Desktop Richland(6xxx series) will be launch first week of June.
So AMD should hold back because Intel is getting later and later with releases? What an absurd point of view.
So AMD should hold back because Intel is getting later and later with releases? What an absurd point of view.
Also no cheapo i3 Haswell in sight for a few months so mainstream desktop iGPU is nicely covered by AMD .Richland and Quad Core Desktop Haswell(GT2) are not in the same category, they dont directly compete, different market segments different prices.
But it will be nice to show the world that a $140 APU is faster than a pricier Haswell in graphics
Also, AMD has been releasing new GPUs way ahead of NVIDIA for the last few years.
Bad idea, Intel is going to have all the press with the Haswell launch.
AMD always has this mindset that they have to match their competitors announcements, they do the same thing in the graphics department.
How's this Richland for a machine that will just be going online and watching the random youtube?
How's this Richland for a machine that will just be going online and watching the random youtube?
How's this Richland for a machine that will just be going online and watching the random youtube?
That cpu is actually weaker than the lowest level trinity chip. GPU clocks are virtually the same but the A4-4000 is actually a couple hundred mhz slower than the a4-5300 (weakest trinity chip).
Just asking a question here, almost bought one of these over the weekend but decided to recycle an old X6 for my wife. When I in inquired about Richland on the forums I was told that Richland would be - maybe - 10% faster than a similarly clocked Trinity - is that accurate?
Absolutely not. There is 0 IPC gain for trinity (its the exact same physical chip except with power/bios/turbo tweaks). Richland performance gains come 100% from increase speed and for mobile increased speed and better thermals allowing higher clocks and turbo (mobile richland, especially ULV is expected to see much better gains than desktop high level richland).
For the 10-5800k vs a10-6800k we are looking at a ~10% increase in cpu power (4.4 ghz for richland vs 4.0 ghz for trinity) and a ~5% gain in gpu performance (844 mhz for richland vs 800 mhz for trinity). Its really nothing special considering you can easily overclock any a10-5800k to those levels. However, richland may bring about some power savings (doubtful on the desktop as 4.4 ghz is quite far along the non-linear power/clockspeed curve)
Richland is literally part of AMD's marketing genius. Take your old chip, tweak it a little for higher clocks and market it as something else entirely and everyone thinks you get huge performance gains when you won't.
(The same thing for intel would be to release an i5 chip say the i5-3590k with a base clock of 3.6 ghz turbo 4.0 ghz and igp at 1300 mhz and market it as a major step forward [which it isn't]. Kinda pointless considering any i5 k version overclocks to these levels easily.)
That should be A10-6700, non K version, but regardless it will give you just about 10% bump in CPU clock speed & around 20% for IGP at the same TDP, the same goes for AMD A10-6800K ~A10-6700K at 65W TDP will have almost the same performance as A10-5800K at 100W TDP. If you look at all the 65W Richland Products, they will have almost the same performance the 100W Trinity products have today, at the same 32nm process. This is a huge gain especially for Laptops.
So, the highest model(6800K) may not be all that impresive but the 65W models are the ones to look about.
Wonder why the availability first of such a low end chip?
Seems like you would want the flagship chips released first.