AMD A8-8650 APU: A quad-core, single-threaded APU at 3.2 GHz / 3.8 GHz on a configurable TDP. It gets 4 MB L2 cache and 760 MHz Radeon R7 GPU with 384 Sea Islands GCN cores. AMD A10-8850K APU: This flagship part uses 4 cores, 4 threads, 3.7 GHz / 4.1 GHz clocks, Radeon R7 Sea Islands graphics (512 streaming cores, 856 MHz), 4 MB L2 cache and 95W TDP. It should get a price of $149.

What? Quad-core single threaded, this sounds like 1 thread for 4 cores..?

No it means 1 thread per core...

Then why the difference in wording:

AMD A8-8650 APU: A quad-core, single-threaded APU at 3.2 GHz / 3.8 GHz on a configurable TDP. It gets 4 MB L2 cache and 760 MHz Radeon R7 GPU with 384 Sea Islands GCN cores. AMD A10-8850K APU: This flagship part uses 4 cores, 4 threads, 3.7 GHz / 4.1 GHz clocks, Radeon R7 Sea Islands graphics (512 streaming cores, 856 MHz), 4 MB L2 cache and 95W TDP. It should get a price of $149.

Then why the difference in wording:

It is just two ways of saying the same thing. Single threading just means the threads do not implement something like hyperthreading.

I understand they want to keep costs down, but APU's really need more then DDR3 to stay current. They should at least have one platform with DDR4 memory support.

Anytime I read that AMD is releasing smth to compete with Intel/Nvidia it makes me laugh. Let's just hope they can really compete this year with something. AMD we need competition to Intel/Nvidia to drive their prices down!

Anytime I read something like this I laugh and wonder under what rock people sometimes hide...;) nVidia makes nothing comparable to AMD's APUs (which is why AMD keeps getting the game console--xBone/PS4--contracts and nVidia keeps losing them), and AMD's APU IGP performance clobbers Intel's by several hundred percent. Yes, that's right: AMD's IGP performance is way out in front of Intel's and has been for years. In discrete gpus I am not aware that nVidia has any advantage over AMD at the moment--nVidia's Titan X is a bad joke, imo. What a waste of time and money. AMD competes very successfully with both of those companies, actually. I can't imagine why you'd think otherwise. In fact, the only place where AMD loses these days is high-end x86 cpus--AMD doesn't compete there because AMD doesn't make a ~$350 consumer cpu at the moment. But AMD's current x86 cpus, in the ~$200 & under price range are actually very competitive with Intel's cpus in the same price range. What's hurting AMD at the moment, and it can't be denied that AMD is hurting, is the fact that they've currently got nothing high-end x86 to sell, and they have no up-to-date core logic chipset to sell with it. You have to go to AMD's APUs to get PCIe3.x support, etc. So you can say that AMD is stumbling at the moment, but you certainly cannot say they are not competitive with Intel and nVidia, besting both companies in several areas as they do.

Their Ax platform on FM2 and FM2+ have considerably better memory controllers than what they have on AM3+. There really has not been a new chipset for memory controllers on AM3 ever, just a few code changes and additions built off of prior controllers on the cpu and on the motherboard as well. Their APU's are the only platforms that they've introduced new controllers.

Anytime I read that AMD is releasing smth to compete with Intel/Nvidia it makes me laugh. Let's just hope they can really compete this year with something. AMD we need competition to Intel/Nvidia to drive their prices down!

Yeah, because sitting there laughing at them is really going to help. Unless you have a 120+Hz and/or a 4K monitor, chances are, AMD has been good enough for your gaming and daily (non-workstation) needs for a long while. I've been supporting them not because I think they're better but because they need the money and intel doesn't. I also support ARM whenever I can too. I believe that if you want to see change, you have to take matters into your own hands.

Yes, and it is still area where AMD has room to improve. Maybe they did with this generation, who knows?

Kevari scales pretty well to memory frequencies, a lot better than Richland or Trinity at least. They need to get their sata controllers in line too!

Quote:

Anytime I read something like this I laugh and wonder under what rock people sometimes hide...;) nVidia makes nothing comparable to AMD's APUs (which is why AMD keeps getting the game console--xBone/PS4--contracts and nVidia keeps losing them), and AMD's APU IGP performance clobbers Intel's by several hundred percent. Yes, that's right: AMD's IGP performance is way out in front of Intel's and has been for years. In discrete gpus I am not aware that nVidia has any advantage over AMD at the moment--nVidia's Titan X is a bad joke, imo. What a waste of time and money. AMD competes very successfully with both of those companies, actually. I can't imagine why you'd think otherwise. In fact, the only place where AMD loses these days is high-end x86 cpus--AMD doesn't compete there because AMD doesn't make a ~$350 consumer cpu at the moment. But AMD's current x86 cpus, in the ~$200 & under price range are actually very competitive with Intel's cpus in the same price range. What's hurting AMD at the moment, and it can't be denied that AMD is hurting, is the fact that they've currently got nothing high-end x86 to sell, and they have no up-to-date core logic chipset to sell with it. You have to go to AMD's APUs to get PCIe3.x support, etc. So you can say that AMD is stumbling at the moment, but you certainly cannot say they are not competitive with Intel and nVidia, besting both companies in several areas as they do.

End Quote: Sorry but You don't know what you are talking about. '...AMD keeps...' Keeps getting what? They were chosen for two consoles of the same generation. So what have they 'kept'? As for 'In fact, the only place where AMD loses these days is high-end x86 cpus'. First that isn't a fact... it isn't even correct. AMD are losing all over the place. http://www.bit-tech.net/news/hardware/2015/04/20/amd-q1-2015-loss/1 Yes, they are doing OK in certain markets but most areas of their business are still losing money despite large turn over and other areas are making huge losses, hence the need for another restructuring. EDIT Quote box doesn't seem to be coming up in standard comment window.

Granted it was ATI before AMD, ATI/AMD has had the Gamecube, Wii, Wii U, and 360 in the console segments. Now they are in the cpu side of console gaming.

Has Amd stated which node they will be using for this apu?

Anytime I read something like this I laugh and wonder under what rock people sometimes hide...;) nVidia makes nothing comparable to AMD's APUs (which is why AMD keeps getting the game console--xBone/PS4--contracts and nVidia keeps losing them), and AMD's APU IGP performance clobbers Intel's by several hundred percent. Yes, that's right: AMD's IGP performance is way out in front of Intel's and has been for years. In discrete gpus I am not aware that nVidia has any advantage over AMD at the moment--nVidia's Titan X is a bad joke, imo. What a waste of time and money. AMD competes very successfully with both of those companies, actually. I can't imagine why you'd think otherwise. In fact, the only place where AMD loses these days is high-end x86 cpus--AMD doesn't compete there because AMD doesn't make a ~$350 consumer cpu at the moment. But AMD's current x86 cpus, in the ~$200 & under price range are actually very competitive with Intel's cpus in the same price range. What's hurting AMD at the moment, and it can't be denied that AMD is hurting, is the fact that they've currently got nothing high-end x86 to sell, and they have no up-to-date core logic chipset to sell with it. You have to go to AMD's APUs to get PCIe3.x support, etc. So you can say that AMD is stumbling at the moment, but you certainly cannot say they are not competitive with Intel and nVidia, besting both companies in several areas as they do.

AMD doesn't have the fastest GPU, their power consumption is off the charts, their current GPU is months late and months away, their APUs are only competitive in a place where middling graphics performance is desirable (so, nowhere) their CPUs are way way behind Intel at every single pricepoint with the exception of some very specific workloads at very specific segments of the market. No one even knows what an Opteron is anymore and the one place they could maybe have an impact, desktop CPUs, they can't even compete because, super ****ing ironically, they don't have a GPU in it, so you have to get a discrete one. If you're ok with that, then you can have a chipset from 2011. Everything they're doing right now is slower than their competitors for more power. Everything. With the sole exception of desktop APUs, which offer useless performance in a useless segment.

Yeah, everything here is totally wrong. This is a Kaveri refresh for 2015, not the new generation APUs with the Excavator architecture. It will also *NOT* use GCN 1.2. Just look at the Athlon. It's still called Athlon 8x0. If it was based on a new architecture, it should've been 9x0. Also, the frequencies for most APUs are virtually the same. Same goes for the number of graphic cores. This is a refresh for Kaveri exactly how Richland was a refresh for Trinity. Mostly same thing, maybe with 5% more performance for same efficiency.

AMD doesn't have the fastest GPU, their power consumption is off the charts, their current GPU is months late and months away, their APUs are only competitive in a place where middling graphics performance is desirable (so, nowhere) their CPUs are way way behind Intel at every single pricepoint with the exception of some very specific workloads at very specific segments of the market. No one even knows what an Opteron is anymore and the one place they could maybe have an impact, desktop CPUs, they can't even compete because, super ****ing ironically, they don't have a GPU in it, so you have to get a discrete one. If you're ok with that, then you can have a chipset from 2011. Everything they're doing right now is slower than their competitors for more power. Everything. With the sole exception of desktop APUs, which offer useless performance in a useless segment.

I really don't get the fixation people have about AMD GPUs eating power. Nvidia may have improved their average power usage with the 900 series cards but it's not like a double 8pin magically eats less power for nVidia than it does AMD under constant load. I'll give you that they're behind Intel for CPUs but, that's been that way for a while now.

I really don't get the fixation people have about AMD GPUs eating power. Nvidia may have improved their average power usage with the 900 series cards but it's not like a double 8pin magically eats less power for nVidia than it does AMD under constant load. I'll give you that they're behind Intel for CPUs but, that's been that way for a while now.

No actually it's exactly like that. I mean, it isn't magical, but it's absolutely like that, lol. The reference 980 actually has a 6 pin and 8 pin, 290x has 2x 8 pin. But aside from that point, the PSU doesn't deliver constant power. It only supplies what the GPU requires. So 6 pins, 8 pins, irrelevant to power consumption except in total theoretical power delivery.

Then why the difference in wording:

Its like this.... 4 cores = 4 threads 1 thread per core therefore each core is single threaded. Only 1 thread per 4 cores = 4 threads. So its a quad core single threaded CPU or a 4 core 4 thread CPU Same thing.

No actually it's exactly like that. I mean, it isn't magical, but it's absolutely like that, lol. The reference 980 actually has a 6 pin and 8 pin, 290x has 2x 8 pin. But aside from that point, the PSU doesn't deliver constant power. It only supplies what the GPU requires. So 6 pins, 8 pins, irrelevant to power consumption except in total theoretical power delivery.

I did make sure I said constant load when I made the comparison 🤓. The 200 series cards aren't very good power/performance but, they were designed to compete with the 700 series cards which also look pretty bad compared to the 900 series. I definitely think they need to get the 300 series out the door and that they need to reduce power usage however they can but I don't think the power requirements are all that crazy on AMD's side. I didn't need to be snippy about though, sorry :3.

Dain Bramage is very serious. That have looked at should.

I did make sure I said constant load when I made the comparison 🤓. The 200 series cards aren't very good power/performance but, they were designed to compete with the 700 series cards which also look pretty bad compared to the 900 series. I definitely think they need to get the 300 series out the door and that they need to reduce power usage however they can but I don't think the power requirements are all that crazy on AMD's side. I didn't need to be snippy about though, sorry :3.

Just so we're clear, constant load doesn't help your case, under constant 100% load, the 980 is still a lot lower than the 290x..

I did make sure I said constant load when I made the comparison 🤓. The 200 series cards aren't very good power/performance but, they were designed to compete with the 700 series cards which also look pretty bad compared to the 900 series. I definitely think they need to get the 300 series out the door and that they need to reduce power usage however they can but I don't think the power requirements are all that crazy on AMD's side. I didn't need to be snippy about though, sorry :3.

Not that crazy? A card that eats up 160W and competes with AMD's 300 is not that crazy? But you're right about the 700 series, they weren't far off either. Maybe the 300 series will address this power consumption. I sure hope so. The reason why I'm hoping for lower-power GPUs is because the more they reduce the power, the more laptop GPUs will get closer to their desktop counterparts. That's pretty good.

This is very biased and inaccurate. There are many areas where "middling graphics performance" is acceptable and in mid range laptops, the graphics performance is a lot more than just middling. The part about price points is completely wrong. Dollars vs. performance is still a win for AMD in every arena. Even in desktop CPU's.

Every arena? You mean certain segments of each arena, a feat which is nothing special. For example pentiums are damn good for the price compared to their competitors, i3s are well priced chips as well which offer great gaming performance for the price. i7s don't have competition in the desktop market but that's a different story. An i5 is worth it for gaming since it's going to last you for half a decade at the current performance increase rate. And they can hold up high-end SLI cards like nobody's business. You see, every Intel chip here actually makes sense and targets pretty broad market segments. Their CPUs scale linearly overall and are sufficiently general-purpose. As opposed to AMD's offerings which are weirdly more focused, like the FX-8350 has been noticed to bottleneck SLI GPUs a while back because of its weak cores, but it's quite a good processor for heavily multithreaded tasks. The gaming part will probably change with DX12, but it's been 3 years since that CPU was released -> I feel it was a bad design. I would purchase that CPU for rendering if I'm on a tight budget. And the problem is that most people that work in 3D (even as a hobby) and are hardcore gamers will always choose the i7. This is already a very broad market segment that the i7 addresses, the high-end for which AMD has no answer. Moving on to other markets, AMD's laptop segment is basically absent because of the huge power consumption. Suffice to say if you want to game on a laptop, you're probably not concerned with power consumption since you'll game with your laptop plugged in. But since you don't care for power consumption why would you go for an integrated GPU in the first place? Another small niche budget market segment that doesn't make that much sense. Server market, a few chips with good price/performance. Again, niche market segment, not exactly broad. Where's this dollar vs performance in every arena? Because I really don't see it. All you considered are the expensive i7s. News flash, Intel doesn't only produce i7s.