AMD A12-9800 overclocked to 4.8 GHz with Wraith Cooler

[NumLock21]

Show first 4 new replies

8 minutes ago, LeStringMan said:

The same way they have been marketed since 2014, when the first 12 compute core apu launched? (quad core with 512 gcn shaders)

http://www.amd.com/en-us/innovations/software-technologies/compute-cores

That's for us tech people. They can't just slap 12 compute cores on the box, it will cause mass confusion.

 

[Dabombinable]

1 minute ago, NumLock21 said:

Show first 4 new replies

That's for us tech people. They can't just slap 12 compute cores on the box, it will cause mass confusion.

 

Even in stores, they show them as having compute cores.

[Tomsen]

3 minutes ago, Dabombinable said:

Even in stores, they show them as having compute cores.

In the same stores, there is also a sheet of the hardware specifications pointing out the amount of CPU cores.

[Dabombinable]

Just now, Tomsen said:

In the same stores, there is also a sheet of the hardware specifications pointing out the amount of CPU cores.

Not always. Which would be one of the reasons for APU doing so well-even the shitty single module APU.

[LeStringMan]

4 minutes ago, NumLock21 said:

Show first 4 new replies

That's for us tech people. They can't just slap 12 compute cores on the box, it will cause mass confusion.

 

Why not? They market the FX series as a full fledged quad, hexa, and octa core cpus, well are they true octa cores? Well obviously that depends on how you define a core.

[Tomsen]

2 minutes ago, Dabombinable said:

Not always. Which would be one of the reasons for APU doing so well-even the shitty single module APU.

I think we could agree that in general is that way. Perhaps a few small (and unprofessional) shops would do.

I very much doubt that is the reason. AMD have been working with OEM for a lot of designs. 

[Dabombinable]

Just now, LeStringMan said:

Why not? They market the FX series as a full fledged quad, hexa, and octa core cpus, well are they true octa cores? Well obviously that depends on how you define a core.

And before AMD started using CMT, everyone expected cores to be the same as they always were. Multiple full CPU on the same package, or in the same die. BTW, one of the reasons supposedly for switching to CMT was to cut costs while adding threads.....but a K10 octa core on 32nm would have had a smaller die and thus been cheaper to manufacture while smashing Bulldozer and beating Piledriver.

[NumLock21]

9 minutes ago, Dabombinable said:

Even in stores, they show them as having compute cores.

Will have to double check on that

2 minutes ago, LeStringMan said:

Why not? They market the FX series as a full fledged quad, hexa, and octa core cpus, well are they true octa cores? Well obviously that depends on how you define a core.

Well FX don't have any graphic cores. These APU with 12 compute cores, they cannot say it's a 12 core CPU cause that would be incorrect, it's still a quad core with 8 core for graphics.

[LeStringMan]

1 minute ago, Dabombinable said:

And before AMD started using CMT, everyone expected cores to be the same as they always were. Multiple full CPU on the same package, or in the same die. BTW, one of the reasons supposedly for switching to CMT was to cut costs while adding threads.....but a K10 octa core on 32nm would have had a smaller die and thus been cheaper to manufacture while smashing Bulldozer and beating Piledriver.

Hell even refreshing K10 with new instruction sets would smash Bulldozer.

[Dabombinable]

5 minutes ago, Tomsen said:

I think we could agree that in general is that way. Perhaps a few small (and unprofessional) shops would do.

I very much doubt that is the reason. AMD have been working with OEM for a lot of designs. 

All I know is, after getting a $999 notebook with a "uad core" A8 4555M (limited to 1.8GHz turbo-found out later that Overdrive allowed it to run at 2.4GHz), and having it perform worse than the uad core Phenom II P920 in my previous laptop (also $999)-and in fact only run at its boost or base speed for 5 minutes before throttling between 0.9-1.5GHz-and finding out the way Trinity/Piledriver was actually designed, I am still extremely pissed off.

[Sauron]

2 hours ago, The Benjamins said:

I got my oil cooled A10-7850k to 4.4 GHz and 1010 Mhz GPU. It was a fun project build. I is running on a ITX MOBO with the low profile Noctua cooler. sadly the fan just died, and I REALLY dont want to drain the oil and fix it and clean the oil.

Maybe you can just stick your hands in there and replace the fan, after all it shouldn't be a complex operation, right? Beats draining it or having a non functioning computer.

[LeStringMan]

1 minute ago, NumLock21 said:

Will have to double check on that

Well FX don't have any graphic cores. These APU with 12 compute cores, they cannot say it's a 12 core CPU cause that would be incorrect, it's still a quad core with 8 core for graphics.

They don't call it a 12 core cpu, they call it a 12 compute core cpu.... because it has 12 compute cores...

[Dabombinable]

3 minutes ago, LeStringMan said:

Hell even refreshing K10 with new instruction sets would smash Bulldozer.

K10 is also more efficient-which is something that I find funny.

[LeStringMan]

2 minutes ago, Dabombinable said:

K10 is also more efficient-which is something that I find funny.

Well I don't know about that once you get into overclocking, but stock, the Phenom x6 was actually lower in power consumption than some of the higher clocked quad core first gen i7s (like the 950), despite being a full hexa core cpu and have a considerably larger die than a first gen i7 (something like 263mm squared vs 346mm squared) 

[Dabombinable]

17 minutes ago, LeStringMan said:

Well I don't know about that once you get into overclocking, but stock, the Phenom x6 was actually lower in power consumption than some of the higher clocked quad core first gen i7s (like the 950), despite being a full hexa core cpu and have a considerably larger die than a first gen i7 (something like 263mm squared vs 346mm squared) 

AMD's CMT architectures do lose IPC the higher their clock speed, and considering that at 5GHz the FX 8350 consumes over 220W...I'd say that K10 is more efficient than Piledriver

[TheRandomness]

Now if there's a mini-STX AM4 board...

[NumLock21]

43 minutes ago, LeStringMan said:

They don't call it a 12 core cpu, they call it a 12 compute core cpu.... because it has 12 compute cores...

The average Joe ain't going to know that "compute" is the combination of cpu+graphics. They will think they got a extremely fast pc for a really low price. 

 

[awesomeness10120]

20 minutes ago, TheRandomness said:

Now if there's a mini-STX AM4 board...

An AM4/LGA 1151 mini-STX board with an MXM slot/Thunderbolt... Oh              yeahhhhhhhhhhhhhh.

[LeStringMan]

23 minutes ago, Dabombinable said:

AMD's CMT architectures do lose IPC the higher their clock speed, and considering that at 5GHz the FX 8350 consumes over 220W...I'd say that K10 is more efficient than Piledriver

More efficient than Bulldozer, yes, but not Piledriver. Here's just one overclocked comparison, there are many more out there.

http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/2012/11/06/amd-fx-8350-review/7

[PlayStation 2]

1 hour ago, SamStrecker said:

Because Ghz means everything. AMD marketing people

It can mean something for the cooler, though.

[Dabombinable]

12 minutes ago, LeStringMan said:

More efficient than Bulldozer, yes, but not Piledriver. Here's just one overclocked comparison, there are many more out there.

http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/2012/11/06/amd-fx-8350-review/7

45nm vs 32nm......and 6 full cores verses 4 modules 8 cores/ALU.....

[LeStringMan]

1 minute ago, Dabombinable said:

45nm vs 32nm......and 6 full cores verses 4 modules 8 cores/ALU.....

And? 4.2ghz vs 4.8 ghz, 940m transistors vs 1.2 billion, blah blah blah, 6 cores at 4.2 ghz consumed 130 more watts than 4 modules at 4.8 ghz, Here is another review from the same site of the Phenom x4 965 a quad core, consuming 330 watts under load at 3.92 ghz, Piledriver is clearly more efficient.

http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/2009/08/17/amd-phenom-ii-x4-965-black-edition-review/2

[TheRandomness]

29 minutes ago, awesomeness10120 said:

An AM4/LGA 1151 mini-STX board with an MXM slot/Thunderbolt... Oh              yeahhhhhhhhhhhhhh.

M.2 (PCIe x4) to PCIe x4 physical lane to x16 with a riser. That's a plan of mine, anyway, to fit an R9 Nano in the Silverstone VT01. 

[Doobeedoo]

Well that looks quite good with that frequency, voltage, TDP and new stock cooler.

But yeah, not too interesting, except it's new platform though older based APU
Zen is what matters on AM4 for start, hopefully we see those early systems by the end of the ear as it was said.

[Dabombinable]

27 minutes ago, LeStringMan said:

And? 4.2ghz vs 4.8 ghz, 940m transistors vs 1.2 billion, blah blah blah, 6 cores at 4.2 ghz consumed 130 more watts than 4 modules at 4.8 ghz, Here is another review from the same site of the Phenom x4 965 a quad core, consuming 330 watts under load at 3.92 ghz, Piledriver is clearly more efficient.

http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/2009/08/17/amd-phenom-ii-x4-965-black-edition-review/2

4 modules, 8 ALU.....different manufacturing node....