Gaming Benchmarks: 3DMark and Rocket League

Due to timing we were only able to run a couple of gaming tests, namely parts of the 3DMark suite and our Rocket League test. A reminder of our systems, including their graphics:

System Overview
  µArch APU + GPU Memory Channel
HP Elitebook 745 G2 Kaveri A10 PRO-7350B (19W)
R6, 384 SPs, 533 MHz
8 GB Dual
HP Elitebook 745 G3 Carrizo PRO A12-8800B (15W)
R7, 512 SPs, 800 MHz
4 GB Single
Toshiba Satellite
E45DW-C4210
Carrizo FX-8800P (15W)
R7, 512 SPs, 800 MHz
8 GB Single
HP Pavilion
17z-g100
Carrizo A10-8700P (15W)
R6, 384 SPs, 800 MHz
8 GB Single
Lenovo Y700 Carrizo FX-8800P (15W)
R7, 512 SPs, 800 MHz
R9 385MX, 512 SPs, 900-100 MHz
16 GB Single

   

One of the biggest issues we’ll see here is the effect of dual channel memory on gaming. The Kaveri system used has a chipset solution that supports dual graphics, but also two memory modules installed. The Carrizo systems either came pre-prepared with one module installed or do not support dual channel memory full stop. This latter point is the main kick in the teeth, especially for a company like AMD that prides itself on gaming – the issue here is down to pin compatibility between Carrizo and Carrizo-L. As the latter only supports single channel, an OEM will design one motherboard to support both platforms (whether they are used for both or not). If a motherboard supports Carrizo-L, then it will not ever support dual channel memory, and any Carrizo APU that is used will be crippled.

Technically the Lenovo Y700 gets around this (hands up if you ever see a Carrizo-L based Y700 please) by equipping the system with a discrete graphics card and disabling Crossfire, so this system will still ultimately win in our tests due to the discrete card. The downside of this augmentation is the higher power draw, which would matter if our Y700 sample had a battery (the retail units come with a 60 Wh battery).

3DMark

3DMark is Futuremark's premium software, developed to tax systems at various different performance levels. The software contains several benchmarks as a result, with some focusing more on smartphone use all the way up to 4K, quad-SLI systems with as many in-game and post processing effects as you can throw at it. The base test, Ice Storm, is actually a good indicator of GPU scaling performance, but we also test Cloud Gate, Sky Diver and Fire Strike to get a measure of all of our systems.

3DMark: Ice Storm Unlimited, CPU

3DMark: Ice Storm Unlimited, Graphics

3DMark: Ice Storm Unlimited, Overall

The easiest test, Ice Storm, shows the performance benefits of the Carrizo APUs in the CPU stage, although the dual channel memory for the Kaveri kicks in and gives it the graphics lead. The overall scores however benefit from that high CPU boost, so Carrizo at 15W on single channel wins this round.

3DMark: Cloud Gate

Moving up in difficulty to Cloud Gate puts dual channel Kaveri in the lead, although the Toshiba is holding on a bit with its higher thermal skin temperature limit.

3DMark: Sky Diver

3DMark: Fire Strike

The last two benchmarks fall square with the dual channel configuration. The GDDR5 of the discrete graphics card in the Y700 wins out on all of them.

Rocket League

Hilariously simple pick-up-and-play games are great fun. I'm a massive fan of the Katamari franchise for that reason — passing start on a controller and rolling around, picking up things to get bigger, is extremely simple. Until we get a PC version of Katamari that I can benchmark, we'll focus on Rocket League. Rocket League combines the elements of pick-up-and-play, allowing users to jump into a game with other people (or bots) to play football with cars with zero rules. The title is built on Unreal Engine 3 and it allows users to run the game on super-low-end systems while still taxing the big ones. Since the release earlier in 2015, it has sold over 5 million copies and seems to be a fixture at LANs and game shows.

With Rocket League, there is no benchmark mode, so we have to perform a series of automated actions. We take the following approach: Using Fraps to record the time taken to show each frame (and the overall frame rates), we use an automation tool to set up a consistent 4v4 bot match on easy, with the system applying a series of inputs throughout the run, such as switching camera angles and driving around. It turns out that this method is nicely indicative of a real bot match, driving up walls, boosting and even putting in the odd assist, save and/or goal, as weird as that sounds for an automated set of commands. To maintain consistency, the commands we apply are not random but time-fixed, and we also keep the map the same (Denham Park) and the car customization constant. We start recording just after a match starts, and record for 4 minutes of game time, with average frame rates, 99th percentile and frame times all provided. For these tests, we used the 1280x720 resolution at high settings. A bigger explanation of testing can be seen in our AMD A8-7670K APU review.

Rocket League, 720p High Average on IGP

Built on UE3 and DX9, the game relies heavily on single threaded performance and at this level of detail, memory bandwidth. The Kaveri takes the crown, showing that at this level adding another stick of memory (and making sure you have the right configuration) is more important than a more advanced (or perhaps expensive) APU.

We’ll go into temperatures on the next page.

Benchmark Results: Professional and OpenCL Comparing AMD Carrizo to Intel Core
Comments Locked

175 Comments

View All Comments

  • chris471 - Friday, February 5, 2016 - link

    What do you do with all those split hares? Are they any good barbecued?
    ("Octane splits hares between the Kaveri ...")
  • Ian Cutress - Friday, February 5, 2016 - link

    Lightly roasted for me :) Edited, thanks!
  • maglito - Friday, February 5, 2016 - link

    Were you able to test 18Gbps HDMI? The ability to drive an external display with 2160p 4:2:2 @ 60Hz? I guess the lack of a 10bit accelerated video decoder almost makes the point moot for future 2160p content though....

    Otherwise, fantastic article!
  • MonkeyPaw - Friday, February 5, 2016 - link

    Last time I shopped for a laptop (which was recently), I was considering an A10-based HP with a 1080p screen. The problem I saw was in reviews the battery life was really poor. It looked like HP put a small battery in it, making the thing only worthy as a DTR. I ended up going with a Lenovo with an i3. I guess part of the problem is that there are so many variants of laptops that finding a review of a specific model is impossible, and all you have to go on are things like Amazon or Best Buy ussr reviews, which can be extremely painful to read.
  • Lolimaster - Friday, February 5, 2016 - link

    HP sometimes release near "nice" AMD laptops but always cripples it with laughable battery capacities, same models intel inside dont get the nerfs.
  • euskalzabe - Friday, February 5, 2016 - link

    That was a wonderful article that I thoroughly enjoyed reading to start my Friday. Long story short, you perfectly define my laptop buying rationale with "SSD, dual channel memory, 8 hours+ light battery, under 2kg, Full HD IPS panel".

    That's why I bought an i5 UX305. I wanted an AMD machine because I plain like the company and would like them to succeed to bring more competition to Intel, but I found NOTHING even close to the specs you mentioned. The UX305 fit the description perfectly and cost me $750. It was an immediate purchase for me. If AMD managed the OEM relationship to create such a machine, it would be an insta-buy for me. Also, Zenbooks with Zen APUs oculd be a great marketing strategy :)
  • Shadowmaster625 - Friday, February 5, 2016 - link

    AMD is a company that shoots itself in the foot at every opportunity. I am truly perplexed. Their cat cores shouldnt even exist. But not only do those crippled parts exist, they crippled their premium parts by combining the two platforms! WHY? How could they not see that every notebook would be single channel? They wasted the entirety of their ATI purchase, as you can see with the Rocket League results vs Intel. This is a disgrace.

    AMD needs to realize that it IS AMD who controls the User experience. Look at the Mackbook Air. Look at the Surface Pro. Look at the Playstation 4 and Xbox One. All of these platforms have a set minimum level of performance. Sure they might be more expensive than a $300 atom clunker, but at least the user will not throw the thing out the window after pulling their hair out.

    AMD needs to put a floor under their products. 4 cores. 8GB of unified HBM. 512 cores GPU. This is the SoC that they need. Sure they can fuse off a core or whatever to harvest bad dies, but this is the minimum die they should be making. Ideally within 2 years they will move to a 4 core, 16GB HBM, and they will replace one stack of HBM with 128GB of HBF. They need to control the memory bandwidth of their SoC. Take away the ability of the OEMs to cripple performance. Use HBF to take away the ability for OEMs to cripple storage performance also. Do this, and every AMD system will be fast. And it will get design wins.
  • t.s - Friday, February 5, 2016 - link

    If you read the article: AMD not crippled their premium parts. It was OEM. If only OEM create mobos that have dual channel mems.
  • xthetenth - Friday, February 5, 2016 - link

    OEMs shaving pennies is as universal a phenomenon as gravity, and designs should be made as such.
  • t.s - Thursday, February 11, 2016 - link

    hence the title, "who controls user experience" :)

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now