AMD Kaveri Review: A8-7600 and A10-7850K Tested
by Ian Cutress & Rahul Garg on January 14, 2014 8:00 AM ESTIntegrated GPU Performance: BioShock Infinite
The first benchmark in our test is Bioshock Infinite, Zero Punctuation’s Game of the Year for 2013. Bioshock Infinite uses the Unreal Engine 3, and is designed to scale with both cores and graphical prowess. We test the benchmark using the Adrenaline benchmark tool and their three default settings of Performance (1280x1024, Low), Quality (1680x1050, Medium/High) and Xtreme (1920x1080, Maximum) noting down the average frame rates and the minimum frame rates.
Bioshock Infinite, Performance Settings
For BI: Performance we see the Iris Pro being top of the IGPs, although the next six in the list are all AMD. The Kaveri cores are all between the 6800K and 5800K for this test, and all comfortably above 60 FPS average.
Bioshock Infinite, Quality Settings
For the quality settings, the Iris Pro starts to struggle and all the R7 based Kaveri APUs jump ahead of the A10-6800K - the top two over the Iris Pro as well.
Bioshock Infinite, Xtreme Settings
The bigger the resolution, the more the Iris Pro suffers, and Kaveri takes three out of the top four IGP results.
Integrated GPU Performance: Tomb Raider
The second benchmark in our test is Tomb Raider. Tomb Raider is an AMD optimized game, lauded for its use of TressFX creating dynamic hair to increase the immersion in game. Tomb Raider uses a modified version of the Crystal Engine, and enjoys raw horsepower. We test the benchmark using the Adrenaline benchmark tool and their three default settings of Performance (1280x1024, Low), Quality (1680x1050, Medium/High) and Xtreme (1920x1080, Maximum) noting down the average frame rates and the minimum frame rates.
Tomb Raider, Performance Settings
The top IGP for Richland and Kaveri are trading blows in TR.
Tomb Raider, Quality Settings
The Iris Pro takes a small lead, while the Kaveri 95W APU show little improvement over Richland. The 45W APU however is pushing ahead.
Tomb Raider, Xtreme Settings
At the maximum resolution, the top Kaveri overtakes Iris Pro, and the 45W Kaveri it still a good margin ahead of the A10-6700T.
Integrated GPU Performance: F1 2013
Next up is F1 2013 by Codemasters. I am a big Formula 1 fan in my spare time, and nothing makes me happier than carving up the field in a Caterham, waving to the Red Bulls as I drive by (because I play on easy and take shortcuts). F1 2013 uses the EGO Engine, and like other Codemasters games ends up being very playable on old hardware quite easily. In order to beef up the benchmark a bit, we devised the following scenario for the benchmark mode: one lap of Spa-Francorchamps in the heavy wet, the benchmark follows Jenson Button in the McLaren who starts on the grid in 22nd place, with the field made up of 11 Williams cars, 5 Marussia and 5 Caterham in that order. This puts emphasis on the CPU to handle the AI in the wet, and allows for a good amount of overtaking during the automated benchmark. We test at three different levels again: 1280x1024 on Low, 1680x1050 on Medium and 1920x1080 on Ultra. Unfortunately due to various circumstances we do not have Iris Pro data for F1 2013.
F1 2013, Performance Settings
F1 likes AMD here, although moving from Kaveri to Richland at the high end seems a bit of a regression.
F1 2013, Quality Settings
Similarly in the Quality settings, none of the Intel integrated graphics solutions can keep up with AMD, especially Kaveri.
F1 2013, Xtreme Settings
On extreme settings, at 1080p, the top Kaveri APU manages to hit over 30 FPS average during the benchmark. The other A8 Kaveri data is not too far behind.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
380 Comments
View All Comments
ImSpartacus - Thursday, January 16, 2014 - link
"Whether or not AMD decides to develop an APU with more than 8 GCN CUs is another matter. This is a point we've brought up with AMD internally and one that I'm curious about - do any AnandTech readers have an interest in an even higher end APU with substantially more graphics horsepower? Memory bandwidth obviously becomes an issue, but the real question is how valuable an Xbox One/PS4-like APU would be to the community."I would love to see a massive APU with a Pitcairn-sized GPU. I wouldn't mind if it required a 130-150+W TDP.
I love seeing machines like the 4770R-powered Brix Pro. Valve obviously likes it as well, because it became the Steam Box sent to developers.
If I'm getting the performance of a ~$200 GPU, I'd happily pay $300 to get the CPU baked in. I'm hoping DDR4 will allow Intel or AMD to pursue this kind of market.
Haravikk - Friday, January 17, 2014 - link
I'm really interested to find out what the dual graphics performance will be like now that AMD's APUs are much more up-to-date at long last.CrossFire using an APU and a discrete GPU has been entirely underwhelming thanks to how limited compatibility was, so much so that you are always better off fitting a better discrete GPU instead. The only case it remained interesting was for small form factors where the more limited range of low-profile cards (and less aggressive pricing) meant that compatible cards weren't always so far behind newer ones.
But with GCN graphics, HSA and Mantle on the way, maybe we might finally see the benefit of pairing the two rather than just using a better pure CPU and discrete graphics. Of course, we could see some benefit already if more games used OpenCL for physics, since that at least would run quite well on an APU even if the discrete GPU still did all the heavy graphical work.
Klimax - Friday, January 17, 2014 - link
Tests are very incomplete. Where are CPU+GPU results? AMD markets APU as total solution, so as such it should be tested. So far I have seen only Luxmark set of results on TechReport and when CPU+GPU was set, APU lost, because CPU part is sufficiently weak, that not even powerful GPU was able to save it.Also some OpenCL tests are not marked whether CPU+GPU or GPU-only, which can skew things badly.
eanazag - Friday, January 17, 2014 - link
I think this article is good, but it deserves and needs some dings on it because it is on Anandtech. When we look at the benchmark section there is a disconnect between this article (the applications used for benchmarking) and the Bench portion of the website. I have enjoyed and trusted the bench methodologies used on this site over the years and find it a resource I come back to, to help me make purchasing and hardware decisions because of the bench. Over time I will find it difficult to compare findings without the bench. I have no problem with you updating the bench as what has been done with SSDs and GPUs. I just think this article overlooked what becomes the real value of what this site offers if you overlook the ongoing bench portion of this site. I looked in the bench and haven't really seen a whole lot of anything recent on AMD APUs in the bench. That's my first ding.I suspect that if Anand was excited about AMD's release and had reviewed this product we would have gotten a better appreciation of what Kaveri brings to the table. I got the message that the 45W part is a very good in its segment and may be something worth considering, but I did not get what is mentioned in the article. What's the reality of running Kaveri on 1080p? You gave us the high settings, but no one with any sense is going to settle for less than 12 fps. So what are the realistic settings that will give us 20/30+ fps (game depending) performance. What are we really able to work with. I understand Anand is busy and likely not excited about another AMD CPU product release. I get it; it is hard to get excited about desktop and higher wattage laptop parts for AMD because they have been lack luster & underwhelming year over year for so long. I think this product fits in more than just the 45W space, but I didn't get that answer. I am still wondering, which is not what I would normally get at Anandtech. Normally, I would be getting more than I expected from a review. That's my second ding.
This next is a general ding about the bench. You guys do great work here. I am on here about every day. The bench could use some tweaking in relation to the CPU and GPU between laptop and desktop and to an extent mobile. I want to know how a mobile GPU/CPU matches up to a desktop variant. Sometimes I even want to know how they match up in mobile devices (tablets and phones). I have gotten some of that info from articles, but it is rough matching up that info in the mobile (laptop) bench. Sometimes I do want to look at specific laptop info, but most of the time I am just considering the guts of the device. I decide between the trade offs of desktops to laptops in applications. The information is here, but it is not easy to compare. This is an opportunity for improvement, especially given the nature of the changing technology landscape.
This is an addendum to the bench issue. I'd like to compare server processors too. It seems to me like in some niches we might start seeing server parts fill over the places where those highend desktop parts were. I already see this in AMD. Intel is on the cusp of this also. This is something to consider. I'd also like to see some more enterprise items covered in general. AMD is selling ARM servers already? Where have I been? And there are ARM based linuxes available.
Thanks for the great work and timely info.
HisDivineOrder - Saturday, January 18, 2014 - link
"The point I am making with this heart-warming/wrenching family story is that the Kaveri APU is probably the ideal fit for what he needs. Strap him up with an A8-7600 and away he goes. It will be faster than anything he has used before, it will play his games as well as that new HD 6750, and when my grandmother wants to surf the web or edit some older images, she will not have to wait around for them to happen. It should all come in with a budget they would like as well."OR you could buy him a cheapo dual-core CPU from Intel plus a used mid-range card from a year or two ago.
Far better performance for only a bit more. There is an argument forthese APU's in gaming and it's for those who want to game with something like a Gigabyte BRIX-sized computer that trades performance for size.
Performance per dollar does not favor the APU simply because you can get so much more performance ignoring these APU's altogether.
NinuGie - Saturday, January 18, 2014 - link
such wow much fail. until APU comes in desktop format there will always be better alternatives. i want to see an APU compact format and similar to what they did on PS4. shared fast RAM .until then,they suck. i mean this is so bad implemented. and they advertise it for gamers lol. even if you CF the apu with a supprted gpu ,a HD 7770 is better so no thank youarthur42 - Sunday, January 19, 2014 - link
The A10-6700T is in good supply in Europe; I'm running one for months now.aidnr - Monday, January 20, 2014 - link
I'm pretty impressed with what they've done here, it looks like it is pretty evenly matched with Intel's offering - http://versus.com/en/amd-a10-7850k-vs-intel-core-i...Will be interesting to see how widely adopted Mantle is, seems pretty nice.
samal90 - Monday, January 20, 2014 - link
Can someone explain to me how come AMD is able to make an incredible APU capable of running games at almost 60fps on the new consoles but can't make a desktop APU to do so? Why can't they use the same architecture? Maybe I'm missing something...but I'm just wondering.meacupla - Wednesday, January 22, 2014 - link
Because PS4/XB1 is not limited to using FM2+ socket, because they use a much slower CPU portion in PS4/XB1 and because of thermal limits.