AMD A10-5800K Pro Reviews

We dedicated only the first chapters of our review to Gigabyte GA-F2A85X-UP4 exclusively, but then we didn’t find any causes for complaints, so the board is good. However, we talked much more about the AMD A10-8500K processor, and therefore the question is, can be conclude that the CPU is not that much of a success after all? Yes, this is exactly what I think. I honestly do not understand those reviewers who praised the pretty slow and very power-hungry CPU in their articles. Was it for the relatively high performance of its integrated graphics core? Yes, it was fast indeed, but who needs it? Let’s split the users into two imaginary groups: The first group is the users who are barely interested in games, and the second – the ones who play regularly and enthusiastically. The ideal fit for the first user group will be Intel processors, because they are fast, energy-efficient and their graphics is powerful enough for an occasional solitaire. The second user group will have to go for a discrete graphics card, which will pair best with Intel processors, again. So, who will be the target group for the relatively powerful integrated graphics of such processors as AMD A10-5800K? Its graphics capabilities are obviously excessive for entry-level gaming, but are still insufficient for contemporary high-end titles. As for A8, A6 and A4 processors, the situation is slightly different here. Yes, their integrated graphics is slower, but nevertheless, it is sufficient for many “casual” games, plus they boast significantly lower power consumption and more appealing price. The top processor in the Trinity lineup, however, is somewhat out of place. It is too energy-inefficient for inexpensive and compact systems, but doesn’t offer competitive performance.

Nearly five months on from the release of the laptop-bound Trinity APU and just in time for the beginning of the holiday season, AMD outs the desktop variant of its latest CPU-and-GPU technology. The transition from 35W mobile part to 100W desktop enables AMD to increase the Trinity APU's speeds considerably, with the range-topping A10-5800K punching in at a maximum 4.2GHz CPU and 800MHz GPU. Understanding that the CPU architecture is something of a side-step while the integrated GPU is plain better than anything that has gone before, the £100 APU provides a solid fit for everyday applications - generally matching Intel's comparable processor in CPU-intensive tests and handing it a Bane-esque beating in GPU-related tasks. We'd absolutely purchase a desktop Trinity APU over a previous-generation Llano, and while the chip has the technical merit to compete against Intel's Core series, we recommend AMD take another look at introducing yet more lower-wattage models and incentivising motherboard partners to marry them up with price-conscious Mini-ITX boards.

The AMD A10-5800K is designated as an "Accelerated Processing Unit," which basically denotes a CPU coupled with integrated graphics. This particular SKU is the A-series flagship for 2012. CPU performance is on par with the FX 4170, but of course the A10-5800K also packs integrated graphics. The A10-5800K features HD 7660D graphics, but although the HD 7000 designation might suggest it features the latest tech, it is actually based on AMD’s Northern Islands architecture, used on the HD 6000 series. However, although the HD 7660D is not a Southern Islands part, it is still the fastest integrated GPU around.

Before we dive further into the challenges facing AMD’s Fusion strategy, let’s take a closer look at what the A10-5800K was able to achieve, and where it fell flat. In terms of raw central processing tasks Trinity is a mixed bag. Its Piledriver CPU cores have allowed for a drastic clock speed improvement over Llano but that ~30% bump hasn’t translated into significantly better performance. The A10-5800K is at best 15% faster than the previous flagship APU and in some cases is notably worse than an A8-3870K due to Trinity’s lack of legacy instruction set support. Newer applications do tend to highlight Trinity’s potential but performance justifications for the removal of legacy instruction sets are few and far between. One of the main critiques leveled against Llano was its poor single thread performance and Trinity’s Piledriver cores have allowed for improvements in this area. The move towards next gen CPU cores also benefits gaming performance where the A10-5800K is able to stay well ahead of the A8-3870K, and by quite a bit in most cases. Despite better in-game framerates than Llano, Trinity still looses to Intel’s similarly priced Ivy Bridge and Sandy Bridge processors in every title, making the A10-5800K a poor choice for gamers using discrete GPUs.

Take a CPU. Cram in a graphics core. What d'ya got? If you're AMD, it's a Fusion processor. That sounds futuristic and is indeed the expected shape of things to come for the PC. More than that, the future is expected to eventually hold nothing but PCs based on system-on-a-chip (SoC) devices. It's already happened to phones and tablets. But here's the thing. All of Intel's mainstream PC processors are, in fact, already Fusion chips with a fully functioning graphics core. Meanwhile, AMD's current Fusion chips are resolutely designed as low power or low-budget chips. And that even applies to this latest Fusion effort from AMD, the chip formerly known under the Trinity code name, the A10-5800K.

The new A10-5800K is a far better CPU than the A8-3870K, and it costs less than what the A8-3870K did when it was launched. Both processing performance and gaming performance were improved on the new processor. On gaming, the A10-5800K leaves its main competitor, the Core i3-3220, in the dust, as it is between two and three times faster. In fact, the A10-5800K is faster than a GeForce GT 440 for games, making it an outstanding solution for those willing to build an entry-level gaming system on a budget. You have to understand, however, that depending on the game, you won’t be able to achieve a good frame rate (i.e., a good gaming experience) even when lowering all image quality settings to their minimums. From the games we ran, we achieved a terrific frame rate on StarCraft II (almost 80 frames per second), a good frame rate on FarCry 2 (around 40 frames per second), and a playable frame rate on DiRT3 (36 frames per second). However, on Battlefield 3 and Borderlands 2 the frame rate was below 20. You would also face such limitations when using entry-level video cards, and, as mentioned, the A10-5800K was faster than our entry-level GeForce GT 440. Similarly to what we learned with the previous generation of AMD APUs, the A10-5800K lags behind its competitors in general processing performance. The Core i3-3220 is faster than the A10-5800K for day-to-day operations. Therefore, if you won’t play any games at all and want to build a powerful entry-level PC, we recommend the Core i3-3220 instead.

The AMD A10-5800K will easily run your day to day applications without an issue and if you're looking to do some light gaming you're golden. The AMD A10-5800K featuring the AMD Radeon HD 7660D you will be able to run the latest DirectX 11 games with some of the eye candy turned on.

Trinity is competitive, and that is what we like to see. Intel is not slowing down much, but rumors have Haswell being somewhat delayed. This could potentially open up a window for AMD to release Steamroller and surprise the market again. But for the time being Trinity will fit in nicely at $122 and below. The strong point again for this particular processor is that of the platform as a whole. A user can get quite a lot of computer for less money than when using a comparable Intel processor.

I poured out my thoughts about these APUs out on the front page. I like them a lot. Intel simply doesn't offer anything remotely close for the same budget when it comes to 3D performance. They aren't really meant to compete with Intel anyway, so you are left with two choices when it comes to low power and entry-level stuff, and that is a choice between CPU horsepower or GPU horsepower. Clearly, there is a large divide when those two are considered. The fact that CPU performance isn't quite up to Intel levels is going to upset some, but I see that as a non-issue. You have got to make certain concession in order to squeeze so much 3D powers into such a small space on such a power budget, and what AMD ultimately offers suits me just fine. I cannot help but think of how many office PC users would love to get their hands on something like this considering the fact that multi-monitor support is easy to deal. What they have available now is greatly underpowered in comparison. Those boxes could use this upgrade, and the introduction of Windows8 might just be enough to push many offices in the direction of AMD's A-series APUs.

I have been trying to think of how to sum up what AMD dropped off here this week and I think a defining moment came while I was playing DiRT 3 at 43 FPS with settings on high at 1080p. I looked over at the large windowed case that I assembled this new platform in and saw only a motherboard and some memory looking back at me. What AMD has engineered here is a rather amazing platform. If you need a multitasking center and a fully featured multimedia center, and workstation, and a gaming machine, well here you go. I was just afforded a look at the retail pricing for the flagship of the A-series and it will be available for $122. By my calculations that means for around $400 you can put together all of the above. The A85X chipset is equally impressive with its range of features and possibilities with eight SATA 6Gb/s ports, the ability to drive three monitors from the motherboard using the integrated graphics, the ability to double your graphics power with a $50-$80 discrete card to work in tandem with the on-die graphics and the list goes on. The CPU half of the die has been improved but is not going to set the world on fire and against Intel it is on par with the i3s. It leaves me wondering why the L3 is missing in Trinity, and what the 8MB of L3 will mean to Vishera.

Overall, Trinity appears to iterate on the success of Llano, providing an affordable package that offers enough processing speed for most users while supplying sufficient graphics muscle for most of today's PC games on modest settings.

While the A10-5800K is priced for $129.99 (Newegg), it certainly brings with it more value that similarly priced Intel processors in my opinion. The reason for this lies solely in the GPU. The CPU side of the house is pretty even, but slightly behind the competition. The GPU side, however, destroys the IGP on the i3-3220. Even though I didn't have an i7-3770K on hand to check against the Intel HD4000 graphics, from looking at the benchmarks, I can pretty definitely say that the A10-5800K graphics will far outperform the HD4000. Simply because of that superior graphics performance, I have to give the A10-5800K high value marks for the price.

Perhaps the key point to take away from our findings is that, while the unequivocal recommendation of the A10-5800K isn't going to find its way into this review, AMD has done exactly what it needed to do following the success of Llano. Trinity is much better in games while consuming less power, and is generally significantly faster elsewhere too. More importantly, it seems to have learned some valuable lessons from the graphics card market in pricing its products as keenly as possible. The 7000-series cards are currently winning in practically every price point, and AMD has both filled shelves with its new APUs and hit the nail on the head with pricing, which should give Intel something to think about for the time being. Outside of games, there's still the issue of low-end Core-i3s and even Pentiums giving the A10-5800K a bloody nose in the odd benchmark - Trinty can still struggle in our image editing benchmark, although it finally holds its own when it comes to our video editing and multi-tasking tests, which is very encouraging. Trinity is far from a Core i5-beater though. Yes it might have a huge lead in games when compared to the HD 4000 graphics of the Core i5-3570K, but that kind of comparison isn't one that sits well with us, especially given the Intel CPU's utter dominance elsewhere. Intel also has the advantage when it comes to making a choice, especially if you're not planning on building a gaming-focussed PC. LGA1155 has a far better upgrade path in that the current Pentium and Core-i3 line-up are the bottom of the pile. Should you need more horsepower in a year or two, you could sell your Core i3 and get a Core i5-3570. With Socket FM2, the A10-5800K is as fast as it gets, and AMD is only looking at adding one more generation. If you don't plan on upgrading the system for a while, and just want a good value way to play games at half decent settings (even better settings if you're not talking about the likes of Battlefield 3) then Socket FM2 begins to make more sense. The bad news is that Trinity is still limited to a rather niche area - good frame rates for around £100 and performance that doesn't suck at everything else. The good news is the A10-5800K fits that niche perfectly.

Improved 2D performance and some proper on-chip graphics power make this a mid-range processor to be reckoned with

For builders looking for gaming abilities on a budget, the A10-5800K is a good chip for the price, offering up playable frame rates for today's demanding games at reduced settings and resolutions. You won't have to dial back as much as you would with a similarly priced Intel chip, or last year's A8 APUs. And if you're looking to build a compact media PC, one of the lesser Trinity APUs should also be a good fit. In that particular case, though, you likely won't want to opt for the A10-5800K, as its power draw is pretty high, meaning you'll have to contend with heat and fan-noise issues. While we like the A10-5800K, particularly for its vastly improved graphics, we still wish its CPU performance were better. Sure, it's a bit better than a somewhat lower-priced Intel Core i3-2100, but that chip's more than a year old, and in the bottom of Intel's Core stack. Even if it stands up okay to the newer Core i3-3200 chips, AMD, with the high end of its APU line in the A10, is still competing only with the low end of its rival's Core line. And while the A10's graphics are definitely a big step up from what you get with a low-end Intel chip, the Intel chips use less than half the power and are competitive in terms of CPU performance, while having half the cores and lower clock speeds than the A10-5800K.