Although power consumption has less of an effect in the desktop space compared to notebooks, it remains an important point of comparison between Intel's Core i3 and AMD's top-end APUs. Can Richland's efficiency-oriented optimizations help close in on the efficient Ivy Bridge architecture?
The A10-6700 exhibits an impressive 25 W drop compared to AMD's A10-5800K in our Metro: Last Light benchmark. But that's hardly an achievement next to the 61 W Intel's Core i3 uses in the same test.
Even still, that's a tough comparison to make. AMD averages 30 FPS, while the Core i3 achieves less than half of that. It'd be a lot more interesting to substitute in a more capable CPU, though Intel's Core i3-3225 includes HD Graphics 4000 and is also rated for a 55 W thermal ceiling. Looks like the A10s are destined to be more power-hungry given their higher TDPs. The 65 W A10-6700 just can't come anywhere close to the 55 W Core i3.
When you aren't taxing their graphics components, AMD's APUs naturally use a lot less power. Of course, so does Intel's Core i3. The difference narrows in our Web browsing workload, though. Notably, the Richland configurations reduce power consumption by about 10 W compared to Trinity.
Again, the Richland-based parts are almost 10 W under the Trinity-based A10-5800K in our video playback test. Meanwhile, Intel's Core i3 is decisively in the lead here.
- Richland APUs Make Their Way To The Desktop
- AMD Dual Graphics: Not Ready For Benchmark Results
- Test Setup And Benchmarks
- Results: Synthetic Benchmarks
- Results: F1 2012 And The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim
- Results: Tomb Raider And Metro: Last Light
- Results: Media Encoding
- Results: Adobe CS6
- Results: Productivity
- Results: Compression
- Results: Power Consumption
- As Expected, Richland Is A Little Better; Not Massively So