Read more.Quote:
65W Richland APU put to the test.
Printable View
Read more.Quote:
65W Richland APU put to the test.
There no way you can recommend the 6700 over the 5700 considering the price difference vs performance. Choice would be between 5700 or 6800 if you wanted more.
I would find it of more use to benchmark these new chips against previous AMD chips. It would be interesting to see the results compared to the Phenom II or similar. Let's face it, it is these owners that AMD need to persuade to upgrade.
Once the price drops to around £100,this would be a great CPU for HTPC use with some light gaming.
Is there any chance Hexus can review the Athlon II X4 760K??
Yes that would be really interesting, that chip with a 6670 ought to be faster and cheaper than the 6800K.Quote:
Originally Posted by CAT-THE-FIFTH
I didn't even know it existed until CAT told me :/
Very Nice CPU (y)
Typo check ?
"Cutting the TDP by one-third is a handy trick and, as expected, AMD achieves the extra efficiency primarily through the use of lower core clock speeds. Worth noting, however, that the performance gap has been narrowed this time around; in Turbo mode, the quad-core A10-6700 will run just 200MHz slower than the 100W A10-6800K."
You say there that it runs 200Mhz slower than the 6800K, but the table just above states its 100Mhz slower ?
Nope. I bought the 6700 to replace the 5700 I currently have & give that away to my nephew who's PC broke a month ago. I didn't see an discernible difference apart from the temperature (10 degrees hotter) so I've kept the 5700 & he's got the 6700.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brewster0101
Pretty mild improvement from a reworking of the core architecture. However without a die shrink it is impossible to get any decent power reductions which is where they should be pushing.
The FM2 chipset is another area in which they have to improve since this looks like the weak link when memory read/write and PCI-E lane efficiencies lie. It's getting so very long in the tooth for something that was never designed to be a full desktop chipset in the first place.
So yes you get more cores than the i3 which will arguably get better as desktop software is coded to run more effectively on a multi core system and take advantage of the Bulldozer micro-architecture better. However the increases in performance from last generation and even before them make this a very difficult pick for gamers that are using discrete GPUs. Especially when we have paid all that money and the only difference is the CPU. This needs to be addressed before I would even consider AMD chips in my home setup.