AMD Kaveri Review: A8-7600 and A10-7850K Tested
by Ian Cutress & Rahul Garg on January 14, 2014 8:00 AM ESTTesting 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:
- Many thanks to AMD for supporting us with their APUs, AMD Radeon Memory and test system
- Many thanks to ASRock for supporting us with their FM2A88X Extreme6+ and FM2A88X-ITX+ motherboards and the loan of APUs
- Many thanks to G.Skill for supporting us with their RipjawsX and RipjawsZ memory kits
- Many thanks to OCZ for supporting us with their 1250W Power Supplies and Vertex SSDs
- Many thanks to Samsung for supporting us and AMD with their 840 EVO SSD
- Many thanks to Antec for supporting us and AMD with their 750W High Current Pro PSU
- Many thanks to Xigmatek for supporting us and AMD with their Nebula SFF chassis
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.
380 Comments
View All Comments
boozed - Tuesday, January 14, 2014 - link
You must be a hoot at parties.boozed - Wednesday, January 15, 2014 - link
And I hit reply on the wrong bloody comment. My apologies...monsieurrigsby - Wednesday, January 29, 2014 - link
I'm a bit slow to the party, but talk of discrete GPUs leads me to the main question I still have that I don't see explained (possibly because the authors assume deeper understanding of CPU/GPU programming), and haven't seen discussed elsewhere. (I've not looked *that* hard...)If you have a Kaveri APU and a mid/high-end discrete GPU that won't work with Dual Graphics (if it arrives), what processing can and can't use the on-APU GPU? If we're talking games (the main scenario), what can developers offload onto the onboard GPU and what can't they? What depends on the nature of the discrete card (e.g., are modern AMD ones 'HSA enabled' in some way?)? If you *do* have a Dual Graphics capable discrete GPU, does this still limit what you can *explicitly* farm off to the onboard GPU?
My layman's guess is that GPU compute stuff can still be done but, without dual graphics, stuff to do with actual frame rendering can't. (I don't know enough about GPU programming to know how well-defined that latter bit is...)
It's just that that seems the obvious question for the gaming consumer: if I have a discrete card, in what contexts is the on-APU GPU 'wasted' and when could it be used (and how much depends on what the discrete card is)? And I guess the related point is how much effort is the latter, and so how likely are we to see elements of it?
Am I missing something that's clear?
monsieurrigsby - Wednesday, January 29, 2014 - link
Plus detail on Mantle seems to suggest that this might provide more control in this area? But are there certain types of things which would be *dependent* on Mantle?http://hothardware.com/News/How-AMDs-Mantle-Will-R...
nissangtr786 - Tuesday, January 14, 2014 - link
I told amd fanboys the fpu on intel and the raw mflops mips ofintel cpu destroy current a10 apus, its no real suprise all those improvement show very little in benchmarks with kaveri steamroller cores. amd fanboys said it will reach i5 2500k performance, I said i3 4130 but overall i3 4130 will be faster in raw performance and I am right. I personally have an i5 4430 and it looks like i5's still destroy these a10 apu in raw performance.http://browser.primatelabs.com/geekbench3/326781
browser.primatelabs.com/geekbench3/321256
a10-7850k Sharpen Filter Multi-core 5846 4.33 Gflops
browser.primatelabs.com/geekbench3/321256
i5 4430 Sharpen Filter Multi-core 11421 8.46 Gflops
gngl - Tuesday, January 14, 2014 - link
"I personally have an i5 4430 and it looks like i5's still destroy these a10 apu in raw performance."You seem to have a very peculiar notion of what "raw performance" means, if you're measuring it in terms of what one specific benchmark does with one specific part of the chip. There's nothing raw about a particular piece of code executing a specific real-world benchmark using a particular sequence of instructions.
chrnochime - Tuesday, January 14, 2014 - link
Who cares what CPU you have anyway. If you want to show off, tell us you have at least a 4670k and not a 4430. LOLkeveazy - Tuesday, January 14, 2014 - link
It's relevant that he used the i5 4430 in his comment. Compare the price range and you'll see. These AMD apu's are useless unless your just looking to build a PC that's not meant to handle heavily threaded tasks.tcube - Thursday, January 16, 2014 - link
Ok... heavily threaded tasks ok... examples! Give me one example of one software 90% of pc users use 90% of the time that this apu can't handle... then and ONLY then is the cpu relevant! Other then that it's just bragging rights and microseconds nobody cares about on a PC!Instead we do care to have a chip that plays anything from hd video to AAA 3d games and also is fast enough for anything else and don't need a gpu for extra cost, power usage heat and noise! And that ain't any intel that fits on a budget!
keveazy - Saturday, January 18, 2014 - link
I'll give you 1 example. Battlefield 4.