AMD A10-5800K preview - iGPU side only

[Hacp]

Well said. As a matter of fact, I have used the exact same description in earlier posts regarding APUs. "Jack of all trades, and master of none" actually is the full saying, and it describes APUs very well, especially in a desktop.

APUs might have a place in laptops if you only want to play some older, less demanding games occasionally, but not in the desktop.

APUs are good for gamers who aren't graphics snobs. Its not a niche market at all and is very good for the computer gaming industry in general.

 

[Idontcare]

It is pretty clever of AMD to do this. Now the web will be seeded with reviews that can only highlight and showcase the positive features of the CPU while being intentionally devoid of the negative comparisons that would have been carried out in a regular review.

Then in the future whenever someone wants to link to a review for the chip they can cherry pick and choose to just link to the graphics preview if they want.

Really a bad move for AMD and goes to show exactly how Rory intends for his company to treat the enthusiast market. Try and manipulate them as best as possible would appear to be the game plan.

I picked up the phone almost immediately after reading this paragraph and attempted to persuade both Mr. Amos and, later, his boss that this plan was not a good one. I was told that this decision was made not just in PR but at higher levels in the company and that my objections had been widely noted in internal emails. Unfortunately, although fully aware of my objections and of the very important basic principle at stake, AMD decided to go through with its plan.

I like the chip and have no doubt that it will be great in laptops, but Rory's approach to manipulating the reviewers and the DIY'er market that read those reviews is just a sad sign of how he is running that ship. Not confidence building

 

[mikeymikec]

Hell, even A8-5600K with 256 shaders is 50-60% faster than Core i7 3770K with HD4000 not to mention its very close to Llanos 400 shaders. I really cant wait for the full review in a few days.

Quite frankly, who cares of the integrated graphics on the A10 is better than a Core i7's. Who buys a Core i7 for gaming to just use integrated graphics with it, it would be like buying a Sempron and pairing it up with a top-of-the-line GPU. In each respective example, spending a chunk less on the CPU and instead reinvesting in the GPU or vice versa will result in much better performance most of the time.

 

[inf64]

Core i7(and i5 to some extent) and A10/A8 are not in the same class. Just a glance at prices for both products makes it obvious that A10 is mainstream chip while i7/i5 is a high(er) end product. On the other hand,nobody forbids you to buy A10 and put it in the same case with mid to high end GPU. Vrzone did the comparison between IB i5 and 5800K in this scenario. Of all the games tested at 1080p (it is a high end GPU after all), only F1 2012 showed an advantage for IB that can be said to be noticeable. The rest of the titles(even the old DX9) would perform ,from the end user's perspective, nearly identical on both systems. And that's what they conclude in each case.

 

[SithSolo1]

Would have been nice to see the i3-3225 with the HD4000 igpu tossed in the mix instead of the i7. I think it would be the more likely alternative price wise.

 

[Eeqmcsq]

It is pretty clever of AMD to do this. Now the web will be seeded with reviews that can only highlight and showcase the positive features of the CPU while being intentionally devoid of the negative comparisons that would have been carried out in a regular review.

Then in the future whenever someone wants to link to a review for the chip they can cherry pick and choose to just link to the graphics preview if they want.

Really a bad move for AMD and goes to show exactly how Rory intends for his company to treat the enthusiast market. Try and manipulate them as best as possible would appear to be the game plan.



I like the chip and have no doubt that it will be great in laptops, but Rory's approach to manipulating the reviewers and the DIY'er market that read those reviews is just a sad sign of how he is running that ship. Not confidence building

Another bad thing about this approach is that if you highlight all the good stuff now, then you have nothing but the bad stuff to show next week when the APU is actually launched. When you END on a negative note, readers will forget the better iGPU performance, remember the poorer CPU performance, and talk only about the poorer CPU performance. In other words, the BAD stuff will be the lasting impression.

 

[ShintaiDK]

Another bad thing about this approach is that if you highlight all the good stuff now, then you have nothing but the bad stuff to show next week when the APU is actually launched. When you END on a negative note, readers will forget the better iGPU performance, remember the poorer CPU performance, and talk only about the poorer CPU performance. In other words, the BAD stuff will be the lasting impression.

I think the hope is that people will skip reading part 2. Plus part 1 can be used to manipulate people with cherry picked cases.

 

[Olikan]

Core i7(and i5 to some extent) and A10/A8 are not in the same class. Just a glance at prices for both products makes it obvious that A10 is mainstream chip while i7/i5 is a high(er) end product. On the other hand,nobody forbids you to buy A10 and put it in the same case with mid to high end GPU. Vrzone did the comparison between IB i5 and 5800K in this scenario. Of all the games tested at 1080p (it is a high end GPU after all), only F1 2012 showed an advantage for IB that can be said to be noticeable. The rest of the titles(even the old DX9) would perform ,from the end user's perspective, nearly identical on both systems. And that's what they conclude in each case.

hey! that's a cpu benchmark :whiste:

 

[NTMBK]

Core i7(and i5 to some extent) and A10/A8 are not in the same class. Just a glance at prices for both products makes it obvious that A10 is mainstream chip while i7/i5 is a high(er) end product. On the other hand,nobody forbids you to buy A10 and put it in the same case with mid to high end GPU. Vrzone did the comparison between IB i5 and 5800K in this scenario. Of all the games tested at 1080p (it is a high end GPU after all), only F1 2012 showed an advantage for IB that can be said to be noticeable. The rest of the titles(even the old DX9) would perform ,from the end user's perspective, nearly identical on both systems. And that's what they conclude in each case.

Wow, that's... pretty remarkable. I really didn't expect that.

 

[boxleitnerb]

Well, if you choose severly GPU bottlenecked sequences, what do you expect? They should have tested multiplayer and also other games. This seems like a biased selection of titles/scenes.

 

[Mallibu]

Core i7(and i5 to some extent) and A10/A8 are not in the same class. Just a glance at prices for both products makes it obvious that A10 is mainstream chip while i7/i5 is a high(er) end product. On the other hand,nobody forbids you to buy A10 and put it in the same case with mid to high end GPU. Vrzone did the comparison between IB i5 and 5800K in this scenario. Of all the games tested at 1080p (it is a high end GPU after all), only F1 2012 showed an advantage for IB that can be said to be noticeable. The rest of the titles(even the old DX9) would perform ,from the end user's perspective, nearly identical on both systems. And that's what they conclude in each case.

Oh god, the same generalisations again. A few points, to a healthier thought process:
Games tested on that site != All games.
If we take a pool sample for example of the 4 games listed on anandtechs cpu comparison charts we get that Pentium G 840 > FX 8150. Is this result correct? Another example, if we take Guild Wars 2, Borderlands 2, Starcraft II, WoW as indicators then Trinity cpus are half the speed of an i5 3570.Is this also correct?
And even on that site you linked, Trinity is slower in every game, ranging from 5% to 60%. I can cherrypick games that show Pentium G 840 > FX 8150, but that wouldn't be accurate. Stop doing the same thing.

 

[inf64]

I have just checked the online prices for i5 3450 ,it's around ~195-200$. From what I read on forums,on all 4 cores you can push it (since it's semi locked) to around 3.7Ghz and some 100Mhz higher for 2 core loads. That's roughly 8% increase over what Turbo on it offers by default. So you won't be gaining much in terms of fps (if you expect that CPU might hold you back in some titles-which is rare).

On the other hand,even though it's not a "gamer's choice", 5800K should be around 130$. It will be interesting to see what level of performance it will offer with high(er) end GPUs like 680GTX when you push this CPU to say ~4.5-4.7Ghz on air cooler (and disable the ondie GPU). Then compare the results to above mentioned OCed 3450 @ 3.7ghz with GTX680. Of course games would need to be multiplayer and at maximum quality since gamers who buy 680GTX don't play at low image quality and low resolution.

 

[Edgemeal]

http://techreport.com/blog/23638/amd-attempts-to-shape-review-content-with-staged-release-of-info

Ouch.

So I guess TR won't be doing a Haswell preview either then eh?
Rules are rules!

 

[Mallibu]

I have just checked the online prices for i5 3450 ,it's around ~195-200$. From what I read on forums,on all 4 cores you can push it (since it's semi locked) to around 3.7Ghz and some 100Mhz higher for 2 core loads. That's roughly 8% increase over what Turbo on it offers by default. So you won't be gaining much in terms of fps (if you expect that CPU might hold you back in some titles-which is rare).

On the other hand,even though it's not a "gamer's choice", 5800K should be around 130$. It will be interesting to see what level of performance it will offer with high(er) end GPUs like 680GTX when you push this CPU to say ~4.5-4.7Ghz on air cooler (and disable the ondie GPU). Then compare the results to above mentioned OCed 3450 @ 3.7ghz with GTX680. Of course games would need to be multiplayer and at maximum quality since gamers who buy 680GTX don't play at low image quality and low resolution.

130$ for trinity + 50$ for an air cooler and you are within i5 territory. Since trinity cpu is FX+5%, then Trinity at 4.5 ghz would still be a lot slower than an i5 so you saved no money and have worst performance.

 

[inf64]

For those who want CPU performance numbers and have been living under rock last few months, THG CPU performance review of 5800K/5600K can be found here. It's a repost with the date of Sept. 26th and originally was published on June 14th. There you have all results you need for 5800K.

Also for those who want to see how it fares against i3,here is another THG article:
http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/a10-5800k-a8-5600k-trinity-apu,review-32476-2.html

130$ for trinity + 50$ for an air cooler and you are within i5 territory. Since trinity cpu is FX+5%, then Trinity at 4.5 ghz would still be a lot slower than an i5 so you saved no money and have worst performance.

You don't need 50$ cooler,it can OC with default cooler,especially when you disable the iGPU. So it's 130$+0$ .
Oh and FX @ 4.5Ghz with +5% IPC (so effectively 4.7Ghz ) is very capable gaming CPU.

edit: Here is what FX4100 offers in games. Average 149/155.6. 2500K @ 4Ghz gives 196/228. Now 5800K @ 4.5Ghz is equal to FX4100 @ 4.7Ghz (5% IPC improvement on top of 4.5Ghz clock). So effectively 4.7Ghz is 27% faster than 3.7Ghz FX4100 (median clock of 3.6/3.8Ghz the stock FX4100 has). So figure in 27% over 149/155.6 and you have : 189/197.6 which is 3.7%/15% slower than 4Ghz i5 2500K. Not bad at all for "slow" 5800K huh?

 

[AtenRa]

Core i7(and i5 to some extent) and A10/A8 are not in the same class. Just a glance at prices for both products makes it obvious that A10 is mainstream chip while i7/i5 is a high(er) end product. On the other hand,nobody forbids you to buy A10 and put it in the same case with mid to high end GPU. Vrzone did the comparison between IB i5 and 5800K in this scenario. Of all the games tested at 1080p (it is a high end GPU after all), only F1 2012 showed an advantage for IB that can be said to be noticeable. The rest of the titles(even the old DX9) would perform ,from the end user's perspective, nearly identical on both systems. And that's what they conclude in each case.

It reminds me something.........

http://atenra.blog.com/2012/03/27/amd-fx4100-dx-11-budget-gaming-evaluation-a-gamers-perspective/

http://atenra.blog.com/2012/06/08/amd-fx8150-vs-intel-2500k-1080p-dx-11-gaming-evaluation/

:whiste:

 

[Olikan]

power use at cpu load...better than ivy!!!
woot! the worst thing about bulldozer is now, the best part for trinity...
too bad the performance didn't gone up very much

 

[AtenRa]

I believe those Trinity iGPU reviews puts to the rest the argument the Core i3 IvyBridge with HD4000 could come close to Trinity in gaming, hell it cant even come close to Llano.

Now i would love to see an unlocked Core i3 but................. :whiste:

 

[Mallibu]

For those who want CPU performance numbers and have been living under rock last few months, THG CPU performance review of 5800K/5600K can be found here. It's a repost with the date of Sept. 26th and originally was published on June 14th. There you have all results you need for 5800K.

Also for those who want to see how it fares against i3,here is another THG article:
http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/a10-5800k-a8-5600k-trinity-apu,review-32476-2.html


You don't need 50$ cooler,it can OC with default cooler,especially when you disable the iGPU. So it's 130$+0$ .
Oh and FX @ 4.5Ghz with +5% IPC (so effectively 4.7Ghz ) is very capable gaming CPU.

edit: Here is what FX4100 offers in games. Average 149/155.6. 2500K @ 4Ghz gives 196/228. Now 5800K @ 4.5Ghz is equal to FX4100 @ 4.7Ghz (5% IPC improvement on top of 4.5Ghz clock). So effectively 4.7Ghz is 27% faster than 3.7Ghz FX4100 (median clock of 3.6/3.8Ghz the stock FX4100 has). So figure in 27% over 149/155.6 and you have : 189/197.6 which is 3.7%/15% slower than 4Ghz i5 2500K. Not bad at all for "slow" 5800K huh?

4.7 Ghz at stock cooler? Kinda hard to believe.
Anyways, your results logic is not correct. FX 4100 @ 4.5 ghz has approximately Phenom II 965 @ 3.8-4.ghz performance. That Phenom at 3.8-4 is around 40-50% slower than an Ivy Bridge i5 at 4ghz in pure CPU horsepower. So your results don't make any sense.

 

[podspi]

It is pretty clever of AMD to do this. Now the web will be seeded with reviews that can only highlight and showcase the positive features of the CPU while being intentionally devoid of the negative comparisons that would have been carried out in a regular review.

Then in the future whenever someone wants to link to a review for the chip they can cherry pick and choose to just link to the graphics preview if they want.

Really a bad move for AMD and goes to show exactly how Rory intends for his company to treat the enthusiast market. Try and manipulate them as best as possible would appear to be the game plan.



I like the chip and have no doubt that it will be great in laptops, but Rory's approach to manipulating the reviewers and the DIY'er market that read those reviews is just a sad sign of how he is running that ship. Not confidence building

IDC, aren't you usually the cynical one? These are companies, not our friends. I'm not surprised or outraged that AMD is trying to highlight the positive aspects of its products.

I do think it is foolish, since these chips are aimed at enthusiasts, who aren't stupid and are already aware of the performance characteristics of Trinity on the CPU side from the already released laptop chips.


Disregarding marketing decisions, I think the synthetic benchmarks were interesting. Something has to happen with memory bandwidth or AMD is in trouble. The fact that Intel is bothering to put graphics memory onto Haswell implies it will reach a level of performance where that memory is required, which is a huge jump.

 

[frozentundra123456]

I believe those Trinity iGPU reviews puts to the rest the argument the Core i3 IvyBridge with HD4000 could come close to Trinity in gaming, hell it cant even come close to Llano.

Now i would love to see an unlocked Core i3 but................. :whiste:

Two words: discrete card.

 

[Edgemeal]

You don't need 50$ cooler,it can OC with default cooler,especially when you disable the iGPU. So it's 130$+0$ .

Come on , Those stock HS/Fans are barley good enough to handle the TDP of the APU at stock speed, one of the reviews has pictures of it, its looks just like the heatsinks from the Phenom X2-550 80W chips, they are junk! If you want to OC you're going to need a better cooler unless your ambient temps are well below normal, or you don't care if the CPU throttles and risk damage when getting too hot.

 

[inf64]

4.7 Ghz at stock cooler? Kinda hard to believe.
Anyways, your results logic is not correct. FX 4100 @ 4.5 ghz has approximately Phenom II 965 @ 3.8-4.ghz performance. That Phenom at 3.8-4 is around 40-50% slower than an Ivy Bridge i5 at 4ghz in pure CPU horsepower. So your results don't make any sense.

Can you read or not? First of all I said 4.5Ghz 5800K would be equal (roughly) to 4.7Ghz Fx4100. Then I calculated how much faster is Fx4100 @ 4.7Ghz Vs Fx4100 @ stock the results of which we have in that chart. The difference is exactly 27%. Then I multiplied both numbers that FX4100 produced (in the chart) by 1.27 and got the estimated perf. of 4.5Ghz 5800K (which is equal to 4.7Ghz FX4100). It is all very simple and based on what THG already benchmarked. I have no idea how you cannot understand this simple concept.

And yes , 4.5ghz on stock cooler is not at all unreasonable,especially when you disable the ondie GPU and OC only the CPU cores. After all, 4.5Ghz is just 7% over the stock Turbo 5800K offers. SO yes ,the cores can do this very easily. Heck even old FX4100 can OC on stock cooler with stock Vcore to ~4.3-4.4Ghz. With PD it will be even easier task to achieve.

 

[thilanliyan]

The Tech Report refuses to take part: http://techreport.com/blog/23638/amd-attempts-to-shape-review-content-with-staged-release-of-info

I'm not really sure why TR is making such a fuss about that. I assumed that's how things always worked in previews...show the strengths.

From the email posted by TR, AMD never said "You HAVE to do it this way"...all they said was "IF you decide to post a preview before NDA lifts, please keep it to these topics"...what is wrong with that (if I am reading that correctly)?

TR is free to NOT post any preview, and while that may lessen some site traffic due to lack of a preview, they get to keep their integrity, which they believe in quite a bit from that article. TR might as well do an architectural preview without ANY benchmark numbers as their preview and hopefully they will still get most of the site traffic they want.

 

[beginner99]

We already know the CPU numbers. 12-15% better than Bulldozer. Plus, you can overclock your chip to 4.4 on air and blow the I3s out of the water. Ya, and you don't need to spend 120 bucks on an expensive motherboard either.

On hand hand the AMD fanboys claim it's easier to just have 1 chip and also that no one actually sells a pentium + HD7750 so the AMD setup is much easier and in the next paragraph the come with over clocking. Makes no sense. Anyone who overclocks will be able to build his pentium + discrete system.

Also add in the $30 for after market cooler.

Core i7(and i5 to some extent) and A10/A8 are not in the same class. Just a glance at prices for both products makes it obvious that A10 is mainstream chip while i7/i5 is a high(er) end product. On the other hand,nobody forbids you to buy A10 and put it in the same case with mid to high end GPU. Vrzone did the comparison between IB i5 and 5800K in this scenario. Of all the games tested at 1080p (it is a high end GPU after all), only F1 2012 showed an advantage for IB that can be said to be noticeable. The rest of the titles(even the old DX9) would perform ,from the end user's perspective, nearly identical on both systems. And that's what they conclude in each case.

Yeah than then try playing battlefield on 64 player maps or 4v4 Starcraft 2.

Now i would love to see an unlocked Core i3 but................. :whiste:

...Intel would get sued again and would have to pay AMD another 1 Billion $$$$. right now intel could easily price AMD out of the market if the wanted to. Just look at chip sizes and their price...easy to see hwo much more money intel makes per chip (or how much lower they could price them and still make money)