Skip to main content

AMD A10-6700 And A10-6800K Review: Richland Hits The Desktop

Results: Power Consumption

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.