Locked or unlocked refers to the multiplier, one variable in calculating CPU clock speed (base clock * multiplier = clock speed).The A10-6700 is not unlocked, so can it make use of DDR3-2400 even though it only supports DDR3-1866?
Locked or unlocked refers to the multiplier, one variable in calculating CPU clock speed (base clock * multiplier = clock speed).
It has nothing to do with memory speed. As long as BIOS supports it, you will be fine.
The multiplier and the base clock are two different things. The base clock is never locked, but it can be difficult to ramp it up more than 5MHz on modern systems.Is not the memory speed calculated as a multiple of the base clock as well? With the memory controller being integrated into the APU which has all its multipliers locked I'm not really seeing how you could set it faster...
Please explain in more detail.
Since I'm not an expert in AMD CPUs (because they suck), I would conservatively estimate they'd handle up to 2000MHz stably.
Also, once you hit 1600MHz, the diminishing returns... diminish. We're talking a ~1.5% performance boost at most going from 1600MHz to 2400MHz.
No. Multiplier has nothing to do with memory speed. Memory speed is regulated by integrated memory controller, which does not depend on multiplier. You set the memory speed in BIOS, and you also adjust voltage and timing until you find one that is stable by doing stress test.Is not the memory speed calculated as a multiple of the base clock as well? With the memory controller being integrated into the APU which has all its multipliers locked I'm not really seeing how you could set it faster...
Please explain in more detail.
Oh... a standalone AMD proc in a system...AMD can handle (by default) much higher memory clocks than Intel. Mostly because of their emphasis on iGPU, which benefits greatly from greater bandwidth.
In purely CPU related situations. The A10-6700 is an APU.
Oh... a standalone AMD proc in a system...
If you have the money for ridiculous 2400MHz RAM, I would much rather put it to use buying an Intel system.
I could only ever justify getting an AMD APU if it was a dedicated video encoding rig.
No. Multiplier has nothing to do with memory speed. Memory speed is regulated by integrated memory controller, which does not depend on multiplier. You set the memory speed in BIOS, and you also adjust voltage and timing until you find one that is stable by doing stress test.
Multiplier only affects CPU clock speed. You do NOT want to mess with base clock, since everything is tied to it (CPU, IMC, SATA, PCIe, USB, etc). Not only is it hard to increase base clock, increase too much and you can face all sorts of instability (data corruption, BSoD, etc).
An AMD proc? In an HTPC? While that's fine on paper, you haven't taken into account just how much power AMD procs consume, and by extension, how much heat they put out.This will be an HTPC in this case.
Why are processors rated as having a maximum memory speed then if you can just set the speed as fast as the board allows?
An AMD proc? In an HTPC? While that's fine on paper, you haven't taken into account just how much power AMD procs consume, and by extensions, how much heat they put out.
Seriously, IIRC, AMD is challenging Intel's 73W procs with 125W procs. Wut.
On the subject, I would highly recommend a ULV Intel i3, or maybe even an Atom. I would go with the i3 because it should be able to cope with the upcoming HEVC (H.265) codec, but if you won't be using this after a few years, an Atom should serve you well.
Another win for the i3.It's a gaming HTPC.
Because why? Because I said so. Deal with it.
That is the speed AMD guarantees it'll work assuming the memory itself is stable. You can use higher speed than rated one.Why are processors rated as having a maximum memory speed then if you can just set the speed as fast as the board allows?
Oh... a standalone AMD proc in a system...
If you have the money for ridiculous 2400MHz RAM, I would much rather put it to use buying an Intel system.
I could only ever justify getting an AMD APU if it was a dedicated video encoding rig.
Another win for the i3.
EDIT: I should also mention the AMD A10-6700 has a 65W TDP. Your case is rated for 65W at maximum, and the fan would be running pretty loudly. That's pushing it.
Actually, HandBrake can utilize OpenCL for cropping and other video filters, and x264 itself can do the intra prediction with OpenCL, which is actually a substantial speedup on APUs.Now why in the world would you want to do video encoding on an APU? Core i3 will be a lot faster than APU or FX-43xx regards to video encoding. APU is very slow on video encoding, even if you use OpenCL to facilitate it. Ironically OpenCL only accelerates video decoding, encoding portion is still done by CPU.
Right, still not for the encoding portion. Just decoding and pre-processing tasks. Other encoders (such as paid software) do use OpenCL for encoding, but its coding efficiency is inferior. You need higher bitrate to compensate video quality.Actually, HandBrake can utilize OpenCL for cropping and other video filters, and x264 itself can do the intra prediction with OpenCL, which is actually a substantial speedup on APUs.
Anyway, I wasn't referring to the built-in GPU, I was saying that while AMD's "many weak cores" approach doesn't normally work, it's decently cost-effective for encoding.
HD4000 GFX are poop.
Story of my life, man. Story of my life.
Damn right!Yeah, this forum is very Intel biased (Especially FishamanP)
Since when is intra prediction not part of encoding?Right, still not for the encoding portion. Just decoding and pre-processing tasks.
Let's say the OpenCL speedup is horribly slow, something like a 2% improvement.To interject, OpenCL and GPU oomph really don't play a very large role in encoding at all. At least last time I checked.