast Market is very small in the consumer range because about 99% are average joes that just only know how to turn them on, open webbrowsers, office applications and play movies or the casual game, (No knowledge of how they operate- which in the end comes down to the gate- on/off or 1/0)

Ive been thinking of honestly making a APU based machine with the Highest expandable board possible (Which in this Case would be ones with the PEG 2.0/2.1 x16+x0 or x8+x8, x4 configuration boards- Def AsRock or Gigabyte)

overall Both Llano and Trinity based APUs are good for the Range they operate in.


----------



## Nordic (Sep 30, 2012)

I find it funny how this thread went from cool look at this, to amd hating, to amd hater hating, to lets all love each other.


----------



## Syborfical (Sep 30, 2012)

james888 said:


> I find it funny how this thread went from cool look at this, to amd hating, to amd hater hating, to lets all love each other.



That is what drives sales the passionate hatred or love for one or the other.

At the end of the day both us X86 which is old and not the most efficient architecture.

But at the end of the day most people use X86 because its cheap and the games.

With out this love hate relationship and passion a lot of people wouldn't care.


----------



## eidairaman1 (Sep 30, 2012)

99% of whole market are average joes that wouldnt know anything about a computer other then how to turn it on. So they only care how much it would cost.




Syborfical said:


> That is what drives sales the passionate hatred or love for one or the other.
> 
> At the end of the day both us X86 which is old and. not the most efficient architecture.
> 
> ...


----------



## suraswami (Sep 30, 2012)

james888 said:


> I find it funny how this thread went from cool look at this, to amd hating, to amd hater hating, to lets all love each other.



What to do, Intel lovers always feel insecure.


----------



## seronx (Sep 30, 2012)

james888 said:


> So you can combine those numbers for total of 736 FMA SP GFlops? If so how does that compare to a 2500k.


Sorry for the late reply.

A10-5800K FP SP GFlops: 4 Cores * 8 Flops * 3.8 GHz = 121.6 FMA SP GFlops
7660D FP SP GFlops: 6 Cores * 128 Flops * 0.8 GHz = 614.4 FMA SP GFlops
Total Aggregate APU SP FP GFlops: *736 SP GFlops*

i5 2500K/3570K FP SP GFlops: 4 Cores * 16 Flops * 3.6 GHz = 230.4 MAC* SP GFlops
HD 3000: 12 EUs * 8 Flops * 1.35 GHz = 129.6 FMA SP GFlops
HD 4000: 16 EUs * 8 Flops * 1.15 GHz = 147.2 FMA SP GFlops
Total Aggregate APU SP FP GFlops:
i5 2500K = *360 SP GFlops*
i5 3570K = *377.6 SP GFlops*

*MAC requires two instructions one for the Multiply and one for the Add.  While FMA requires only one instruction for the Multiply and Add.

Also, VLIW5 and VLIW4 have a huge utilization issue where Graphic Core Next doesn't.  Even though *736 SP GFlops* is possible with the A10-5800K.  Until, Graphic Core Next the best you can get in an application is: *326.4 SP GFlops.*  I know a couple of people who tried to GPU accelerate their platform with OpenCL on the 6900 series and they were only able to get 1/3rd of the GFlops on the GPU. Till Graphic Core Next comes out and you are less likely to go above *330 GFlops.*


----------



## Nordic (Sep 30, 2012)

Syborfical said:


> With out this love hate relationship and passion* a lot of people* wouldn't care.



I used my 2500k because it gives me the performance + performance ratio I was looking for. What ever the best deal seems to be for my needs is where I go. I must be one of those persons who just don't really care much as long as it fulfills my needs.

I like the idea of apu's because if software actually used all of those 736 SP GFlops.

2500k at 4.5ghz = 288 GFlops for cpu only.
5800k at 6.5 ghz = 208 GFlops for cpu only.


----------



## HumanSmoke (Sep 30, 2012)

eidairaman1 said:


> 99% of whole market are average joes that wouldnt know anything about a computer other then how to turn it on. So they only care how much it would cost.


Yep...and the contract price for OEM's pretty much determines the bottom line- which is of course dependant upon:
Yields and silicon fabrication cost. Speed/efficiency of process ramp. Die size. Performance/watt (for OEM's to get away with the bare minimum PSU and cooling)

DIY market = largely immaterial, although I'd note that Intel users seem more disposed towards faster upgrade cycles. Many Intel users (including myself) seem to have graduated from LGA 775 Conroe to Yorkfield, to LGA1366 or 1156 to Sandy/Ivy Bridge(-E), and no doubt more than a few will move to 8/10/12 core Ivy Bridge-E when it arrives. All this would tend to indicate a healthy- for Intel-base level of adoption for any given platform.
AMD users on the other hand, while vociferous in lauding their Sunnyvale masters, seem to be more judicious in their expenditure...so, praise for the products...but happy to sit pat with their present system until the UltimateEarthmoverOver9000 arrives....translating into no cash in AMD's pocket....and less R&D available for the future UEO9000


Dent1 said:


> I've had my Athlon II X4 620 for over 3 years now.





theoneandonlymrk said:


> < some people are still running phenomIIx4 core cpu's .


----------



## Aquinus (Sep 30, 2012)

HumanSmoke said:


> DIY market = largely immaterial, although I'd note that Intel users seem more disposed towards faster upgrade cycles. Many Intel users (including myself) seem to have graduated from LGA 775 Conroe to Yorkfield, to LGA1366 or 1156 to Sandy/Ivy Bridge(-E), and no doubt more than a few will move to 8/10/12 core Ivy Bridge-E when it arrives. All this would tend to indicate a healthy- for Intel-base level of adoption for any given platform.



I tend to jump back and forth. In order of CPUs I've used it goes like this:

Intel Penium 4 630
AMD Athlon 64 3700+
Intel Core 2 Duo E6600
AMD Phenom II 940
Intel Core i7 3820

Notice a pattern?


----------



## HumanSmoke (Sep 30, 2012)

@Aquinus
Sweet. Someone either:
1. who enjoys tech for it's own sake as much as any performance it may provide, or
2. a consumer locked into retail therapy-one step away from John Carpenter's "They Live!"
Strangely enough, many tech enthusiast sites have a high proportion of posters who subscribe to option 2. As someone who spends more on their watercooling than many people spend on their entire system, it tends to amuse me when people incessantly chant/plead for more people to buy an IHV's product, while they themselves upgrade on a 3-5 years basis.
Since you're drawing attention to your alternating IHV preference, I assume your next purchase is AMD....How long do you think you'll have to wait before an AMD platform betters the X79 system you already have (including the likely obvious 8 or 10 core Ivy Bridge-E/ 12-core Xeon drop-in replacement)? How long before AMD see's any of your cash?

An interesting exercise would be to chart the demographic of posters IHV affiliations with regard their present hardware fit-out and relative age of componentry...somehow I don't think my hypothesis would wilt under the scrutiny.


----------



## Super XP (Sep 30, 2012)

Aquinus said:


> I tend to jump back and forth. In order of CPUs I've used it goes like this:
> 
> Intel Penium 4 630
> AMD Athlon 64 3700+
> ...


Estimating on the release dates, your next upgrade would probably be the 2014 AMD Excavator with that rumoured DDR4 introduction. Let's hope she performs


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (Sep 30, 2012)

HumanSmoke said:


> DIY market = largely immaterial, although I'd note that Intel users seem more disposed towards faster upgrade cycles. Many Intel users (including myself) seem to have graduated from LGA 775 Conroe to Yorkfield, to LGA1366 or 1156 to Sandy/Ivy Bridge(-E), and no doubt more than a few will move to 8/10/12 core Ivy Bridge-E when it arrives. All this would tend to indicate a healthy- for Intel-base level of adoption for any given platform.
> AMD users on the other hand, while vociferous in lauding their Sunnyvale masters, seem to be more judicious in their expenditure...so, praise for the products...but happy to sit pat with their present system until the UltimateEarthmoverOver9000 arrives....translating into no cash in AMD's pocket....and less R&D available for the future UEO9000





some of us have to aportion our finances differently is the truth in it, i got this 960T because Bd didnt perform and my Q6600 blew up, i didnt have double the ammount at the time for an intel platform and i wanted an upgrade path, so went in the direction i did, had i infinite money id also upgrade each platform release tho and it would be both vendors not one, in an ideal world id try them all for a bit


----------



## trickson (Sep 30, 2012)

btarunr said:


> AMD's new A10-5800K "Trinity" APUs, launched earlier this week, are capable of extreme overclocking, something similarly-priced Intel processors can't claim, according to Adam Kozak, desktop products manager with the company. According to Kozak, the roughly $150 A10-5800K are capable of 6.50 GHz overclocked speeds, when augmented with liquid nitrogen cooling.
> 
> Overclocking capabilities give AMD's sub-$150 chips such as the A10-5800K, A8-5600K, and A6-5400K an edge over similarly-priced Intel chips. The cheapest overclockable chip from Intel's current lineup is the $220 Core i5-2500K. Based on the "Trinity" silicon, the A10-5800K ships with clock speeds of 3.80 GHz, which go up to 4.20 GHz with TurboCore. The chip features an unlocked base clock multiplier, which makes overclocking possible.
> 
> ...


Sweet! Does it come with the LN2 and copper tube that you will need too?


----------



## Frick (Sep 30, 2012)

trickson said:


> Sweet! Does it come with the LN2 and copper tube that you will need too?



Didn't you make snark remarks on the last page as well?

BTW, the answer is no.


----------



## trickson (Sep 30, 2012)

Frick said:


> Didn't you make snark remarks on the last page as well?
> 
> BTW, the answer is no.



It is a question. I am asking. I think it is great that this chip can reach speeds like this, But how about packaging it with some LN2 and the copper tube and mount for the CPU so one can reach these speeds? You do not have to attack me for asking.


----------



## Dent1 (Sep 30, 2012)

erocker said:


> Few posts have been cleaned due to someone not being able to not insult others in their post.



Why is it that the very moment Trickson participates in any AMD related thread the mods needs to step in and clean up?



trickson said:


> It is a question. I am asking. I think it is great that this chip can reach speeds like this, But how about packaging it with some LN2 and the copper tube and mount for the CPU so one can reach these speeds? You do not have to attack me for asking.



Don't get smart. I don't see you requesting LN2 in Intels packaging whenever Intel demonstrates an OC.


----------



## Frick (Sep 30, 2012)

trickson said:


> It is a question. I am asking. I think it is great that this chip can reach speeds like this, But how about packaging it with some LN2 and the copper tube and mount for the CPU so one can reach these speeds? You do not have to attack me for asking.



Ok fine I'll answer again: No. That would be stupid.


----------



## trickson (Sep 30, 2012)

WOW nothing like attacking a guy for asking a question! Man I get an infraction for this and my post deleted yet where is my justice? 
Oh well. 
I see this as a PR stunt aimed at .01% of the people. 
Just as a question, How realistic is it to run LN2 and a 6.5GHz OC 24/7? How many will even be able to do this? NONE! So other than a PR stunt this means WHAT? I admit the price of these chips are great! I mean for 150 bucks and 500 bucks of LN2 parts you can hit 6.5GHz! Sweet! 
I am not saying it is a bad thing but come on let us bring this into the world of REALITY! NO ONE can run LN2 24/7 not to mention a CPU at 6.5GHz 24/7! Would it be cool to have it? HELL YEAH! Would I find this a viable solution for some one? NO. So with that said this is fluff.


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (Sep 30, 2012)

trickson said:


> WOW nothing like attacking a guy for asking a question! Man I get an infraction for this and my post deleted yet where is my justice?
> Oh well.
> I see this as a PR stunt aimed at .01% of the people.
> Just as a question, How realistic is it to run LN2 and a 6.5GHz OC 24/7? How many will even be able to do this? NONE! So other than a PR stunt this means WHAT? I admit the price of these chips are great! I mean for 150 bucks and 500 bucks of LN2 parts you can hit 6.5GHz! Sweet!
> I am not saying it is a bad thing but come on let us bring this into the world of REALITY! NO ONE can run LN2 24/7 not to mention a CPU at 6.5GHz 24/7! Would it be cool to have it? HELL YEAH! Would I find this a viable solution for some one? NO. So with that said this is fluff.



nobody is saying it can be run 24/7 and fluff it may be but they both do it, so id advise you to get used to it and get over it also.
as has been said before ill look for a similar statement in the next intel world record Ghz statement from you, T


----------



## trickson (Sep 30, 2012)

theoneandonlymrk said:


> nobody is saying it can be run 24/7 and fluff it may be but they both do it, so id advise you to get used to it and get over it also.
> as has been said before ill look for a similar statement in the next intel world record Ghz statement from you, T



I will be there when it happens you can bet on that.


----------



## cdawall (Sep 30, 2012)

I take your 6.5ghz and raise you to 7.3ghz. Read the thread and he has 2D benchmarks in it.

http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums...00k-confirmed-5.1GHz-on-air-and-7.3GHz-on-LN2




			
				PcCI2iminal@XS said:
			
		

> *MEET the TRINITY
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## cadaveca (Sep 30, 2012)

cdawall said:


> I take your 6.5ghz and raise you to 7.3ghz. Read the thread and he has 2D benchmarks in it.
> 
> http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums...00k-confirmed-5.1GHz-on-air-and-7.3GHz-on-LN2



PSH!


Binned chippies = who cares? 

2D Benches are all at 4 GHz...


----------



## cdawall (Sep 30, 2012)

cadaveca said:


> PSH!
> 
> 
> Binned chippies = who cares?



Who said it was binned?


----------



## cadaveca (Sep 30, 2012)

cdawall said:


> Who said it was binned?



The fistful of chips i have here says it is. 


And again, those 2D benches are @ 4 GHz. 

Don't get me wrong.. I just wanna squish any unrealistic expectations.


----------



## cdawall (Sep 30, 2012)

cadaveca said:


> The fistful of chips i have here says it is.
> 
> 
> And again, those 2D benches are @ 4 GHz.
> ...



I don't have baby I am looking to see how it compares to my old phenom ii@4ghz luckily I can't equal the memory clocks with my 790fx.


----------



## [XC] Oj101 (Sep 30, 2012)

cadaveca said:


> The fistful of chips i have here says it is.
> 
> 
> And again, those 2D benches are @ 4 GHz.
> ...



Are you implying that he couldn't bench higher than 4 GHz?


----------



## cadaveca (Sep 30, 2012)

[XC] Oj101 said:


> Are you implying that he couldn't bench higher than 4 GHz?



No. Did I say THAT? Stock speed is 3.8 GHz w/4.2 GHz Turbo. :shadedshu I guess you missed the point too.


----------



## xenocide (Sep 30, 2012)

Not to mention they disabled half the chip for the 7GHz+.


----------



## trickson (Sep 30, 2012)

xenocide said:


> Not to mention they disabled half the chip for the 7GHz+.



shhhhhh. Were not to mention this, After all it is an AMD chip. So Shhhh.


----------



## seronx (Sep 30, 2012)

cadaveca said:


> No. Did I say THAT? Stock speed is 3.8 GHz w/4.2 GHz Turbo. :shadedshu I guess you missed the point too.


It turbos to 4.0 GHz for all the cores.


----------



## cadaveca (Sep 30, 2012)

seronx said:


> It turbos to 4.0 GHz for all the cores.





I have many of these chips. Who do you think wrote the preview for this site. 

Idle is not 4000 MHz.


It's a way of skirting the NDA. It's not actual performance.


----------

