Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in

AMD's A10-5800K Trinity APU Overclocked to 7.3 GHz

By - Source: MSI (via Hexus) | B 47 comments

That didn't take long.

AMD's Trinity APUs have barely been on the market for a week but it seems that was more than enough time for enthusiasts to overclock the A10-5800K model to an impressive 7.3GHz.

 

MSI announced the news via a press release, boasting that its FM2-A85XA-G65 was part of the record-setting equation:

"Featuring MSI's new DigitALL power design with Military Class III components, the FM2-A85XA-G65 was able to smash the current limit and set an astonishing 7.384 GHz clock speed," the company said in a release posted to Hexus. "This all was made possible with high-tech liquid nitrogen cooling of MSI's the newly released processor from AMD and outstanding engineering work on the FM2-A85XA-G65 mainboard."

PCGamesHardware.de reports that two of the A10-5800K's four cores were disabled in order to achieve the 7.3177 GHz clock speed (along with a healthy dose of liquid nitrogen cooling). Be sure to check out our full review of AMD's Trinity APUs. As Chris wrote last week, the A10-5800K packs four cores clocked to 3.8Ghz - 4.2GHz and is priced at $122.

Contact Us for News Tips, Corrections and Feedback           

Discuss
Display all 47 comments.
This thread is closed for comments
Top Comments
  • 21 Hide
    fuzznarf , October 9, 2012 2:46 PM
    spookymanAnd still a i-2500k will beat it at stock speed.


    Actually no, it doesn't. It might beat it at stuff like excel, winzip, and single threaded apps. but people buying an APU aren't buying one for that. They are buying it for gaming. Try building a sub $500 gaming PC with a 2500k and it will get raped by the A10 for the same price. Your statement is like saying a $40,000 Mustang Cobra isn't any good because an $80,000 Corvette is faster..... you ignorant troll you.
  • 21 Hide
    jerm1027 , October 9, 2012 2:31 PM
    spookymanAnd still a i-2500k will beat it at stock speed.

    Without an add-on graphics card the A10 doesn't need an overclock to Piledrive the 2500k in gaming. And given the 2500k is nearly twice the price, that's pretty sad.
  • 18 Hide
    A Bad Day , October 9, 2012 3:03 PM
    spookymanAnd still a i-2500k will beat it at stock speed.


    I'm going to point and laugh at you for thinking that Intel's IGP stand a chance against AMD's IGP.
Other Comments
  • 12 Hide
    horaciopz , October 9, 2012 1:17 PM
    AMD loves overclockers, those chips were meant to esquish tons of clocks,but it would be awesome if those chips have better single core performance :/ 
  • 4 Hide
    SteelCity1981 , October 9, 2012 1:24 PM
    Ro bad it wasn't stable at 7.3177ghz i would love to see the benchmarks on that thing.
  • 1 Hide
    spookie , October 9, 2012 1:25 PM
    thats great...but you need to benchmark it as well
  • -3 Hide
    ekho , October 9, 2012 1:38 PM
    Just remembered the days AMD was more powerful than Intel instead of lower clocks and even lower/equal L2 Cache. This is absolutely not bad, but at this time it's like candy-bars you give them to the babies. Maybe IPC is way more important, what I'm gonna say is AMD's whole architecture is not too bad but not so good at TIHS time also and plus nanometer side(Z60 is a 40nm, why?....) and delays that mostly happens theses recent years for AMD's chips are killing the company, IMO :-S
  • 13 Hide
    digiex , October 9, 2012 1:43 PM
    If only AMD places an L3 cache on its APU's it could beat the i3 in any review.
  • 21 Hide
    jerm1027 , October 9, 2012 2:31 PM
    spookymanAnd still a i-2500k will beat it at stock speed.

    Without an add-on graphics card the A10 doesn't need an overclock to Piledrive the 2500k in gaming. And given the 2500k is nearly twice the price, that's pretty sad.
  • 11 Hide
    noblerabbit , October 9, 2012 2:42 PM
    long live AMD! (currently running Phenom II x6 @ 3.5GHz, picked that up for $90, and serves me well)
  • 21 Hide
    fuzznarf , October 9, 2012 2:46 PM
    spookymanAnd still a i-2500k will beat it at stock speed.


    Actually no, it doesn't. It might beat it at stuff like excel, winzip, and single threaded apps. but people buying an APU aren't buying one for that. They are buying it for gaming. Try building a sub $500 gaming PC with a 2500k and it will get raped by the A10 for the same price. Your statement is like saying a $40,000 Mustang Cobra isn't any good because an $80,000 Corvette is faster..... you ignorant troll you.
  • 18 Hide
    A Bad Day , October 9, 2012 3:03 PM
    spookymanAnd still a i-2500k will beat it at stock speed.


    I'm going to point and laugh at you for thinking that Intel's IGP stand a chance against AMD's IGP.
  • 10 Hide
    fuzznarf , October 9, 2012 3:11 PM
    digiexIf only AMD places an L3 cache on its APU's it could beat the i3 in any review.

    agreed,... but a low-latency L3 hopefully.
  • 0 Hide
    ojas , October 9, 2012 4:18 PM
    Yay so now people are pointing that the A10 beats a SNB i5 because its IGP is better?

    I know what you guys are trying to say, but i'm sure when someone says something like this...
    spookymanAnd still a i-2500k will beat it at stock speed.

    ...it's an x86 to x86 comparison that's being talked about.

    fuzznarfActually no, it doesn't. It might beat it at stuff like excel, winzip, and single threaded apps. but people buying an APU aren't buying one for that.

    Even applies to multi-threaded applications...

    @Article: When do we get to see the 10GHz clock speeds Intel promised so long ago? Even with an OC, i mean.

    Anyway, if someone's interested in an extremely in-depth article about Haswell, head over here:
    http://www.anandtech.com/show/6355/intels-haswell-architecture
  • -6 Hide
    chicofehr , October 9, 2012 4:20 PM
    Just like the good old days with the P4. Fast clock and poor performance. I wish they kept making the Phenom 2 x6 and brought them to 32nm and released them at 4GHz then they would have a performer. I'd rather use their older tech then their current till they get the problems with their newer architecture worked out.
  • -2 Hide
    tajisi , October 9, 2012 4:35 PM
    Two different things are going on here. The A10 is a budget chip and isn't designed for anything beyond 'good enough' performance. We're talking for people who are coming from consoles to play on a PC for the first time. However, the second you step beyond basic budget and spend any sort of money on the computer... the i5 will destroy the A10 in every area. The A10 is aimed for people who want 'cheap' and the i5 is aimed for people who want more out of their computers than integrated graphics can provide.

    Now if AMD would step away from the silliness of trying to reinvent Netburst... they could have a killer chip on their hands due to their integrated GPUs being so good. Until then, let's wait to see how much GPU performance increases on the low end Intel side when Haswell is released.
  • 5 Hide
    A Bad Day , October 9, 2012 5:00 PM
    ojasYay so now people are pointing that the A10 beats a SNB i5 because its IGP is better?I know what you guys are trying to say, but i'm sure when someone says something like this......it's an x86 to x86 comparison that's being talked about.


    The A10 and i5 are in different categories, one is for budget, one is for high end. You can not directly compare a GTX 670 against a Radeon 7770.

    If I was going for a budget build, I will not pick the i5 because that would require a dedicated GPU.
  • 5 Hide
    Wisecracker , October 9, 2012 5:20 PM

    spookymanAnd still a i-2500k will beat it at stock speed.


    I suspect you might regret that statement when running software with OpenCL/GL-based enhancements.


  • 1 Hide
    silverblue , October 9, 2012 5:22 PM
    tajisiNow if AMD would step away from the silliness of trying to reinvent Netburst... they could have a killer chip on their hands due to their integrated GPUs being so good.

    They're not. They could never hope to have the same length pipeline, for a start, plus NetBurst was actually a very delayed architecture that was meant to come before P3 (someone haul me up here if that was actually debunked). The only comparisons between the two are the high clock speeds (deliberate) and the high power usage (not deliberate in design and only in implementation, and lessened somewhat with Piledriver). I suppose, if you really wanted to make a third comparison, that'd be that using both cores within a module can seriously harm overall performance, much like the initial implementations of HyperThreading, however AMD have recognised the fault and fixed it with Steamroller. Still, the high clock speed would have helped mitigate that a little.
  • 8 Hide
    fuzznarf , October 9, 2012 5:43 PM
    ojasEven applies to multi-threaded applications...@Article: When do we get to see the 10GHz clock speeds Intel promised so long ago? Even with an OC, i mean.Anyway, if someone's interested in an extremely in-depth article about Haswell, head over here:http://www.anandtech.com/show/6355 [...] chitecture

    Good show, Chap!... Take what I said out of context when you quoted me, convenitently leaving off the "FOR GAMING" part.... then end it with a nice off-topic link. Jolly good show!
  • -2 Hide
    cRACKmONKEY421 , October 9, 2012 5:46 PM
    People really buy APUs for gaming? I mean I know that's the point, but really? You're definately not playing high end games at high resolutions. Just as in the past, maybe a sub $500 gaming computer is better off with AMD parts, but a $500 gaming computer is still a sub-par gaming computer even if you made the very best use of your money. People using i5 2500K for gaming and not adding in an extra graphics card are obviously just wasting their money. Not very useful to compare gaming performance without adding a video card, because any serious gamer adds a video card. And as soon as you add the same video card to both, the i5 still blows away anything AMD has. If the on-chip video were the only option, then and only then would AMD chips look more appealing. That's why A10 is compared to i3 instead of i5. The i5 people usually buy additional graphics cards.
Display more comments