My friend says this cpu sucks

[♥♥♥]

AMD A10-6800K Richland 4.1GHz (4.4GHz Turbo) Socket FM2 100W Quad-Core Desktop Processor - Black Edition AMD Radeon HD 8670D

Vs.

AMD FwiX-6300 Vishera 3.5GHz (4.1GHz Turbo) Socket AM3+ 95W Six-Core Desktop Processor FD6300WMHKBOX

He says his cpu is better because it has intergrated "Graphics"
and even with out turbo he can overclock to 5ghz with or without water cooling.

[upcoast]

http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum/hardware-canucks-reviews/61510-amd-richland-review-a10-6800k-a10-6700-benchmarked-15.html

With identical vid cards the FX6300 is better.

TBH, igp sucks.

[V1RK]

Theres the standard version of amd a10 6800k and then there is one with the 5ghz edition. Not sure which one he has. Although check out the link its a comparison of both processors
http://www.cpu-world.com/Compare/385/AMD_A10-Series_A10-6800K_vs_AMD_FX-Series_FX-6300.html

[upcoast]

there's no 5ghz 6800k unless you overclock it. On the flip side you can overclock the FX6300 too.

IGP seems pointless for gaming pc at 1080p, keep igps in laptops there's no place for igp in gaming towers.

[V1RK]

Ursprungligen skrivet av upcoast:

there's no 5ghz 6800k unless you overclock it. On the flip side you can overclock the FX6300 too.

IGP seems pointless for gaming pc at 1080p, keep igps in laptops there's no place for igp in gaming towers.

my bad getting it confused with the fx9000

[upcoast]

http://www.game-debate.com/gpu/index.php?gid=1787&gid2=1195&compare=radeon-hd-8670d-vs-radeon-hd-6850-msi-oc-9cm-pwm-fan-edition

Even a 6850 has quite a bit more grunt than a 8670D

[_I_]

if on an extreme budget that needs a decent gpu, amd fm2 is the way to go
but if you can afford a dedicated gpu, get an i3 build instead

[_I_]

i3s has ht, with haswell its closer to a quad performance than the ivy/sandy
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aXPK9doyMLg

this puts it best
http://cpu-comparison.whoratesit.com/AMD-FX-6-Core-Black-Edition/Rating/1555

The FX 6-Core, like most CPUs from AMD, delivers good server orientated multi threaded performance and consequently good processing thoughput at a very reasonable price tag. Where the FX 6-Core lacks is in the area of Single Core performance which although not a problem for server workloads is very relevant to typical desktop usage. The overall performance of the FX 6-Core is comparable to Intel's five years younger Core i7-950. There are server orientated use cases where the FX 6-Core will excel thanks to its excellent overall throughput and in those instances the FX 6-Core represents good value for money. Typical desktop users will, however, find better value elsewhere.

[Satoru]

Integrated APUs can have issues with some games. And with AMDs drivers being total suckage, I'd rather you not risk having your games not work at all, and instead go with a separate video card.

[Rove]

A10-6800K
VS
FX 6300

Well for a pure "CPU" the FX 6300 is better. The cores on the A10 and FX are basically the same so Ghz*cores is roughly good for measuring their performance vs each other.

So 3.5*6=21 & 4.1*4=16.4

He does have a point in saying that the A10 does have integrated graphics and for certain tasks this may be used to accelerate the applications faster than what having a extra 2 cores would be able to do. Generally a separate dedicated graphics card would also be capable of doing that as long as it was not already fully in use. There is a advantage to integrated graphics for some CPU accelerating tasks because they are on die with the CPU and thus can communicate with it at very low latency.

Both AMD FX 6300 and A10-6800K are similar in price in the USA with the A10-6800K actually being more expensive usually, about $115~ for the FX 6300 and $130~ for the A10-6800K usually is the standard prices right now.

SO anyways they are both really good CPUs. Comparing the FX 6300 VS the A10-6800K both used with (for example) a HD 7790 GPU the FX 6300 may be better at traditional tasks done in the regular CPU / GPU manner. However the technology of GPU acceleration may sometimes mean that the IGPU (integrated graphics processing unit) inside the A10-6800K can act as a super powerful "5th core" that will be more powerful than both the extra cores in the FX 6300 and since the other 4 cores of the A10 are higher clockspeed that will also be faster.

I personally have a A4-5300 APU and I have seen lots of cases where the 2 cores where maxed out with work running near 100% while the integrated GPU was nearly completely idle.

Unfortunately getting the peak potential performance out of a APU is a lot about the programmers and how they are able to write and design their software to work with it, or not.
Given my experience I would have to say that they aren't there yet and it will probably take decades before every single piece of software commonly in use is either optimized for GPU acceleration or so old that it is easy for it to run on the very highest level without stressing even the cheapest CPU core that is still included in the APUs.

APU's might be "technically faster" but it is not yet common practice for programs.

So I'll say what the people at Intel & AMD and Nvidia are all saying. GPUs are the future of CPUs and will eventually be what the CPU is made out of.

However for the present the FX 6300 might perform a bit better in traditional tasks when using the same good separate dedicated GPU as the A10.

Both are good CPUs. You can use the A10 on a smaller budget and then not buy a dedicated graphics card. It can also make a very nice silent HTPC or home computer because you only have to cool the CPU and need no extra graphics fans and is very efficient on electric power use.

Basically they are both good but they are different and have different purpose.

For a $600~ gaming rig I'd do FX 6300 + HD 7870 (XT?) + 16GB DDR3-1600 RAM + 1TB HDD + DVD like so:
http://pcpartpicker.com/p/1UvLn
Base Total: $649.31
Promo Discounts: -$5.00
Mail-in Rebates: -$63.00
Total: $581.31

For a $600~ HTPC or home computer I'd do A10-6800K using IGP only + 16GB DDR3-2133 RAM (notice I use faster RAM for this one) + 3TB HDD + Blu-Ray like so:
http://pcpartpicker.com/p/1UvWQ
Total: $585.11

[upcoast]

''''''''''''''''''So 3.5*6=21 & 4.1*4=16.4'''''''''''''''''''''

This ^^^ is an irrelevant un proven made up theory.

[Rove]

Ursprungligen skrivet av upcoast:

''''''''''''''''''So 3.5*6=21 & 4.1*4=16.4'''''''''''''''''''''

This ^^^ is an irrelevant un proven made up theory.

It seems to be relatively accurate in the benchmarks. This is only because they are same generation, brand and architecture though.

[_I_]

only when programs need 4+ cores

[senseidongen]

Ursprungligen skrivet av Rove:

Ursprungligen skrivet av upcoast:

''''''''''''''''''So 3.5*6=21 & 4.1*4=16.4'''''''''''''''''''''

This ^^^ is an irrelevant un proven made up theory.

It seems to be relatively accurate in the benchmarks. This is only because they are same generation, brand and architecture though.

I think as a ball park, back of envelope calculation to compare two processors of the same architecture and generation, this is fine as a first estimate. I wouldn't rely on such maths for a hyperthreaded intel CPU, but in this instance I reckon it's ok.

To be honest, the A10-6800K doesn't "suck" at what it's meant to do - I have one and it works very well. I'm not fussed about ultra settings or anything like that so for playing newer games at 1080p on low and older on medium/high settings, it is absolutely fine. I can play Bioshock Infinite, Dishonored and Far Cry 3, amongst others, all smoothly at 1080p and they all look good - Yes, they'd look better with a powerful discrete GPU, but that would also cost a lot more money (without actually adding to the gameplay at all).

As for the purely CPU side of things, if you have a GPU powerful enough to bottleneck this CPU a). you'll already be getting pretty damn high frame rates and b). you wouldn't go for this chip anyway!

EDIT: As an aside, this chip did actually hold the world record for the highest overclock (8.2 GHz) but this has since been beaten by an FX-8350 (8.6 GHz or something mad like that!)

[Rove]

Ursprungligen skrivet av senseidongen:

Ursprungligen skrivet av Rove:

It seems to be relatively accurate in the benchmarks. This is only because they are same generation, brand and architecture though.

I think as a ball park, back of envelope calculation to compare two processors of the same architecture and generation, this is fine as a first estimate. I wouldn't rely on such maths for a hyperthreaded intel CPU, but in this instance I reckon it's ok.

To be honest, the A10-6800K doesn't "suck" at what it's meant to do - I have one and it works very well. I'm not fussed about ultra settings or anything like that so for playing newer games at 1080p on low and older on medium/high settings, it is absolutely fine. I can play Bioshock Infinite, Dishonored and Far Cry 3, amongst others, all smoothly at 1080p and they all look good - Yes, they'd look better with a powerful discrete GPU, but that would also cost a lot more money (without actually adding to the gameplay at all).

As for the purely CPU side of things, if you have a GPU powerful enough to bottleneck this CPU a). you'll already be getting pretty damn high frame rates and b). you wouldn't go for this chip anyway!

EDIT: As an aside, this chip did actually hold the world record for the highest overclock (8.2 GHz) but this has since been beaten by an FX-8350 (8.6 GHz or something mad like that!)

That must be all cores because a FX 8150 hit over 9Ghz on 1 module with the rest disabled.

[senseidongen]

Ursprungligen skrivet av Rove:

That must be all cores because a FX 8150 hit over 9Ghz on 1 module with the rest disabled.

Or my knowledge is out of date!