AMD A10-6800K Richland 4.1 GHz (4.4GHz Turbo) Socket FM2 100W Quad-Core Desktop Processor - Black Edition AMD Radeon HD 8670D

Pros: + Bundles a CPU and GPU together in one "chip"

+ Console level graphics and performance on the cheap for PCs.

+ Approximate to FX4100, X4 750k, Phenom II X4 955 CPUs, and 5770/6670/7750, GTS 450/GT 545/GT 640 GPUs

+ DDR3-2133 memory officially supported but DDR3-2400 speeds should be easily attainable.

+ Unlocked for easy overclocking.

+ You may or may not get a stable CPU OC of 4.8-5.0 GHz. I was only able to get up to 4.6 GHz while remaining stable under any sustained load (Prime95, etc.) with the memory at DDR3-2400 speeds.

+ GPU overclocked to 1169 MHz, a 37% increase. This translates to a 10-25% boost in most games. Which you'll need if you're serious about gaming on this.

+ Power draw is 175 watts while overclocked under Prime95; idles at 55 watts. At stock settings with memory at 2133 load is 140 watts under Prime95, idles at 45 watts.

Now for benchmarks. all results are from 4.6GHz and 1169 MHz OC with 2400 memory speeds:
1. Bioshock Infinite - DX10/11 @1080 Medium to High = 30-40 FPS, @720 High to Ultra 20-30 FPS. Both very playable. However, I should note that this game required me to increase the video memory to 2GBs in order to not get texture filtering problems. This is the only game that I had this issue and I'm not certain as to what is causing it.
2. Skyrim - High preset @1080 = 25-40 FPS playable with minor slowdown, 720 resolution is recommended for flawless playback.
3. Diablo III - @1080 all High with medium shadows = 40-60 FPS, very playable.
4. Just Cause 2 - @1080 Medium to Very High = 30-60 FPS, very playable.
5. Hitman Absolution - @1080 Normal preset = 24-30 FPS, very playable.
6. Sims 3 all expansions - @1080 Medium to High preset = 40-60 FPS, playable.
7. Far Cry Blood Dragon - DX11 @1080 High = 25-34 FPS, playable
8. Sleeping Dogs - @720 Medium to High = 35-65 FPS. Very playable.
9. Civilization V - DX10/11 @1080 High/2xMSAA = 25-30 FPS. DX9 @1080 High = 30-60 FPS. Playable but suffered from slow tile loading.
10. Saints Row The Third - DX10/11 @720 Medium to Ultra = 25-30 FPS, very playable. DX9 @720 Max settings = 40-60 FPS, very playable.
11. Battlefield 3 - @1080 Medium to High = 20-30 FPS, playable.
12. Tomb Raider - @720 Normal = 55-70 FPS, very playable.

As you can see, the results put it on par or much better than their console counterparts for most games. Not bad at all for an integrated graphics solution. However, if you're not going to overclock this APU you can expect a loss of 2-12 FPS for most games and 2-10 FPS if you only go with DDR3-2133 memory speeds.

+ While it's not going to win any medals for CPU intensive applications it isn't going to be the biggest loser, either. It ranks about low to middle of the pack.

+ I contacted AMD with a few questions and troubleshooting scenarios and the response times were pretty great; Averaging at 1-3 days per response with each one being direct and insightful.

Cons: - Richland is virtually identical to Trinity in every way with only slightly better clocks at lower voltages. More refinement instead of evolution. Averages about 10-15% better performance over Trinity. It also has the same graphics core despite having a different name. Which is simply shameless by AMD. Richland is basically what Trinity should have been if AMD didn't rush it out.

- I only came across two games that were unplayable:

1. Far Cry 3 - DX10/11 @1080 low = 15-20 FPS. DX9 low @1080 = 29-40 FPS somewhat playable. Turning down the resolution to 720 adds FPS but makes the game so ugly and doesn't really smooth gameplay that it simply isn't worth it.
2. Grand Theft Auto IV - Low to Medium preset @720 = 20-60 FPS, somewhat playable. Medium preset @1080 = 25-30 FPS but constant stuttering and slowdown. GTAIV simply suffers from a bad port and the APU just isn't strong enough in any category to compensate for that.

- Dual Graphics do not scale well enough to warrant the extra costs. If you already have a 6670 then it certainly doesn't hurt, but if you're going to intentionally buy one to have dual graphics you're 100% without a doubt better off getting a regular CPU and dedicated graphics card.

- The stock cooler is the cheapest of the cheap and the fan makes a high frequency whine when running at "quiet" speeds. Even at stock settings the cooler had trouble keeping the APU cool at full loads. Basically, you'll need a new heatsink if you have ears or plan even modest overclocks, such as running DDR3-2400 memory.
At DDR3-2400 speeds the stock cooler couldn't handle the APU at even 50% utilization before throttling due to heat. This is fairly offensive since there's no OEM sku and you are paying for a completely useless heatsink while having to pay for a new, adequate one to replace it.

- Temps hovered around 40-60C at various loads both overclocked and at stock settings. It's not hot but also not the coolest. Thermal barrier is 75C according to AMD.

- GPU sensor seems to run 10C hotter than the CPU when overclocked. Depending on your monitoring software you may run into trouble by pushing it too hard. 65C could mean 75C for the GPU, which is its limit.

- This APU's CPU will bottleneck most medium to high end dedicated graphics cards. So, if you plan to get this with the intention of upgrading later it's important to remember this.

- The FM2 platform basically dies with this APU. FM2+ is coming out later this year and it requires two extra pins. So, that means that if you buy this APU now, while only FM2 boards are available, you'll have to upgrade your motherboard if you want to upgrade your APU later. This isn't this APU's problem, obviously, but it is something to be mindful of since the entire point of APUs is to "save" money.

- Needing a new heatsink and at least 2133 memory slowly chips away at the savings vs performance levels.

- AMD's website is awful, awful, awful if you're trying to find real informatio

Overall Review: You're basically paying for a CPU that competes with $70-$100 CPUs and a GPU that competes with $60-$90 graphics cards. Which makes perfect sense, but that may get lost in all the hype about APUs from both AMD and its fans. It's neither a miracle worker nor an outright disappointment. Its GPU performance is still better than Intel's offerings, including Haswell, but its CPU performance is a good deal worse than Intel's quad core solutions only matching Intel's i3 dual-cores.

Its biggest strength is for HTPCs or ITX form factors since you don't have to worry about as much noise, heat or space of an extra graphics card. While my Cons list is large it's more nitpicking and realities than actual flaws with this APU.

Overall, this is a fun little chip to play with and I look forward to AMD's future APUs. Depending on your expectations and demands this can make for some really fun and compact builds without sacrificing performance entirely. At the same rate, you can do better for just as much or very close to the price depending on your specific needs and gaming intentions.

Test Setup:
Windows 7 Professional 64bit
ASUS F2A85-M PRO motherboard
8GB G.Skill Ripjaws DDR3-2400 memory with 1GB reserved for graphics
AMD 6800k CPU OC'd to 4.6GHz and GPU to 1169MHz
Tuniq Universal 120 Heatsink cooler
Rosewill ATX Tower Case
Sandisk Ultra Plus 128GB SSD
Ambient Temperature a constant 20C

Pros: Onboard GPU is on par with a ddr3 6670 card, and with great ram and some overclocking it can compete with the ddr5 version. That's extremely impressive.

The CPU is directly competitive with an Ivybridge i3(only losing marginally in single threaded benchmarks), and is competitive with a 3.5Ghz overclocked Llano counterpart.

Runs very cool at idle, and is more energy efficient than any of it's quad core AMD counterparts.

Cons: Laughably close in performance to it's trinity counterpart. Most, if not all comparable trinity models will overclock to the stock richland spec without issue, and costs $20 less.

Still uses almost double the wattage of an ivybridge i3 under load, and about 50% more than the i5, which outperforms it.

Little overclocking headroom if you're not running water. Requires large voltage/wattage increases to make even incremental overclocks, and with the rapidly changing p-states it makes overclocking far less predictable than it realistically should be.

Relatively new hardware means that many temperature readings are potentially inaccurate, which really means you're flying blind. It's hard to feel comfortable when at 4.1Ghz you're at 1.3v, at 4.4 you're at 1.45, and at 4.6 you have to be at 1.5v. You'd likely have to approach 1.8v to get to a 5Ghz overclock.

What's worse is that the apu doesn't feel snappier when it's overclocked, it actually feels more sluggish. Benchmark results barely change, and without a deep and extensive understanding of how modern voltage regulation works on today's motherboards, you're going to generate a tremendous amount of extra heat. Even with a good understanding, you'll be generating a lot of extra heat for a relatively small gain.

Overall Review: This is the hardest review I've ever had to do. This makes either a fantastic HTPC or extreme budget gaming APU, but is worthless in almost any other conceivable scenario.

If you intend to upgrade in any way in the future, you're better off going with either an FX series or an Intel cpu, and saving up for better parts later. There are a million combinations that would work within the same budget, and the downsides of this and lack of expandability combined with the high cost of both the APU and FM2 mothboards in general just makes this bad call.

Maybe if they set it up so the onboard video could be paired to any amd gpu, or any gpu at all, it would be infinitely more valuable. Maybe if they just updated it so that it could be tied to a 7750/7770. If they'd have kept the FM1 socket for all three generations, they'd have a much better argument on their hands.

The simple answer is that if you're a gamer and you have anything that's less than 4 years old and has 4 threads, this isn't enough of an upgrade to merit purchasing. If you already have an FM2 board and a quad core, it's not worth upgrading.

In fact, the only situations that merit upgrading to this is if your computer is running a single or dual-core processor. That's the only situation where this is a true improvement. Otherwise, you'll see either better improvements or the same improvements with other benefits for the same price(or in some cases even less).

I see why they released these for laptops. The increased p-states and the wattage reduction are HUGE gains in the mobile department. At lower clock speeds, their are tremendous benefits to be had.

A perfect example would be the 6700. With the same specs as a 5800k, it runs at a much lower wattage and runs noticeably cooler. Both of those benefits are all but neutralized by the simple bump up to the 6800k. It actually runs at a higher wattage than 5800k, despite it's improved technology. Considering laptops inherently run at lower speeds, there are tremendous benefits to be had, while the desktop part almost feels like a ripoff.

To put it plainly, if you're buying a new laptop, Richland is the best product AMD has ever put out. If you want to build a new gaming rig, purchase anything else. Go trinity, go llano. Go FX, go intel. You can even buy older parts like the phenom, and you're still getting a better performance per dollar than you would with this chip.

I'm sorry, AMD. I'm a huge fan, and I've been around since the k6 days. I just feel completely let down on this one.