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

  • MonkeyPaw - Friday, February 5, 2016 - link

    The cat cores exist to compete with Atom-level SOCs. Intel takes the Atom design from phones and tablets all the way up to Celeron and Pentium laptops. It makes some business sense due to low cost chips, but if the OEM puts them in a design and asks too much of the SOC, then there you have a bad experience. Such SOCs should not be found in anything bigger than a $300 11" notebook. For 13" and up, the bigger cores should be employed.
  • michael2k - Friday, February 5, 2016 - link

    The cat cores can't compete with Atom level SoC because they don't operate at low enough power levels (ie, 2W to 6W). The cat cores may have been designed to compete with Atom performance and Atom priced parts, but they were poorly suited for mobile designs at launch.
  • Intel999 - Sunday, February 7, 2016 - link

    AMD hasn't updated the cat cores in over three years! It is a dead channel to them. They had a bit of a problem competing in the tablet market against a competitor that was willing to dump over $4 billion pushing inferior bay trail chips. Take a plane to China and you can still find a lot of those Bay Trail chips sitting in warehouses as once users had the misfortune of using tablets being run by them the reviews destroyed any chance that those tablets ever had at being sales successes.

    AMD was forced to stop funding R&D on cat cores as they were in no position to be selling them at negative $5.

    In the time that AMD has stopped development on the cat cores Intel has improved their low end offerings, but still not enough to compete with ARM offerings that have improved as well. And now tablets are dropping at similar rates to laptops so it is actually a good thing for AMD that they suspended research on the cat cores. Sorta dodged a bullet.

    At least they still get decent volume out of them through Sony and Microsoft gaming platforms.

  • testbug00 - Friday, February 5, 2016 - link

    If the cat cores didn't exist AMD likely would have died as we know it a few years ago
    .
  • BillyONeal - Friday, February 5, 2016 - link

    The "cat cores" are why AMD is not yet bankrupt; it let them get design wins in the PS4 and XBox One which kept the company afloat.
  • mrdude - Friday, February 5, 2016 - link

    YoY Q4 earnings showed a 42% decline in revenue for computing and graphics with less than 2bn in revenue for full-year 2015 and $502m operating loss. You couldn't be more correct. The console wins aren't just keeping the company afloat, they practically define it entirely.
  • Lolimaster - Friday, February 5, 2016 - link

    In that case simply remove the OEM's altogether and sell it at AMD's store or selected physical/online stores.
  • TheinsanegamerN - Thursday, February 11, 2016 - link

    10/10 would pay for an "AMD" branded laptop that does APUs correctly.
  • Hrobertgar - Friday, February 5, 2016 - link

    Since you are talking about use experience, AMD is not the only company with a bad user experience. I purchased an Alienware 15" R2 laptop on cyber Monday and it is horrible, and support is horrible. I compare my user experience to a Commodore 64 using a Cassette drive - its that bad (I suspect you are old enough to appreciate cassette drives). It arrived in a non-bootable configuration. It cannot stream Netflix to my 2005 Sony over an HDMI cable unless I use Chrome - took Netflix help to solve that (I took a cell-phone pic of a single Edge browser straddling the two monitors - the native monitor half streaming video and the Sony half dark after passing over the hdmi cable. It only occurs with Netflix). On 50% of bootups it gives me a memory change error despite even the battery being screwed in. On 10% of bootups it fails to recognize the HDD. Once it refused to shutdown and required holding the power button for 10 secs. Lately it claims the power brick is incompatible on about 10% of bootups. Yes, I downloaded all latest drives, bios, chipset, etc. Customer Service has hanged up on me once, deleted my review once, and repeatedly asked for my service tag after I already gave it to them. Some of the Netflix issue is probably Micorsoft's issue - certainly MS App was an epic fail, but much of even that must be Dell's issue. I realize it is probably difficult to spot many of these things given the timeframe of the testing you do, and the Netflix issue in particular is bizarre. I am starting to think a Lenovo might not be so bad.
  • tynopik - Friday, February 5, 2016 - link

    "put of their hands"

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now