Testing Platform

For our Kaveri testing AMD sent us two APUs – the top 95W A10-7850K SKU and the configurable TDP version of the A8-7600 APU, the latter of which can be set at 45W or 65W through the BIOS. The A8-7600 was tested in both power configurations, ultimately the difference between them both being only a few hundred MHz. The 65W configuration is only 200 MHz off the A10-7700K base frequency, and incidentally they both turbo to the same frequency of 3.8GHz.

Kaveri will be the first APU put through the mangle in terms of my new 2014 benchmarking suite, focusing on more compute tasks, video conversion in different software, and more real world scenarios geared for the prosumer.

We must thank the following companies for their contribution to the test beds:

Our test setup for AMD is as follows:

AMD APU TestBed
  SKU Cores CPU /
Turbo
DRAM
MHz
Power IGP SPs GPU
MHz
Kaveri APUs A10-7850K 2M/4T 3.7 GHz
4.0 GHz
2133 95W R7 512 720 MHz
A8-7600 2M/4T 3.3 GHz
3.8 GHz
2133 65W R7 384 720 MHz
A8-7600 2M/4T 3.1 GHz
3.3 GHz
2133 45W R7 384 720 MHz
Richland APUs A10-6800K 2M/4T 4.1 GHz
4.4 GHz
2133 100W 8670D 384 844 MHz
A10-6700T 2M/4T 2.5 GHz
3.5 GHz
1866 45W 8650D 384 720 MHz
A8-6500T 2M/4T 2.1 GHz
3.1 GHz
1866 45W 8550D 256 720 MHz
Trinity APUs A10-5800K 2M/4T 3.8 GHz
4.2 GHz
2133 100W 7660D 384 800 MHz
A8-5500 2M/4T 3.2 GHz
3.7 GHz
1866 65W 7560D 256 760 MHz
Memory AMD Radeon 2 x 8 GB DDR3-2133 10-11-11 1.65V
G.Skill RipjawsX 4 x 4 GB DDR3-2133 9-11-11 1.65V
G.Skill RipjawsZ 4 x 4 GB DDR3-1866 8-9-9 1.65V
Motherboards ASRock FM2A88X Extreme6+
ASRock FM2A88X-ITX+
Power Supply OCZ 1250W ZX Series
Storage OCZ 256GB Vertex 3 SSDs
Operating System Windows 7 64-bit SP1 with Core Parking updates
Video Drivers Graphics Driver Build 13.300 RC2 for Radeon R7
Catalyst 13.12 for all others

Unfortunately we were not able to source a 65W Richland part in time, however a midrange 65W Trinity part was on hand. The important thing to note is that within each power bracket, both the CPU frequencies and the supported memory changes depending on the architecture and the binning process AMD uses. The benchmarks in this review are run at the processors' maximum supported frequency, rather than any AMD Memory Profiles which the processor can also support via overclocking. This has implications in conjunction with the IPC or MHz difference.

For this review we also took a few Intel processors of varying TDPs:

Intel TestBed
  SKU Cores CPU /
Turbo
DRAM
MHz
Power IGP SPs GPU
MHz
Sandy Bridge i5-2500K 4C/4T 3.3 GHz
3.7 GHz
1600 95W HD 3000 12 850
Ivy Bridge i3-3225 2C/4T 3.3 GHz 1600 55W HD 4000 16 550
i7-3770K 4C/8T 3.5 GHz
3.9 GHz
1600 77W HD 4000 16 550
Haswell i3-4330 2C/4T 3.5 GHz 1600 54W HD 4600 20  
i7-4770K 4C/8T 3.5 GHz
3.9 GHz
1600 84W HD 4600 20  
i7-4770R
+ Iris Pro
4C/8T 3.2 GHz
3.9 GHz
1600 65W HD 5200 40  
Memory ADATA XPG 2 x 8 GB DDR3L-1600 9-11-9 1.35V
Motherboards ASUS Z87 Gryphon
Power Supply OCZ 1250W ZX Series
Storage OCZ 256GB Vertex 3 SSDs
Operating System Windows 7 64-bit SP1 with Core Parking updates
Video Drivers 15.28.20.64.3347 for HD 3000
15.33.8.64.3345 for HD 4000+4600

Unfortunately our stock of i5 and i3 processors is actually rather limited – Intel prefers to source the i7s when we review those platforms, but I was able to use a personal i3-3225 from my NAS and we sourced the Haswell i3 as well. Given that Ganesh has the BRIX Pro in for review, I asked him to run as many benchmarks from our gaming suite as I could, to see how well Intel's Haswell eDRAM (Crystalwell) equipped processors stand up to Kaveri’s GCN mêlée.

For reference we also benchmarked the only mid-range GPU to hand - a HD 6750 while connected to the i7-4770K.

Overclocking and Underclocking the A10-7850K

As part of the final testing for this review we did some basic overclocking on the A10-7850K processor. Despite our processor being an engineering sample, we would assume that it is as close/identical to the retail silicon as you can get, given that this is meant to be a review on which people make purchasing decisions.

Our A10-7850K CPU starts out with a peak voltage under load of 1.24 volts when running OCCT. From this point we clocked back to 3.5 GHz and 1.100 volts, with a full-on CPU load line calibration and adjusted turbo mode to equal the base clock. Our standard overclocking test applies – OCCT for five minutes, PovRay, and new for 2014, a run of LuxMark. At our settings, we test the system for stability by running these tests. If the system fails, the CPU voltage is raised 0.025 volts until the system is stable during testing. When stable, the system multiplier is then raised and our testing moves on to the new MHz range.

Our results are as follows:

There was an unexpected jump in the voltage required to move from 3.5 GHz to 3.6 GHz (likely hitting the limits of what we can easily attain on this process). The system would not remain stable until 1.225 volts as set in the BIOS.

We also did the power tests, measuring the power draw at the wall as the delta between idle and OCCT load:

As expected, raising the voltage has a significant effect on the power consumption of the processor. One thing I should point out is that even at stock, the power delivery VRMs were getting very hot to touch – so much in fact that the system generated significant errors without an active fan on them. This got worse as the system was overclocked. I am not sure if this is an effect of the platform or the motherboard, but it will be something to inspect in our motherboard reviews going forward.

The Kaveri Socket and Chipset Line Up: Today and Q1, No Plans for FX or Server(?) CPU Performance
Comments Locked

380 Comments

View All Comments

  • DanNeely - Tuesday, January 14, 2014 - link

    This is the first I've heard that Excavator will be the end of the line for the current AMD core. Is there any information about what's coming next publicly available yet?
  • JDG1980 - Tuesday, January 14, 2014 - link

    It's all speculation because AMD hasn't released any roadmaps that far in advance. If I had to guess, I'd say they will probably beef up the "cat" cores (Bobcat -> Jaguar, etc.) and use that as their mainstream line. That would be similar to what Intel did when they were faced with a situation like this - they scaled up the mobile Pentium M to become the Core 2 Duo.
  • jabber - Tuesday, January 14, 2014 - link

    The great shame of these chips is the real market they should be selling in will never take off. These are perfect all round chips for those folks that buy a family PC in the usual PC mega store. That family PC would be your usual Compaq/Acer desktop with a decent enough Intel chip in it but the crappy Intel IGP only.

    But as AMD never advertises to these people (the people who should be buying this stuff) they will never buy them. The demand will never appear. They have heard of Intel, they hear the Intel jingle on the TV several times a week. But AMD? Never heard of them, they cant be any good.

    Has anyone at Anandtech ever got round to interview the lazy idiot in the AMD marketing dept? Does AMD really have a marketing dept?

    AMD, sometimes you do have to push the boat out and make the effort. Really stick it under ordinary peoples noses. Don't bother keep brown-nosing the tech review sites cos most of their readers don't buy your stuff anyway.
  • UtilityMax - Tuesday, January 14, 2014 - link

    AMD can't market the APUs directly to the average consumers. They just buy what the PC mega-store sells to them. AMD should convince the OEMs, and that is _really_ hard. First is the issue of Intel quasi-monopoly. Intel always browbeat the major EOMs to ignore AMD. Even after losing the lawsuit, I think this effect still exists. And then next issue is that, your typical average consumer does not play on PC. They play on consoles. In fact, hardly anyone buys a PC box these days. Everyone buys laptops, and AMD's strategy there is just as weak.
  • ThreeDee912 - Tuesday, January 14, 2014 - link

    They tried to get OEMs to put Llano chips into "thin and light" laptops, but Intel kind of beat them with their Ultrabook marketing.

    At least AMD kind of "won" the console wars by getting their CPUs into both the PS4 and XBone.
  • xdesire - Tuesday, January 14, 2014 - link

    Sorry but i read it like this: this is another piece of sht hardware which is YET another disappointment for their fans. I owned many of their CPUs GPUs and stuff but enough is enough. They have been laying their a**es off for SO long and couldn't even make an improvement on their crap stuff. So, is this THE Kaveri we were promised for so long? I supported them in their worst days by buying their products, hoping to see them come back in the game BUT no, they are being lazy and don't improve sht..
  • jabber - Tuesday, January 14, 2014 - link

    Dear AMD marketing Dept, the above post signifies what I said in the last part of my last post.

    This is not the market/customer you are looking for!
  • jnad32 - Tuesday, January 14, 2014 - link

    Actually a 30% performance improvement seems pretty amazing to me. Also please try and remember that all these tests are done with very early drivers. We all know AMD takes forever to get there drivers in line. I wouldn't personally worry about numbers for the next couple of months. BTW, what were you expecting from an APU? Core i5? HA! I am a massive AMD fan, but we all know that wasn't even possible. What I really want to know is where is my 8 core Steamroller chip.
  • JDG1980 - Tuesday, January 14, 2014 - link

    I was hoping for IPC in line with at least Nehalem. The low IPC is really killing the "construction equipment" cores, and it's increasingly looking like an unfixable problem. If Steamroller could have brought ~30% IPC gains as was initially rumored, then that would have been a good sign, but at this point it seems they'd be better off taking their "cat" cores and scaling them up to desktop levels, and dropping the module architecture as a failed experiment.
  • silverblue - Tuesday, January 14, 2014 - link

    A "construction equipment" (thanks) module actually gets an impressive amount of work done when taxed. The concensus has been to make software think a module is a single core with HT. I imagine that the cores will be fed better in single threaded workloads in that circumstance.

    I also imagine that a heavily threaded workload will extract the very best from the architecture now the MT penalty is gone.

    One question about the review scores - all the testing was done on Windows 7 64-bit SP1 with the Core Parking updates applied. Would using Windows 8 or 8.1 make any real difference to the results or would it just benefit both AMD and Intel?

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now