
Sporting the same number of Radeon cores (384), it's hardly surprising that all of the A10s score fairly similarly. A slight 44 MHz clock rate increase gives the Richland-based parts an imperceptible speed-up. The Core i3-3220's HD Graphics 2500 engine is ill-equipped to fight off any of AMD's APUs, though we know full-well that HD Graphics 4000 and 4600 do narrow the gap.
The Physics module is a pure measure of x86 processing performance though, and in this one, the dual-core Core i3 finishes in first place (albeit just barely).

Although PCMark 8 launched a couple of days ago, AMD wasn't able to get us the test before we needed to board planes and head to Taipei for Computex. At least for one last processor launch, PCMark 7 will have to do. We don't see this as a problem; the benchmark is build using components of Windows 7, which many enthusiasts continues to use, and is representative of many common desktop workloads.
It's not much of a surprise why AMD doesn't care for PCMark 7, though. The Core i3's two Hyper-Threaded cores outperform AMD's two Piledriver modules in the Overall, Creativity, and Productivity subtests.

Intel's IPC advantage gives Core i3 the lead in Cinebench's single-core test. AMD comes surging back in the threaded component of this test, though, as its four integer pipelines outperform SMT technology.

Intel's Core i3-3220 returns higher integer and floating-point results in Sandra's Arithmetic module, though the A10-6800K isn't far behind in either metric.

Intel has a bad habit of using important features to differentiate its processors. The Core i3s, for example, arbitrarily lose AES-NI support. So, the Core i3 performs dismally in this measurement. Meanwhile, AMD's APUs process instructions as fast as they can be fed from memory, resulting in the great AES256 numbers.

This is an interesting result. Intel's two x86 cores deliver the top OpenCL-based result in LuxMark. All three Radeon-based graphics engines fare roughly the same when we limit processing to the GPUs. And the A10-6800K scores a first-place finish with both the CPU and GPU working cooperatively.
Remember, though that we're only testing Intel's HD Graphics 2500 engine. If you want some interesting data from HD Graphics 4000, check out this page in The Core i7-4770K Review: Haswell Is Faster; Desktop Enthusiasts Yawn. The A10-5800K's numbers match almost identically. But HD Graphics 4000 and 4600 kick performance up significantly, suggesting that a Core i3-3225 would make a big difference in this test.
- 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
I guess Richland is still very hot going by the power figures alone. Still, it's a good step up (and stop gap) for AMD.
Nice review still. Are you guys planning on a follow up for Dual Graphics? 8)
Cheers!
No, since driver 13.1 even the 5800k was able to run dual graphics with a HD 7750. I am typing on a system with that exact setup right now. I am not sure if the 6800k will allow anything above the 7750 though. When I tried a 7770 with the 5800k I wasn't given the option to enable dual graphics.
Richland does appear to be just a refinement of Trinity. This review does explain why Kaveri desktop APUs are due to release at the end of the year.
I don't see why this argument is even made since both the 6700 and 6800K have the same MSRP considering that the only real difference in power consumption observed between the two chips was in gaming...
Your final graph suggests that the overall performance of the i3 is within margin of error of the A8-6800K(for which you didn't even bother to provide overclock benchmarks)
Lastly, can you confirm the MSRP? Your values seem to differ, other sources suggest $142 instead of your stated $149 (in fact, the pricing on all of the models seems to be off)
Isn't this a tech enthusiast site? The few reviews I've seen out there claim Richland overclocks better, cooler and higher then Trinity. Furthermore, they claim the overclocked igpu performs at the level of a 6670... which is a huge jump in performance... as the 5800k, even overclocked and with fast ram, was only about 70% a HD 6670.
where is the beef? Seriously i expected more from this site.
Secondly, the comment that Kaveri will require a new socket is largely unknown at this point - all that's been revealed is that it uses an "FM2+" socket - who knows what that'll mean in terms of mobo socket compatibility.
No, since driver 13.1 even the 5800k was able to run dual graphics with a HD 7750. I am typing on a system with that exact setup right now. I am not sure if the 6800k will allow anything above the 7750 though. When I tried a 7770 with the 5800k I wasn't given the option to enable dual graphics.
Hurry call amd tech support and tell them you have managed to accomplished what there high paid engineers have been unable to do.
I have no doubt that ccc is saying dual graphics option enabled but when you run benchmarks with it enable and disabled they are the same.
@Don, I have 3 queries for you.
Does Richland crossfire with 7750 (officially or unofficially)? If it does, that is sure an interesting thing to explore.
Also Don, yes even I've seen the figure of $142 floating around in other tech sites. Why do you quote it otherwise?
Lastly, you 'could' have added the Core i3 with Radeon 6670 in the power consumption charts just to show the increased performance in games and other applications comes with the added power consumption of the 6670 if it is present.