A10-5800k reviews

Tsumi

Tsumi

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Mar 18, 2010
Messages
13,757
Legit Reviews

Overclocked to 4.2 on the stock cooler, 4.6 on an AM3 black edition cooler, and 5.0 on a H100. The CPU portion of Trinity used less power than Llano.

Guru 3D

No overclocking results due to most likely an immature bios. The iGPU in Trinity uses more power than Llano, but not by much.

Anandtech

Floating point performance is lower compared to Llano. Single threaded performance is still behind SB/IB (as expected).

All in all, seems like a very good step up from Llano. Definitely not an SB or IB killer, but it can stomp all over the i3's in everything except power consumption and single-threaded performance. Prices are extremely competitive too.
 
Last edited:
I just got an email from newegg with links to the cpu and a couple boards. If you search for fm2 on their site you don't get anything, but the links are live.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produ...212-Index-_-ProcessorsDesktops-_-19113280-L0E

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produ...212-Index-_-ProcessorsDesktops-_-19113281-L0F

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produ...100212-Index-_-AMDMotherboards-_-13131883-L0G

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produ...100212-Index-_-AMDMotherboards-_-13128566-L0H

Pricing looks great. I think this is going in my HTPC rebuild...
 
Not really too many overclocked 5800k numbers. Anandtech only has 2 Cinebench numbers.

In single-threaded Cinebench at 4.4 ghz, it only barely catches up to a G850, an SB CPU which runs at 2.9, so there still is a significant IPC difference between the two processors.
 
Toms had some undervolting at least. Good to see these chips still undervolt rather well! :)

AMD is nowhere near aggressive enough in their binning it looks like.
 
Looks like the retail heatsink is no good for overclocking. The cpu throttles itself. Based on the benchmarks and articles ive read, trinity mildly surpassed my expectations.

I wouldnt mind picking one up with a gigabyte a85-up4 board to play with, but id have to sell my llano setup first.
 
CrazyRob said:
I just got an email from newegg with links to the cpu and a couple boards. If you search for fm2 on their site you don't get anything, but the links are live.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produ...212-Index-_-ProcessorsDesktops-_-19113280-L0E

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produ...212-Index-_-ProcessorsDesktops-_-19113281-L0F

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produ...100212-Index-_-AMDMotherboards-_-13131883-L0G

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produ...100212-Index-_-AMDMotherboards-_-13128566-L0H

Pricing looks great. I think this is going in my HTPC rebuild...
Click to expand...

Motherboards galore :)

http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?Submit=ENE&N=100007625 600370105&IsNodeId=1&name=FM2

Reviews are what I was expecting, enough CPU & GPU power for the average users i meet.
Most of them are still rocking old C2D systems and a low end discrete GPU and they are happy with it.
 
It's crazy to think that if I wanted an everyday mainstream computer that can do gaming at medium settings at 1080p with an integrated GPU, I can do it with a $255 combination of board and processor.

So, for around $430 to $450, I have an FM2 board, AMD A10-5800K, RAM, case, power supply and DVD-RW drive that can do gaming at decent framerates at 1080p resolution. It's not bad for a lot of people. It's just missing an OS, keyboard and mouse, and a monitor.

To do that with Intel's higher performing HD4000, I'd had to shell about two to three times the price of the A10-5800K.

That's if I want to go the integrated GPU route. So, for a lot of computer users who aren't diehard gamers and are more casual gaming, this is a very palatable deal for them.
 
Outside of HTPC's I don't think you'll find too many enthusiasts going for these.

They'll pick higher end models with discrete video instead.

Where these will really have an impact is on mainstream, OEM parts.

Honestly, with APU performance this good, I am really scared for Nvidia.

Their high end parts will still sell, but their volume shipments that keep the lights on are in the budget parts, and with better and better IGP's no one is going to need them anymore.

I don't even know what kind of solution Nvidia may come up with for this. They can't design their own desktop/laptop CPU component (or at least this is highly unlikely). It also seems unlikely that they'd get bought up by Intel at this point.

So what is left for them?

Maybe a deal with Cyrix/Via/Centaur (or whatever they are called this week) or ARM or some other minor player?

Exit the desktop GPU market all together and focus on their Tegra/ARM designs?

Don't get me wrong, I don't think Nvidia will be in trouble of going out of business, but they may be forced out of the desktop GPU market.

Currently, they are able to spread the cost of R&D on a new architecture over low, medium and high end parts. (the chips are not always the same, but the base architecture, where most of the development work goes, is)

If the low end volume parts go away, it becomes tough to see how they continue to maintain profitability on the high end GPU's.

They will always have their mobile market, and it is a good market to be in, but I'm concerned we might be left with only one player in the high end GPU market.

I can think of a few ways this will go, and none of them are particularly good for the desktop video card market.
 
Yakk said:
Toms had some undervolting at least. Good to see these chips still undervolt rather well! :)

AMD is nowhere near aggressive enough in their binning it looks like.
Click to expand...

amd has typically always went the safe side with their stock voltages.. heck i think deneb C2 chips were really the only processors i've seen them release in a long time where the stock 1.325v was the absolute minimum voltage they could do at stock clocks. but at the same time its also hard to say if the voltage numbers are AMD's numbers or just the numbers the board manufactures went with, ala the retarded 1.425v board manufactures used for the thuban chips which was way higher then the AMD rated 1.26-1.28v.


octoberasian said:
It's crazy to think that if I wanted an everyday mainstream computer that can do gaming at medium settings at 1080p with an integrated GPU, I can do it with a $255 combination of board and processor.

So, for around $430 to $450, I have an FM2 board, AMD A10-5800K, RAM, case, power supply and DVD-RW drive that can do gaming at decent framerates at 1080p resolution. It's not bad for a lot of people. It's just missing an OS, keyboard and mouse, and a monitor.

To do that with Intel's higher performing HD4000, I'd had to shell about two to three times the price of the A10-5800K.

That's if I want to go the integrated GPU route. So, for a lot of computer users who aren't diehard gamers and are more casual gaming, this is a very palatable deal for them.
Click to expand...

yeah for what they do they are great.. hell i'd take a bet you could probably get prebuilds with the trinity chips in the 500-600 dollar range with keyboard/mouse/monitor and what not. definitely good for the average pc user, hell its getting me even thinking about ditching high end completely, i don't play as many graphically intensive games these days. and i'm pretty sure that 5800k will get me the same 300fps(using benchmark mode, game feels way smoother) in League of legends i'm getting on my current system.
 
Last edited:
sirmonkey1985 said:
but at the same time its also hard to say if the voltage numbers are AMD's numbers or just the numbers the board manufactures went with, ala the retarded 1.425v board manufactures used for the thuban chips which was way higher then the AMD rated 1.26-1.28v.
Click to expand...

I never realized this.

In retrospect it explains why my old 1090T overclocked so well on "stock" voltages :p
 
Zarathustra[H];1039193694 said:
http://hardforum.com/showpost.php?p=1039193694&postcount=9
Click to expand...

Probably if I was Nvidia and saw this as a real threat to our budget and mainstream products, would be to go back to the chipset/onboard Nvidia GPUs again. Partner up with motherboard manufacturers and start putting something like a GT 640, 630, or 620 on motherboards. Something that perform as good as the 7660D in the higher performing A10-5800K.

That will be unlikely with this whole shift towards cloud and mobile computing. So, make up the losses as you said in mobile parts. Tegra is a good start and just build upon it.
 
Zarathustra[H];1039193694 said:
Outside of HTPC's I don't think you'll find too many enthusiasts going for these.

They'll pick higher end models with discrete video instead.

Where these will really have an impact is on mainstream, OEM parts.

Honestly, with APU performance this good, I am really scared for Nvidia.

Their high end parts will still sell, but their volume shipments that keep the lights on are in the budget parts, and with better and better IGP's no one is going to need them anymore.

I don't even know what kind of solution Nvidia may come up with for this. They can't design their own desktop/laptop CPU component (or at least this is highly unlikely). It also seems unlikely that they'd get bought up by Intel at this point.

So what is left for them?

Maybe a deal with Cyrix/Via/Centaur (or whatever they are called this week) or ARM or some other minor player?

Exit the desktop GPU market all together and focus on their Tegra/ARM designs?

Don't get me wrong, I don't think Nvidia will be in trouble of going out of business, but they may be forced out of the desktop GPU market.

Currently, they are able to spread the cost of R&D on a new architecture over low, medium and high end parts. (the chips are not always the same, but the base architecture, where most of the development work goes, is)

If the low end volume parts go away, it becomes tough to see how they continue to maintain profitability on the high end GPU's.

They will always have their mobile market, and it is a good market to be in, but I'm concerned we might be left with only one player in the high end GPU market.

I can think of a few ways this will go, and none of them are particularly good for the desktop video card market.
Click to expand...


Actually, I see this as a shot across the bow of Nvidia for the mobile gpu market as well. Trinity is basically a portable cpu/gpu brought to the desktop. On the lower end, laptop manufacturers will use the AMD chips, due to it being cheaper to have one socket on the motherboard. This will cut the lower end of the laptop market away from Nvidia. The same event you are thinking about on the Desktop market.
 
HvyMtl said:
Actually, I see this as a shot across the bow of Nvidia for the mobile gpu market as well. Trinity is basically a portable cpu/gpu brought to the desktop. On the lower end, laptop manufacturers will use the AMD chips, due to it being cheaper to have one socket on the motherboard. This will cut the lower end of the laptop market away from Nvidia. The same event you are thinking about on the Desktop market.
Click to expand...

Agreed.


When I was saying "hey will always have their mobile market" I was kind of referring to the ARM/Tegra parts. That's where their real growth is.
 
octoberasian said:
Probably if I was Nvidia and saw this as a real threat to our budget and mainstream products, would be to go back to the chipset/onboard Nvidia GPUs again. Partner up with motherboard manufacturers and start putting something like a GT 640, 630, or 620 on motherboards. Something that perform as good as the 7660D in the higher performing A10-5800K.

That will be unlikely with this whole shift towards cloud and mobile computing. So, make up the losses as you said in mobile parts. Tegra is a good start and just build upon it.
Click to expand...

can't see that ever happening. theres no way nvidia could convince manufactures to put up with their shit again other than evga. nvidia's burned to many bridges in my opinion.
 
Watch out on motherboards, there are three chipsets listed: A55, A75 and the new A85X. Don't go A55 if you want USB 3.0/SATA 6.0 Gb/sec. (Like Socket FM1)
 
sirmonkey1985 said:
can't see that ever happening. theres no way nvidia could convince manufactures to put up with their shit again other than evga. nvidia's burned to many bridges in my opinion.
Click to expand...

Yeah, that's another reason too. Nvidia burned too many bridges in the past with that.
 
octoberasian said:
Yeah, that's another reason too. Nvidia burned too many bridges in the past with that.
Click to expand...

Well that, and who would buy them?

Most intel CPU's come with an IGP now.

AMD's mass market parts come with APU's.

The only customers would be SB-E, AMD FX, and old Phenom users, and possibly some server parts.

That's not much of a market, especially considering that the Phenom supply is drying up, and that most customers with these CPU's have higher end discrete graphics in mind.
 
I just don't see how Nvidia's GPU business can survive long term without mass market volume parts to spread the cost over.

Nvidia will still be around as a successful ARM SoC company, but I fear the GPU market will become like the CPU market, without any competition to AMD in the high end, which will lead to stagnation.
 
Michaelius said:
Any benches against Q6600/E8400 after OC ?
Click to expand...

You're having a laugh aren't you!?

..... Those are way too crusty to be showing up on any high profile site surely?

Anywhoo if you're not looking at the gaming and video playback performance, ..... you're kinda missing the point of the product.
 
of the few links i've clicked, i haven't seen a single review compare this shit to a core i3.

why are they all comparing to core i7 ....
 
Action_Parsnip said:
You're having a laugh aren't you!?

..... Those are way too crusty to be showing up on any high profile site surely?

Anywhoo if you're not looking at the gaming and video playback performance, ..... you're kinda missing the point of the product.
Click to expand...

I think he is serious and they are actually worth comparing.

I cannot find any comparison reviews, but anand has a comparison table:
Q6600: http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/53?vs=675
E8400: http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/56?vs=675

Not exactly a great upgrade on the CPU side, and to top it off, almost all Q6600 can OC 25% with a cheap aftermarket cooler, while the A10 is in the 10% area.

The E8400 is great at OC'ing and can often be OC'ed to 4GHz or more.
A E8400@4 GHz will kill a Q6600@3GHz and any Trinity CPU in single threaded workloads, but will not be able to keep up in multithreaded workloads.
 
runs2far said:
I think he is serious and they are actually worth comparing.

I cannot find any comparison reviews, but anand has a comparison table:
Q6600: http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/53?vs=675
E8400: http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/56?vs=675

Not exactly a great upgrade on the CPU side, and to top it off, almost all Q6600 can OC 25% with a cheap aftermarket cooler, while the A10 is in the 10% area.

The E8400 is great at OC'ing and can often be OC'ed to 4GHz or more.
A E8400@4 GHz will kill a Q6600@3GHz and any Trinity CPU in single threaded workloads, but will not be able to keep up in multithreaded workloads.
Click to expand...

Beat ya to it :p
 
Zarathustra[H];1039194212 said:
Beat ya to it :p
Click to expand...


NOOOOOOOOO, CUUUUUURSEEEEE YOUUUUUUU!!!!!! :D

I am actually shocked to see trinity perform so poorly, the Q6600 was launched Q1'07 at 200$ and it is still placed well, especially if you include the 3GHz OC you should be able to reach with a 20$ cooler.

dr.kevin said:
of the few links i've clicked, i haven't seen a single review compare this shit to a core i3.

why are they all comparing to core i7 ....
Click to expand...


Anand has the i3-3220 included, that is a 130$ part and worth comparing with the 120$ the A10 costs.
 
runs2far said:
The E8400 is great at OC'ing and can often be OC'ed to 4GHz or more.
A E8400@4 GHz will kill a Q6600@3GHz and any Trinity CPU in single threaded workloads, but will not be able to keep up in multithreaded workloads.
Click to expand...

Also,

Kill may be an exhaggeration. Overclocked to 4Ghz an E8400 would edge out an A10-5800K by about 10% in single threaded loads if it is overclocked to 4.4Ghz

An overclocked A10-5800K would absolutely destroy the overclocked E8400 in multithreaded workloads though. Not even close. Something like 60% faster.

I'd still take decent single threaded performance over multithreaded, but thats usually when comparing quads or higher. Not sure if I'd go with a dual core.

How well did the Q6600 overclock. Was it able to hit 4ghz, or was it much lower than the E8400? (I completely skipped this generation of CPU's)
 
Q6600 depended on stepping. B3 from what I remember hit a wall at around 3GHz and G0 was good for around 3.6GHz.
 
dr.kevin said:
of the few links i've clicked, i haven't seen a single review compare this shit to a core i3.

why are they all comparing to core i7 ....
Click to expand...

You are reading the wrong articles. :p

Anandtech's article includes an i3-3220

After Hardocp, Anandtech is typically my second choice for reviews. He usually does a very well researched and technically good review, which can't be said for many of these other sites.
 
xBanzai89 said:
Q6600 depended on stepping. B3 from what I remember hit a wall at around 3GHz and G0 was good for around 3.6GHz.
Click to expand...

Ok,

So if we assume 3.6Ghz overclock on the Q6600 and a 4.4Ghz overclock on the A10-5800k I predict that the A10-5800K will just edge out the Q6600 by 2-3% in single threaded applications, and beat the Q6600 by about 5% in multithreaded stuff.

Good job AMD, finally beating 5 year old Intel stuff :p
 
Zarathustra[H];1039194247 said:
Also,

Kill may be an exhaggeration. Overclocked to 4Ghz an E8400 would edge out an A10-5800K by about 10% in single threaded loads if it is overclocked to 4.4Ghz

An overclocked A10-5800K would absolutely destroy the overclocked E8400 in multithreaded workloads though. Not even close. Something like 60% faster.

I'd still take decent single threaded performance over multithreaded, but thats usually when comparing quads or higher. Not sure if I'd go with a dual core.

How well did the Q6600 overclock. Was it able to hit 4ghz, or was it much lower than the E8400? (I completely skipped this generation of CPU's)
Click to expand...

I was being sloppy and only looking at cinebench score, at 3.33 GHz a E8xxx matches the A10-5800K, going up to 4 GHz would place the C2D in the lead, but yeah kill is a strong word I felt like using at the moment because the E8xx series is so old.

We probably should add that the 4 cores are a benefit now as most games are starting to use 2+ cores and 2 cores will struggle when gaming and running anything in the background.

I would keep 3 GHz as a max for the Q6600 as this is where the B3 stepping started to get toasty.
 
runs2far said:
I was being sloppy and only looking at cinebench score, at 3.33 GHz a E8xxx matches the A10-5800K, going up to 4 GHz would place the C2D in the lead, but yeah kill is a strong word I felt like using at the moment because the E8xx series is so old.

We probably should add that the 4 cores are a benefit now as most games are starting to use 2+ cores and 2 cores will struggle when gaming and running anything in the background.

I would keep 3 GHz as a max for the Q6600 as this is where the B3 stepping started to get toasty.
Click to expand...

Well, at 3Ghz the Q6600 is no match for the A10-5800K
 
I just compared the A10-5800k to a QX9770 3.2ghz and it was almost dead even. Considering the 5 year old intel sells used for twice as much as the new A10 ... then I think its impressive. Dont forget you also get pretty good Igpu with the A10 for free.
 
buttons said:
I just compared the A10-5800k to a QX9770 3.2ghz and it was almost dead even. Considering the 5 year old intel sells used for twice as much as the new A10 ... then I think its impressive. Dont forget you also get pretty good Igpu with the A10 for free.
Click to expand...

Yikes, those old Core 2 extremes still sell for a lot of money... Whyy?

I just did a search of completed listings on eBay, the QX9770's ranged from $250 (used) to $530 (new sealed retail box)

Outrageous...
 
Zarathustra[H];1039194812 said:
Yikes, those old Core 2 extremes still sell for a lot of money... Whyy?

I just did a search of completed listings on eBay, the QX9770's ranged from $250 (used) to $530 (new sealed retail box)

Outrageous...
Click to expand...

You're not wrong! I wouldn't mind finding a better mobo than my P5-B (socket 775), just for a bit of a laugh really and play with some really high FSB oc'ing, something I'd spend up to £50 on but no more. Absolute max. Saw a P5-K the other day go for £70!! ..... I mean c'mon who's spending that much on a dead socket??!
 
Action_Parsnip said:
You're not wrong! I wouldn't mind finding a better mobo than my P5-B (socket 775), just for a bit of a laugh really and play with some really high FSB oc'ing, something I'd spend up to £50 on but no more. Absolute max. Saw a P5-K the other day go for £70!! ..... I mean c'mon who's spending that much on a dead socket??!
Click to expand...

dude I hear you. I have a Q6600 now in my Photoshop rig, and im looking to upgrade the mobo just so I can get it out of the Dell case :) and I cant find a decent mATX board for it short of $50... crazy...

Im considering selling it, and getting a AMD quad core + Mobo... there so cheap I just dont know if the performance will go up at all :)
 
xBanzai89 said:
Q6600 depended on stepping. B3 from what I remember hit a wall at around 3GHz and G0 was good for around 3.6GHz.
Click to expand...

B3's could go higher. Mine did. 3.4GHz was about the most I could get out of it. Then again I am using water cooling.
 
Dan_D said:
B3's could go higher. Mine did. 3.4GHz was about the most I could get out of it. Then again I am using water cooling.
Click to expand...

Maybe 3.2GHz for good ones then? I never had one thats just what I remember reading when those were the processors to buy.
 
xBanzai89 said:
Maybe 3.2GHz for good ones then? I never had one thats just what I remember reading when those were the processors to buy.
Click to expand...

Like I said, I could get 3.4GHz out of mine. Then again it depended on the board you used it with. On those goddamn 680i SLI reference boards 3.0GHz was the best I could do. On X48 I could hit 3.4GHz with relative ease.
 
I got to play with my new A10 last night, didn't do any benches, but for the money it was impressive. My situation is quite unique though.

I'm a small time bit coin miner, and I was building an extra rig to house my other 7970 (crossfire doesn't make any sense for 1080p, and I don't want *all* the heat from mining in my room. I already had most of the parts ram/psu/case, so for practically no money I have a whole new computer online and ready to do my bidding.

One free bonus about the A10 is that on top of the 700Mhash/sec I'm getting with the 7970, I was getting an extra 85Mhash/sec from the onboard GPU. Not too shabby if you ask me. I'm in a situation where the cost electricity is included in my rent so yay.

I know the A10 isn't the top of the line by any means but for the price and for the punch it packs, I'm very impressed. I haven't done any gaming tests on it (yet) but this box is literally going to be put in the corner of an empty room and never touched, only remote into it from time to time.

Very impressed with the A10 so far, haven't even tried any overclocking (and doubt I will)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top