Confusing AMD APU naming scheme?

[Paint_Ninja]

Is it me or have the naming and numbering schemes for AMD APUs become very confusing for the average consumers over the years...?

 

Before it was AMD A4 to A10, with it kinda being easy to tell the performance difference between each processor, as there was a 2 number gap and it could be thought of being rated out of 10. E.g. You would know an AMD A6 is good but not that great, while an A10 would be one of their best APU offerings. You would also know that you would notice the performance difference between an AMD A6 and A8 solely by their numbers, a bit like how you could with an Intel Core i3 and Intel Core i5 for the same reason.

 

I think it was 5th or 6th generation where it started getting confusing, although I'm not sure as I haven't really been paying much attention to AMD's APUs until I heard of them when the 6th gen was the latest at the time and I saw older models on eBay out of curiosity. With 5th/6th gen, they decided that the laptop and mobile variants of the chip should have a 'P' on the end of the model number to signify that they're different to a desktop APU, which was a great idea... however they also added a thousand to the model number which can really make things confusing as you now see 7th gen chips with 9000P model numbers... Am I getting confused here or have they mucked up their numbering schemes?

 

When I saw the press release of the 7th gen APUs I saw it got more confusing... Now you no longer have the usual A4-A10 lineup across the board. Instead, you only have A6, A10 and an APU variant of FX for desktops and on laptops you have A6, A9, A10, A12 and the APU variant of FX for laptops. Combine this with the inconsistent model numbers and your average consumer or even someone like me will get confused by what generation the APU is and what performance I should expect from it - especially when buying second hand.

 

Here's a table that may better explain what I think AMD's lineup is over the last few generations, please correct me if I'm wrong.

                 | Older generations | 5th/6th generation | 7th generation
-----------------+-------------------+--------------------+------------------
Desktop          | A4/A6/A8/A10      | A4/A6/A8/A10       | A6/A8/A10/A12
-----------------+-------------------+--------------------+------------------
Mobile (laptops) | A4/A6/A8/A10      | A4/A6/A8/A10/FX    | A6/A9/A10/A12/FX

 

And for model numbers... I don't even know. >.< I've checked the AMD website and Wikipedia and I don't seem to understand them. 6th gen APUs can have either 7000 or 8000 in their model numbers.

 

So am I simply missing something here and not understanding AMD's naming and numbering schemes or have they indeed made some mistakes?

[SLAYR]

For apus you shouldn't expect much out of them in the first place.

 

The only good apus are a10s, and higher, the rest are meant for low end cheap systems. Any apu lower then a 7000 series really isn't worth buying.

 

This happens in other areas like gpus as well like the nvidia 100/300series, amd hd 8000 series which are versions of the 9 series/200series/7000 series respectively.

[Paint_Ninja]

1 minute ago, SLAYR said:

For apus you shouldn't expect much out of them in the first place.

 

The only good apus are a10s, and higher, the rest are meant for low end cheap systems. Any apu lower then a 7000 series really isn't worth buying.

 

This happens in other areas like gpus as well like the nvidia 100/300series, amd hd 8000 series which are versions of the 9 series/200series/7000 series respectively.

I am not talking about gaming rigs here, but general PCs for your average non-gamer consumer who just want to do web browsing, note taking, word processing, watching videos, and light gaming on an iGPU... I am aware that the AMD A4 and A6 are pretty poor performance, with the A8 being borderline, but when you're not planning to do anything intensive it's not too terrible considering the price.

[SLAYR]

2 hours ago, Paint_Ninja said:

I am not talking about gaming rigs here, but general PCs for your average non-gamer consumer who just want to do web browsing, note taking, word processing, watching videos, and light gaming on an iGPU... I am aware that the AMD A4 and A6 are pretty poor performance, with the A8 being borderline, but when you're not planning to do anything intensive it's not too terrible considering the price.

I didn't even mention gaming.

 

If you are considering a second hand apus the a4s,a6s,a8s aren't worth it especially older ones like the 3000/4000/5000. Even for basic use these cpus are very slow even for general desktop use.

[Paint_Ninja]

11 hours ago, SLAYR said:

I didn't even mention gaming.

 

If you are considering a second hand apus the a4s,a6s,a8s aren't worth it especially older ones like the 3000/4000/5000. Even for basic use these cpus are very slow even for general desktop use.

Agreed, the performance of old AMD APUs are very slow, with there being fairly big improvements in the later generations. Sorry, I thought you meant that the A6/A8 weren't good enough for gaming, as you said only the A10s are worth it and I only usually see them used in budget gaming rigs.

 

I am not planning on purchasing an APU in the near future, I just don't understand the naming and model numbers... When you refer to the "7000 series", do you mean the 5th gen, 6th gen, 7th gen or all of them? Is a 7th gen A9 better than some 6th gen A10s?

 

Why did they choose uneven and inconsistent naming as of the 7th gen with it being A6, A9, A10, A12 and FX rather than just dumping the new A6, renaming the new A9 to be the new A6 and shift the new A10 to A8, the new A12 to A10, etc...? That would make much more sense to me as it would be more consistent and would actually make the A6 lineup acceptable from the 7th gen onwards.

[IAmTheOneNamedNelson]

AMD FX Series aren't APUs I believe?
Forgive me if i'm wrong just heard that.

[SLAYR]

1 hour ago, Paint_Ninja said:

Agreed, the performance of old AMD APUs are very slow, with there being fairly big improvements in the later generations. Sorry, I thought you meant that the A6/A8 weren't good enough for gaming, as you said only the A10s are worth it and I only usually see them used in budget gaming rigs.

 

I am not planning on purchasing an APU in the near future, I just don't understand the naming and model numbers... When you refer to the "7000 series", do you mean the 5th gen, 6th gen, 7th gen or all of them? Is a 7th gen A9 better than some 6th gen A10s?

 

Why did they choose uneven and inconsistent naming as of the 7th gen with it being A6, A9, A10, A12 and FX rather than just dumping the new A6, renaming the new A9 to be the new A6 and shift the new A10 to A8, the new A12 to A10, etc...? That would make much more sense to me as it would be more consistent and would actually make the A6 lineup acceptable from the 7th gen onwards.

The 7000 series like the 7850k,7870k...

Most likely the numbers are because people associate higher numbers with better performance, and the fx to designate the"high end" apus as they did with the desktop fx series.

32 minutes ago, IAmTheOneNamedNelson said:

AMD FX Series aren't APUs I believe?
Forgive me if i'm wrong just heard that.

The mobile fx series are apus.

[purple_rider]

3 hours ago, IAmTheOneNamedNelson said:

AMD FX Series aren't APUs I believe?
Forgive me if i'm wrong just heard that.

You are right, the desktop FX series are not APUs as they have no iGPU

[Starelementpoke]

3 hours ago, IAmTheOneNamedNelson said:

AMD FX Series aren't APUs I believe?
Forgive me if i'm wrong just heard that.

 

5 minutes ago, purple_rider said:

You are right, the desktop FX series are not APUs as they have no iGPU

They have a mobile version of them that are.

[Paint_Ninja]

It appears that AMD have acknowledged their mistake with their naming scheme for their 7th gen APUs and have renamed the A9 lineup to A8 for their desktops. (see the bottom of this page: http://www.amd.com/en-us/solutions/desktops/consumer )

 

As they have already sold some APUs on the mobile side with A9s, it's understandable why they haven't renamed the mobile side too. I'm glad to see that AMD are gradually moving away from their confusing naming and numbering scheme. Let's just hope that they get it clear and straightforward with the Zen releases.