AMD APU A10 6800K Black Edition Quad Core Processor (Socket FM2, 4.1GHz, 4MB, 100W, AD680KWOHLBOX, Richland, Turbo Core 3.0 Technology, Virtualization Technology) £86.67 'Free Delivery' @ Amazon UK - HotUKDeals
We use cookie files to improve site functionality and personalisation. By continuing to use HUKD, you accept our cookie and privacy policy.
Get the HUKD app free at Google Play

Search Error

An error occurred when searching, please try again!

Login / Sign UpSubmit
Product Description
Discover technology that's built to handle virtually everything you throw at it with the elite quad-core performance and responsive design of AMD APU-based desktop PCs. Bring your digital world to life with intuitive gesture and touch controls and enjoy an immersive gaming experience with AMD Radeon™ HD Graphics, all in a sleek, high-end desktop.
Product Description
AMD A10 6800K 44 GHZ BLACK SKT FM2 L2 4MB 100W PIB AD680KWOHLBOX Components Processors CPU
More From Amazon:

All Comments

(45) Jump to unreadPost a comment
Comments/page:
Page:
#1
Awesome!
#2
Hot hot hot! Gutted that I bought the 5800k for £78 2 weeks ago, this would've been a much better investment!
#4
Any opinions on a suitable MoBo to pair with this??
#5
some performance stats here - http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=AMD+A10-6800K+APU

Interestingly that page also quotes US pricing which, according to the graph, dipped to $41.18 in late January - that seems awfully cheap, could there have been an issue with the processor that spooked the market?
#6
Reviewed well - http://www.expertreviews.co.uk/processors/1300213/amd-a10-6800k - with decent onchip graphics

5000 points on cpu benchmark is pretty good
#7
I have one of these in my HTPC. It's a really great performer.
#8
would it make sense to buy this with a separate gpu?
or would it be better to buy cpu+gpu?
3 Likes #9
What? No 'Cold, not Intel' comments?

You people disappoint me...
#10
A lot to like here, cheaper than any I3 (intel) and much better in the gfx dept but not sure about the extra heat it generates and the extra pwr consumption over, say, a two year period.
say this was used in a HTPC/Casual gaming, so on for 8-12 hours a day heavy use for 2 hours what would the extra pwr cost over equivalent I3/Pentium ?? anyone?

Mobo..this? FM2-A75IA-E53 m-itx
#11
MercutioLeonhart
Hot hot hot! Gutted that I bought the 5800k for £78 2 weeks ago, this would've been a much better investment!

Not really, difference between 5800K and 6800K is barely 10% and you saved more than 10%.
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/a10-6700-a10-6800k-richland-review,3528-12.html
#12

Benchmark results from Passmark are useless - they do not match to any other results.
Old Phenoms X4 965 and above are faster than 6800K, which is not the case according to Passmark.
2 Likes #13
davocc
some performance stats here - http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=AMD+A10-6800K+APU
http://www.tobidornot.com/wp-uploads/photo/amd-apu-a10-6800k-black-edition-quad-core-processor.jpg
Interestingly that page also quotes US pricing which, according to the graph, dipped to $41.18 in late January - that seems awfully cheap, could there have been an issue with the processor that spooked the market?

People are still buying AMD processors?

Edited By: iceman85 on Jun 25, 2014 12:18
#14
GwanGy
A lot to like here, cheaper than any I3 (intel) and much better in the gfx dept but not sure about the extra heat it generates and the extra pwr consumption over, say, a two year period.
say this was used in a HTPC/Casual gaming, so on for 8-12 hours a day heavy use for 2 hours what would the extra pwr cost over equivalent I3/Pentium ?? anyone?

Mobo..this? FM2-A75IA-E53 m-itx

Good point. Very limited CPU.

For gaming 6800K is not fast enough in graphic department and dedicated graphic card is required. Go for FX-Series, if Intel is too pricy.
For HTPC and casual use i3-4350 uses half the power and has faster CPU performance. 6800K graphics performance is better than i3, but Intel 4600 is able to handle everything outside of gaming and you need a dedicated card for gaming anyways.
#15
DownUGo
would it make sense to buy this with a separate gpu?
or would it be better to buy cpu+gpu?

all depends on what your going to be using the pc for?

only consider a gfx card if you are going to be playing games
#16
i`ve used this chip in three pc`s that were going to photographers,

this chip was practically build for photoshop... ..HOT
#17
ws007
i`ve used this chip in three pc`s that were going to photographers,

this chip was practically build for photoshop... ..HOT


You've just sold me on this thanks.
#18
I’m looking to build a workstation that is to be used for non-gaming purposes (I have another dedicated to gaming) – I’d like to run it in a very small form factor mini-ITX config with perhaps 16gig of ram and hanging from the back of a VESA mount; I want it to idle at relatively low power though, one primary criteria is that its internal graphics configuration can properly drive a very high resolution screen; perhaps 2560x1600. I’m not looking to game on it but do most other things (office/web-dev/photoshop, etc.). Would I be expecting too much from the GPU in this package for this type of activity?
Also does anyone know what real-world idle power consumption is like for it? As pointed out above some review ratings are less than ideal.
#19
davocc
I’m looking to build a workstation that is to be used for non-gaming purposes (I have another dedicated to gaming) – I’d like to run it in a very small form factor mini-ITX config with perhaps 16gig of ram and hanging from the back of a VESA mount; I want it to idle at relatively low power though, one primary criteria is that its internal graphics configuration can properly drive a very high resolution screen; perhaps 2560x1600. I’m not looking to game on it but do most other things (office/web-dev/photoshop, etc.). Would I be expecting too much from the GPU in this package for this type of activity?
Also does anyone know what real-world idle power consumption is like for it? As pointed out above some review ratings are less than ideal.

This is 100W CPU, performance will not be a problem, but I'm yet to see anyone fitting 100W into ITX form factor. Are there any ITX motherboards that can accept this CPU?
You should looking at i3-4130T if you are able to find ITX motherboard that can accept LGA 1150. Chipsets that will support it: http://ark.intel.com/products/77481/Intel-Core-i3-4130T-Processor-3M-C[email protected]

Edited By: CTPAHHIK on Jun 25, 2014 16:38: Additional Info
#20
ws007
i`ve used this chip in three pc`s that were going to photographers,

this chip was practically build for photoshop... ..HOT
When it comes to any sort of photo/video editing, Intel is always far superior (at a premium, of course).
The only thing AMD GPU's/APU's are built for is budget gaming rigs.

Edited By: jukkie on Jun 25, 2014 16:44
#21

I've just started looking at it's been a long time since I've built an AMD rig - the Gigabyte F2A88XN-WIFI at http://www.overclockers.co.uk/showproduct.php?prodid=MB-482-GI&groupid=701&catid=1903&subcat=2230 seems to take it according to the CPU listing for that board (http://www.gigabyte.com/support-downloads/cpu-support-popup.aspx?pid=4745) though that's going to need a reasonable airflow within the case, some mini-ITX cases these days are approaching a wire frame in terms of how many holes they seem to have. As a cheapie solution it may draw more power than Intel but will be a lot cheaper up front - over the lifespan the Intel power consumption figures may not justify the price difference, I ran into that quandary when I built a mini-ITX Xeon for ESXi 5.1 (I went with the conventional power E3-1230 rather than the low power E3-1265l, despite that it drew only 60w idle at the wall with three drives and an SSD).

I'll also look to see if I can find where that chip seems to have been sold for $41-USD, that's awfully cheap!
#22
davocc
I’m looking to build a workstation that is to be used for non-gaming purposes (I have another dedicated to gaming) – I’d like to run it in a very small form factor mini-ITX config with perhaps 16gig of ram and hanging from the back of a VESA mount; I want it to idle at relatively low power though, one primary criteria is that its internal graphics configuration can properly drive a very high resolution screen; perhaps 2560x1600. I’m not looking to game on it but do most other things (office/web-dev/photoshop, etc.). Would I be expecting too much from the GPU in this package for this type of activity?
Also does anyone know what real-world idle power consumption is like for it? As pointed out above some review ratings are less than ideal.

I don't necessarily build the way that most people do, I start out with with motherboard features and how recent it is, re fitting the next generation of CPUs at a later date. My motherboard choice, then, won't tally with people trying to nail the absolute lowest price APU and motherboard combo, because I want a performance board with good upgrade potential. If you have no interest in overclocking at a later date, look at the H97 boards and save a bit of money but I would go for a Z97 motherboard (to date, I think the only M-ITX format Z97 board that features both the new M.2 SSD and new SATA Express is Asrock's offering, the ASUS has just M.2) and I would go with the Intel i3-4330 that comes in at around the same price as the AMD 6800K. It's an i3 but it has hyperthreading, so two cores but four threads and it comes with full Intel HD 4600 graphics, rather than HD 4400. The graphics component still falls well short of the performance of the AMD, which is solidly the AMD's strong suite, especially when you partner the 6800K with 2133 memory and overclock the graphics part, in a performance motherboard that supports it, but as you're not wanting to build a gaming rig and you want a particularly low power draw/low temps in a small box, I've put the emphasis on the CPU performance and upgradeability to the next generation of CPUs at a later date. In single threaded benchmarks it averages out at 36% faster than the 6800K. In many games, when partnered with a GPU, it come very close to the much more expensive 4690K in some but not all benchmarks, obviously depending on the game and the extent to which it can take advantage of the i5's extra cores, but it was interesting how close the i3 with hyperthreading ran it in a lot of games on Tomshardware. Obviously the i5 and i7 is still a much better choice in productivity benchmarks but it's double the price even for the i5. In multi-threaded programs the 4330 betters the 6800K by 6% on average but that advantage goes up to 17% in memory intensive multi-threaded programs. Again, and sorry if I'm laboring the obvious but if you can stretch your budget considerably to an i5 or i7, especially with the very imminant Haswell K product refresh that's holding back my builds, your sessions with power programs will be that much mercifully quicker and I would always try and shell out the extra if that's what you are going to be spending most of your time doing. Our time is precious. But getting back to the tight budget. You can of course overclock the 6800K, though for a decent motherboard board you want to raise that attractive bargain combo price a bit to comfortably handle that overclock, but the power draw goes up - even at stock speeds the Intel i3 4330 comes in at 43.88W vs the 6800K at 81.25W (those are the figures from CPU Boss, CPU World has the AMD at 100w to 54w for the intel) - and you need to shell out for a CPU cooler for it (I wouldn't spend less than £15, though more if a tiny case) and if you go for the budget cooler and more budget case fans than you initially planned for, you're still spending more than you might want for more noise. I have a low tolerance threshold for noise, though. I like my builds to be close to silent. I find fan noise makes me tired or agitated over time. Both the Intel and AMD should support that resolution depending on what outputs the motherboard you choose has and the connectivity of the monitor you use if it supports that resolution.

I went with Hot price, for an APU-only gaming rig with 2133Mhz memory to push the graphics part in a good overclockers board.

Edited By: Noclouds on Jun 25, 2014 18:00: Typos (and additional tldr!)
#23
Agreeing with noclouds here.
My major concern is heat generated by 6800K. Take a look at power consumption @ idle and load here: http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/2014/04/24/amd-athlon-5350-kabini-review/8
i3-4330 is 54W
A8-7600 is 65W
A10-7850K is 95W
In idle it makes sense to pay less and get 6800K, but under load 125W heat dissipation is very unlikely with ITX case. System will throttle back and you will lose performance.

I think best bet will be i3-4350 - it comes with HD4600. It's more expensive than 6800K, but it also 10%-15% faster in every category, except graphics.

Any board with FM2/FM2+ chipset will work with 6800K. Double check compatibility list on manufacturer website, but they all should be compatible.

For office/web-dev/photoshop you don't need to be concerned with GPU. Either HD4600 or 6800K will be able to output 2 monitors with 2560x1600 resolution.

Another power consumption comparison: http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/a10-7850k-a8-7600-kaveri,3725-15.html

Edited By: CTPAHHIK on Jun 25, 2014 18:04
#24
Noclouds
davocc
I’m looking to build a workstation that is to be used for non-gaming purposes (I have another dedicated to gaming) – I’d like to run it in a very small form factor mini-ITX config with perhaps 16gig of ram and hanging from the back of a VESA mount; I want it to idle at relatively low power though, one primary criteria is that its internal graphics configuration can properly drive a very high resolution screen; perhaps 2560x1600. I’m not looking to game on it but do most other things (office/web-dev/photoshop, etc.). Would I be expecting too much from the GPU in this package for this type of activity?
Also does anyone know what real-world idle power consumption is like for it? As pointed out above some review ratings are less than ideal.

I don't necessarily build the way that most people do, I start out with with motherboard features and how recent it is, re fitting the next generation of CPUs at a later date. My motherboard choice, then, won't tally with people trying to nail the absolute lowest price APU and motherboard combo, because I want a performance board with good upgrade potential. If you have no interest in overclocking at a later date, look at the H97 boards and save a bit of money but I would go for a Z97 motherboard (to date, I think the only M-ITX format Z97 board that features both the new M.2 SSD and new SATA Express is Asrock's offering) and I would go with the Intel i3-4330 that comes in at around the same price as the AMD 6800K. Despite being an i3 it has hyperthreading, so two cores but four threads and it comes with full Intel HD 4600 graphics, rather than HD 4400. The graphics component still falls well short of the performance of the AMD, which is solidly the AMD's strong suite, especially when you partner the 6800K with 2133 memory and overclock, but as you're not wanting to build a gaming rig and you want a particularly low power draw/low temps in a small box, I've put the emphasis on the CPU performance and upgradeability to the next generation of CPUs at a later date. In single threaded benchmarks it averages out at 36% faster than the 6800K. In many games, when partnered with a GPU, it come very close to the much more expensive 4690K in some but not all benchmarks, obviously depending on the game and the extent to which it can take advantage of the i5's extra cores, but it was interesting how close the i3 with hyperthreading ran it in a lot of games. Obviously the i5 and i7 is still a much better choice in productivity benchmarks but it's double the price even for the i5. In multi-threaded programs the 4330 betters the 6800K by 6% on average but that advantage goes up to 17% in memory intensive multi-threaded programs. Again, and sorry if I'm laboring the obvious but if you can stretch your budget considerably to an i5 or i7, especially with the very imminant Haswell K product refresh, your sessions with power programs will be that much mercifully quicker and I would always try and shell out the extra if that's what you are going to be spending most of your time doing. Your time is precious. But getting back to the tight budget. You can of course overclock the 6800K but the power draw goes up - even at stock speeds the Intel i3 4330 comes in at 43.88W vs the 6800K at 81.25W (those are the figures from CPU Boss, CPU World has the AMD at 100w to 54w for the intel) - and you need to shell out for a CPU cooler for it (I wouldn't spend less than £15) and if you go for the budget cooler and more budget case fans than you initially planned for, you're still spending more than you might want for more noise. I have a low tolerance threshold for noise, though. I like my builds to be close to silent. I find fan noise makes me tired or agitated over time. Both the Intel and AMD should support that resolution depending on what outputs the motherboard you choose has and the connectivity of the monitor you use if it supports that resolution.

Thanks Noclouds, I can see you've done quite a bit of work on this already... I'm still toying with the specs, most of my gear is still stuck in a storage container right now and I'm working from a notebook, hence my longing for some bigger iron... The intended use was as an "everything else" box - no gaming but pretty much everything else, I store files on a couple of microservers and a VMWare box but I was hoping to build something small, relatively low idle power draw and yes you're very right on the noise factor. I guess this had me spinning when I saw a mention of this CPU going for $41.18-US - I can find a reference to that price on CPUBenchmark but can't find the vendor (I think it's an error now). I've never really worked with the APU configuration before, the chance to achieve some reasonable graphics power without a discrete card is attractive from size and power consumption perspectives; I'll certainly look further into the Intel options though.
#25

When it comes to any sort of photo/video editing, Intel is always far superior (at a premium, of course).
The only thing AMD GPU's/APU's are built for is budget gaming rigs.

Well now, that is just not true, simply you're take on it. FX 8350 is a great cpu for editing and about same cost or less than an i5. It has advantages and drawbacks against the intel. In the benchmarks which most are generally better ignored, the amd fares well and for serious multi-threaded tasks it even matches the i7 in some departments. Real world, the amd is very good for photo/video. Intel is not always far superior. It depends on your needs.
#26
CTPAHHIK
Agreeing with noclouds here.
My major concern is heat generated by 6800K. Take a look at power consumption @ idle and load here: http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/2014/04/24/amd-athlon-5350-kabini-review/8
i3-4330 is 54W
A8-7600 is 65W
A10-7850K is 95W
In idle it makes sense to pay less and get 6800K, but under load 125W heat dissipation is very unlikely with ITX case. System will throttle back and you will lose performance.
Actually according to this the load consumption is *much* higher – I’m presuming this is an overclock figure but this has the peak figure at 232!
http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/cpus/2013/06/05/amd-richland-review/8

CTPAHHIK
I think best bet will be i3-4350 - it comes with HD4600. It's more expensive than 6800K, but it also 10%-15% faster in every category, except graphics. Any board with FM2/FM2+ chipset will work with 6800K. Double check compatibility list on manufacturer website, but they all should be compatible. For office/web-dev/photoshop you don't need to be concerned with GPU. Either HD4600 or 6800K will be able to output 2 monitors with 2560x1600 resolution. Another power consumption comparison: http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/a10-7850k-a8-7600-kaveri,3725-15.html
Ok that last chart really shines the light on it – idle CPU draw is just too high in the AMD offerings compared to what Intel are achieving, I might stick with the stock Intel solutions for this rig looking at this particularly if both can drive that screen size as you’re saying.
#27
232W is an overclock - AMD A10-6800K (4.73GHz).
6800K doesn't run @ 4.73GHz

HD4600 overview - http://www.notebookcheck.net/Intel-HD-Graphics-4600.86106.0.html
#29
davocc
Noclouds
davocc
I’m looking to build a workstation that is to be used for non-gaming purposes (I have another dedicated to gaming) – I’d like to run it in a very small form factor mini-ITX config with perhaps 16gig of ram and hanging from the back of a VESA mount; I want it to idle at relatively low power though, one primary criteria is that its internal graphics configuration can properly drive a very high resolution screen; perhaps 2560x1600. I’m not looking to game on it but do most other things (office/web-dev/photoshop, etc.). Would I be expecting too much from the GPU in this package for this type of activity?
Also does anyone know what real-world idle power consumption is like for it? As pointed out above some review ratings are less than ideal.

I don't necessarily build the way that most people do, I start out with with motherboard features and how recent it is, re fitting the next generation of CPUs at a later date. My motherboard choice, then, won't tally with people trying to nail the absolute lowest price APU and motherboard combo, because I want a performance board with good upgrade potential. If you have no interest in overclocking at a later date, look at the H97 boards and save a bit of money but I would go for a Z97 motherboard (to date, I think the only M-ITX format Z97 board that features both the new M.2 SSD and new SATA Express is Asrock's offering) and I would go with the Intel i3-4330 that comes in at around the same price as the AMD 6800K. Despite being an i3 it has hyperthreading, so two cores but four threads and it comes with full Intel HD 4600 graphics, rather than HD 4400. The graphics component still falls well short of the performance of the AMD, which is solidly the AMD's strong suite, especially when you partner the 6800K with 2133 memory and overclock, but as you're not wanting to build a gaming rig and you want a particularly low power draw/low temps in a small box, I've put the emphasis on the CPU performance and upgradeability to the next generation of CPUs at a later date. In single threaded benchmarks it averages out at 36% faster than the 6800K. In many games, when partnered with a GPU, it come very close to the much more expensive 4690K in some but not all benchmarks, obviously depending on the game and the extent to which it can take advantage of the i5's extra cores, but it was interesting how close the i3 with hyperthreading ran it in a lot of games. Obviously the i5 and i7 is still a much better choice in productivity benchmarks but it's double the price even for the i5. In multi-threaded programs the 4330 betters the 6800K by 6% on average but that advantage goes up to 17% in memory intensive multi-threaded programs. Again, and sorry if I'm laboring the obvious but if you can stretch your budget considerably to an i5 or i7, especially with the very imminant Haswell K product refresh, your sessions with power programs will be that much mercifully quicker and I would always try and shell out the extra if that's what you are going to be spending most of your time doing. Your time is precious. But getting back to the tight budget. You can of course overclock the 6800K but the power draw goes up - even at stock speeds the Intel i3 4330 comes in at 43.88W vs the 6800K at 81.25W (those are the figures from CPU Boss, CPU World has the AMD at 100w to 54w for the intel) - and you need to shell out for a CPU cooler for it (I wouldn't spend less than £15) and if you go for the budget cooler and more budget case fans than you initially planned for, you're still spending more than you might want for more noise. I have a low tolerance threshold for noise, though. I like my builds to be close to silent. I find fan noise makes me tired or agitated over time. Both the Intel and AMD should support that resolution depending on what outputs the motherboard you choose has and the connectivity of the monitor you use if it supports that resolution.

Thanks Noclouds, I can see you've done quite a bit of work on this already... I'm still toying with the specs, most of my gear is still stuck in a storage container right now and I'm working from a notebook, hence my longing for some bigger iron... The intended use was as an "everything else" box - no gaming but pretty much everything else, I store files on a couple of microservers and a VMWare box but I was hoping to build something small, relatively low idle power draw and yes you're very right on the noise factor. I guess this had me spinning when I saw a mention of this CPU going for $41.18-US - I can find a reference to that price on CPUBenchmark but can't find the vendor (I think it's an error now). I've never really worked with the APU configuration before, the chance to achieve some reasonable graphics power without a discrete card is attractive from size and power consumption perspectives; I'll certainly look further into the Intel options though.

I would take a look at some of the comparative reviews over on Tomshardware to quantify what the benchmarks mean in time saved for your particular usage scenario. I love the AMD APUs, the 7800K and 6800K models, to bits, for entry level gaming machines using 2133Mhz memory in a not necessarily budget motherboard that lets me overclock that graphics part. I believe the 7800K's graphics part benefits from up to 2400Mhz memory. Many reviewers initially overlooked AMD's configuration advice and just reviewed the APU in budget boards using 1600Mhz memory, as low budget propositions. As I see it, your emphasis is for a productivity build. I remain an AMD fan but take a look at what the newer intel boards are offering and see if, for instance, M.2 SSD and SATA Express are worthwhile to you and whether upgrading to Broadwell at a later date are considerations. SATA Express ends, or at least more accurately substantially reduces, the SATA bottleneck that people have long been grumbling about, great if you are transferring huge video files around, but that we are still waiting on the new drives. For a productivity PC, so called, I would still look at i5, or better still i7 with hyperthreading, particularly if you are working on other people's projects where waits, to me, get to seem like sitting in the waiting room at the doctor's and they are running very late and there's nothing you can do to speed things up. I like AMD's FX range a lot for gaming builds, Linus tech tips on Youtube gave a balanced and often referenced 3 part comparative review of AMD FX vs Intel in two closely matched gaming rigs that showed, at that point certainly, that AMD FX chips are far from out of the game. For productivity situations the new Haswell CPUs seem to win through on most, though not all, benchmarks and you have the option of M-ITX format boards. AMD gave their APU range a nice home in the relatively features-up-to-date FM2+ boards but fans of the FX range, myself included, don't have much to cheer about, outside of an initially strangely overlooked recent Asrock midrange offering and performance offering, but that those are full ITX sized boards rather than the M-ITX you're interested in anyway. I appreciate that electricity per unit is more expensive over here than in the US but thermally speaking and central heating speaking, whatever people's AMD/Intel overclocking muses, I have a box room gaming/study to heat, so as long as I can keep the CPU cool, I welcome that vented heat and turning down the central heating a notch.
#30
AMD desperately need to get the a8 7600 out the door and as close to £80as they can. If only it came out in march like it was supposed to, not end of year when its a good 6 months too late.
#31
Thanks Noclouds, power consumption over the evening is a primary consideration - I plan to have the gaming rig running and this one sitting to one side. Power is expensive here but trust me you've seen *nothing* like what they have in Australia - a few years ago power was 3x the price it was in Canada, it's significantly more now... Hence my worries about power consumption, by myself I was hitting power bills of around £150 per calendar month (that was with no central heating of course!). Systems that are on all day or for long periods benefit hugely from dips in power usage and output much less heat which will be a big deal ultimately.
#32
CTPAHHIK
232W is an overclock - AMD A10-6800K (4.73GHz).
6800K doesn't run @ 4.73GHz

HD4600 overview - http://www.notebookcheck.net/Intel-HD-Graphics-4600.86106.0.html

I did suspect that was an overclock, still it's a nasty figure. Are the 4600's figures there the same as a desktop chip?
#33
jukkie
ws007
i`ve used this chip in three pc`s that were going to photographers,

this chip was practically build for photoshop... ..HOT
When it comes to any sort of photo/video editing, Intel is always far superior (at a premium, of course).
The only thing AMD GPU's/APU's are built for is budget gaming rigs.

please go away, and stop giving advice on subjects that you clearly have no understanding, as seen from your last statement
#34
the big resource hog that you want to run is photoshop, and having plenty of ram is a good idea, but you would be hard pushed to find a itx board with 4 ddr3 sockets, unless you were thinking 2x8Gb simms which wold be expensive. as for the gpu its ideal for image editing in photoshop, but not so much in video work:

http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/charts/cpu-charts-2013/compare,3171.html?prod[6238]=on&prod[6661]=on&prod[6330]=on

take note of the two photoshop benchmarks one for video and one for images

http://www.box.co.uk/Intel_Core_i3-4330_Dual_Core_Socket_LGA__1449620.html

http://www.box.co.uk/Intel_Core_i5-4430_Quad_Core_Socket_LGA__1351631.html
#35
Noclouds
davocc
I’m looking to build a workstation that is to be used for non-gaming purposes (I have another dedicated to gaming) – I’d like to run it in a very small form factor mini-ITX config with perhaps 16gig of ram and hanging from the back of a VESA mount; I want it to idle at relatively low power though, one primary criteria is that its internal graphics configuration can properly drive a very high resolution screen; perhaps 2560x1600. I’m not looking to game on it but do most other things (office/web-dev/photoshop, etc.). Would I be expecting too much from the GPU in this package for this type of activity?
Also does anyone know what real-world idle power consumption is like for it? As pointed out above some review ratings are less than ideal.

I don't necessarily build the way that most people do, I start out with with motherboard features and how recent it is, re fitting the next generation of CPUs at a later date. My motherboard choice, then, won't tally with people trying to nail the absolute lowest price APU and motherboard combo, because I want a performance board with good upgrade potential. If you have no interest in overclocking at a later date, look at the H97 boards and save a bit of money but I would go for a Z97 motherboard (to date, I think the only M-ITX format Z97 board that features both the new M.2 SSD and new SATA Express is Asrock's offering, the ASUS has just M.2) and I would go with the Intel i3-4330 that comes in at around the same price as the AMD 6800K. It's an i3 but it has hyperthreading, so two cores but four threads and it comes with full Intel HD 4600 graphics, rather than HD 4400. The graphics component still falls well short of the performance of the AMD, which is solidly the AMD's strong suite, especially when you partner the 6800K with 2133 memory and overclock the graphics part, in a performance motherboard that supports it, but as you're not wanting to build a gaming rig and you want a particularly low power draw/low temps in a small box, I've put the emphasis on the CPU performance and upgradeability to the next generation of CPUs at a later date. In single threaded benchmarks it averages out at 36% faster than the 6800K. In many games, when partnered with a GPU, it come very close to the much more expensive 4690K in some but not all benchmarks, obviously depending on the game and the extent to which it can take advantage of the i5's extra cores, but it was interesting how close the i3 with hyperthreading ran it in a lot of games on Tomshardware. Obviously the i5 and i7 is still a much better choice in productivity benchmarks but it's double the price even for the i5. In multi-threaded programs the 4330 betters the 6800K by 6% on average but that advantage goes up to 17% in memory intensive multi-threaded programs. Again, and sorry if I'm laboring the obvious but if you can stretch your budget considerably to an i5 or i7, especially with the very imminant Haswell K product refresh that's holding back my builds, your sessions with power programs will be that much mercifully quicker and I would always try and shell out the extra if that's what you are going to be spending most of your time doing. Our time is precious. But getting back to the tight budget. You can of course overclock the 6800K, though for a decent motherboard board you want to raise that attractive bargain combo price a bit to comfortably handle that overclock, but the power draw goes up - even at stock speeds the Intel i3 4330 comes in at 43.88W vs the 6800K at 81.25W (those are the figures from CPU Boss, CPU World has the AMD at 100w to 54w for the intel) - and you need to shell out for a CPU cooler for it (I wouldn't spend less than £15, though more if a tiny case) and if you go for the budget cooler and more budget case fans than you initially planned for, you're still spending more than you might want for more noise. I have a low tolerance threshold for noise, though. I like my builds to be close to silent. I find fan noise makes me tired or agitated over time. Both the Intel and AMD should support that resolution depending on what outputs the motherboard you choose has and the connectivity of the monitor you use if it supports that resolution.

I went with Hot price, for an APU-only gaming rig with 2133Mhz memory to push the graphics part in a good overclockers board.

thanks for all your info and thoughts, but could you do a favour for those of us like me with bad eyes and put some space`s in your posts, ;) thanks
#36
If you get this from Ebuyer you can sell the copy of Thief and the CPU should be even cheaper!
#37
ws007
jukkie
ws007
i`ve used this chip in three pc`s that were going to photographers,

this chip was practically build for photoshop... ..HOT
When it comes to any sort of photo/video editing, Intel is always far superior (at a premium, of course).
The only thing AMD GPU's/APU's are built for is budget gaming rigs.
please go away, and stop giving advice on subjects that you clearly have no understanding, as seen from your last statement

No understanding? Funny that, I've been custom building PC's for multiple uses for over 20 years, and have been a successful professional in the IT hardware industry for 15 years. I know EXACTLY what I'm talking about.
What makes it funnier is that YOU posted a link to the Tomshardware review showing this APU getting beaten by the i3 4330 in almost all of the photo/video benchmarks...the very benchmarks you pointed out trying to prove this is better than an Intel CPU in that area.
The i3 was superior in most of the benchmarks, the 6800k was better in just 2, and although one was video transcoding in Handbrake, it was only by a few seconds. The other 6800k win was a Chess game...so that can be completely ignored.

So before telling someone have no understanding on the subject, you might want to learn how to compare benchmarks (if you're too dim to figure out what I'm talking about, if a benchmark is measured in seconds, LOWER is better...now go look at those benchmarks again).


As for you telling me to go away, how about no? Take your own advice until you can read a simple benchmark correctly.
Here's some pointers -
Measured in MB/s - higher is better
Measured in score/points - higher is better
Measured in time - lower is better
Measured in FPS - higher is better
Measured in Watts - lower is better

Get it yet? Or do you need some time for your mistake to sink in?





Edited By: jukkie on Jun 26, 2014 12:02: .
#38
Image editing is more limited by I/O limitations in many cases and the amount of RAM in a system.

Remember a lot of those test systems are running SSDs.

Also,some tests like the audio tests are artificial scenarios.

Toms Hardware let it slip by mistake a while back,where they said the iTunes encode was from a RAM disk.

This is because the disk drive and the interface are the biggest limitations when encoding music from CDs,so much so that on audio forums people are more worried about what optical drive they are using for ripping CDs.



Edited By: KITTYBOTS on Jun 26, 2014 12:19
#39
jukkie
ws007
jukkie
ws007
i`ve used this chip in three pc`s that were going to photographers,

this chip was practically build for photoshop... ..HOT
When it comes to any sort of photo/video editing, Intel is always far superior (at a premium, of course).
The only thing AMD GPU's/APU's are built for is budget gaming rigs.
please go away, and stop giving advice on subjects that you clearly have no understanding, as seen from your last statement

No understanding? Funny that, I've been custom building PC's for multiple uses for over 20 years, and have been a successful professional in the IT hardware industry for 15 years. I know EXACTLY what I'm talking about.
What makes it funnier is that YOU posted a link to the Tomshardware review showing this APU getting beaten by the i3 4330 in almost all of the photo/video benchmarks...the very benchmarks you pointed out trying to prove this is better than an Intel CPU in that area.
The i3 was superior in most of the benchmarks, the 6800k was better in just 2, although one was video transcoding in Handbrake, it was only by a few seconds. The other 6800k win was a Chess game...so that can be completely ignored.

So before telling someone have no understanding on the subject, you might want to learn how to compare benchmarks (if you're too dim to figure out what I'm talking about, if a benchmark is measured in seconds, LOWER is better...now go look at those benchmarks again).


yes i do understand benchmarks

my objection to your comment was the vast generalisation that INTEL is better than AMD

this chip has far superior gfx than the i3 or i5, so negates having to buy a gfx card (unless you plan to play games)

and is £3 cheaper than the i3-4330.

so if money is no object then you are completely correct,

but as this is a site about finding bargains your sweeping statements are out of place here.



ha just spotted your first comment,

jukkie
What? No 'Cold, not Intel' comments?

You people disappoint me...

did not realise you were fishing, well done you got me, i forget to not feed the trolls
#40
ws007
jukkie
ws007
jukkie
ws007
i`ve used this chip in three pc`s that were going to photographers,

this chip was practically build for photoshop... ..HOT
When it comes to any sort of photo/video editing, Intel is always far superior (at a premium, of course).
The only thing AMD GPU's/APU's are built for is budget gaming rigs.
please go away, and stop giving advice on subjects that you clearly have no understanding, as seen from your last statement

No understanding? Funny that, I've been custom building PC's for multiple uses for over 20 years, and have been a successful professional in the IT hardware industry for 15 years. I know EXACTLY what I'm talking about.
What makes it funnier is that YOU posted a link to the Tomshardware review showing this APU getting beaten by the i3 4330 in almost all of the photo/video benchmarks...the very benchmarks you pointed out trying to prove this is better than an Intel CPU in that area.
The i3 was superior in most of the benchmarks, the 6800k was better in just 2, although one was video transcoding in Handbrake, it was only by a few seconds. The other 6800k win was a Chess game...so that can be completely ignored.

So before telling someone have no understanding on the subject, you might want to learn how to compare benchmarks (if you're too dim to figure out what I'm talking about, if a benchmark is measured in seconds, LOWER is better...now go look at those benchmarks again).


yes i do understand benchmarks

my objection to your comment was the vast generalisation that INTEL is better than AMD

this chip has far superior gfx than the i3 or i5, so negates having to buy a gfx card (unless you plan to play games)

and is £3 cheaper than the i3-4330.

so if money is no object then you are completely correct,

but as this is a site about finding bargains your sweeping statements are out of place here.



ha just spotted your first comment,

jukkie
What? No 'Cold, not Intel' comments?

You people disappoint me...

did not realise you were fishing, well done you got me, i forget to not feed the trolls

Can you not think straight today?

1) I didn't generalise about Intel being better an AMD, it's a fact proven in benchmarks, like the one you posted a link to yourself, that comparable (comparable in their ranges, e.g low, mid, high range) Intel CPU's frequently perform better than AMD, but you will have to pay a slight premium for the better performance.

In the 2 CPU's mentioned (6800k vs i3 4330) the performance % increase is greater than the cost % increase, giving the i3 better performance per £ spent.
Then you take power consumption into consideration, and you'll find in a couple of years use you'll have saved money buy buying the Intel due to it's better power effeciency.


2) My first comment about no one posting 'Cold, not Intel' was obviously mocking the very trolls you're accusing me of being. I was simply surprised no one had said it yet, and anyone with any common sense would have realised that...
Surely if I was a troll baiting for responses I would have simply said 'Cold, not Intel'?


Just to add, if I was an Intel fanboy, I wouldn't have just built an AMD based rig for my Nephew...


I think you need to go sit in the shade and cool off, this heat is obviously having adverse effects on your thinking.


Edited By: jukkie on Jun 26, 2014 13:31: .

Post a Comment

You don't need an account to leave a comment. Just enter your email address. We'll keep it private.

...OR log in with your social account

...OR comment using your social account

Top of Page
Thanks for your comment! Keep it up!
We just need to have a quick look and it will be live soon.
The community is happy to hear your opinion! Keep contributing!