Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in

AMD Richland APU Will Boost up to 4.4GHz

By - Source: WCCF Tech | B 83 comments

More details emerge on AMD's next generation of APUs codenamed 'Richland,' which will be released during Q2 2013.

Last week we uncovered a number of details about AMDs upcoming APUs, including which GPU the APUs will have on board, the number of cores, and their TDP. This week, VR-Zone has revealed more details about AMD's upcoming APU chips. These new details include CPU base clock, boost clock and the GPU's clock speed.

AMD has planned for it's flagship model, the A10-6800K APU, to have both its base clock and boost clock above the 4 GHz mark. The A10-6800K will feature a base clock of 4.1 GHz along with a hefty 4.4 GHz boost clock. While the A10-6800K is the only APU with a base clock and a boost clock above 4 GHz, all but one of the other APU's will feature a boost clock above 4 GHz. The only chip that won't feature any clock speed above 4 GHz will be the lower end A4-6300, which will feature a boost clock of 3.9 GHz.

Something else that's worth mentioning is that the GPU on the Richland APUs will be part of the HD8000 Series based on the GCN architecture. This will allow Dual Graphics support with the current HD7000 Series of dedicated GPUs.

APU-modelCoresCPU Base / Boost Clock
GPU / Clock
TDP
A10-6800K44.1 / 4.4 GHz
Radeon HD 8670D / 844 MHz100W
A8-6600K43.9 / 4.2 GHzRadeon HD 8570D / 844 MHz100W
A10-670043.7 / 4.3 GHzRadeon HD 8670D / 844 MHz65W
A8-65004 3.5 / 4.1 GHzRadeon HD 8570D / 800 MHz65W
A6-6400K23.9 / 4.1 GHzRadeon HD 8470D / 800 MHz65W
A4-630023.7 / 3.9 GHzRadeon HD 8370D / 760 MHz65W
Display 83 Comments.
This thread is closed for comments
Top Comments
  • 28 Hide
    crisan_tiberiu , January 29, 2013 6:37 PM
    4 cores, 4,4Ghz, 100w TDP, intrestin' .... lets see the performance of the CPU (we know that the GPU part will kill any Intel HD whatever..)
  • 12 Hide
    Marco925 , January 29, 2013 8:19 PM
    downhill911It may kill Intel's integrated GPUs and make games from unplayable to almost playable but for those wanting a bit more it will again be no go because once you add proper PCI-e GPU you will see that AMD CPU will not be fast/good/smart enough to match Intel's CPU.

    Until you actually build the computer and realise that You can throw in a much better video card for the same price which would certainly wipe out any difference between the CPUs.

    You, an enthusiast reading this site should know two crucial things. one, CPUs aren't meant for gaming, GPUs(Graphics Processors) Hence the name are meant for gaming, because gaming utilises graphics mostly. and Price is a big factor in building a computer. Unless you are have Several million in pocket change in the bank. Price is a factor for most people building a system. You want to compare an i7 to an FX? Sure the i7 will win the performance race. but considering that the i7 is roughly $150 more expensive than the FX, and that's just the CPU pricing i can take that money and buy a MUCH better video card. a 7950 vs a 7970 is mucch more worth my $150 IMO. Also. Intel boards are much more expensive and the feature sets on these boards aren't even as good. Comparing oranges to oranges (Can't say apples to apples. they're not apple computers) The Intel Sabertooth z77 vs the sabertooth 990fx, the 990fx is much cheaper. in my city, $244 for the intel vs $184 for the AMD board. I'll take my $60 and like i said, put it in video.

    This is my Opinion.
  • 10 Hide
    A Bad Day , January 29, 2013 7:58 PM
    downhill911It may kill Intel's integrated GPUs and make games from unplayable to almost playable but for those wanting a bit more it will again be no go because once you add proper PCI-e GPU you will see that AMD CPU will not be fast/good/smart enough to match Intel's CPU.


    I've played L4D2 and Civ 5 on a friend's A10 laptop, and you can get a fairly decent graphics at $600-$700.

    Beat that with an Intel laptop!
Other Comments
  • 28 Hide
    crisan_tiberiu , January 29, 2013 6:37 PM
    4 cores, 4,4Ghz, 100w TDP, intrestin' .... lets see the performance of the CPU (we know that the GPU part will kill any Intel HD whatever..)
  • 1 Hide
    silverblue , January 29, 2013 6:39 PM
    If Richland will work with the 7000 series in Dual Graphics, the lowest possible model looks to be the 7750. I think anything above this would defeat the object of Dual Graphics due to the 8670D being too weak, let alone the CPU cores.

    How does Resonant Clock Meshing stand to help at such high clock speeds? How are AMD planning on keeping power consumption at Trinity levels with the higher clock speeds all round... or is this going to prove an impossible task?

    So many questions...
  • 1 Hide
    iknowhowtofixit , January 29, 2013 6:45 PM
    Cool
  • 9 Hide
    DRosencraft , January 29, 2013 6:48 PM
    Typically you don't see a lot of talk about overclocking APUs, but what interests me is what implications this has for their next traditional desktop CPU iteration. Will the next FX series also be mostly or entirely above the 4GHz mark? It was mostly foreseeable that AMD would hit this mark given the clocks of their previous CPUs, but it's still interesting to see it actually delivered stock on a chip.
  • 1 Hide
    shikamaru31789 , January 29, 2013 6:58 PM
    Looks pretty sweet to me. I just hope there is a pretty decent boost in CPU power. If AMD could get the CPU in these to perform close to an i3 in games, they would be a fantastic bargain for gaming budget builds, as the improved CPU could handle CPU intensive games and the integrated GPU + a dedicated card could handle GPU intensive games. I'll wait for the benchmarks and if these outperform the Pentium G series and come close to the i3's, I'll definitely put one in the budget living room PC I'm planning to build later this year.
  • 6 Hide
    Anonymous , January 29, 2013 7:17 PM
    These chips are really good value, probably not much difference in GPU power between it and the consoles, great for a cheap gaming system, 3rd CPU, $60 motherboard, $30 RAM, a $30 case, and a cheap hard drive, bargain!!
  • 6 Hide
    ingtar33 , January 29, 2013 7:38 PM
    should be about a hd7750 plus an i3... if the prices are the same as last gen, and they make duel graphics work better, this could be almost a legit HD gaming platform for insanely low prices (the A10-5800k was a 720p gaming platform)
  • 0 Hide
    sanilmahambre , January 29, 2013 7:54 PM
    Richland or trinity

    which is better
  • 8 Hide
    A Bad Day , January 29, 2013 7:56 PM
    sanilmahambreRichland or trinity which is better


    Richland is essentially a higher clocked Trinity with a new GPU.

    Unless if you find a Trinity laptop at a killer sale price during the summer, Richland wins hands down.
  • 10 Hide
    A Bad Day , January 29, 2013 7:58 PM
    downhill911It may kill Intel's integrated GPUs and make games from unplayable to almost playable but for those wanting a bit more it will again be no go because once you add proper PCI-e GPU you will see that AMD CPU will not be fast/good/smart enough to match Intel's CPU.


    I've played L4D2 and Civ 5 on a friend's A10 laptop, and you can get a fairly decent graphics at $600-$700.

    Beat that with an Intel laptop!
  • 8 Hide
    DEY123 , January 29, 2013 8:16 PM
    I think the real strength to the apu is the general use laptop where you want mobility as well as the ability to at least play games for around $600.
  • 0 Hide
    novaguy , January 29, 2013 8:18 PM
    I thought richland was just trinity 2.0 and comes with VLIW4 graphics (same system as the radeon 6950/6970), not GCN graphics. Did something change?
  • 12 Hide
    Marco925 , January 29, 2013 8:19 PM
    downhill911It may kill Intel's integrated GPUs and make games from unplayable to almost playable but for those wanting a bit more it will again be no go because once you add proper PCI-e GPU you will see that AMD CPU will not be fast/good/smart enough to match Intel's CPU.

    Until you actually build the computer and realise that You can throw in a much better video card for the same price which would certainly wipe out any difference between the CPUs.

    You, an enthusiast reading this site should know two crucial things. one, CPUs aren't meant for gaming, GPUs(Graphics Processors) Hence the name are meant for gaming, because gaming utilises graphics mostly. and Price is a big factor in building a computer. Unless you are have Several million in pocket change in the bank. Price is a factor for most people building a system. You want to compare an i7 to an FX? Sure the i7 will win the performance race. but considering that the i7 is roughly $150 more expensive than the FX, and that's just the CPU pricing i can take that money and buy a MUCH better video card. a 7950 vs a 7970 is mucch more worth my $150 IMO. Also. Intel boards are much more expensive and the feature sets on these boards aren't even as good. Comparing oranges to oranges (Can't say apples to apples. they're not apple computers) The Intel Sabertooth z77 vs the sabertooth 990fx, the 990fx is much cheaper. in my city, $244 for the intel vs $184 for the AMD board. I'll take my $60 and like i said, put it in video.

    This is my Opinion.
  • 2 Hide
    A Bad Day , January 29, 2013 8:20 PM
    DEY123I think the real strength to the apu is the general use laptop where you want mobility as well as the ability to at least play games for around $600.


    The APU can also be used in desktops. It sits between an Intel-only build (integrated GPU) and an Intel + High-end graphics card (7850 or 660 at least).

    The main advantage it has over Intel + mid-low discrete GPU at the same budget is that the CPU can be easily OC'ed unlike the i3s or the low range i5s.

    And BLCK OCing is more difficult and dangerous for obvious reasons.
  • 2 Hide
    ddpruitt , January 29, 2013 8:23 PM
    AMD

    Back with a bang?

    Let's see what the mobile space brings.
  • 5 Hide
    A Bad Day , January 29, 2013 8:24 PM
    Marco925Until you actually build the computer and realise that You can throw in a much better video card for the same price which would certainly wipe out any difference between the CPUs. You, an enthusiast reading this site should know two crucial things. one, CPUs aren't meant for gaming, GPUs(Graphics Processors) Hence the name are meant for gaming, because gaming utilises graphics mostly. and Price is a big factor in building a computer. Unless you are have Several million in pocket change in the bank. Price is a factor for most people building a system. You want to compare an i7 to an FX? Sure the i7 will win the performance race. but considering that the i7 is roughly $150 more expensive than the FX, and that's just the CPU pricing i can take that money and buy a MUCH better video card. a 7950 vs a 7970 is mucch more worth my $150 IMO. Also. Intel boards are much more expensive and the feature sets on these boards aren't even as good. Comparing oranges to oranges (Can't say apples to apples. they're not apple computers) The Intel Sabertooth z77 vs the sabertooth 990fx, the 990fx is much cheaper. in my city, $244 for the intel vs $184 for the AMD board. I'll take my $60 and like i said, put it in video.This is my Opinion.


    The only issue with that argument is if you throw in Source-based games, Starcraft 2, Total War series, Planetside 2, or any other CPU intensive games, then the GPU would matter less.

    But an APU can be OC'ed unlike the i3s or low end i5s.
  • 1 Hide
    SteelCity1981 , January 29, 2013 8:26 PM
    is richland still using the 32nm or is it on the 28nm?
  • 1 Hide
    Shin-san , January 29, 2013 8:33 PM
    This implies a few things if a console maker decides to go AMD. The 3.7 GHz model is right in the sweet spot for TDP for a console chip
  • 1 Hide
    Fokissed , January 29, 2013 8:34 PM
    Marco925Until you actually build the computer and realise that You can throw in a much better video card for the same price which would certainly wipe out any difference between the CPUs. You, an enthusiast reading this site should know two crucial things. one, CPUs aren't meant for gaming, GPUs(Graphics Processors) Hence the name are meant for gaming, because gaming utilises graphics mostly. and Price is a big factor in building a computer. Unless you are have Several million in pocket change in the bank. Price is a factor for most people building a system. You want to compare an i7 to an FX? Sure the i7 will win the performance race. but considering that the i7 is roughly $150 more expensive than the FX, and that's just the CPU pricing i can take that money and buy a MUCH better video card. a 7950 vs a 7970 is mucch more worth my $150 IMO. Also. Intel boards are much more expensive and the feature sets on these boards aren't even as good. Comparing oranges to oranges (Can't say apples to apples. they're not apple computers) The Intel Sabertooth z77 vs the sabertooth 990fx, the 990fx is much cheaper. in my city, $244 for the intel vs $184 for the AMD board. I'll take my $60 and like i said, put it in video.This is my Opinion.

    Why are you comparing FX to i7? i5's are similar in pricing to the FX line, and still beat the FX in any gaming benchmark. i5's overclock well and use half of the power of similar FX chips.
Display more comments