# AMD Richland discussion



## tanveerahmed2k (Jan 25, 2011)

So I just got an email saying the new AMD Richland APU's are out, I am interested in some benchmarks.
Here is the first one
AMD A8 6600K Black Edition, 100W, FM2, 4MB cache, 4300MHZ - AD660KWOHLBOX - Scan.co.uk

How does this compare to a AMD FX 4300? which one can get better FPS for games?

also the AMD Athlon X4 760K Black Edition Quad Core Unlocked Processor
AMD Athlon X4 760K Black Edition Quad Core Unlocked Processor - AD760KWOHLBOX - Scan.co.uk

Is out, How does this compare to a AMD FX 4300?

Which one should I buy?


----------



## Tyree (May 10, 2009)

New technology commonly comes with new problems. I always suggest giving new components a good 3 months in the real world.
Benchmarks are just numbers.


----------



## tanveerahmed2k (Jan 25, 2011)

I wouldn't really describe it as new, it seems more like an update to the previous ones


----------



## Tyree (May 10, 2009)

tanveerahmed2k said:


> I wouldn't really describe it as new, it seems more like an update to the previous ones


As is most all technology. :smile:
But, there are changes and changes (new) commonly includes problems.


----------



## tanveerahmed2k (Jan 25, 2011)

Well my research indicates the power consumption is 1problem in the top end apu, I wonder how these compare with an i3...


----------



## Tyree (May 10, 2009)

Find the CPU's in question, look at the stats and make comparisons.


----------



## Masterchiefxx17 (Feb 27, 2010)

The new APU cores have been out for quite a while now and seem to have been performing just fine.

It all depends on your budget. The APU cores are very nice for the price since its a CPU/GPU combo.


----------



## toothman (Jul 13, 2008)

IMO I see no reason to purchase a 6800k over the 5800k until the price drops. The purpose of these APUs is to "build cheap now, upgrade later." Out of the box, the gaming experience is essentially the same. After upgrading with a new video card, the APUs are now only CPUs, and purely in terms of a gaming CPU the 6800k and 5800k are identical.


----------



## tanveerahmed2k (Jan 25, 2011)

oh I see I already have a 6870 gpu on CPU basis, what's the new fm2 athlon or bulldozer


----------



## T_Rex (Oct 21, 2012)

The new FM2 is the aforementioned Richland series. Despite the pretty boxes and some unlocked versions - the architecture is near identical to the last FM2 series (Trinity), as is the performance. Athlons are older AM2/AM2+ series, nothing new it's a dead socket. Bulldozers (Zambezi) have been replaced with Vishera - also nearly identical the previous Bulldozers and offer practically no performance gains. It's all marketing schemes mostly. 

Take the new FX 6350, which is basically a failed-rebinned FX 8350. Runs at 3.9 Ghz and still draws 125 Watts. That's no bargain at all. The only real new AMD bargain is a 100W Richland or Trinity.

If you are on any AMD system be it AM2/AM2+/AM3/AM3+ or other -- the only true and real upgrade that can be seen is an Intel I5/I7.


----------



## toothman (Jul 13, 2008)

That's very true for gaming, really the best-priced performer for CPUs is the Phenom II x4 965. The first actually noticeable upgrade is an i5, for which there actually _isn't_ a noticeable gaming CPU upgrade.

Of course, if you need the cores, the 8-core options are pretty cool :grin:


----------



## T_Rex (Oct 21, 2012)

Yes the FX8350 mated with the proper mobo is indeed very good, especially once the two patches from MS are applied. A Proper mobo would be a good Asus with good mosfet heatsinks and proper power phasing. I have run the FX8350 on my own MSI AMD board but only with the mosfet sink sanded and good thermal grease application. The FX8350 is about on par with an I5 3570k once a higher end GPU is used with higher resolutions in new games. Gaming wise there are more severe 'drops' in FPS in most games with the FX8350 give or take vs. an I5 but the 8350 holds it own mostly. 

Richland is a value quad, that happens to include a nice GPU/APU. But the performance is modestly about on par with a 965BE. Price needs to come down to about 120'ish USD for gamers to gobble it up lol. $150.00 ain't gonna cut it - even with the included GPU. In games, sustained FPS means a lot to many as it provides much smoother gameplay. I5/FX8350 provide that.


----------



## tanveerahmed2k (Jan 25, 2011)

What is a good upgrade for the AMD FX 4100 CPU? (from AMD to AMD)
And what is also a good upgrade for the a6 3670k?


----------



## T_Rex (Oct 21, 2012)

The 4100 is a good bit stronger than the 2.7 Ghz quad 3670k Llano. A good upgrade that would be worth it from an AMD 3600k? you would have to switch sockets to AM3+ or FM2 (if we are talking AMD to AMD upgrade). For the FX4100 a decent upgrade would be the FX8350, but you would need a board that's compatible with it.


----------



## tanveerahmed2k (Jan 25, 2011)

Isn't FM2 better than AM3?


----------



## toothman (Jul 13, 2008)

No, it's just designed for a different kind of processor. The APUs are half-GPU, so they need a different design.


----------



## tanveerahmed2k (Jan 25, 2011)

toothman said:


> No, it's just designed for a different kind of processor. The APUs are half-GPU, so they need a different design.


How does AMD Athlon X4 760K Black Edition Quad Core Unlocked Processor(new FM2)

Compare performance wise, core to core with a FX 4300?
That's what I want to know before I purchase my next CPU


----------



## toothman (Jul 13, 2008)

Assuming you mean the 7*5*0k :tongue:, it's a little behind. On Passmark's benchmarks, the FX-4300 measures at 4719 and the Athlon at 4318, about 9-10% difference.

PassMark - CPU Benchmarks - List of Benchmarked CPUs

Not a life-changing difference. If you need to save some money, I doubt the Athlon would disappoint.


Passmark's not perfect by any means but since they're both quad-cores it should be a fairly accurate comparison.


----------



## T_Rex (Oct 21, 2012)

When AMD increases _per-core performance_ with FM2, if they can get (example) a quad core running at about 4.3 'ish Ghz with 100W TDP with about a 15% improvement over what they have now, and have an APU that will crossfire with (example) HD6670 all the way through about the HD 7850 would be a huge boon for gamers and consumers. If they can do that they will be able to compete with Intel more effectively IMO. Heck even just closing the per-core performance gap would be great . I believe FM2 (or similar) is the future for AMD


----------



## toothman (Jul 13, 2008)

Yea it's kind of sad that AMD produces video cards that get bottlenecked by their processors lol


----------



## tanveerahmed2k (Jan 25, 2011)

toothman said:


> Yea it's kind of sad that AMD produces video cards that get bottlenecked by their processors lol


What is a good GPU for the AMD FX 6300?


----------



## toothman (Jul 13, 2008)

It does depend on the game, but generally about the $250 price point is where you should have an i5.


----------



## darcinator (Jul 9, 2011)

toothman said:


> It does depend on the game, but generally about the $250 price point is where you should have an i5.


That isn't true. I have a fx 6100 and a 670 and I have never found a noticeable bottleneck. I play bf3 multiplayer at fully maxed settings at 1680 x 1050 and even with the low resolutions I rarely dip below 60fps which is average for a 670 ad any CPU. Sure you might have a small bottleneck when playing Starcraft for civ 5 but If you play games that know how to use a CPU then your fine.


----------



## toothman (Jul 13, 2008)

BF3's a game that doesn't face much CPU bottlenecking, with some benefit from higher core counts in the larger multiplayer maps. You're setup's pretty ideal for BF3 at that resolution :smile:


----------



## T_Rex (Oct 21, 2012)

darcinator said:


> That isn't true. I have a fx 6100 and a 670 and I have never found a noticeable bottleneck. I play bf3 multiplayer at fully maxed settings at 1680 x 1050 and even with the low resolutions I rarely dip below 60fps which is average for a 670 ad any CPU. Sure you might have a small bottleneck when playing Starcraft for civ 5 but If you play games that know how to use a CPU then your fine.


My main right now is my older second rig with a 975 Phenom and I get slightly better FPS than a 6100 (except BF3), but I could clearly see a maintainable difference throughout most games when I set up identical GPU's on my ex-rig that had a 3570k. I tested both with an HD7850 and an HD7970 and identical settings per game. Save BF3, the Intel was about 10-20% faster (game depending) in most games from 1680 through 1920 resolutions. Did that mean the AMD was not playable? certainly not but it's not such a small difference as you say. It's noticeable. Not huge but noticeable.


----------



## T_Rex (Oct 21, 2012)

tanveerahmed2k said:


> What is a good GPU for the AMD FX 6300?


 
Depends on the games you play and the resolutions you will be using. Pretty much any modern GPU. If you are an avid gamer on a budget an HD7870/660 (non ti) will do great. Heck even the 650TI is good for a budget gamer quite the capable little card.

If you have some cash to spend? HD 7950 or 670 GTX would be my choices and a great match for your AMD. I like the HD7950 or 660TI myself. Stick to Asus and Sapphire for AMD and Asus/Gigabyte for NVidia cards if you can they have great service, quality and warranties.


----------



## Tyree (May 10, 2009)

EVGA (Nvidia's flagship brand) or Asus are my preferred brands for Nvidia chipped GPU's.


----------



## T_Rex (Oct 21, 2012)

^eVGA are great. The only thing I typically don't like about eVGA are the GPU fans - they're more reference, and nothings wrong with that - they just make a tad more noise usually. eVGA have great warranty for sure.


----------

