Real World Performance at 3 GHz

For our generational testing, we took each of the four main processors in this test and adjusted their CPU frequencies in the BIOS to 3 GHz. This was achieved through a 30x multiplier and 100 MHz base frequency, which for each processor is a reduction from the stock speeds. We set each CPU to perform at 3 GHz only to fix the frequency, and ran the memory in each case at the maximum supported frequency by the processor. Some benchmarks in the generational tests will probe the memory, and an upgrade in the memory controller to support higher frequencies (officially) than an older processor is, a generational upgrade, as important as the core or cache performance.

AMD CPUs
  µArch /
Core
Cores Base
Turbo
TDP DDR3 L1 (I)
Cache
L1 (D)
Cache
L2
Cache
Athlon
X4 845
Excavator
Carrizo
4 3500
3800
65 W 2133 192KB
3-way
128KB
8-way
2 MB
16-way
 
Athlon
X4 860K
Steamroller
Kaveri
4 3700
4000
95 W 1866 192KB
3-way
64KB
4-way
4 MB
16-way
 
Athlon
X4 760K
Piledriver.v2
Richland
4 3800
4100
100 W 1866 128KB
2-way
64KB
4-way
4 MB
16-way
 
Athlon
X4 750K
Piledriver
Trinity
4 3400
4000
100 W 1866 128KB
2-way
64KB
4-way
4 MB
16-way

Speaking of cache, as mentioned at the beginning of this review, the Athlon X4 845 has a significant advantage in the L1 cache layout, affording a 2x size L1 data cache along with a move from 4-way to 8-way associativity. Each of these methods, as a broad rule of thumb, typically decreases the cache miss rate by a factor of 1.414 (square root of 2x). Combined should see a factor two decrease in cache misses overall, and this will affect a number of benchmarks when we compare each processor at a fixed frequency. On the other side of the equation, the L2 cache for the X4 845 is half that of the X4 860K, meaning that if the data is not in the L1, it is less likely to be in the L2, which will add additional latency.

Dolphin Benchmark: link

Many emulators are often bound by single thread CPU performance, and general reports tended to suggest that Haswell provided a significant boost to emulator performance. This benchmark runs a Wii program that raytraces a complex 3D scene inside the Dolphin Wii emulator. Performance on this benchmark is a good proxy of the speed of Dolphin CPU emulation, which is an intensive single core task using most aspects of a CPU. Results are given in minutes, where the Wii itself scores 17.53 minutes.

Dolphin Emulation Benchmark

Emulation takes cues from a high IPC and base frequency, however for our generational testing it is all about the microarchitecture. The Carrizo has a 9% advantage here over the Kaveri.

WinRAR 5.0.1: link

Our WinRAR test from 2013 is updated to the latest version of WinRAR at the start of 2014. We compress a set of 2867 files across 320 folders totaling 1.52 GB in size – 95% of these files are small typical website files, and the rest (90% of the size) are small 30 second 720p videos.

WinRAR 5.01, 2867 files, 1.52 GB

WinRAR enjoys memory bandwidth with its variable workload, and seemingly the Kaveri has a strong showing here. The Carrizo only has 2MB of L2 cache, which most likely puts it at a disadvantage.

3D Particle Movement v2

The second version of this benchmark is similar to the first, however it has been re-written in VS2012 with one major difference: the code has been written to address the issue of false sharing. If data required by multiple threads, say four, is in the same cache line, the software cannot read the cache line once and split the data to each thread - instead it will read four times in a serial fashion. The new software splits the data to new cache lines so reads can be parallelized and stalls minimized. As v2 is fairly new, we are still gathering data and results are currently limited.

3D Particle Movement v2.0 beta-1

We saw this in our laptop Carrizo testing: if we adjust the software to avoid false sharing (which decreases performance), the Excavator microarchitecture pulls a significant lead in 3DPMv2. Part of this is most likely down to the larger L1 data cache as well.

Web Benchmarks

On the lower end processors, general usability is a big factor of experience, especially as we move into the HTML5 era of web browsing. 

WebXPRT 2013

WebXPRT

This benchmark can be memory intensive, as it draws various graphs and applies filters to pictures, among other things. The lower L2 cache hurts here.

Google Octane v2

Google Octane v2

In contrast, Octane attempts to stay as close to the execution ports as possible, and the Carrizo cores take an 18% lead over Kaveri.

Benchmark Overview Performance at 3 GHz: Office
Comments Locked

131 Comments

View All Comments

  • owan - Thursday, July 14, 2016 - link

    A nice little pop over the previous generation and its still woeful compared to its direct competition from intel. I wonder why AMD even bothered with this product, Intel has a complete stranglehold on the mobile market and AMD's design wins are few and far between. Surely some of the architectural changes could have been rolled into a replacement for their incredibly stale AM3+ products, which have by now become completely irrelevant. I mean, we all know Zen is coming (and I hope its good) but something in the meantime would probably have done more for their mind share than a mobile part.
  • AndrewJacksonZA - Thursday, July 14, 2016 - link

    "I wonder why AMD even bothered with this product"
    Yeah, pretty much what I've been thinking with AMD's CPU launches for a while now. *Surely* they can't be making money on their CPUs compared to how much they spend on researching, testing, producing and then marketing them?

    (Unless there's a market that's low-profile in the media but is lucrative for AMD - perhaps the low budget market in Asia?)
  • patel21 - Thursday, July 14, 2016 - link

    I'm from Asia, India. And here too people are smart enough to ignore AMD even in really low budget systems. And really we still have a complete PC with P4 or C2D easily available around 100$
  • jospoortvliet - Thursday, July 14, 2016 - link

    Compared to a p4 these amd cpu's are amazing... remember that in the time of the P4, amd made the faster more power efficient cpu's.
  • mr_tawan - Friday, July 15, 2016 - link

    P4 or C2D are worse than every current AMD cpus on the market .... in one or another aspect.
  • BlueBlazer - Friday, July 15, 2016 - link

    It is called "progress". Both Intel Pentium4 and Intel Core 2 Duo are already out of production years ago. Also it was Intel's Core 2 Duo that blew away AMD back into the stone age a decade ago, and since then AMD has never recovered. AMD's QuadFather FX and Barcelona (especially the TLB bugged ones) are the worst CPUs of their era (quite often was much slower than previous generation overall).
  • bananaforscale - Friday, July 15, 2016 - link

    P4? Ew. :P (I have a P4D in the other room, it's not really preferable to anything. That if anything is a dead end.)
  • nandnandnand - Thursday, July 14, 2016 - link

    AMD is good in laptops. It will be better when Zen is out. Zen on the desktop may be good depending on the benchmarks and price.
  • mr_tawan - Friday, July 15, 2016 - link

    I'm from Asia, Thailand. AFAIK AMD is pretty popular among internet cafe' (or should I say... game center instead ?).
  • BlueBlazer - Friday, July 15, 2016 - link

    Over here, hardly see AMD being used in internet cafes.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now