Who Controls the User Experience? AMD’s Carrizo Thoroughly Tested
by Ian Cutress on February 4, 2016 8:00 AM ESTComparing AMD Carrizo to Intel Core
While generational updates are a crucial part of the examination, there has to be comparison with the competition. Intel has an overriding advantage in process node, meaning that performance per watt is difficult to compete against, but also OEMs seem unwilling to use Carrizo in the same device designs as they do with Core either due to partnerships or other issues (e.g. ASUS UX301/UX305 uses 15W Core i5). Nonetheless, Intel’s product line is a sequence of parts that intersect each other, with low end models equipped with dual core Pentiums and Celerons, stretching into some i3 and i5 territory while still south of $1000. In this mix is Core M, Intel’s 4.5W premium dual core parts found in devices north of $600.
AMD Carrizo vs Intel Core | ||||||||
SoC | A12-8800B | FX-8800P | i5-5200U | m3-6Y30 | i5-6300U | i7-6600U | ||
CPU | Carrizo 2M/4T >3.4 GHz |
Carrizo 2M/4T >3.4 GHz |
Broadwell 2C/4T >2.7 GHz |
Skylake 2C/2T >2.2 GHz |
Skylake 2C/4T >3.0 GHz |
Skylake 2C/4T >3.2 GHz |
||
CPU TDP | 15W | 15W | 15W | 4.5W | 15W | 15W | ||
GPU | R7 GCN 1.2 512 SPs 800 MHz |
R7 GCN 1.2 512 SPs 800 MHz |
HD 5500 Gen8 24 EUs 900 MHz |
HD 515 Gen9 24 EUs 850 MHz |
HD 520 Gen 9 24 EUs 1 GHz |
HD 520 Gen 9 24 EUs 1.05 GHz |
||
DRAM | 1x4GB DDR3 1600MHz |
1x8GB DDR3L 1600MHz |
2x8GB DDR3L 1600MHz |
2x4GB DDR3L 1600MHz |
2x4GB DDR3L 1600MHz |
2x8GB LPDDR3 1866MHz |
||
Storage | 128GB SSD |
750GB HDD |
256GB SSD |
256GB SSD |
256GB SSD |
256GB PCIe |
||
SoC Price | ~$150 | ~$150 | $281 | $281 | $281 | $393 |
As part of this comparison, we took our results from the 15W Carrizo laptops home and put them up against several Intel parts. The main comparison point is the i5-5200U, a 15W Broadwell part from Intel (in this case from the BRIX mini-HTPC I have at home) and the i5-6300U, a 15W Skylake part from the Surface Pro 4. Both Intel parts have a slightly lower frequency than the top-end Carrizo parts, but match Carrizo's 2MB L2 cache while also implementing a 3MB L3 cache, which gives them an advantage in cache-limited scenarios. The Skylake i5, compared to the Broadwell i5, uses a newer architecture and increased frequencies, and both are made on 14nm rather than 28nm, which gives Intel a significant process node (and by extension a perf/watt) advantage.
To add some more interesting points into the mix, we have also pulled in some results from the ASUS UX305, a Skylake-Y based Core M device at 4.5W. Our UX305 uses a lower-end m3-6Y30, but it gives us an idea of how very low power Core fares in comparison to 15W Carrizo. Meanwhile at the opposite end of the spectrum we also have thrown in an i7-6600U system, one of Intel's top 15W SKUs, allowing us to compare the best 15W part from AMD to the best 15W part from Intel. That said, given the current performance realities of the CPU market, it is worth noting here that the these parts are in two different segments to Carrizo based on price/performance and performance/watt ($393 for the i7-6600U alone can be as much as a full Carrizo laptop).
First up, a selection of CPU tests:
Most tests in this case favor the Intel 15W parts, with only POV-Ray being a fully multi-threaded integer workload pushing over the Broadwell i5-5200U. Ultimately this points to where Carrizo lies in performance: somewhere between Core M and Core i5, and it can sometimes lose to both in single threaded performance.
On the GPU and OpenCL tests:
One of AMD’s big pushes is with gaming, OpenCL, and their Heterogeneous System Architecture (HSA). With all three markets, AMD wants to beat Intel. But here we have an issue – both of the AMD parts we have tested here are by default equipped with single channel memory, and may not even be dual channel capable if they share a device design with Carrizo-L (more on this in the next couple of pages). The use of single channel memory when Carrizo systems are sold essentially chokes the key parts of AMD’s offering.
A number of users might think it's unfair to show the results of two single channel Carrizo systems against dual channel Broadwell/Skylake systems, and we totally get that. After speaking internally with other editors however, we came across the situation that many Intel laptops come with dual channel memory as standard or a fixed memory arrangement to begin with. Looking at it closer, there is somewhat of a pattern:
AMD Carrizo vs Intel Core Current Laptop Designs on the Market |
|||||||
Name | Lenovo Y700-15ACZ |
HP Elitebook 745 G3 | HP Elitebook 840 G3 | Dell XPS 13 |
ASUS Zenbook UX303 | HP Envy 13t |
|
Size | 15.6" | 14" | 14" | 13.3" | 13.3" | 13.3" | |
Resolution | 1080p | 1080p | 1080p | 1080p | 1080p | 1800p | |
Touch | No | No | No | No | Yes | No | |
SoC | FX-8800P | A12-8800B | i5-6200U | i5-6200U | i5-6200U | i7-6500U | |
µArch | Carrizo | Carrizo | Skylake | Skylake | Skylake | Skylake | |
Integrated GPU | R7 512 SPs |
R7 512 SPs |
HD 520 24 EUs |
HD 520 24 EUs |
HD 520 24 EUs |
HD 520 24 EUs |
|
Discrete GPU | R9-M380 4GB | - | - | - | - | - | |
TDP | 35W+? | 15W | 15W | 15W | 15W | 15W | |
Memory | 1x8GB DDR3L 1600 |
1x4GB DDR3L 1600 |
2x4GB DDR4 2133 |
2x4GB LPDDR3 1866 |
2x4GB DDR3L 1600 |
2x4GB DDR3L 1600 |
|
Memory Channels |
Single Only |
Single / Dual |
Dual | Dual | Dual | Dual | |
Storage | 1TB 5400 RPM | 256GB SSD |
128GB SSD |
128GB PCIe | 256GB SSD |
512GB SSD |
|
Battery Size | 60 Wh | 45.76 Wh > 8.5h |
45.76 Wh | 56 Wh | 50 Wh > 7h |
45.76 Wh > 7.5h |
|
Weight | 5.72 lbs | 3.41 lb | 3.41 lb | 2.7 lbs | 3.2 lbs | 3 lbs | |
OS | Win10 Home | Win10/7 Pro |
Win7 Pro |
Win10 Pro | Win10 Home |
Win10 Home | |
Warranty | 1Yr Base | 3Yr Parts 3Yr Labor |
1Yr Parts 1Yr Labor |
1 Year | 1 Year | 1 Year | |
Price | £799 / $972 | $1049 | $1149 | $1049 | $899 | $1050 |
After doing research for that table, there’s a clear relationship between the nature and style of the device. In each circumstance, the default Carrizo arrangement had only single channel memory whereas each Intel device came with dual channel as standard. Part of this is down to cutting costs, while part of it comes to the Carrizo/Carrizo-L shared design in the case of the Lenovo Y700. In each case, the system is being un-necessarily cut off from available performance due to choices at the point of product inception.
With that being said, there are some Intel designs that specifications wise do knock it out of the park. If there’s willing to be compromise a bit on the styling or warranty around this price point, then at the same price as the Elitebook G3 there can be an i7-6500U and a QHD+ display through the HP Envy 13t. But in each other case where the Intel system gets dual channel memory there’s also either a smaller drive or a more restrictive warranty on the Intel system. Or in the case of the Carrizo based Lenovo Y700, under $1000 gets a discrete graphics card, the 35W version of the APU, but it’s still limited to single channel memory by design, which is frustrating.
The situation looks a bit worse if we do a direct comparison between two equivalent price Lenovo Y700 systems:
AMD Carrizo vs Intel Core Lenovo Ideapad Y700 15.6-inch |
|||
Name | Lenovo Y700-15ACZ | Lenovo Y700-15 | |
Visual | |||
Size | 15.6" 1080p IPS | 15.6" 1080p IPS | |
Touch | No | No | |
Processor | AMD FX-8800P (35W) 2M/4T, 2.1-3.4 GHz |
Core i5-6300HQ (45W) 4C/4T, 2.3-3.2 GHz |
|
Graphics | R6 + R9-M380 4GB | HD 530 + GTX 960M | |
TDP | 35W + ? | 45W + 65W | |
Memory | 1 x 8GB DDR3L-1600 Single Channel |
2 x 4GB DDR4-2133 Dual Channel |
|
Storage | 1 TB 5400 RPM | 500 GB 5400 RPM | |
Battery | 60 Wh | 60 Wh | |
WiFi | 'Lenovo AC' | Intel 3165 802.11ac 1x1 | |
Dimensions | 15.24 x 10.91 x 1.02" | 15.24 x 10.91 x 1.02" | |
Weight | 5.72 lbs | 5.72 lbs | |
Webcam | 1280x720 | 1280x720 | |
OS | Windows 10 Home | Windows 10 Home | |
Warranty | 1 Year | 1 Year | |
Price | £799 / $972 | $980 |
Here are the two Lenovo Y700 models at the same price, one with AMD and the other with Intel. The Intel part has a quad core i5 with a 45W TDP, a GTX 960M for graphics (similar in GFLOPS to the R9 M380) and dual channel memory. The models should compete similarly in gaming at 1080p, but if the AMD system allowed dual channel and CrossFire between the integrated APU and the discrete card it would handily get a boost. DirectX 12 might help here, if it can use both cards depending on the firmware, but at this point the positive for AMD over Intel is the larger hard disk. The Intel model has single stream 802.11ac wireless, which can be upgraded for $20, whereas the AMD wireless is not specified.
There’s no sugar coating the fact that there is a deficit in performance per watt between AMD’s best and Intel’s best in this regard, due to both the architecture and the process node. The price/performance ratio is a little bit trickier to digest, especially when so few AMD designs are by default equipped with enough memory and it can limit the maximum platform performance. In the case of the Y700 above, it’s because the product shares a platform with Carrizo-L making it limited to single channel memory, although I can't exactly find a Carrizo-L APU in a Y700 on the market.
Additional February 10th:
Since the publication of the review, a couple of things have come to our attention. Our pre-production Lenovo Y700, with both memory slots populated, was performing in single channel mode although our source for this sample assumed it was dual channel. Our testing confirmed single channel. However, the full retail version of the Y700 has an updated motherboard design to enable dual channel operation when both memory slots are populated with compatible memory. As far as well can tell, all Carrizo Y700 units at retail should be able to support dual channel memory.
175 Comments
View All Comments
karakarga - Friday, February 5, 2016 - link
Including all, AMD and nVidia both at their funeral state! They can not possibly open 22, 14, 10 etc. micron fabric.Intel spended 5 billion dollars to open their new Arizona factory, they will pass lower processes there as well. AMD and nVidia can not get, even a billion dollar profit in these years. It is impossible for them to spend that much money to a new low process factory.
Those little tweaks can not help them to survive....
testbug00 - Friday, February 5, 2016 - link
They don't build factories. TSMC and Samsung (and GloFo to a lesser extent) build factories and do R&D for these processes. Nvidia, AMD. Samsung, Qualcomm, MediaTek and many other companies design chips to the standards of TSMC/Samsung/GloFo and pay money for wafers and running the wafers through the fab.The cost for this per wafer is meant to get all that money back in a few years. And than the process keeps on running for over 10 years sometimes.
It is getting more expensive to get to smaller nodes and the performance increase and power decrease is getting smaller. And costs more to design chips and run wafers. So it is getting harder to find the funds to shrink. Which is one of the reasons Intel has delayed their 10nm process.
yannigr2 - Friday, February 5, 2016 - link
Thanks for this review. Really needed for sometime. It was missing from the internet, not just Anandtech.As for the laptops, they say as much as there is to tell. Small Chinese makers, who no one knows they exist, would built better laptops than these. HP, Toshiba and Lenovo in this case, multibillion international giants that seems have all the technicians and the R&D funds necessary, end up producing Laptops with "strange" limitations, bad choices, low quality parts and in the end put prices that, even with all those bad choices and limitations, are NOT lower than those on Intel alternatives. It's almost as if Intel makes the choices for the parts in those laptops. Maybe their is a "trololol" sticker on them somewhere hidden addressed to AMD. I guess that way those big OEM don't make Intel too angry and at the same time, if there is another legal battle between AMD and Intel in the future, they will have enough excuses to show to the judge in their defense, if accused that they supported a monopoly.
ToTTenTranz - Friday, February 5, 2016 - link
This article is what makes Anandtech great. Just keep being like this guys, your work is awesome!I'm going to spend some time clicking your ads, you deserve it :)
As for the "poll" about who's to blame, IMHO it is:
1 - AMD for letting OEMs place Carrizo in designs with terrible panels and single-channel solutions. It's just not good for the brand. "You can't put a Carrizo with single-channel cheap RAM because that's not how it was designed. You want to build bottom-of-the-barrel laptop? We have Carrizo-L for you."
I'm pretty sure Intel has this conversation regarding Core M and Atom/Pentium/Celeron solutions. I know AMD is in a worse solution to negotiate, but downplaying Carrizo like this isn't good for anyone but Intel.
In the end, what AMD needs is a guy who can properly sell their product. Someone who convince the OEMs that good SoCs need to be paired with decent everything-else.
$500 is plenty for a 12/13" IPS/VA screen (even if it's 720/800p), 128GB SSD and 4+4GB DDR3L. Why not pull a Microsoft's Surface and build a decent SKU for that price range so that other OEMs can follow? Contract one OEM to make the device they envisioned, sell it and see all others following suit.
2 - OEMs for apparently not having this ONE guy who calls the shots and knows that selling a crappy system automatically means losing customers. And this ONE other guy (or the same) for not knowing that constantly favoring Intel with their solutions is bound to make the whole company's life miserable if Intel's only competitor kicks the bucket. The consumer isn't meant to know these things, but the OEMs certainly are.
It's 2016. We're way past the age of tricking the customer to buy a terrible user experience through big numbers (like "1TB drive woot"). He/She will feel like the money just wasn't and next time will buy a mac.
Want a $300-400 price point? Get a Carrizo-L with a 128GB SSD and a 720p IPS panel. Want $500-700 Price point? Get a Carrizo with dual-channel, 256GB SSD and 900p/1080p IPS screen.
joex4444 - Friday, February 5, 2016 - link
Anything under 1080p is simply not usable. All these 1366x768 panels are just awful. I have an old netbook with one (12.1") and I've put a small SSD in there and loaded it with Ubuntu. I cannot have a Google Hangouts window open and a web browser open wide enough to view most pages. Basic web browsing + IM - 1366x768 completely fails at the task.testbug00 - Friday, February 5, 2016 - link
768p panels are fine if they are good quality, in 11" laptops.900p good up to 13", and 1080p minimum for 14+.
Honestly I wish we stayed with 8:5 14x9, 16x10, 19x12z
jabber - Saturday, February 6, 2016 - link
Indeed, 768p is fine on my 11" Samsung Chromebook but I would not tolerate it on anything bigger. IMO 1600x900 should be the minimum screen res for budget machines. 1080p for midrange and whatever you like for higher end.jjpcat@hotmail.com - Monday, February 8, 2016 - link
Resolution is not as important as the quality of the panel. I used a Lenovo X1 Carbon. It has a 14" 1080p screen. But it's a TN panel and that just makes it a pain in the ass. I am amazed that Lenovo uses such a lousy panel in its $1k+ laptop while some 10" sub-$200 tablets use IPS.testbug00 - Friday, February 5, 2016 - link
Toshiba can make a $400 chromebook with a good 1080p display. Fully agreed.1080p panel, make it thicker so you can put a larger battery and so the laptop can handle up to 35W from the APU. Do dual channel.
When plugged change APU power mad to 35W, when in battery make it 15W. Probably can be done for $500 for a 15" laptop with an A8. $50/100 upgrade to 128/256GB SSD and $50/100 upgrade to A10/FX.
Dobson123 - Friday, February 5, 2016 - link
"The APU contains integrated ‘R6’ level graphics based on GCN 1.0, for 384 streaming processors at a frequency of 533 MHz."Isn't it GCN 1.1?