• Welcome to TechPowerUp Forums, Guest! Please check out our forum guidelines for info related to our community.
  • The forums have been upgraded with support for dark mode. By default it will follow the setting on your system/browser. You may override it by scrolling to the end of the page and clicking the gears icon.

AMD A10-7860K 65W APU

cadaveca

cadaveca

My name is Dave
Joined
Apr 10, 2006
Messages
17,247 (2.46/day)
AMD's APUs have been refreshed, some now featuring lower power consumption and a new thermal solution, so they draw less power and are quieter. AMD's A10-7860K supports HSA, DirectX 12, Vulkan, and Mantle. With a maximum turbo clock of 4.0 GHz, the AMD A10-7860K isn't just a CPU, it does graphics, too.

Show full review
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Did AMD request not to include similarly price parts (performance numbers) from the competition? :p
 
Nice Review.

"There are definitely times where it stomps all over an Intel i7-6700K and its integrated GPU, and that i7-6700K costs about three times as much." can u elaborate a bit?
 
Absolution said:
Did AMD request not to include similarly price parts (performance numbers) from the competition? :p
Click to expand...

Nope. The paragraph before the results explains why.

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

suraswami said:
Nice Review.

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

3D. Take a look at the recently posted MSI laptop review for numbers. You took a single sentence out of a paragraph, and made it seem out of context, since the next sentence answers your question.
 
Can it be set to a 45w TDP like the A8-7600?
 
cadaveca said:
Nope. The paragraph before the results explains why.

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



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

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

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

I will check out the MSI laptop review.
Click to expand...
I totally understand. It may have seemed like I was saying your comment was misplaced, but what I mean is that I thought this part of the conclusion covered that for most people.

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

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

Like, this APU is truly nothing more than a re-released chip with lowered power consumption and a new cooler. I wrote the review looking at those aspects of the chip only; power consumption and the cooler. This chip in particular has been reviewed at most other review sites since February, and those sites do in the most part, compare the APU to other offerings. AMD sent me this chip a couple of weeks ago; not back in the end of January like with those other sites.
 
I miss the OC part. They should easily do 4GHz and higher. Defenitly impact on CPU performance.
 
From my testing with an A8 7650k, the cpu oc dies when you need to use the GPU, APM gives priority to the GPU in case you're near the TDP.
 
So that TDP is fixed on that CPU? No way you could exceed the TDP that's bin setup in the bios?

I've bin on high-end AM3+ for a long time, and awaiting the new ZEN platform. I have'nt checked FM2 at all with the APU stuff going on.
 
Jism said:
I miss the OC part. They should easily do 4GHz and higher. Defenitly impact on CPU performance.
Click to expand...
The chip used in the review can OC to 4.6 GHz easily enough (@ <1.45V). However, as @GoldenX mentioned, when using the iGPU, APM affects things, as does the cooler's ability. So OC is limited by the cooler with this chip, as I mentioned in the review.

I truly feel that if AMD wanted me to focus on OC, they would have sent the A10-7890K, which includes the Wraith cooler. Maybe I'll get one of those next.
Jism said:
So that TDP is fixed on that CPU? No way you could exceed the TDP that's bin setup in the bios?
Click to expand...

You can disable APM in most FM2+ board BIOSes. However, this allows the chip to exceed the included cooler's ability (rated for 95W, which is pretty accurate by my testing).
 
If you disable APM, turbo, and cool and quiet, then you can, but to me it's not good to have the cpu in a fixed frequency.
 
I truly feel that if AMD wanted me to focus on OC, they would have sent the A10-7890K, which includes the Wraith cooler. Maybe I'll get one of those next.
Click to expand...

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

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

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

(Sorry something went wrong here with the forum).
 
Yeah I know, but I don't like the idea of an APU in that kind of load. The FM2+ motherboards have a limit of 100w tdp, a fixed frequency oced apu can damage the vrm. It's not like on an AM3 or AM3+ motherboard, where the limit can vary from 140 to 220w or even more.
 
GoldenX said:
Yeah I know, but I don't like the idea of an APU in that kind of load. The FM2+ motherboards have a limit of 100w tdp, a fixed frequency oced apu can damage the vrm. It's not like on an AM3 or AM3+ motherboard, where the limit can vary from 140 to 220w or even more.
Click to expand...
That's why I made a comment in the review about the board's VRM being a full 25c hotter than the APU, measured using an IR thermometer. ;) A board's VRM capability will affect OC-ability in the long-term for sure.

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

Sure. But for daily uses, a 95W-capable cooler on a 65W chip means either you OC a little bit, or you have a silent system. Given AMD's marketing for these newer APUs, silence is their intent. You do also need to think about the board's ability, as mentioned above.
 
did you test overclocking?
 
Can someone explain me the purpose of those chips ?
They have no upgrade path, single core performance still sux and while you have to use fast dual channel ram, it's iGPU performance is still limited by ram bandwidth quite a bit.

So not really good for gaming on a budget, cpu isn't the best.. Why would someone pick this over something like i3 6100 ? or even g4400/4500 for that matter.
 
Its easy cause family PC for daily usage (few games at middle resolutuion, photos, videos, social pages etc.)
Example you cna buy modern and cheap A88XM-A, this APU, 2x 4GB DDR3 2133 RAM, some HDD, some 300W PSU and thats all.

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

PS: Pentium is worse choice because today are 2 threads limited in many cases (some games, some practice work)
 
>Its easy cause family PC for daily usage (few games at middle resolutuion, photos, videos, social pages etc.)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

>i3-6100 price is almost double of 860K

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

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

Electricity cost depends highly on where you live actually.


If you really think about it, APUs make very little sense outside of very niche uses.
If you're after an all arounder, i3 is a better value simply because it offers better cpu performance, upgrade path and decent iGPU as well. Not to mention support for all of the video codes, that will be used in the future (namely vp9 and hevc 10 bit).
 
If you think about it, if intel ever decided to use their HD550 gpu in their desktop lineup (its certainly possible, because they already have a dual core die with this gpu for mobile) in pentiums and i3s, it would kill the only advantage AMD currently holds with its APUs -- iGPU performance. And they might just do that, if bristol ridge poses a threat.
 
FlanK3r said:
did you test overclocking?
Click to expand...
4.6 on traditional cooling max as I posted above. No iGPU OC at all.

hojnikb said:
If you really think about it, APUs make very little sense outside of very niche uses.
If you're after an all arounder, i3 is a better value simply because it offers better cpu performance, upgrade path and decent iGPU as well. Not to mention support for all of the video codes, that will be used in the future (namely vp9 and hevc 10 bit).
Click to expand...
i3 CPU have some problems in 3D and driver releases are seldom; that is not an issue with an APU.

My kids have none of the concerns you raised.

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

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

Quasi quadcore, just like i3. But with intel, you at least get strong single core performance and upgrades.
Click to expand...
Irrevelant if you can't afford the $165 that it(an i3 CPU) goes for locally. AMD is all about providing low-cost options, even if that means slightly less performance. Not everyone needs the top performance they can get; some just want maximum savings, and that's where AMD is useful. You may not see it that way, but it is how it is.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top