Slashdot Mirror
AMD Launches New Richland APUs For the Desktop, Speeds Up To 4.4GHz
MojoKid writes "AMD recently unveiled a handful of mobile Elite A-Series APUs, formerly codenamed Richland. Those products built upon the company's existing Trinity-based products but offered additional power and frequency optimizations designed to enhance overall performance and increase battery life. Today AMD is launching a handful of new Richland APUs for desktops and small form factor PCs. The additional power and thermal headroom afforded by desktop form factors has allowed AMD to crank things up a few notches further on both the CPU and GPU sides. The highest-end parts feature quad-CPU cores with 384 Radeon cores and 4MB of total cache. The top end APUs have GPU cores clocked at 844MHz (a 44MHz increase over Trinity) with CPU core boost clocks that top out at lofty 4.4GHz. In addition, AMD's top-end part, the A10-6800K, has been validated for use with DDR3-2133MHz memory. The rest of the APUs max out at with a 1866MHz DDR memory interface."
As with the last few APUs, the conclusion is that the new A10 chips beat Intel's Haswell graphics solidly, but lag a bit in CPU performance and power consumption.
Accelerated processing unit. Basically a CPU with integrated graphics. Both AMD and Intel's recent CPUs have been APUs.
Yeah you're right. Fuck AMD. Let's support Intel, the anti-competitive market-abusing cocksuckers who had to secretly pay off Michael Dell to use their chips. That's a company I want to support with my money.
Huh? The front-side bus hasn't existed in years. AMD abolished it way back in 2003 when they moved the Athlon 64's memory controller on-die. Intel did the same thing with Nehalem in 2008.
Perhaps you just meant that there isn't enough memory bandwidth to use the GPU to its full potential with games? The good news is that AMD's upcoming Kaveri will have GDDR5 support, with a homogenous memory architecture similar to the new consoles.
P.S. --> the score in question from my previous post was for Cinebench 11.5, but there are many many others like it. And don't think that OpenCL holds any miracles for Trinity either, the 4600 is actually a better OpenCL part than it is a GPU.
Really? Because the one OpenCL benchmark I can find in TFA pegs the new chips at 2.5 times faster than the 4600 that comes with the i5-4670k. I wouldn't consider a part that is less than half as fast to be "better." Maybe that's just me? Could be. Also, I wouldn't say "at best" 20% faster when several benchmarks peg it at 30% or more. The Enemy Territory: Quake Wars high-res benchmark, in particular, is... hilariously one sided (and since most people are going to be playing at high-res settings, it's a benchmark that actually matters). Actually, all the high-res gaming tests are, with the new chips often coming in close to twice the Haswell chips. In fact, the Cinebench 11.5 tests peg the Richland at 60% faster than the i5-4670k, so I'm not sure where the hell you got any of your numbers from.
"None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license." --John Milton
Richland's GPU is at best about 20% faster than the intentionally-midrange HD-4600 GPU in Haswell. Add in any form of desktop GPU, including midrange models from 2011, and Haswell wins by a landslide.
Yes, if you buy a $250-$350 CPU and then add a $100 video card, it will outperform a $150 all-in-one unit. No shit.
At CPU, I recall seeing delightfully hilarious graph where a 6800K overclocked to 5GHz had exactly half the score of the (stock clocked) 4770K. Before we get to the usual "But AMD is cheap!" argument, when you take into account the $150 price of the 6800K and the $350 price of the 4770K, AMD only wins on price/performance if you intentionally buy the most expensive Haswell model available and intentionally don't overclock it while also overclocking the crap out of the 6800K.
You're looking at this from an enthusiast perspective. But if I'm building a system for someone who mostly does web surfing, Office, and occasionally some light gaming like WoW and The Sims, then an AMD APU starts to look a lot better from a price/performance perspective. You assume that as long as the performance per dollar stays high, the buyer is willing to spend as much as necessary, but that's simply not true for most users. Probably 90% of users will never even hit the maximum limit of an A10-6800K, so for these people, Haswell is overkill.
Is that what that was? I hope CajunArson isn't getting paid to shill, that post was so poorly written I honestly can't tell whether it's meant to be anti-Intel or anti-AMD. My money's on both: he's secretly using a VIA processor.
Intel provides rather extensive technical documentation of all their products. http://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/processors/core/CoreTechnicalResources.html [intel.com] is the page with basic datasheets (basic in this case meaning a couple hundred pages, their more detailed ones are a thousand). If you truly are as interested in the technical details as you pretend, then go look them up.
I've had a look through, but apart from saying "it has 20 execution units", it doesn't really mention any specific figures (for the actually useful information). It does however state that it's OpenGL4.0, which is a little disappointing (a step up from 3.2, but it's still lagging behind AMD & NVidia).
However if you are just throwing out technical shit in an attempt to deflect the argument then knock it off. Particularly since much of what you are asking for are the kind of the things that would be of concern for high end dedicated GPUs for particular applications, not for an integrated controller for general use.
Well, I'm a graphics engineer in the games industry by trade, so I guess you could say I have a passing interest. The things I am asking for, are things that can help improve the performance of the products I work on. Now you might not find this stuff particularly interesting, however I do. So as a very simple example, I have an order-independent-transparency pass to handle pixel perfect transparency. On the current integrated AMD GPU, I can basically pick between any number of algorithms to achieve this (weighted average, dual depth peeling, etc, etc). Now, which one I choose, is going to be largely affected by what GPU resources I need to use for other things, and this includes: memory, the max number of shader attribs, the max number of bindable texture units, etc; but in general, I have resources to spare, so I am free to pick and choose.
The problem with Intel APUs in the past, is that whilst the last generation may have implemented OpenGL 3.2 to the letter, the max attrib counts and shader instructions were significantly lower than the AMD/Nvidia equivalents. This means you typically have to insert an Intel only codepath, where you will either just rip out the nice stuff, or you'll end up using a much slower multipass technique. As a result, making frame-rate comparisons in any game is most likely to be meaningless (since there is a good chance they are running a simplified codepath for intel).
It's all well and good, and matters for certain markets and applications, but those markets are generally not the ones using an integrated GPU. Most people just care how fast it runs their stuff.
Yes, and No. It's very true that most people just want their stuff to run quickly. However, to say that the legions of people out there running low powered ultrabooks and cheap generic laptops don't care about this stuff, is complete and total bullshit. You might imagine that all gamers have £3000 desktop rigs with all the trimmings, but the reality is infact very different. If I can spend a few months optimising the graphics routines to run a game smoothly at 720p on an Intel APU, then the market sector into which we can sell our product, has more or less tripled. Even if you don't go to the effort, you will probably be forced into making those optimisations anyway. Honestly, you would be surprised at just how many people ignore the minimum system requirements on a game, and simply assume their "i3 Dell laptop is brand new, so it should play the latest games". What are you going to do? Refund half of your sales? Or fix it? If you see sense, you'll fix it, and then most of your users will have the luxury of being able to ask how quickly it runs....