AMD A10-7800 Review: Testing the A10 65W Kaveri
by Ian Cutress on July 31, 2014 8:00 AM ESTConclusions
When AMD launched their 95W Kaveri APUs and we had the opportunity to test the top A10 model, it offered some of the best integrated graphics performance for a desktop we had seen. The fact that the die is partitioned such that more than 50% of it is for the graphics, along with expanding HSA and OpenCL support, means that for applications that can be computationally enhanced by integrated graphics, AMD has the edge for the single chip solution.
In our testing, because the A10-7800 shares the same processor graphics configuration and speed as the A10-7850K, results were fairly similar despite a +100 MHz advantage to the A10-7850K. This means that, at stock, AMD is offering a similar CPU for $18 less.
If we remove the price from the equation, the biggest contender for the title of ‘best processor graphics’ is Intel’s Iris Pro. The upside of AMD’s Kaveri at the minute is not only the price, but also the form factor – Iris Pro is only available as a soldered on (BGA) CPU at this point in time whereas Kaveri is in both soldered and socketed form. Also, Iris Pro relies on an extra L4 cache, which adds size to the CPU package as well as cost and power consumption. News from Intel might change that with Broadwell, as back in May an announcement regarding a socketed, overclockable Iris Pro CPU would be coming to market. We have not the slightest clue when AMD will have this competition, but it looks good for AMD given that recent reports suggest that Broadwell for the desktop may be delayed beyond the expected launch of 14nm Core-M in Q1 2015.
In that respect, it may give AMD some time to prepare for their new 64-bit x86 architecture, or give AMD another chance to leap forward in with their Carrizo APUs (still based on modules and GCN) if they are launched in 2015.
Back to the A10-7800 reviewed today, and as it stands it is the most cost effective processor graphics solution available. Here is all the speed of the A10-7850K for $18 cheaper, and more performance than the A8-7600. The 45W configurable TDP makes it even more enticing as a lower power consumption part.
The only issue users might come across is the speed and feel when running single threaded tasks that do not utilise OpenCL or HSA – our web benchmarks put the AMD APUs behind many of our 55W Intel samples for the last couple of generations. But for anything that uses OpenCL as an accelerant, such as the software on which PCMark8 is based or anything compute, AMD comes out on top.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
147 Comments
View All Comments
edlee - Thursday, July 31, 2014 - link
Nice review, but if I had a budget gaming machine, I would buy an inexpensive i5 with a better gpuRais93 - Thursday, July 31, 2014 - link
You do not understand what budget or inexpensive mean. An i5 complete platform costs few more than an a10 system, but for many people few dollars mattersnathanddrews - Thursday, July 31, 2014 - link
AMD A10-7850K - $170Decent FM2+ A88X mobo - $70 ($40-100)
Total base cost $240
Intel i5-4590S - $170
Decent 1150 H87 mobo - $70 ($30-400)
Total base cost $240
Add any identical dGPU, RAM, HDD/SSD, case, PSU, OS and the Intel system will dominate in every scenario for the same price.
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/1200?vs=119...
If no dGPU is allowed, then the AMD wins (in games and OCL/HSA only)... but would you seriously NEVER add a dGPU, even a year or two later? The moment that you do, you've essentially wasted your money on AMD. That's why the budget argument never makes much sense to me. You'll spend more over time buying ineffective budget rigs than you would if you spent more less often.
Flunk - Thursday, July 31, 2014 - link
If you're comparing Intel and AMD, as soon as you add the dGPU there is no reason to buy AMD. The CPU portion of the A10 is more comparable to an i3 than an i5 (and much worse single-thread perfomrance), you're paying for the iGPU more than anything.AMD's A-series processors make the most sense in cheap laptops that would never get a dGPU. Half-decent GPU and CPU performance make sense there. But if you're talking desktop, the second you add a GPU the value proposition flies out the window.
silverblue - Thursday, July 31, 2014 - link
There IS the option of Crossfire with an R7 but you can't rely on it to always boost performance. Still, it's a better proposition than in the past.Samus - Thursday, July 31, 2014 - link
AMD CPU power efficiency is also a 2.4:1 ratio to Intel.For example, AMD's FX-4350 is the most competitive CPU they have (in price) to an i3-4330. The i3 completely destroys it in most benchmarks, yet it uses 54w and the FX uses 125w.
That's anywhere from $8-$15/year in power usage depending on the workload. Ammortize that over 4-5 years and you may have just spent $50 more in electricity on the AMD CPU. This doesn't account for additional HVAC costs (air condition needs to run more to cool a room with AMD CPU's, increasing energy usage even more)
It's the same fact over and over. AMD is irrelevant because of their dinosaur manufacturing capabilities. They're always 2 generations behind Intel.
Gigaplex - Thursday, July 31, 2014 - link
Your electricity cost calculations assume 100% CPU load 100% of the time. Completely unrealistic.Samus - Friday, August 1, 2014 - link
Did you really not even read my comment? I clearly stated a range for a users workload. I didn't just give a universal figure.$8-$15 is the range from average workload to 100% workload. And that's assuming you're rate is $0.08/kwh. Parts of the country, such as Socal, are upward of $0.24/kwh. This means, at full load, AMD CPU's would cost about $1.00/day if run at full load 24/7, an extreme scenario, but the point was they use around 2.4x more power.
Unfortunately for AMD, that figure isn't a consistent scale in their favor; AMD CPU's idle at nearly quadruple the power of Intel's because they have no high-K dialetric to completely powergate unutilized sections of a core. All they can do is shut cores off, meaning one full core will always be on.
I was focusing on 100% workload simply because that's the least embarrassing presentation for AMD.
Audiolectric - Friday, August 1, 2014 - link
Well, different benchmarks taken by computerbase.de show that the 7800 actually idles at lower power consumption than the i3.From my own experience i can verifiy that, but only for mobile CPUs/APUs. I did own a msi gx60 and a gt60, and the gx60 was giving me about 30% more runtime from the battery.
and except for compiling the linux kernel, i couldnt tell any difference in everyday performance. (Of Courage in some games the a10 5750m was limiting performance when the i7 3632qm did not)
silverblue - Friday, August 1, 2014 - link
Well, one module would still be on, meaning two integer cores still being active. Still, there's nothing stopping a user from undervolting them and making significant power savings.