AMD A10-5800K and A8-5600K APUs for Socket FM2

[cadaveca]

Also, intel pulls power from more than 12V.

So does AMD. But the main VRM, which is touted in so many board marketing lists, is what IS powered via the 12V-EPS, so that's what I test.

 

[eidairaman1]

dave thanks for the impartial and honest review. Most around here blow things out of proportion.

 

[Casecutter]

I don't have a big budget or the contacts to be able to get what I need, when I need it. Most reviewers are stuck in the same boat, so we do what we can.

It's all good... I totally understand, I thought overall your test approach, and read was all very good keep it up! Always a fan!

And...AMD says the same thing too, that that was their target, the 2120 and 3220. Dollar for dollar, if you want 3D perforamcne in that price range, than AMD has the better solution. Not everyone needs the 3D, but not everyone needs Intel's CPU grunt, either. At least now you have a choice.

That’s really the take away we all need to hold such chips to.
Trinity provides ample, while balanced performance for mainstream general computing/graphic tasks in a small efficient package. There are plenty of folks for home/office machines that APU’s are the cost effective solution. Verse the i3’s and entry Z77 mobo's aren’t so cost effective... then if you want two monitors it’s a discrete card minimum $20-30. While you want something more in the realm of this A10-5800K (still efficient and half-height) you’re at least $40-60.

 

[mediasorcerer]

I believe amd have done quite well here mostly, thanx for the review, good read!

At least we have more choice now, that's always a plus.

Ps@cadaveca=thay are exciting , i agree big time, i have a good feeling this series will end up being excellent all rounders one day if not right now, bet most folks wouldnt feel the difference on the cpu side of things very much, but will notice it on the gpu side regarding intel v amd etc..

Dollar for dollar~exactly!!!

 

[kukreknecmi]

Which board have u used for fx-4100?

 

[cadaveca]

Which board have u used for fx-4100?

ASUS Crosshair V Formula.

 

[Nordic]

ASUS Crosshair V Formula.

http://www.techpowerup.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=48603&stc=1&d=1349360490

Wish I had a bookshelf that looked like that...

 

[cadaveca]

Wish I had a bookshelf that looked like that...

With it, comes this(right now):

 

[Nordic]

With it, comes this(right now):

http://www.techpowerup.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=48604&stc=1&d=1349364859

I am not far from the canadian border. It may not be as cold here yet but we are getting there fast. We got a big northern front tuesday that droped us into the 40s. Currently 39F with 69% humidity.

I personally don't mind the snow much. Cold weather just gives me excuses to overclock and bench too.

 

[vagxtr]

http://images.anandtech.com/graphs/graph6347/50408.png
A10-5800K @ 4.4GHz / 100+W can't even match Pentium G850 @ 2.9GHz / 65W in single-threaded scenarios. And G850 is half the price of AMD's chip.

That is just sad, no other way to put it.

You right there that CPU performance is underwhelming to say at least. But this is not "professionalist oriented CPU" i might say as it's like always AMD oriented towards budget gaming and this really hit it's sweet spot if you could buy unlocekd model for 120USD and mobo +8GB ddr3 came up only around 220USD

A10-5800K certainly isnt something ment to be core of your rendering farm

 

[vagxtr]

That's one benchmark. The thing that confuses me is that Trinity seems to have faster IPC than Llano, but be worse in heavily threaded benchmarks even being clocked higher at stock speeds.

In fact Piledriver doesnt have better IPC over Llano as you misstated. They have somewhat improved IPC, which now seems only ~2%, over their older bro Bulldozer

Piledriver == BD architecture
Llano == K10 (aka Stars) architecture

And K10 had higher IPC than Bulldozer. Only thing improved in Piledriver is cache latency and improved pipeline. Beside memory controller that evolves with every new generation ... now it's capable of ddr3-2100 instead ddr3-1866 in first Bulldozers

 

[vagxtr]

Now come on, who would shell more money for a HD6670 when an i3 Ivy + a HD7770 for the same money would be better than the crossfired APU.

It's never been a real crossfire ... neither in IGP+GPU days with HybridCF nor now because nowadays you cannot crossfire HD7660D featured in A10 series with newer GCN (aka SIMD) just with old VLIW5 and HD6670 is 480 shaders VLIW5 engine and already highly clocked with its own 128bit GDDR5 memory so it would outperform or be slightly better than HD7660D even if this was a standalone product on same frequency.

This so called crossfires are nothing more than "GraphicsOnDemand" feature and marketing to sold out old GPUs that become unpopular since they're almost 2yrs old and HD7700 is vastly superior product. Ofc is better to buy i7-37700K and HD7770 along with it but only HD7770 costs almost as A10-5800K and i7-37700K costs three times more. So A10 is great budget solution for occasional gamer, which could have decent performance budget PC for half price or even less than it would pay for latest i7+HD7770.

Foolish CFX in this rig is just vasting money on already well performing computer. And if someone have a higher budget he can buy itself HD7770 and still outperform CFX w/ HD6670 which is nothing more than deception to clean out stocks of old GPUs.

 

[vagxtr]

New processor, new motherboard, and not so great 3D performance improvement (when paired with the 6670) over the prev generation is a drag. C
http://tpucdn.com/reviews/AMD/FM2_APU_Review/images/3dm11.gif
ould be understandable if they were going for the tick-tock philosophy, but thats an Intel thing only right?
Tl;dr: Wanted to see these "new" 7000 series cores to be paired with 7000 series cards in dual graphics mode.

It's something called compromise.

Piledriver is already huge chip and if it has selling price of 120USD top then they wish to cutdown expences just like intel with Ivy Bridge wich isnt so better CPU over old Sandy Bridge, but carries as always with intel some new instructions and huge leap forward with GT2 (HD4000) graphics.

Piledriver is 10% bigger than Llano that also comes with cost, probably not much as 32nm is now perfected from days of early Llanos.

And did you nag Intel when they obsoleted their s1156 platform after only 10 month on market? Only bad thing is that customers "get used to it" as FM1/s1156 were never highly adopted. For me more crazy thing is existence of AMDs s754 for a long time while had no real CPU upgrade at all. It was fair cheaper to abandon it and skip to s939 than to have costly upgrades with poorer performance. ofc s754 was still great budget solution for office use and AMD was milking their Athlon64 branding in those days.

Well you could wait and see HD7000 integration in 9-12 month time in Steamroller. And maybe DAMN really went smart as they said in AssetSmart campaign and will sell out us new chips every year with 20-30% improvement.

After all people use to buy crippled down Intel CPUs which are 80-100% expensive and not even have HD4000 w/ 16EUs but cut down HD2500 (6EU) versions not to mention how HD4000 is far inferior than even HD6410D used in A4 Llano series (160 VLIW5) and this 6xVLIW4 blocks are 30% better than best 5xVLIW5 blocks we had in A8 Llano series branded as HD6550D with 400 unified shaders. After all it's fair price and hopefully it make intel to lower their extreme prices on i5-3470 and similar and i7-3770K ofc

 

[eidairaman1]

Knowing the lead intel has, they wont lower prices at all

It's something called compromise.

Piledriver is already huge chip and if it has selling price of 120USD top then they wish to cutdown expences just like intel with Ivy Bridge wich isnt so better CPU over old Sandy Bridge, but carries as always with intel some new instructions and huge leap forward with GT2 (HD4000) graphics.

Piledriver is 10% bigger than Llano that also comes with cost, probably not much as 32nm is now perfected from days of early Llanos.

And did you nag Intel when they obsoleted their s1156 platform after only 10 month on market? Only bad thing is that customers "get used to it" as FM1/s1156 were never highly adopted. For me more crazy thing is existence of AMDs s754 for a long time while had no real CPU upgrade at all. It was fair cheaper to abandon it and skip to s939 than to have costly upgrades with poorer performance. ofc s754 was still great budget solution for office use and AMD was milking their Athlon64 branding in those days.

Well you could wait and see HD7000 integration in 9-12 month time in Steamroller. And maybe DAMN really went smart as they said in AssetSmart campaign and will sell out us new chips every year with 20-30% improvement.

After all people use to buy crippled down Intel CPUs which are 80-100% expensive and not even have HD4000 w/ 16EUs but cut down HD2500 (6EU) versions not to mention how HD4000 is far inferior than even HD6410D used in A4 Llano series (160 VLIW5) and this 6xVLIW4 blocks are 30% better than best 5xVLIW5 blocks we had in A8 Llano series branded as HD6550D with 400 unified shaders. After all it's fair price and hopefully it make intel to lower their extreme prices on i5-3470 and similar and i7-3770K ofc

btw combine your last 3 posts

 

[Rei86]

whelp its not a A10 but just purchased the A8-5600K from newegg for 10bucks off for the HTPC.

Just waiting for the MSI or ASRock FM2 ITX Mobo

 

[bim27142]

All stock and with no discrete GPU, how much power draw from the wall outlet you think will this have given the following specs:

A10-5800K
ASRock FM2 mini-ITX mobo
G-Skill Ares 4x2 1600
Samsung Spinpoint F3 HDD (500GB)
Silverstone ST50F-ES PSU
LiteOn ODD (DRD-RW)

The reason I'm asking is that I am thinking of building an HTPC with the above specs (some old parts recycled, e.g. HDD, PSU, RAM, ODD).

Also heat and noise of the stock HSF... Any ideas?

By the way, I'm also thinking of putting all these in a CM Elite 120 case.

 

[Nordic]

All stock and with no discrete GPU, how much power draw from the wall outlet you think will this have given the following specs:

A10-5800K
ASRock FM2 mini-ITX mobo
G-Skill Ares 4x2 1600
Samsung Spinpoint F3 HDD (500GB)
Silverstone ST50F-ES PSU
LiteOn ODD (DRD-RW)

The reason I'm asking is that I am thinking of building an HTPC with the above specs (some old parts recycled, e.g. HDD, PSU, RAM, ODD).

Also heat and noise of the stock HSF... Any ideas?

By the way, I'm also thinking of putting all these in a CM Elite 120 case.

Check for yourself. This handly little app has been pretty accurate for me.
https://www.extreme.outervision.com/psucalculator.jsp

 

[Mussels]

those software PSU calculators always calculate high, so keep that in mind.

 

[Nordic]

those software PSU calculators always calculate high, so keep that in mind.

They probably do but in my case it predicted what I would use within 50 watts. I have tested. I have a killawat

 

[cadaveca]

They probably do but in my case it predicted what I would use within 50 watts. I have tested. I have a killawat

Or, you could simply look at the numbers I posted in the review for full system power consumption, and go with that + 25%.

 

[ThaSpacePope]

It's never been a real crossfire ... neither in IGP+GPU days with HybridCF nor now because nowadays you cannot crossfire HD7660D featured in A10 series with newer GCN (aka SIMD) just with old VLIW5 and HD6670 is 480 shaders VLIW5 engine and already highly clocked with its own 128bit GDDR5 memory so it would outperform or be slightly better than HD7660D even if this was a standalone product on same frequency.

This so called crossfires are nothing more than "GraphicsOnDemand" feature and marketing to sold out old GPUs that become unpopular since they're almost 2yrs old and HD7700 is vastly superior product. Ofc is better to buy i7-37700K and HD7770 along with it but only HD7770 costs almost as A10-5800K and i7-37700K costs three times more. So A10 is great budget solution for occasional gamer, which could have decent performance budget PC for half price or even less than it would pay for latest i7+HD7770.

Foolish CFX in this rig is just vasting money on already well performing computer. And if someone have a higher budget he can buy itself HD7770 and still outperform CFX w/ HD6670 which is nothing more than deception to clean out stocks of old GPUs.

I just purchased a 5800k & an asrock uATX board and found this thread by googling overclocking results of the igpu. If 1600 3dmarks can be achieved with it at stock i'm hoping to get 2000 hitting 1000mhz core or 1050, etc. I don't have the board but we shall see.

The big advantage here though and the reason I'm quoting you is because throwing a $30 6570 DDR3 in there would in theory almost double the 3dmarks for one damn cheap gaming system all around. For $225 for mobo, cpu & 6570 and say 3000 3dmarks and a quadcore thats incredible. It might run bf3 at 1080p on medium. I eagerly anticipate seeing what it can do. I think you're throwing out the baby with the bathwater by saying the scalability just isn't there with a low end crossfire. It might be with the overclock.

 

[eidairaman1]

those software PSU calculators always calculate high, so keep that in mind.

they provide a minimum spec and a recommended spec

 

[ThaSpacePope]

[page=Introduction]

Introduction​

http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/FM2_APU_Review/images/ASeries_Logo.jpg

A few days ago, AMD allowed us to show some early numbers and some of the new features of their FM APU series, but there were some complaints about all of the sites that posted previews because the picture they presented with such articles skewed people's impression of AMD's new APUs. There is, of course, some truth to that; however, those judgments were, perhaps, made a bit too quickly. Today is the day that the APUs actually launch, and today is also the day I have the full testing suite to show.<br />
You know, to be completely honest, I wasn't exactly sure how to present these new APUs because they are, to me, kind of exciting. Many things, including many of their executives, have changed at AMD, and I expect many people to be critical of AMD, especially considering that the launch of Bulldozer wasn't quite "accepted" by the enthusiast market as a whole. Since I consider myself part of that enthusiast market, and I wasn't overly excited by a Bulldozer in my current gaming rig either, I got an Intel chip, paired up with multiple AMD graphics cards, instead. I really like AMD in general, but even I cannot deny that for some time Intel has just had the better offering. So when I was asked if I wanted to do an APU preview back in July, I said "OK", but I was quite apprehensive on how things were going to shake down. I got my chip and an A75 board with the expectation that I'd be posting a review within about a month. Instead, I swapped out my son's FX-4100 and HD 4870 combo for the APU with a 6670 and that was that. I, however, had a plan.<br />
A few weeks ago, I pulled that rig apart and installed that FX-4100 along with an HD 5850 back into my son's rig to begin work on the review in anticipation of the launch. I contacted a bunch of OEMs looking for matching comparison parts, and the tests that follow were assembled with the parts THEY want you to see this review completed with. For kicks, I also tested that FX-4100 rig with the HD 6670 for those interested in Bulldozer vs. Piledriver numbers. You can, as a result, try to "guesstimate" how much the addition of L3 to this CPU core is going to affect performance. And I'm going to let you draw your own conclusions about what these FM2 APUs represent. But first, I'm going to tell you what I think.<br />
I held off on publishing the APU review back in August because I think AMD's got a real winner here. This is not a product that is meant to blow the doors off your Intel rig to make your Intel CPU run away in fear - these APUs have an entirely different purpose. First of all, the A10-5800K, the top-level chip, has an MSRP of around $125. A full APU rig with AMD Dual Graphics should cost less than $500. And yes, that same rig can play games in Eyefinity.<br />
AMD's sole purpose with this product is to introduce decent graphics capability to the entry-level and value markets. Getting decent graphics performance on a budget has been rather hard since home PCs became a thing. You can try playing a recent game on one of many office PCs; however, you will probably not have much fun doing so. You will have to add a discrete graphics card if you want to add a second monitor to many of these systems, and the performance gain, depending on how much you spend, might not be that great for gaming either, but that aspect of computing is about to change. This is what it looks like:

http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/FM2_APU_Review/images/DieShot.jpg

[subheading]Specifications[/subheading]
<table class="tputbl">
<thead>
<tr>
<th colspan="2">Specifications</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tr>
<th scope="row">MANUFACTURER:</th>
<td>AMD</td>
</tr>
<tr class="alt">
<th scope="row">MODEL:</th>
<td>AMD A-Series APU</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th scope="row">Tech/Package:</th>
<td>32nm, FM2 socket</td>
</tr>
<tr class="alt">
<th scope="row">TDP Configs:</th>
<td>CPU Power: 65W and 100W configurations</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th scope="row">Processor:</th>
<td>“Piledriver” 32nm HKMG process core (up to 4 cores),<br />
up to 128 KB L1 Cache (64 KB Instruction, 64 KB Data) <br />
Up to 4 MB L2, 2 x 128-bit FPUs / compute module </td>
</tr>
<tr>
<tr class="alt">
<th scope="row">Memory:</th>
<td>Up to DDR3 1866 @ 1.5V</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th scope="row">Graphics Core:</th>
<td>Up to 384 Radeon™ Cores 2.0, DirectX® 11 capable, UVD3, VCE</td>
</tr>
<tr class="alt">
<th scope="row">Displays:</th>
<td>3x Digital Display: each supporting Display Port, HDMI or DVI <br />
1x Additional digital display supported using DP 1.2 daisy-chain connection <br />
-VGA on FCH</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th scope="row">Power Management:</th>
<td>

• Multiple low-power states
• 32-nm process for decreased power consumption
• System Management Mode (SMM)
• ACPI-compliant, including support for processor performance states (P-states),<br />
  processor power states (C-states), and sleep states including S0, S3, S4, and S5
• Per compute module power gating (CC6)
• PCIe core power gating
• PCIe speed power policy
• GPU power gating of Radeon Cores and video decode (UVD3)
• AMD Turbo Core 3.0 technology

</td>
</tr>
</table>

[subheading]Models[/subheading]
<table class="tputbl">
<tr>
<th scope="col">APU Model</th>
<th scope="col" align="right">A10-5800K</th>
<th scope="col" align="right">A10-5700</th>
<th scope="col" align="right">A8-5600K</th>
<th scope="col" align="right">A8-5500</th>
<th scope="col" align="right">A6-5400K</th>
<th scope="col" align="right">A4-5300</th>
</tr>
<tr>
<th scope="row">AMD Radeon Brand</th>
<td align="right">HD 7660D</td>
<td align="right">HD 7660D</td>
<td align="right">HD 7560D</td>
<td align="right">HD 7560D</td>
<td align="right">HD 7540D</td>
<td align="right">HD 7480D</td>
</tr>
<tr class="alt">
<th scope="row">TDP</th>
<td align="right">100W</td>
<td align="right">65W</td>
<td align="right">100W</td>
<td align="right">65W</td>
<td align="right">65W</td>
<td align="right">65W</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th scope="row">AMD Radeon Cores</th>
<td align="right">384</td>
<td align="right">384</td>
<td align="right">256</td>
<td align="right">256</td>
<td align="right">192</td>
<td align="right">128</td>
</tr>
<tr class="alt">
<th scope="row">GPU Clockspeed</th>
<td align="right">800 MHz</td>
<td align="right">800 MHz</td>
<td align="right">760 MHz</td>
<td align="right">760 MHz</td>
<td align="right">760 MHz</td>
<td align="right">723 MHz</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th scope="row">CPU Cores</th>
<td align="right">4</td>
<td align="right">4</td>
<td align="right">4</td>
<td align="right">4</td>
<td align="right">2</td>
<td align="right">2</td>
</tr>
<tr class="alt">
<th scope="row">CPU Clock (Turbo/Base) GHz</th>
<td align="right">4.2/ 3.8</td>
<td align="right">4.0/ 3.4</td>
<td align="right">3.9/ 3.6</td>
<td align="right">3.7/ 3.2</td>
<td align="right">3.8/ 3.6</td>
<td align="right">3.6/ 3.4</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th scope="row">Total Cache</th>
<td align="right">4 MB</td>
<td align="right">4 MB</td>
<td align="right">4 MB</td>
<td align="right">4 MB</td>
<td align="right">1 MB</td>
<td align="right">1 MB</td>
</tr>
<tr class="alt">
<th scope="row">Max DDR3</th>
<td align="right">1866 MHz</td>
<td align="right">1866 MHz</td>
<td align="right">1866 MHz</td>
<td align="right">1866 MHz</td>
<td align="right">1866 MHz</td>
<td align="right">1600 MHz</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th scope="row">AMD Turbo CORE 3.0</th>
<td align="right">Yes</td>
<td align="right">No</td>
<td align="right">Yes</td>
<td align="right">No</td>
<td align="right">Yes</td>
<td align="right">No</td>
</tr>
<tr class="alt">
<th scope="row">Unlocked</th>
<td align="right">Yes</td>
<td align="right">No</td>
<td align="right">Yes</td>
<td align="right">No</td>
<td align="right">Yes</td>
<td align="right">No</td>
</tr>
</table>

[page=AMD FM2 Chipsets]

AMD FM2 Chipsets​

[url]http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/FM2_APU_Review/images/Platform_small.jpg[/url]
You need a supporting chipset in order to get your new APU up and running; not just any supporting chipset but one that is mated with the proper FM2 socket. The AMD FM1 socket launched last year and its usefulness has been short-lived although it is relatively new on the market. Instincts tell me that the physical changes made to the socket are quite similar to the changes from AMD's white AM3 socket to the black AM3+ socket, which, at the same time, also changed power delivery a fair bit in order to add support for AMD's newest Bulldozer cores. Bulldozer cores themselves never made it to the APU market, and these new APUs are fitted with the new Piledriver cores, rather than taking last year's tech and making a new product out of old parts. Anyways, those shiny new Piledriver cores need slightly different power delivery and connectivity to the chipset which is why FM2 is here. No, it is NOT backwards compatible with older APUs, nor can you pop a new AMD A10-5800K into your FM1-socketed motherboard.

AMD has three chipsets lined up to support the AMD FM2 APUs: AMD A55, AMD A75, and AMD A85X. The former two, AMD A55 and AMD A75, have been on the market since the FM1 APU launch, and the features offered by those chipsets are not going to change at all. AMD A55 offers a slightly different feature set than that of the AMD A75 chip, and the new AMD A85X simply expands on that. I have stuck three images provided to me by AMD below to shows these differences:

http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/FM2_APU_Review/images/a55_suggest.jpg
The A55 has SATA 3 Gb/s support and supports a single VGA slot. The AMD A55 clearly targets signage boxes and, perhaps, light office clients. It is meant to be used with both the A6 and A4 APU products

http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/FM2_APU_Review/images/a75_suggest.jpg
The AMD A75 offers SATA 6Gb/s support (six ports total natively), adds FIS-based switching for those SATA ports, and has native USB 3.0 support. The AMD A75 is more for mainstream users, like your mom or dad who are also interested in snappy drive and external device operation, thanks to native USB 3.0 and that SATA 6 Gb/s support. It is, naturally, geared towards both A8 and A6 APUs.

http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/FM2_APU_Review/images/a85x_suggest.jpg
The AMD A85X supports eight total SATA 6 Gb/s ports with FIS-based switching and adds in CrossfireX support. The new AMD A85X targets gamers and enthusiasts, as well as those that like to keep up with the latest and greatest in technology. AMD intends you to pair this chipset up with AMD A10, AMD A8, and "K"-level, "Unlocked" APUs.<br />
In the end, it's pretty basic. Each chipset, or Fusion Controller Hub(FCH for short), has its specific use and, thereby, a specific target market. Those that don't need as much can pick a chipset that doesn't give them as much while, at the same time, saving money through features that chipset lacks. It looks like you might get exactly what you pay for. It will be interesting to see how AMD's board partners assess the AMD FM2 APUs, and what sort of products they design for it.
[url]http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/FM2_APU_Review/images/A85-Architecture_small.jpg[/url]
The AMD A85X is the newest chipset out of the three and adds a few new things. AMD sent me the above block diagram of the FCH functionality, which shows all the features and which part of the platform, whether APU or FCH, supports which features.

[url]http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/FM2_APU_Review/images/vanity_small.jpg[/url]
For today's testing, AMD supplied me with a Gigabyte product called the F2A85X-UP4. This board features Gigabyte's "Ultra Durable5" VRM design and is built to be ready for overclocking and watercooling. Seems like a perfect choice to see what we can get when overclocking, especially since I'll be using a Corsair H100 for cooling. I'll have a full review of the board up at a later date.

[page=APU Design]

APU Design​

http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/FM2_APU_Review/images/A10Logo.jpg http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/FM2_APU_Review/images/A8Logo.jpg
AMD sent me two APUs for testing. Both are, as suggested above, meant to be used with the AMD A85X FCH. Both chips are "Unlocked", meaning they allow open multipler adjustment. The A10 has 128 more GPU shaders, a clock speedboost of 400 Mhz without turbo, and 200 Mhz with Turbo CORE 3.0 enabled.

[url]http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/FM2_APU_Review/images/A10-5800k_small.jpg[/url] [url]http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/FM2_APU_Review/images/A8-5600k_small.jpg[/url]
Here are a couple of pics of the chips themselves. You will recognize the AMD A10-5800K if you read my preview last week although I used a different chip supplied by AMD this time.

[url]http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/FM2_APU_Review/images/pin_change_small.jpg[/url]
With all of those changes, the pin layout for these new AMD FM2 APUs has changed slightly as well, as illustrated in the picture above. That picture has the new FM2 APU on the left and the older FM1 APU on the right. There's actually one less pin in use with the new APUs. One of the other places that had a pair of missing pins on the older FM1 APUs has been moved over slightly too. As I mentioned earlier, AMD had to update the AM3 socket to get full support for Bulldozer-based FX chips. AMD named their upgraded variant AM3+ and explained that their design change was necessary due to changes in power delivery. It only makes sense that the same changes were needed when introducing Piledriver to the APU design since the older APUs had a different CPU core design that resembled older Socket AM3 CPU cores. It's interesting to note that PCIe 3.0 has not been adopted here, and I am not sure when AMD will be offering PCIe 3.0 with their CPU products, but it does seems a bit out of place not to have PCIe 3.0 because the socket is changing anyways.

[url]http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/FM2_APU_Review/images/LabelledDie_small.jpg[/url]
There are quite a few changes here in the APU line-up, including the use of AMD's new x86 architecture featuring “Piledriver” cores. These cores have a few features of their own compared to previously released Bulldozer cores found on current AMD FX desktop chips. I've listed the new features below:

• Supports up to 4 cores and support for the latest ISA instructions including FMA4/3, AVX, AES, XOP
• Branch Prediction and Cache enhancements over the previous “Bulldozer” cores
• 2MB L2 cache per dual-core module (up to a total of 4MB)
• Max Turbo Frequencies up to 4.2GHz
• Configurable via AMD OverDrive
• Support for up to 64 GB of system ram.

It's interesting to see that Turbo frequencies of the Piledriver CPU cores match that of previously-released Bulldozer FX CPUs with some additional new features to boot. Overall, the design hasn't changed much from what AMD has previously offered with desktop CPUs, but it is definitely quite different from what was offered in previous FM1 APUs. The offered amounts of cache are the same, but we now see dual 2MB groupings - one for each Piledriver module. There are up to two modules in each APU, which makes for a total of "up to 4 cores".

http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/FM2_APU_Review/images/GPUdiagram.jpg
The GPU portion of AMD's APUs has seen a slight update as well. The details are listed below.

• Featuring VLIW 4 architecture
• Up to 384 shaders
• Up to 800MHz
• Up to 8xAA and 16xAF support
• DirectX 11 Support
• Controllable via AMD OverDrive

The GPU side of the APU has undergone much more drastic changes by adopting the VLIW 4 shader design. Previous Llano chips saw 400 shader cores and a VLIW 5 shader design while these new chips just see 384 shader cores. This change is very similar to going from a 5-series AMD Desktop GPU to a Cypress or Barts-based 6-series AMD Desktop GPU. Also added is the ability to clock the GPU via AMD OverDrive, a feature that was sorely missing in previous FM1 parts.

[page=APU Features]

APU Features​

http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/FM2_APU_Review/images/chipsets.jpg
One of the biggest power-focused changes to the platform is the introduction of AMD Turbo Core 3.0. It operates on both the CPU and the GPU portions of the APU. Also new is the addition of native AMD Eyefinity technology for 3+1 monitor support, which means you can have three displays in an Eyefinity group and another monitor running off your motherboard (assuming it's equipped with proper output capabilities). Of course, the fourth monitor must be added by using a daisy-chained DisplayPort link, which means that the new AMD APUs include DisplayPort 1.2 support. Unfortunately, I am not aware of any monitor out there that supports daisy-chaining yet, but I may have missed one.

AMD has also introduced AMD Memory Profile support (auto selects memory timings in select DIMMs). It is very similar to Intel's XMP Profiles. AMD Memory Profile support offers easy setup for performance-based DIMMs, making mucking around in the BIOS with timings a thing of the past. Other platform updates include AMD CrossFireX support with AMD A85x motherboards and a big upgrade to the options of AMD Dual Graphics only - a technology which is still supported on all FM2 chipsets. AMD has also enhanced the AMD Dual Graphics tech by supporting new titles and adding support for DirectX 9, 10, and 11. There are also easier installation features which I got to put to the test myself. I have to say that I had no issues at all getting it up and running by simply adding in the discrete GPU. There are some caveats though as not all AMD Dual Graphics implementations work the same with different APUs needing different discrete add-on VGAs. Which component you may plug your monitor into, be it motherboard or discrete GPU, also changes with the APU that is used. Fortunately, AMD has made how everything works pretty clear, and I have listed the full details below. It will, hopefully, help you figure out which part combination you need to buy to get the most out of the platform.

<table class="tputbl">
<tr>
<th scope="col">APU Model</th>
<td align="right">A10</td>
<td align="right">A8</td>
<td align="right">A6</td>
<td align="right">A4</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th scope="row">Suported Discrete GPU for Dual Graphics:</th>
<td align="right">AMD Radeon HD 6670<br />
AMD Radeon HD 6570</td>
<td align="right">AMD Radeon HD 6570</td>
<td align="right">AMD Radeon HD 6450</td>
<td align="right">AMD Radeon HD 6450</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th scope="row">Attach displays to:</th>
<td align="right">AMD Radeon HD 6670<br />
AMD Radeon HD 6570<br />
Or AMD A10</td>
<td align="right">AMD Radeon HD 6570</td>
<td align="right">AMD A6</td>
<td align="right">AMD Radeon HD 6450</td>
</tr>
</table>

[page=Test System and Power Consumption]

Test System​

<table class="tputbl">
<thead>
<tr>
<th colspan="2">Test System</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tr>
<th scope="row">CPU:</th>
<td>AMD A10-5800K<br />
3.8 GHz(4.2 GHz Turbo), 4 MB Cache</td>
</tr>
<tr class="alt">
<th scope="row">Memory:</th>
<td>16 GB DDR3 (4x 4 GB) Corsair Dominator Platinum CMD16GX3M4A2666C10 <br />
8 GB DDR3 (2x 4 GB) AMD Performance Edition Memory AP38G1869U2K</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th scope="row">Cooling:</th>
<td>Corsair H100</td>
</tr>
<tr class="alt">
<th scope="row">Motherboard:</th>
<td>Gigabyte F2A85X-UP4<br />
AMD A85X, BIOS version: F2</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th scope="row">Video Card:</th>
<td>2x Gigabyte WindForce Radeon HD 7950 3 GB</td>
</tr>
<tr class="alt">
<th scope="row">Harddisk:</th>
<td>Corsair ForceGT 60 GB SATA 6 Gb/s SSD(TEST)<br />
Western Digital WD500AAKS 500 GB SATA 3 Gb/s (DATA<br />
Corsair F60 60 GB SATA 3 Gb/s SSD(OS)<br />
Velocity SuperSpeed USB3.0 External Dock w/Corsair ForceGT(TEST)</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th scope="row">Power Supply:</th>
<td>Silverstone Strider GOLD 750W</td>
</tr>
<tr class="alt">
<th scope="row">Case:</th>
<td>Antec P280<br /></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th scope="row">Software:</th>
<td>Windows 7 64-bit SP1, ATI Catalyst 12.8</td>
</tr>
</table>

[subheading]Power Consumption[/subheading]
We measure CPU power consumption since one of our first tasks is to truly verify system stability. I isolate the power coming through the 8-pin ATX connector using an in-line meter that provides voltage and current readings and total wattage passed through it. While this may not prove to isolate the CPU power draw in all instances, it does serve as a good indicator of board efficiency and effective VRM design. I also measure total system power consumption, allowing you to get an idea of how much power the board and installed devices draw.

http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/FM2_APU_Review/images/power_eps.gif http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/FM2_APU_Review/images/power_eps_load.gif
Idle power consumption via the 8-pin CPU connector is quite decent. I added in some AMD Dual Graphics numbers here for comparison, but adding the VGA to the system had no effect on power draw through the 8-pin connector. Under load, the AMD A10-5800K can draw a fair bit of power with 85 W total. I noticed that the CPU frequency was pegged at 4.0 GHz on all cores under load and 4.2 GHz on a single core while the other three remained at 4.0 Ghz in idle. CPU speed dropped to 1400 MHz when the OS was truly inactive.

http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/FM2_APU_Review/images/power_full.gif http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/FM2_APU_Review/images/power_full_load.gif
The full system numbers, on the other hand, were pretty impressive to me. The added discrete GPU only added a few watts at idle, but increased a fair bit to 135 W at load; however, seeing the FX chip match the APU's power numbers was a bit unexciting.

[page=CPU Performance Results]

CPU Performance Results​

As I mentioned earlier, I'm not going to comment on the results here. I think they are good, but I expect many to knock AMD for lower CPU performance than Intel. To me, AMD's CPU performance is just enough. I have added Dual Graphics numbers to the tests that show a difference. Those numbers have, otherwise, been excluded; however, I redo every single benchmark in all configurations. The one comment I will make is that I wish AMD could fix its memory performance. It's OK, but Intel smashes AMD in that one particular area. Since AMD admits these APUs can benefit from faster ram speeds, I do see that as the APU's single weak point. It does beat out the Intel 3210m in a few tests.

[subheading]AIDA64 Memory Performance[/subheading]
http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/FM2_APU_Review/images/aida_copy.gif http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/FM2_APU_Review/images/aida_latency.gif

http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/FM2_APU_Review/images/aida_read.gif http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/FM2_APU_Review/images/aida_write.gif

[subheading]CineBench CPU and GPU Performance[/subheading]
http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/FM2_APU_Review/images/cinebench_cpu.gif http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/FM2_APU_Review/images/cinebench_gpu.gif

[subheading]HandBrake Encoding & WinRAR[/subheading]
http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/FM2_APU_Review/images/handbrake.gif http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/FM2_APU_Review/images/winrar.gif

[subheading]SuperPi & wPrime[/subheading]
http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/FM2_APU_Review/images/spi32m.gif http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/FM2_APU_Review/images/wprime.gif

[page=FutureMark & 3D Performance Results]

Futuremark & 3D Performance Results​

I expect the AMD A10-5800K to be a blow-out success in 3D. The F1 2010 and Shogun 2 benchmarks are both critical of not only GPU performance, but also underlying platform performance. F1 2010 sees a near 20% improvement over last-gen APUs at 1920x1080, which translates into much larger gains at lower resolutions. The AMD A10-5800k managed to pull an average of 60 FPS with medium settings and 4xAA enabled. That is, with the HD 6670. 60 FPS is a pretty respectable result for a $500 configuration. Trying the Intel 3210m in Sniper Elite V2, which uses an HD 7850m, was pretty impressive as well.

[subheading]3DMark11 & PCMark07[/subheading]
http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/FM2_APU_Review/images/3dm11.gif http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/FM2_APU_Review/images/pcmark.gif

[subheading]F1 2010 & Shogun 2[/subheading]
http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/FM2_APU_Review/images/f1_2010.gif http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/FM2_APU_Review/images/shogun.gif

[subheading]Sniper Elite V2[/subheading]
http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/FM2_APU_Review/images/sniperv2.gif


[page=Overclocking]

Overclocking​

Overclocking saw some gains, but most were from GPU overclocking rather than CPU overclocking. I managed to get 4.5 GHz and 1025 Mhz out of the AMD A10-5800K while the A8-5600K managed 4.6 GHz and 1000 MHz on the GPU. Adding the HD 6670 to the A10-5800K didn't seem to have any effect whatsoever on the APU's stability, which is a nice treat. 3DMark11 saw a near 700 point increase from overclocking with the A10-5800K; a number I found hilarious since the Intel 3770K only manages 770 points at stock. The extra 100 MHz did not allow the A8-5600K to surpass the A10-5800K chip, something that is probably due to its smaller number of shaders.<br />
When it comes to memory overclocking, I didn't manage to get very much with the kits I have on hand here. I was able to get 2400 Mhz to boot with no issues even with 4x 4GB sticks installed, and I completed all the testing with 16 GB at 2133 MHz without any issues whatsoever, but 2400 Mhz simply failed to work properly even with just one stick installed. At the same time, bus clocking did not go very well either. I think the current BIOS for my F2A85X-UP4 could be faulty since I have seen others that have similar hardware do much better. Perhaps more could be gained with a bit more time spent, and I wasn't willing to give the APU more than 1.55 V, a voltage I'm sure a few might call excessive. AMD has hinted that you could not give the APU too much voltage, but, at the same time, suggested you take it one step at a time. I did so and quit at 1.55 V. More might be possible with more voltage.<br />
What's more interesting is that the A8 chip could not compete with the A10 chip on CPU-focused tests even though they are basically the same, and the A8 chip took a 100 MHz higher OC. I'm a bit puzzled by this, and I will talk with both AMD and the board maker about it since I fully expect the A8 chip to get better scores on CPU-focused tests, but lag behind in 3D because it has less GPU shaders. Again, I'm just going to list the numbers here and let you judge for yourself, but will highlight that I'm pretty happy with what AMD has here.

[subheading]OC Power Consumption[/subheading]
http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/FM2_APU_Review/images/power_eps_oc.gif http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/FM2_APU_Review/images/power_full_oc.gif
Overall, the power draw increase from overclocking was not that large, and, try as I might, I just could not get the system to draw over 200 watts. I got pretty close with the HD 6670 added in, but I never got over 200 watts. That, in and of itself, is pretty impressive.

[subheading]AIDA64 OC Memory Performance[/subheading]
http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/FM2_APU_Review/images/aida_write_oc.gif http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/FM2_APU_Review/images/aida_read_oc.gif

http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/FM2_APU_Review/images/aida_copy_oc.gif http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/FM2_APU_Review/images/aida_latency_oc.gif

[subheading]CineBench CPU and GPU Performance[/subheading]
http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/FM2_APU_Review/images/cinebench_cpu_oc.gif http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/FM2_APU_Review/images/cinebench_gpu_oc.gif

[subheading]HandBrake Encoding & WinRAR[/subheading]
http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/FM2_APU_Review/images/handbrake_oc.gif http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/FM2_APU_Review/images/winrar_oc.gif

[subheading]SuperPi & wPrime[/subheading]
http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/FM2_APU_Review/images/spi32m_oc.gif http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/FM2_APU_Review/images/wprime_oc.gif

[subheading]3DMark11 & PCMark07[/subheading]
http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/FM2_APU_Review/images/3dm11_oc.gif http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/FM2_APU_Review/images/pcmark_oc.gif

[subheading]F1 2010 & Shogun 2[/subheading]
http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/FM2_APU_Review/images/f1_2010_oc.gif http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/FM2_APU_Review/images/shogun_oc.gif

[page=Value & Conclusion]

Value & Conclusion​

<table width="100%" cellpadding="5" cellspacing="0" id="result">
<tr><th>http://www.techpowerup.com/images/dollar.gif</th>
<td>

• The AMD FM2 APUs will be available soon along with supporting board products. Retail pricing is unknown at this time, but should see the AMD A10-5800K at around $125 with other the A-Series FM2 APUs costing less.

</td></tr>
<tr>
<th>http://www.techpowerup.com/images/thumbup.gif</th>
<td>

• Excellent and affordable entry 3D rendering power.
• Decent expected iGPU clocking with all three of my chips managing a 25% or greater frequency increase.
• Low platform price.
• NEW Piledriver CPU core design
• Support for up to two VGAs in CrossfireX with supported board products
• Updated with VLIW4 GPU shader core design
• Support for 3+1 Eyefinity display connectivity
• Turbo CORE 3.0 for both CPU and GPU

</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th>http://www.techpowerup.com/images/thumbdown.gif</th>
<td>

• Same maximum TDP as FM1 products.
• Perhaps a bit late to the market with laptop-grade parts already for sale.
• No compatibility with previous FM1 products, be it boards or chips.
• "Low" but adequate CPU Performance will not appeal to some.

</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th>9.0</th>
<td> I poured out my thoughts about these APUs out on the front page. I like them a lot. Intel simply doesn't offer anything remotely close for the same budget when it comes to 3D performance. They aren't really meant to compete with Intel anyway, so you are left with two choices when it comes to low power and entry-level stuff, and that is a choice between CPU horsepower or GPU horsepower. Clearly, there is a large divide when those two are considered.<br />
The fact that CPU performance isn't quite up to Intel levels is going to upset some, but I see that as a non-issue. You have got to make certain concession in order to squeeze so much 3D powers into such a small space on such a power budget, and what AMD ultimately offers suits me just fine. I cannot help but think of how many office PC users would love to get their hands on something like this considering the fact that multi-monitor support is easy to deal. What they have available now is greatly underpowered in comparison. Those boxes could use this upgrade, and the introduction of Windows8 might just be enough to push many offices in the direction of AMD's A-series APUs.<br />
I think performance is, once cost is considered, more than acceptable. I know that many are not going to agree with me, but I really hope that most would. Unfortunately, AMD has mentioned time and time again as of late that they are short on chip supply. There might not be many of these chips to go around, and that too is perfectly fine by me. What excites me is the potential these chips show for the future.<br />
Power consumption numbers here are a bit high, especially compared to Intel's offerings. Of course, Intel is using a much smaller process and direct compares aren't quite accurate, but I chose to ignore that small detail since these products are what you can get right now. Personally, I'd like to see about 25 watts less power consumption out of these chips before giving them a 10 out of 10. These aren't meant to be high-performance products. They aren't meant to be used for multiple high-end GPUs, and they aren't meant to send Intel fans running over to AMD. What they are meant to do is bring a decent level of 3D performance to entry markets, and they would do that well at a cheaper price than anything else you can come up with. For that, I'm going to give the AMD A10-5800K and A8-5600K a "Recommended" award. IF you are in the market for a HTPC box with a bit of GPU grunt, and you don't want to spend more than $500, then these APUs are for you. If you want to replace your high-end gaming PC, I suggest you look elsewhere.
<td></tr>
<tr><th></th><td>http://www.techpowerup.com/images/recommended.gif</td></tr>
</table>

Dave,

I have a question about this article now. On page 2 you suggest that only the A85X can utilize crossfire. However it seems that the A75 can also crossfire at least in the FM1 chipsets. Can you clarify this in the article? Did amd disable crossfire on D3 hudson and only allow it on the a85x?

 

[eidairaman1]

Dave,

I have a question about this article now. On page 2 you suggest that only the A85X can utilize crossfire. However it seems that the A75 can also crossfire at least in the FM1 chipsets. Can you clarify this in the article? Did amd disable crossfire on D3 hudson and only allow it on the a85x?

is it crossfire or dual graphics. Because Ya FM1 you had 2 8x slots because 2 out of 3 would become 8x8 with a 4x or 16, 0, 4

 

[cadaveca]

Dave,

I have a question about this article now. On page 2 you suggest that only the A85X can utilize crossfire. However it seems that the A75 can also crossfire at least in the FM1 chipsets. Can you clarify this in the article? Did amd disable crossfire on D3 hudson and only allow it on the a85x?

A75 only actually supports AMD Dual Graphics. My test A75 board is a Gigabyte A75-UD4H, and it does NOT support Crossfire.