AMD Richland avaiable at Newegg

[SPBHM]

I think your mistaken on the graphics front:

http://lensfire.in/37207/news/benchmark-results-of-amd-a4-4000-apu-revealed/

For HTPC it's solid value. Best value for CPU power definitely the g1610.

yes well, the IGP difference is probably more significant than what I was thinking,

the igp "cores" should be slower than Kabini's IGP (which is not a lot faster than the mobile "HD2500" CPUs), but there is dual channel memory, much higher clock and I would think for most games a single PD module at 3.2Ghz is probably better than 4 jaguar cores at 1.5...

 

[AtenRa]

I think your mistaken on the graphics front:

http://lensfire.in/37207/news/benchmark-results-of-amd-a4-4000-apu-revealed/

For HTPC it's solid value. Best value for CPU power definitely the g1610.

You also getting way more features with the A4-4000 against the Celeron 1610.

AES, AVX, OpenCL, AMD Steady Video, Gaming and more.

 

[Vesku]

You also getting way more features with the A4-4000 against the Celeron 1610.

AES, AVX, OpenCL, AMD Steady Video, Gaming and more.

Bolded one might be interesting for people with secure computing in mind. The rest is pretty minimal for the price point. Gaming goes with the HTPC comment, its iGP is definitely strong for the price.

 

[SPBHM]

You also getting way more features with the A4-4000 against the Celeron 1610.

AES, AVX, OpenCL, AMD Steady Video, Gaming and more.

OpenCL works on the G1610 IGP

but sure, you get more features, AES acceleration can be interesting for a few cases, but the rest seems less important for a $50 CPU, compared to the pure extra CPU performance from the 2 ivy bridge cores compared to a single PD module at just 600MHz more.

 

[AtenRa]

OpenCL works on the G1610 IGP

but sure, you get more features, AES acceleration can be interesting for a few cases, but the rest seems less important for a $50 CPU, compared to the pure extra CPU performance from the 2 ivy bridge cores compared to a single PD module at just 600MHz more.

Why less important ?? people still play games, watching videos, browsing the net, doing work and more. A4-4000 is an all around balanced product, the Celeron 1610 only gives you fast CPU. You cannot game, you dont have AES, you dont have steady Video, you have way lower OpenCL performance, you dont have AVX and more.

 

[Kallogan]

Haswell will be high priced. Only GT3 parts will likely beat amd on the graphic side and at premium price. So Richland will be a good deal until Intel eventually release core i3 with GT3...The A10-6700 will be great to put in a compact mini-itx case, packed with 2133 mhz memory, it'll give a pretty balanced rig easy to assemble. Though the A10-5700 used to hit 100W+ in review despite its 65W TDP, so u need at least a 120W external power adapter. It's a little annoying when most compact itx cases comes with 60-90W power adapters....

And celeron/pentium line are crap because they don't have hyperthreading. The higher clocked desktop pentium barely beats a mobile core i3 at 2,4 ghz...

 

[SPBHM]

Why less important ?? people still play games, watching videos, browsing the net, doing work and more. A4-4000 is an all around balanced product, the Celeron 1610 only gives you fast CPU. You cannot game, you dont have AES, you dont have steady Video, you have way lower OpenCL performance, you dont have AVX and more.

because I think most cheap CPUs end being used for basic tasks, like web browsing, I think higher CPU performance is more interesting for that (and AVX, Steady Video and whatever, irrelevant)... but sure, the A4 have some good points, as the 1610... they just offer something different for around the same money...

still, interesting to see this being called A4 4000, while 1.5GHz Kabini is the A4 5000.

 

[Abwx]

because I think most cheap CPUs end being used for basic tasks, like web browsing, I think higher CPU performance is more interesting for that

And does "that" require more than a dual core circa 2006..?..

 

[Kallogan]

because I think most cheap CPUs end being used for basic tasks, like web browsing, I think higher CPU performance is more interesting for that (and AVX, Steady Video and whatever, irrelevant)... but sure, the A4 have some good points, as the 1610... they just offer something different for around the same money...

While you're at buying a cpu that can do nothing more than basic tasks, better buy a well balanced apu if you ask me.

 

[R0H1T]

because I think most cheap CPUs end being used for basic tasks, like web browsing, I think higher CPU performance is more interesting for that (and AVX, Steady Video and whatever, irrelevant)... but sure, the A4 have some good points, as the 1610... they just offer something different for around the same money...

still, interesting to see this being called A4 4000, while 1.5GHz Kabini is the A4 5000.

Most web browsers support hardware acceleration & then the second most popular activity on such machines is watching videos or playing casual games, again better IGP required. I can't say why but surely some of the members favoring Intel, due to their CPU lead, tend to forget that GPU is becoming more & more important in computing, be it on a PC or a tablet, in which case AMD just blows away Intel with hands behind their back & yes IGP is indeed a big(ger) part of that overall experience !

 

[SPBHM]

And does "that" require more than a dual core circa 2006..?..

it benefits from faster CPUs, I have a few older dual cores, and some websites full of advertisement and content can get limited by CPU performance with this level of CPU... even more if you have some other task running like your AV software or windows doing something at an inconvenient time, so yes, faster is... faster.

Intel flash GPU acceleration works fine, actually last time I tried it was less problematic than my 5850.

 

[Abwx]

it benefits from faster CPUs, I have a few older dual cores, and some websites full of advertisement and content can get limited by CPU performance with this level of CPU

Intel flash GPU acceleration works fine, actually last time I tried it was less problematic than my 5850.

That s it , the CPU has to compensate for the poor acceleration
provided by the GPU in thoses tasks , recent radeons as in APUs
should render this problem trivial.

Edit : i use mainly a mobile pentium T4400 but my
old 1.6g Pentium 4M with discrete radeon 7500 (!!)
has no problem when browsing through flash
animation filled sites.

 

[SPBHM]

That s it , the CPU has to compensate for the poor acceleration
provided by the GPU in thoses tasks , recent radeons as in APUs
should render this problem trivial.

it still is mostly about CPUs (compared to GPUs) when it comes to web browsing, again, Intel also have working "GPU acceleration"...

" my
old 1.6g Pentium 4M with discrete radeon 7500 (!!)
has no problem when browsing through flash
animation filled sites."

really? good for you, because your Radeon 7500 is doing nothing and p4 at 1.6GHz is super slow, I've used a 2.6GHz northwood recently and was very displeased with the experience.

 

[R0H1T]

it still is mostly about CPUs (compared to GPUs) when it comes to web browsing, again, Intel also have working "GPU acceleration"...

Sure that is if you're not using the latest version of IE, FF, chrome, Opera et al since all of'em support hardware acceleration right out of the box. Now as far as flash is concerned it is a separate issue because that particular plugin is external, is most definitely not a necessity & can be disabled, btw most people don't like ads & have an adblocker installed in their respective browsers anyway !

 

[SPBHM]

Sure that is if you're not using the latest version of IE, FF, chrome, Opera et al since all of'em support hardware acceleration right out of the box. Now as far as flash is concerned it is a separate issue because that particular plugin is external, is most definitely not a necessity & can be disabled, btw most people don't like ads & have an adblocker installed in their respective browsers anyway !

flash is important because it can be quite inefficient and get critical on slower hardware, also I think you are overstating the use of "hardware acceleration", I never use old versions, and I have been using content blockers for many years, but that doesn't mean everyone does the same...

again, higher CPU performance is useful even for basic tasks, think about web browsing, A/V, winrar or whatever...

now the difference between both these CPUs is not huge (like it would be to some C60 or something), but still, it's an advantage for Intel, as the IGP is for AMD... but again, outside gaming it can be irrelevant quite easily...

so, as I said, both options have their strengths... without gaming I think the 1610 is simply better, with gaming the A4 is better.

and it's nice to see that even for $50 or less you can get some decent amount of performance... and competition.

 

[R0H1T]

flash is important because it can be quite inefficient and get critical on slower hardware, also I think you are overstating the use of "hardware acceleration", I never use old versions, and I have been using content blockers for many years, but that doesn't mean everyone does the same...

again, higher CPU performance is useful even for basic tasks, think about web browsing, A/V, winrar or whatever...

now the difference between both these CPUs is not huge (like it would be to some C60 or something), but still, it's an advantage for Intel, as the IGP is for AMD... but again, outside gaming it can be irrelevant quite easily...

so, as I said, both options have their strengths... without gaming I think the 1610 is simply better, with gaming the A4 is better.

I agree with you on most points except that more & more applications can now use the brute force of a GPU/IGP hence gaming isn't the only area where its an advantage for AMD. So for web browsing, with proper drivers & the latest browsers, or watching movies/videos & certain apps(like Winrar/Winzip) that can use OpenCL AMD is better overall.

I'll ask you this bluntly ~ do you know the number of programs, used in everyday tasks, that support GPU acceleration &/or OpenCL because I assume you have a rough idea in this regard & yet you're claiming that for avg folks media consumption, internet browsing(the bulk of their PC usage) isn't gonna be a better experience with an A4 APU ?

 

[SPBHM]

I agree with you on most points except that more & more applications can now use the brute force of a GPU/IGP hence gaming isn't the only area where its an advantage for AMD. So for web browsing, with proper drivers & the latest browsers, or watching movies/videos & certain apps(like Winrar/Winzip) that can use OpenCL AMD is better overall.

I'll ask you this bluntly ~ do you know the number of programs, used in everyday tasks, that support GPU acceleration &/or OpenCL because I assume you have a rough idea in this regard & yet you're claiming that for avg folks media consumption, internet browsing(the bulk of their PC usage) isn't gonna be a better experience with an A4 APU ?

again, Intel does fine for GPU accelerated videos, flash and whatever.

why would I use Winzip OpenCL when 7zip (CPU) is much better?

that's the problem,
OpenCL still haven't gained that much relevance (for basic usage), and with the latest drivers Intel have increased their IGP performance quite a lot for it.

 

[Abwx]

really? good for you, because your Radeon 7500 is doing nothing and p4 at 1.6GHz is super slow, I've used a 2.6GHz northwood recently and was very displeased with the experience.

I ve got another old laptop with comparable CPU but crappy IGP
and it simply not up to the current tasks , so it s obvious that
the discrete Radeon GPU is what makes a huge difference.

Same thing can be seen when viewing a divx with
CPU usage reaching barely a few % despite the CPU oldness.

 

[AtenRa]

@SPBHM

I believe you(and everyone else) should read the following by arstechnica,

Windows 8 GPU acceleration: good news for Metro

just a small quote,

Direct2D in Windows 8, however, uses Direct3D 11.1, which introduces a new hardware feature called Target Independent Rasterization (TIR). With suitable Direct3D 11.1 hardware, the rasterization and antialiasing step can now be performed by the GPU, avoiding the need to perform this task on the CPU.

 

[Enigmoid]

A10-6700 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.

Yeah and the a10-5700 and the a10-5800k have almost the same performance too (about 10% less despite only needing 65% of the power).

Laptops its a huge gain but for desktop not so much.

 

[SPBHM]

I ve got another old laptop with comparable CPU but crappy IGP
and it simply not up to the current tasks , so it s obvious that
the discrete Radeon GPU is what makes a huge difference.

Same thing can be seen when viewing a divx with
CPU usage reaching barely a few % despite the CPU oldness.

Radeon 7500 have at best mpeg2 (dvd) acceleration, it's a DX7 card, sure it's faster in basic 2d performance than probably some slower SIS IGP from the time... but honestly, I don't see how it would compensate the lack of performance of a 1.6GHz p4... current websites and web browsers demand better hardware than they did back when the P4 was good (2002-2004).

@SPBHM

I believe you(and everyone else) should read the following by arstechnica,

Windows 8 GPU acceleration: good news for Metro

just a small quote,

this would be relevant for the discussion if it's established that the Intel HD 2500 cannot handle it in a comparable way to the A4.

Having (quickly) used the HD 2000 with Windows 8 I can't say I noticed anything wrong, actually the flash (youtube HD) playback looked to work better than with my discrete card for some reason (probably the web browser+flash version+driver version combination was not perfect for some reason),


Richland is not DX11.1, I think.

 

[AtenRa]

Laptops its a huge gain but for desktop not so much.

There are people here (AT Forums) that believe that Performance/watt is the most important thing in the world. Having the same performance of A10-5800K with only a 65W TDP is huge even for the Desktop.

 

[AtenRa]

this would be relevant for the discussion if it's established that the Intel HD 2500 cannot handle it in a comparable way to the A4.

Having (quickly) used the HD 2000 with Windows 8 I can't say I noticed anything wrong, actually the flash (youtube HD) playback looked to work better than with my discrete card for some reason (probably the web browser+flash version+driver version combination was not perfect for some reason),


Richland is not DX11.1, I think.

It just shows that things we were taking for granted are no more, a higher performance CPU will not be faster at everything anymore. So at the end, having a faster CPU will not make the Windows 8 experience any better most of the time, and since the A4-4000 has way more features it makes it the better product.

 

[b_scott]

it's bugging me that the 6800k isn't even available to look at on any store yet. It's 5 days away from release.

 

[monstercameron]

Fact or fiction? What is Richland hiding?
semiaccurate.com/2013/05/31/amds-richland-is-hiding-a-big-secret/