Efficient AMD A10-6700T APU to hit Retail Next Week

AMD will soon release new APU with specifications that closely match that of the A10-6700 APU but carries a much lower TDP. The APU, which will be known as the A10-6700T, will have a TDP of just 45 W -- 20 W less than the A10-6700.

Beyond the lowered TDP, the only lowered specifications are the clock speeds. The still four Piledriver cores run at 2.5 GHz base, with a TurboCore speed of 3.5 GHz. The unit still features 4 MB of L2 cache. In addition, the unit carries the AMD Radeon HD 8650D GPU, which runs at 760 MHz base and 844 MHz Boost.

The APU is expected to hit retail shelves sometime next week and will be priced around $150.

Create a new thread in the US News comments forum about this subject
This thread is closed for comments
22 comments
    Your comment
    Top Comments
  • sykozis
    229700 said:
    I'm kind of used to lower the frequency by a few percent, and getting a much larger percentage drop in power use. It's probably the GPU, as the frequency wasn't lowered much, but 45 watts for a dual-core (it's a dual core, not a quad-core, except if you're an AMD zombie who really thinks adding an integer unit and nothing else makes one core, two) running at 2.5 GHz isn't that great. The scenarios for this processor are limited, the A10-6700 is going to be better for most people, being quite powerful, and being reasonable on performance.


    If you go by that line of thinking, the 8086 was only a half-core processor, as were the 286, 386 and 486SX as they all only featured an ALU and required a separate x87 "math co-processor" (better known as an FPU) for floating point operations. Having an FPU doesn't make a "core" a "core". It's the ALU that determines what's a processor core. Unlike the FPU, the ALU is a fully functional, stand-alone component. The FPU can't operate without the ALU.

    252514 said:
    The APU is a made up market by AMD because they can no longer compete with intel in th CPU market. AMD's R&D staff should've been fired LONG ago. I feel bad for AMD fans who keep hoping month after month, year after year for AMD to release anything that can compete with intel. AMD is 2 generations behind intel at this point.


    APU isn't a "made up market by AMD". AMD uses the term as a reference to CPUs that have an integrated graphics processor, which is something Intel actually pushed to market first. The Core i3 and i5 processors on LGA1156 were the first x86 processors to feature an integrated graphics processor. Intel has no need for such references due to the fact that even the majority of their mainstream processors have integrated graphics processors.

    490098 said:
    From what I understand, you will see hardly any reason for an APU unless programs are specifically written for them.


    Your understanding is quite wrong. If that were the case, Intel wouldn't waste their time putting an integrated graphics processor on every CPU package. An APU functions as both a CPU and a GPU (which is exactly what they are). The 2 components are completely capable of functioning independent of each other, even while sharing the same processor package. You code for the CPU portion, the same as you would any other CPU. You code for the GPU portion, the same as you would any other GPU.
    13
  • Someone Somewhere
    There is a difference between 'Efficient' and 'Low power'.

    This is the latter.
    11
  • Other Comments
  • ta152h
    Is this really progress? It runs at 2/3 the speed, and uses 2/3 the power? This is a good thing?

    I'm kind of used to lower the frequency by a few percent, and getting a much larger percentage drop in power use. It's probably the GPU, as the frequency wasn't lowered much, but 45 watts for a dual-core (it's a dual core, not a quad-core, except if you're an AMD zombie who really thinks adding an integer unit and nothing else makes one core, two) running at 2.5 GHz isn't that great. The scenarios for this processor are limited, the A10-6700 is going to be better for most people, being quite powerful, and being reasonable on performance.

    I also hate when they re-label processors with a "T", but the unit runs much slower than the one they are naming it after. Intel has done this too. It's confusing to customers, and leads to disappointment.
    -14
  • IndignantSkeptic
    From what I understand, you will see hardly any reason for an APU unless programs are specifically written for them.
    -9
  • alextheblue
    Have to bench it before you can determine what "speed" it runs at. Depending on how the turbo operates, it may end up being faster than its base clock implies. The listed turbo clock, for example, is 81% of the 6700's turbo clock. Also, the GPU will be almost as fast. It actually has the same top speed. In a low-power APU system, I'd say this is going to be the biggest limiting factor anyway.

    What I really want to know is if AM3+ is going to see any Steamroller chips.
    3